A riddle that was set me...
Uncle Davey
A participant on www.usenetposts.com/forum asked a riddle, as follows:
> This is what just came to my mind which I would like to discuss with all
of you:
> Is human will free? If it is not free, then people cannot be held
responsible for their
> sins, as they don't have the capacity to abstain from sinning. But if
human will is
> free, then God is not all-knowing and almighty, as people might choose to
behave
> this way or that.
> Now, what is the solution to this?
And my reply was the following:
First you would need to define "free".
There is evidently no freedom to do whatever we like. Otherwise the likes of
you and me would do nothing but walk around shopping centres all day long
kissing pretty ladies on the lips with impunity.
There is freedom to make choices between possible alternatives.
When Adam sinned, I understand that he had a genuine choice between
sinfulness and sinlessness. However , since that time, man has not had
'becoming sinless in one's own strength' in the feasible region. Adam
basically did it for us with his sin in the way our parents did it for us
with all our genetic illnesses and predispositions. We do not blame our
direct parents, as they are the victims of their parents, but it goes all
the way back to the beginning of the genetic audit trail.
And that is Adam and Eve to a fundamental Christian. To an evolutionist that
trail leads them back to an impossible event where a bunch of amino acids
and a self replicating strand of DNA complex enough to recreate the simplest
cell somehow come together within a semipermeable membrane. The chances
against this ever happening being so vanishly small I don't know how many
universes would need to exist for how many brazillions of years for it ever
to happen at all. But of course the godless gloss over that aspect of
evolution, so desparate are they to get away from the idea of a creator who
may have had some purpose for them and who may call them to account.
However, fortunately, although Adam screwed everything up for us, a Second
Adam came to rescue us, and this was God in the flesh. Jesus Christ. He had
the choice to lead the sinless life or the sinful life, as the first Adam
had, and this time he made the right choice, and then in sacrificial style
was put to death on behalf of the people of God, which we become by simply
believing in His death as the only answer to our problem of sin.
And here we do have a choice. I am convinced that we are not free to be free
of sin - as nobody but Christ has ever done it, and He was and is God
Almighty. But I do believe that we have a freedom to believe. Science has
not disproven the existence of God nor the efficicacy of the glorious Gospel
of salvation by faith in Jesus. Some so-called scientists merely rant on as
if they had, but when called on it all they have is rhetoric. We can validly
choose to believe the message of the Bible. We can validly choose to
disregard our doubts and trust Jesus to forgive us when we repent. And that
regardless of the fact that through life we will disappoint God again and
again. But one day, at our resurrection, which Jesus started for us and was
the first fruits of, we will be placed into a sinless state where we can
actually be pleasing to God, true children of God, and enjoy his presence
and love in all eternity.
Jesus himself, the Alpha and Omega, is The Answer to this and every other
major riddle the world contains.
That's how I would answer your riddle
Best,
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com
Anyone wishing to comment either here or there is more than welcome.
Grinder
> A participant on www.usenetposts.com/forum asked a
> riddle, as follows:
>> This is what just came to my mind which I would like
>> to discuss with all of you:
>>
>> Is human will free? If it is not free, then people
>> cannot be held responsible for their sins, as they
>> don't have the capacity to abstain from sinning. But
>> if human will is free, then God is not all-knowing and
>> almighty, as people might choose to behave this way or
>> that.
>>
>>Now, what is the solution to this?
> And my reply was the following:
>
> First you would need to define "free".
[snip]
> There is freedom to make choices between possible alternatives.
[snip]
> That's how I would answer your riddle
I see you didn't really trouble your answer with the conflict between
our free will and God's omniscience.
If God already knows what we're going to pick at any give choice, how
are we free to choose any of the possible alternatives? Either:
a) We can choose any of the alternatives, including those different than
what God *knows* we're going to pick -- thus invalidating his omniscience.
b) We can only choose the alternative that God has forseen for use, thus
making free well an illusion.
I've outlined this conundrum a dozen or so times to theists who hold
that God is omniscient, yet we have free will. So far, I have only
received complimentary dance lessons.
Grinder
You were recently whining about the lack of intellectual discussion in
these forums. I know that I don't qualify as a cultist, and so might
not be suitable for conversation, but if you overlook that you could
engage your intellect to engage this, yet unanswered, "riddle."
Bible John
Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
I see I shall look
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, łI am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03
Bible John
wrote:
> And my reply was the following:
>
> First you would need to define "free".
