Nothing in classical physics. For everything beyond classical physics, we can observe stochastics that lead to statistics, but there aren't the same causal relationships that include traditional, western philosophical thought, or for that matter the absence of freewill.
The bottom line is that our universe may well be ergodic, but it is probably not causal. By "probably not" I mean that there are scientific theories that demonstrate non-causality, and by "theory" I mean work that's pretty much canon (not the incorrect, colloquial usage of "theory"). Thus it's not a major leap to understand that all philosophies that do take the universe to be causal are inept to demonstrate features of a non-causal universe.
That's just a jargon filled non-statement. Theories of non-casuality are merely indicators that we haven't got the theory right yet. Any other conclusion either leads to a universe that is dealing with constantly changing rules or one that cannot exist because cause and effect are measurable in the universe we do live in.
Simply establishing cause and effect once in a non-casual universe would violate the opening assumptions and the contradiction proves the impossibility of non-causuality. I poke my sister, she says OW! So much for non-causuality.
As for the constantly changing rules possibility, it's tough to disprove because you can always say wait another 10 seconds and check again. But the likelihood is pretty damn small since we don't seem to be noticing those changing rules.
Not at all. Omniscient means knowing all the possible facts and all the possible outcomes of choices that result from those facts, not necessarily knowing which particular choice will be executed. Even omnipotence does not preclude allowing choices to be made.
Another way to think about it is omniscience is the infinite knowledge of what can happen in infinite choices in the face of infinite possibilities. Not merely knowing the path of a single unchanging thread through existence. The latter is a pretty weak knowledge, the former is infinitely powerful. If you were choosing your God, which would you choose?
Actually, if God is omniscient, then that means he knows everything... everything including all the possible facts, outcomes of choices AND choices before they are made
Actually, if God is omniscient, then that means he knows everything... everything including all the possible facts, outcomes of choices AND choices before they are made
That's my point.
Free will is available because the puny mortals can only take one of the many paths at each particular decision point. Just because the omniscient god knows the outcome of all the possible choices doesn't compel the mortals choice in any way.
That's just a jargon filled non-statement. . . Theories of non-casuality are merely indicators that we haven't got the theory right yet.
Philosophers have always thrived on jargon. It's just that now the concepts require a knowledge of higher math. Blame progress -- it has been a long time since the study of humanities alone has been able to provide any insight towards nature. You think that non-causality is an indicator that our math isn't right, but I argue that the math is right, and that philosophy is flawed. The understanding of our reality is flawed. Consider the options. What has a greater chance of being the fool: the abstract understanding of math, or the metaphysical ramblings of some Greek guy, 2300 years ago? As we probe deeper into the universe, our understanding of it is bound to change. Clinging to a classical perception of reality is just plain foolish.
The fact that our observable reality appears to be filled with an infinite number of particles indicates undeniably that greater reality contains an infinite amount of interacting, unbounded signals. I'll spare you the gritty details, but when you pinch someone to provoke a reaction, you are merely noticing what's part of an extreme subset of observable reality. You are part of a system that is so-called wide-sense stationary, even though the true signal makeup may be very non-causal at the narrow-sense. I'm sorry, but true causality doesn't exist outside of idealized calculations and the minds of people who are wasting their time searching for greater meaning. Greater reality is beyond us, for sure, but it's easy enough to disprove that it's causal.
Not at all. Omniscient means knowing all the possible facts and all the possible outcomes of choices that result from those facts, not necessarily knowing which particular choice will be executed. Even omnipotence does not preclude allowing choices to be made.
All you are doing there is pushing the question back and claiming it is answered. Even if you have choices within the framework of predestiny, you do not have any choices that were not already determined. Hence: You do not have free will.
It is the same trap people attempting to find an argument for the origin of all things do, they just retreat.
"How did life on Earth begin?"
- "Perhaps aliens fertilized it."
"How did life on those alien planets begin?"
- "Uh... other aliens?"
Quote:
Another way to think about it is omniscience is the infinite knowledge of what can happen in infinite choices in the face of infinite possibilities. Not merely knowing the path of a single unchanging thread through existence. The latter is a pretty weak knowledge, the former is infinitely powerful.
When determining whether or not someone has "all" of something, the relative size or scope of that something is not the question, only the amount of that something that the subject possesses. This is not a discussion of the splendor and majesty of god, it is a discussion about the possibility of free will with an omniscient creator god.
