Replies

Then his freedom is faux freedom. It's a charade. He is led to believe that he has freedom but God didn't tell him the whole truth—that his choices have been "preordained." He is under the impression that he is free to choose, and yet he is not. He is deceived.

To the contrary, God does not lie.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; - Titus 1:2

Moreover, a thing is true because God says it.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. – Genesis 1:3

For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. – Psalms 33:4-9

When one insists that "free will" and "predestination" are mutually exclusive, he is anthropomorphizing God by applying mortal rules of logic - things that are part of the Creation - to the Creator.

God reveals the end from the beginning.

Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10

And He also gives us commandments and if/thens such as this commandment with a promise attached.

Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. - Deut 5:16

Only mortal reasoning would presume that they must be mutually exclusive.

Will we never learn? Even wave/particle duality stands as evidence against such presumptions.

Love God. Believe Him. Trust Him.

To God be the glory!

To the contrary, God does not lie.

Well, thank you for that epiphany. If you read past the first few lines you would have found the following in my post "And Christian God does not deceive." But, then, that would deprive you from an opportunity to unload your usual barrage of unrelated verses and a sermon to boot.

The point of my post was simple and did not accuse God of lying. I disagreed with your interpretation that we can be led by God to believe that we have free will but in reality we don't. I said that would be a deception and God doesn't deceive.

Only mortal reasoning would presume that they must be mutually exclusive

And you are not moral, I presume? You offer theory that two mutually exclusive concepts are not exclusive. But you offer no proof.

Will we never learn? Even wave/particle duality stands as evidence against such presumptions

Humanity has done a great deal of learning in its history. I think it is both self-debasing and untrue to say that humanity doesn't learn. It's drama, as usual.

And then you spout your usual wave/particle theory as "proof," and I say to hat what I said the first time I read it: both are human models; both are mutually exclusive. Those who harp on it in a literalistic manner, the way some read the Bible, indicates more their lack of understanding than knowledge.

Light seems to behaves as a particle only if it is represented as a vector. It seems to behave like a wave if we consider its refractive properties.

Both instances are human observational models. One can design optical systems using only one, or both, depending on the intended use of an optical system.

And, what's more important with respect to the topic, they are very much mutually exclusive. They are not interchangeable, and their results are not mutually useful.

You can design a perfect optical system in one model that is a complete failure in the second model.

The refractory calculations produce a more "realistic" rendition of the radiomagnetic behavior as it could be observed, while the vector (particle) model accurately predicts position of "particles." For accurate, distoritonless, flat-field anastigmatic optics you entirely depend on the "particle" model. For maximum contrast on extended objects, the wave model minimums must be met. Two different criteria; two different models. Two different results and purpsoes. Neither represents what light really is. Both are man-made models for man's applications.

But you will continue to twist things around and even persuade the uninformed.

Thanks for your sermon.