Free will vs Omniscience

“Gott mit uns” (‘God is with us’) was printed on the belt buckles of German soldiers in WWI, and WWII.

So? In God We Trust is printed on American money. Simply printing Gods name somewhere does not mean that God is anymore than a symbol adopted by the people whom etched or printed it.

I believe that God can be individually known but, as ringo often mentions, simply mouthing "Lord, Lord" is no guarantee that you know Him any better than an atheist in a foxhole who, upon getting shot, cries "Oh God!". I might rethink the idea that God does not know everyone, but the reason I initially stated it is due to the idea that God has said in the Bible to certain individuals, "Depart from me, I never knew you".

Could it be that not all know God? I would assert that all know ABOUT God. Whether or not we believe in Him is another matter and whether or not we DO what He commands is still another matter.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Think Phat.

In you example those told to depart did know Jesus. It was Jesus that did not know them.

jar writes: In you example those told to depart did know Jesus. It was Jesus that did not know them.

Ok I see. This gets back to your belief that many of the goats are Christians. The only reason I question that is because I believe that everyone knows ABOUT God and that when a person gets saved, it is akin to meeting God. So in that brief moment of epiphany/awareness, wouldn't it be logical that He would become real to them (in essence meeting them?) I know that you never bought the product that only some of us get born again, but I think its logical.

If the goats were Christians whom He never knew, why would they even have the importation to do anything? Ringo would claim that they likely would sit around braying Lord, Lord....but that implies that churches are full of posers trying simply to fit in and look spiritual to each other. I know that had I never experienced the salvation experience I would never even want to hang around a church.

I suppose you could argue that all humans are aware of "the charge" due to the gift of knowing good and evil. I argue, however, that it takes that inner awareness of the reality of His existence to even give me the desire to share this stuff with others, (arguing endlessly with some )

Edited by Phat, : punk tu a shun

Phat writes: This gets back to your belief that many of the goats are Christians.

Not quite Phat; ALL of the Goats are followers of Jesus, proto-Christians.

Phat writes: If the goats were Christians whom He never knew, why would they even have the importation to do anything?

LOL.

It 'splains it in the story Phat. Read the story. It is directly explained.

Phat writes: I argue, however, that it takes that inner awareness of the reality of His existence to even give me the desire to share this stuff with others, (arguing endlessly with some )

Share what stuff Phat? Preaching is worthless. It is only doing that has any value and the value is based in what is done, not why it was done or who it was done for or any of the other nonsense that the Apologist Shils market.

jar writes: It is only doing that has any value and the value is based in what is done, not why it was done or who it was done for or any of the other nonsense that the Apologist Shils market.

OK lets have a look at it again. The GOATS:

Matt 25:41-46 NKJV writes: 41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand,'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' 44 "Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' 45 Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

My point is that if the goats had never met Jesus, at worst they would be catering to favored people and not to the needy folks and would not even have a clue who Jesus was or who God was...they would simply find themselves at this judgement day and watch the sheep get blessed.

Phat writes: My point is that if the goats had never met Jesus, at worst they would be catering to favored people and not to the needy folks and would not even have a clue who Jesus was or who God was...they would simply find themselves at this judgement day and watch the sheep get blessed.

LOL

But that is NOT what the story says, is it?

Again, like all the Apologists you just make up shit to deny what is actually written and then claim to be Biblical Christians.

You and the CCoI are so pathetic.

Oh stop. I have fed and clothed people and do so to this day. I visited many in prison. My point is that I did favor the youth when I visited prisons....but I have also ministered to the least of these. You really need to get off your soapbox concerning the pathetic state of the CCoI. You have an irrational disgust regarding "them". I cant figure out if you are simply mad that they believe the way they do or whether you are disgusted that they dont feed anybody or visit prisoins, but you better back off of me...ive likely done more of that stuff than you have. And I'm not boasting....its simply what Ive done since becoming a Christian in 1993. It did take me a few years to actually feel the need to do anything, I will admit.

But im not looking to impress Jesus. I do what I do just because its what I feel needs doing. Ringo claims I dont do what Jesus says to do, but I fail to see where I fall short...perhaps you know.

And as always you change the subject to avoid actually admitting what is actually written in the Bible.

You can't follow a topic or address what is presented to you and can only continue to deny reality and instead either change the subject or run away.

Pathetic.

