Please answer this simple question, you never did. If you were to (theoretically) travel into the future and witness a choice being made, then travel back to the present, does that automatically nullify the free-will aspect of the choice that you witnessed in this specific scenario?

EDIT: From the perspective of the person inside time, this scenario appears as if the choice was already known. From the perspective of one outside time (non-fixed perspective of time) in this scenario, the decision was witnessed at the time it was made, thereby not interfering with free will or choice.

1) There isn't a single question mark in your previous response.

2) I already answered that question by saying it isn't applicable. God knows all, no time travel necessary. But, no it wouldn't nullify the free will aspect of that particular scenario which does not apply.

No need to indulge in any time travel here. You have a deterministic path because every outcome is known from birth until death. You cannot deviate from this path. Do you agree?

My problem with your theory, even though it at least brings something new to the table, is that it entirely depends on supernatural powers like observing irrespective of time. If a computer could calculate what choices you make for the rest of your life based on an infinite set of variables, the future would be set and choice would be an illusion. If a time traveler could go to the future and observe all your choices, then it means you really cannot choose anything other than has been observed. You think you can choose whatever you want however it seems to be determined with 0% variation in both scenarios. What is the difference from those scenarios with your God theory?

Does God know all simply because he knows all, or does he know 'all' because he has a different perspective of spacetime than us? I'm not saying God time travels, I'm using that as an analogy to theorize a non-fixed perspective of time (something difficult to envision from a fixed perspective of time). Also, saying something is not applicable is not the same as answering the question.

I answered your question. Now answer mine. I bolded it for you. Omniscience is all, irrespective of perspective. He would know everything from all perspectives, again by definition. You keep abusing ambiguousity here when there isn't any. All is all. End of. Answer the question.

It's pretty much what I've been saying since the beginning. I'm sorry too. Scratch that, I'm not.

The difference between you and I is that, when I die, I'll have hope, because I trust my logic. I don't just challenge for the hell of it. I believe in this. You just like to say others are illogical, and that's where you have 0 hope.

Any discussion of a God who would be, by definition, supernatural (even in a theoretical sense) could, by definition, bring supernatural powers into the discussion. Anything beyond the dimensions we define as the natural world we observe and define would, by definition, be supernatural (meaning more, ouside, or beyond the fabric of the natural universe as we see it).

I understand what you're saying (and I've had this same discussion with Christian friends on both sides of the debate). My position is that the free-will aspect of the choice in the mind of the individual cannot be fundamentally changed regardless of how or if it is observed, the electrical impulses that took place inside the mind ultimately resulting in the choice are the same regardless of if they are passively observed. Another interesting poing I've heard posed is that the God or 'entity' doing the observing would have the power to influence the choice in order to get a specific outcome, but would choose not to. By choosing not to interfere, the integrity of choice is preserved.

The point where this gets sticky is when you consider uniquely relative perspective of the two individuals involved (the observer and the chooser). From the chooser's perspective, it would appear that the choice was inevitable, because it seems to be 'pre-known' when looking at a fixed-time perspercive. Conversely, from the perspective of the observer, it would appear that the choice was made at the exact moment it was observed without any outside interference. The conundrum is that to the observer, the choice was not made or known until it was observed (from the non-fixed time perspective), and at the same time, the observer seemed to know the choice before it was made when analyzed from fixed perspective of the chooser, even though to the observer, the choice had already been made, had not yet been made, and was being made, depending on 'when' they are observing.

I disagree with that statement, because observation or non-observation does not fundamentally change the processes in my mind/soul that result in the decision, those processes are the same in either scenario (unless some greater force is 'pulling the strings', which I don't believe). I also don't think that a computer calculating my choice would nullify the choice, as the choice happens in my mind and is not influenced or caused by the calculation of the computer (as long as I did not know what the computer had calculated I would choose).

Hah. While I never even admitted to you that I don't believe in any afterlife (confused me with someone else?) I don't need hope. The difference is when you die, you will have hope and when I die I will have rest. Which one do you prefer?

Oh definitely. I've had many discussions regarding free will (mostly in a non-religious context) and the fun thing is: in the end it doesn't even matter if it exists or not, because it doesn't change anything. Regardless, it's an interesting topic to discuss for sure. Not really sure why happydolphin needs to get all personal all of a sudden, but I want to thank you for proving religious people on the internet can be valuable debating partners.