Splinemodel:
Quote:
Clinging to a classical perception of reality is just plain foolish.
I agree.
Why, again, are we discussing a notion so primitive and superstitious as a god?
What has a greater chance of being the fool: the abstract understanding of math, or the metaphysical ramblings of some Greek guy, 2300 years ago? As we probe deeper into the universe, our understanding of it is bound to change. Clinging to a classical perception of reality is just plain foolish.
Heh. And to insist that there must be something beyond the flawed metaphysical apprehension of the world is, of course, an insistence upon metaphysics.
Actually, if God is omniscient, then that means he knows everything... everything including all the possible facts, outcomes of choices AND choices before they are made
It means he knows everything knowable, since that's the definition of omniscience. If free will existed, the future of his creations' minds would be uknowable, but he could still be considered omniscience.
I think the idea is that god has foreknowledge of what choice you'll ultimately make, but it's still up to you.
Actually, it means that God has foreknowledge of the choice you'll make AND that he won't actively influence that choice. He'll just watch you make it. Sort of like watching people guess numbers on Deal or No Deal.
Even if you have choices within the framework of predestiny, you do not have any choices that were not already determined. Hence: You do not have free will.
I think the key assumption you're missing is that God exists outside of time.
It's a silly little technicality that makes no rational scientific sense, but it's kinda a logical justification if you buy into a host of other assumptions. Your actions are "predestined" in a way because God, existing outside of time, has foreknowledge of what you'll do.
I think the idea is that god has foreknowledge of what choice you'll ultimately make, but it's still up to you.
How can it be "up to me" when it was established before I was even born? What you are asserting is that an omniscient creator god makes himself forget and is subsequently surprised when I do something that he already knew I did before he made himself forget.
You are missing the "creator" part of the god. A "creator" god created everything, then that includes me (everything about me) and the world (everything about the world), i.e. - all factors that influence decision-making and all situations in which decisions are made.
Quote:
I think the key assumption you're missing is that God exists outside of time.
That sentence does not mean anything at all. If God exists outside of time, then all knowledge has always (from our time-bound perspective) been his.
If God, at any point, does not know everything, then he is no longer omniscient and no longer qualifies for this discussion.
If there is anything that was not created by god, then he is not the ultimate creator and he, again, does not qualify for this discussion.
People seem so eager to claim these mutually exclusive concepts (omniscient creator god & free will), either because they seem intellectually comfortable (though unsustainable) and/or because of the fear of moral breakdown without them. Why cling so desperately to something that makes no sense?
People seem so eager to claim these mutually exclusive concepts (omniscient creator god & free will), either because they seem intellectually comfortable (though unsustainable) and/or because of the fear of moral breakdown without them. Why cling so desperately to something that makes no sense?
Gröverat: I think the issue is that, yes, an omniscient God knows that Eve will be tempted and eat the apple, but that God takes no active part in affecting her behavior. Is that a cop-out? Sure. It doesn't make any sense. But that's the answer.
How can it be "up to me" when it was established before I was even born?
It wasn't established to human knowledge-- only to God.
We're still playing by the physical rules of the universe while an omnipotent, omniscient God knows everything past, present, and future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
What you are asserting is that an omniscient creator god makes himself forget and is subsequently surprised when I do something that he already knew I did before he made himself forget.
God is not "surprised" by anything. He has foreknowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
You are missing the "creator" part of the god. A "creator" god created everything, then that includes me (everything about me) and the world (everything about the world), i.e. - all factors that influence decision-making and all situations in which decisions are made.
You're forgetting that God leaves humans to their own affairs.
He does that because he loves us.
Free will, baby!
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
That sentence does not mean anything at all.
You have to buy into the assumptions that God is omnipotent and omniscient.
If he's those things, then surely God isn't constrained by the physical laws of the universe such as space and time.
He must exist outside of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
If God exists outside of time, then all knowledge has always (from our time-bound perspective) been his.
That's it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
If God, at any point, does not know everything, then he is no longer omniscient and no longer qualifies for this discussion.
Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
If there is anything that was not created by god, then he is not the ultimate creator and he, again, does not qualify for this discussion.
Right. But don't forget to square that with free will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
People seem so eager to claim these mutually exclusive concepts (omniscient creator god & free will), either because they seem intellectually comfortable (though unsustainable) and/or because of the fear of moral breakdown without them. Why cling so desperately to something that makes no sense?
