Power of Creating and Free Will

[7thangel]

Dear posters.

After posting this, I might probably be busy again, and not being able to respond. But rest assured that I will read all your responses and try to respond the soonest possible. I hope that you find this post interesting. And so here it is:


I had a discussion with a fellow theist about God's foreknowledge being in conflict of Free Will. What I found so amusing is for him to believe that God do not actually know the existence of the future, yet admit that God can predetermine things. It is his way of showing me how "free will" works. Since we both believe that God knows all things, and created all things, I find such his statement conflicting and nonesense. I was trying to respond to him but I am having problem logging in their site.

My argument is that God cannot create man with "Free Will." For just one simple reason, God cannot create something without His knowledge of what He is creating. It is impossible for God to create something "indeterminate"(speaking of Free Will) because, as a creator, he himself gives the physical and invisible nature of the things being created. So, if God creates indeterminism he should know the reason of indeterminancy, else, how would what he created be indeterminate, "EXCEPT" of course if that there are other "powers" besides God that will cause the indeterminancy, which we both surely do not believe. So I conclude that it is illogical for God to create "free will" in his creation.

Anybody who wants to share their ideas that might enlighten me regarding this matter? I would appreciate your responses. ;)

[Kat_Somm_Faen]

Why have heaven and hell and sin?

No Free will? Why punish "sinners"? Why reward good people in Heaven similarly? It is not of their making that they are good. God made them that way!


God want me and made me to be a killer - its not my own fault! Do you fault a stone from falling? Or an earthquake from happening?

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Kat_Somm_Faen
Why have heaven and hell and sin?

No Free will? Why punish "sinners"? Why reward good people in Heaven similarly? It is not of their making that they are good. God made them that way!


God want me and made me to be a killer - its not my own fault! Do you fault a stone from falling? Or an earthquake from happening?

Hi Kat,

I do not believe that there is really a hell that speaks literally of eternal fire punishment.

My belief is that whatever God created is good only for the chosen. That with all these things you see in the creation is a manifestation of God's omnipotence. And that we will understand fully the godhead through even dealing with the existence of evil.

What I understand is that the existence of evil work in two ways. One, so that the ignorants would submit to Him through fear. And secondly is that the wise will submit to Him through humility.

I guess it will take a lot of discussion. But I have to admit I am too poor in making much details.

[SignOfTheCross]

Why have heaven and hell and sin?

Heaven? Lets just say a second chance I guess. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. Sin was something man "chose".

No Free will? Why punish "sinners"? Why reward good people in Heaven similarly? It is not of their making that they are good. God made them that way!

We have free will. God punishes sinners because we choose sin over obedience. Good people in heaven are rewarded because they seek God's forgiveness for their sins. God made people good, but we chose to be bad.

God want me and made me to be a killer - its not my own fault! Do you fault a stone from falling? Or an earthquake from happening?

A killer is not born.

Peace,
SOTC

[SignOfTheCross]

Your arguement would be omniscience and free will contradict, of which they do not.

Peace,
SOTC

[Jack the Bodiless]

God's alleged omniscience does, however, contradict his own free will.

He already knows every act, every decision, every thought he will ever have.

[Tani]

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Your arguement would be omniscience and free will contradict, of which they do not.

how can omniscience not contradict free will?

for omniscience to be really "omni," it has to know the true outcome of any given situation - that is to say that it must know the one and only one outcome that will ever actualize. of course, omniscience is not what contradict directly with free will, but the prerequisite of omniscience: a mind (the "science" part of omniscience assumes that already), a world that is outside of the mind (to oppose what thoughts are - not things in and of themselves), and the perfect reflection in the mind of the world that is outside of the mind (which is the knowledge of everything in that world) - it is this prerequisite that contradicts free will, or any form of indeterminancy.

[Jobar]

See, this is just the sort of thing we unbelievers constantly have to deal with. 7thangel, through his own meditation (perhaps he would call it 'personal revalation') comes to the conclusion that an all-knowing God cannot create anything which he does not know completely, forbidding free will. SOTC, through what I presume he would call the authority of his church, says that no, there *is* free will (but God is still all-knowing.)

What's an honest, and curious, atheist to think?

SOTC's interpretation of this 'authority' looks just as idiosyncratic and personal as 7th's 'revalation'.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
God's alleged omniscience does, however, contradict his own free will.

Thanks Jack, interesting point. :)

God's omniscience does not contradict his own free will because one of the very nature of God is that he is the creator of all things to be known. Thus making him not subject unto "scientific scrutiny." He, in fact, is the one who created the laws of the universe. He is the one who designed how things are according to their physical and invisible aspects. So in essence, he is the one who truly has the free will because he is the one who have all the power to make choices because he is outside the powers of scientific laws. Whereas man, his will is limited even according to his own nature, which is indeed subject to the laws of science.

He already knows every act, every decision, every thought he will ever have.

The very error of this statement is that we are making God subject to the design of scientific laws which he created. As if the design has the authority, or power, to influence the nature of God. This is unsound. As a "designer," God is not subject to his creation. Whatever God designs is but a part of Him, and cannot be use to judge His wholeness.

The very fact that God is the sole being who makes all things into being, can never be subject unto anything, except of himself. I see theists who present the godhead as if the clay has power over the potter. In essence, a very example is their promotion of man's "free will." Of course, this will be the root of confusions due to ignorance of the godhead.

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by 7thangel
God's omniscience does not contradict his own free will because one of the very nature of God is that he is the creator of all things to be known.

Does this mean you believe your deity is not bound by logic, but instead capable of doing things that are illogical?

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Jobar
See, this is just the sort of thing we unbelievers constantly have to deal with. 7thangel, through his own meditation (perhaps he would call it 'personal revalation') comes to the conclusion that an all-knowing God cannot create anything which he does not know completely, forbidding free will. SOTC, through what I presume he would call the authority of his church, says that no, there *is* free will (but God is still all-knowing.)

What's an honest, and curious, atheist to think?

SOTC's interpretation of this 'authority' looks just as idiosyncratic and personal as 7th's 'revalation'.

Whether idiosyncratic or personal that is beside the point. We are who we are, so to speak. My point is the clarification of what is true, what is wise, what is good, and what is honest. I, myself, is having trouble with theists, especially those who are nothing but stupid. What I promote is not making people to be subject to anyone, but to know themselves well, to understand ourselves, if you will.

And though I earnestly seek people to believe in God, I do not speak foolishly. But if you judge me according to other's foolishness, then I think you're at fault.

[conundrum]

Please keep an open mind on this one. I know it sounds kinda silly, but I think free will works like that scene in the Matrix where Neo has to choose betweem the red and blue pill. we all know that he is predestined to take the red one, but he still has a choice. Just a theory.

as for a previous statment
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 7thangel
My belief is that whatever God created is good only for the chosen. [QUOTE]

I don't think so. If we are to assume that the Christian God exists and that he created everything, then many good things are given equally to Christians and Non-christians equally. For instance, rain falls on everyone's lawn, not just the Jesus freaks'.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Does this mean you believe your deity is not bound by logic, but instead capable of doing things that are illogical?

