Ninjashadow
New member
I think that Skip had the ability to choose the chocolate, but he DIDN'T. God merely knows what Skip chose, he did not cause Skip to choose it.
The Theory of God's [lack of] Omniscience
- Thread starter Ninjashadow
- Start date
I think that Skip had the ability to choose the chocolate, but he DIDN'T. God merely knows what Skip chose, he did not cause Skip to choose it.
I'm not bickering with you. By the definition of free will, the answer is no. If we can not do anything other than what is known, that is not free will.
Do you really believe that God knows every time I am ever going to go to the bathroom?
Knight, you have to look at what scripture is. It is SUPERNATURAL REVELATION.
God reveals himself to us because what God has to reveal is beyond our human reason but necessary for our salvation. As such it is beyond natural human reasoning to fully comprehend it.
This is obviously true with the Trinity. Three persons in one God is contradictory. The Trinity is and always was mystery.
The best we can say with this delima is that God is extra -temporal and moves around our temporal existence crafting every free will decision we make to his own design.
This is a problem with Protestantism. It is a child of the rational movement and that is why they run into these delimas.
They cannot except that aspects of God and our existence is mystery.
God reveals himself to us because what God has to reveal is beyond our human reason but necessary for our salvation. As such it is beyond natural human reasoning to fully comprehend it.
This is obviously true with the Trinity. Three persons in one God is contradictory. The Trinity is and always was mystery.
The best we can say with this delima is that God is extra -temporal and moves around our temporal existence crafting every free will decision we make to his own design.
This is a problem with Protestantism. It is a child of the rational movement and that is why they run into these delimas.
They cannot except that aspects of God and our existence is mystery.
I am sorry but I think you are having a logical disconnect.
You do believe in foreknowledge don't you?
And if so, you must acknowledge that God KNOWS things before they happen. And if He has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge that knowledge cannot be wrong and there can be no variation in it.
Therefore God knows what flavor of ice cream Skip will pick BEFORE he picks it.
How can Skip pick otherwise?
So... if you think that is true why on earth would you debate me on this issue or any other biblical issue?
You are simply conceding that you have no way of knowing if you are more correct than I am.
In essence you have rendered yourself irrelevant.
Ninjashadow
New member
Perhaps I am having a logical disconnect, but it's hard for me to believe that knowledge creates action. God's foreknowledge did not make Skip choose vanilla, Skip did that of his own accord. God just already knew which choice that Skip was going to make.
So you tell me....
How can Skip choose anything other than what God foreknows?
Ninjashadow
New member
I think we are just going around in circles now. God foreknows what Skip chose because it is what Skip chose. He did not choose the chocolate, he chose the vanilla and God forknows what selection Skip made of his own free will.
Ninjashadow
New member
Re: A dog chasing it's tail!
Re: A dog chasing it's tail!
Not neccisarily. And they may not be logically compatible to humand, but be logically compatible to God.
Re: A dog chasing it's tail!
Not neccisarily. And they may not be logically compatible to humand, but be logically compatible to God.
Time is unidirectional. It is not a limit on omniscience to not know a nothing (the future is not there to know). Simple foreknowledge assumes the future is there to see. This is illogical.
Knight is correct in his arguments. Try to follow the principles he is reiterating.
I took a free lesson on Kabbalah on the internet. It was a well done website, but very deceptive. It is a false religion, popular at the moment ('red string'; Madonna, etc.).
They said that God is timeless and that the past, present, future exist all at once. This sounds like the 'eternal now' view of classic Augustinian theology. They used an example/analogy of a 30 floor building. We see the 15th floor, the present, but the lower and upper floors are also there, but not perceptible to us (unless we pay for more Kabbalah courses!). The problem with this false analogy and conclusion is that time is not a thing, place, or space. They are using a spatial building to prove a time concept ('timelessness'). This only proves that a building exists in the present with many floors. It has no bearing on the nature of the future and omniscience.
Time is simply duration, sequence, succession. Timelessness and simple foreknowledge are not coherent. They are assumptions. Compatibilism vs incompatibilism are doctrines relating to classic predestination and libertarian freedom. The latter seems to be more Scripturally and philosophically sound (google for more info on their definitions).
Knight is correct in his arguments. Try to follow the principles he is reiterating.
I took a free lesson on Kabbalah on the internet. It was a well done website, but very deceptive. It is a false religion, popular at the moment ('red string'; Madonna, etc.).
They said that God is timeless and that the past, present, future exist all at once. This sounds like the 'eternal now' view of classic Augustinian theology. They used an example/analogy of a 30 floor building. We see the 15th floor, the present, but the lower and upper floors are also there, but not perceptible to us (unless we pay for more Kabbalah courses!). The problem with this false analogy and conclusion is that time is not a thing, place, or space. They are using a spatial building to prove a time concept ('timelessness'). This only proves that a building exists in the present with many floors. It has no bearing on the nature of the future and omniscience.
Time is simply duration, sequence, succession. Timelessness and simple foreknowledge are not coherent. They are assumptions. Compatibilism vs incompatibilism are doctrines relating to classic predestination and libertarian freedom. The latter seems to be more Scripturally and philosophically sound (google for more info on their definitions).
Re: Re: A dog chasing it's tail!
Re: Re: A dog chasing it's tail!
They are either logically compatible or they are not. The rules of logic don't change just because you happen to be God. If they did, God could not be trusted.
This sort of statement is usually in reation to an intuitive understanding of the strength of these arguments. If that is so with you, I encourge you to not be afraid of where the presentation of logical evidence will take you. Nothing we've said contradicts one single page of Scripture. It contradicts a lot of theological ideas that are very common but not the Bible itself.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.
Don't be afraid to accept the substantive evidence that is before you. That is the very definition of Biblical faith.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Re: Re: A dog chasing it's tail!
They are either logically compatible or they are not. The rules of logic don't change just because you happen to be God. If they did, God could not be trusted.
This sort of statement is usually in reation to an intuitive understanding of the strength of these arguments. If that is so with you, I encourge you to not be afraid of where the presentation of logical evidence will take you. Nothing we've said contradicts one single page of Scripture. It contradicts a lot of theological ideas that are very common but not the Bible itself.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.
Don't be afraid to accept the substantive evidence that is before you. That is the very definition of Biblical faith.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Re: Re: Re: A dog chasing it's tail!
Re: Re: Re: A dog chasing it's tail!
That's a great point, Clete. How can we really have faith (the very thing that pleases God) if God is not logical? How could we trust Him? What is our faith based on? I don't see how a person could have faith in a God who can be illogical. If He's allowed to do whatever he wants, even allowed to do the illogical, what's to stop Him from changing all the rules of salvation midgame? God makes sense. His rules make sense. His creation makes sense. He doesn't take pleasure in doing absurdities. He takes pleasure in all that is right and good and logical and then takes pleasure in us figuring these things out as well.
Re: Re: Re: A dog chasing it's tail!
That's a great point, Clete. How can we really have faith (the very thing that pleases God) if God is not logical? How could we trust Him? What is our faith based on? I don't see how a person could have faith in a God who can be illogical. If He's allowed to do whatever he wants, even allowed to do the illogical, what's to stop Him from changing all the rules of salvation midgame? God makes sense. His rules make sense. His creation makes sense. He doesn't take pleasure in doing absurdities. He takes pleasure in all that is right and good and logical and then takes pleasure in us figuring these things out as well.
The scripture makes it abundantly clear that God does not know the future. Are you people really so stubborn that you would deny scripture just to defend your misinterpretation of other scripture?