Spirituality
25 Nov 14
Why would there be a judgement day when a god would have known when the universe and Earth was created, who would be naughty and who would be nice, this deity would have known that from day 1.
So why would there be a NEED for a judgement day? Or ANY of the tests put up in the bible. Like poor old Abe asked to off his own son Isaac.
A god would have known when the Earth was created that old Abe would have gone through with it. So why the test when it knew beforehand the outcome.
25 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseTimely question at our ages, sonhouse. The Sovereignty of God and human volition coexist in time as part of His omniscient plan in eternity past to reconcile fallen mankind unto Himself for their eternal benefit. All human beings are held accountable for their decisions to various people in positions of authority over them and courts of law during their lives on earth; and, following physical death, accountable to God for their decisions for or against the person and work of Christ on their behalf.
Why would there be a judgement day when a god would have known when the universe and Earth was created, who would be naughty and who would be nice, this deity would have known that from day 1.
So why would there be a NEED for a judgement day? Or ANY of the tests put up in the bible. Like poor old Abe asked to off his own son Isaac.
A god would have k ...[text shortened]... at old Abe would have gone through with it. So why the test when it knew beforehand the outcome.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
26 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou have children; ever seen them doing something where you can clearly see the outcome, gave advice but didn't intervene so they could learn?
Why would there be a judgement day when a god would have known when the universe and Earth was created, who would be naughty and who would be nice, this deity would have known that from day 1.
So why would there be a NEED for a judgement day? Or ANY of the tests put up in the bible. Like poor old Abe asked to off his own son Isaac.
A god would have k ...[text shortened]... at old Abe would have gone through with it. So why the test when it knew beforehand the outcome.
Come on sonhouse, be more imaginative.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyPeople who do not believe the claims you make about Christ cannot make decisions "against" this "work" that they sincerely do not think exists or ever existed. A genuine "decisions for or against" something depends on the decision maker believing the 'something' exists.
All human beings are held accountable for their decisions to various people in positions of authority over them and courts of law during their lives on earth; and, following physical death, accountable to God for their decisions for or against the person and work of Christ on their behalf.
Originally posted by divegeesterYou weren't at liberty to design the child to your own specifications, and you didn't know from birth what their every action would be. The comparison is unimaginative.
You have children; ever seen them doing something where you can clearly see the outcome, gave advice but didn't intervene so they could learn?
Come on sonhouse, be more imaginative.
26 Nov 14
Originally posted by rwingettBut with the new science of genetic engineering that option will be available to all parents for only $399.99 with GMKids®
You weren't at liberty to design the child to your own specifications, and you didn't know from birth what their every action would be. The comparison is unimaginative.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
Originally posted by rwingettThe inference in the OP is that God controls every decision a person makes; irrespective of genetic design and foreknowledge, there is still freewill.
You weren't at liberty to design the child to your own specifications, and you didn't know from birth what their every action would be. The comparison is unimaginative.
Originally posted by sonhouseSo you think God should condemn people who never did right or wrong
Why would there be a judgement day when a god would have known when the universe and Earth was created, who would be naughty and who would be nice, this deity would have known that from day 1.
So why would there be a NEED for a judgement day? Or ANY of the tests put up in the bible. Like poor old Abe asked to off his own son Isaac.
A god would have k ...[text shortened]... at old Abe would have gone through with it. So why the test when it knew beforehand the outcome.
before they act to save time? The point of free will is that there is free will,
and you choose! You don't get the freedom to do right if you will, if you are
not also given the same ability to do wrong.
So what God ends up with at the end after judgment day He knows, I do
not. I just bet it is something that could not have occurred any other way.
Originally posted by KellyJayHi Kelly, the argument is that omniscience is incompatible with the notion of free will. God can predict all possible worlds given the initial conditions, what is more God knows what the actual world among all possible worlds will be at any time. If God was able to predict what I'd write in this post with 100% accuracy and precision I don't really have any choice in writing it, as it has already been thought by God and is therefore inevitable.
So you think God should condemn people who never did right or wrong
before they act to save time? The point of free will is that there is free will,
and you choose! You don't get the freedom to do right if you will, if you are
not also given the same ability to do wrong.
So what God ends up with at the end after judgment day He knows, I do
not. I just bet it is something that could not have occurred any other way.