The ramification of this statement is actually unsound. Hence logic came from our observation of the things that are created, so thus, again, we subject the logic of God to the logic he created.

Let me give an example: Can God make women to lay eggs and hatch? Of course God can, but that is illogical. To what is it illogical? To the logic that God created women on the nature of not laying eggs. But in any sense when a woman lays eggs, we surely cannot comprehend her being as a "normal" woman, so it is illogical. So God cannot make a woman to lay eggs. What I am trying to imply is that God cannot destroy the reality and meaning of what he created. If God created an animal that barks, but has two heads of a monkey, and a tail of a crocodile, we surely cannot call it a dog. Because the reality and meaning of it as a dog does not exist.

The same with the problem of the question of the rock too heavy that God cannot lift. The question is actually in the boundaries of losing meaning and reality. It is like asking God to have sex.

Got to go, but I will try to think of better example as I travel home.

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by 7thangel
The ramification of this statement is actually unsound. Hence logic came from our observation of the things that are created, so thus, again, we subject the logic of God to the logic he created.

Let me give an example: Can God make women to lay eggs and hatch? [...] No, that is not illogical. It's merely improbable. A better example:

Does God have the ability to create a universe in which Pi = exactly 3? In which sqrt(-1) == 1? In which 2+2 = 5, except on thursdays, when it is 7?

[Tani]

Originally posted by 7thangel
Thanks Jack, interesting point. :)

God's omniscience does not contradict his own free will because one of the very nature of God is that he is the creator of all things to be known. Thus making him not subject unto "scientific scrutiny." He, in fact, is the one who created the laws of the universe. He is the one who designed how things are according to their physical and invisible aspects. So in essence, he is the one who truly has the free will because he is the one who have all the power to make choices because he is outside the powers of scientific laws. Whereas man, his will is limited even according to his own nature, which is indeed subject to the laws of science.

The very error of this statement is that we are making God subject to the design of scientific laws which he created. As if the design has the authority, or power, to influence the nature of God. This is unsound. As a "designer," God is not subject to his creation. Whatever God designs is but a part of Him, and cannot be use to judge His wholeness.

The very fact that God is the sole being who makes all things into being, can never be subject unto anything, except of himself. I see theists who present the godhead as if the clay has power over the potter. In essence, a very example is their promotion of man's "free will." Of course, this will be the root of confusions due to ignorance of the godhead.

it is not science that bound him, but his own nature as we can know it. he cannot be beyond his own existence for example. although you can think that he create the very nature of what is to be and what is to exist, but to think that he is not bound by it is to say he exist and not exist, or simply existence is not what can be use to describe god. to say god is beyond our reasoning is to render any "god is" statement suspect. but of course that also make the very statement "god is beyond our reasoning" suspect.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by conundrum
Please keep an open mind on this one. I know it sounds kinda silly, but I think free will works like that scene in the Matrix where Neo has to choose betweem the red and blue pill. we all know that he is predestined to take the red one, but he still has a choice. Just a theory.

The existence of possibilities does not mean that we have a "free will." It does not mean that I was offered two choices, I do indeed have a choice. Come to think of this, If I am offered between life and death, do I really have a choice? None really. It is the same thing with your example. If the outcome is already given, it will not make sense that Neo has a choice. What happen is like reading a novel, in which all the characters and events are all created by the writer. They are just mere players of the writer's will.

as for a previous statment
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 7thangel
My belief is that whatever God created is good only for the chosen. [QUOTE]

I don't think so. If we are to assume that the Christian God exists and that he created everything, then many good things are given equally to Christians and Non-christians equally. For instance, rain falls on everyone's lawn, not just the Jesus freaks'.

I am speaking with regards to the whole creation experience in general. I was thinking of the implication of eternal life too.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Godless Wonder
No, that is not illogical. It's merely improbable. A better example:

Does God have the ability to create a universe in which Pi = exactly 3? In which sqrt(-1) == 1? In which 2+2 = 5, except on thursdays, when it is 7?

As I have said, those things are outside the boundaries of reality and meaning. Illogical and improbable will mean the same thing to me with regards to these matters.

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by 7thangel
As I have said, those things are outside the boundaries of reality and meaning. Illogical and improbable will mean the same thing to me with regards to these matters.

This, I think, is the heart of your problem. You don't seem to understand the difference between that which is illogical and that which is improbable. I will, however, concede the point that your deity exists outside of reality and therefore is not necessarily bound by it, but I hardly see how that helps your argument for his existence. It could also be said that Harry Potter exists outside of reality, but you aren't arguing for his existence. Then again, it could be that your definition of reality is different from the common definition shared by everyone else. However, that also doesn't help your argument because we are left without the mutual understanding of common words. You might as well be arguing in a different language if the words you use don't have the same meaning for you that they do for everyone else.

[JCS]

Sin was something man "chose".
I didn't make this choice, it is a scenario chosen for me by some religious cult.

We have free will. God punishes sinners because we choose sin over obedience. Good people in heaven are rewarded because they seek God's forgiveness for their sins. God made people good, but we chose to be bad.
So if I choose to ignore the bible by not stoning my child to death for being lippy, that would be bad and I should seek forgiveness? :rolleyes: Freewill is an excuse used to gloss over how a perfect god could screw up.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Tani
it is not science that bound him, but his own nature as we can know it. he cannot be beyond his own existence for example. although you can think that he create the very nature of what is to be and what is to exist, but to think that he is not bound by it is to say he exist and not exist, or simply existence is not what can be use to describe god. to say god is beyond our reasoning is to render any "god is" statement suspect. but of course that also make the very statement "god is beyond our reasoning" suspect.

Hi Tani,

One of the way I can best describe God is the way we describe "Free Will." Free Will in our very best definition is not bound by science. Most atheists, if not all, could agree to me that Free Will in man is actually non-existant. For as long as we bound our choice from the influence of nature, such free will do not really exist. The atheist's argument that free will does not exist does, in a way, explain the very nature of the power God. Atheists who deny Free Will, surely, know the very concept they are talking about. Else, how did they deny it?

Again, a common atheist perspective is that there is no such thing as good and evil. This argument is another product of the knowledge that we are all but bound by nature. On such perpective, atheists consider truth to be relative. The ramification of it is actually denying also the existence of wisdom, which is a way we use to conceptualize the "right" free will. Fairly enough, any who deny God is indeed a fool, or really truly ignorant of what is the implication of their denial of the existence of God. A fool in a sense that they are void of free will, and wisdom.

The common error of atheists is that in essence, when arguing of God's existence they profess to themselves, probably unconciously, the virtue of free will, and wisdom. What can I say? If such free will and wisdom does not exist, or is outside their understanding, nor even the implication of it in dealing with our reasoning, how can they undertand the meaning of Godhead?