>
> There is evidently no freedom to do whatever we like. Otherwise the likes of
> you and me would do nothing but walk around shopping centres all day long
> kissing pretty ladies on the lips with impunity.
Only I wish. But look at my website and see that I am with many.
>
> There is freedom to make choices between possible alternatives.
>
> When Adam sinned, I understand that he had a genuine choice between
> sinfulness and sinlessness. However , since that time, man has not had
> 'becoming sinless in one's own strength' in the feasible region. Adam
> basically did it for us with his sin in the way our parents did it for us
> with all our genetic illnesses and predispositions. We do not blame our
> direct parents, as they are the victims of their parents, but it goes all
> the way back to the beginning of the genetic audit trail.
>
Yes very true
> And that is Adam and Eve to a fundamental Christian. To an evolutionist that
> trail leads them back to an impossible event where a bunch of amino acids
> and a self replicating strand of DNA complex enough to recreate the simplest
> cell somehow come together within a semipermeable membrane. The chances
> against this ever happening being so vanishly small I don't know how many
> universes would need to exist for how many brazillions of years for it ever
> to happen at all. But of course the godless gloss over that aspect of
> evolution, so desparate are they to get away from the idea of a creator who
> may have had some purpose for them and who may call them to account.
>
I cnat comment on evolutution since I have not studied it much
> However, fortunately, although Adam screwed everything up for us, a Second
> Adam came to rescue us, and this was God in the flesh. Jesus Christ. He had
> the choice to lead the sinless life or the sinful life, as the first Adam
> had, and this time he made the right choice, and then in sacrificial style
> was put to death on behalf of the people of God, which we become by simply
> believing in His death as the only answer to our problem of sin.
>
I believe the bible makes it clear that it was impossible for him to sin
since he had 2 natures in one person.
> And here we do have a choice. I am convinced that we are not free to be free
> of sin - as nobody but Christ has ever done it, and He was and is God
> Almighty. But I do believe that we have a freedom to believe. Science has
> not disproven the existence of God nor the efficicacy of the glorious Gospel
> of salvation by faith in Jesus. Some so-called scientists merely rant on as
> if they had, but when called on it all they have is rhetoric. We can validly
> choose to believe the message of the Bible. We can validly choose to
> disregard our doubts and trust Jesus to forgive us when we repent. And that
> regardless of the fact that through life we will disappoint God again and
> again. But one day, at our resurrection, which Jesus started for us and was
> the first fruits of, we will be placed into a sinless state where we can
> actually be pleasing to God, true children of God, and enjoy his presence
> and love in all eternity.
>
> Jesus himself, the Alpha and Omega, is The Answer to this and every other
> major riddle the world contains.
>
> That's how I would answer your riddle
>
Of coarse
> Best,
>
> Uncle Davey
> www.usenetposts.com
>
> Anyone wishing to comment either here or there is more than welcome.
--
Grinder
So, any thoughts on how to resolve the conundrum?
Bible Bob
wrote:
Davey,
Well said. I see you are back in form again.
I would like to zero in this comment which is not logical:
"But if human will is free, then God is not all-knowing and almighty,
as people might choose to behave this way or that."
What a human is or does has no affect on God's will or God's
knowledge. God is God and man is man. Foreknowledge is simply
knowledge that God possesses about what people will do. He knows what
choices they will make before they make them, along with all the
possible options available to the individual making the choice. It is
the love of God that allows man to make and act upon both right and
wrong decisions.
The primary reason that God gave intelligent life free will is simple.
Free will is required to manifest love. No one can love (the verb)
without free will. God is love (the noun) and in order for God to
fulfill His nature he must love (the verb). In order to love there
must be another object to receive the love. Also, God desires to be
loved and to be loved God requires subjects that are capable of
manifesting love. Free will is required for intelligent life to
return or manifest love to God. God knows that man will not love 100%
of the time; but 50% or 40%, or whatever that particular person is
able to generate is appreciated.
Bible Bob
>I cnat comment on evolutution since I have not studied it much.
Why not? You comment on the Bible and haven't studied it much:)
>
>> However, fortunately, although Adam screwed everything up for us, a Second
>> Adam came to rescue us, and this was God in the flesh. Jesus Christ. He had
>> the choice to lead the sinless life or the sinful life, as the first Adam
>> had, and this time he made the right choice, and then in sacrificial style
>> was put to death on behalf of the people of God, which we become by simply
>> believing in His death as the only answer to our problem of sin.
