Based on the fact that I wrote off your argument as insufficient without much thought would indicate to me that those philosophers are grasping for explaination and want to accept a truth before actually knowing the truth.

That concept of a deity relies heavily on a speculative and undefined concept of meaning: Neither A nor B, in a choice between A and B, but something nonetheless... somehow. There could be that third space for this undemonstrated thing, but I can hear the limb cracking at the base and I think I should turn back now. For me, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence equates to an undifferentiated state; a complete state of balance. At the very least, there would have to be a place where a god is not, a thing that a god is not, for the concept to have any potential meaning. 

No we merely justified ourselves to our sense of judgement with some arbitrary 'advance' hypothesis, why we did it was because we could, we wanted to, and we hadn't "yet".

Yes, I agree.

It's not false as far as we are concerned with the 'knowledge of how'.

There was God, and his infinite knowing to say something about.

Yep, Bingo Arch. Gee you are quick.

Compared to absolute nihilo?

but it's not about impressing oneself, it's about expressing oneself LOL.

All human attempts to explain any form of sentience has antropocentric roots, so what? And besides, God and man are supposed to be alike, the only question is of how.

In this case what he "wants" externalised is his own perfection. It only indicates that perfection must be something worth duplicating.

Any of those things could be perfection. It's a subjective term. LOL.

But really, a lot of these problems are quite exclusive to the creationist contradictions about God and I have no intention of defending those ideas. If God is perfect and his creation is perfect then perfect in gods terms equals the good, the bad the ugly and dangerous all sifted together to create something unique.

Well yes, how, on the condition that it's actual we are in gods image. Yet ...

if God is all (omnipresent), and the actual world is the monistic interdependent schotastic system of energy, and that system is non-locally entangled, and man is part of that system, then the definition of man is the same as the definition of God.

If God is All knowing (omniscient) and knowledge is information, and information is energy, and energy is all there is in the system which defines man - then man is in Gods image.

If God is all powerful (omnipotent) and power is potential energy, and potential energy is stored in the state space of the system which defines man as the system which defines man, then man is God.

But, man is a non-local entangled schotastic system.

 Don't you think that things like impact, advancement, purpose etc as a the global measure for the value of action are anthropocentric themselves? The rest of the natural world is whimisical and spontaneous how come our arbitrary values are the right ones?

I have done the 'free will vs. omniscient God' argument with people who are religious and generally they don't like it because you cannot logically support both conclusions. I have a lot of fun with this one, because, invariably, you get people who will misunderstand the argument because they don't like the inescapable conclusion. I've been doing this for probably a couple of years.

Notwithstanding whether you believe in God, still, from a religious standpoint it's basically acceptable to argue that there is an omniscient God who knows everything, or you can argue that people have free will. But you cannot argue both simultaneously because they contradict each other.

As far as all of your arguments are, I think you're on solid ground. What I sometimes get from people when I point out that if someone knows your entire life from before you were born until after you die, then you have no capacity to make independent choices; you do not have free will.

They'll sometimes try to argue that God doesn't make people do anything. And I point out that I never said She did (and that one there often gets them upset!) I simply stated that if one's entire life is predetermined then one cannot have free will.

To misuse a few metaphors, making such an argument here is probably pointless because you're preaching to the converted!

determinism does not require an omniscient being to be true.  By physical laws, and the makeup of our senses and the way we reason because of our minds and our upbringing, we are determined regardless of God.

To know that one is determined, and to see that the choices one makes are the most rational choices possible is what the rational thinker means to be free.  To be free to be determined by reason is the only freedom worth having.

 Pile - I like your style and your answer as it mirrors my own thoughts - along with Sam Harris' it would seem see his current blog post. Also, I felt I should tell you that I have plagiarized your comment wholesale where applicable on another forum thread as it is just so damn well done. I hope you don't mind - if you do, just say and I will go back and delete it.

 Earlier someone asked why hardly anyone is posting on here counter arguing the omniscience vs free will argument. It's cause most Christians (I'll assume most people arguing for the Christian God's Omniscience, our free will coexisting with that, and God's benevolence, would claim to be Christians) know that they'll win few battles on forums and generally on the internet. For the time it takes to post a good logical argument, 20 more people will just post counter arguing the Christian's post and everyone will forget about it with few exceptions. 