My apology for responding too late.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
This, I think, is the heart of your problem. You don't seem to understand the difference between that which is illogical and that which is improbable. I will, however, concede the point that your deity exists outside of reality and therefore is not necessarily bound by it, but I hardly see how that helps your argument for his existence. It could also be said that Harry Potter exists outside of reality, but you aren't arguing for his existence. Then again, it could be that your definition of reality is different from the common definition shared by everyone else. However, that also doesn't help your argument because we are left without the mutual understanding of common words. You might as well be arguing in a different language if the words you use don't have the same meaning for you that they do for everyone else.

If you have read my respond to Tani, please allow me also to relate our conversation with regards to God's Free Will, or the Free Will which most Atheists deny its existence. Now, the power of free will is outside what we call science, or say the laws of nature. The difference with the logic which you speak about is something that is bound by science, or the laws of nature. But the free will of God is not bound by those, and thus his logic is surely different to the way you conceptualize things. On this understanding I draw my response of improbable and illogical to be somewhat similar.

Now consider Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, who conceived and gave birth to Jesus Christ without having sexual relation with man, we can consider that as both improbable and illogical to happen. But "when such things happened," it is no more improbable and illogical. Why? because it already exists, or existed. That is the flaw on your defining God according to what existed to his power of creating. Somewhere along this very line we are having the disagreement or misunderstanding.

In anyways, let me remind you that "Truth" do not change. And 1+1=2 is among them. If you will argue that God through his omniscience, or omnipotence, can change the truth. Then we can say that there is no reality of things, in the end where will we draw meanings?

BTW, Anyman who demand that a God should have the power to add 1 and 1 equal to 7, should not also demand goodness of God to be nice. I greatly wonder in awe about people who speaks foolishness and does not want to be govern with it. Just a though.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by 7thangel
Anyman who demand that a God should have the power to add 1 and 1 equal to 7, should not also demand goodness of God to be nice. I greatly wonder in awe about people who speaks foolishness and does not want to be govern with it. Just a though.

You're missing the point, I think.

A thiest may argue that 1 + 1 must equal 2, yet god's goodness may not be 'good' by our definition.

If this is the case, then can god make 1 + 1 = 7? If so, then logically good can qual any definition god chooses.

But if you reject that a "truth" like 1 + 1 can equal 7, even for god, then why is a good act not equally absolute...even for god?

(i.e. Why can god alter one absolute but not another?)

No one is arguing that 1 + 1 should equal 7 [b]and[/i] good must be abolute for god and man.

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by 7thangel
If you have read my respond to Tani, please allow me also to relate our conversation with regards to God's Free Will, or the Free Will which most Atheists deny its existence.

I’m not aware that most or even many atheists deny the existence of freewill. What I am aware of is that most atheists do not believe freewill is compatible with the concept of an omniscient God. However, since your definition of freewill is likely different from the common definition most often used, it is possible that most atheists would not believe in its existence. So, to clarify this, can you provide your personal definition of freewill before you create your strawman that most atheists deny its existence.

Now, the power of free will is outside what we call science, or say the laws of nature. The difference with the logic which you speak about is something that is bound by science, or the laws of nature. But the free will of God is not bound by those, and thus his logic is surely different to the way you conceptualize things. On this understanding I draw my response of improbable and illogical to be somewhat similar.

Improbable and illogical are not similar at all. If something is improbable, it is unlikely but still possible. If something is illogical it is not possible at all e.g. a square circle.

Now consider Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, who conceived and gave birth to Jesus Christ without having sexual relation with man, we can consider that as both improbable and illogical to happen.

A woman giving birth without having sexual relations with a man during that time would be highly improbable, but not impossible In the modern world we have something called artificial insemination, which does not require any direct sexual relations. So, it is highly improbable that Mary gave birth without first having sexual relations with a man, but it is not impossible. It is, however, illogical to believe that this event actually happened without any substantial evidence to support it.

But "when such things happened," it is no more improbable and illogical. Why? because it already exists, or existed. That is the flaw on your defining God according to what existed to his power of creating. Somewhere along this very line we are having the disagreement or misunderstanding.

The misunderstanding is largely due to your redefinition of common words. If you don’t wish to use the common definitions, then I would ask that you post your definitions so I can understand exactly what it is you are attempting to argue.

In anyways, let me remind you that "Truth" do not change. And 1+1=2 is among them. If you will argue that God through his omniscience, or omnipotence, can change the truth. Then we can say that there is no reality of things, in the end where will we draw meanings?

This is exactly my point. You are claiming that God is not bound by logic, which is the same as stating that he isn’t bound by the “truth” that 1+1=2. This is why you need to provide a clear definition of words like freewill, improbable, illogical, etc., because your argument doesn’t appear to make any sense from my perspective. First, you claim that God is not bound by logic, but then you claim that “truths” do not change even for God, which means that you do believe even God must be bound by logic or else we can’t draw any meaning from reality. Which is it?

BTW, Anyman who demand that a God should have the power to add 1 and 1 equal to 7, should not also demand goodness of God to be nice. I greatly wonder in awe about people who speaks foolishness and does not want to be govern with it. Just a though.

See, here I get the impression that you do believe that God is bound by logic, but in your earlier posts you argued for exactly the opposite. Instead of talking past each other, please explain how you define freewill, improbable, illogical and any other words you have a different meaning for.

[Grive]

Originally posted by 7thangel
My argument is that God cannot create man with "Free Will." For just one simple reason, God cannot create something without His knowledge of what He is creating. It is impossible for God to create something "indeterminate"(speaking of Free Will) because, as a creator, he himself gives the physical and invisible nature of the things being created. So, if God creates indeterminism he should know the reason of indeterminancy, else, how would what he created be indeterminate, "EXCEPT" of course if that there are other "powers" besides God that will cause the indeterminancy, which we both surely do not believe. So I conclude that it is illogical for God to create "free will" in his creation.

Anybody who wants to share their ideas that might enlighten me regarding this matter? I would appreciate your responses. ;)

There is a slight problem in there. Being able to create something does not give you any inherent control over its existence nor over it's evolution: It just gives you the ultimate knowledge over it's initial form.

It's possible for God to create a living being and give it the ability to change, without Him actually knowing which path will they choose. God can know every path and ramification that can be taken, as well as predict which will be the next choice by watching our actions, but that doesn't mean we don't choose the path. He still knows that there is the possibility of you posting this, of me posting this. We can just decide not to, and God knew we had that choice, and by observing us, he could predict that.

A simple example: Let's suppose there are only two restaurants in town, a pasta one in the south, and a sushi one in the north, and only one road to each restaurant. My girlfriend and I are driving down to have dinner. I know we're going to eat in a restaurant, because we had decided to do so. I know she'll choose either sushi or pasta, and as soon as she takes a turn south, I know she'll want pasta (I told her it was her pick, I was just hungry and didn't care :p). I know she'll pick the non-smokers section, because she was a smoker and quit after spending a lot of time and willpower, and even smelling tobacco fills her with temptation... that doesn't mean she (or I) is forced to choose that one, but I know which one she'll prefer. Now, if I were God and were able to read her every thought, I would know exactly what kind of food she'd like to have, but since I'm a simple human, my example ends before we get to the menu with dozens of possible choices.

