If Omniscience God exists, then we are making choices independent choices

You have to prove that we "think" we're making a choice rather than actually making a genuine choice of our own. All of the evidence, in reality, seems to show we are making our own choices. Your analogy assumes that God is creating a machine to turn left.In actual fact - he is creating a self-thinking biological entity - that can choose left from right. I can prove this completely.Humans aren't machines - the disjunction is only present if God voices the choice you will make - then if he says you will turn left, if you try to turn right you will turn left - hence the paradox. So your logic only works if God tells you the choice - an essential qualifier people can't seem to grasp.The paradox is incumbent upon God divulging the information, which is why this trial would be thrown out, as there is no disjunction except for a false one we call a "false dillemma".It's not false-freewill UNLESS you can prove logically that we would have NOT made a choice that we HAVE chosen, if God does not exist, because logically the claim is "that God causes the choice by knowing it beforehand."But if God tells us what choice - are we then changing our minds because of him telling us? Yes - therefore, the paradox only works if God tells us.You can't just assume our choices were not real. If I put you in a room and you can have chocolate or a burger, and God exists in that room - and you choose a burger, then if God did not exist in an alternate room, you would still choose a burger. For it is irrational to assume you would like chocolate if God existed but not if he didn't exist. Such irrational thoughts also justify the argument; "if you are atheist you become an evil immoral person."Yous see - if God makes my choices - prove it. yet I can prove otherwise;Examples;CASE 1. REALITY. You're in a room. You have a choice - apple or orange. You like apples, so you take the apple. That's REALITY.CASE 2. You're in the room - but this time God says, "Jar, you will choose an apple" - so you choose an orange because you want freewill. Therefore God is not omniscient. PARADOX.CASE 3. Would you have chosen an orange or apple if God didn't divulge your choice or didn't exist? The only rational inference is that you would have chosen an apple because you don't like oranges. Therefore the only reason to choose otherwise, is infact if God tells you.This proves through logical deduction, that choosing an apple didn't depend on God foreknowing it. So it begs the question - if the only reason we would change our mind is because of God's foreknowledge, then isn't it true that our REAL choice was the apple?If afterall, God came down and told us every decision we make in life, isn't it irrational to then choose something contrary to your original choice? Would I eat oranges, puking and gagging at their taste? Would I become straight because God said I'd be straight?It seems that the proposition of God divulging OUR choices doesn't prove that they're God's choices at all. It is therefore ASSUMED illogically that if God knows them, they're his choices. If they're God's choices, why are we who we are?We have a JTB (justified true belief) that our choices are based on our personalities and causality. (google epistemology). We can KNOW our choices are real because the two rooms are indistinguishable. Apples become no less tastey if God doesn't exist.The proposition that God's omniscience and freewill are mutually exclusive, is a proposition which would go against reality. In reality, IF there is God and IF he is omniscient, THEN it seems that causality and reality itself is reason enough to see that we are making genuine choices, WITH God being omniscient, as the paradox is DEPENDENT upon God divulging our future choices - which would then be paradoxical.The impossible as a means of argument, only works because it appeals to the impossible. In reality - we can deduce, not induce, that choice is not influenced by God.I used hypothetics, but the nature of this argument IS SPECULATIVE HYPOTHETICS. SO if we're going to play football - don't say I can't kick but the other side can.

You've pulled a comment from a Great Debate thread and created a post as an answer instead of creating a discussion starter that can stand alone.If you want to start a peanut gallery thread concerning jar and Phat's GD discussion, then title it as such.I'm not inclined to promote this topic as written because it doesn't present what jar was addressing and it sounds like a call out to jar.I'd rather you make an OP that starts fresh concerning the subject you propose.Also your title is confusing.Let me know if you rework the OP.

That I took a comment from a member to rebutt a very specific and well known argument, shouldn't really be a big deal, as this happens all the time at EVC. May I ask why I am an an exception. Scratch that - I already know why.The topic deals with freewill AND omniscient God co-existing, as they do, if we assume he is. In my opinion, it doesn't.Come on - that's three rejections and counting, and I don't feel anybody's opinion on my topic proposals, are worth more than my opinion, therefore I couldn't possible fix something which isn't broken, even if people think it's broken.Beyond filling my posts with grammatical tautologies left right and centre, I simply don't know how I can articulate my thoughts any further.

I will add to PD's comments the point that you need to address the actual argument rather than digging up the usual strawman. In short I agree that this needs major work before it will be fit for release.

Yes it happens and I'm also one who is adverse to OP's being written as responses when it isn't a continuation of a thread and that was my point to you.Your OP is written as a response not an opening post. You are not continuing a closed thread.You want to rebutt a specific and well known argument, great; then why not set up the OP that way?Present the well known argument and use jar's comment as an example with a link to the post. You're assuming the argument is well known to everyone.For me personally you're not an exception to anything and another Admin is welcome to promote this if they wish.But why not start fresh and explain the premise of the argument and then present your position? Give everyone a chance to know what is going on.

My writings are first and foremost for readers who are reasonable and agnostic and can think over what I say as they will know by now how I am able to expunge the usual popular arguments that some clone-type atheists regurgitate ad nauseum.I do not request people believe me - I request people observe that I have thought deeply over such matters and therefore cannot observe popular arguments, which seem clever on the surface, but are found wanting under my magnifying glass.

Well I'm still not inclined to promote this topic as written.If another admin wants to promote it, go for it. I'm out.Edited by AdminPD, : Subtitle

While I'd quite like to shred Mike's post I cannot in all honesty call this a high quality OP. It seriously misrepresents the position it attempts to answer, it is poorly thought-out and barely coherent.I offer Mike the following advice1) When replying to a post, read it more carefully. Misrepresentation is against forum guidelines.2) Think more deeply. A superficial analysis - like the one in this post - is liable to contain serious errors. Give proper consideration to the alternatives, think of and consider the objections that could be raised (something that obviously has not been done in this case).3) Do not claim to have deductive proofs when you do not. As a rough guideline I suggest to all, that if you cannnot express your argument as formal logic and show that it is valid you should not make such claims.[Added]
I strongly suggest that any moderator who considers promoting this topic reviews this thread.
Given my personal involvement I do not feel that I should be the one to take the action I believe to be warranted. However I cannot in good conscience promote this thread, given my assessment of Mike's behaviour there.Edited by AdminPaul, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPaul, : No reason given.