God's Omniscience vs His creations' Free Will

[sillysmile]

Hi guys. Lots of interesting ideas, but the concept of God's omnipotence (all powerful) still seems unreal to me, much like magical thinking. I remember, way back, when my parents seemed to be omnipotent, and suspect that you remember that as well, but as we matured, we found that to not be true. There were rules and laws that constrained their opinions and behavior, so I suspect that God's omnipotence is very much like that. Does He have rules? Maybe, maybe not, but it would appear that He considers them relevant enough to produce in His creation.

God is also said to be omniscient (all-knowing). What does that mean? Suppose that God created all of the earth. When He started the seed that would become the oak tree, did he know that the tree would grow for years, that the trees might evolve, that it would go dormant in the winter causing all of the leaves to die, and that the tree may well be struck down by lightning? Why would He create lightning to destroy his beautiful tree? Maybe destroy an entire forest? I think maybe, it's because of the rules. When He made the trees, He knew they would need earth, sun, air, and water to grow and so provided them. He also knew that they would occasionally need a really good thunder and lightning storm to release nitrogen into the air to fertilize the trees, and that it would occasionally cause fire, which can have it's own benefits. So, He is aware of rules and has chosen to use them rather than magic.

Regarding free will, it is my thought that God allows the leaves to grow in their own time, to turn toward the sun, and to fall each year when they must let go, and He loves each and every one. We are so much more complex than leaves, having more choice, and maybe more love.

I liked what you said a lot Gee, although I think that in some aspects it is unrealistically idealistic.

[neuro]

I might be completely out of topic, but my impression is that not even God can overcome the indeterminacy principle. Because that is not a question of not being able to simultaneously "know" (measure) position and speed, but a question of not being POSSIBLE to simultaneously define with absolute precision both aspects (the more precisely one is defined, the less precisely is the other).

Based on this and on the complexity (and chaotic nature) of the motivational evaluation underlying our behavior, God can be dispensed with omniscience and we can count on a margin of impredictability of our behavior, which, if you like, can be defined as "free will".

My two cents (I play a little with this in a note on the "Mystery" of free will)

[ronjanec]

Hi Sillysmile and everyone,

Sillysmile, as I have tried to explain before on the forum, God knowing everything we will ever do during the course of our lives does not in any way take away from our ability to make any choices that we want in regards to our personal free will;

Yes, God as an observer knowing every choice I will ever make in my life even before I was born does equal the same choices being "set in stone", or already determined, but only in regards to God's foreknowledge about this. God does not force me to make any of the same choices today, he just knew about them even before I made them. The particular choices I ultimately will make today are determined by my free will not God's will.

So all of the choices we will make during the course of our lives are then predetermined before we are born? Again, they are only predetermined in the sense of God being aware as an observer of what we will ultimately do during the course of our lives before we do these things. Again, we still have the free will to make any choices we want today, but God knew ahead of time exactly what choices we will ultimately make today, and every day, even before we make them.

[Gee]

Sillysmile, we are in a religions forum talking about God. Of course it is idealistic.

I am not religious, referring to myself as spiritual, but see many confused people, who are struggling for answers with the questions of God. They call themselves religious, atheist, agnostic, etc., but it is clear that they are concerned enough about this issue that they have given it a great deal of thought. I see religious sects condemning other religious sects, and science making advances that frankly scare the hell out of people, and the on going war between science and religion. It is no wonder people are confused.

Having great respect for religions and equal respect for science, I find all of the confusion disheartening, and would like to help. But what can I do? I can not simply state that the wonder, that is life, is so far above these petty differences as to have no meaningful comparison. Who would listen? So I look for areas of agreement, or less contention, and tell an idealistic tale, that people can accept. If people like the tale, they may begin to see the truths contained therein. In this case I tried to convey two truths; that there are rules that even God (whatever you conceive Him to be) abides by, and there is an astounding love waiting for us. So, when you see a leaf, remember the tale, and try to envision the love.

