Free will vs Omniscience

Ha!
You think?That's what I've been telling you this whole time. You're making an error in judgement on the context of my phrasing. I've been trying to point this out to you all day. I think you're starting to catch on, though...
Just last post I straight up told you that the context was "eh, this is my best guess, given what we currently know..."And, again, you could have known that by simply reading the entire paragraph where you got that quote from. Even the part you quoted says "...most likely candidate..." in it. Everything I've said, and everything you've quoted of me has agreed with this statement 100%. Ha ha... you sound very familiar... wait, what did I say to you just last post? Is there any other ideas of mine that you'd like to agree with? So, since you haven't moved from your erroneous stance at all, I am unable to alter my conclusion in response to you. Here you go again: Ha ha Hope you sort out your confusion, mate.

Like I said. All I have is: "eh, this is my best guess, given what we currently know..."But, for some of it, I use the idea of parsimony.Including "God" is an extra agent... there is an explanation without "God" so I go with it because it's simpler.
Including "the ability to read the future..." is an extra ability we haven't witnessed as of yet.
Including "the universe might be wholly deterministic..." is an idea that cannot be tested as of yet.Does it mean excluding these things is right? No, not at all.
Does it mean excluding these things makes my best guess more likely? Nope. Well... an argument can be made for "maybe... kinda..." here based on the historical average of parsimony, but in all exactness... Nope.
Does it mean I'm going with my current answer with a grain of salt until more information can be found? Yup. And that's all I ever said.I am not claiming it's correct."...best guess..." Yay! We can be a family again!((Hugs))

Any God who is not "all powerful" or "omni-everything" can quite easily not have foreknowledge.For additional evidence of God not being omni-everything, see The Problem of Evil. In the first quote, jar seems to reference an evil God who has perfect knowledge of the future.
In the second quote, jar seems to only reference a God who has perfect knowledge of the past.

Ha ha, rest up And remember, no one here is posting because they're trying to stress you out.
We just all (for one reason or another) enjoy posting here. Maybe it's a break from work. Maybe it's a way to keep the mind working. Maybe it's a time-waster, maybe it's interesting or just simply enjoying. But whatever it is, I assure you no one's aim is to "stress Phat" (or anyone else, for that matter.)This is the socially acceptable venue to discuss such topics that are sometimes... less-than-welcomed at the family dinner table or other light-topic, polite social exchange venue (water cooler, lunch room...).Rest up, relax, and reply when you, as well, will enjoy posting here.

That would be a good place to discuss it, if anyone wanted to.
But no, I didn't mean to imply a specific topic here. I meant to imply the issue in it's general sense: Wiki - The Problem of Evil

I think it's possible. How do you like the fact that free will such as this destroys omnipotence? That is... if God knew all our decisions before creating us or the entire universe... then we don't have free-will.
The only way we would have free-will is if there's a time before creating us (or the entire universe) that God has no idea what we'll do. Then He creates us... and then he goes "oh, didn't see that happening..."Or, is God powerful enough to "turn off" his all-knowing-ness for long enough to create us, and then turn it back on after we've been created and made all our free-will choices?Really... I think the idea of "omnipotence" is kind of childish and doesn't have much of a place in serious discussion.Is God powerful enough to create a universe while not being all-powerful in it?Who is stronger? The man who knows he is impervious and goes into battle for what's right?
Or the man who knows he can die... but goes into battle for what's right anyway?Is God strong enough to face annihilation and follow through with doing the right thing regardless?
Or is He so scared that He must be "all-powerful" so that He never has to face such a situation?The concept of omnipotence doesn't really make sense, with any sophisticated idea of "strength" anyway.

It depends on the context. It is possible if there was a point in time before God knows-what-will-happen where God didn't-know-what-would-happen.The problem is that God creates everyone, too.Think of this scenario:God sits and thinks.
-What would happen if I made a Phat? Oh... that's interesting.
-What if I changed Phat a bit and made him like this, then what? Oh... nifty.
-Now if I tweak a bit of the situations Phat encounters... what will happen? Yes... yes, this is the Phat I want to create.
*poof* universe is created with Phat includedIf that's what's done - then Phat has free-will and Phat and God share responsibility for Phat's actions (because God still created the universe Phat exists within.)However, think of this situation:God sits and thinks.
-Phat's going to do this in his life.
-I'm going to alter Phat so that he now does this.
-I'm going to change the situations Phat experiences in his life so that he now does this.
*poof* universe is created with Phat as planned by God.If that's what's done - then Phat has no free-will. God has all the responsibility for Phat's actions.Can't have both.
If God always knows what Phat will do - and makes Phat... then no free-will.
If, at some point before creating Phat or the universe at all, God has no idea what Phat will do - and then makes Phat and finds out... then yes free-will.Which one is the "stronger" God?
Is God strong enough that He always knows everything - no exceptions? ("No exceptions" is a restriction on power, isn't it?)
Or is God strong enough to create free-will? (Not knowing what someone will do until after creating them is a restriction on power, isn't it?)My point isn't that one is actually stronger than the other.
My point is simply that any idea that "omnipotence" makes sense is childish and silly. It's nothing more than a my-Dad-can-beat-up-your-Dad wish.

