Most monotheistic religious assert that their deity of worship is omnipotent (almighty) and omniscient (all-knowing).

They also assert that their deity gives humans freewill to choose their respective fates.

But can freewill and omniscience be mutually inclusive?

My opinion on the matter is that if God is omniscient then freewill is at best, an illusion. Likewise, if we truly have freewill then God cannot be omniscient.

For example, (The Doctor-Accountant Argument by kilkil)
1. God knows you will become a doctor.

2. If God knows something to be true, it is true, no matter what.

3. It is true, no matter what, that you will become a doctor.

4. If you are a doctor, you cannot be an accountant.

5. If God knows you will be a doctor, He also knows you will not become an accountant.

6. It is absolutely true, no matter what, that you
will not become an accountant.

Let me put it this way:

If God knows you will become a doctor, that means it is at the very least possible to know
what choices people will make.

If it is even remotely possible to know the outcome of any decision a person makes, it is
meaningless to regard what they do as an
actual choice. It may appear to be a choice, but
in reality, there is only one, known outcome.

If God knows you will become a doctor, it
means that you never had the choice. You can't
become an accountant, because God can't ever
be wrong. Ever. God knows everything,
meaning He cannot be misinformed, and by
extension, cannot be wrong about things, or be
lied to about them.

If there is a God, one who is omniscient, and
truly knows all, there is no allowance for free
will in our universe.

Civilized discussion, please!

CoolUsername:
Most monotheistic religious assert that their deity of worship is omnipotent (almighty) and omniscient (all-knowing).

They also assert that their deity gives humans freewill to choose their respective fates.

But can freewill and omniscience be mutually inclusive?

My opinion on the matter is that if God is omniscient then freewill is at best, an illusion. Likewise, if we truly have freewill then God cannot be omniscient.

For example, (The Doctor-Accountant Argument by kilkil)
1. God knows you will become a doctor.

2. If God knows something to be true, it is true, no matter what.

3. It is true, no matter what, that you will become a doctor.

4. If you are a doctor, you cannot be an accountant.

5. If God knows you will be a doctor, He also knows you will not become an accountant.

6. It is absolutely true, no matter what, that you
will not become an accountant.

Let me put it this way:

If God knows you will become a doctor, that means it is at the very least possible to know
what choices people will make.

If it is even remotely possible to know the outcome of any decision a person makes, it is
meaningless to regard what they do as an
actual choice. It may appear to be a choice, but
in reality, there is only one, known outcome.

If God knows you will become a doctor, it
means that you never had the choice. You can't
become an accountant, because God can't ever
be wrong. Ever. God knows everything,
meaning He cannot be misinformed, and by
extension, cannot be wrong about things, or be
lied to about them.

If there is a God, one who is omniscient, and
truly knows all, there is no allowance for free
will in our universe.

Civilized discussion, please!

before I begin I should commend your inquisitiveness,

To start with the topic will like to say-God's infinite knowledge doesn't alter free will

It is like the situation of a doctor "expert" after appropriate diagnoses of a patient found out that there is nothing to be done and that the patient will ultimately die

So if this statement of doctor comes to past-can one say the patient died as a result of the doctors knowledge hence holding the doctor responsible for the death of the patient?

BETATRON:
before I begin I should commend your inquisitiveness,

To start with the topic will like to say-God's infinite knowledge doesn't alter free will

It is like the situation of a doctor "expert" after appropriate diagnoses of a patient found out that there is nothing to be done and that the patient will ultimately die

So if this statement of doctor comes to past-can one say the patient died as a result of the doctors knowledge hence holding the doctor responsible for the death of the patient?

Your analogy is good but inadequate for the situation. You talked about 'diagnoses', that word already denotes that the doctor used a frame f reference that he has no control over to make a prediction.

If an omniscient god knows a man will die of lung cancer, then the man has no choice in the matter, even if he abstains from smoking, and eats healthy he cannot escape it.

But if his destiny can change according to his lifestyle then god cannot know everything. For example, in the event that the man takes his own life, can we still say that the god is omniscient?
Certainly not!

CoolUsername:


Your analogy is good but inadequate for the situation. You talked about 'diagnoses', that word already denotes that the doctor used a frame f reference that he has no control over to make a prediction.

If an omniscient god knows a man will die of lung cancer, then the man has no choice in the matter, even if he abstains from smoking, and eats healthy he cannot escape it.

But if his destiny can change according to his lifestyle then god cannot know everything. For example, in the event that the man takes his own life, can we still say that the god is omniscient?
Certainly not!

