Re: THE ANSWER
 

"I dont' follow this logic. A perfect being can choose all of his possible actions beforehand,"

He can't "choose". Because he already knew what he could choose.

"Also, if you remove God's omniscience, you come up with the nasty little idea that God doesn't fully know what the consequences of his actions are."

I'm not removing his omniscience because even an omniscient being cannot do certain things. This is one of them. And the idea that God doesn't fully know what the consequences of his actions are is not "nasty" and in fact would make most religions make more sense.

Re: THE ANSWER
 

[ QUOTE ]

This means that if there is a God that will interact with humans in any way, he can't know the future unless he gives up his OWN FREE WILL.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't exactly correct. God created the universe, forseeing all that would happen. He did so freely, He was not constrained by any outside force or consideration. Presumably He could choose from an infinite (at least to us) number of possible worlds and chose this one, freely. He won't change what He already knows will happen or has Himself determined to do because He's honest. So He is bound by His character.

[ QUOTE ]

Suppose he knows that he will part the Red Sea?


[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't just know it as a future event but He determines (freely) that it will happen.

[ QUOTE ]

The fact is that from what I can see, most religious people should not resist the notion that God can't see the future.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps open thesim (neotheism) is for you. Since what they worship isn't really God anyway.

Re: THE ANSWER
 

"The fact is that from what I can see, most religious people should not resist the notion that God can't see the future."

"Perhaps open thesim (neotheism) is for you. Since what they worship isn't really God anyway."

Just to make it clear, I did not include you as one of the religious people who would find benefits from asserting that even God can't perfectly see the future.

Re: THE ANSWER
 

You will thank me ahead of time for this.

Re: How can God be all knowing and we still have free will?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no problme if logic breaks down when applied to God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen

Re: THE ANSWER
 

[ QUOTE ]
This means that if there is a God that will interact with humans in any way, he can't know the future unless he gives up his OWN FREE WILL. See why? Suppose he knows that he will part the Red Sea? If he is infallible in this ability, he can't change his mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

bingo. this is the problem with a being supposedly possessing both omniscience and omnipotence.

have you read George H. Smith?

Re: THE ANSWER
 

[ QUOTE ]
This means that if there is a God that will interact with humans in any way, he can't know the future unless he gives up his OWN FREE WILL. See why? Suppose he knows that he will part the Red Sea? If he is infallible in this ability, he can't change his mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

David, the will of God, unlike the will of man, is immutable and perfect. Therefore, there is no reason for God to ever change His mind. God, Himself being perfect, cannot deviate from perfection. A corolary to this is the Catholic Doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus...we Catholics maintain the impossibility of Christ committing a sin because such a sin would represent a deviation from the Divine Will.

We could very well be saying the same thing here...God having a "Perfect Will" vs. a "Free Will"...let me know if this is what you're thinking.

Re: THE ANSWER
 

[ QUOTE ]
This means that if there is a God that will interact with humans in any way, he can't know the future unless he gives up his OWN FREE WILL. See why? Suppose he knows that he will part the Red Sea? If he is infallible in this ability, he can't change his mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was pointed out in another thread, but is relevant here, as well: You seem to be operating under the assumption that "god" is some sort of infallible fortune teller. This is an unsympathetic reading of spiritual belief. Rather, god supposedly exists independent of time. There's no 'seeing the future', as all moments are occurring simultaneously from his perspective. Do you see why this obviates your analysis above?