I could post why I believe that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and benevolent while we still have free will, and trust me, it's not blind belief. I've gone through countless arguments in my head and with people until I found out why I should believe and there are good logical points to back it up. But I'll just say this: Satan is the King of Lies, and many of the arguments against God are spun by him, and they sound so good and are so hard to argue with because they are half true! Are we living in a predetermined storybook written by a God who doesn't care about the evil in the world? Yes and no. The lies: God doesn't care. Half truth, predetermination.

Beliefe in a God as a loving person comes from just that, Belief with a capital B. The Predetermination thing is a product of our own time oriented minds. God knows the future because He exists outside time. He allows evil because he cannot see a future that doesn't exist. http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teachings/2008/gods-regrets-mans-free-will, this link will explain that last point. Yes we are going to end up either in heaven or hell and God knows the path we'll take, but He does not decide it. We do. And this shouldn't be an excuse to be amoral and write off God as uncaring. In fact, knowing that you choose your own path should do the exact opposite! but Satan corrupts every good thing he can get his hands on.... anyways, I really hope and pray you don't write me off and that something of this makes it through to someone. If nothing else, read the article in that link. It's good stuff and it may just convince you. It convinced me.

Sure, that works if you imagine God as observing an essentially infinite number of intersections and branches that represent a person's life. He would arguably not be omniscient though, as he would not know the future, only all possible futures.

Suppose, for a moment, that it is possible to capture "everything that happens" using a special "catch it all" (CIA, isn't that a great acronym?) camera.  While we are at the fantasy, let's make the camera invisible and operated by thought, so that no one would know it was there or would have any idea that I was operating it.  I know that this is a stretch, but I'm thinking that the whole idea of omniscience is a stretch, so hopefully this all hangs together.

Please allow my filming debut with the CIA wherein I use the camera to capture action outside my favorite local atheist cafe.  After viewing the output of my camera, I would be omniscient about the events recorded.  Surely, no one would argue that by virtue of employing the camera I had forced the events recorded by the camera to occur (or, if you would, please quote this section and make your argument).  I go on assuming that (contrary to quantum physics) viewing an action does not effect it and, even further, that the act of omnisciently recording events does not dictate their outcome.

Suppose, now, that I have a very large collection of these cameras and install them such that all of history is recorded everywhere I care to record it (this can be on a group of people or on a world or worlds or whatever).  At any moment in time, I could conceivably replay any moment of history that was recorded previously and, thus, know everything that occurred without having effected anything (in a much smaller way and with much more editing, this is what happens when we view a film).

Now suppose that these cameras were placed "at the beginning of time" (lets be loose with that and just go with it) and that they ran until "the end of time" so that all of history was recorded.  I think this is consistent with omniscience insofar as the boundaries of time would be a good range for knowledge of everything.  Now, suppose that one watched this recording in its entirety from beginning to end.  Again, it is reasonable at this point (quantum physics aside) to argue that one knows everything that happened without effecting free will.

As a final step, whomever this newly omniscient person is, s/he just has to time travel with the knowledge garnered from the end of time and s/he is omniscient for all time without effecting free will.  Even though omniscient for all time was not mentioned in the topic header, I think it is a reasonable extension.

In conclusion, I think it is reasonable to argue that it is conceivable (however unlikely) that one could both be omniscient and not effect free will (with the possible exception of the person who is her/himself omniscient).  Whether there is such a person, however, is a completely different consideration.  To the extent that time travel is precluded, I think it is reasonable to preclude omniscience.  The argument about whether or not one has free will when one can time travel is a whole different predicament (hence my potential exception for the individual experiencing omniscience).

Some possible objections:

1)  Time travel is ridiculous -- OK, but physics allows for it and I'm thinking that if you are prepared to argue about the presence or absence of omniscience, you've already stepped beyond/over/through the "ridiculous" argument.

2) It would take a "long time" to watch the video and would be impossible to store -- Both very good arguments, but they are really going at the mechanics of the argument as opposed to the heart of the argument.  So, as for the "long time"--our time traveller is someone who lived before the start of time and after the end of time, so a "long time" is probably not meaningful and, to the extent it is, well, there is plenty of it and the time traveller can just watch "forever" and then go back in time.  Sadly, that argument probably leaves a worse taste in your mouth then when you started.  As for a lot of space, well, you are right and I concede the point that knowing all of the events in time would take up a lot of space, so perhaps my device has gotten in the way of the argument.  Extrapolate, if you can, that the camera is simply the "eye" of our omniscient being who lives outside of time so that s/he can see all of time at a glance in all of its detail.  Since the omniscient being is outside of time, whether doing this takes an instant or an eternity is moot.  As for storage, well, the individual is omniscient, so it has to be stored someplace, if you want to preclude the ability to store omniscience it is an interesting argument, but side-tracks whether omniscience effects free will.