What is OMNISCIENCE?

CoolUsername:


Your analogy is good but inadequate for the situation. You talked about 'diagnoses', that word already denotes that the doctor used a frame f reference that he has no control over to make a prediction.

If an omniscient god knows a man will die of lung cancer, then the man has no choice in the matter, even if he abstains from smoking, and eats healthy he cannot escape it.

But if his destiny can change according to his lifestyle then god cannot know everything. For example, in the event that the man takes his own life, can we still say that the god is omniscient?
Certainly not!

I'm using the term diagnoses because I used the analogy of a medical doctors-cause a doctor needs to indulge in scientific processes to reach the conclusion(gaining knowledge a particular ailment)

But the point here is knowledge not the method used in arriving at the knowledge

What we speak of is the knowledge not the method used in arriving at the knowledge and my point here is based on the topic does God eternal knowledge denotes predestination of man?

Hence I used analogy of the doctor knowledge about his patient's destiny has not denoting the that the patient's future was remoted by the doctor to back my point

timonski:
What is OMNISCIENCE?

Infinite knowledge.

now let me tell u the bitter truth...


religionists use the term OMNISCIENT.. in attributing their god when they are in difficulties Or when they can't explain what is happening to them at that point in time.. hence HE KNOWS BEST.

but they mostly use the term FREEWILL when they are arguing with someone who asks whether god knew their actions before it was acted.. hence HE GAVE US FREEWILL..

so in a nutshell, they use those terms when it best suits their assertions and arguments.

CoolUsername:
Most monotheistic religious assert that their deity of worship is omnipotent (almighty) and omniscient (all-knowing).

They also assert that their deity gives humans freewill to choose their respective fates.

But can freewill and omniscience be mutually inclusive?

My opinion on the matter is that if God is omniscient then freewill is at best, an illusion. Likewise, if we truly have freewill then God cannot be omniscient.


Civilized discussion, please!

In the esotericism of the Christian paradigm it would be fair to say that God though being omniscient, denies itself foreknowledge. The Divine God would need not concern itself with the individual direction of the lives of its creation. All paths lead us to the divine. The sum totality of your lives will as of necessity always be in accordance with the will of the Divine.

Take a match-stick, strike it, light it. In the micro-seconds it takes for the stick to fully ignite, millions and millions of transactions take place, a myriad of mini-worlds are formed and die instantly sulphuric gaseous exchanges take place, molecules are re-arranged. In that micro-instant the matchstick has lived its life. You do not concern yourself with the individual transactions, rather you take the lit stick…..and light a candle with it….or start a fire.

People can and do change their destiny. The parents of the Athenian philosopher Socrates had the most influential and powerful astrologers cast a birth chart for him. It was said Socrates would grow up to be a murderer, a thief, a miscreant and of no value to society. Socrates rejected this and the rest as they say, is history.

Monotheistic worship if I may say is something one should first analyse, if we are to deduct from logic the concept of freewill and omni potency it obviously negates it, since if we can say that the universe if subservient to God, this means that mankind being a subset of the universe has no free will but is an already written script. But this is simply for the monotheistic concept to hold.

Now I don't believe monotheism as it were matters in the grand scheme of things and would iterate that Israel wasn't always a one God people, they worship other Gods like Baal and Asheroth, this isn't very difficult to see if one has made a literal read of the bible, however I would believe that monotheism was instituted as a sort of religious reform by kings Josiah and maybe Hezekiah- this is up for debate though.

Sarassin:


In the esotericism of the Christian paradigm it would be fair to say that God though being omniscient, denies itself foreknowledge. The Divine God would need not concern itself with the individual direction of the lives of its creation. All paths lead us to the divine. The sum totality of your lives will as of necessity always be in accordance with the will of the Divine.

Take a match-stick, strike it, light it. In the micro-seconds it takes for the stick to fully ignite, millions and millions of transactions take place, a myriad of mini-worlds are formed and die instantly sulphuric gaseous exchanges take place, molecules are re-arranged. In that micro-instant the matchstick has lived its life. You do not concern yourself with the individual transactions, rather you take the lit stick…..and light a candle with it….or start a fire.

People can and do change their destiny. The parents of the Athenian philosopher Socrates had the most influential and powerful astrologers cast a birth chart for him. It was said Socrates would grow up to be a murderer, a thief, a miscreant and of no value to society. Socrates rejected this and the rest as they say, is history.

