God is omniscient, i.e has infallible, comprehensive knowledge of everything.God is eternal and possessed this knowledge prior to the creation of the world.As an example, God possessed the knowledge that at a certain time , Cain will slay Abel.Man cannot change the past. Man can also not change God and his knowledge given the immutability of God.Therefore, if God infallibly knew that Cain would slay Abel prior to his doing it, then it follows that it was absolutely preordained to occur in spite of Cain or Abel. It could not been otherwise given God knowing it to occur.
No, God is an all powerful being who simply has knowledge of the future.He can also bring something out of nothing.It just is that way.
>>16830791You do not understand. The knowledge possessed by God and humans are infinitely different. Gods knowledge is infallible and absolutely comprehensive in a way that human knowledge is not. A human merely predicts, but God is always absolutely certain.
>>16830789That knowledge still precludes free will.
>>16830782Could it be that god could see many different futures based on our decisions?
>>16830804No it doesnt. Not with God. Again, He is an all powerful being who simply knows what his creatures will do with their free will. That's how it is.
>>16830819Would he be ignorant as to which one will actually be chosen? If so, there are many facts to which God is ignorant. If not, what will actually occur is still predestined.
>>16830821Explain how this is possible. If God infallibly knows what will occur, prior to it occuring, then it logically must occur.
>>16830832How can God bring something out of nothing? Simply put, he can.That's what he has revealed about Himself. I cant provide an explanation to why He has this power. The only answer is that it simply IS.
>>16830782>As an example, God possessed the knowledge that at a certain time , Cain will slay Abel.Yes, but Cain still chose to slay Abel.
>>16830835So then he is self existent and also omniscient. Free will is not rescued by his aseity.
>>16830847But given God knowing it prior, it was bound to occur. That is to say, Cain could not have done otherwise e.g not kill Abel. Where is the choice?
>>16830859How do you understand God to be eternal?
>>16830893Do you understand him not to be? Besides, it is somewhat irrelevant. That is, there is no definition of God's eternity that can rescue human free will.
>>16830826>Would he be ignorant as to which one will actually be chosen? If so, there are many facts to which God is ignorantMaybe that's what Freewill is? God deliberately making himself ignorant of our decisions. I imagine he could revoke this feature but chooses not to.
>>16830996This would violate the omniscience, omnipotence and immutability of God. Isn't it more consistent simply to admit God precludes free will.
>>16830962It's a pretty simple question.>Do you understand him not to be?Of course not.>That is, there is no definition of God's eternity that can rescue human free will.You just want to deny personal accountability for the choices you've made when your own conscience convicts you.James 4:17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.The ability of man to choose is presented all throughout Scripture and in all of the world people behave and act on choice. There's really nothing existing that supports freewill not existing apart from this dubious and flimsy vain philosophy.Maybe what would help you to understand is God didn't create for our glory or our name's sake, He created for His glory and His name's sake. God already offers the free gift of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead you want to argue your way out of the choices you've made as if that will excuse you or make you innocent on judgment day. It's called the "gospel" for a reason, that means "good news", it's good news because it's a free gift from God. You can waste all this time with this fruitless vain proud philosophy and debate, or you could humble yourself as a child and receive the kingdom of God. See Romans 10:9-13 and read the New Testament.>Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.Maybe understanding that freewill and God's omniscience aren't mutually exclusive is just something you can't understand if you're yet a natural man (who cannot receive the things of the Spirit because they're spiritually discerned). That's why many people can't understand the Bible.>John 6:63b ...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.Here's a hypothetical: You've been in the wilderness for a week with no food, some hikers find you and offer you food and water: I know you're going to eat and drink.The foolishness of God is wiser than men.
>>16831005>This would violate the omniscience, omnipotence and immutability of God Would it? Could an all knowing and all powerful being choose to both know all things and not know some at the same time? I agree that God precluding free will is easier to understand but then again fully understanding god is likely far beyond us.
>>16830782Correct. Divine foreknowledge implies that God knows what actions agents take before they actually happen. This implies that the actions that God has foreknowledge of would have to be real in some sense. Because knowledge needs to rely on some logical/ontological structure (i.e. the future needs to be ontologically instantiated). If this wasn't the case then, God doesn't have foreknowledge. As you can't have knowledge on something that didn't happen. He would just have predictive powers.And since God has foreknowledge he has causally created futures by thinking about them(thus making the future ontologically instantiated ). This implies Fatalism as future events would be known by God. He would know what actions would take place at the beginning (If Humans have free will then they can do otherwise and the outcome would have to be not decided). The outcome of a human would have been decided at the beginning of creation. Where there would only be one end point. So, that would imply fatalism.The Hyper Calvinist position is just the logical conclusion of Divine foreknowledge. If Agents do not have free will then, making ethical claims would be impossible as Agents can't do otherwise so they can't be held responsible.