3) My God is omiscient and I believe, so we don't need your argument.  Well, good, hope you enjoyed reading what I wrote .

4) Only a god could be omniscient, I have no god, so there can be no omniscience.  OK, but hopefully you see how circular that argument is.  I think that it is possible that the omniscient person could have no other god-like ability, so I'm not claiming godhood for someone who is omniscient.

5) Free will is not possible because the actions are recorded.  Recording is a post-facto operation and free-will is a pre-facto operation.  To the extent that we understand causality, recording, by definition, could not generate a pre-facto cause (except, perhaps, in the case of quantum dynamics),  Thus, recording cannot induce or exclude free will; the choice (freely made within the bounds of the possible) is simply noted.  Moreover, our direct experience with recording events teaches us that recording those events does not inhibit free will.

6) I invoke the quantum mechanics exception.  Ahhh...that sucks.  OK, well, the quantum mechanics argument is that you are in multiple states at the same time until such time as the wave form collapses and only one path is traversed.  I think that the very possibility of quantum mechanical states for human beings precludes the concept of free will (you do not take one path, but you take all paths simultaneously, so there is no free will and you do not directly control the collapse of the wave form).  So, if you take the quantum mechanics option, then this argument is moot as there is no free will to be inhibited by some omniscient being.

OK, so your argument is two-fold:  If there is time travel then either an omniscient person can have free will or an omniscient person can effect events that have occurred back in time.  I'd like to address each as well as the argument that one can have both free will and time travel.

1) Time travel without changing events

It is slightly different (being "present" in a current time and knowing everything that both did and could happen is what I considered the definition of omniscient) in my opinion, but if you concede that simply to have watched the tape is the same as omniscience then I think I carry the argument that there can be both omniscience and free will.

The many wolds argument does not carry.  The presumption of the many worlds argument is that the world on a grand scale plays by the same rules as the world on a quantum scale.  If that is so, then any given action (however minute) is taken in all of its myriad possibilities, until one action results (the wave collapses).  As an example, Shrodinger's (sp?) black cat is only both alive and dead until someone observes the current state of the cat at which point it is one or the other (the wave collapses).  Quantum physics only gives rise to a many-world scenario as a temporary construct until the wave collapses.  Given that the state of the world has been observed at the end of time, I think it is safe to say that the wave has collapsed and resolved into the choice we actually made and not just all of the possibilities we could have made.  If the wave has not collapsed, then one makes a mockery of the construct which gives rise to the many worlds themselves.  Or, at least, that is my understanding.  If your understanding is different, please share

2) Time travel with changing events

You offer the option that either our omnipotent person knows an infinitely (actually slightly smaller) vast collection of possible scenarios (which you argue well is really knowing nothing) or the omnipotent person does not have free will.  Since you offer a choice, I will choose the latter:  free will exists for everyone except the omnipotent.  I'm happy to concede to you that an omnipotent person does not experience free will, but would make the counter-argument that since some free will still  exists (in the tiny portion of existence that is not omnipotent) omnipotence and free will can co-exist.  From that perspective, I would like to argue once more that I carry the argument that there can be both omniscience and free will.

3) Time travel with changing events with free will for all

Time travel itself implies a rather difficult to comprehend distortion of time.  Among the initial assumptions (implied originally and stated during the objections):

If this assumption holds water (and it is kind of necessary for seeing all of time) then an omnipotent would not be constrained by time in the same way you and I are.  The concept of time would no more be a constraint to that person then linear distance is to us.  We think nothing of going back and forth in space.  Hopefully you are familiar with "Flatworld" which is an examination of what life would be like in a two dimensional environment, to some extent interacting with a three dimensional environment (what follows is a description of that world, not a quotation from Mr. Abbott, the author):

Imagine a flat plan on which exists a line.  A three dimensional object could touch the line at two distinct points simultaneously (say, using two different fingers) while appearing to be two places at once to the line itself (which cannot perceive three dimensions).  There is no magic here, the ability to do this is inherent to the three dimensional object.

