Its not observational at all. An observation is a measurement based on physical phenomena using either instrumentation or our own senses.

It's simply your opinion which you are erroneously (and arrogantly) calling an observation

I AM THAT I AM is a statement of knowledge, I don't know how you can say it's not. God's knowledge of His own uncaused, eternal existence is the ultimate example of unacquired knowledge that is not self-causing. The challenge was for any such example, not only one influencing human choices.

God does not cause necessary truths like logic or math. These are eternally true, grounded in His own rational nature. His knowledge of them is a perfect apprehension of what is, not a creation of it.

You're still creating a false dilemma: unacquired knowledge does not automatically equal causation. God's omniscience means He perfectly apprehends all truths, including future free choices, because they will occur, not because His knowledge makes them occur. Knowledge reflects reality; it doesn't always create it.

Thanks for jumping in!

I understand your definition of observation in the strict scientific sense. That’s valid within empirical science.

But I wasn’t using the word that narrowly. In broader epistemology, observation can also refer to conclusions drawn from experience and accumulated knowledge such as the fact that science has consistently proven to be our most effective tool for investigating truth.

You may disagree with my statement, but calling it nothing more than an opinion or labeling it arrogant seems both inaccurate and unnecessarily personal.
I’m not claiming absolute certainty, in fact, I said “as far as I know,” which is about as cautious as one can be.
If you have better methods or perspectives to share, I’m open to hearing them.

This post was edited by Saurod on Jul 15 2025 03:45pm

Having an opinion isn't wrong, like they say, opinions are like assholes because everyone has one. I have plenty of opinions myself. It is arrogant to present your opinion as if it is the truth, and fail to recognize that it is an opinion.

An example of one of my opinions: Buggery is a crime against humanity and ought to be punished as such. This is heavily supported by the Empirical evidence:

1) Buggery does not result in reproduction
2) Buggery causes severe physical trauma to the victim, that is it is a violent act of destruction
3) Buggery cultures and spreads deadly contagious disease (can easily pass to the innocent) (the fundamental cause being that the rectum is not sterile)

These are all supported by the hard scientific empirical evidence. Yet the statement that it is a crime against humanity is still simply my opinion. By your way of epistemology, you *must* agree with me because the science supports it completely and there is zero scientific argument in to oppose it

I think we’re still diverging on a key point.

You're drawing a distinction between gods knowledge and causation by saying He knows future events because they will occur and not that they occur because He knows them. But here's the dilemma.

If gods knowledge is not acquired (which we both agree on), then it must be essential to his being. Its not something he receives, but something he is.

So when God knows that I will make choice X tomorrow, he doesnt come to know it after the fact or by observing it, he has known it eternally, necessarily, and infallibly.

That makes it metaphysically impossible for me to choose anything other than X, because my choice has always been known. Perfectly, immutably, and without the possibility of error.

That knowledge doesnt just reflect what will happen it defines what must happen.
Otherwise, gods knowledge wouldnt be truly omniscient, it would be contingent and reactive.

So I maintain: if God’s omniscience is truly eternal and unacquired, it cannot be detached from causality. His knowledge is not passive; it is constitutive of reality.

And in that case, human freedom (in the libertarian sense) becomes very hard to preserve. Not because God is a micromanager, but because the structure of omniscient foreknowledge removes contingency from the equation.

This post was edited by Saurod on Jul 15 2025 04:01pm

I’m not going to engage deeply with the example you gave, because it veers into territory that is inflammatory and questionable.

My point remains: empirical science is humanity’s most successful method for understanding the world.

You are free to hold opinions, as am I. But lets keep the conversation focused and respectful.

you have moved the goalpost and your claim is now that science "is humanities most successful method of understanding the world"

This post was edited by majorblood on Jul 15 2025 04:36pm

You are confusing certainty with necessity

Your choice of X remains free (you could have chosen otherwise), but because God is omniscient, He certainly knows what you will freely choose.

This is understood in modal logic as not "alethically necessary"

I'll express it using modal logic

KGP: God knows that P (what you will do in the future or future proposition P)

¬□A​FP : it is not alethically necessary

⋄A​FP∧⋄A​¬FP : The event itself remains contingent in its origin, meaning you could have chosen otherwise.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jul 15 2025 05:28pm

and we learn the place is super natural

o umm (throw up hands) nothing i can do i dont have free will

nobody has as much faith/trust as a 'atheist/antitheist/'disbeliever the penalty here for being wrong and we get "meh" for a answer? thats a mighty faith in ones choice.

ever consider pascals wager? i dont mean taking the wager as thats not really possible. but have you ever thought of in in a academic way? have you heard of it?

1) God alone exists. God is all things with form and without form(living things and inanimate objects). There is no separation from existence itself and only the ego makes such a distinction. The ego has to be formed and you are told that you and "God" are separate. This is how the Abrahamic religions tend to view God and so naturally atheists like yourself only refute the Abrahamic god because you are ignorant of the other half of the human race who quietly has worshipped their own "version" of "God/No God" and Buddhist and Hindus argued for HUNDREDS of years about the very question you are asking, "free will". There are entire libraries filled with debates between some of the best philosophers to ever live. None of which you know and clearly most the people on this sub forum are white and subscribe to an Abrahamic centric worldview.

2) The ego does not exist. It is a fabrication of the mind. The mind a fabrication and instrument of the brain. This is why they tell you to "follow your heart" because the SECOND you THINK you've already lost it.

3) Math and science are nothing more then the human being trying to think there is something "new" to be discovered and that because "we" created a system of numbers/letters to communicate with each other doesn't automatically mean are science is "God's science". Any scientist who thinks through "observation" of random events is some sort of pure absolute science is ignorant. All science is are theories/hypothesis surrounding observable events. What about the non-observable?
What about the "black matter" that constitutes a major portion of the universe???? Did you know all of our science up until this point as been based on the fact "black matter" didn't exist.

4) Stephen Hawking famously said, "How can we make an absolute proof if we just found out "x" percent of the universe is made of a "variable" that was never a part of the equation. He admitted all science is false is we've been using a "math and science" that doesn't include all the variables.

5) There are intelligent philosophers who discuss "free will" and its interesting to here both sides. I believe you don't actually have free will but only the illusion of it. You feel it when you think you did everything right and then something terrible happens out of the blue. It's suppose to humble you and show you "You are not in control" "Whatever "god" is is in control and always has been". God is the beginning and the end and everything in between.