You insist upon pushing your warped (critically thinking derived and void of any Godly inspiration) Theology upon the Forum, as usual. Before we go any further, however, lets return to the topic. I read an argument and a refutation of the argument regarding the nature of omniscience and free will.

quote:

---

Argument from the impossibility of omniscience and free will:

God is omniscient

God has a free will

Entities with free will have non-determinate futures

Omniscience entails foreknowledge

If an entity knows the future, the future is not non-determinate
**********
Refutation

God is omniscient

God has a free will
Free will must be defined before the argument can be attempted. Does it mean to be able to choose anything--even something contrary to one's nature; or, does it mean being able to choose something consistent with one's nature?
God is free to do whatever he desires. God is not free to act in a manner contrary to his nature. No Christian theologian teaches he does.

Entities with free will have non-determinate futures
This is an assumption that has not been proven. A person can freely choose to act and have that act be known by God, but God knowing what a person freely chooses to do does not mean the person wasn’t free to choose it.
The determination of a future event chosen by a free will restricts the future event to that choice because the person had freely made that choice. The person was free to choose it or something else, and the choice is determined at that time.

Omniscience entails foreknowledge
What is foreknowledge? Knowing what will happen in the future by extrapolation or knowing by experience since God’s existence is everywhere, all the time? Foreknowledge then wouldn’t be a looking into the future but a knowing of the future free will choices of people.

---

You will argue that if "the God" has foreknowledge that humans will end up choosing unwisely and thus ending up damned, then that God is evil and should be opposed. Am I correct or did I add to your argument?

Phat writes: You will argue that if "the God" has foreknowledge that humans will end up choosing unwisely and thus ending up damned, then that God is evil and should be opposed.

Almost.

If "the God" having foreknowledge that humans will end up choosing unwisely still creates the human that thus ends up damned, then that God is pure evil and must be condemned and opposed.

But everything in the refutation you quoted is just classic conman spiel from classic conmen; utterly stupid and should be laughed off the stage if tried.

quote:

---

Does it mean to be able to choose anything--even something contrary to one's nature; or, does it mean being able to choose something consistent with one's nature?
God is free to do whatever he desires. God is not free to act in a manner contrary to his nature.

---

That is simply classic attempts to avoid and get around reality, reason and honesty.

Edited by jar, : fix quote box

jar writes: If "the God" having foreknowledge that humans will end up choosing unwisely still creates the human that thus ends up damned, then that God is pure evil and must be condemned and opposed.

So what if I end up being a goat? According to the scripture I get damned based on what I unwisely chose. Are you telling me that God does not see this as He is eternal and timeless?

And when you say "that God is pure evil and must be condemned and opposed"
I think in terms of Satan. God is good. Satan isn't. But what confuses me about your Theology is you and ringo insisting that the metaphorical snake told the truth. Everyone knows that satan has no truth in him.

Actually...in thinking about what you said, I can see a way to agree with you to a degree.

jar writes: If "the God" having foreknowledge that humans will end up choosing unwisely still creates the human that thus ends up damned, then that God is pure evil and must be condemned and opposed.

The key concept that I see is the idea of creation ion general. God may well have created us in that He birthed us (through our family) but He is not responsible for our day to day creative thought. Thus, the idea that *we are responsible* leaps out at me. We become the decisions that we make. Thus, if God theoretically knew what I would choose He would also know on a day by day basis what I am choosing (day by day) and if I ended up damned it really would be His fault for not speaking to me in the still small voice which I believe He does have. God did not create me to fail. Thus, I can now see jars argument. (I think)

Phat writes: Thus, I can now see jars argument. (I think)

You've heard that argument spelled out by all of us here, several times a year for several years. It's not hard, in fact it's blindingly obvious, how come you're only just seeing it? If you are.

Phat writes: And when you say "that God is pure evil and must be condemned and opposed" I think in terms of Satan. God is good. Satan isn't. But what confuses me about your Theology is you and ringo insisting that the metaphorical snake told the truth. Everyone knows that satan has no truth in him.

No Phat, the Apologists try to market that but it is NOT what is said in the Bible.

The God in Genesis 1 might be said to be all good but is also not omniscient and is aloof and totally distant from and unconnected from all of what is created.

The God in Genesis 2&3 does lie or avoid telling the truth while the Serpent always tells the truth throughout the story. That God is also not omniscient.

The issue is that you do not accept the Bible as actually being authoritative or even saying what is actually written and insist on creating the God and Bible you desire.