>>
>
>I believe the bible makes it clear that it was impossible for him to sin
>since he had 2 natures in one person.
That is absolutely false. The Bible does not say that it was
impossible for Jesus to sin. He chose not to sin and manifested the
strength of mind and character that it takes to refrain from sin.
Hebrews 4:15 KJV
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the
feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we
are, yet] without sin.
Jesus could have sinned; but chose not to. That leads us to you. You
have the option not to blaspheme against the Lord Jesus Christ; not to
speak evil of others, not to be arrogant, not to be decietful, not to
be a wolfe in sheep's clothing. When are you going to start "not"
sinning.
>
>
>> And here we do have a choice. I am convinced that we are not free to be free
>> of sin - as nobody but Christ has ever done it, and He was and is God
>> Almighty. But I do believe that we have a freedom to believe. Science has
>> not disproven the existence of God nor the efficicacy of the glorious Gospel
>> of salvation by faith in Jesus. Some so-called scientists merely rant on as
>> if they had, but when called on it all they have is rhetoric. We can validly
>> choose to believe the message of the Bible. We can validly choose to
>> disregard our doubts and trust Jesus to forgive us when we repent. And that
>> regardless of the fact that through life we will disappoint God again and
>> again. But one day, at our resurrection, which Jesus started for us and was
>> the first fruits of, we will be placed into a sinless state where we can
>> actually be pleasing to God, true children of God, and enjoy his presence
>> and love in all eternity.
>>
>> Jesus himself, the Alpha and Omega, is The Answer to this and every other
>> major riddle the world contains.
>>
>> That's how I would answer your riddle
>>
>
>Of coarse
>
>
>> Best,
>>
>> Uncle Davey
>> www.usenetposts.com
>>
>> Anyone wishing to comment either here or there is more than welcome.
Bible Bob
wrote:
Grinder,
I see no genuine logic in the above. There is "no different" than
what God knows because God knows all without exception possible
options. Assume you enter a hallway and the door you entered through
locked behind you. You have two possible choices. You can go right
or you can go left. God knows the options and knows which way you
will go. Take it a step further. God said turn right. You turn
left. God knew you would turn left. You exercised your free will and
God knew the options available without forcing you to go one way or
the other.
You b) is also not logical. You incorrectly say that we can only
choose "the alternative" that God has foreseen. What God forsees and
what we choose are not connected. Suppose that God foresaw you turn
left. That has no affect on your exercise of free will.
God does not make all of the alternatives. We make our own
alternatives or others give us alternatives or circumstances provide
alternatives and we make choices. God has nothing to do with the
choice. He just happens to know which choice we will make and does
not prevent us from making right or wrong decisions. God does not
control people. He just works in peoples lives over a long period of
time if necessary to motivate them to do what He desires. Moses and
his forty year period of adjustment is a good example.
Grinder
If God knew that I would turn left, then there's no way for me to have
turned right. For, if I did, he didn't really know what I was going to
do, did He?
> You b) is also not logical. You incorrectly say that we can only
> choose "the alternative" that God has foreseen.
I've split the range of possibility into two conditions, a) and b). I
do not assert that one of the specific scenarios is true, only that both
of them cannot be true.
> What God forsees and
> what we choose are not connected. Suppose that God foresaw you turn
> left. That has no affect on your exercise of free will.
Sure it does. If God forsees that I will turn left, and I turn right,
then He's not omniscient is He?
Which is it: Do we have free will or is God omniscient?
> God does not make all of the alternatives. We make our own
> alternatives or others give us alternatives or circumstances provide
> alternatives and we make choices. God has nothing to do with the
> choice. He just happens to know which choice we will make and does
> not prevent us from making right or wrong decisions.
You can can assert it all you want, but there is a flat contradiction.
If God knows what choice we are going to make, before we make it,
there's no way for use to choose otherwise without making Him wrong.
Grinder
Premises:
1) Man has free will.
2) God is omniscient.
For a given decision, with two choices, A and B:
3) God, being omniscient, knows the man will choose B.
4) Man, has two choices:
a) He freely chooses A, and shows God to be wrong,
or *not* omniscient.
b) He freely chooses B, as God knew he would all
along.
So here we are. There is *only one choice*, 4b, that
can be made without violating Premise #2. If, however,
man is not free to make either choice, that violoates
Premise #1.
Where is the flaw in this logic, or what is the means
by which you can circumvent it?