If a diety denies itself fore-knowledge then it's no longer omniscient.

CoolUsername:


If a diety denies itself fore-knowledge then it's no longer omniscient.

Not necessarily. In my view, Omniscience would be a state of being, therefore a deity can deny itself certain foreknowledge and remain omniscient, perhaps as an act of great love, without which freewill simply would not be available and a man’s destiny would never be subject to change.

For me, there is no overarching reason why a deity has to concern itself with the day to day intricacies of human life, it is human arrogance to think so. Life is for humans to learn from. The divine sets the destination and how we get there is entirely up to us.

Sarassin:


Not necessarily. In my view, Omniscience would be a state of being, therefore a deity can deny itself certain foreknowledge and remain omniscient, perhaps as an act of great love, without which freewill simply would not be available and a man’s destiny would never be subject to change.

For me, there is no overarching reason why a deity has to concern itself with the day to day intricacies of human life, it is human arrogance to think so. Life is for humans to learn from. The divine sets the destination and how we get there is entirely up to us.

this your proposal brings with it a some of refutal oh...omniscient I think is part of God essence can a deity deny itself of its essence?

Like I know future and past are the same for God and He is not restricted by time and space,if you say God denies Himself of infinite knowledge are you insinuating that God is limited by time and space and also possible God can deny Himself of eternal life and Die?

Now you said God is not concerned with the day to day atrocities of human life..maybe I don't understand this your statement very well---but if I get you clearly--i will ask you that if God is not "concerned" with the day to day activities of man life why has he sent numerous prophets for this purport and why is there retribution for every act?

It's like a father,who doesn't teach or care about how his child leads his life..if the child ends up trudging the path of decadence-- who is to be blamed the son or the father?

BETATRON:
this your proposal brings with it a some of refutal oh...omniscient I think is part of God essence can a deity deny itself of its essence?

Like I know future and past are the same for God and He is not restricted by time and space,if you say God denies Himself of infinite knowledge are you insinuating that God is limited by time and space and also possible God can deny Himself of eternal life and Die?

Now you said God is not concerned with the day to day atrocities of human life..maybe I don't understand this your statement very well---but if I get you clearly--i will ask you that if God is not "concerned" with the day to day activities of man life why has he sent numerous prophets for this purport and why is there retribution for every act?

It's like a father,who doesn't teach or care about how his child leads his life..if the child ends up trudging the path of decadence-- who is to be blamed the son or the father?

I appreciate your rebuttal. Yes, it is a difficult premise but the proofs of my statement is in the absolute fact that humankind has freewill, therefore it must follow that the Divine denies itself certain foreknowledge,(I have not said infinite knowledge) else freewill could not obtain, this does not detract from omniscience, the capacity to know is always there.

You ask if God can deny itself eternal life and die? any God is limited by adoration.

Agreed that various prophets have emerged through the ages in various disciplines to attempt to guide mankind towards their own vision of the will of God, again, it is a subjective process and not absolute otherwise there would not be so many different versions of religious practices. In any event this intervention does not amount to a daily input in the lives of mankind, indeed, a significant proportion of humanity will have lived its collective lives in absolute ignorance or negation of God.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say “retribution for every act” in the great scheme of things this is a totally abstract concept.

Sarassin:


I appreciate your rebuttal. Yes, it is a difficult premise but the proofs of my statement is in the absolute fact that humankind has freewill, therefore it must follow that the Divine denies itself certain foreknowledge,(I have not said infinite knowledge) else freewill could not obtain, this does not detract from omniscience, the capacity to know is always there.

You ask if God can deny itself eternal life and die? any God is limited by adoration.

Agreed that various prophets have emerged through the ages in various disciplines to attempt to guide mankind towards their own vision of the will of God, again, it is a subjective process and not absolute otherwise there would not be so many different versions of religious practices. In any event this intervention does not amount to a daily input in the lives of mankind, indeed, a significant proportion of humanity will have lived its collective lives in absolute ignorance or negation of God.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say “retribution for every act” in the great scheme of things this is a totally abstract concept.

granting fREEWILL does not mean denial of fore knowledge does it? Fore knowledge only mean I know the path you will trudge FREEWILL means that I didn't compel you to trudge that path

Well how does FREEWILL mean the absence of fore knowledge from you opinion

Is your answer to my question a YES and hence an affirmation that God is limited?