Neuro:

I usually have to get a dictionary out in order to figure out whether you are arguing with me or agreeing with me. I liked your site.

[sillysmile]

I apologize to you all for taking a little while to reply.

Hey neuro ;) A fellow psychology buff? Anyways:

I might be completely out of topic, but my impression is that not even God can overcome the indeterminacy principle. Because that is not a question of not being able to simultaneously "know" (measure) position and speed, but a question of not being POSSIBLE to simultaneously define with absolute precision both aspects (the more precisely one is defined, the less precisely is the other).

Based on this and on the complexity (and chaotic nature) of the motivational evaluation underlying our behavior, God can be dispensed with omniscience and we can count on a margin of impredictability of our behavior, which, if you like, can be defined as "free will".

My two cents (I play a little with this in a note on the "Mystery" of free will)

If God can create things ex nihilo, and create/manipulate the laws of physics, I think God would be able to overcome the indeterminancy principle.


Hi ron :)

Sillysmile, as I have tried to explain before on the forum, God knowing everything we will ever do during the course of our lives does not in any way take away from our ability to make any choices that we want in regards to our personal free will;

Yes, God as an observer knowing every choice I will ever make in my life even before I was born does equal the same choices being "set in stone", or already determined, but only in regards to God's foreknowledge about this. God does not force me to make any of the same choices today, he just knew about them even before I made them. The particular choices I ultimately will make today are determined by my free will not God's will.

So all of the choices we will make during the course of our lives are then predetermined before we are born? Again, they are only predetermined in the sense of God being aware as an observer of what we will ultimately do during the course of our lives before we do these things. Again, we still have the free will to make any choices we want today, but God knew ahead of time exactly what choices we will ultimately make today, and every day, even before we make them.

I understand your point, but that's why I had previously included:
"If God caused you to exist, he caused you to exist knowing that he would create you with a determined future. In other words, either: 1. Before, or as he created you, God would have known what your future would be, and with the action of your creation, he willed your future to exist in the way it is. Or: 2. Before, or as he created you, God would have had to actually decide upon and manipulate your future" in my initial post. Simply put, God could not have created you without directly and absolutely determining your future.


Hello again Gee :)

Sillysmile, we are in a religions forum talking about God. Of course it is idealistic.

As we are in a philosophy forum (dedicated to the attainment of authentic and precise knowledge) I believe that in such a context, rationality and truth are preferable over unrealistic ideals.

I am not religious, referring to myself as spiritual, but see many confused people, who are struggling for answers with the questions of God. They call themselves religious, atheist, agnostic, etc., but it is clear that they are concerned enough about this issue that they have given it a great deal of thought. I see religious sects condemning other religious sects, and science making advances that frankly scare the hell out of people, and the on going war between science and religion. It is no wonder people are confused.

Having great respect for religions and equal respect for science, I find all of the confusion disheartening, and would like to help. But what can I do? I can not simply state that the wonder, that is life, is so far above these petty differences as to have no meaningful comparison. Who would listen? So I look for areas of agreement, or less contention, and tell an idealistic tale, that people can accept. If people like the tale, they may begin to see the truths contained therein. In this case I tried to convey two truths; that there are rules that even God (whatever you conceive Him to be) abides by, and there is an astounding love waiting for us. So, when you see a leaf, remember the tale, and try to envision the love.

It's certainly admirable and understandable that you want to give people hope and/or love, but those concepts are not fundamental to philosophy as truth is.

[ronjanec]

Hi Sillysmile,

Yes, I see and agree with your point regarding this; God knowing beforehand what my life would ultimately entail in creating me also determined that this particular future would come to pass, in the same way that he also determined beforehand that the particular Hitler future would unfortunately come to pass in creating him.

I was really only looking at this from a free will prospective, and I am curious as to your ultimate point here?

[Paul Anthony]

Imagine driving down a road you have never traveled before...

You have no idea what lies ahead, around the next bend. You cannot see the "future" until you reach it.