If God does the same thing, then he is still Omniscient, yet that doesn't prevent humans from having Free Will.

Another way to see how both His Omniscience and our Free Will can coexist without breaking the fickle thread of reality is this: When it comes to the mind and the actions of people with free will, knowledge and insight of them don't exist until after the idea has been thought, and the post has been posted: Anything before the actual action is taken is nothing but simple prediction and assumption. Thus, being Omniscient (as in, having universal knowledge and infinite insight) can allow you to predict and understand every action taken, but doesn't allow you to know it will. The Omniscient one just has the infinite mind power to assume and predict every little detail of the future, to read ahead... but that does not give Him the knowledge. Omniscience, under this light, is an infinite knowledge of the past, and an unrivaled understanding and awareness of the present that allow Him to understand every future action taken.

If anyone has played the chinese game of Go, then it's a perfect example: In Go, you have absolute knowledge of the universe represented in the board, and are aware of the present (the current move). A good Go player can read ahead what his opponent will do, even read all the options that the opponent is analyzing and trying to decide between. Yet, that doesn't force the opponent to make a specific move: He still has a choice - and will choose a move that you predicted he would make.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Grive
If anyone has played the chinese game of Go, then it's a perfect example: In Go, you have absolute knowledge of the universe represented in the board, and are aware of the present (the current move). A good Go player can read ahead what his opponent will do, even read all the options that the opponent is analyzing and trying to decide between. Yet, that doesn't force the opponent to make a specific move: He still has a choice - and will choose a move that you predicted he would make.

False analogy. Human beings are unpredictable by nature, and exhaustive knowledge of all possibilities is not possible for a human. However, an all-knowing, all-powerful god would, and it would simply not be possible for me, or you, or anyone to choose a course of action that was not forseen by said god at the beginning of time.

[Division By Zero]

Grive, you're using two different definitions of "knowing." If you "know" that your girlfriend is going to sit in the non-smoking section, you reasoned out this "knowledge" from certain starting points. For example, she quit smoking and prefers to avoid the smell of tobacco whenever possible. But you do not have absolute knowledge that she will sit in the non-smoking section. You could still be wrong, for any number of yet-to-be-revealed reasons. Your knowledge is not knowledge, but a reasoned prediction.

God, on the other hand, who we are assuming to be omniscient (including in this ability the knowledge of future events), does not have the same "imperfect knowledge" that you have regarding your girlfriend's choice. He KNOWS, absolutely and with no doubt whatsoever, as he did at the beginning of the universe, that at Universal Time Index T, your girlfriend will sit in the smoking section. God cannot posess false knowledge. Furthermore, as soon as God conceived of the initial parameters of a possible universe he might create, he knew, perfectly and with no possibility of error, that at Universal Time Index T your girlfriend would sit in the smoking section, and he chose to use those parameters to create with. Not only is there no possible way for her to choose otherwise- for if she did, God would be wrong- but it was God's decision in the first place for her to make the choice that he did.

EDIT:
Sorry, I overlooked something- I think we are talking about a slightly different god. Your defense would work for an omniscient god who does not know the future (a perfectly valid definition of omniscient- it simply claims the future is unknowable), but as far as I can tell, free will is not a problem for that god in the first place, so there's no need to defend it. However, I had the impression that we were discussing a god who does know the future (I believe the god of the Bible is supposed to fit this description). The opening post seems slightly vague on this point to me, but perhaps I'm just slow tonight. Who wants to enlighten me?

[Spenser]

Originally posted by 7thangel
I had a discussion with a fellow theist about God's foreknowledge being in conflict of Free Will. What I found so amusing is for him to believe that God does not actually know the existence of the future, yet admit that God can predetermine things. It is his way of showing me how "free will" works. Since we both believe that God knows all things, and created all things, I find such his statement conflicting and nonesense. I was trying to respond to him but I am having problem logging in their site.

I am not a theist but I do not see any problem with the concept of a God who cannot see the future yet predetermining things. Not seeing the future can fit under the definition of omniscient (one version of it at least); possessing knowledge of all possible things. Now if we consider the future impossible to see then he can remain omniscient. Now as for the predetermining part, if he is omnipotent; able to do all things possible, then all he has to do is make sure whatever he predetermines to happen... Happens. If he can do anything, then he can make sure whatever he predicted occurs, follow? This however would directly contradict free will if he has to use his omnipotence in order to force people to do things to make prediction come true.


My argument is that God cannot create man with "Free Will." For just one simple reason, God cannot create something without His knowledge of what He is creating. It is impossible for God to create something "indeterminate"(speaking of Free Will) because, as a creator, he himself gives the physical and invisible nature of the things being created. So, if God creates indeterminism he should know the reason of indeterminancy, else, how would what he created be indeterminate, "EXCEPT" of course if that there are other "powers" besides God that will cause the indeterminancy, which we both surely do not believe. So I conclude that it is illogical for God to create "free will" in his creation.

If God is given for the sake of argument, then I can agree with you here. God knows everything! He knows where every single piece of matter is and what it is doing and how it will react with all other matter. He knows every chemical reactions that will occur when matter comes into contact with other matter and since he knows where matter is now and where it is heading he doesn't have to see the future to know exactly what will occur because he knows everything about the present. He also knows how he is genetically making everyone, what environment he is placing them in, how their hormones will work, how fast the brain works, Etc. Therefore anything he creates he will already know how it will react with everything that already is. If he creates it knowing all choices it will make then he essentially made all the choices for it fore he could have made it slightly differently for it to have made a whole different set of choices. Slightly changing what he created would change whole sets of choices, if God is the one making all the choices in the beginning and at the same time being omniscient, free will is impossible.

This argument suggests that there is no such thing as free will at all which I'm not done chunking around in my head yet. It also renders the previous definition of omniscient incorrect for as long as you know every single thing about the present; you know exactly what will happen in the future. However if it is not possible to know everything (omniscience) then free will is possible.

SHIT! Now my brain is on overload. I haven't really thought that last argument through fully but I'll post this to get some ideas... (maybe even put it in a new thread.)

[Division By Zero]

Actually, I've been thinking about Grive's prediction-making god a bit more, and I thought of a few things that, mysteriously, I hadn't before. If God can look at the variables in a given situation, and predict what will happen (if an unintelligent phenomenon) or what will be chosen (if an intelligent agent) with perfect accuracy, and he is always perfectly correct, doesn't he still face the problem of determinism?

Here's my reasoning:

If God looks at the starting parameters of the universe (and he can't help doing so, he's omniscient), he knows what event will occur next given the current variables. He then knows what will occur next, given the resultant variables. He even knows what will occur after that given the new set of variables. Essentially, God knows what will happen in any given situation and set of parameters, and God cannot be wrong. Since God sets the initial parameters of the universe, and knows what will follow and the resulting change in the parameters of the universe, and so on until the end of eternity, isn't free will still compromised?

