I understand that God is defined as omniscient. But if he already knew at the moment of creation that every single action and every human beings existence would inevitably occur, then this knowledge is not neutral. It has causal implications, because the world was created such that the foreseen events are bound to happen. In all analogies we can logically grasp, complete foreknowledge of determined events leads to responsibility. Anyone who sets up the conditions under which something is unavoidable bears responsibility for it. The definition "omniscient but not responsible" does not resolve this logical tension, it merely shifts it to the level of semantics.
And at this point, I see that we are working from different assumptions about gods nature. You assume that gods omniscience and our free will are compatible, even if we cannot explain how. I base my argument on logical analysis of causality and foreknowledge in a world like ours, which suggests that complete foreknowledge entails responsibility. Once we start invoking the Bible as evidence for itself to show that god is different, however, we enter the realm of assumptions about God, which cannot be proven solely from the text alone.

I actually agree on your point about philosophy being more than opinions, and I also agree that it is indeed a systematic effort to deduce truth. What I meant is that, in the absence of absolute empirical proof, any position on a philosophical question is provisionally an opinion, in the sense that it is not yet conclusively verified, but this is a status, not a dismissal of philosophy itself.

Regarding the problem of induction, I acknowledge it and I know about it. Empirical observation cannot give us 100% certainty about the future, thats true.
However, this does not make logical or causal analysis meaningless. Even without absolute certainty, we can reason consistently within the framework we understand, weigh probabilities, and explore consequences. In other words, acknowledging the limits of induction relativizes absolute certainty, but that does not undermine the validity of argumentation or analysis in my opinion.

This post was edited by Saurod on Aug 14 2025 05:35am

I just don't understand how you don't get that he did not cause every event to happen.



this simply isn't the case because he gave us the ability to reason and freely choose things.



your choices are not determined events, you are fundamentally not understanding and misrepresenting the argument

He knows everything, and he created the world. When he created humans, he gave us potential and did not force what we will do with that potential. He did not make you type that reply, but he created the world and created humanity and gave you free will and reason so you can freely make choices. You can freely follow the good and help a disabled person move a heavy object, or go murder someone. This is your choice (this is not to say it's all relative and the choice doesn't matter), and God knows what you will pick, but did not make you decide one of those even though he ultimately created you.



Yes, you are not talking about God... you are talking about some non omniscient being who never gave humans agency and has the same knowledge as humans (the way you express this changes constantly in every reply). I do explain how exactly, and repeatably, you just keep misrepresenting it and not getting it.

You do not base your argument on "logical analysis of causality and foreknowledge in a world like ours" your arguments are constantly filled with contradictions and i've pointed them out almost a dozen times.

I never evoked the bible as evidence or even mentioned the bible in any argumentation.. you did. This is like some weird projection.

I am arguing from the framework that free will exists in the Christian worldview, and have explicitly said that I don't think free will can exist in a purely naturalist worldview or some other religious worldviews.

If you need proof of why Christianity is true, I could go into that with a powerful philosophical argument but I will only go into that argument if you concede that within the Christian framework free will does exist and is not a logical impossibility and you simply reject the Christian framework is true which is why you reject free will exists. If you cannot concede that ground the argument for the truth of Christianity is too much of a distraction from the central topic.

what do you mean by "in the absence of absolute empirical proof, any position on a philosophical question is provisionally an opinion"

specifically what do you mean by "empirical proof". You cannot prove anything empirically, that is the entire point of the problem of induction.

and this reply is constantly mixing philosophy and empiricism and induction, so explaining precise terms would help coherency as this reply comes off as a bit of word salad.

Sure, lets do that. For the moment, I accept the framework in which we assume free will within the Christian worldview. I do this not because I concede, but because I am genuinely curious to see how you will argue for the truth of your faith. That is something I am eager to hear.

That said, the logical question remains interesting and I wanna ask you this within the christian framework with all due to respect:

If God, at the moment of creation, already had complete knowledge of all future actions, how does this foreknowledge relate to responsibility and the structure of the world? I am not questioning your framework, but rather exploring the relationship between foreknowledge and responsibility.

