Free will vs Omniscience

Irrelevant.It's the same scenario: "something" exists without a creator. Why is it more plausible that that something should be an unevidenced god and less plausible that it should be something that definitely DOES exist?

Even in the most predictable system of sciences, very few things are really predictable.The orbiting track of moon seems to be predictable. But it is so only in a short period of time. Nobody knows what the moon's orbit would look like 10 million years from now.Atom movement in your body is predictable? You wish.

So, you do have free will and freedom. Right?
Some of your skeptical atheistic comrades don't think so.

And you too simply show how utterly clueless you are. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have posted.

This is a thought experiment. Obviously no computational system devised by present-day humans could predict the actions of a human from the trajectories of the atoms that make up the human body.But given the initial conditions of a physical system, all the atoms should follow trajectories consistent with physical laws. If we were, somehow, to have two identical systems (two identical universes), their future histories would be exactly the same. It would be impossible for them to be different.But that means the human beings in the systems don't have free will. Free will implies that in one universe a different choice might be made than in the other.

What if the physical laws by which the systems evolve have built in randomness (a la quantum theory)? Then the two systems could diverge at every quantum level operation and interaction and follow very different paths. That sort of randomness would not constitute free will as generally conceived but it would mean the end states are different and only calculable as probabilities rather then the more clockwork model you envisage.

That's a very interesting point. But, as you say, there is a distinction between "making a choice" and "random chance"!Freedom of choice is somewhere in between the determinism of a mechanistic model of the universe (even if there are only probabilities instead of certainties) and the randomness of some physical processes (such as whether or not a particular unstable atomic nucleus will decay).What is free will anyway? How would one devise an experiment to determine whether or not in this universe we have free will?

Because it is more plausible that a Creator is running things than that human wisdom should be the preferred tool for the explanation of all seen and unseen. Also that given human nature, the Christian mythos is rational and has helped social progress more than it has hindered it.

that is an argument worthy of satan. It is irrelevant what God knows. All that is relevant is what we do. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

That's not an answer. WHY is it more plausible? How are you measuring plausibility? I'm saying that something that DOES exist is a more plausible cause than something that might exist. Even if that was true, what does it have to do with plausibility compared to other religions?

The thread is about omnisience. How on earth could it possibly be irrelevant what God knows?

And so once again instead of addressing the issue raised you once again like all the Apologist simple refuse to even consider the crap you market.Again Phat, what is the topic?It really is simple.If the god is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, and if that god has foreknowledge and if ANYONE is damned to hell then that god is vile, evil, despicable and unworthy of any worship or respect.You simply cannot have it any other way.The issue is that neither you or any Apologist has ever accepted the reality of the god you and they market.Nothing matters in this issue but what god does.In Message 1062 did you say If you made that statement then you were claiming that god DID have foreknowledge and that some people were treated as Goats.Or of course like all the carny huckster you can once again simply refuse to address the issue I presented.

Because we become the decisions that we make.We do not become the decisions that God has made about us.

What does that silly bumper sticker mean? How do we "become decisions"?And our decisions have nothing to do with what God knows. Then God is irrelevant.

I suspect that our own decisions form only small very small part of what we become.For a start, we are a product of the genetic make up of our parents and our time and place of birth determine our culture and our beliefs. Parental income determines educational standards and parenting itself predicts outcomes for health, crime and achievement.Our personalities and intelligence are not our choices, nor are our psychological illnesses and dispositions.We are all products of our genes and our environment, it's far too simple to suggest that we are in control of our life choices - the majority are either already made for us or are not acheivable.