By retribution a mean judgment

Please do try to be as brief as possible.thanks

BETATRON:
granting fREEWILL does not mean denial of fore knowledge does it? Fore knowledge only mean I know the path you will trudge FREEWILL means that I didn't compel you to trudge that path

Well how does FREEWILL mean the absence of fore knowledge from you opinion

Is your answer to my question a YES and hence an affirmation that God is limited?

By retribution a mean judgment

Please do try to be as brief as possible.thanks

If you read the OP, it becomes clear that foreknowledge also means knowledge of all possible outcomes. The denial of foreknowledge is the only reasonable assertion in the Christian paradigm, otherwise we would say that God is perverse, having foreknowledge that his creation would fall into sin and yet persisted with his creation.

Without God’s denial of foreknowledge humanity becomes redundant, there can be no sin or indeed righteousness, progress or advancement. The denial of certain foreknowledge is in fact the greatest act of love the Divine can bestow on its creation.

Any God is limited by adoration. You may make of that what you will.

I don't believe in judgement.

Sarassin:


If you read the OP, it becomes clear that foreknowledge also means knowledge of all possible outcomes. The denial of foreknowledge is the only reasonable assertion in the Christian paradigm, otherwise we would say that God is perverse, having foreknowledge that his creation would fall into sin and yet persisted with his creation.

Without God’s denial of foreknowledge humanity becomes redundant, there can be no sin or indeed righteousness, progress or advancement. The denial of certain foreknowledge is in fact the greatest act of love the Divine can bestow on its creation.

Any God is limited by adoration. You may make of that what you will.

I don't believe in judgement.

lol..so you mean that GOD who is infinite knowledge doesn't know the out come of what he created?

I don't think the assertion is at all reasonable...why create something you don't know it outcome?

Permit me to ask..are you an eckist?

BETATRON:
lol..so you mean that GOD who is infinite knowledge doesn't know the out come of what he created?

I don't think the assertion is at all reasonable...why create something you don't know it outcome?

Permit me to ask..are you an eckist?

OK, so you believe it is a more reasonable assertion that God is perverse through the action of creation destined to fail ?

No I am not eckist, I don't know what that is.

Sarassin:


OK, so you believe it is a more reasonable assertion that God is perverse through the action of creation destined to fail ?

No I am not eckist, I don't know what that is.

that's the point, you failed to differentiate between FREEWILL and PREDESTIONATION as regards to omniscient

Really not feeling to well now..maybe tomorrow or another time

[b]The Quran makes it clear that, Allah has the power and knowlegdge over everything and can do whatsoever that pleases HIM without anyone questioning him, but it wouldnt make sense for him to impose our deeds on us, hence he gave us freewill, had he imposed our deeds on us, then it will be unjust for him to hold us accountable for it, the Quran tells us why we are living and why we shall die, and what is the reason? Allah created us to TEST who amongst us has better deeds, let me give a simple analogy, its a fact that a lecturer has the power to pass or fail a student in his course disjoint of how brilliant the student is, yet he gives a test, whatever the students gives as answers is their choice, whether it is right or wrong, assuming the answers are wrong, the lecturer already knows that the student will carryover the course, which is what will eventually happen, are you going to hold the lecturer responsible for this? just because he knew the outcome of wrong answers, yet didnt correct it?[/b]

lexiconkabir:
[b]The Quran makes it clear that, Allah has the power and knowlegdge over everything and can do whatsoever that pleases HIM without anyone questioning him, but it wouldnt make sense for him to impose our deeds on us, hence he gave us freewill, had he imposed our deeds on us, then it will be unjust for him to hold us accountable for it, the Quran tells us why we are living and why we shall die, and what is the reason? Allah created us to TEST who amongst us has better deeds, let me give a simple analogy, its a fact that a lecturer has the power to pass or fail a student in his course disjoint of how brilliant the student is, yet he gives a test, whatever the students gives as answers is their choice, whether it is right or wrong, assuming the answers are wrong, the lecturer already knows that the student will carryover the course, which is what will eventually happen, are you going to hold the lecturer responsible for this? just because he knew the outcome of wrong answers, yet didnt correct it?[/b]

According to you, the Quran says that Allah has knowledge over everything. So I guess it's safe to say that Allah also knows the future.

So when a man is born, then Allah already knows everything that the man will do.

So, if Allah knows the man will become a criminal, then that means that whatever that tries to do, he will always be a criminal because Allah cannot be wrong.

Should the man be punished for something he has no control over?

CoolUsername:

According to you, the Quran says that Allah has knowledge over everything. So I guess it's safe to say that Allah also knows the future.

So when a man is born, then Allah already knows everything that the man will do.

