What if God foreknew human reactions?

Doesn't work that way.
Any proposition could have an infinite number of truth values. It could be true. It could be false. It could be both true and false. It could be neither true nor false. It could be both true and false and neither true nor false. It could be neither both true and false nor neither true nor false. It could be both both true and false and neither true nor false and neither both true and false nor neither true nor false. And now I'm lost.
Anyway, that's what you get when you throw the law of noncontradiction out the window.

A math problem as such could not solve itself - a math problem is a static description, and the act of finding the solution is dynamic.An algorithmic system (e.g. a computer program) could possibly analyse itself in some respects that might be close to what you describe (e.g. a computer program could treat itself as data).Now my argument is not the free will is removed only that the situation as described makes it impossible that we have the sort of free will tat apologetics requires. The grounds are simple.
Because the future of the Universe must be fixed for omniscience to be possible the entire future is determined by God's decision to create a particular universe. If God is truly omniscient then knowledge of the future is available to Him prior to the creation - thus he decided literally everything that happens. (Also if God is omnipotent it follows that this is the best possible Universe - from God's point of view.)t

If our Universe is eternal than it has no beginning and no creator.The idea of God existing in some sense prior to our iinverse is also necessary to the idea that God created it. For God to create our universe there must have been a state where God existed and the universe did not.By the way you must be a solipsist since you clearly don't beleive that any universes exist. I say that we know that this universe exists and that we can easily imagine variations in it which do not obviously create contradictions.I would add that claiming that I am "confusing" issues when you cannot explain this supposed "confusion" - and where, at best, it relies on unstated ideas about the nature of God's knowledge does not constitute constructive discussion. If you wish to introduce your ideas you could at least have the honesty not to assert that they are fact or that I am confused if I do not assume them h

Let me explain your confusion:According to the only theory of time we have at our disposal, GR, time is merely one dimension of four. Admittedly, it appears in the metric with opposite signature to the other three dimensions, but it is still an internal part of our reality. If we take the FRW big bang model, time has an origin at the past singularity. There is no "before". There is no "prior" to this point. Such concepts are utterly meaningless. It is placing god further south than the south pole. What do you mean? There is no place along this concept of time for any god to act to "create" the universe.Whatever kind of model comsology you generate from GR, it will essentially be of two types. One, where the time begins a finite time in the past, and one where the time is infinite in extent. Either way, there is no place for any "before" or "prior".Now, without even approaching religion or even metaphysics, I can produce a super-cosmology with two time dimensions. They are completely independent (which of course they must be two be two separate dimensions) and it is impossible to talk of one being prior to the other (in the same way that x does not come "before" or "after" y in cartesian coordinates). I have two beings, G and H. G evolves along the first time dimension Tg and H evolves along Th. H is fixed in Tg but G is dynamic in Th. Within this simple set-up, G can quite easily create a sub-reality for H, such that there is a specific Tg that marks the act of creation that cannot in any sense be said to occur prior to any element of Th. Here I have all of the necessary apparatus to reproduce the nature of God and time that I have been espousing. Not that my own concept of God involves wrapping him up in some model of cosmology, but if I can create a psuedo-model of my ideas of his interrelation with our time on a physical or mathematical basis, then the possibility is secure without having to resort to illogical religious rambling.If you are disputing GR, fine, but kindly state to which theory of the universe you are referring when you describe your ideas about the nature of time. By different universes I thought we were referring to universes with different constituents/laws, not just variations in the positions of a few of the atoms. If the former, then we cannot easily imagine. Within reason, I don't have a major problem with the latter.

As much as I respect your faith, I must question your logic here.What kind of an all loving being, that has the power to do whatever he wanted, that would create another being, knowing ahead of time that this new being is destined to burn in hell for all of eternity?The second part of your sentence is, I think, even worse. The greatest atrocities ever done on this planet have been made possible by the inaction of people who had the power to do something.If god knew that I was to become a gay militant atheist and is destined to go to hell and burn down there forever, why the hell would god created me?