You're not exactly being fair here in your analysis.
I don't buy into the assumptions either, but if you do then theologically it's possible to be consistent.
I would argue that there doesn't even need to be a God to not have free-will. I believe we are purely bound by the environment we're brought up in. Although the 'illusion' of free-will will influence the destination of our actions.
All you are doing there is pushing the question back and claiming it is answered. Even if you have choices within the framework of predestiny, you do not have any choices that were not already determined. Hence: You do not have free will.
It is the same trap people attempting to find an argument for the origin of all things do, they just retreat.
"How did life on Earth begin?"
- "Perhaps aliens fertilized it."
"How did life on those alien planets begin?"
- "Uh... other aliens?"
When determining whether or not someone has "all" of something, the relative size or scope of that something is not the question, only the amount of that something that the subject possesses. This is not a discussion of the splendor and majesty of god, it is a discussion about the possibility of free will with an omniscient creator god.
No, not pushing anything back. Your stance has a scope problem with the word "determined". A valid argument cannot inject artificial limits partway into the discussion to make itself look good.
Nothing is determined about which course of action will be followed, onmiscience just knows all the possibilities of what may happen "IF" a certain course of action is followed. Destiny, or the lack thereof - free will, is tied to the unfettered choice of the chooser who does not know the outcomes on the other side of the choice with perfect certainty. The chooser has free-will to choose a path, the omniscient observer merely observes, not compels.
dree will, is tied to the unfettered choice of the chooser who does not know the outcomes on the other side of the choice with perfect certainty. The chooser has free-will to choose a path, the omniscient observer merely observes, not compels.
Gröverat: I think the issue is that, yes, an omniscient God knows that Eve will be tempted and eat the apple, but that God takes no active part in affecting her behavior. Is that a cop-out? Sure. It doesn't make any sense. But that's the answer.
It's not a cop-out at all, but it's also not the case that God knows Eve will eat the apple. He knows Eve will be sorely tempted, and he knows what will happen if she does (amongst all the other things that may happen). But that is a long shot from knowing with certainty that she will eat the apple.
I think the issue is that, yes, an omniscient God knows that Eve will be tempted and eat the apple, but that God takes no active part in affecting her behavior. Is that a cop-out? Sure. It doesn't make any sense. But that's the answer.
God did take an active role in her behavior by creating her in the first place. There is nothing about Eve, including her mind and soul, that god did not create. There is nothing about the garden, including the tempting devil, that god did not create.
- If god created all of those things without knowing the results beforehand, then god is not omniscient.
- If god did not create the part of Eve that made that decision (and, therefore, could know what would happen beforehand without having caused it), then god is not THE creator.
For free will to exist, either the creator part or the omniscient part must give. They cannot coexist.
As you say, it makes absolutely no sense. Why is such blatant nonsense allowed to survive? In the name of political correctness?
ShawnJ:
Quote:
We're still playing by the physical rules of the universe while an omnipotent, omniscient God knows everything past, present, and future.
Creation has a beginning, necessarily. God might be eternal, but his creation is not, because creation has a beginning (even if it has no end). Therefore, the creations of god exist on a linear time scale, a time scale that an omniscient god would comprehend and understand. And because this omniscient god is the creator as well, the choices he made in creation restricted our own (of course, without that creation then we would not exist, so perhaps, in the eyes of the theist, being a delusional automaton is better than not even being).
Quote:
You're forgetting that God leaves humans to their own affairs.
You are forgetting that black is white, that up is down, that 2+2=5, and that we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Your argument is absolutely nothing more than, "Because I said so!"
Quote:
I don't buy into the assumptions either, but if you do then theologically it's possible to be consistent.
What assumptions does one need to buy into to make this web of nonsense hold together?
Hiro:
Quote:
Nothing is determined about which course of action will be followed, onmiscience just knows all the possibilities of what may happen "IF" a certain course of action is followed. Destiny, or the lack thereof - free will, is tied to the unfettered choice of the chooser who does not know the outcomes on the other side of the choice with perfect certainty. The chooser has free-will to choose a path, the omniscient observer merely observes, not compels.
You are completely ignoring the "creator" part of the "omniscient creator".
What on earth does "creator" mean to you? Anything at all?
Comments
Nothing in classical physics. For everything beyond classical physics, we can observe stochastics that lead to statistics, but there aren't the same causal relationships that include traditional, western philosophical thought, or for that matter the absence of freewill.