Make room for 2!Wait - that came out wrong.
...OR DID IT???

"My problem is when people use the force of the government to ruin people who ruin homosexual marriages."Well - tough titties.
Everyone has the right to get married whether you like it or not.
Just as everyone has the right to ride the bus and sit wherever they like and drink out of any public water fountain and vote.If people have issues with that... then they shouldn't be in the bus-business, or the drinking business, or the voting business, or the marriage business.Tough titties.Everyone's equality is above the Bible's exclusivity. The argument that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want.This prohibits bestiality and pedophilia.This does not prohibit polygamy - but I don't think polygamy should be prohibited.
Control, abuse - sure, those things (generally associated with polygamy and polygamist cults) should be prohibited and much better enforced than they are.
But the basic idea of polygamy itself? Not a problem. Consenting adults doing what consenting adults all want.
In fact - I have a problem with anyone who wants to stop such a thing. There's nothing wrong with any of those things.
Again - consenting adults doing what consenting adults want - what's the problem?
Other than, you know, that you can't personally handle it.
Well - I'm sure I do plenty of things that you can't personally handle - like being a decent person all the time. And I won't let you get in the way from me doing that, either. I understand you're attempting to make some sort of analogy/joke here.
But I just don't get it. Maybe you messed it up, or maybe it takes a selfish-attitude in order to get what you're hinting at.

Wow. You really are nuts!Ha ha... the rest of your post is just too funny. Are you serious? Dude - you have to get out more.

How do you tell the difference between the following experiences:1. Honestly understanding something "correctly" leading to a valid belief in who God actually is.2. Honestly, but unknowingly, understanding something "incorrectly" leading to an invalid belief in who God actually is.Is it even possible to tell the difference for such an idea as "God?"

This is exactly the problem. I submit that this in the most important question.
That is - if you cannot obtain a satisfactory answer for this question - how can you make any meaningful progress on any other question regarding God?Of course, this makes one assumption - that the primary concern is about getting the truth of the situation - understanding God/reality.If you feel/see yourself moving on and only keeping this question in the back of your mind - then this is an indication that you do not have "pursuit of the truth" as a primary priority.You then hold something else as a priority.
It could be any number of things:
-You want to feel better (quell fears/gain confidence/personal reassurrance)
-You want to control others (use the idea of God to manipulate other people)
-You want to make money (religion is just a tool, not a truth)
-Plenty of other things could be here, tooIf "understanding God" is actually a priority - I would return to focusing on the original question.
If not - I would suggest attempting to identify what your priority actually is.
If it's one of the negative ones (controlling others, making money by using religion....) then I offer you no additional help and I wish for your failure.
If it's one of the positive ones (feeling better...) then I suggest that you focus your pursuit with clarity (religion is a tool you're using to feel better... not a pursuit of truth) in order to make progress.You can still believe and use religion as a tool to feel better - it will only make your state-of-mind stronger to be able to identify when your religious ideas should be influencing your pursuit of truth about reality and when they shouldn't.By the way - anyone who tells you religion should "always" affect your state of mind is wrong.
It makes for a nice saying to a crowd... but it only causes negative side effects if actually used in practice.Just ask if they consult The Bible when attempting to navigate traffic regulations?
They probably don't - point proven.
Or maybe they do - and if so, then they are terrible drivers and the point is proven again."Jesus take the wheel" is a metaphor - not something to actually be done with a vehicle.Edited by Stile, : Fixing quotes