For all practical purposes, this prediction-making God knows the future. And of course, being omniscient, he automatically and instaneously predicts the future, in full and perfect detail, that will result from creating the universe in any particular fashion; and, of course, it was his choice to create the universe in that particular way. So not only has human free will been negated, but once again God has decided how it would all turn out.

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by Spenser
[....]This argument suggests that there is no such thing as free will at all which I'm not done chunking around in my head yet. It also renders the previous definition of omniscient incorrect for as long as you know every single thing about the present; you know exactly what will happen in the future.
Bingo!
However if it is not possible to know everything (omniscience) then free will is possible.[....] How do you figure? Just because you (or even God) can't predict it does not mean you have any control over it.

As I see it, the question of whether free will exists is independent of determinism.

If you start with the pressupposition that consciousness is entirely contained in the matter that we are made of and there is nothing magic, nothing "outside the system" causing our consciousness, then it is hard to see how there can be such a thing as free will, unless we define free will a bit differently than what people usually mean. (Well, actually I think many people don't really know what they mean, they have only a vague kind of idea what free will is.)

But, while you seem to be convinced that a deterministic universe would not permit free will, I'm not sure how you see a non-deterministic universe allowing it. If, say, there is a certain amount of intrinsic, uncaused randomness in the interactions of say, subatomic particles, whose effects are magnified such that on a larger scale things are not 100% predictable, this gets us away from determinism, but it is only a certain amount of randomness, there is no control. So there is no more chance for free will in such a non-deterministic universe than there was in the deterministic one. We not only have no control, we can't even predict where we're going.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose you had a massive computer, and a massive kind of 3D scanner. This scanner could scan a 3D volume at an atomic level, and in a bizillionth of a nanosecond record the positions and velocities (not precisely, but precisely enough, lets say) then feed this data all into the massive computer. The massive computer simulates these atoms. Now, lets say the scanner scans in the contents of the room you're sitting in, scans you in, and begins running the simulation. Also in the room is a running video camera, pointed at you. This also gets scanned into the computer, and the simulation is begun.

Now as part of the simulation, the program is rigged to monitor the simulated voltages on the RCA jacks coming out of the simulated video camera. These are fed into a D/A converter, then fed to your TV. Oh yeah, the computer is extremely fast. As fast as needs be.

Now, you turn on your TV, and what do you see?
The contents of the simulated room. With the simulated "you" inside there. By similar connection of real world speakers and microphones with simulated speakers and microphones, you can even talk to your simulated self.

At this point, people generally divide into 2 camps. Some people will say "Wait, the simulated person wouldn't work, he has no soul, and no consciouness, even a perfect simulation of matter, coupled with a perfect 3-d matter scanner, would not capture the human soul." And then there are the people who think that in principle, if not in practice, the thought experiment would work.

Now, assuming you fall into the latter camp, does the simulated person have free will? We could reload the program from a checkpoint a million times, and given no external stimuli, the being inside would behave exactly the same everytime if we removed the randomness. Or, if we left the randomness in, any variation in behavrior would be due to the randomness programmed into the simulation and would be essentially random. Now is that free will?

Is there anything really that special about free will?
Does it even make sense to talk about free will?

If free will did exist, such that the being in the simulation "controlled" himself in such a way that his actions were not predictable, nor were variations in behavior on subsequent runs simply variations due to quantum level randomness, then how could such a free will possibly work?

So, I've concluded that free will does not exist, at least not the way most people think of it.

[Spenser]

I have thought a lot about it since yesterday and am on the same level of thinking. Our own ignorance of the future creates our illusion of free will. Whatever the future is, it is only going to happen one way. All other ways cannot happen as they are not the future. Our inability to see this future leads us to believe that our feelings of choice are free will...

[7thangel]

Thank you very much posters. You have been helpful to me. But bear with my slowness, and again, I will do my best to respond every points you try to clarify or inject in the discussion.

But first allow me to answer a post by Spencer to clarify some points that I admit indeed vague on my presentations.

Originally posted by Spenser
I am not a theist but I do not see any problem with the concept of a God who cannot see the future yet predetermining things.

I have to say that I do not deny that God has the Free Will. In fact, my argument is that ONLY God has the Free will and Man do not. And I agree to your sentence because of God’s ability of ”PREDETERMINING,” or the power to change things. On the other hand, man do not have the power to predetermine his future. Let me explain this through a Bible verse that said, “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.” As you can see in the verse, man’s future is determinate, and actually, man does not have power to change it; to have a choice of his own end. And as I am emphasizing in my initial post, Whatever God creates is actually determinate, and thus, it has no free will of itself, including man itself. And if you imagine if God “hands off” on his creation, man is destined to chaos. But hence God, has power on his creation and all the laws of nature, then he has the power to change things. In this case, God is still omniscient WITH REGARDS TO HIS CREATION, EVEN THE OUTCOME OF THE CREATION. But of with regards to God’s power of free will, to change the outcome of things according to His power of predetermining, even changing the predetermined outcome on the creation, it is not something to be known but rather something to be “created,” or something to be chosen. Now, the power of free will, as most learned describe it, is when our power of choices are done without outside influence that would make it predeterminate. In the verse quoted, when God shortened the days, it is actually a choice not as a burden, or obligation. God knows the end of man ever since the beginning, and His acts of “changing” man’s history is nothing but part of the “PLAN” of God, not by the influence of man’s free will.

What I disagreed with my opponent regarding omniscience of God, is when there is presence of Free will in man. For if man has free will, he can predetermine his own future, which, with further examination, meant man should have power outside the influence of God. But I say, that if God chose, or predetermine something, then there is no other powers to aid it, or powers to overcome it, to reach it’s conclusion. The dependence of God’s power of predetemination from other powers makes it unsound for us to say that God is “predetermining” the conclusion.. Such is the role of man’s free will in God’s predetermination of man’s destiny. The free will in man would connote a distinct power outside of God’s own power. Example, man cannot predetermine the fate of man’s salvation if, and only if, man will accept it. In this sense, salvation becomes a mutual work of man and God And as you see, it will be unsound therefore to conclude that God can predetermine the fate of men, and also therefore, it is also unsound to conclude that God is omniscient of the fate of his creation. I guess you guys know the rest on how many theists assert free will and in conflict with God’s omniscience.

And going back to my initial post, It is an argument in the perspective that God cannot create something in which he does not know. Thus, there is no such thing as indeterminate unto God. Therefore, our “free will,” is actually determinate, unlike the way I define “free will” as that of God from the preceding paragraphs of this post. In reality, we are only ignorant of our will, and we are not actually choosing our destiny.


Not seeing the future can fit under the definition of omniscient (one version of it at least); possessing knowledge of all possible things. Now if we consider the future impossible to see then he can remain omniscient. Now as for the predetermining part, if he is omnipotent; able to do all things possible, then all he has to do is make sure whatever he predetermines to happen... Happens. If he can do anything, then he can make sure whatever he predicted occurs, follow?
Believe me, unless you stop using the words “he has to do is make sure,’ and “he predicted,” You will never understand me on how I explain God unto you. God is the sole power that makes all things be, whether they be visible or invisible. He does not make sure or predict. In God, things will be and they be.

