Is Christ cruel? (For member Schrafinator)

The premise of the argument is that God knows that Schraf will not believe.Therefore if Schraf did change her mind and beleive then God would be in error. His knowledge was incorrect.Thus your "checkmate" argument presumes that God can and does make mistakes.

I'm sorry but you really do need to think carefully about the logic.Either it is possible that Schraf could decide to believe - which would prove God wrong or it is not. If it is not then your argument fails. Therefore your argument presumes that God can be wrong.I suggest that you consider that logic instead of trying to evade it.

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean that "I don't get it".If Schraf ACTUALLY chose to believe then it could not be the case that it was God's Will that she did not beleive - that much of your argument is sensible. But it also would be the case that God was wrong.God could only be infallibly correct if it was inevitably true that Schraf did not beleive.Thus either God is not infallible, or your argument fails.

If God "knew" something that turned out to be false he would be wrong. God's will doesn't enter into that part.A premise of the argument is that God knows that Schraf will not believe. If Schraf does believe after all, that knowledge would be false and therefore God would be wrong.Thus your argument can only work if it is possible that God could be wrong.

quote:

---

The flaw lies right there. If Schraf does believe then God would have known that to begin with

---

No, it's not a flaw - it's a premise of the argument under discussion. And unless you wish to claim that EVERYONE will convert to Christianity and be saved it is not a premise that can reasonably rejected.

Yes, the premise under discussion is that God knows that Schraf will not believe. If you reject the idea that God has that sort of foreknowledge then your view is rather at odds with the idea being defended here.As to Biblical support I suggest you consider the well-known prediction that Peter would deny Jesus 3 times before the cock crowed. If true that reveals fairly detailed prior knowledge of human decisions (not only Peter, but the people he encounters).But y you probably ought to be discussing your ideas on the thread about how propecy works.

Ah yes, I suppose the usual strawman had to come out. I have never ever seen anyone argue that God's foreknowledge CAUSES our actions. Yet every time it is pointed out that foreknowledge requires that the futures fixed the old strawman is trotted out.The argumen attributed to Boethius fails to deal with the real issue. If God can know the future AND is capable of acting on that knowledge prior to events actually happening (as WE would see it) the problems remain. How it is percieved by God is not truly relevant (although an "eternal present" is certainly a questionable idea).

Well, it is hard to see how any intelligence could operate as God is supposed to do in an "Eternal Present". Without some sort of personal timeline it is hard to see how a being could think or act. Arguably it would suggest that God would be incapable of acting on foreknowledge which would solve the problem but since this is practically the same as God lacking foreknowledge it makes the argument academic at best.