Bible Bob
wrote:
No. He also knew you could turn right. He knew all the options and
which option you would choose to take. You are assuming that God
controls the situation. God is not the decision maker, you are - He
just knows what you will decide.
>
>> You b) is also not logical. You incorrectly say that we can only
>> choose "the alternative" that God has foreseen.
>
>I've split the range of possibility into two conditions, a) and b). I
>do not assert that one of the specific scenarios is true, only that both
>of them cannot be true.
Neither are true.
>
> > What God forsees and
>> what we choose are not connected. Suppose that God foresaw you turn
>> left. That has no affect on your exercise of free will.
>
>Sure it does. If God forsees that I will turn left, and I turn right,
>then He's not omniscient is He?
But if God knew you would turn right, you would turn right not because
He controlled the action; but because He knew what you would decide to
do.
>
>Which is it: Do we have free will or is God omniscient?
Both. We have free will. God has foreknowledge. The Bible does know
say that God is "omniscient.' People say that.
>
>> God does not make all of the alternatives. We make our own
>> alternatives or others give us alternatives or circumstances provide
>> alternatives and we make choices. God has nothing to do with the
>> choice. He just happens to know which choice we will make and does
>> not prevent us from making right or wrong decisions.
>
>You can can assert it all you want, but there is a flat contradiction.
>If God knows what choice we are going to make, before we make it,
>there's no way for use to choose otherwise without making Him wrong.
I really do not understand why you are having so much difficulty with
such a simple principle. If there is a horse race between two horses
and you know which one will win because you saw a "vision" of the
future race. When the horse wins who caused it to happen; you or the
horse?
>
> > God does not
>> control people. He just works in peoples lives over a long period of
>> time if necessary to motivate them to do what He desires. Moses and
>> his forty year period of adjustment is a good example.
Bible Bob
wrote:
Your premise fails to consider that man has free will but is not
omniscient. God is omniscient but can not act.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Grinder
There is no premise that man is omniscient. What makes you think them
I'm requiring that?
> God is omniscient but can not act.
Nor is there any premise that God must act -- only that He *knows*, in
advance, how we will act.
Grinder
By saying "could" you are equivocating. If God is omniscient, He knows
which choice I *will* make, not just the range of possible choices that
I could make.
> He knew all the options and
> which option you would choose to take.
Ok, that's better. God knows which choice I will make. So, I ask you
again, if God knows what I'll eat for breakfast tomorrow, how can I
choose something different, when that choice rolls around, without
making Him wrong?
> You are assuming that God
> controls the situation. God is not the decision maker, you are - He
> just knows what you will decide.
Not at all. None of my logic relies upon God being all-controlling.
I'm only saying that if my future is known, it is also fixed -- but not
necessarily fixed by those that know that future.
>>>You b) is also not logical. You incorrectly say that we can only
>>>choose "the alternative" that God has foreseen.
>>
>>I've split the range of possibility into two conditions, a) and b). I
>>do not assert that one of the specific scenarios is true, only that both
>>of them cannot be true.
>
>
> Neither are true.
In terms of a discussion of the premises and possible conclusions from
this syllogism/conundrum, I think we're better served by talking about
the "simplied" version provided near by in this thread.
>>>What God forsees and
>>>what we choose are not connected. Suppose that God foresaw you turn
>>>left. That has no affect on your exercise of free will.
>>
>>Sure it does. If God forsees that I will turn left, and I turn right,
>>then He's not omniscient is He?
>
>
> But if God knew you would turn right, you would turn right not because
> He controlled the action; but because He knew what you would decide to
> do.
Fine, God knows what I'm going to do because he's omniscient, not
all-controlling. The requirement, however, that my future can be known
to every detail (ie, perfect knowledge,) means that it also must be fixed.
Look at it this way. Let's say someone has a very detailed description
of the route I'm going to take from Chicago to Phoenix next Wednesday.
If I decide to deviate from that route, their itinerary is going to be
inaccurate -- they won't be able to catch me at a layover in Kansas City
if I end up driving through Little Rock.
If, however, I want that itinerary to remain accurate, my choices are
somewhat limited. I can still choose between McDonald's or Wendy's at
the Kansas City airport, but I won't be visiting Bill Clinton's
childhood home. Note that these limits are not being imposed by the
holder of that itinerary, but rather by the condition that I keep it
accurate.
This is a very finite example. If we take it to an infinite limit --
perfect knowledge, or omniscience would button that itinerary down to
the finest detail. And, consequently, *any* deviation from it would
would make it imperfect.
