RE: Not "Required"

First, I'm flattered you think I'm knowledgeable, but really please; these are just thoughts and opinions I have about the subject (based on what?), and any perceived eloquence is quite frankly being used as a mask to cover up that fact. (I'll try to prove that statement in my subsequent comments.)

I always loved the paradox of "Gods Rock". It creates a simple circular impossibility that is humorous in poking fun at our conception of omnipotence. Wasn't it George Carlin who used it in his old comedy routine about his experiences at Catholic School? I wonder if he invented it? I don't think it quite applies to my theory of deferred omniscience though, because having the ability to know something and actually knowing it form a much more linear relationship. In order for freewill to exist in a world with an omniscient God, I guess he would have to allow events as they pertain to us to manifest themselves in a serial fashion. I also get confused when thinking about an entity that by its definition must be able to exist in all times and places at once. Perhaps being outside time and place somehow allows for this. But we are not outside time and place, so why can't our futures be variable based on events and decisions that happen here with God only observing and giving subtle influence? We move through time like a line being drawn, the nearest end able to change direction in accordance with these events. (If you haven't already, see Omninerd's Philosophy of Time Travel when you feel the need for a good headache.)

You are right, in my opinion, that if omniscience cannot be suspended then freewill is replaced by complete pre-destiny and we are trapped in a book that has already been written, read and shelved. Pre-destiny carries its own set of problems for me; the biggest one being the question of "why would He bother?" It also removes the concept of joy from the argument because we have no chance to please Him and no reason to praise Him; two things theologians seem to think are very important to God. The only thing I do like about pre-destiny is that if it were to be proven (which it probably can't) then the existence of a supreme being becomes obvious. (Who's prepared our destinies?)

The only other thought I can come up with would be that every possible outcome is known and we traverse a winding path through these possibilities based on our immediate choices. That seems overly complicated to me, but who knows?

I hate to say this because it's not what you're looking for, but in the end these arguments always boil down to a matter of faith. Faith is a concept one either rejects completely, upholds by trying to explain the un-provable and unknowable, (hence the "shaping of Gods powers"), or as in the case of some, just accept as presented. No one ever seems to be able to totally convince anybody but themselves and their like on this subject, and even that wavers back and forth sometimes causing the search to go on. A quote from Ursula Le Guin from "The Left Hand of Darkness" comes to my mind for some reason:

"The unknown, the unforetold, the unproven, that is what life is based on. Ignorance is the ground of thought. Unproof is the ground of action. If it were proven that there is no God, there would be no religion. But also if it were proven that there is a God, there would be no religion... Tell me, Genry, what is known? What is sure, predictable, inevitable—the one certain thing you know concerning your future, and mine?"

"That we shall die."

"Yes. There's only one question that can be answered, Genry, and you already know the answer…. The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty: not knowing what comes next."

You seem to have understood it. It would be extremely hypocritical for me not to be 'nice'; after all, we're just two neighbors talking over The Fence...