Using the same sort of extrapolation, since the omnipotent is not constrained by time, the concept of doing one thing and then another is anathema...time is not a constraint.  Thus, someone omnipotent could both watch and do without being constrained by time (either the interval between the actions or the necessity for one to "precede" the other in a sense recognizable to the omniscient.  There is no paradox in being two places at once for a three dimensional creature in a two-dimensional space and there is no paradox for a person not bounded by time to be doing two things "at once" in different ranges of time.  I hope I have described this well.  If the presumption is that the omniscient is not constrained by time, then it is unreasonable to apply a time-based construct to understand that being's free will.  More importantly, our understanding of one does this and then that (causality) would not necessarily apply to the omniscient.  Just as we can slide our finger along the plane and effect life within the plane or lift our finger on and off the plane to effect life, so, too, could an omniscient interact with our understanding of the world.  Its just that the rules would be different.  I hope you see how this carries the argument for an omniscient to have free will (although the nature of that free will would not be the same as ours since our concept is time dependent).

Have I misunderstood or misrepresented your arguments?

You are right...It seems to me that your point is that neither omniscience nor free will are possible, so whether one excludes the other or not is moot.  Did I get it?

I am mildly puzzled (if I got your point) why this topic is interesting to you.

For me, I think omniscience is highly unlikely and impossible to prove, but its presence does not seem like a problem for free will.  I thought that a premise of the discussion was that both could exist and that one precluded the existence of the other, so I was just working within the initial assumptions without pulling the rug out from the whole discussion.

Would it forward the discussion to concede the point on Many-Worlds with the hand-waving explanation that I consider it another form of religion (it is a useful idea, but cannot be tested as far as I can tell--I would put forward that the double slit experiment where light travels in every possible path within this world would suggest that many-worlds has some holes)?  So, I would concede that if reality is indeed a many-worlds model, then neither omniscience nor free will are possible and the discussion would be moot (that is kind of like saying, I'm willing to concede that if there is a heaven, then there is a god, but can we move forward and analyze with THIS world is like without the presupposition that a heaven exists).  Then move forward recognizing that many-worlds is but one possible explanation for the world as we know it and is not even a theory (it is referred to as an "interpretation" ) at this point?

You seem like a pretty smart guy so I'm a little confused at how your arguments don't really reference any of mine, it makes it hard for me to link them up.  

If I understand correctly, here, it seems like you posit a multi-verse where new universes are created (out of nothing) instantaneously as a copy of current state zillions (OK that is an approximation) of times a second in response to quantum collapse (that is consistent with the many worlds model--I used this as my reference http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/), at each critical point in chaotic systems (this doesn't seem to be anywhere, but maybe it is part of the book you reference), and at every conceivable decision point.  It feels like you want to make the many worlds interpretation the only one that should be considered:

for what it is worth, I wasn't saying that I thought that MW was just hand-waving:

I was saying that I'll concede the point without explanation (just hand-waving) and the general idea that I consider MW another form of religion because it is not testable.  I'll grant that it may be very useful for mathematics, or very useful for explanation, but until it is testable, one can only have it on "faith."

Wow...that was an example not a testimony of faith or belief.  I may have touched a button, sorry.  Again, what I was trying to say is that I'll grant that MW precludes both omniscience and free will.  I will not grant that MW is definitely the structure of the world as we know it.  I will grant that it could be the structure of the world as we know it and, to the extent it is correct, neither omniscience nor free will has meaning.

I think you are grabbing hold of a lead balloon when you suggest that religion coincides with intuition.  I think, equally, that science is not "more valid" because it diverges from intuition.  I think science is valid because it relies on testable theories--THEN TESTS THOSE THEORIES.  I think that gives science credibility in a way that is comforting and good.  Some physics is strange (quantum physics comes to mind) and some physics is obvious (the flight of an arrow).  We can intuit easily where the arrow will go and physics gives us good explanations for why our intuitions are correct.  After all, plenty of archers existed long before a correct explanation of the physics behind archery was brought forward.

Well, maybe these are concepts driven by your instincts and intuitions, but I have a feeling that a lot of people on this board are going to find hearty disagreement (for them religion is counter-intuitive).  On this topic, however, the argument is irrelevant.  The question of whether or not omniscience precludes free will does not necessarily involve religion at all.

