Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: A riddle that was set me...
References: <dirgbm$qgf$0@pita.alt.net> <0tc4f.249987$084.245527@attbi_s22> <mvq2l153hhuegflas0f6vqs8f0kaor3trb@4ax.com> <8ph4f.441707$_o.160834@attbi_s71> <5jh3l1tfqin44ajg7jieudp341c1i68ned@4ax.com> <Php4f.490376$xm3.67136@attbi_s21> <3hq5l1hjkfu4ftnla2cq9i0rd19id0c178@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <3hq5l1hjkfu4ftnla2cq9i0rd19id0c178@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <iKQ4f.254140$084.95063@attbi_s22>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.207.33.34
X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com
X-Trace: attbi_s22 1129568270 12.207.33.34 (Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:57:50 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:57:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T ASP.att.net
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:57:50 GMT
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:4134
Bible Bob wrote:
> 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.
Which of these premises are wrong?
(1) Man may freely choose A or B.
(2) God knows, in advance, what man will choose.
(3) God cannot be wrong.
|
| 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 |
|