In sort, if your entire future is truly known before it happens, you
can't write it as you go along.
>
>>Which is it: Do we have free will or is God omniscient?
>
>
> Both. We have free will. God has foreknowledge. The Bible does know
> say that God is "omniscient.' People say that.
I'm assuming "know" was intended to be "not."
My only argument here has been that there is a conflict between the
concepts of man's free will and God's omniscience. If you don't believe
that God is omniscient, then there's no rub to worry about.
>>>God does not make all of the alternatives. We make our own
>>>alternatives or others give us alternatives or circumstances provide
>>>alternatives and we make choices. God has nothing to do with the
>>>choice. He just happens to know which choice we will make and does
>>>not prevent us from making right or wrong decisions.
>>
>>You can can assert it all you want, but there is a flat contradiction.
>>If God knows what choice we are going to make, before we make it,
>>there's no way for use to choose otherwise without making Him wrong.
>
>
> I really do not understand why you are having so much difficulty with
> such a simple principle. If there is a horse race between two horses
> and you know which one will win because you saw a "vision" of the
> future race. When the horse wins who caused it to happen; you or the
> horse?
That's a non-sequitur. No where have I asserted that God is making man
do anything. To work within your analogy, however, I can present the
conflict.
If I see that horse A is going to win, then either horse/jockey A does
not have the free will to forfeit the race, or my vision is imperfect.
Grinder
>> God has foreknowledge. The Bible does [not]
>> say that God is "omniscient.' People say that.
Grinder wrote:
> My only argument here has been that there is a
> conflict between the concepts of man's free will
> and God's omniscience. If you don't believe that
> God is omniscient, then there's no rub to worry
> about.
Just a sidebar:
I personally like the image of a God that doesn't know it all. Being
able to surprise, disappoint or impress him/her makes for a much more
personal relationship than forever hearing, "cha, I knew you were going
to say/do that."
My personal preferences, I suspect, have zero impact on the existence or
character of the gods -- equalled only by their impact other human's
intepretations and speculations about their own views of the gods.
If I ever find myself in the postion of becoming a theist, shopping for
a pantheon, I think I would go with the Greek or Roman gods. their
interactions are recognizable enough that I could believe Man was
created in their image.
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:0tc4f.249987$084.245527@attbi_s22...
As I say, the answer is in Christ.
We do not have a freedom not to commit sin. That choice was made for us.
The choice that we have is whether or not to believe in the saviour.
With regard to repentance and faith, it is true that God does determine
those to whom he gives truth. Even Jacob when repenting before meeting Esau
in Genesis 32 says to God that he doesn't deserve all the truth he knows.
Then shortly after this the risen Christ comes and wrestles with him, and
gives him the name of Israel. That name, which remains on everyone's lips to
this day, came to a man soon after his acknowledgement that he didn't
deserve any truth from God, and had been given it out of mercy.
This is the beginning of wisdom. To understand that God does give as He
pleases, truth as well as any other gift. That is why we are not free, in a
sense, to chose His truth and believe it for our salvation, he needs to give
it. But at the same time you can do as Israel did and bind God to a
struggle, saying to even the most high God "I will not let thee go, except
thou bless me". Wonder of wonders! Of course the creator and redeemer Christ
could have had power to wrestle with Jacob in such a way as to crush his
every atom at the subquantum level, or to fling him into interplanetary
disintegration, but he allows jacob to win a blessing! So in the same way we
can come, and lay claim on blessings from God. Only later we know, that we
could never have come without his grace, but you are free to go to God and
claim the promises, that those who come to Him He will not cast out. That
those who pray "o Lord, help me to believe" receive their faith. You can
choose to believe in God.
And if you believe on Christ for your salvation, then it will be as an act
of will on your level whatever it may be looked at from another level.
I hope this is an answer for you. If not, I will try again.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
The flaw is that it overlooks the fact of different perspectives.
Man's perspective is to use his free will. We are called on to exercise
free-will. Our will is in strong bondage to the flesh as regards sins and
our ability to break from them, but we have a fairly liberated facility to
believe. One of the side effects of this is that humans are prone to become
addicted to almost anything and are also capable of believing almost
anything. But there is a gospel reason behind the way we are wired.
That God is disposing what happens and has history written from start to
finish is not relevant in many ways to the decisions we make, other than to
humble us and also to comfort is if things appear not to be working out
right. In fact, they cannot, in one sense, be working out not right.
Uncle Davey
Grinder
Without the varnish, are you saying that we do not have free will, but
from our perspective, it looks like we do?
