Forgiven for what, eactly?

[AvalonXQ]

In order to do that, Truman would have to be more powerful than god and you have already claimed god is all powerful.

Why would Truman have to be more powerful than God to have the capacity to make a choice? I have the capacity to make a choice, and I am not more powerful than God.
Again, perhaps a logical syllogism will explain what you're trying to say. I still haven't seen anything other than a bare assertion.

 

[SOdhner]

If God knows, then how does he know? Because it is knowable. That is, there's a certainty. God can presumably see all the intertwining factors that will lead to Truman's decision to run, and can know with certainty that he definitely will do so. It takes Truman's decision out of the realm of free will, anything-can-happen, and makes him more of an automaton who is carrying out a foreordained action.

I think that's an important clarification; I really dislike the way some others have worded it, but the above is really solid and (at least to me) not even a little bit confusing.

 

[qayak]

It is exactly like flipping a heads only coin. But God allows us to flip this heads only coin, so that makes him noble. It reminds me of when my father would let me sit in his lap and think I was steering the car as a small child. He was a dangerous man.

I find Avalon's mistake analogous to those who calculate out the odds to their being here, decide it is infinitely small, declare it a miracle and give god the credit.

They make a simple little mistake, that of calculating the odds after knowing the outcome. An outcome is the end result of a chain of events. if you know the outcome because the event has already happened, there is no other possible result. So, their chances of being here are 100%, not a miracle and nothing to do with god.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, the contradiction is in #3.

Suppose, 6,000 years ago, at the beginning of the universe god knew that Truman was going to decide to run for president and what god knows is 100% accurate.

What can Truman do to change the fact that he is going to decide to run for president?

Truman can choose to not run for President.
He won't, but he can.
Just because God knows what Truman will choose, doesn't mean that Truman has lost the ability to make the choice.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Is it an example of choice to allow a person to only flip a coin with heads on both sides, when they are under the impression they have the choice(and chance) to land on tails?

 

[Third Eye Open]

Truman can choose to not run for President.
He won't, but he can.
Just because God knows what Truman will choose, doesn't mean that Truman has lost the ability to make the choice.

God CAN make a rock so big he can't lift it... he can, but he wont.

 

[qayak]

Why would Truman have to be more powerful than God to have the capacity to make a choice?

Because god knows and god is all powerful. So, if Truman chose not to run it would be something god didn't know and Truman would have known more than god. Therefore, Truman would be more powerful than god.

I have the capacity to make a choice, and I am not more powerful than God.

There are a several possibilities:

1) There is no god.

2) God is not all knowing.

3) You only have the illusion of choice.

4) You are more powerful than god.

 

[iknownothing]

It is awkward when you use emotional appeals to try to short circuit a discussion. Since you apparently can't explain the relevance, I'll ignore the topic until it's brought up in a more appropriate thread.

Emotional issues are not a "short circuit" to a discussion of religion, forgiveness and free will: they are a part of the discussion. Emotional appeals are logical fallacies if you are using them instead of solid proof in a debate. But that doesn't mean they have no place in converation. They are a vital part of a discussion of the consequences of religious ideas. If a religious idea falls apart in its inability to address emotional issues, then that's relevent.

It's odd how often religion is touted as being such an important comfort to people, and how people need to believe in something "more." But so often it fails to provide said comfort, or even adds to the pain.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If God knows, then how does he know? Because it is knowable. That is, there's a certainty. God can presumably see all the intertwining factors that will lead to Truman's decision to run, and can know with certainty that he definitely will do so. It takes Truman's decision out of the realm of free will, anything-can-happen, and makes him more of an automaton who is carrying out a foreordained action.

AH! I think I may, then, know where the disconnect is.
I DON'T believe that free will decisions are knowable based on the preexisting state of the universe. God knows the outcome of free will decisions because God is atemporal -- he has the benefit of future knowledge in the present.
I agree that if decisions are entirely deterministic (and therefore knowable by that means), then there is no free will. If determinism is your assumed method for God's knowledge, I agree that free will is incompatible with that.
But I disagree with that assumption.
Is the disconnect clearer now?

