The libertarian free will dilemma

Simpletruther said:
Explain how that is tricking them

How is presenting circumstances forcing him?
Click to expand...
You are theorising about God somehow changing their circumstances so as to cause them, or force them, to do something different than what they otherwise would have done; such as loving their neighbour instead of murdering him, or helping the poor instead of robing them, or loving God instead of hating him, or repenting of their sins instead of committing them. But that is just your theorising. There is nothing in scripture that suggests that God acts or is capable of acting in that way.
 
zerinus said:
You are theorising about God somehow changing their circumstances so as to cause them, or force them, to do something different than what they otherwise would have done; such as loving their neighbour instead of murdering him, or helping the poor instead of robing them, or loving God instead of hating him, or repenting of their sins instead of committing them. But that is just your theorising. There is nothing in scripture that suggests that God acts or is capable of acting in that way.
Click to expand...
No I'm an not. Arangng their circumstances isn't forcing them any more than had those same circumstances occured by happenstance. It isnt force.
 
Simpletruther said:
The bible indicates
God has middle knowledge:

Matthew 11 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

God knew what their choice would be under x condition.
Click to expand...

Just curious why you believe it necessary for God to have a “third knowledge” in order to know Matthew 11?

Is the “first two” not sufficient for him to know “their choice under condition x”?
 
zerinus said:
It is worse than “force”. It is speculation beyond the point of absurdity.
Click to expand...
There is nothing absurd or speculative about it. Jesus teaches that
God knows the circumstances upon which a person would repent.

21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented

So the question is valid and you left it unaddressed.
 
Sketo said:
Just curious why you believe it necessary for God to have a “third knowledge” in order to know Matthew 11?

Is the “first two” not sufficient for him to know “their choice under condition x”?
Click to expand...
I view it as a semantics issue. Not any real difference.
 
Simpletruther said:
I view it as a semantics issue. Not any real difference.
Click to expand...

Just to let you know... in LFWism it is way more than a mere “semantics issue”!
I believe if you start in the thread below you will see that they use it as a “real difference”! They use it as an eisegetical backdoor to inject there man-centered doctrine into the scripture...

Foreknowledge: How Does God Know?

I don't I prove it Just like below in signature ;) I can't read the Signatures, remember. It's a cell phone issue, I can read them on the computer...
forums.carm.org

All I’m asking is to know what you are advocating when you post the phrase “middle knowledge”...
 
Sketo said:
Just to let you know... in LFWism it is way more than a mere “semantics issue”!
I believe if you start in the thread below you will see that they use it as a “real difference”! They use it as an eisegetical backdoor to inject there man-centered doctrine into the scripture...

Foreknowledge: How Does God Know?

I don't I prove it Just like below in signature ;) I can't read the Signatures, remember. It's a cell phone issue, I can read them on the computer...
forums.carm.org

All I’m asking is to know what you are advocating when you post the phrase “middle knowledge”...
Click to expand...
I was refering to the semantics of middle knowledge. I don't see it as some special other category. It's just part of
God's knowledge. And not based upon lfw
 
Simpletruther said:
I was refering to the semantics of middle knowledge. I don't see it as some special other category.
Click to expand...
I understand that... I’m not accusing you of the same meaning. I believe you are innocent in your intention but unfortunately the term itself carries many more connotations, in the LFW systematic, than you may intend.

Simpletruther said:
It's just part of
God's knowledge. And not based upon lfw
Click to expand...

You may not be aware that the term “Middle Knowledge” was created by LFWists for a specific purpose. You using the term, weather you know it or not, supports their agenda.

All I’m trying to do is make you aware...
 
Sketo said:
I understand that... I’m not accusing you of the same meaning. I believe you are innocent in your intention but unfortunately the term itself carries many more connotations, in the LFW systematic, than you may intend.



You may not be aware that the term “Middle Knowledge” was created by LFWists for a specific purpose. You using the term, weather you know it or not, supports their agenda.

All I’m trying to do is make you aware...
Click to expand...
I guess I should let them keep the word and not steal it? you are right
 
Simpletruther said:
If we have a premise that God cannot violate the autonomous will of his creatures without violating their moral agency, and also that He loves them:

Along with a premise that God is omni benevalant(all good) And omnipotent and omniscient.

Then it's easy to concieve that
God can know precisely upon which circumstance each of his creatures would freely choose him and be saved.

And so the dilemma is why would a
God claiming to love his creature not bring about those circumstances which would lead to his creature freely choosing him.

If he is unable his is not omnipotent.

If he is unwilling he does not really love them and is not omni benevalant.

If he doesn't know the circumstances that will lead to faith he is not omniscient.
Click to expand...
Just a reminder for the free will folks
 
Simpletruther said:
And so the dilemma is why would a
God claiming to love his creature not bring about those circumstances which would lead to his creature freely choosing him.
Click to expand...

He did.

Simpletruther said:
If he is unable his is not omnipotent.

If he is unwilling he does not really love them and is not omni benevalant.
Click to expand...

False premise.

Simpletruther said:
If he doesn't know the circumstances that will lead to faith he is not omniscient.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Whether He knows or doesn't know is irrelevant.
 
Dizerner said:
Allow what was his objection, that a God who loved his creature would still not bring about circumstances which would lead to freely choosing him.

It's just a reformulation of the problem of evil.
Click to expand...
God works all things according to the counsel of his own will. This leads to two possibilities.

1) Circumstances have no bearing on the choices people make (patently absurd).

2) The circumstances that God brings about, lead to people making choices according to their nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top