Now, imagine viewing that road with the help of Google Earth...

Perhaps what we call omniscience is merely a "bird's eye view".

[Gee]

Sillysmile:

"Authentic and precise knowledge"? Is that really what you want? About God? And who, pray tell, would authenticate this knowledge? That is what a scientist would ask for, not a philosopher. There is no authentic and precise knowledge, unless you consider the bits of truth that one can extrapolate from the various religions, and what people discover after they die--and of course, that would be "subjective" evidence and not believed. Even in the cases where people die, come back to life, tell their story, and it is all recorded and validated on the equipment in an operating room--it is still subjective and not believed. So, if the point is to "authenticate" the existence of God, hang your hat with the scientists and understand that God does not exist. End of questions.

Let me explain the truth that I did not manage to convey to you above. Science does not believe in the existence of God, but they are beginning to understand that there is a "consciousness" that exists, and may exist outside of a man's brain. Good progress. Religion is very aware of this "consciousness", but calls it God, and has attributed a lot of qualities to this "God" for various reasons. So, I look for areas where the parties are close to finding an answer and try to inflict some reason. In this case, religion has decided that God is omnipotent, so it was necessary to try to show that "God" knows about rules and laws. If that gets accepted, the next step is to question why he would know about rules and laws. Of course, religion would jump up and say, "Because He knows everything.", so we must go slowly. First, the idea that He abides by laws instead of magic; second, why He would even know about rules and laws; third, maybe because He is under the influence of rules and laws. At this point the idea of God is much closer to the idea of consciousness, and since they are the same thing, this would be good progress. Truth.

I am not a "flower child" passing out hope and love. I am a philosopher trying to convey truth. In my own experience, I found the existence of an afterlife surprising, and the exposure to it shocking. Not being superstitious or religious, I reviewed this new information in my mind carefully until I realized that the only aspect of it that could not have come from me was the emotion--that was definitely external and powerful. Then I considered tales of other people who had experienced something similar and noted that "emotion" was always a major part of their "evidence", no doubt making it easier for science to discount it, as science can not measure emotion and therefore can not accept the reality of it. Recently I learned that a Susanne Langer has studied consciousness and has come up with a theory regarding "feelings" and "emotion". Now there are three sources, my experience, that I know happened, others of similar experience, and a professional. If you also consider what religion has to say, and wash your considerations with reason, there is simply too much evidence to ignore. My personal experience says that there is an astounding love waiting, this has been confirmed by the personal experiences of other people, and by religion. Truth.

I had long thought that philosophy, the pursuit of truth, was a rather selfish endeavor. As it is really about wanting to understand a truth for personal reasons, and not terribly altruistic. It was a long time before I realized that once a truth was discovered, it could be shared, and that was the real value in philosophy--but I found that sharing any truth can be difficult. People do not want to accept new truths and are more comfortable with is what is known. Historically, people will more often side with a lie, than truth, if it is more comfortable. I suspect that religion has learned this hard lesson, and this is the reason why, say the Catholic church, is almost unrecognizable from one country to another, as they incorporate the local customs in order to spread their "truth". So I used an idealistic tale, and have often spoken in that way to convey a "truth" that was not understood. This manner of conveying the message does not change the truth. It simply makes it more palatable.

[Don Juan]

It is my view that an omniscient god's foreknowledge can only allow for causal determinism (i.e. it would be impossible for its creations to possess free-will)

I wonder how free-will would apply to God's creations. If God's creation would be as all knowing as God, would they have free-will? If these creations have the knowledge their biological constitutions only allow, would they have free-will? To what point of view should we consider free-will? We cannot consider it on God's point of view, but then we are part of God's creation and whatever we can formulate and think about will always be under the constraints of our biological constitution. I think, there is context-driven free will. This is not an absolute free will, but it gives us the opportunity to choose within some range of choices. This is also metaphorically similar to deterministic chaos.