Grinder
It is an answer, but not to the conundrum originally posed.
Perhaps it will help to detach the question from God -- think of some
omniscient barber in the place of Him, as an omniscient being, coupled
with our theoretical free will is enough to produce the logical conflict.
Grinder
> I hope this is an answer for you. If not, I will try again.
A very distilled question that presents the conflict would be:
How can a future be absolutely known, before it has been determined?
You may well appeal to an omnimax -- God can do it, He can do anything
-- as is your right, but that only avoids the question, and leaves the
conundrum intact.
Bible Bob
wrote:
Grinder,
Exactly. God knows the possible choices and which choice will be made
but does not control the outcome. Man has choices; but not the way
you describe them. Man freely chooses A or B. God is right whether
man choses A or B because God knows whether man will chose A or B.
Man can not prove God wrong by his choices. God would have to predict
that that a specific man would do A and that specific man would have
to not do A for God to be wrong.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible Bob
wrote:
No. "could" is accurate because "could" indicates free choice. God
knows the possible choices you could make and which choice you will
make. His knowledge in no way influences your choice unless he
intervenes in some way.
>
>> He knew all the options and
>> which option you would choose to take.
>
>Ok, that's better. God knows which choice I will make. So, I ask you
>again, if God knows what I'll eat for breakfast tomorrow, how can I
>choose something different, when that choice rolls around, without
>making Him wrong?
Simple. You chose what you want for breakfast. God has no control
over what you chose; only what you will chose for breakfast. There is
no chosing something different for you. You are going to chose what
you chose because that is what you do. Nothing you can do can make
him wrong. He knows what you will do but what he knows you do not
know and he does not intervene to cause you to chose one way or the
other.
>
>> You are assuming that God
>> controls the situation. God is not the decision maker, you are - He
>> just knows what you will decide.
>
>Not at all. None of my logic relies upon God being all-controlling.
>I'm only saying that if my future is known, it is also fixed -- but not
>necessarily fixed by those that know that future.
Even though your future is known, it is not fixed. What God knows no
one else knows. If God does not intervene, then the choice and
outcome are based on the exercise of your free will and have nothing
to do with what God knew you would do.
>
>>>>You b) is also not logical. You incorrectly say that we can only
>>>>choose "the alternative" that God has foreseen.
>>>
>>>I've split the range of possibility into two conditions, a) and b). I
>>>do not assert that one of the specific scenarios is true, only that both
>>>of them cannot be true.
>>
>>
>> Neither are true.
>
>In terms of a discussion of the premises and possible conclusions from
>this syllogism/conundrum, I think we're better served by talking about
>the "simplied" version provided near by in this thread.
Then the conditions would have to be contraries. If they are not true
contraries the exercise won't work. There is no conundrum in reality;
only in the premises.
____________God controls outcome. God does not control outcome
Man No Choice Choice
God Choice Choice
If God controled outcome man would have no choice. If God does not
control outcome man does have a choice. God has a choice regardless
of whether he controls the outcome (which He doesn't). God does not
control the outcome, therefore man has choice.
>
>>>>What God forsees and
>>>>what we choose are not connected. Suppose that God foresaw you turn
>>>>left. That has no affect on your exercise of free will.
>>>
>>>Sure it does. If God forsees that I will turn left, and I turn right,
>>>then He's not omniscient is He?
If God did not have foreknowledge, then it would be possible for you
to turn either way without him knowing in advance which choice you
would make. But, since he does have foreknowledge - you can not fool
him and he won't ever be wrong. That's why it is called
foreknowledge.
>>
>>
>> But if God knew you would turn right, you would turn right not because
>> He controlled the action; but because He knew what you would decide to
>> do.
>
>Fine, God knows what I'm going to do because he's omniscient, not
>all-controlling. The requirement, however, that my future can be known
>to every detail (ie, perfect knowledge,) means that it also must be fixed.
No. You assume based on your limited knowledge of how things work and
how you want them to be, that your scenario is true. But it is not
true. Things that are similar are not identical. Beause there is an
A does not mean that there is an M.
>
>Look at it this way. Let's say someone has a very detailed description
>of the route I'm going to take from Chicago to Phoenix next Wednesday.
>
>If I decide to deviate from that route, their itinerary is going to be
>inaccurate -- they won't be able to catch me at a layover in Kansas City
>if I end up driving through Little Rock.
