[quote="R_Daneel, post:13, topic:207473"]
And your belief is well substantiated. Compatibilism is bunk. It is easy to analyze the problem, and I suggest we do it.
1) First, we know that there are trillions of human (and anaimal) actions every second. (A)
2) Second, we assume that God's knowledge perfectly reflects all those actions. The ways and means of "how" God obtains that knowledge is not known, but God's omniscience is the hypothesis. (B)
Therefore, we have the equivalence of two sets of events. formally we have A == B.
There are exactly four different ways how this is possible, and they are mutually exculsive.
1) The events (A) are the causative factor for God's knowledge (B). Essentially we are free agents, and God has knowledge about our actions, because we act as we do. This brings up all sorts of interesting problems, like how can our "future" acts "influence" God's "past" knowledge, but let's neglect these issues. The usual stipulation is that God is outside time, and it is not sensible to talk about our "future" with respect to God.
2) God's knoweldge (B) is the causative factor for our actions (A). This would contradict our free will, since our decisions are directly caused by God's knowledge. It is possible, but we don't think it is correct. Our assumption that we are free agents may be incorrect, but this concept is too deeply ingrained to seriously contemplate it.
3) God's knowledge(B) and our actions (A) just happen to coincide, while neither of them causes the other. In other words, it is just an incredibly unlikely event that these two sets "happen" to coincide. We could imagine two people, flipping a coin trillions of times (every second) and each coin-toss just "happens" to be the same. Not impossible, but so unlikely that it cannot be taken seriously.
4) Some unknown causative agent causes both our actions (A) and God's knowledge (B). This scenario can be dismissed out of hand. It cosntradicts all our assumptions. It makes us puppets, and it makes God's knowledge contingent upon this agent's causative power.
Now, if left here, most people would select the first scenario. God knows what he does, because we do it. I will stop right here, and ask for your assessment. If and when you reply, I will continue. :)
I would choose position # 1 with an important codicil. God's existence is a timeless infinity, or, perhaps more precisely, an infinite timelessness. What each of us do, during our lives, occurs in the smallest of all possible instants, a God-Now, for God. Like God's, our Now is not a part of Time, yet we can only "see" our actions in this flow, we call Time, and have a mere sensation of the Now in this progression. By Necessity God cannot slow down our activities, nor can He slow down His perception of them. He views our lives, including our choices, in one exceedingly small and instantaneous flash, where beginning and end are essentially simultaneous, pure sequence.
It is impossible for us to escape the sequence of Time, including the moral affinities of each of our actions. Essentially, we have the Time to make choices. God sees the beginning and end of a choice-sequence virtually simultaneously and in that reference, each of us has Free Will, the freedom to affect an outcome one way or another. For us, this is the best that can be done. But, He knows that if we Love and Obey Him, we will make the better choices during those minute instants. His knowledge of our actions is not some history channel replay. It is Now in flow.
This concept is extremely difficult to describe in merely human words, especially for me! But, if one steps back, for a moment, and views the bigger picture of a single action one can almost picture that minute occurrence. It can clearly be seen that a man is NOT coerced by God. It can clearly be understood that a man has options. God is almost a bystander, except that He gave us a set of commands earlier in our Time.
I did not write these paragraphs to be a proof. But, if I had, at best they would be a sort of poor factual demonstration requiring some presuppositions. As you all know, a factual demonstration, demonstratio quia, is a demonstrative syllogism that works backward from our experience to our conclusion. As such, it does not express a per se cause. It merely expresses why we know a thing. Besides, we have God's Word.
Please forgive my poor compilation of these ideas.