When a 15 page short story by Tolstoy gives a clearer explanation of Christianitty than 6 years of Catholic schooling...

>implying God's plan can't account for free will

It can't, because God's knowledge of contingencies can only be derived from himself.

Do you user's think God's omnipotents negates free will?
I don't really think so.
If God can and has planned, and knows about, all possible choices we can make, then everything is already decided, but that choice still exists for us.
Free will is just for humans and animals.
Just because God knows what you are going to do doesn't stop you yourself from deciding.

>If God can and has planned, and knows about, all possible choices we can make, then everything is already decided, but that choice still exists for us.

This is wrong. I will explain why.

God's omniscience exists prior to creation (I refer to logical order and not temporal order). God knows all things before (again, logically before) he creates the beings whose actions he will know. But from where does he derive his knowledge of those beings actions? It cannot be from the being, because it has not yet been created. God can only derive the knowledge of the being's actions, and also their contingent actions, from within himself. That means that when God actuates a set of contingencies, and creates a being, that being will be performing one set of actions from the contingencies God derived from within himself. At no point did you have a free choice to pursue an action, will it though you may. God did not know that "you" would do something, he knew that he could create you such that you would do this or that, and created you such that you would do one or the other. There is no other possibility.

>and created you such that you would do one and not the other*

Fixing my error.

Also if you want to read an actual theologian on this subject, read Turretin's refutation of Molina in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology.

>implying omnipotent God doesn't contain a random number generator within himself

The numbers (actions) could only be generating from within himself, thus they are not from within you. He would then actuate a chosen action and you would perform that one. You still have no free will.

>not understanding preconditions of ideal RNG
>trying into formal logic

Explain how a number being randomly generated has any bearing on the fact that God would still only be actuating one number and not others.

True randomness literally does not exist

if god didn't give me free will then why would he give me the illusion of free will?

An ideal RNG would be a completely independent uncontrollable source of entropy. This whole problem essentially boils down to the same old omnipotence paradox, just like the absolute majority of other problems which arise from naive attempts to apply strict logic to inherently illogical concept of God. Which is why Calvinist theology is actually just pointless memery.

God is the Logos and the Lord God of Truth. He is not an irrationality. You are putting him into this box of "mystery" because you want to prove your precious concept of "free will." We are to think of God using our reason, as he has condescended knowledge of himself to us on our own terms. We possess ectypal knowledge of God, we know him through analogy, but by this condescension on his own part this knowledge is true. Correct reasoning from that knowledge is true.

You are what is known as a secondary cause. This is not a perfect analogy, but consider a king giving an order to his executioner. The executioner obeys and performs the execution. The king was the primary cause of the action, but the executioner willed the action and actually performed it. Humans are the executioner. When you perform an action, you will to perform it. You will to perform it and not something else. You simply did not have the ability to determine what it is that you will. Your king made that choice.

Your example makes perfect sense, but if God has decided for us our own actions, why does he punish those that were decided to commit sin?
I simply can't understand the concept of a deterministic God who punishes those he controls.

Does one really deserve eternal punishment for something that was decided by another entity?

>babby's first theodicy

try reading on the topic before commenting you fucking pseud

>god makes you sin then punishes you
>"why?"
>uhhh read a book
(You)

God foreordained the eternal destruction of sinners to glorify himself through his justice and wrath. He predestines his elect to salvation to glorify himself through his mercy and love. That is the end of man, to glorify God.

>He is not an irrationality.
>does not understand the difference between illogical and irrational
>hurr durr the existence of religious texts are proof of God's existence
This is becoming really funny really fast.

telling your dumb ass to read a book cause this question has been discussed and answered in a million ways for a few thousand years

HURR DURR IM SO CLEVER IM THE FIRST ONE TO THINK OF THEODICY, GOD BTFO

-tips-

We were having a decent discussion here. Pls go

>no actual definitive answer
>answered in a million ways
top cake

I'm the guy you were having a discussion with

>accuses someone who is asking a question of being a pseud
>doesn't offer reading suggestions
>doesn't add to discussion
REALLY makes u think

God has no free will tho, only God-2 does

>he went to a shitty non-Jesuit school
ahahahahahahaha

if you admit that God is illogical why are you imposing the idea of RNG when it could be an infinite amount of other possibilities

>not even understanding OP's sentence alone and mixing up the numbers

>imposing the idea of RNG when it could be an infinite amount of other possibilities
To illustrate the ridiculousness of le cold logical approach, when any theology is invariably based on some completely arbitrary assumptions about fundamental nature of god. This is not against Christians or religious people, but against Calvinists which trigger me immensely with their retarded memery.