This however would directly contradict free will if he has to use his omnipotence in order to force people to do things to make prediction come true.

If you follow me, when I say man has no free will. And, again, using the word “predictions” only make it more unsound to ever come to a conclusion of the verity of God.

If God is given for the sake of argument, then I can agree with you here. God knows everything! He knows where every single piece of matter is and what it is doing and how it will react with all other matter. He knows every chemical reactions that will occur when matter comes into contact with other matter and since he knows where matter is now and where it is heading he doesn't have to see the future to know exactly what will occur because he knows everything about the present. He also knows how he is genetically making everyone, what environment he is placing them in, how their hormones will work, how fast the brain works, Etc. Therefore anything he creates he will already know how it will react with everything that already is. If he creates it knowing all choices it will make then he essentially made all the choices for it fore he could have made it slightly differently for it to have made a whole different set of choices. Slightly changing what he created would change whole sets of choices, if God is the one making all the choices in the beginning and at the same time being omniscient, free will is impossible.

Indeed, and indeed.

This argument suggests that there is no such thing as free will at all which I'm not done chunking around in my head yet. It also renders the previous definition of omniscient incorrect for as long as you know every single thing about the present; you know exactly what will happen in the future. However if it is not possible to know everything (omniscience) then free will is possible.

SHIT! Now my brain is on overload. I haven't really thought that last argument through fully but I'll post this to get some ideas... (maybe even put it in a new thread.)

Yes, an excellent observation. But a faulty analogy. Free will is not brought about by ignorance. Rather it is a power to go beyond what is to be known. Having an “illusion” of all probabilities is not a function of the free will but of consciousness. But to “predetermine” a probability is a function of the free will. In your example from above, which I agree, note that God “predetermines” and man does not. God has given us consciousness, but we know we have no free will by knowing that we have no power to predetermine even the extent of our consciousness. Just imagine that.

God predetermines what is to be known. He does not predict, see what I mean?

[Spenser]

Originally posted by 7thangel
I have to say that I do not deny that God has the Free Will. In fact, my argument is that ONLY God has the Free will and Man do not.


I do not agree with you here, if anything, God can never have free will if he truly knows the future. If he is omniscient, and knows exactly what is going to happen then he can do nothing to change it. If he does he didn't truly know the future; therefore not omniscient. If God knew before hand that he was going to create the universe, he could not exercise free will to avoid doing so otherwise he would not have actually known the future (not omniscient).




But hence God, has power on his creation and all the laws of nature, then he has the power to change things. In this case, God is still omniscient WITH REGARDS TO HIS CREATION, EVEN THE OUTCOME OF THE CREATION. But of with regards to God’s power of free will, to change the outcome of things according to His power of predetermining, even changing the predetermined outcome on the creation, it is not something to be known but rather something to be “created,” or something to be chosen.



I think you are trying to address what I brought up here. I think you are saying God exercised his free will at the moment of creation. All his choices and predeterminations were made then. Once again, prior to that however, he already knew he was going to go through the process of creation and he couldn't have NOT created everything because he already new he WAS going to create it. He was left with one unavoidable choice unless we call his omniscience into question.

I see this as leading to the problem of infinite regress. If God knows everything (like the future) because he himself predetermined it there has to be a point when he predetermined everything. He is eternal, if there is never a point where God didn't know the future how can there be a point where he predetermined everything? If he is omniscient he should have known prior to that point that he would be predetermining and what the results of that would be. I do believe infinite regress cancels out knowledge of the future.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Spenser
I do not agree with you here, if anything, God can never have free will if he truly knows the future. If he is omniscient, and knows exactly what is going to happen then he can do nothing to change it. If he does he didn't truly know the future; therefore not omniscient. If God knew before hand that he was going to create the universe, he could not exercise free will to avoid doing so otherwise he would not have actually known the future (not omniscient).

You are being misled unconciously that God is "bound" to respond to the events of the future, such that there should be a proper determined respond to be performed of God. The point you should consider is at the point when God decided to predetermine things, there is then you see God exercising His Free Will.

I think you are trying to address what I brought up here. I think you are saying God exercised his free will at the moment of creation. All his choices and predeterminations were made then. Once again, prior to that however, he already knew he was going to go through the process of creation and he couldn't have NOT created everything because he already new he WAS going to create it. He was left with one unavoidable choice unless we call his omniscience into question.

Think, and think again. You are arguing already that God's choice should not be predetermined by His choice!

I see this as leading to the problem of infinite regress. If God knows everything (like the future) because he himself predetermined it there has to be a point when he predetermined everything. He is eternal, if there is never a point where God didn't know the future how can there be a point where he predetermined everything? If he is omniscient he should have known prior to that point that he would be predetermining and what the results of that would be. I do believe infinite regress cancels out knowledge of the future.

You must take not that the future is created of God. And that God's choice should not be preceded by a previous choice.

Sorry, too tired and sleepy. I cannot think further of examples. hope I could sooner.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by 7thangel
You are being misled unconciously that God is "bound" to respond to the events of the future, such that there should be a proper determined respond to be performed of God. The point you should consider is at the point when God decided to predetermine things, there is then you see God exercising His Free Will.

I'm not being misled by anything. If God makes choices, then one must follow the next. This implies some sort of temporal process even if not by our own standard of time. Are you suggesting that before the 'point' the God 'decided' to predetermine things that he didn't actually know what he was going to do yet? That would negate his moniscience as he didn't know the future yet (his future)

Think, and think again. You are arguing already that God's choice should not be predetermined by His choice!

No, I am saying God's choices are all predetermined if he can actually know the future and due to infinite regress there is no starting point in which he could have began knowing the future (or predetermining things) because he has an infinite past. This God is completely incoherent.

You must take not that the future is created of God. And that God's choice should not be preceded by a previous choice.

How could a choice not be preceded by a previous choice? At one point God would have had to have chosen to create the universe, then later chosen to create man. Creating the universe preceded the creation of man.

Sorry, too tired and sleepy. I cannot think further of examples. hope I could sooner.

Think it through a bit more cause so far I've got you... :eek:

[7thangel]

Originally posted by 7thangel
You are being misled unconsciously that God is "bound" to respond to the events of the future, such that there should be a proper determined respond to be performed of God. The point you should consider is at the point when God decided to predetermine things, there is then you see God exercising His Free Will.

I'm not being misled by anything. If God makes choices, then one must follow the next. This implies some sort of temporal process even if not by our own standard of time. Are you suggesting that before the 'point' the God 'decided' to predetermine things that he didn't actually know what he was going to do yet? That would negate his omniscience as he didn't know the future yet (his future)

How would God know what to do when He had not chosen yet what to do? The will is actually non-existent yet. Now, as I said, God knows all probabilities. And God is Free to chose any probabilities, so he is not bound, or force, or obliged to respond; thus he has the free will. Note why I use the words “not bound,” “not forced,” and “not obliged.” For in the way you present God, he is forced, obliged, and bound to even know what he should do in the future, which in the end make Him indeed without free will.

The creation, as I said, has no free will. It will just exist and move according the nature given of God. WITHOUT GOD WORKING ON THE CREATION, God will know where will the particles, positron, etc. will be at a given time. The factor of predictability of the creation makes it void of free will. Now God is “NOT BOUND,” “NOT FORCED,” or “NOT OBLIGED” to act or not to act on the creation. And having to power to change the destined future, makes Him having the power of free will.

Think, and think again. You are arguing already that God's choice should not be predetermined by His choice!

No, I am saying God's choices are all predetermined if he can actually know the future and due to infinite regress there is no starting point in which he could have began knowing the future (or predetermining things) because he has an infinite past. This God is completely incoherent.

Maybe you will understand me if I say plainly that He predetermines the future. There is a difference between “predetermining” to “predicting” the future. The thought of as if God predicts the future is playing in your mind, which I told you before, you will not understand then What I am saying.

You must take not that the future is created of God. And that God's choice should not be preceded by a previous choice.

How could a choice not be preceded by a previous choice? At one point God would have had to have chosen to create the universe, then later chosen to create man. Creating the universe preceded the creation of man.

On the contrary, Man is the reason why things existed. In fact, Jesus, is the very reason why things, visible and invisible, were created.

Sorry, too tired and sleepy. I cannot think further of examples. hope I could sooner.

Think it through a bit more cause so far I've got you..

I know what you are talking about, and I understand why you say God has no free will. In your proposition I will agree on you, but not when you truly know the matter. Perhaps give a hard thought why I told you that God does not “predict” the future, and also why he is not bound, not forced, and not obliged to act or not to act on the creation. I guess I am not that smart in figuring out a good presentation. Thanks for responding, I will think further of a better presentation.

Thank you all to those who responded, I truly appreciated them and actually helped me.

[Spenser]

OK, God may not 'predict' the future, but 'predetermine' it. Fine, but if that is the case and he is eternal, there is no point at which he could have predetermined everything. Since he is eternal, there would have to be a point before that hence infinite regress...

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Spenser
OK, God may not 'predict' the future, but 'predetermine' it. Fine, but if that is the case and he is eternal, there is no point at which he could have predetermined everything. Since he is eternal, there would have to be a point before that hence infinite regress...

There will be a confusion if you would mean "everything" to include God's choices. Choices are made indeterminately, and done at an indeterminate time. But of course, choices can be enforced, or come into being, at a chosen time too. The indeterminancy acts like a SPACE for us to understand motion. Or like the TIME to understand history. Without space we cannot understand motion, and without time we cannot understand history. So is INDETERMINANCY with regards to FREE WILL.

At a certain point, we do not know if God will make another WILL or not, so there is an indeterminate future of all things. But the future of the creation alone is determinate, unless God will change it.

[Paul Ricci]

All:

Is God's foreknowledge consistent with free-will? Of course, the question is ambiguous: about whose free-will are we speaking? God's or man's? If God does not know the future (as one theist suggested), then he can't be omniscient. Not only that, man knows more than God since man can predict the future in many cases; some exact (eclipses) and some less exact (Quantum Elctrodynamics,QED, and many other probabilistic calculations). If God DOES know the future, then he knows what he himself will do (or how he will act) in the future and, because no one can exercise free-will if one knows the future, God has no free-will. The conclusion of the dilemma, therefore, is that either God is not omniscient or he has no free. In other words, he is not God.

Can mankind have a free-will if God knows the future of all our acts. Yes, but only if the compatibilist view of free-will is true. For the libertarian or "hard determinist" views, mankind has no free-will; the future must be the way God envisions it. More importantly, if God gave mankind free-will and knows the outcome of each of our actions, then how can we be held reponsible for those acts? Why would God, in his infinite wisdom, give us free-will knowing some of us will botch things up, committing heinous crimes, etc.,and then make us suffer an eternity in hell when he could have prevented our being born in the first place? Only a monster or one who does NOT know the future would allow such free-will.

So, because of the above--and other reasons-- the God-concept is incoherent though this may not rule out other supernatural or spiritual concepts.
P.O.R.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Paul Ricci
All:

Is God's foreknowledge consistent with free-will? Of course, the question is ambiguous: about whose free-will are we speaking? God's or man's?

In a world where two or more beings, or entities, having free will, omniscience cannot exist. For a free will if can be known by the other negate the true nature of free will of being indeterminate. If one has free will, and that is God, there is nothing that will come into being without he/God knowing it.

If God does not know the future (as one theist suggested), then he can't be omniscient. Not only that, man knows more than God since man can predict the future in many cases; some exact (eclipses) and some less exact (Quantum Elctrodynamics,QED, and many other probabilistic calculations).

The future of the creation is determinate. God fully knows what will be the future, and even the end of it. "BUT," God can change the future of the creation according to his will, and his will is indeterminate. So when will he change the future is indeterminate.

If we simplify that God is creating the future, will you understand that there is no conflict with God's omniscience and free will?

If God DOES know the future, then he knows what he himself will do (or how he will act) in the future and, because no one can exercise free-will if one knows the future, God has no free-will. The conclusion of the dilemma, therefore, is that either God is not omniscient or he has no free. In other words, he is not God.

You fell to the same dilemma that Spencer had.

Can mankind have a free-will if God knows the future of all our acts. Yes, but only if the compatibilist view of free-will is true. For the libertarian or "hard determinist" views, mankind has no free-will; the future must be the way God envisions it. More importantly, if God gave mankind free-will and knows the outcome of each of our actions, then how can we be held reponsible for those acts? Why would God, in his infinite wisdom, give us free-will knowing some of us will botch things up, committing heinous crimes, etc.,and then make us suffer an eternity in hell when he could have prevented our being born in the first place? Only a monster or one who does NOT know the future would allow such free-will.

So, because of the above--and other reasons-- the God-concept is incoherent though this may not rule out other supernatural or spiritual concepts.
P.O.R.

The truth of the matter is that God has the only one with free will. And thus, humans are mere robots in reality. Thus we must accept God's full authority over us. And the full implication of such authority is that God is free to choose whatever he wants of the creation.

But to learn that we do not have free will, and thus must be subject to God's authority, we must be given demonstrations. That is what should we learn of the GOSPEL, and of all that is written in the Bible. Later in Israel's history, as we see the revelation of the Gospel, it is very clear that Paul had summed up human as mere pot made and created of God. On the other hand, the very demonstration of Christ dying for us in the cross is a demonstration that salvation is a work of God alone, according to His own Will and purpose before he created all things, visible and invisible.

Unfortunately, most of the so-called theists, were not part of those chosen of God, and the same are promoting their ignorance of God, and of the GOSPEL. And the worst, they were the reason why atheists had hardened against God. Just like when they promote hell as a eternal place of torment.

With regards as to why God created evil in this world, God has a reason; one of which is to demonstrate man's inability to determine His fate, or even to chose for his own good.