>>16830782Compatibilism doesn't have this problem.>It could not been otherwise given God knowing it to occur.This doesn't violate free will because man still makes the choices and it's irrelevant that God knew this was the only possibility that would actualize. Did Cain know he will end up killing Abel? Nope, so from his perspective he is accountable. Assume unbounded free will, take a time machine and go 1hr in the future to observe what a person does and come back to your time to see it happen again naturally. Did you violate his free will by observing it twice?
It kinda feels like an important detail that God causes the this world, and subsequently everything in it for human to make other choices, God would've had to create a different world it's just so incredibly obvious to me, that God is responsible for everything that happens like, I'm fine with saying God has a superpower to avoid blame. But it's just delusional to cope about this
>>16831228The Lord is able to create a world where people are accountable for their actions, regardless of the omniscience of the Lord about those actions. It's just a fact that there are some people who would continue to do evil even when given every possible chance not to, no matter what way the universe was created.
>>16831276>. It's just a fact that there are some people who would continue to do evil even when given every possible chance not to, no matter what way the universe was created.I'll take that as them having no choice but to do evil.It's God who choses to create a universe with them in it.You can blame them for being evil. But you can't blame them for failing not to be evil, that would be impossible.
>>16831295>But you can't blame them for failing not to be evil, that would be impossible.It would be possible, except for the fact they choose to continue being evil in the most clamorous manner they can. Omniscience has got nothing to do with that, it isn't forcing them or anyone to do anything by itself, it's just knowledge of what is possible and what is.
>>16831301Look, you're the guy that for some reason described people who would always, in any world, choose evilthat literally means, anything else is impossiblesort yourself out, this is cope
>>16831155The interesting thing about compatibilism is that it precludes free will theodicies to the problem of evil.
>>16830791Better comparison would be that apu throws the bicycle off a building, knowing that it will fall and get destroyed. And even in this contrived scenario, Apus knowledge of the bicycle crashing into the ground is still less certain than Gods knowledge of how humans will act.
>>16830791Apu doesn't actually know it, he just thinks it will likely happen based on inductive reasoning. It is possible that nobody will steal the bike, even if it might be unlikely.
>>16830782>it follows that it was absolutely preordained to occur in spite of Cain or Abel.The problem here is the "in spite of." It's not like Cain can try to be good but God would force him to do the murder. Cain inevitably chooses to do it. But you are correct that God necessarily preordains Cain's action. In my opinion, God is therefore responsible for Cain's action and it makes no sense for God to be angry at Cain anymore than to be angry at a robot that's just doing what you programmed it to do.
>>16831896Yes because their choice is entirely their fault.
>>16830791if apu knows infallibly that a certain thug will steal his bike, then said thug has no free will in the matter.
>>16831155'compatibilism' is a retarded cope.>man still makes the choiceswhat choices? he has no choice, his decision is predetermined.
>>16830782Jesus said that all the blood of the prophets, from righteous Abel to Zechariah, will be charged against that generation. Jesus taught that the prophets spoke until John the Baptist, and then the Kingdom of Heaven has been revealed, and everyone is forcing their way into it. Jesus said that all the prophets will be in the kingdom of heaven with the patriarchs. He said that those who give their lives in this age to serve Him will inherit the kingdom.Basically, this world is a test, and if you obey righteously and speak the truth, you will be persecuted and possibly killed. Your reward for this is eternal life, inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, eternal rewards, and even up to thrones.When Abel died, God has him covered with much more in eternity than he ever could have enjoyed in this lifeJesus said we should sell our possessions and give to the poor and follow Him in order to gain the kingdom
>>16833661Choice, in the ordinary sense of the word. Like people use it every day. (despite determinism being true)
>>16834629people have no idea about the sense they use the word in everyday speech. that's why the myth of free will survives, because it sure as hell does not stand up to scrutiny. the most often used sense is that of argument from internal experience: "I am aware of my own mental processes leading up to a choice being made" is the most widespread one, closely followed by "I don't know what other people will do next, therefore choice".
>>16830832>then it logically must occur.putting the cart before the horseHe knows it because it will occur because you will make that decision. Your free will is real, but your understanding of it is limited to you existing within spacetime. God doesn't exist within our confined spacetime conception, which is where all "paradoxes" around God arise from. This is why most religions just say "God is incomprehensible" and move on. We literally are unable to comprehend it and if we try, in some cases, we'll end up drawing the wrong conclusions