So, if Allah knows the man will become a criminal, then that means that whatever that tries to do, he will always be a criminal because Allah cannot be wrong.

Should the man be punished for something he has no CONTROL over?

that is where FREEWIlL comes in..free will shows that man know left from right and is not compulted to choose any one..which ever path he follows is the result of his own freewill and God's knowledge doesn't mean compultion

Like the teacher knowledge that a child will fail an exam doesn't mean that the child failed as a result of the teachers knowledge but as a result of the student's own slothful and drowsy attitude

BETATRON:
that is where FREEWIlL comes in..free will shows that man know left from right and is not compulted to choose any one..which ever path he follows is the result of his own freewill and God's knowledge doesn't mean compultion

Like the teacher knowledge that a child will fail an exam doesn't mean that the child failed as a result of the teachers knowledge but as a result of the student's own slothful and drowsy attitude

This is the problem, an omniscient deity would not predict the future from any previous knowledge, like the teacher did. Instead, the deity would just know.

If an omniscient deity knows that the child would fail an exam, that means the deity knows that the child will be slothful and have a bad attitude towards school.

That means that no matter what, the child would be lazy and would eventually fail the exam.

CoolUsername:


This is the problem, an omniscient deity would not predict the future from any previous knowledge, like the teacher did. Instead, the deity would just know.

If an omniscient deity knows that the child would fail an exam, that means the deity knows that the child will be slothful and have a bad attitude towards school.

That means that no matter what, the child would be lazy and would eventually fail the exam.

yeah..like I said earlier the important point is knowledge not the means

Like the teachers fore knowledge doesn't make Him the cause of the student slothful attitude since the students himself knows that his slothful behavior will have cynical and naysaying ramifications on his result and has the choice to sit up and prepare hard for his exam but choose after numerous admonishing to trudge the path of decadence

So also God's fore knowledge of the creature does not mean He actually destined him to trudge that path

As far as I know, freewill is man's rebellion against God.

CoolUsername:

According to you, the Quran says that Allah has knowledge over everything. So I guess it's safe to say that Allah also knows the future.

So when a man is born, then Allah already knows everything that the man will do.

So, if Allah knows the man will become a criminal, then that means that whatever that tries to do, he will always be a criminal because Allah cannot be wrong.

Should the man be punished for something he has no control over?

Thats exactly why our deeds aren't imposed on us, the important thing to note is, foreknowledge of Allah on something doesn't mean whatever choice we make was imposed on us, but Allah knows the choices you and i will make and also knows the endpoint.

Sarassin:


I appreciate your rebuttal. Yes, it is a difficult premise but the proofs of my statement is in the absolute fact that humankind has freewill, therefore it must follow that the Divine denies itself certain foreknowledge,(I have not said infinite knowledge) else freewill could not obtain, this does not detract from omniscience, the capacity to know is always there.

There are several flaws in your proposition, and I'll highlight them as follows:

[1] To be clear, you've claimed that the proof of your argument that god "denies itself foreknowledge" is in the fact that humans have freewill? If so, the logic with which you used to arrive at this conclusion is flawed. It is a classical example of the formal logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. Look it up!
Here you presuppose that this so-called divine is already omniscient, whereas you haven't actually given a reason for such a presupposition. This assumption is unjustified since there are several other possibilities that could account for 'human freewill' aside from an omniscient entity. Human freewill may also have derived from evolution or from a creator that isn't at all omniscient, like a group of highly sentient extraterrestrial researchers experimenting on self-perpetuating computers etc. This brings me to my second point:

[2] It is intellectually dishonest for a non-omniscient entity to characterise anything as omniscient. You mentioned that you're not comparing omniscience to infinite knowledge. This may be just as well! Infinite knowledge is a sort of oxymoron. This is besides the point though, omniscience might be a possible state, and to be omniscient is simply to know everything. Now, if you concede that you aren't omniscient, as I believe all humans do, then as far as you are concerned, the difference between an entity that knows all that you (the human) can possibly know, plus more, and an entity that knows everything (omniscient) is a degeneracy that cannot possibly be resolved by you. Hence, you cannot honestly know that any entity is omniscience, even if such an entity claims to be one by demonstrating knowledge beyond your own limited capability.