>
>If, however, I want that itinerary to remain accurate, my choices are
>somewhat limited. I can still choose between McDonald's or Wendy's at
>the Kansas City airport, but I won't be visiting Bill Clinton's
>childhood home. Note that these limits are not being imposed by the
>holder of that itinerary, but rather by the condition that I keep it
>accurate.
>
>This is a very finite example. If we take it to an infinite limit --
>perfect knowledge, or omniscience would button that itinerary down to
>the finest detail. And, consequently, *any* deviation from it would
>would make it imperfect.
>
>In sort, if your entire future is truly known before it happens, you
>can't write it as you go along.
>
Why not? God knowing every little detail in no way affects what you
do because he does not reveal to you what he knows.
>>
>>>Which is it: Do we have free will or is God omniscient?
>>
>>
>> Both. We have free will. God has foreknowledge. The Bible does know
>> say that God is "omniscient.' People say that.
>
>I'm assuming "know" was intended to be "not."
Correct. My bad.
>
>My only argument here has been that there is a conflict between the
>concepts of man's free will and God's omniscience. If you don't believe
>that God is omniscient, then there's no rub to worry about.
I believe that God knows the past, the present, and the future
including the choices available and the choices that will be made in
all three periods and that he had that information available before
the establishment of the earth - before man.
>
>>>>God does not make all of the alternatives. We make our own
>>>>alternatives or others give us alternatives or circumstances provide
>>>>alternatives and we make choices. God has nothing to do with the
>>>>choice. He just happens to know which choice we will make and does
>>>>not prevent us from making right or wrong decisions.
>>>
>>>You can can assert it all you want, but there is a flat contradiction.
>>>If God knows what choice we are going to make, before we make it,
>>>there's no way for use to choose otherwise without making Him wrong.
Then we disagree.
>>
>>
>> I really do not understand why you are having so much difficulty with
>> such a simple principle. If there is a horse race between two horses
>> and you know which one will win because you saw a "vision" of the
>> future race. When the horse wins who caused it to happen; you or the
>> horse?
>
>That's a non-sequitur. No where have I asserted that God is making man
>do anything. To work within your analogy, however, I can present the
>conflict.
>
>If I see that horse A is going to win, then either horse/jockey A does
>not have the free will to forfeit the race, or my vision is imperfect.
I understand what you are saying, but disgree with what you are
saying. I just do not know how to communicate what I am saying any
better than I have. Uncle Davey is participating in this thread and
has a better grasp of discussing things than I do. Maybe he can
explain it better.
Thank you.
Bible Bob
wrote:
That is understandable because their gods are man like. God is not a
man and does not literally behave as a man. When human attributes are
ascribed to God it is an Anthromorphic figure.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Grinder
Which of these premises are wrong?
(1) Man may freely choose A or B.
(2) God knows, in advance, what man will choose.
(3) God cannot be wrong.
Grinder
>>>He knew all the options and
>>>which option you would choose to take.
Grinder wrote:
>>Ok, that's better. God knows which choice I will make. So, I ask you
>>again, if God knows what I'll eat for breakfast tomorrow, how can I
>>choose something different, when that choice rolls around, without
>>making Him wrong?
Bible Bob wrote:
> Simple. You chose what you want for breakfast. God has no control
> over what you chose; only what you will chose for breakfast. There is
> no chosing something different for you. You are going to chose what
> you chose because that is what you do. Nothing you can do can make
> him wrong.
That is the very premise that *fixes* my choices, and excludes the
possibility of free will. If God knows what choice I'm going to make at
a give decision point, then I'm not free to make any other choice.
I will reiterate, because it does not seem to be getting through to you,
that this does not necessitate that God is *controlling* my actions. It
is only required that my choices be fixed in order that they might be
*perfectly* known *in advance.*
> He knows what you will do but what he knows you do not
> know and he does not intervene to cause you to chose one way or the
> other.
Fine, I wish you could get off of this. See my remarks above as to why
I'm not claiming that an omniscient God must be all-controlling.
Uncle Davey
Aye. And we can only work on that basis, that we have it. The fact that we
don't you can almost treat as academic. You need to believe the gospel
anyway. You are able to choose to believe it, and you will waste your
eternity if you do not.
Free will is not really a biblical idea, only a sentimental one, but don't
let that stop you coming.
If there were free will, then how could God harden Pharaoh's heart? Does
that mean free will for every one but Pharaoh? For everyone but Saul? For
everyone but Judas?
Yet these people are nonetheless culpable. They should have believed on the
Saviour.