Definitions: Omniscience describes the possession of all possible knowledge, including foreknowledge (knowing the future). Free-will may be defined as the ability of an individual to freely choose their own actions.

How would knowledge apply to God? If God is the first as the Bible says, how can knowledge be possessed by God? God created all things if we would look at this belief, and this includes the phenomenon of knowledge as the created universe unfolds. If God caused the universe, there seems to be no grounds to say that God posses knowledge because it cannot be known yet what "cause" or "create" mean as applied to God before these processes existed as a result of God "creating" existence. It may be more valid to say that since so far it cannot be known how all this things began, then the maker cannot be known yet. However, we do know knowledge. Knowledge is a pattern. But when God started all things, if we would refer to the belief, It started all patterns including knowledge.

With a determined future, decisions are illusive and impossible. But if you did happen to have a huge amount of possible futures (caused by you making different decisions or whatever else), then by definition God could not be omniscient, as he would not know which possible future would actualize as reality - he would not know the future, and therefore he would not be omniscient.

Is there a clean line between determinism and randomness? I think even randomness can arise with determinism as a metapattern.

If God caused you to exist, he caused you to exist knowing that he would create you with a determined future. In other words, either: 1. Before, or as he created you, God would have known what your future would be, and with the action of your creation, he willed your future to exist in the way it is. Or: 2. Before, or as he created you, God would have had to actually decide upon and manipulate your future.

I think these arguments all arise from the belief that there is an inherent incompatibility between determinism and free will. I think there is none, and the two is joined by fuzzy boundaries. These two observations are wrapped within the "single" huge context of the whole universe. The coin do not exit as two sides, but as three dimensional structure in space of natural forces. The same with our experience of determinism and free will. These two are part of the same whole.

For those religious individuals who dispute whether God directly created you: If God did not create everything individually, God created the set of events which lead to your existence, and he would have known that they would lead to your existence. It would be like a single creation; the initial creation would be tied to the subsequent creations.

I think, if there is God and if He created existence, then there are two origins of creation, the initial which started the universe and the peripheral that brought our consciousness to existence, but which presupposes the initial. Our existence is the point created from the combination of these two lines of origins. So when God created all things, that was the first and when he created man represented metaphorically by Adam, that is an example of the peripheral origin. However the combination is not an addition, but an involution, creating a structure arising or emerging within the old one.

[Talk to my mind]

The questions here is why we are existing ? what is the goal of our existence?

for me I think we are not exiting for eat , sleep and die !
of course there are goals of our existence and there are tasks the people have to do it

The mind absurd that we are here in the earth for do nothing !
Finally , we have to get more realize about different religions and ideas
before make a judgement

We must to focus about this subject because it is the most important for us as human

Thanks sillysmile

[Fuqin]

I didn’t read all the comments just wanted to point out something and I may be playing devils advocate here ‘but’ where it is said :-

silly smile “Free-will may be defined as the ability of an individual to freely choose their own actions”.

And is suggested that omniscience constrains such activity due to divine determinism, i.e. all is known therefore decisions are a deception for those within the fish bowl, could it not be reasonable to hypothesis that omnipotence simply agrees with multiple time lines, in fact dose not determine anything but is if you will, like a super computer that can calculate for all possible outcomes , so on a math level it may be that knowing all is not predicting what must happen but what will happen ‘IF’ <+M X& /7 occurs , ok maybe not , but it seems to me that every point of existence contains tangential outcomes sometimes ,and this is sci-fi to say this but sci-fi regards this as multiple time lines , to me such a thing both permits free will and fore knowledge or at least the ability to make contingence for any event , after all shouldn’t omnipotence incorporate infinite possibility?

[neuro]

I might be completely out of topic, but my impression is that not even God can overcome the indeterminacy principle. ... thus ... God can be dispensed with omniscience and we can count on a margin of impredictability of our behavior, which, if you like, can be defined as "free will".

If God can create things ex nihilo, and create/manipulate the laws of physics, I think God would be able to overcome the indeterminancy principle.

