On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:44:15 GMT, Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
wrote:
>Bible Bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:45:56 GMT, Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Allow me to break this conundrum down to its simplest form:
>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>> Your premise fails to consider that man has free will but is not
>> omniscient.
>
>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,
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
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 |
|