The bottom line is that our universe may well be ergodic, but it is probably not causal. By "probably not" I mean that there are scientific theories that demonstrate non-causality, and by "theory" I mean work that's pretty much canon (not the incorrect, colloquial usage of "theory"). Thus it's not a major leap to understand that all philosophies that do take the universe to be causal are inept to demonstrate features of a non-causal universe.
That's just a jargon filled non-statement. Theories of non-casuality are merely indicators that we haven't got the theory right yet. Any other conclusion either leads to a universe that is dealing with constantly changing rules or one that cannot exist because cause and effect are measurable in the universe we do live in.
Simply establishing cause and effect once in a non-casual universe would violate the opening assumptions and the contradiction proves the impossibility of non-causuality. I poke my sister, she says OW! So much for non-causuality.
As for the constantly changing rules possibility, it's tough to disprove because you can always say wait another 10 seconds and check again. But the likelihood is pretty damn small since we don't seem to be noticing those changing rules.
Not at all. Omniscient means knowing all the possible facts and all the possible outcomes of choices that result from those facts, not necessarily knowing which particular choice will be executed. Even omnipotence does not preclude allowing choices to be made.
Another way to think about it is omniscience is the infinite knowledge of what can happen in infinite choices in the face of infinite possibilities. Not merely knowing the path of a single unchanging thread through existence. The latter is a pretty weak knowledge, the former is infinitely powerful. If you were choosing your God, which would you choose?
Actually, if God is omniscient, then that means he knows everything... everything including all the possible facts, outcomes of choices AND choices before they are made
Actually, if God is omniscient, then that means he knows everything... everything including all the possible facts, outcomes of choices AND choices before they are made
That's my point.
Free will is available because the puny mortals can only take one of the many paths at each particular decision point. Just because the omniscient god knows the outcome of all the possible choices doesn't compel the mortals choice in any way.
That's just a jargon filled non-statement. . . Theories of non-casuality are merely indicators that we haven't got the theory right yet.
Philosophers have always thrived on jargon. It's just that now the concepts require a knowledge of higher math. Blame progress -- it has been a long time since the study of humanities alone has been able to provide any insight towards nature. You think that non-causality is an indicator that our math isn't right, but I argue that the math is right, and that philosophy is flawed. The understanding of our reality is flawed. Consider the options. What has a greater chance of being the fool: the abstract understanding of math, or the metaphysical ramblings of some Greek guy, 2300 years ago? As we probe deeper into the universe, our understanding of it is bound to change. Clinging to a classical perception of reality is just plain foolish.
The fact that our observable reality appears to be filled with an infinite number of particles indicates undeniably that greater reality contains an infinite amount of interacting, unbounded signals. I'll spare you the gritty details, but when you pinch someone to provoke a reaction, you are merely noticing what's part of an extreme subset of observable reality. You are part of a system that is so-called wide-sense stationary, even though the true signal makeup may be very non-causal at the narrow-sense. I'm sorry, but true causality doesn't exist outside of idealized calculations and the minds of people who are wasting their time searching for greater meaning. Greater reality is beyond us, for sure, but it's easy enough to disprove that it's causal.
Not at all. Omniscient means knowing all the possible facts and all the possible outcomes of choices that result from those facts, not necessarily knowing which particular choice will be executed. Even omnipotence does not preclude allowing choices to be made.
All you are doing there is pushing the question back and claiming it is answered. Even if you have choices within the framework of predestiny, you do not have any choices that were not already determined. Hence: You do not have free will.
It is the same trap people attempting to find an argument for the origin of all things do, they just retreat.
"How did life on Earth begin?"
- "Perhaps aliens fertilized it."
"How did life on those alien planets begin?"
- "Uh... other aliens?"
Another way to think about it is omniscience is the infinite knowledge of what can happen in infinite choices in the face of infinite possibilities. Not merely knowing the path of a single unchanging thread through existence. The latter is a pretty weak knowledge, the former is infinitely powerful.
When determining whether or not someone has "all" of something, the relative size or scope of that something is not the question, only the amount of that something that the subject possesses. This is not a discussion of the splendor and majesty of god, it is a discussion about the possibility of free will with an omniscient creator god.
Splinemodel:
Clinging to a classical perception of reality is just plain foolish.
I agree.
