Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.

so if all contigencies are accounted for then there is a contingency for NOT following the plan..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Er, which itself would be part of the plan.
A perfect plan can, by definition, have no flaws, or leave anything that is unplanned.

This is what I've been trying to out: the two claims are mutually exclusive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Means to a ends. There are no flaws, and nothing not known to happen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Omniscience can not alway be displayed and expressed with one liners. For example, when a freshman learn a new subject in college, the instructors will start off easy, and will not try to explain things at the phD level, since he knows this newbie can not handle the entire truth, and he will become dazed and confused.

Often an expression of the prof's omniscence is a long building process where simple analogies eventually change to complex functions as we gain in knowledge and learn to handle the scope of his omniscience.

If you knew everything, or had omniscience, there would be complex relationships that would go way over everyone's head if they knew only a fraction of omniscience. How would you present such complex relationships? You have to start slow, which may then create the impression of less than omniscience. True omniscience also knows the limits of the audience.

 

Claim 1;
It has been claimed that god is omniscient (i.e. knows everything).

Claim 2;
If we are not following that plan (as has ALSO been claimed)

so if Gods plan includes the contingency of us not following the plan..
then both are true.

just because we do not follow the plan does not invalidate omniscience.

 

A professor isn't omniscient.

Which has what, exactly, to do with the subject at hand?

 

Um, if we are following the contingencies (which ARE part of the plan) then we are also following the plan.
A contingency that is catered for IN a plan is automatically part of that plan.

 

this is true, and hasn't been addressed yet.

 

By whom?

There is no POSSIBLE way to break away from the plan. The plan is give man free will and see what happens, thats the gist of it.

Precisely, us not following the plan can be seen in the "plan." Omniscience doesn't entail creating a plan, but foreseeing the ending with great reason and faith.

 

so..we can have free will AND God can be omniscient.

 

irrelevant.

 

You ask this again?
YOU. As shown at least twice previously.

Oxymoron. Mutually exclusive.

 

Huh?
How does that follow?
If a contingency is planned for then it's part of the plan. If we do something outside of the plan then, by definition, it's not planned for. Otherwise it wouldn't be outside the plan.

 

Why is it relevant?

 

A "plan" would mean no free will, determinism.

 

Yes, providing that plan is perfect.
Hence the number of threads here about omniscience precluding free will.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, lets ask ourselfs, what is the plan? What is the ends, what are the means, and why do we (God & Children) care in the first place?

Ends: Heaven on Earth <--Tribulation
Means: ???
Reason: Make man as He is.

Plan: Create everything< Give man free will to inherit the Earth< Guide civilization as best as possible < Tribulation/bring as many men (women) through the Gates of Heaven.

 

if free will is planned for...it is still free will..

 

Oh, let's see.
A) that hardly constitutes a plan:

.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plan

B) it disagrees with what is stated in the Bible (and theology).

C) where is the "guidance"?

 

It can't be.
What do you mean "planned for"?
If we are free to choose as we will (and that will is not constrained) then how can it be planned?

Plus, of course, you're diverting.
The claims I am addressing are those given in post #358.

Not whether we have free will not but that we have done something that was not planned.