So, at this point, I argue by virtue of previous posts that omniscience does not preclude free will (and vice-versa)

If MW is true, then neither omniscience nor free will exists and this debate becomes meaningless a priori.  Unless you would care to argue that MW is the ONLY valid model of the world in which we live, I'm not sure what a further discussion of MW brings to the topic.

 blech.

OK, so I didn't have a particular definition of free will in mind, but your post got me thinking about what a reasonable definition is.  So here are some answers to your question:

* In this topic I have to admit that I was thinking of free will as some option other then following a pre-programmed script without a whole lot more thought to it.  In the case of Many-Worlds, I had to concede that taking all choices was tantamount to not having made any choice at all and I did see that as eliminating free will.  Frankly, I am worried about what quantum effects on a grand scale would do.  I do reject persistent (I'm inclined to reject non-persistent as well on largely the same basis, but it has a little more grab to me as nothing is really created) Many-Worlds out of hand as the thought of a multi-verse with multiple versions of me seems unfair to the multi-verse and the concept of the entire universe "splitting" has the ring of creating matter/energy from no where and the ability to replicate state instantaneously seems perversely like magic.  Of course, "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement) has the ring of magic as well and I've been forced to accept it as reality by the number of honest experiments that can reproduce it.  So, while I reject MW as an objective reality I completely accept it as an interpretation of the mathematics that facilitates moving forward with experiments.  I am partial to the concept of string theory, but I have not been able to work through the math involved and, like quantum mechanics, far too much of it seems rooted in probability for my comfort (hopefully the new collider will be able to do some experiments that will validate/eliminate string theory as a candidate).  I live near a major university and a retired physics professor who really wants to walk through the mathematics of string theory, so maybe we will get a chance to do it together.

* I think that a more nuanced description of free will involves the concept of fate.  That one is not bound to a certain course.  I have to admit that historical actions ring of having been bound to a certain course (those historical actions cannot be altered, so they seem "fated" ).  So it is probably necessary to build in some kind of exception for actions already taken.  There probably also needs to be some sort of exception for a sequence of actions that are beyond the control of the individual (a person cannot decide to stop falling mid-fall and the failure to have that ability doesn't seem to impinge on free will to me).  It seems to me that free will is probably also not impinged by choices not considered (doh!  I could have had a V-8), although I can see room for argument there.

* Perhaps a more complete understanding of free will would involve what a choice is and what it means to not be able to make a choice.  I normally think of a choice as selecting from available options but my kids have taught me that there is always an option I never considered (I'll take both!).  Suppose you simply cannot see the color red.  If someone offers you a choice of three cars (one of which is completely red) has this person knowingly inhibited your free will by taking advantage of your inability to see red?  On the other hand, do you still have the choice ("I'll take the red one!" seems great if there actually is a red car there, but appears odd at best if no red car is present) even if you don't realize it?

Is that enough fodder?  Do you have a more complete definition that takes into consideration all of this kind of stuff and others I haven't even considered?  I'm perfectly open to being wrong about what free will entails.

So, assuming that definition of free will is adequate...uhm...I don't see how it solves evil at all.

Classic definitions of evil tie the nature of evil to morality.  I think that generally those who espouse and follow a specific belief system believe themselves as ethical.  Those who go further and believe that their belief system is right and proper for the embetterment of mankind, go on to describe their system as moral.  So (assuming those rickety understandings are correct) it seems to me like evil is present anywhere one moral system is in conflict with any other moral system.  Since free will allows and even facilitates those kinds of interactions, my guess is that it not only doesn't solve the "problem" of evil, it creates it.  I'm willing to go further and say that free will creates evil because without it, it wouldn't be possible to step out of whatever moral system is pre-programmed.

A broader definition of evil (e.g. wicked, mean, bad) is still in no way "solved" by free will.  I can imagine someone who exercises choices purely at random and hence (just on the laws of probability) ends up doing something evil.  In this case, it does not even involve interactions between moral or ethical systems (I think that a true analyst would identify our random chooser as amoral and not evil in the classical sense).  It seems like even at the edge cases with the broadest definitions, free will does not solve evil.

So, from the posts in this thread, I think the following conclusions are possible:

1) Omniscience and Free Will are not precluded by each other when both are possible.

2) In the MW view, there is neither omniscience nor free will.