Why, again, are we discussing a notion so primitive and superstitious as a god?
What has a greater chance of being the fool: the abstract understanding of math, or the metaphysical ramblings of some Greek guy, 2300 years ago? As we probe deeper into the universe, our understanding of it is bound to change. Clinging to a classical perception of reality is just plain foolish.
Heh. And to insist that there must be something beyond the flawed metaphysical apprehension of the world is, of course, an insistence upon metaphysics.
Damn you, Plato!
I figure we could fit evolution in here somehow with him playing.
Where the hell is dmz at a time like this?
I figure we could fit evolution in here somehow with him playing.
This discussion will inevitably get to the Cartesian split of cogito, ergo sum soon enough, and then DMZ will come in with his anti-Cartesian stuff.
Personally, I'm tempted to dig out my copy of Milton's De Doctrina Christiana and just paste big chunks of it here.
Actually, if God is omniscient, then that means he knows everything... everything including all the possible facts, outcomes of choices AND choices before they are made
It means he knows everything knowable, since that's the definition of omniscience. If free will existed, the future of his creations' minds would be uknowable, but he could still be considered omniscience.
I think the idea is that god has foreknowledge of what choice you'll ultimately make, but it's still up to you.
Actually, it means that God has foreknowledge of the choice you'll make AND that he won't actively influence that choice. He'll just watch you make it. Sort of like watching people guess numbers on Deal or No Deal.
Even if you have choices within the framework of predestiny, you do not have any choices that were not already determined. Hence: You do not have free will.
I think the key assumption you're missing is that God exists outside of time.
It's a silly little technicality that makes no rational scientific sense, but it's kinda a logical justification if you buy into a host of other assumptions. Your actions are "predestined" in a way because God, existing outside of time, has foreknowledge of what you'll do.
Or something like that.
I think the idea is that god has foreknowledge of what choice you'll ultimately make, but it's still up to you.
How can it be "up to me" when it was established before I was even born? What you are asserting is that an omniscient creator god makes himself forget and is subsequently surprised when I do something that he already knew I did before he made himself forget.
You are missing the "creator" part of the god. A "creator" god created everything, then that includes me (everything about me) and the world (everything about the world), i.e. - all factors that influence decision-making and all situations in which decisions are made.
I think the key assumption you're missing is that God exists outside of time.
That sentence does not mean anything at all. If God exists outside of time, then all knowledge has always (from our time-bound perspective) been his.
If God, at any point, does not know everything, then he is no longer omniscient and no longer qualifies for this discussion.
If there is anything that was not created by god, then he is not the ultimate creator and he, again, does not qualify for this discussion.
People seem so eager to claim these mutually exclusive concepts (omniscient creator god & free will), either because they seem intellectually comfortable (though unsustainable) and/or because of the fear of moral breakdown without them. Why cling so desperately to something that makes no sense?
ShawnJ:
People seem so eager to claim these mutually exclusive concepts (omniscient creator god & free will), either because they seem intellectually comfortable (though unsustainable) and/or because of the fear of moral breakdown without them. Why cling so desperately to something that makes no sense?
Gröverat: I think the issue is that, yes, an omniscient God knows that Eve will be tempted and eat the apple, but that God takes no active part in affecting her behavior. Is that a cop-out? Sure. It doesn't make any sense. But that's the answer.
How can it be "up to me" when it was established before I was even born?
It wasn't established to human knowledge-- only to God.
We're still playing by the physical rules of the universe while an omnipotent, omniscient God knows everything past, present, and future.
What you are asserting is that an omniscient creator god makes himself forget and is subsequently surprised when I do something that he already knew I did before he made himself forget.
God is not "surprised" by anything. He has foreknowledge.
You are missing the "creator" part of the god. A "creator" god created everything, then that includes me (everything about me) and the world (everything about the world), i.e. - all factors that influence decision-making and all situations in which decisions are made.
You're forgetting that God leaves humans to their own affairs.
He does that because he loves us.
Free will, baby!
That sentence does not mean anything at all.
You have to buy into the assumptions that God is omnipotent and omniscient.
If he's those things, then surely God isn't constrained by the physical laws of the universe such as space and time.
He must exist outside of time.
If God exists outside of time, then all knowledge has always (from our time-bound perspective) been his.
That's it.
If God, at any point, does not know everything, then he is no longer omniscient and no longer qualifies for this discussion.
Right.