[Paul Ricci]

7thangel, et.al.:

>>The future of the creation is determinate. God fully knows what will be the future, and even the end of it. "BUT," God can change the future of the
creation according to his will, and his will is indeterminate. So when will he change the future is indeterminate.

If we simplify that God is creating the future, will you understand that there is no conflict with God's omniscience and free will?<<

But if God can (and does) "change" the future then what he had originally created was, obviously, inadequate in the first place. Thus, he could not have been omniscient. If God does choose (by an act of free-will) then two things are necessary:(1) he cannot know which act he will choose BEFORE he chooses (otherwise choosing is pointless; it isn't even choosing) and (2) he must deliberate the pros and cons of his free-will act. At least, this is what we mean by exercising free-will at the human level. To say that God's changing the future is "indeterminate" can only mean there is no cause (reason) for such change; it is arbitrary in other words. So be it. I have often suspected God's acts as being arbitrary.

More importantly, I do not understand what is meant by saying "God is creating the future" or how this allows God to have free-will. Are you trying to leave room for miracles here? Does God deliberate about how (and why) he is going to change the future? Why would an infinitely intelligent Being need to change the future in the first place? Any such change would indicate a being who is not omniscient or not omnipotent.

You also claim that WHEN God changes the future is indeterminate. But from whose point of view, ours or God's? Does this mean God violates the laws and principles of science in order to do this? Your claim raises a bucket of thorny theological problems, too many to raise here.

>>You fell to the same dilemma that Spencer had.<<

As far as I can see, you didn't answer his criticism, nor is there a rational answer unless you postulate some ad hoc assumption about God's nature or about what free-will means. Perhaps free-will means something different from God's point of view?

>>The truth of the matter is that God has the only one with free will. And thus,humans are mere robots in reality. Thus we must accept God's full authority over us. And the full implication of such authority is that God is free to choose
whatever he wants of the creation.<<

You have yet to make clear in what sense God has free-will and how it is possible. Making God's choices indeterminate (from whatever point of view) just won't do the job unless the two caveats for free-will mentioned above are satisfied. I await your solution to the problem. As far as humans being just "robots" (whatever that means precisely) they are thinking and choosing robots and so have free-will. However, from God's point of view they may NOT have free-will and in this case free-will might be a relative term; a point I have long advocated.
P.O.R.

[Paul Ricci]

Originally posted by 7thangel
In a world where two or more beings, or entities, having free will, omniscience cannot exist. For a free will if can be known by the other negate the true nature of free will of being indeterminate. If one has free will, and that is God, there is nothing that will come into being without he/God knowing it.



The future of the creation is determinate. God fully knows what will be the future, and even the end of it. "BUT," God can change the future of the creation according to his will, and his will is indeterminate. So when will he change the future is indeterminate.

If we simplify that God is creating the future, will you understand that there is no conflict with God's omniscience and free will?



You fell to the same dilemma that Spencer had.



The truth of the matter is that God has the only one with free will. And thus, humans are mere robots in reality. Thus we must accept God's full authority over us. And the full implication of such authority is that God is free to choose whatever he wants of the creation.

But to learn that we do not have free will, and thus must be subject to God's authority, we must be given demonstrations. That is what should we learn of the GOSPEL, and of all that is written in the Bible. Later in Israel's history, as we see the revelation of the Gospel, it is very clear that Paul had summed up human as mere pot made and created of God. On the other hand, the very demonstration of Christ dying for us in the cross is a demonstration that salvation is a work of God alone, according to His own Will and purpose before he created all things, visible and invisible.

Unfortunately, most of the so-called theists, were not part of those chosen of God, and the same are promoting their ignorance of God, and of the GOSPEL. And the worst, they were the reason why atheists had hardened against God. Just like when they promote hell as a eternal place of torment.

With regards as to why God created evil in this world, God has a reason; one of which is to demonstrate man's inability to determine His fate, or even to chose for his own good.

[Paul Ricci]

7thangel, et. al.:

>>With regards as to why God created evil in this world, God has a reason; one of which is to demonstrate man's inability to determine His fate, or even to chose for his own good.<<

A reason or many reasons? The reason given above:To demonstrate man's inability to determine His (God's?) fate . . . doesn't answer the question as to why we have evil and suffering in the world. As a matter of fact the reason doesn't make any sense; we can't determine God's fate if He exists. Man's inability to chose his own good? How is this an excuse for having unnecessary suffering in the world?

I haven't been able to react to all the interesting comments relating to God and free-will. However, Spencer is well on the right track; free-will is possible only because humans are not omniscient, we are ignorant of what we will choose before we make our choices even though they may be totally determined.(The compatibilist view; see Dan Dennett on this, FREEDOM EVOLVES) This is precisely why God CANNOT have a free-will unless the term is defined totally differently from the way we commonly use it amongst humans; that is, the ABILITY to choose between alternative courses of human behavior. If the term is used in any other way, then discussion becomes hopeless. However, in order to use the term differently, it is encumbant upon that person to show why it should be. For what good reason would anyone want to use the term differently other than as an ad hoc definition to resolve a theistic problem?
P.O.R.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Paul Ricci
free-will is possible only because humans are not omniscient, we are ignorant of what we will choose before we make our choices even though they may be totally determined.(The compatibilist view; see Dan Dennett on this, FREEDOM EVOLVES) This is precisely why God CANNOT have a free-will unless the term is defined totally differently from the way we commonly use it amongst humans; that is, the ABILITY to choose between alternative courses of human behavior. If the term is used in any other way, then discussion becomes hopeless. However, in order to use the term differently, it is encumbant upon that person to show why it should be. For what good reason would anyone want to use the term differently other than as an ad hoc definition to resolve a theistic problem?
P.O.R.

Well, I can imagine an atheist, for example, who is unwilling to surrender their idea of libertarian free will.

Myself, I'm not entirely convinced that god in fact has free will, even if we do (and I'm speaking of libertarian free will.)

[Paul Ricci]

the_cave:
Originally posted by Paul Ricci
>>free-will is possible only because humans are not omniscient; we are ignorant of what we will choose before we make our choices even though they may be totally determined.(The compatibilist view; see Dan Dennett on this, FREEDOM EVOLVES) This is precisely why God CANNOT have a free-will unless the term is defined totally differently from the way we commonly use it amongst humans; that is, the ABILITY to choose between alternative courses of human behavior. If the term is used in any other way, then discussion becomes hopeless...<<
P.O.R.

Well, I can imagine an atheist, for example, who is unwilling to surrender their idea of libertarian free will.

Myself, I'm not entirely convinced that god in fact has free will, even if we do(and I'm speaking of libertarian free will.)

P.O.R.-Perhaps there is some confusion on the MEANING of free-will and how free-will is to be explained. The explanation of free-will by a libertarian is the incompatibility of its common meaning with strict determinism. The believer in this view may be an atheist, theist or believer in any kind of deity. Those who think free-will is just an illusion rarely make clear why our apparent ability to choose, etc., is just an illusion. I don't understand how an ability could be an illusion since we exercise this ability many times daily though not every action involves free-will of course.