And the only logic you will find there is the absolute and uncompromising
sovereignty of God, and His decision about how men miught be saved.
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com
Uncle Davey
But God is not some figurative Figaro figure. Go figga.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
It is all about levels.
At God's level, of course He knows the future.
And the reason for this is simple - God is not contained within the time
space continuum.
What happens at the end of time is happening already from God's perspective,
as he drew out the time and the space we know as lines upon a graph.
Of course he knows the future, he knows what you are going to do over the
next few minutes after reading this, even if you think you can do something
which is a big surprise for Him.
Uncle Davey
Bible Bob
wrote:
Grinder,
None. All three statements are true.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Grinder
>>Which of these premises are wrong?
>>
>>(1) Man may freely choose A or B.
>>
>>(2) God knows, in advance, what man will choose.
>>
>>(3) God cannot be wrong.
Bible Bob wrote:
> None. All three statements are true.
If God were to know, in advance, that man will choose "A", how is the
man truly free to choose A or B when he finally reaches that decision?
Grinder
That's fine. If we don't actually have free will, then there's no
conflict with our future being known by someone other than us.
Last of All
wrote:
If I were playing a friendly game of cards with friends and the corner
of one of the cards was bent. The fact that I knew what that card was
when it was next in the stack didn't mean the shuffle wasn't fair.
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
http://www.lastofall.com
Grinder
Is that intended to be an analogy?
Last of All
wrote:
Certainly, just because an outcome is known doesn't necessarily mean
the knowing influenced the outcome.
On the other hand, the whole conversation strikes me as another
"angels on the head of a pen" diversions. But then, so does a lot of
the conversation on USENET lately, I don't know, maybe I'm geting
burned out again.
Bible Bob
wrote:
>Grinder wrote:
By making a free will decision.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Grinder
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:22:09 GMT, Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Last of All wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:16:13 GMT, Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Grinder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Which of these premises are wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(1) Man may freely choose A or B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(2) God knows, in advance, what man will choose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(3) God cannot be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Bible Bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>None. All three statements are true.
>>>>
>>>>If God were to know, in advance, that man will choose "A", how is the
>>>>man truly free to choose A or B when he finally reaches that decision?
>>>
>>>
>>>If I were playing a friendly game of cards with friends and the corner
>>>of one of the cards was bent. The fact that I knew what that card was
>>>when it was next in the stack didn't mean the shuffle wasn't fair.
>>
>>Is that intended to be an analogy?
>
>
> Certainly, just because an outcome is known doesn't necessarily mean
> the knowing influenced the outcome.
It's a bad analogy then, as there is no counterpart to decision or free
will in the card example. Nonetheless, you've hit near the disagreement
Bible Bob and I are having.
He would maintain, I think, that knowing, in advance, what choice will
be made for a given decision does not influence the choices that could
be made when that decision arrives.
That just doesn't make sense to me.
> On the other hand, the whole conversation strikes me as another
> "angels on the head of a pen" diversions. But then, so does a lot of
> the conversation on USENET lately, I don't know, maybe I'm geting
> burned out again.
I think I can agree with you there. Even Uncle Davey has the good sense
to realize that believing in God doesn't have to make sense, as it's a
matter of faith.
Grinder
Is the man free to choose "B"?
Bible Bob
Mike Painter
> Ok, that's better. God knows which choice I will make. So, I ask you
> again, if God knows what I'll eat for breakfast tomorrow, how can I
> choose something different, when that choice rolls around, without
> making Him wrong?
You can't make the choice and such a belief leads to Calvin.
Free will and omnicience are mutually exclusive and are relatively recent
concepts.
So is the idea that a god is perfect in all things.
A perfect god would not be able to change and the stories in the bible show
a very man like god who gets mad, changes his mind, and forgives.
The gods were made by man and features added after the fact to explain
things.
Grinder
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:49:49 GMT, Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bible Bob wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:16:13 GMT, Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Grinder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Which of these premises are wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(1) Man may freely choose A or B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(2) God knows, in advance, what man will choose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(3) God cannot be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Bible Bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>None. All three statements are true.
>>>>
>>>>If God were to know, in advance, that man will choose "A", how is the
>>>>man truly free to choose A or B when he finally reaches that decision?
>>>
>>>
>>>By making a free will decision.
>>
>>Is the man free to choose "B"?
>
>
> Yes
So whe now have these premises, right?
(1) Man may freely choose A or B.
(2) God knows, in advance, that man will choose A.