Even within a framework that allows genuine freedom, the conditions God created, like natural laws, societal structures, biological circumstances and so on, could make certain outcomes highly probable. This raises the question: How does foreknowledge significantly differ from causation when everything unfolds within the conditions that were set?

I remain open to the possibility of true freedom, but I want to clearly point out this logical tension as it is not automatically resolved simply by accepting the premise of free will in the Christian sense in my opinion.

When I say "empirical proof", I’m fully aware of the problem of induction.
I’m simply choosing to set it aside.
I’m using "proof" in the normal, practical sense that almost everyone means when they use the word, rather than in the strict philosophical sense where nothing can ever be 100% certain. I think you can still understand me.

This post was edited by Saurod on Aug 14 2025 06:53am

Did you hear what I said?

I'm done conversating with you for good on this topic. You are completely ignorant and a waste of time. The FACT being you won't read the ANSWERS/DEBATES/CONJECTURE/THEORIES/PHILOSOPHIES that fully address and answer these questions.

So let me hit you with sheer LOGIC because you keep saying what I'm talking about are stories? You are saying without ever having read a single sentence that what I'm talking about should just be disregarded an nonsense when you are in fact the non-sensical entity here.

To reduce the question of free will to it's deepest point one must do the work themselves. Notice how the Christians have their answer/opinion and I have mine. You don't have one because you think IGNORANTLY that you don't need to study the BEST, MOST INTELLIGENT "thinkers/minds" that revolve around the question of "free will".

What that means is that everyone has a unique answer to this question because it varies person to person based on circumstances like "birth/race/religion/etc."

What I'm telling you from personal experience is that "philosophically speaking" free will does not exist because the "Mind" and all that it "projects" is an "illusion". Just because all of us humans ascribe meaning to symbols, words, numbers, and stories doesn't mean they actually have meaning. They don't but here's the twist. Knowing there is no "real meaning" why is that people still work so arduously? Once you know "God alone acts" you start to "Act in accordance to the image of a benevolent creator being". You start to embody the "qualities" we associate with "higher consciousness". Love, Empathy, Forgiveness. These are qualities we try to embody because we as humans like to believe there is such a thing as "good and evil". Another illusion. We humans create things things. When a lion is ripping a gazelle to shreds most people "feel bad" for the gazelle but it is "LIFE". If you put a newborn baby to watch it happen the baby will have no reaction. Why? Baby hasn't been taught "good and evil".

This question "free will" is suppose to be the initiating question before you do a 10 year deep dive to find the answer because it has to be experienced. Did you know experience is knowledge too? How can you expect to find the right answer if you won't even look into the most basic tenets of such a mundane and silly question. A naturally devisive question by the way with no real answers just real good opinions by like I said people with an IQ 100x yours.

Keep going though. You know it all bro!

no, I will not change course into a a completely different philosophical debate without you genuinely conceding that within the Christian worldview free will is logically possible and is true, and that you just reject the Christian worldview itself and thus reject free will.

If you do not concede that within the Christian worldview free will exists, what is your logical argument against it within the Christian worldview?

you can't just "set it aside" and demand empirical proof for something (because it doesn't exist) especially in philosophy where empiricism doesn't apply as a proof. Empirically you cannot show that truth exists, it has no bearing on whether it is true or not. Something can be absolutely true and not be material at all.


your demands and expression of logic and philosophy, empiricism, calling "philosophy an opinion unless there's empirical proof" is all incoherent babble that literally makes no sense.

trying to convince a 'atheist of anything might be tantamount to impossible, at least for us? apparently its the ego. they are so full of themselves on a level thats hard to comprehend.
let me pull up some of the transcript from the vid i am going to post and then explain
2:20
said that even if God wrote a message to
2:22
him in the Stars he still wouldn't
2:24
believe in God because the message in
2:27
the Stars could have been put there by
2:29
powerful aliens trying to trick him
can you imagine a hubris so fantastic that one would think aliens would come here just to try n trick him?
so? now you know what your up against?
Atheists: No Evidence Would Be Enough - David Wood


This post was edited by TiStuff on Aug 16 2025 03:02am