(May 10, 2017 at 4:18 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(May 10, 2017 at 3:56 pm)Aroura Wrote: You are still just explaining how he sees it, not how that allows you to have choice. We have already all agreed he sees it all for the sake of this argument. How or where does not matter. Saying that he sees the result of our choices does not explain how that makes those choices "Free".
(I forgot to address your example. Yes, if I see you pick pepperoni pizza, that shows I know what you will do. That does not demonstrate that you had the FREE CHOICE to choose cheese! Doing a thing and/or knowing someone will do a thing in no way demonstrates that they had the free will to chose to do the other thing, and actually tacitly demonstrates the opposite.)
Hm? I'm not sure I follow. The scenario is that both cheese and pepperoni are available, and you see me freely choosing cheese, therefore you know I chose cheese by my own free will.
Quote:Answer this question: Can you chose to do a thing that has not been seen (forseen, or past seen, or seen all at once, whatever you like).? Can you chose to do a thing that god does not already know you will do? Yes or no. Just answer this and then we can move on.
I can choose whatever I want. And I do. The thing is, since God can see all of time, He is already seeing me making my choices, whatever they are.
I'll also add that you're still looking at this the wrong way. You're still looking at it in terms of God being in the present and looking at the future, and asking if the future can still change from what God has seen. Being outside of time is different from that, as I have explained in the best way I can.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh