AgentOfAllah:


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:

The basic premise of the OP is the presupposition that God, the Divine, Allah or what have you is Omnipotent and Omniscient. I need not justify this. In the religious paradigm which is the OP’s remit there can be no other possibilities to account for human freewill other than its bestowal on humankind by God. If you wish to argue otherwise then that is a debate for another thread.

[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.

You say it is intellectual dishonesty for a non-Omniscient entity to characterize anything else as Omniscient, I find that a staggering and very prosaic thought. The degeneracy that you refer to is the very basis of all religious worship and adoration of an Omnipotent /Omniscient entity. You rightly state that no one can honestly know that an entity is Omniscient, agreed, but it is the legitimate aspiration of every believer that their deity is all-knowing and all-seeing.

[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.

Nowhere have I stated that the capacity to know is the same as knowing. What I have written in a previous post is that in the Christian paradigm, God's self-same denial of foreknowledge of certain events would be the only reasonable assertion to make otherwise God then becomes perverse in the face of human misery.

You cannot with all certainty state that an entity that denies itself certain foreknowledge ceases to be Omniscient, you fall into the same error that you accuse me of, quite simply you cannot know the will of the Divine. Read the story of Job, the suffering servant closely and the dialogue between Satan the accuser and God.

BETATRON:
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

Hmmm, its either you dont understand me or u are avoiding my question.

In am not interested in weather it is God's fault that I become a doctor or not. I am not asking if it is Gods fault because he has a knowledge. That's not the purpose of the thread.

Let me start again... This thread seeks to know if free will and omniscience can exist at the same time. Then we want it to be explained and deciphered in a lay mans language. The op is of the view that both cannot exist together. The existence of one kills the other. We are not looking for responsibility or cause or fault.

So now answer my question proper...

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

Yes or no with reasons.thanks.

BETATRON:


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

Let me use ur analogy to make my case proper. Like I said, I am not interested in weather the father's knowledge is the reason why the child becomes a doctor.... Here is what I want to know...

Since the father knows that the son will become a doctor. And the son has free will to become anything. Now, can the son freely chose to become an accountant?

Must the boy "freely" become a doctor?

frank317:


Let me use ur analogy to make my case proper. Like I said, I am not interested in weather the father's knowledge is the reason why the child becomes a doctor.... Here is what I want to know...

Since the father knows that the son will become a doctor. And the son has free will to become anything. Now, can the son freely chose to become an accountant?

Must the boy "freely" become a doctor?

u know one thing with these guys?..

instead of explaining in simple and understandable words and sentences.. they go about beating around the bush with more confusing words and analogies.

krattoss:
u know one thing with these guys?..

instead of explaining in simple and understandable words and sentences.. they go about beating around the bush with more confusing words and analogies.

My brother... I don't even know what to say again.

I ask: since God has foreknowledge, can I freely chose anything path in life other than what God already knows?

And he answers: its not God's fault you choose what God already knows.

How does this answer my question? His answer is not even related to my question yet he knows the right answer to my question will definitely rubbish the answer he is giving, that's why he is avoiding it.

Sarassin:

The basic premise of the OP is the presupposition that God, the Divine, Allah or what have you is Omnipotent and Omniscient. I need not justify this. In the religious paradigm which is the OP’s remit there can be no other possibilities to account for human freewill other than its bestowal on humankind by God. If you wish to argue otherwise then that is a debate for another thread.

Supposing the OP's poser is intended as an academic exercise in pedantry, you'd be correct. But I think it isn't, and your response just so happens to be predicated upon a faulty premise. Hence, I think it to be well within reason and context to point such out in this very thread.

You say it is intellectual dishonesty for a non-Omniscient entity to characterize anything else as Omniscient, I find that a staggering and very prosaic thought. The degeneracy that you refer to is the very basis of all religious worship and adoration of an Omnipotent /Omniscient entity. You rightly state that no one can honestly know that an entity is Omniscient, agreed, but it is the legitimate aspiration of every believer that their deity is all-knowing and all-seeing.

The above defense is rather equivocal!
You concede that no one can HONESTLY know that an entity is omniscient, but you consider the factual rewording of the same statement, a staggering, prosaic thought. Can you make your point clearer?
Please note that
1) I don't think it is true that every believer aspires that their deity is all knowing, all seeing as you claim.
2) Even if this were so, this is besides the point! That you wish something to be so does not necessarily mean it is!

Nowhere have I stated that the capacity to know is the same as knowing. What I have written in a previous post is that in the Christian paradigm, God's self-same denial of foreknowledge of certain events would be the only reasonable assertion to make otherwise God then becomes perverse in the face of human misery.

To state, as you did, that god is omniscient, yet denies itself of certain knowledge is to state that god knows everything but chooses not to know some things. This statement is clearly absurd and self-contradictory. In order to reconcile the obvious incongruity you seemed to suggest that omniscience is the capacity to know as per your following quote:

Sarassin:

...it must follow that the Divine denies itself certain foreknowledge...this does not detract from omniscience, the capacity to know is always there.

As such, I sought to straighten out the ambiguity you created by asserting that omniscience isn't the capacity to know everything, it IS the knowledge of everything.
Perhaps god is, indeed, perverse in the face of human misery!

You cannot with all certainty state that an entity that denies itself certain foreknowledge ceases to be Omniscient

Yes, you can!

you fall into the same error that you accuse me of

No, I don't!

quite simply you cannot know the will of the Divine.

This has got nothing to do with the will of the divine, it is the violation of logical rules, otherwise known as a fallacy.

Let's make this clearer using logical statements:
For ease, we use symbols to represent our values as follows:
Knowledge of everything = A, not knowledge of everything = ¬A

By definition,
Omniscience ⇒ Knowledge of everything = A
Denying one's self certain foreknowledge ⇒ not knowledge of everything = ¬A

∴ Omniscience is exclusive of denying one's self certain foreknowledge, since (¬A) ⊕ A is always true. You'll find this in any basic logic textbook.

They cannot provide a plausible explanation, they will try very hard, very very hard, take nothing away from them,

Putting thoughts and logic together, round and round circles they travel, in a bid to ratify the features of a god introduced to their fathers centuries ago.

They see this as their sole responsibility, defend everything you have been taught about your maker, even if you do not have the answers, task your brain and come up with something that keeps the questionnaire away, away from questioning the features of your god, away from causing you to have second thoughts about your beliefs,

When they fail eventually, when it becomes obvious that their answers don't satisfy the questions asked,

They call it a day, saying;

"You simply cannot understand as you have been blinded by the god of this world, Or that you do not yet have the spirit in you and hence they will continue, to pray for you"

Observe for yourselves.