Does God's foreknowledge take away from free will?

by Christ Alone 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    what actions?

    Take your pick.

    We can say creating 'Adam' (who never really existed but we'll pretend he did), knowing (or reasonably should have known) what was going to happen.

    Or we can be broader and employ the physics principle of 'cause-and-effect' (believers love employing science when it supports their arguments). As the 'first cause', all the effects are (supposedly) his doing.

  • tec
    tec

    We can say creating 'Adam' (who never really existed but we'll pretend he did), knowing (or reasonably should have known) what was going to happen.

    We could say that... but of course, none of us would be here either, had He not done so.

    I personally can't figure on complaining about this, because without it, I would not exist.

    Or we can be broader and employ the physics principle of 'cause-and-effect' (believers love employing science when it supports their arguments). As the 'first cause', all the effects are (supposedly) his doing.

    The first cause was to create life.

    Life that is free.

    Then it is PEOPLE who choose what direction life takes. That is what we want, and very few would want it another way. Including me.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    I personally can't figure on complaining about this, because without it, I would not exist.

    a priori assumption that your god must have created the universe. Evidence?

    How do you know it wasn't spontaneous? How do you know it wasn't Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodley appendage)? Or that we're not really in the Matrix?

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    Tec, when you dismiss ideas and definitions as "just words", it's impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion. The refusal agree on common definitions and basic logic makes it impossible to move forward past your inability and/or unwillingness to see anything.

    Good night.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    If I park a car at the top of a hill, release the brakes, and get out of the car, letting it roll down the hill causing damage and injuring and killing a few people, I wonder if I can take 'the god defence' and say, "Well, I just set it in motion. I can't be held responsible for what the car did, or the people failing to get out of its way. And look how neatly the car is resting at the bottom of the hill."

  • tec
    tec

    a priori assumption that your god must have created the universe. Evidence?

    If you're going to talk about Adam, then I think I get to talk about the God of Adam.

    Not really an even playing field if you get to use the bible to prove your argument, but I'm not allowed to use it even to dispute your use of it, is it?

    How do you know it wasn't spontaneous? How do you know it wasn't Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodley appendage)? Or that we're not really in the Matrix?

    You brought Adam into the discussion, right?

    Peace,

    tammy

  • tec
    tec

    Tec, when you dismiss ideas and definitions as "just words"

    I asked for a practical difference. A tangible difference that we would notice. So I did not mean to dismiss your answer, and apologize. It is just not what i was asking.

    G'night to you too.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    You brought Adam into the discussion, right?

    I was only pretending Adam existed for the example specifically involving (your belief about) Adam.

    Adam is not relevant or necessary in the broader example of cause and effect.

    Further, your statement:

    I personally can't figure on complaining about this, because without it, I would not exist.

    is external to the scenarios posed because you are meta-referencing the discussion itself.

  • tec
    tec

    Adam is not relevant or necessary in the broader example of cause and effect.

    And NO God is necessary to discuss the logic posed by the question of this thread.

    First establish if it is possible to KNOW an outcome or choice that another will make... without taking away the freedom of those who create that outcome or make that choice. Because that is the answer to the OP.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • prologos
    prologos

    new chapter, terse statements of yours are stimulating, but if you want to teach us learners, we'd appreciate reasons. Perhaps we should start a new chapter, new topic dedicated to the TIME,SPACE, ENERGY, GOD question?

    your words:---Time and space both move!--- so WE are stationary? The thinking is that space started EXPANDING at the beginning, the BB. Is that the movement you are talking about? But space as defined by its 3 dimensions, FORWARD, Right (if you are a Republican) and UP It is the flexible lattice WE MOVE IN. It is stationary with respect to us moving --like with orbital velocity around the sun. OUr movement, displacement is measured against space and always involves time because speed is distance /time. in analitical geometry, time is plotted at a right angle to space. , so it is a useful mental model to think of space and its denisens moving through time away from the BB.

    since this is a site about god, believers or not, jws-ex, where does the CONCEPT of God fit in here, the creator must be older than the creation, so he existed before we started moving through time . being eternal in the future does not mean for him to move eternaly, like we would, it means that he exist in the future already, always will. Existing in the eternal past does not mean moving eternally in time either, it means nerver having a start to move, living in time period. remember good minds, keppler, newton, Einstein had no problem working with the concept of a creator, and came up with workable solutions, so why should we not trust that concept? please dont give up on me and it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit