Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions.

It was a consequence of Adams choice. For God to prevent the consequences of a persons choice is to remove choice. We're all guilty full stop. The Day of Judgement won't be a trial - it will be a pronouncment of a guilty verdict on all who are found in possession of sin. All the evidence will be available so there is no further case to make. Life is your day in court and if you take an honest look at yourself you can see that you are presenting all the evidence needed for a guilty verdict to be a just one. You have a conscience don't you. You don't listen to it at times I'm sure. I know I don'tUnless you can be declared innocent then guilty you most certainly will be. There is only one way to be declared innocent. To have no sin in your possession. You need an advocate between you and the Judge alright. His name happens to be Jesus. I'd give him a call if I were you. Prepare the case so to speakEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You can call it that if you like. Its probably a better word than choice That he knew Adam could pass and knew that he would fail Yes He let the consequences follow that came with failing the test. Consequences he had warned would follow. Some test if he had not.Not everyone will be punished for ever more. Only some and they, not because of what Adam did, but because of what they did in the face of conscience. The consequences of failing the test mean that all are born sinners and will sin. But you are forgetting conscience. We don't fail the test that Adam was set. Adam had free choice. We do not. Our test is different. We are offered salvation but can chose to reject it. Our failing the test is to reject the gospel. God didn't infect us. Adam did. Your blaming the Ford Motor Co. for a person choosing to drink and drive and kill pedestrians He does cure the disease all the time and has been doing so for years. But he won't cure someone who doesn't want to be cured. Not want: must. Sin must be punished. Not even God has a choice in that. He knows whether you will chose to reject salvation alright. But you are not forced to reject salvation. You will chose to do so - if you indeed do so. He wants you to call him - it'd be great if you did: I would be delighted. But I don't want you to do anything that you do not want to do A chance the Cosmic Gambler is willing for you to take.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I thought the purpose of wiggling WAS to escape. The question is whether the wiggling is warranted. You dismiss the notion of God being outside time without indicating how you do so. If he is indeed outside time then knowing it happened is the means by which he knows it is going to happen. Foreknowledge arising from afterknowledge eliminates determinance. That is escaping the inescapable Mark. I don't see how intervening as it is happening (whether in the past, now or in the future) has anything to do with it having happened. It is necessary to mix your tenses when mixing time with timelessness. God is intervening now on the 9th October and knows that he intervened on the 9th of October. Your position simply seems to assume eternity is elapsing time without end. If it was then you either have a determined universe + omniscience or non-predetermined + non-omniscience (Open view theology). But asserting this doesn't make it so. I assert an alternative (a timeless eternity not exactly being an unheard of viewpoint - it goes back a long way)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Proof of God is beside the point. I make the claims just as you do. You claim God-in-time to demonstrate an illogic. I claim God ex-time to demonstrate logic. Neither of us have evidence of what God resides in. Dismiss if you like but you dismiss your own argument on the same basis.Your "prove God" diversion is not very compelling.IF God operating in time THEN...versusIF God not operating in time THEN.

I don't see any reason why he couldn't. Asking me what timelessness would be like is pointless. I couldn't say (although I have pictured it earlier by the device of a reader (God) and a novel (our reality).The argument "all-knowing logically means no free choice" is true. But what is logically true for us by no means has to be the case in fact. Claiming that goes too far. It forces God to operate within the limits of our logic: ie: "if it doesn't fit our logic then it cannot be". Whilst the former is true enought, the latter is patently bogus.I am using the device of timelessness to illustrate the flawed nature of that latter argument: the one that decides what is logical must be the case in fact.

Mark24 is picking one possibility: God foreknowing what you will do meaning you are pre-destined to do it.There is another possibility. God knows what you will do because you have already done it. And because you have already done it he is merely looking at the choices you made: we live in time elapsing and he does not.Its a little like watching YouTube. The video buffers ahead but the choices people are making occur at the rate the movie is played in real time. The choices that will be made are contained in the buffered bit now - we (as God) can flick ahead to view them and thus foreknow what the people in real time are going to chose. Nothing that happens in the buffered bit is the result of anything other than the free will choices that will be made. God foreknowing as an observer - not a predestinator. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.