3) Free will does not solve the problem of evil, rather it creates the possibility for evil.

"the problem of evil" is only a problem in an objective moral frame of reference.  In a strictly academic thought exercise you may have omniscience, also purely navel gazing, free will, defined as making choices without being restrained, with a superficial introspective in the concept of "restrained", could be awkwardly "forced" into working.  One can add MW, time travel, extra dimensions, and a number of other academic elements to create such a possible world.  The argument will be question begging at best, if logically consistent.  Also, it will have no contingency on reality and has no merit versus any other conclusion when filtered through Ockham's razor type of economic devices to evaluate it's worth.

Do you think that's an accurate description, of the intuitions of modern humans, Bob?

It's understandable that the intuitions of prehistoric man might lead them to have very muddled ideas and suspicions about existence, levels of existence/dimensions etc... but I don't think it can be parallel to adults born and raised in 1st world countries.

I can most certainly attest to never, ever having any such intuitions about a 'soul', or the possibility of an afterlife, or any sentient being/force being present in any way.

I have such a hard time with this. As much as I somehow would like to actually give theists the benefit of the doubt, and think that on many levels they sincerely don't think in those absolute terms, but merely 'strive' to 'achieve' that level of belief, in order to feel like a 'Good Christian' (or whatever).....I must accept the possibility that they really feel that way, through and through, which I can't help but feel truly sad for.

That's why I value hearing from all the ex theists on this forum. It's so uplifting to hear how richer their lives are after having evolved past that dogmatic, and prejudiced method of viewing atheists, and reality in general.

edit *  Welcome to the forums, bfish.

If matter is 'created', it must have already occurred in every non-collapsed state, for more than one version of 'reality', such as both a live cat and a dead one, to both exist, so it has nothing to with the collapse.

One way I can conceive of what happens at the 'collapse', is that our mind interacts with the 'uncollapsed' entities and goes down both paths, but the 'version' of our awareness on any one path is only aware of that one particular outcome.

To repeat, I am not saying new matter is created, but if it was, it would have to occur before 'collapse'. The multiple paths, or 'many worlds' only make 'sense' from a multi-dimensional point of view, which we can only handle by analogy, just as with the General Relativity version of gravity as a distortion of space-time. Hnece the need for these 'interpretations'.

But we don't "live our lives that way" in any perceptible sense. But my idea of MW does indeed suggest that the more improbable paths simple fade to insignificance, and also that in other cases two or more roughly equal probability paths merge again further down the track.

I don't really like the cat-in-the-box scenario. For a start, a cat can be legitimately considered an observer itself, so it 'should' collapse the state immediately. IOW it 'knows' the outcome. What if it was a human being in the box?

It is only from our point of view that the uncertainty persists while the box is closed.

<.....>

I have thought about this.

Free will and omniscience could exist in MW, but what is 'known' by the omniscient entity could only be the 'truth' from that 'timeless' perspective, ie all the possible sequences of events, and their probability. That is my basic point. Even without 'free will', that still holds, due to Quantum indeterminacy and Chaotic complexity. Due to those two factors alone, MW, in some sense, does exist. A unique sequence of events, when viewed from 'outside time', would simply ignore the reality and implications of Quantum Mechanics.

EDIT: In case you are wondering about all the words I put in quotes, they are ones which either have no clear meaning in this context, or not quite the one they usually are though to have, but are the closest I can find for what I am trying to refer to.

I have reason to believe that you are quite correct.  My wife thinks much differently then I do and her memories are stored in a way to which I cannot relate.  I've done a lot of wandering around NIH trying to figure it out and the best answer that I can come up with is an analogy to programming (I'm a programmer):

I think sequentially.  I call this "logically" and get into all kinds of trouble, but I mean it logically in the sense of a syllogism (e.g. If A then B).

My wife thinks in parallel.  Somehow, she is able to take a fact and associate with a ton of other information and "sense" a conclusion.  Her "sense" of a conclusion is not a "feeling" or a "guess" but a logically drawn conclusion based on the whole of her experience.  It does not lend itself to "If A then B" so if she tries to explain her reasoning to me, I'm constantly misunderstanding or drawing conclusions from her reasoning that she did not.  

It just isn't possible to apply sequential terms to parallel processing.  When she describes her reasoning to someone else who thinks the same way, that person says, "Oh, yeah!" and I say, "WHAT?"  Of course, this is vice-versa as well.  My wife is remarkably intelligent and we often come to the same conclusion, but in ways we cannot (for half a lifetime of trying) explain to one-another.