Though able to overcome it, why do it? It constitutes such a nice trick for God to let us possess free will notwithstanding God's own omniscience...

[sillysmile]

Hi Gee, sorry I've taken so long to reply,

"Authentic and precise knowledge"? Is that really what you want? About God?

Of course I do :) And I think that most people would want to possess that knowledge.
Authenticity is essential because if the information was incorrect, it would defeat the purpose of having it (to know the truth of something). In addition, precision is also important, as more accurate knowledge is more useful than knowledge which is vague or ambiguous.

And who, pray tell, would authenticate this knowledge? That is what a scientist would ask for, not a philosopher.

Well there are many similarities between philosophy and science, and simply put: both are concerned with finding truth.

There is no authentic and precise knowledge

Most philosophers recognise that some things are unknowable, but authentic and precise knowledge is still attainable in regards to other things. An example of knowledge which I can confirm the authenticity of: I exist. The knowledge of me being a male is an example of greater precision than simply knowing that I exist.

Unless you consider the bits of truth that one can extrapolate from the various religions, and what people discover after they die and what people discover after they die--and of course, that would be "subjective" evidence and not believed. Even in the cases where people die, come back to life, tell their story, and it is all recorded and validated on the equipment in an operating room--it is still subjective and not believed. So, if the point is to "authenticate" the existence of God, hang your hat with the scientists and understand that God does not exist. End of questions

Yes, I agree that subjective experiences cannot be used as a viable source of evidence (for convincing others). There is no way to tell whether people who claim to have experienced death really did, hallucinated, or simply lied. But it doesn't stop some people from still trying to find the truth about seemingly unknowable things.

Let me explain the truth that I did not manage to convey to you above. Science does not believe in the existence of God, but they are beginning to understand that there is a "consciousness" that exists, and may exist outside of a man's brain.

Really? I've never heard of such a thing.

You've obviously put thought into your post, and I will reply to it all. But it's late right now, so I will finish replying after I've slept and have a greater level of mental coherency.

[sillysmile]

I think that you deserve this reply, and I'm truly sorry that it again took so long. I've just personally had a lot going on, and I was still undecided as to how I should reply. Don't take my comments to be criticism, they are simply my opinion.

Let me explain the truth that I did not manage to convey to you above. Science does not believe in the existence of God, but they are beginning to understand that there is a "consciousness" that exists, and may exist outside of a man's brain.

With genuine respect, I am not aware that scientists do "understand" that there is such a thing.

Religion is very aware of this "consciousness", but calls it God, and has attributed a lot of qualities to this "God" for various reasons

As an athiest, it is my view that religion is misguided.

So, I look for areas where the parties are close to finding an answer and try to inflict some reason.

Science is associated with reason (and it prides itself in the formulation of new theories, the improval of old ones, and the replacement of inadequate ones), whereas religion is more concerned with unsubstantiated claims and dogmatism. If you're really trying to inflict reason, then I'd say you'd be much closer to the scientific side.

In this case, religion has decided that God is omnipotent, so it was necessary to try to show that "God" knows about rules and laws

Okay, but logically, God cannot be omnipotent. An example of an omnipotence paradox: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it"?

If that gets accepted, the next step is to question why he would know about rules and law

I assume that you mean that if it is accepted that God must adhere to rules and laws. However, if you are instead talking about omnipotence, I don't think it is logically acceptable.

Of course, religion would jump up and say, "Because He knows everything.", so we must go slowly

True, haha.

First, the idea that He abides by laws instead of magic; second, why He would even know about rules and laws; third, maybe because He is under the influence of rules and laws.

With these, are you implying that God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient?

I am not a "flower child" passing out hope and love. I am a philosopher trying to convey truth. In my own experience, I found the existence of an afterlife surprising, and the exposure to it shocking. Not being superstitious or religious, I reviewed this new information in my mind carefully until I realized that the only aspect of it that could not have come from me was the emotion--that was definitely external and powerful. Then I considered tales of other people who had experienced something similar and noted that "emotion" was always a major part of their "evidence", no doubt making it easier for science to discount it, as science can not measure emotion and therefore can not accept the reality of it.

How can you be sure that you were not mistaken and that it was not a delusion? Emotion has a large influence on one's perception of reality.

Recently I learned that a Susanne Langer has studied consciousness and has come up with a theory regarding "feelings" and "emotion". Now there are three sources, my experience, that I know happened, others of similar experience, and a professional. If you also consider what religion has to say, and wash your considerations with reason, there is simply too much evidence to ignore.

I do recognize that it is possible (although I think unlikely) for evidence to be internal and thus not transferable to others, but I have considered (very patiently) what religion has had to say, and I have been reasonable. Yet I have not discovered compelling evidence, and I am unconvinced.

I had long thought that philosophy, the pursuit of truth, was a rather selfish endeavor. As it is really about wanting to understand a truth for personal reasons, and not terribly altruistic.

I have been contemplating the notion of altruism for some time, and am unsure as to whether or not it can even exist.

It was a long time before I realized that once a truth was discovered, it could be shared

Yes, I find that to be a very positive thing :)

but I found that sharing any truth can be difficult. People do not want to accept new truths and are more comfortable with is what is known.

That can happen, but in many cases people just don't agree upon what the truth actually is.

Historically, people will more often side with a lie, than truth, if it is more comfortable.

I do agree with your observation.

I suspect that religion has learned this hard lesson, and this is the reason why, say the Catholic church, is almost unrecognizable from one country to another, as they incorporate the local customs in order to spread their "truth".

I'm not sure that I understand the totality of what you are talking about, could you elaborate?

Thanks for reading, Gee ;)

[Dawnscout]

Here's my way to look at it:

There must be a manifest/unmanifest duality. There is an infinite and timeless consciousness that, in religious terms, can be called "One God". In principle, this One God is the same for all religions, and this One God is "All That Is". Yet All That Is could not know itself -- because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. By this condition All That Is...was not (this is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time).

The Godhead could only know itself conceptually and not experientially, and this is what sets reality into play. The Godhead must experience itself and its creation externally, and since there cannot, by definition, be anything external to it, God creates a kind of internal void within which creation takes place. Experience within that creation occurs through created beings who are, by necessity, none other than little flames of the Godhead (you and me). The beings that fill this creation cannot be other than God in an infinite array of guises and disguises. But for God to experience the game of creation, these beings have to think they are not God. In other words, the Godhead, in the form of its created beings, must forget its own infinity to accomplish its divine purpose of experiencing infinite potential actualized.

...You cannot experience yourself as what you are until you encounter what you are not. Of course there is no way for you to not be who and what you are...so you did the next best thing. You caused yourself to forget Who You Really Are. Upon entering the physical universe, you relenquish your remembrance of yourself. This allows you to choose to be Who You Are, rather than simply wake up in the castle so to speak. You have always been, and will always be, a divine part of the divine whole whether as an agnostic or theist you choose to believe so.

[Keep_Relentless]

Simply by stating that it is possible to know the true future (i.e. Omniscience includes eternal foreknowledge) you are asserting that causal determinism is true in the first place (which I happen to agree with).

[Dawnscout]

Simply by stating that it is possible to know the true future (i.e. Omniscience includes eternal foreknowledge) you are asserting that causal determinism is true in the first place (which I happen to agree with).

But the very fact that we can imagine this state and define and describe it tells us, logically, that our (mortal) perception of it is, if not wrong, at least incomplete.

The unmanifest Godhead wishes to experience itself from the point of view of "not God". As God unmanifest you are infinite potential. But potential --infinite or not -- is not the same as experience. The Godhead desires to actualize its potential and God experiencing becomes mortal reality. The unmanifest and trans-infinite God -- greater than all and less than nothing -- thus transforms into God the Creator, God made manifest. Being becomes doing; the Absolute becomes relative and this is the point where your omniscience is separated from the ego or mortal self identity.

