yjoeyh wrote:If one takes such an illogical position, then sure. But God does not and can not have infinitely more knowledge than we do.
Really? Then what does "omniscient" mean? Limited in some manner?
Actually that fits more in with an atheistic worldview than it does with a Christian one, because in the atheist worldview, God's knowledge doesn't really exist, it's merely a hypothetical and therefore imaginary. An imaginary God can have an imaginary quantity of knoweldge.
Please don't adopt this strategy. We are debating based on the issue of a god-- in particular the Christian god -- and that model hypothetically existing and the problems with such a model. As a matter of fact, god is indeed non-existent and hence is devoid of anything at all, including knowledge, let alone power, loive, or a white beard.
But if one suggests that God is real, and has real knowledge, then the quantity of it must also be real... not imaginary. There is no "disservice to God" in that.
And the "quantity" in OMNISCIENT is...?
Do you believe that your choices are an illusion?
Of course I don't believe my choices are an illusion because I'm an atheist and there's no divine entity that knows my choices inifintely before I was even around to make them.
Take God out of the question, and if someone else anticipates your choices, then does it fail to be your choices? That's what you are suggesting.
No because someone anticipating my choices has a statistical chance to get it right, or wrong. It doesn't change my choice; they simply may guess right.
But that's not god. God KNOWS the choice I will make. He knew it (sideways "8") years ago, and that's not "anticiapting" -- that's KNOWING. That means I have always made that choice from his perspective, which means I merely think
I'm making some choice of my own volition.
I don't promote that worldview.
If you assert "free will" under an omnipotent, eternal, and omniscient god, yes, you are promoting that worldview.
I think your choices are just as real as you think they are.
They cannot be. They were known infinitely before I existed. And I can neither surprise nor thwart a god's omniscience.
This conclusion just doesn't follow from the assertion that someone else is able to anticipate your decisions, not matter how good they happen to be at it. The only variable you can possibly introduce is one where your decisions can't be anticipated at all because on some level they are purely random in nature. Now I would grant you that may indeed be the case, but even so, that randomness does nothing to give you any more freewill. In fact it seems to lessen your ability to make choices as they become something that arbitrarily happens to you, rather than something you control.
Well, the problem isn't my model but your use of the word "anticipate". Anticipate means, "Well, he might do A, B, or C but I don't know for certian which he'll do."
That's not god though, because the "I don't know for certain" part isn't applicable to god.
Rather, god is sitting there (or whaterver he does) saying, "Well, he could have the option to do either do A, B, or C and I already know
he'll do C."
That's not anticipating due to the part where he says, "I ALREADY KNOW he'll do C". I think I have options, because god doesn't tell me that I do "C", but in his view, I did "C" before the first atom of existence was created. That is an illusion of free will.
So then you reject materialism and physicalism and take some kind of dualism or idealism view, correct?
I'm a materialist, among other things.