Assuming you aren't willing to sacrifice omniscience there are a number of possible counter arguments. One is that predestination does not stop us from being responsible for our actions, which is what they go for in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The one I'd favour if I were a believer is that God can be omniscient if he wants but chooses not to predict the actual world among all possible ones so as to leave us with free will. After all omnipotence must include the power and self-control not to exercise omnipotence.
26 Nov 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBack in 2010, we really hashed out this question in a couple threads:
Hi Kelly, the argument is that omniscience is incompatible with the notion of free will. God can predict all possible worlds given the initial conditions, what is more God knows what the actual world among all possible worlds will be at any time. If God was able to predict what I'd write in this post with 100% accuracy and precision I don't really have ...[text shortened]... ill. After all omnipotence must include the power and self-control not to exercise omnipotence.
Thread 130680
Thread 133337
After much modal logic, the conclusion was that perfect foreknowledge is actually compatible with the libertarian notion of free will. The crux of the matter was that even if, necessarily, God knows P, it doesn't follow that P is itself necessary. But if P is contingent, there is a possible world where ~P. Of course, in that world, necessarily God knows ~P. In short, God can know you'll have toast for breakfast even though it's possible you won't have toast for breakfast.
These are a couple of the best threads I've come across in over 12 years on RHP. They're well worth reading carefully.
Originally posted by bbarr
Back in 2010, we really hashed out this question in a couple threads:
Thread 130680
Thread 133337
After much modal logic, the conclusion was that perfect foreknowledge is actually compatible with the libertarian notion of free will. The crux of the matter was that even if, necessarily, God knows P, it doesn't follow that P is ...[text shortened]... he best threads I've come across in over 12 years on RHP. They're well worth reading carefully.
The crux of the matter was that even if, necessarily, God knows P, it doesn't follow that P is itself necessary.
(1) Necessarily G knows P.
(2) So, G knows P in every possible world.
(3) So, P is true in every possible world.
(4) Therefore: necessarily P.
No?
If the libertarian theist sticks to an infallibility condition like "Necessarily, G knows P", then I think he is doomed. I think the crux of that discussion was actually a little different (and I agree, they were some of the best threads in my memory). The libertarian theist doesn't need such a strong infallibility condition to get everything he wants. The condition he needs is just something like "Necessarily, if P then G knows P". This seems to ensure perfect foreknowledge for G and yet it is compatible with libertarian freedom.
26 Nov 14
Originally posted by bbarrHi thanks for the links, I'm about half way through the first of them. I couldn't help chuckling about this post from Agerg:
Back in 2010, we really hashed out this question in a couple threads:
Thread 130680
Thread 133337
After much modal logic, the conclusion was that perfect foreknowledge is actually compatible with the libertarian notion of free will. The crux of the matter was that even if, necessarily, God knows P, it doesn't follow that P is ...[text shortened]... he best threads I've come across in over 12 years on RHP. They're well worth reading carefully.
For all intents and purposes, to say your god knows infallibly the future is tantamount to the assertion the future is fixed. There can no variability. Saying it knows all future is no more informative than me knowing all possible choices you could make if asked to pick a number from 1 to a hundred. If however with knowledge of all choices I infallibly knew you'd pick 37 then if the statement "I know you will choose 37" is to be true, then you are compelled to pick 37 (else my knowledge was fallible).The thing is both 3 and 7 are magic numbers, three wise men, 7 deadly sins, and so forth. Ask someone to think of a number between 1 and 100 and they are overwhelmingly likely to choose either 37 or 73, so his choice of example was entirely predictable.
26 Nov 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe problem with your list is that you haven't distinguished between God's knowledge of different possible worlds. G knows P in the actual world, but that doesn't entail that P is true in all possible worlds since G can also know ¬P in some other possible world.The crux of the matter was that even if, necessarily, God knows P, it doesn't follow that P is itself necessary.
(1) Necessarily G knows P.
(2) So, G knows P in every possible world.
(3) So, P is true in every possible world.
(4) Therefore: necessarily P.
No?
If the libertarian theist sticks to an infallibility condition like "N ...[text shortened]... s seems to ensure perfect foreknowledge for G and yet it is compatible with libertarian freedom.
1) Necessarily G knows P is true in world 1.
2) G in world 2 knows P is true in world 1.
3) so (1) does not entail that P is true in world 2.