[3] Final point: The capacity to know can never be the same as knowing, even if the entity with such a capacity acts in such a way as to deliberately deprive itself of knowledge. As an example, supposing Advanced mathematics is the only prerequisite for becoming a theoretical physicist, and you've been well equipped with this skill, we may say you now have the capacity to know theoretical physics. Nevertheless, if you chose instead, to study accounting and economics instead of theoretical physics, you can never be said to know theoretical physics, in spite of having that capacity. Likewise, an omniscient entity that deprives itself of certain foreknowledge can, by definition, not be said to be omniscient anymore.

You need JESUS CHRIST. Quit kindling disputes. JESUS is enough!!!!!

BETATRON:
yeah..like I said earlier the important point is knowledge not the means

Like the teachers fore knowledge doesn't make Him the cause of the student slothful attitude since the students himself knows that his slothful behavior will have cynical and naysaying ramifications on his result and has the choice to sit up and prepare hard for his exam but choose after numerous admonishing to trudge the path of decadence

So also God's fore knowledge of the creature does not mean He actually destined him to trudge that path

The difference between your hypothetical teacher and god is as follows:
The teacher does not actually know with 100% certainty that the slothful student will fail, unless the teacher is determined to fail that student irrespective of the outcome of the student's exam. All the teacher has done, is to make predictions based on the phenomenological observation that slothful students almost always fail. Of course, this isn't always true! Slothful students can pass because they have the kind of natural brilliance that can save them from the agonies of studying (I know this from experience ), and the teacher's prediction may well have been wrong.
In the case of god, god created this slothful student with all of their temperaments, genes and environment. In fact, god had foreknowledge of where, and how this student would end up before the student's creation, but god went ahead to create the student anyway, without bothering to fix these "flaws". To concede that: i) God created this student and ii) Had foreknowledge of the outcome of this student's life; and then proceed to absolve god from this cosmic rigging is divine fantastical! Akin to proposing that gambling house owners, while having foreknowledge that the house always wins, went in for philanthropy.

In summary, the teacher's foreknowledge isn't real knowledge. It is a prediction that has a probabilistic value that is <1, whereas god's foreknowledge is one of certain probability (=1), and the only way you can ever be 100% certain of future events is if you actively rigged it. If I had a die with all six sides having six dots, I can be 100% certain I'll always throw a six!

BETATRON:
before I begin I should commend your inquisitiveness,

To start with the topic will like to say-God's infinite knowledge doesn't alter free will

It is like the situation of a doctor "expert" after appropriate diagnoses of a patient found out that there is nothing to be done and that the patient will ultimately die

So if this statement of doctor comes to past-can one say the patient died as a result of the doctors knowledge hence holding the doctor responsible for the death of the patient?

Pls I wish you focused on the topic and try to argue meaningfully with the examples the op gave.

Again, the op never held God responsible for anything that happen to man because he has knowledge of it. As u are talking about responsibility in your example. This is off point.

The op is saying that if God already knows I will become a doctor... How's does my choice make sense when I must be what God knows I will be. Even if I am making choice, I must make the choice that must be in line with what God knows

frank317:


Pls I wish you focused on the topic and try to argue meaningfully with the examples the op gave.

Again, the op never held God responsible for anything that happen to man because he has knowledge of it. As u are talking about responsibility in your example. This is off point.

The op is saying that if God already knows I will become a doctor... How's does my choice make sense when I must be what God knows I will be. Even if I am making choice, I must make the choice that must be in line with what God knows

I guess the op quite understood my point of view cause the op never said I was derailing I guess you didn't settle down to read and understand it

BETATRON:
I guess the op quite understood my point of view cause the op never said I was derailing I guess you didn't settle down to read and understand it

.

Well, I just want to point out that this is not about weather God should be blamed for man's action or not since he already knows.... I will love to see you give plausible explanation as to how free will and ominiscience can exist.

I am yet to see u tackle it proper.

Again, if God KNOWS I will be a doctor in ten years, can i, with my freewill, become a lawyer in ten years?

frank317:
.

Well, I just want to point out that this is not about weather God should be blamed for man's action or not since he already knows.... I will love to see you give plausible explanation as to how free will and ominiscience can exist.

I am yet to see u tackle it proper.

Again, if God KNOWS I will be a doctor in ten years, can i, with my freewill, become a lawyer in ten years?

being a doctor is the result of your freewill that is you chose to be one God knowing is the result of His infinite knowledge not that He is the cause of you being a doctor..cause you have various choices to pick from

Its like a father who left his son to choose his own discipline at of his(son) free will this is different..ASSUMING the father in this analogy KnOws that the son will become a doctor can one on account of this say the son became a doctor as a result of the father's knowledge only an analogy