My wife suspects that her mode of thinking engages both hemispheres more effectively then mine does (so, of course, finds her method superior).  I think that she is probably right in that her mode of thinking involves both sides more effectively.  The left side of the brain naturally pursues syllogisms more easily.

FWIW, this has not been a necessarily male/female thing.  Most of the parallel thinkers I have met (and there are a small number) have been women, but there are a couple of men in there.  From what I've been able to find out about Memory, this also effects how memories are stored, but that is a much more complicated discussion (as if this one was simple)

doh.   You can tell where I sit, I got so distracted by "differences in brain structure" that I neglected to realize that the comment had been made relevant to a distinction between high and low IQ.  Sigh.  I think that there are real differences in brain structure, PERIOD.  The high and low IQ part aren't really relevant.  I didn't mean that I thought the differences in the way we think are a reflection on our IQ, but a difference in brain structure that inhibits communication.

Thanks for you comment Kthulu, I agree with you that IQ is a pretty meaningless concept.  It turns out it is a relatively good predictor of reading ability and that is about it.  

No they can't. But the real question, can omnipotence and free will co exist? The issue here is that the pagan non Christian notion of freewill elminates God's Sovereignty. When you ask a Christian this question he shorts circuits and has spiritual seizures. lol.

Very good. I enjoy you seeing the inconsistencies of some idiotic Chistians. This was issued in first via the Synod of Dort in 1610. It's hard being consistent today with people becoming so stupid. But atheism has inconsistent atheists, and a lot of them or most of them i would say.

This is why i'm a consistent Chrisitan. Just be true. If you claim A then live A. If you're an atheist, go kill your grandma and be consistent. Since this won't happen just accept the logical system of Christianity.

I mean. let's get real.

But yes, free will is UnBiblical and WRONG!!!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The standard logical conflict is the idea of man being able to do anything contrary to the will of an omnipotent being, which really is a contradiction.

But since there is no logical necessity for a God having any omni-attributes, or necessarily be a 'loving' being toward us, and the Bible is entirely consistent with a non-loving God who has no problem deceiving us, for his own incomprehensible purposes, especially when you include the OT, even if you allow the faint possibility that there is such a being, it is all academic.

It has nothing to do with whether man is 'granted' free will, or God choosing to constrain or thwart man's will in any particular case, whatever that really means. Our 'free will' is not the issue.

It is simply about the impossibility of anything happening that an omnipotent being really doesn't want to happen, whether we have 'free will' or not.

Of course a being may choose to allow things to happen which he doesn't care about absolutely either way.

That is really my point - the more I think of it, the conflict is more with omniscience. The classic dilemma about omnipotence is not so much about man's free will, but the concept of 'sin', if that is defined as going against God's will. He could stop any action or resultant harm (which he would also know, if omniscient), otherwise 'omnipotence' is meaningless, but apparently decides not to, which has to imply that he is not absolutely against such actions or their consequences.

These arguments always devolve into such ultimately pointless discussions, since the concept of omni-qualities are not really coherent, and not necessary attributes of the posited creator being. They are the equivalent of the child's idea of wanting his favorite hero to be 'really really powerful', epitomized in the absurdity of the Ontological Argument.

'Free will', in the doctrinal sense, is also ultimately empty and naive.

Why do we get the idea that "all knowing" means knowing the future. God can know our hearts, minds, everything that has happened and is happening. In other words, we can't hide things from Him. But if He knows the future, why are there instances in the Bible where He changes His mind? What is the purpose of prayer? Etc.

Anyone with a rational mind can reason that a "future knowing" God cannot coexist with free will. All that, he knows what we will choose, but does not force us to choose it is crap. This idea is similar to the "If God can do anything, can He make a boulder big enough that He Himself cannot lift it?" In other words, this "future knowing" God would be incapable of creating anything with variables.

And for you deep thinkers. If God knew the future, He Himself would know His own future. This implies that God does not have a free will and cannot make decisions, But that he is just acting out what He already knows He is going to do. He would be in the same boat as us robots.

Time is a metaphor; an abstract thing that is not real. We use it to establish a completion and ordering of events. Things just are. God is not outside of time looking in and seeing it all. There is no time!

Think about it