The question isn't "which of those better describes your situation."
The question is "how do you tell the difference between 1 and 2?" Right.
Now - is it more important for you to feel that God exists and is interactive with you more so than if God is actually interacting with you?
-if so, then your feelings are a higher priority than the truth of God/reality
-in which case, most of my previous reply will hopefully be helpfulOr - is it more important for you to know that God exists and is interactive with you more than the feelings you receive thinking about such an idea?
-if so, then the truth of God/reality is a higher priority than your feelings on the matter
-in which case - you really, really need an answer for the question of "how do you tell the difference between 1 and 2?" in order to make any progress Perhaps I am misinterpreting your intentions.
Perhaps, by saying "I would go with #2" you mean to inform me that you acknowledge that your feelings are a higher priority than the truth of God/reality?If so - there's nothing wrong with that.
And anyone who tries to make you feel bad about it is, in fact, wrong themselves.Also - it has no bearing on God's actual existence.
In fact, it could quite possible mean that you want God to exist more than someone who's primary concern is the truth of God/reality.
(That is, if your primary concern is the truth - you wouldn't be so focused on "Godly things" as you would be focused on "how to identify reality.")Can you see here how reflection on your priorities can lead you to strengthening your beliefs as opposed to weakening your faith (as some others may attempt to imply it is doing?)

Did God create the fallen world?
Did God make it "fallen?"
Did God cause the imperfection when God could have chosen something else? I don't think he would.
I think ringo would argue (as I do) that if God is all powerful AND God is all-benevolent - then God should protect us from such things.Obviously, if God isn't all powerful - it doesn't matter if He wants to help, something might be preventing Him
As well, if God isn't all-benevolent - it doesn't matter if He has the power to help, if He doesn't care - why would He?Therefore:Given we exist.
Given evil exists.
Given God exists - God is then either not all powerful, or He doesn't care about us as much as human strangers care for each other.Even the vague idea of "maybe God has a higher plan!" doesn't cut it.
If God does have a higher plan that justifies evil in this world - it means either:1. God isn't powerful enough to carry out The Plan as well as get rid of evil.
OR
2. God doesn't care about humans enough to carry out The Plan as well as get rid of evil.If God WAS powerful enough to carry out The Plan and also get rid of evil, and He cared about humans enough to do so - then God would do it, no?
If such was done - no evil would exist. And yet... (insert reality here.) Perhaps.
Perhaps not.My life wouldn't be much different if rape was removed from the world.
I was never raped, and I don't rape other people. For me - rape is already "removed from the world." I am not a brain in a jar. My life isn't "far different."People-who've-been-raped would be in a very different - a very "much better" - world if rape was removed from the world.So - I consider your argument defeated. What do you think?
Perhaps it's defeated because "ALL calamity and evil" doesn't need to be removed.
Perhaps it's defeated because "variety in life is not removed if evil is removed."
It doesn't really matter - it certainly seems defeated either way. It isn't, and no one's demanding it.
I am, however, demanding that an all-powerful, all-benevolent God "do better" than this world.
Like remove rape. Of course He does.
Just as I have the right to call Him evil if He has the power to stop rape from occurring, but just doesn't care enough to exercise that power.
Just as I have the right to call YOU evil if you had the power to stop rape from occurring, but just didn't care enough to exercise that power. I don't know what to do with this part.
I don't understand the relevance, or - really - any of it.
What is "the evil?"

You're right that the zebra doesn't care who's killing it.
However - I'm sure that the zebra thinks both you and the Lion are equally evil.The problem is that "an action" in and of itself isn't what defines morality.
Morality is defined by the resulting feelings of whoever's-affected-by-the-action.To prove the point, take something simple:Opening a door for someone.
Almost everyone would say "yes, that's a moral thing to do."Now, let's say we have someone who everyone knows doesn't like to have the door opened for them - they want to open the door on their own.
You know this, but you jump in front and open the door for them anyway.
Again - almost everyone would say "what a dick - that's not a moral thing to do."But it was the same action - opening the door for someone.If such a simple action can't morally be defined one way or another - why would a complicated action like "killing something" be easier to define? Maybe evil is knowingly and willingly acting in direct opposition to what is expected/requested.
Still a human/intelligence construct. This sentence is not consistent.
How is God "omnipotent" if there's something He can't do? (That is - construct existence such that evil is not a necessity.)
God could be "very power" or "the most-powerful-possible" and be stuck in the problem you describe - but He can't be Omnipotent or All-Powerful.God would be limited by the rules of "existence constructing" in the sense that it's impossible (for God) to construct an existence that does not include evil.
Any such limitation is the direct opposite of the idea around "omnipotence." If what you say is true - that God is not all-powerful and only doing His best - then you're absolutely right.The problem is that this isn't what the saying of "no good God would do such things" is about - this saying is only brought up in response to a God that is trumpeted as actually being all-powerful - no restrictions, can do anything.If you'd like to say that such a notion is immature and obviously not intended...
I would agree that it's immature, but it is actually almost always intended when talking about "God" in the modern North American sense.