Once a realm of the relative is created, a realm of polarity is created as well (without polarity experience is impossible). With the advent of polarity the system is animated right down to the choices you and all the rest of humanity end up making.

We humans must not disregard that it is the idea that is potential and actualized reality is the manifest. "Thought" is the first level of creation. Nothing can begin without first thinking of what it is supposed to be. Thought is energy in its purest form - not just metaphorically, but literally. To have the "blessing" of forgetting what you are (upon entering the physical state) becomes the key factor in having a freewill which will play out in the realm of polarity, while causal determinism is the "stage" that the universe was set upon to play out its potential outcome.

Causal determinism may be nothing more than an infinite God thinking: "Hmm, infinite potentials #23, #567, #9645, and # 22599 worked pretty well together as laws of nature to make that category 6A universe the last time around," while the scientific community may have come up with the knowledge that infinite potential #23 is the property of time, #567 is the property of three-dimensional space, #9645 is the speed of light, and #22599 turned out to be the value of Planck's constant. They were combined in a certain way in this particular universe, but are not essential elements or foundations for mortal thought to be directed in any preordained direction.

[CTD]

Good to see someone thinking on the right track

I do not believe in a creator god (not that the gods care what I believe); however, if there is such a god, you must not tell it what to do. We who are not omniscient cannot define omniscience for an omniscient being.

Now here's the real problem: presupposing God does not exist. Oh yes, that presupposition gets smuggled in, and here's the how and why:

When one invents something imaginary, one is free to define terms as needed to define the thing being imagined. This is not the case, however, when things which actually exist are involved. When defining something which actually exists, one can do nothing other than accurately DESCRIBE it. That's all. One cannot alter its properties with words.

Now "if" God didn't exist, it would be fine to define away. One could say this or that, and disprove the imaginary without much trouble. ...At least ONE version of the imaginary. Now if someone else imagined a god a little different, they would of course be free to twist the definitions to their own liking, and you'd have to go with what they gave. Little harder to disprove, under those circumstances.

Neither of those situations concern us much. As an extant being, the definitions for the terms used to describe God must be those most suited for the purpose. Even declining to presuppose God's non-existence slams the door on arbitrary definition procedures. The definition of 'omniscient' which fits must be applied. If none fit, the term must be discarded, and others chosen for the task of accurately describing what is known about God.

Now there was another poster who got off to a good start, also.

Would it not matter anyways? As with the set of choices God creates he already would know which one you would choose, and because of that he you would still not have any free will based on the knowledge that god created you already knowing what you would do down to the letter? Any thoughts?

Bingo!

Knowing and determining are not the same thing. Nobody claims being aware of the fact that John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence in the past poses a problem for free will. Why should knowing events in the future be any different? Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of when we obtain it.

There's more, for the errors in the "Omniscience vs. Free Will" contentions are more than one. They are plentiful indeed, and I do not claim to comprehensively address them all.

Perhaps the gravest error of all is that they attack a straw god. Not merely Christian beliefs - the "God of Classical Theism" is untouched. The "God of Classical Theism" is not bound by time. God is eternal, existing outside of time, as well as at any time He chooses to exist. God is the master of time - not its servant. We are bound to the present, but to project our restrictions upon God is bogus. I make nothing up, so whoever wants to get upset with me... well, who cares? Everyone knows God is not this straw, bound-by-time god being attacked. They might momentarily forget, but really: God - eternal, and outside of time? You knew it all along. It simply has not ever been a secret.

I find it amusing that due to the above errors, even the straw god has nothing to fear from this attack.

[gerhard]

Through no fault of my own, sometimes I used to be disturbed about the thought that my life is somehow predetermined, but I discovered that I was bought up to be my own worst enemy, and I was afraid of deciding for myself, so life seemed to be an imposition rather than an opportunity.