 

[AvalonXQ]

There are a several possibilities:

1) There is no god.

2) God is not all knowing.

3) You only have the illusion of choice.

4) You are more powerful than god.

I choose:
1) God is all-knowing.
... and you still haven't shown a contradiction; you just keep asserting one.

 

[qayak]

Truman can choose to not run for President.
He won't, but he can.

Then he is truly more powerful than god and so god isn't all knowing.

Just because God knows what Truman will choose, doesn't mean that Truman has lost the ability to make the choice.

Not now that you have admitted god is not all knowing. Thanks for coming out.

 

[SOdhner]

I DON'T believe that free will decisions are knowable based on the preexisting state of the universe. God knows the outcome of free will decisions because God is atemporal -- he has the benefit of future knowledge in the present.

I see the distinction that you are making, and I don't think it addresses my point.

 

[Third Eye Open]

AH! I think I may, then, know where the disconnect is.
I DON'T believe that free will decisions are knowable based on the preexisting state of the universe. God knows the outcome of free will decisions because God is atemporal -- he has the benefit of future knowledge in the present.
I agree that if decisions are entirely deterministic (and therefore knowable by that means), then there is no free will. If determinism is your assumed method for God's knowledge, I agree that free will is incompatible with that.
But I disagree with that assumption.
Is the disconnect clearer now?

So you think that choices are acausal?

I expect to see the word 'quantum' in your reply

 

[iknownothing]

How many times did you expect me to answer your irrelevant questions? I try to be courteous, but your constant petulant responses made it a little difficult.

Ouch. That really made me wince, especially the word I bolded.

I realize that everyone here likes to debate, but please remember the pain that dafydd is talking about, and the horror of what happened.

 

[qayak]

I choose:
1) God is all-knowing.

Fine by me. Truman had no choice.

... and you still haven't shown a contradiction; you just keep asserting one.

I have shown a contradiction that everyone sees but you. Time to look at your own shortcomings. Thanks for coming out.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Emotional issues are not a "short circuit" to a discussion of religion, forgiveness and free will: they are a part of the discussion.

They certainly can be; I agree. But he refused, in response to multiple requests, to provide the relevance of his specific issue to our specific discussion. He really was just lashing out at the idea of God from the emotional impact of an event. Since he wouldn't engage fairly, I chose to disengage.
If someone wants to bring in the incident in the context of the discussion here, I certainly won't ignore them a priori.

 

[iknownothing]

AH! I think I may, then, know where the disconnect is.
I DON'T believe that free will decisions are knowable based on the preexisting state of the universe. God knows the outcome of free will decisions because God is atemporal -- he has the benefit of future knowledge in the present.
I agree that if decisions are entirely deterministic (and therefore knowable by that means), then there is no free will. If determinism is your assumed method for God's knowledge, I agree that free will is incompatible with that.
But I disagree with that assumption.
Is the disconnect clearer now?

Yes, but that just reduces it to magic. And once you insert magic into the conversation, there's no point to go any further.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Fine by me. Truman had no choice.




I have shown a contradiction that everyone sees but you. Time to look at your own shortcomings. Thanks for coming out.

He sees the shortcoming, as his above post pointed out, he just doesn't think the universe is deterministic... a whole other can of worms

 

[AvalonXQ]

I have shown a contradiction that everyone sees but you.

Truth by consensus. Very convincing.
Sorry, but you've failed to show a contradiction as has everyone else who has tackled this point. The contradiction is not recognized in philosophy or theology as a genuine contradiction; rather, it has to be assumed to be believed. Look it up; we're not the first to have this discussion.
Nice try, though. Better luck next time.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, but that just reduces it to magic. And once you insert magic into the conversation, there's no point to go any further.

Dude, I'm the Bible-believer here. The theist. Magic was always part of the conversation.
We were already talking about an omnipotent God; how was magic not already introduced?