For a majority = invited. A minority= chosen. Many + Few =All.
Whosoever=Chosen...by choice and by design. A communion reality. Its not all on us (works) nor is it all on God (Omniwill) It is a communion.Majority = S. (Self willed) Minority=C. (surrender ego to Christ)S is greater than C. Or is it? This scripture does not mean that God calls all the shots. To me, it means that God will cover with His Spirit those whom allow His Spirit to cover them. The man at the wedding...with no clothes...was without a spiritual covering. Heaven is not a relativistic co-creation/imagination.Finally...lets evealuate John 3:16-- What type of a value is "whosoever"? I would say that this variable, otherwise known as who-so-chooses, is the difference between S and C. Thus, S could equal C, based on a freewill variable. Am I making any sense?

Just because God knows who are His sheep..(those who hear His voice) does not mean that He does all the choosing. It is a communion of choice...where He first chose us and we later choose Him.

​

Whosoever is a definite value. Whosoever = the chosen. The many who are invited, apparantly includes everyone EXCEPT those who do not choose.

​

If a person chooses not to believe, I think that they will get one more chance to see the reality of what they have freely rejected. Only after this awareness is anyone truly lost.

​

If God allows us to freely and knowingly (with all information) reject Him, He is no longer responsible for us.

​

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-18-2005 11:12 PM

Let me explain your error. I am NOT assuming any particular theory of time. I don't need to dispute GR or to assume it. Therefore your claim of confusion is based on a wholly false assumption. Moreover since you simply place the priority of G over H in Tg it fulfills my minimum requirement of "prior in some sense"What you should have said is that you are explaining your unspoken assumptions. However they fail to answer the real issues, because they do not provide an adequate reason why God should be unable to know the consequenes of his actions.Firstly if God's timeline works like ours it is fixed and therefore knowable and therefore an omniscient God must know it.Secondly if there are no special points in time the creative act equally creates ALL of them and all configurations the universe has adopted throughout its history - not just an initial configuration. It woulsd seem therefore that from this persepctive the whole history is chosen, again negating your argument.Thirdly, if we assume that God's timeline is different and unknowable AND that God DID simply create the initial configuration, the timeline which will inevitably unfold from that configuration is fixed and therefore knowable prior (in God's timeline) to the actual decision to create that universe. Therefore an omniscient God must know it.Fourthly you are proposing a fallible God who sometimes works through trial and error. This may represent your personal belief but it is hardly part of normal Christianity.One final point. It is hard to see how, when the focus is on time and on human action, you would assume that I was speaking of different physical laws rather than a different history - and especially a different history for humanity. a

I'm afraid that just making assertions isn't going to cut it. It doens't change the central problem. We still make the decisions GOd created us to make. God therefore has the primary responsibility - if God chooses to make a universe where many people will inevitably reject Him then that is His decisions which He is responsible for. Humans act in the way God has chosen them to act and cannot act any differently.

I am well aware of that. That is why I was claiming confusion. It is rather important for such a discussion to have a model of time in mind, rather than just the naive view built upon common experience, given that over the course of the 20th C that view has been shattered. Maybe, but not in any sense of which you were apparently aware. It certainly negates some of your statements. For example is invalidated. There is no reason Th cannot be infinte in extent. But without something akin to my model, you have NO valid sense of prior whatsoever. As I have pointed out several times, this whole debate rests on a god's omniscience wrt our time (Th) not his time (Tg). In my model, this omniscience is purely a result of the differing time-lines, no over-arching religious concept. Again, I do not understand why you insist that all configurations must have been presupposed. Your previous reason rested on the requirement of a god's omniscience of the created solution. I have addressed that problem, so why is this still an issue? Back to my example of the solution to a stochastic equation, I can set up that equation across a hypersurface to Tg containing Th. As I pointed out above, this god is omniscient wrt Th becasue it is not his timeline, but he still evolves along Tg and has no magical foreknowledge of what he is going to create. I have stated something similar to this a couple of times now, in that I do not hold to traditional views of omnipotence and omniscience. And my views here are not based upon Christianity, just on consideration of any "omniscient" creator, whether that be YHWH or some sad geeky mega-being playing on his computer.But you're correct, I will not be presenting these ideas at the next home group meeting... Simply because it is the laws that are the creation in my mind (although in my "model", the laws are at least in part pre-existing). The history is not part of creation in my view, as you will have gathered.

OK...I'll agree with you. So as a believer, what do I do? Complain to God that life is not fair? Deny Him since the entire concept is so unreasonable? Or, perhaps, trust that He knows a bit more than I or any group of humans ever could hope to know. My parents "created" me and shaped my personality quirks and quarks by age 6. Do I go to a shrink for the rest of my life and blame them for the fact that I have odd personality abnormalities? Or do I grow up and do the best that I can while still loving and forgiving them.Do we need to "forgive" God for allowing us to be so selfish, powerless, and dependant on Him? I think that He desires a relationship with us ...He does not want a bunch of grown-up children who never call.

God gave us a brain. I can understand why many educated people who once naively went to church now are "enlightened" and reject the whole religious concepts..including a God that they cannot see or prove. I can also agree that He foreknew that this would occur.
Furthermore, I can agree that He is powerless to make you accept Him.Because of this...He is off the hook.Im no psychologist, though. I never fought with my earthly Daddy, but I occasionally wished I could know him better.With God, I take Him for granted...after all He knows me better than I know myself.In that regard, I am no closer to Him than anyone else on this board.He draws all men unto Himself, according to scripture. Apparantly, I should not worry if everyone at EvC gets "saved" or "chosen".Maybe I should just do what I know to be right.

Well it's hard to say that your idea negates my point when you've actually assumed that our universe is NOT eternal with respect to the creation. And so far as I can see it's completely false to claim that your arguments show that your model or something like it is needed to have a sense of "prior". Certainly you've yet to offer any argument that couls possibly justify such a claim.Your response to my point 2 is also seriously in error. I simply pointed out that if thre are NO points in tiem that are "special" inregard to divine creation then ALL points in time must equally bepart of that divine action.With regard to your resposne to my point 3 since you are assuming a God who is not omniscient you aren't actually dealing with my argument.I would also point out that your model does not justify your claim that I am mixing up "God's time" and "our time". Ignoring time travel anyaction of God's which affects us either cannot be assigned a time in "our time" but is prior to the effect in "God's time" or it occurs prior to the effect in both times. In either case we should still describe it as occurring prior to the effect.

Well my advice to you is, that as a Beleiver, you should consider that the problem is in your beliefs. Unless you are completely closed-minded you should be able to adjust your beliefs to deal with the problem - as, in this case, cavediver has.Your parents had a lot to do with the way you are but they aren't God. They don't have the foresight. I'm sue that they did the best that they could. Surely God's greater knowledge and capabilities mean that He should be held to a higher standard than mere humans.But I really find the idea that God wants a "relationship" with us rather silly. Apart from the hints of Gnosticism it's a bit like me wanting an adult relationship with an ant - it isn't going to happen, the gulf is just too wide. Unless you're going to go Mormon and insist that you're going to become a God then the whole idea makes no sense at all.s

Well there are two wys to "accept"or "reject"GOd.The first way is to accept or reject the idea that God exists. Well I can do that - and in fact it seems to me that I have no choice but to reject in that sense.But surely the important thing is to knowingly accept or reject God as we would accept or reject a person - perhaps similar to a student accepting a mentor. But we can't do that unless we know that God exists and - for the decision to be valid - we would need know God well enough to make an informed choice. And that I am not in a position to do and never have been.spelledit by PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 09-21-2005 02:06 PM

OK, Paul. think about what you just said. If scientists COULD talk to ants, conversing back and forth with them...they would be ecstatic! They would wanna chat with the bugs all day long! Why do scientists do what they do?
1) To learn more about the environment and universe around us.
2) To learn more about ourselves in the scheme of things and why we exist.So why would God want anything to do with self proclaimed intelligent apes? He knows everything anyway. Perhaps it is like the teacher who wants to spend a bit more time with the problem child.Out of all the animals, we are the ones not content to merely evolve. We want to learn to climb...to be all knowing, all powerful and all loving. Perhaps God, knowing how that feels, wants to spend some time with us and make sure that we do it right.Either that or maybe God is Himself evolving...even though He is omni everything, He now has a little creature who wants to be like Him...so He learns by teaching us. (I just threw that one out...I don't believe it!)This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-21-2005 02:08 PM