If there is anything that was not created by god, then he is not the ultimate creator and he, again, does not qualify for this discussion.
Right. But don't forget to square that with free will.
People seem so eager to claim these mutually exclusive concepts (omniscient creator god & free will), either because they seem intellectually comfortable (though unsustainable) and/or because of the fear of moral breakdown without them. Why cling so desperately to something that makes no sense?
You're not exactly being fair here in your analysis.
I don't buy into the assumptions either, but if you do then theologically it's possible to be consistent.
Hiro:
All you are doing there is pushing the question back and claiming it is answered. Even if you have choices within the framework of predestiny, you do not have any choices that were not already determined. Hence: You do not have free will.
It is the same trap people attempting to find an argument for the origin of all things do, they just retreat.
"How did life on Earth begin?"
- "Perhaps aliens fertilized it."
"How did life on those alien planets begin?"
- "Uh... other aliens?"
When determining whether or not someone has "all" of something, the relative size or scope of that something is not the question, only the amount of that something that the subject possesses. This is not a discussion of the splendor and majesty of god, it is a discussion about the possibility of free will with an omniscient creator god.
No, not pushing anything back. Your stance has a scope problem with the word "determined". A valid argument cannot inject artificial limits partway into the discussion to make itself look good.
Nothing is determined about which course of action will be followed, onmiscience just knows all the possibilities of what may happen "IF" a certain course of action is followed. Destiny, or the lack thereof - free will, is tied to the unfettered choice of the chooser who does not know the outcomes on the other side of the choice with perfect certainty. The chooser has free-will to choose a path, the omniscient observer merely observes, not compels.
dree will, is tied to the unfettered choice of the chooser who does not know the outcomes on the other side of the choice with perfect certainty. The chooser has free-will to choose a path, the omniscient observer merely observes, not compels.
There it is.
Gröverat: I think the issue is that, yes, an omniscient God knows that Eve will be tempted and eat the apple, but that God takes no active part in affecting her behavior. Is that a cop-out? Sure. It doesn't make any sense. But that's the answer.
It's not a cop-out at all, but it's also not the case that God knows Eve will eat the apple. He knows Eve will be sorely tempted, and he knows what will happen if she does (amongst all the other things that may happen). But that is a long shot from knowing with certainty that she will eat the apple.
I think the issue is that, yes, an omniscient God knows that Eve will be tempted and eat the apple, but that God takes no active part in affecting her behavior. Is that a cop-out? Sure. It doesn't make any sense. But that's the answer.
God did take an active role in her behavior by creating her in the first place. There is nothing about Eve, including her mind and soul, that god did not create. There is nothing about the garden, including the tempting devil, that god did not create.
- If god created all of those things without knowing the results beforehand, then god is not omniscient.
- If god did not create the part of Eve that made that decision (and, therefore, could know what would happen beforehand without having caused it), then god is not THE creator.
For free will to exist, either the creator part or the omniscient part must give. They cannot coexist.
As you say, it makes absolutely no sense. Why is such blatant nonsense allowed to survive? In the name of political correctness?
ShawnJ:
We're still playing by the physical rules of the universe while an omnipotent, omniscient God knows everything past, present, and future.
Creation has a beginning, necessarily. God might be eternal, but his creation is not, because creation has a beginning (even if it has no end). Therefore, the creations of god exist on a linear time scale, a time scale that an omniscient god would comprehend and understand. And because this omniscient god is the creator as well, the choices he made in creation restricted our own (of course, without that creation then we would not exist, so perhaps, in the eyes of the theist, being a delusional automaton is better than not even being).
You're forgetting that God leaves humans to their own affairs.
You are forgetting that black is white, that up is down, that 2+2=5, and that we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Your argument is absolutely nothing more than, "Because I said so!"
I don't buy into the assumptions either, but if you do then theologically it's possible to be consistent.
What assumptions does one need to buy into to make this web of nonsense hold together?
Hiro:
Nothing is determined about which course of action will be followed, onmiscience just knows all the possibilities of what may happen "IF" a certain course of action is followed. Destiny, or the lack thereof - free will, is tied to the unfettered choice of the chooser who does not know the outcomes on the other side of the choice with perfect certainty. The chooser has free-will to choose a path, the omniscient observer merely observes, not compels.
You are completely ignoring the "creator" part of the "omniscient creator".
What on earth does "creator" mean to you? Anything at all?