Does God's foreknowledge take away from free will?

by Christ Alone 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  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.

  There are many scenarios in which the actions of a person or thing are predictable.

  But the question is actually a red herring for the real issue of whether an omniscient omnipotent deity should be held responsible for such outcomes for actions it allegedly set in motion, and for which it knew or reasonably should have known the outcome.

  See my post 3018 on page 9.
• 

  tec

  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."

  The car is inanimate. It does not have free will. It does not have will at all. It cannot make any choices, good or bad. Someone has to steer the car, it cannot steer itself.

  Unlike us.

  But the question is actually a red herring for the real issue of whether an omniscient omnipotent deity should be held responsible for such outcomes for actions it allegedly set in motion.

  Omniscient/omnipotent are not my words or description.

  I thought the question was straight-forward, or at least I was answering that which WAS straightforward. Does foreknowledge take away free will. All we need is one instance to show that it did not... to disprove the statement that it does take away free will. Such as yours below:

  There are many scenarios in which the actions of a person or thing are predictable.

  If you want to get into something deeper, then that is fine (though it will have to wait until tomorrow). But I was responding the thread question, and nothing more.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  prologos

  entirely possible; SORRY TO HAVE CALLED YOU "NEW CHAPTER" I NEEDED YOUR HELP. mr.Altsheimer.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  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.

  There was a practical difference. If you want to know what it was, just ask (math is involved).
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  So, one of the interesting things I noticed on this thread is that when CA suggested I was a drunk, not a single believer jumped in to say that was a personal insult and was not cool.

  **Edited to fix my grammer. I ain't to good at te spellin**
• 

  palmtree67

  So, one of the interesting things I noticed on this thread is that when CA suggested I was a drunk, not a single believer jumped in to say that was personal insult was not cool.

  It was a cheap shot, for sure.

  Accusing someone of posting drunk when they don't agree with you or you don't understand what they're saying, isn't new to the repertoire, though. As you know.
• 

  still thinking

  I think it's because being an atheist you are drunk with life...and they can't tell the difference....

  Please forgive them EP....they know not what they do.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I DO love my life, ST.

  In any event, I thought it was interesting how the believers kept claiming they would correct any of their ranks that acted that way, yet didn't when there was a golden opportunity. Palm put it quite neatley.
• 

  Jeffro

  The car is inanimate. It does not have free will. It does not have will at all. It cannot make any choices, good or bad.

  You've missed the point (probably deliberately). Whilst the event (the moving car) doesn't make decisions, the person who caused the event does. But apparently you would blame the people who get hit by the car instead.

  Someone has to steer the car, it cannot steer itself.

  Are you aware that a car can roll down a hill without anyone steering it???

  More broadly, you seem to have a habit of evading arguments with trivial semantics and irrelevant tangents rather than dealing with the actual arguments raised.
• 

  tec

  There was a practical difference. If you want to know what it was, just ask (math is involved).

  I did ask.

  So hit me ;)

  You've missed the point (probably deliberately). Whilst the event (the moving car) doesn't make decisions, the person who caused the event does. But apparently you would blame the people who get hit by the car instead.

  I did not miss your point. But your point is not valid.

  If God took an asteroid and set it in motion toward the earth, then your point is valid. Whatever that asteroid then does is on Him (in a straightforward analogy), because it has no control. It is going where God threw it.

  But this is not the case with people. God created life, and then that life (us) controls what we do... what choices we make, and the consequences that follow those choices.

  So no, I do not see a point with your analogy, or the validity of your argument.

  Peace,

  tammy