Free will vs Omniscience

I can't think of any day I would feel like killing a baby. I have free will, because I could choose to kill a baby despite not feeling like doing it.In the same vein (but, much less seriously...) I can choose to take out the trash despite not feeling like doing it.It's a matter of being able to deal with the feelings.It's much harder to "deal with the feelings" of killing a baby than taking out the trash.
And it's quite possible that some people are not capable of doing it, even.
But there are others that are capable. And not all of those others are psychopaths. Some will have great feelings about the matter, but they are able to deal with those feelings. I can.No matter how many times you ask the question - the answer will be the same.
Do you have a different question? Or do you intend to simply repeat the same one, that's already been answered, over and over and over hoping for a different result? Of course it is.
Which is why you can't prove that we don't have free will.Because if you could - you've have a Nobel Prize. Why only psychopaths? Why not "anyone who is able to deal with the empathy that would normally prevent the behaviour?"You're drawing a line that you cannot show actually exists.There are some who cannot take out the trash - because they cannot deal with the feelings (lookup shut-ins who cannot leave their house because of anxiety.)
There are many who can take out the trash - but they are not necessarily psychopaths; they are just able to 'deal with the feelings.'There are many who cannot kill babies because they cannot deal with the feelings as you suggest.
There are some who can kill babies - but they are not necessarily psychopaths; they are just able to 'deal with the feelings.'Empathy constrains our freedom to do evil.
And intelligence allows us to override our empathy.Too great of empathy, and too little intelligence - and you're right.
But many people have enough intelligence to deal with the empathy for any situation you've discussed so far, and they do not necessarily have to be psychopaths.You're just wrong to insist that "only a psychopath" could kill a baby.
It's a very nice, emotional, feel-good line for a story. But not a part of factual reality.

Proverbs 23:7 Im not so sure about that. Has not God said to some, "Depart from me, I never knew you?"Do you imagine that God picks and chooses whom He knows, or is it more likely that we(whom He never knew) never fulfilled our part of the communion?You always place the onus on God to rescue us from everything harmful as if it is His human derived duty to do so...forgetting that we didnt invent Him....He created us before wee were even consciously aware of what life meant. That type of thinking is also a choice and decision that YOU have made. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

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

Context:

quote:

---

Proverbs 23:6-7 Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats: For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

---

That proverb isn't about decisions.It's about whom we associate with. Remember Luke 15? When the Pharisees complained about Jesus eating with publicans and sinners, He told three parables about how the one lost sheep is more treasured than the ninty-nine homies, the one lost coin is more treasured than the other nine and the prodigal son is more welcomed than the obedient one. "I never knew you," is an unfortunate phrase for those who are trying to advocate omniscience, isn't it? It's pretty clear that He picks and chooses who has DONE what He wanted them to do. Remember the prodigal son? There is no "our part of the communion". God doesn't approve of you on the basis of communion with HIM. He approves of you on the basis of your communion with the least of these. We put the onus on our fellow humans to be responsible for their actions. Why would we expect a lower standard from God? We did invent Him. That's a conclusion drawn from YOUR statement that, "We do not become the decisions that God has made about us." If God's decisions about us don't relate to us, what is His relevance?

Then free will is removed - I agree.If there is no moment where the super-smart being actually doesn't know the answer to the prediction - then there is no room for free will.However, if there is a moment where the super-smart being does not know the answer to the prediction, and the "answer to the prediction" actually comes from the being-making-the-free-willed-decision - then free will is preserved.The situation I'm imagining is just a bit strange on "when the event happens."That is:1. Super-smart being is going to create a universe.
2. Super-smart being wants free-willed creatures in this universe.
3. Super-smart being identifies a "thought-experiment" of the universe, that is... one that does not physically exist, but contains all the real properties of the universe-that-will-physically-exist - the super-smart being is just thinking about it.
4. The universe trundles along in this "thought-experiment" form until a free-willed decision point is hit. At that time, the super-smart being does not know what the prediction will be be. The super-smart being waits for the real, actual free-willed being (within the thought-experiment universe) to make it's real, actual free-willed decision. The super-smart being says "oh... interesting..." and then trundles along with the rest of the universe until the next free-willed decision needs to be made and this process repeats.
5. The super-smart being will eventually (possibly instantly, if the super-smart being is smart enough?) hold a fully completed "thought-experiment" universe within their mind - containing all the real, actual free-willed decisions of all the free-willed beings within that universe.
6. The super-smart being creates the universe into physical existence.
7. The physical existence is like a recording-play-back of all the real, actual free-willed decisions made by the free-willed inhabitants. If the above is followed, then the super-smart being could know the trajectory of every atom in the universe and predict what was going to happen (based of the complete "thought-experiment.")However, since all free-willed decisions within the "thought-experiment" are not from the super-smart being, but actually from the real free-willed inhabitants of that universe... the super-smart being is simply "watching a recording" and not actually "creating" the decision-answers (the free-willed inhabitants are creating the decision-answers.)Therefore - the super-smart being could predict everything "before the evolution of humans" (before the physical creation of the universe, even...) while humans also have free will and were not just following a mechanical trajectory like planets in orbit.The super-smart being just cannot predict everything "without even a single moment of not-knowing the free-willed decision answers" and also preserve free will.That moment needs to exist.
It just doesn't have to exist "within this universe's time."

It's an interesting question of how the super-smart being somehow "relinquishes some smartness" in order to allow free will to happen.Think of a young Clark Kent. How does he know (because he has x-ray vision) that things have "surfaces"?Think of an "all-powerful" being. How does it understand a "day of rest" when for it there is no difference between strenuous work and no work at all?

Of course not. Very few people have that freedom of will - thankfully. But you couldn't actually could you? Your freewill to actually do it is severely constrained by your sense of morality. Nope, you have no constraints preventing you putting out the trash Exactly my point. Your feelings constrains your ability to act freely. You know that you can't, why pretend? Only a psychopath could casually kill a baby. Are you a psychopath?

There is something you don't see.

You do not know the answers to these questions? Amazing.

True. I don't see any connection between the stuff you post and either the points I raise or the topic of the thread. Yup, nothing there to see. You are correct.

There is some important thing there which you do not see.

I awoke early at 430 am. Upon arriving here at the computer, (seeking to essentially win my debates, as I usually do) I read several positions by my ideological opponents/adversaries/comrades and found several points of contention which I disagreed with in my mind. The subject overall was God. (OK, in my mind it was GOD) My opponents are in my mind not understanding ME and My position regarding GOD, Who He is, was, and forever more shall be, and that they all obviously have a faulty understanding and belief regarding the hypothetical and actual communion between GOD and myself (and my ideological adversaries).
For the record, my ideological opponents are primarily jar, ringo, Tangle, and Stile. (Stile is the nice one, by the way. ) Here are my rebuttals to each of my opponents, the points of contention, and my understanding in refutation of their understanding:
***************************************************************************** In other words, ringo is arguing that the God whom I market sends the message that Christianity is about what we do for others rather than what God has done for us. (and jar agrees.)
Where ringo gets me off track is this point of contention: Both ringo and jar do this. They market a God Who is invented by humans in the mythos, is responsible to humans for what He/She/It does, and who is an invention of our minds. It is appearing clearer to me that jar and ringo agree on a lot of these philosophical arguments. Jar says that Christianity is about what *we do* and not a magical free pass based on what Jesus did. Ringo, in a similar vein, argues that the message is the focus and not the messenger.(Who I would argue IS Jesus Christ, alive eternally.) Thus, I think I can understand what ringo is trying to show me. Jar, OTOH is a bit more difficult. As I try and frame the issue by saying that God already knows what path I will take, (as well as the path jar will take) jar argues that If either of us ended up damned then that God would be an evil SOB. So I am slowly understanding where jar is coming from. I hope that he can understand that I am attempting to describe a God Who is Omniscient yet not evil, since we still made our own decisions as humans.Ringo again has opinions on this: And ringo is correct. I AM trying to advocate omniscience. Thus, jar is essentially saying that IF God has prescience then God is evil. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that argument. *sips coffee* Edited by Phat, : further elaboration on prescience.

I agree. And, even, perhaps it's not 'relinquishing' it, but gaining more power to be able to do this.After all, if a being exists that cannot create a universe with free-will (because they cannot "relinquish some smartness") - wouldn't it be a more powerful being if one could, actually, create a universe that contained free-will?Interesting questions.
And I think it all goes to show - that this is all just imagination, and not reality.
Or, at least, we have no evidence that any of this can actually happen. Just something interesting to think about. My guess is that the "power" isn't on all time.
Sometimes Clark would see surfaces, sometimes he would not. By touching things (perhaps accidentally smashing them?) he would learn things. Eventually, he gains control over the "power" and can turn his x-ray vision on and off.Is it more powerful to have a power on all the time?
Or more powerful to be have control over the power and be able to turn it on and off at will? I think the concept of "all-powerful" is immature.
As described above - what is "all-powerful?" a being with powers they cannot control? Or a being with powers that then can control?When you control a power, you have the ability to turn it on and off.
When you turn a power off - you are "less powerful."
But having the ability to turn it on and off at will, makes you "more powerful."This proves that the concept of being "all-powerful" in some sort of binary, instantaneous-sense - is immature, and silly.A more mature way to think of the concept is "being powerful enough to do whatever is necessary for the situation at hand."
As the situation changes - the being's powers can adapt as necessary.
Sometimes being more/less powerful in different situations - but always being 'powerful enough' to deal with any situation at any particular time....but that's just one more step in the "My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad" progression of Gods getting stronger and stronger as we imagine their possible abilities over time.
And one more idea that shows... these Gods/beings... are all made up and not real.

And so once again all you offer is a pointless bumper sticker. Classic Christian Cult of Ignorance behavior.

Did we make the decision to create ourselves?