IAmSabrina:
The Christian God is omnipresent (everywhere and anywhere at the same time); omnipotent (all powerful, having no limits in ability); and omniscient (all knowing, not lacking in any knowledge). If God is all knowing, then he was aware, antecedent to all existence, of every possible paradigm of existence that could possible be, ad infinitum. If God is omnipotent, then he had the power to create any possible paradigm without limit (for if there were any limits whatsoever on his power to create, he would by definition not be omnipotent). And if God is omnipresent then he could be simultaneously within and throughout all possible paradigms of existence.

So, if God was aware of all possible paradigms, throughout all possible paradigms, and empowered by himself to create any somesuch paradigm he arbitrarily chose, then every single limitation and event and consequence of this current paradigm was foreseen and actively chosen by God before it came to be. That means that God knows the eventual outcome of every single event, every single moment, every single life that ever was, and is, and possibly can be in the future. Not only does he know it, he actively foresaw it as a possibility and then chose it and all it contains, out of an infinite number of possible choices (because, again, if the number of possible paradigms is not infinite then God's power, foresight and presence are not infinite). Therefore, with both the beginning and end of all that is being seen as one simultaneous God-chosen paradigm, all that is, is already predetermined. If God exists, then humans are only afforded the illusion of choice insofar as this: we are able to perform a limited number of functions within a predetermined paradigm of existence.

After the numerous topics & numerous threads we've encountered, you've not been able to answer this riddle, Ihedinobi

To begin, the biblical position is what I care about and since you are addressing yourself to the Christian God, it is my business to explain to you what that is. If you decide that it is your definitions that you want to attack, I'll help you do it if I find it worth my time and energy.

You are correct about Omnipresence as the attribute of God that describes His ability to be everywhere at once. He is "bigger" (we describe Him spatially for convenience since His existence is independent of space) than the Universe after all.

You are wrong about Omnipotence which actually means that God has no real opposition to His Will. It is not the ability to do just anything. It is God's ability to do whatever He wants. In other words, it does not stretch to accommodate the ability to contradict His Own Nature. God cannot lie. That does not have anything to do with His Omnipotence. It is a statement about His Character.

You are also wrong about Omniscience. It only describes God's Perfect Eternal Knowledge. God's Knowledge does not evolve over time. He does not come to know things. He does not have "infinite possibilities" which He has perfect understanding of to choose from. Rather, God has always known everything there is to know because His Knowledge is perfect and complete. Thus, God does not choose from infinite possibilities. Rather, He does exactly what He pleases.

Perhaps one way to appreciate God's Omniscience is to imagine writing a program. When God created the Universe, He didn't do so knowing that if He did this or that, that or the other would result, no. He decided exactly what would result in each and every case, a little like when you tell the computer through the program every single thing that it must do. If you don't describe every single detail to the computer about how it should function in the program, it simply doesn't do anything at points where it has no information. God's Omniscience means that He wrote the rule book Himself.

God's Omnipotence and Omniscience mean that He knew what each creature would choose once He brings them into existence and gives them a free will and therefore He guaranteed that choice by a "code" in the program so that the choice would be made without anything preventing it.

In other words, the connection of Omniscience and Omnipotence to Free Will is immediate and obvious here.

But when you say that because God knows what you will choose, you cannot choose contrary to His Knowledge thereby invalidating free will, that is a huge non sequitur. The connection is not clear. Why does your choice need to be guaranteed by God's Ignorance? What is the relationship here? It is completely mysterious. This is more truly a complaint that you are not God yourself able to act with fiat.

budaatum:

It could also, is in fact, the clad God, as in, "God with shielding".

I don't understand what you said here.

budaatum:

It is the freewill of every human being to decide to be a part of the "eternal Family of willing subjects composed of human beings and angels" with freewill.

Correct? Is that what you wrote?

Whether one wants to be like God is up to one and being like God is how to be like God?

I'm not sure I understand this either.

What I said here is that free will is what we have in order to decide if we want to be part of God's Family or not.

JujuSugar:


Then there is no freewill. Simple
The rest of your rant couldn't bother me less honestly.

Sure. Your word is law.

Ihedinobi3:

I'm not sure I understand this either.

What I said here is that free will is what we have in order to decide if we want to be part of God's Family or not.

That's what I said too. Consider. In the first one, at least.

Ihedinobi3:

Go and do some work, LordReed. The post is right here on this thread. Read it and point out what is wrong with it. Or don't, if you prefer. I'm not repeating it for you.

LMFAO! Thats your fucking business if you do not answer direct questions, it just shows how dumb your position is.

LordReed:


LMFAO! Thats your fucking business if do not answer direct questions, it just shows how dumb your position is.

Sure, my position is dumb because I won't jump through hoops for Your Bright Majesty Lord Reed. Please wait for me. I am coming to write a new argument for you. Do you have a list of other things you want me to do? Maybe roll over and play dead too?

budaatum:

That's what I said too. Consider. In the first one, at least.

Okay.

Ihedinobi3:

It's the same here. Or rather it would be if I was concerned about persuading you about anything. There are two reasons we are having this conversation:

1. It's an opportunity to explain some things in a different way to an audience that may comprise believers who don't understand this stuff.

2. I decided to extend the same benefit of the doubt that I give all antichristians to you just to demonstrate that I can be as generous as I told you I was. I have answered your questions and arguments multiple times and excused the underhanded tactics you have employed just to make a difference from the last time we did this.

Otherwise, it matters nothing to me what you believe to be true. If it didn't, I'd be pulling teeth by now.

As I always say, atheists have a completely different set of assumptions about reality than Christians do, so it is hopeless to expect a reconciliation of views here. I haven't answered you in order to convince you of the correctness of Christian beliefs. Can't care less what your opinions of them are.

God's Plan: to get an eternal Family of willing subjects composed of human beings and angels.

Free Will: the tool through which such a Family is produced.

Illustration: Jesus Christ died on the Cross for everyone. If anyone believes in Him and perseveres in Faith, they will end up as part of that Family. If anyone does not believe or falls away, they will be rejected from that Family.

I can't credit your position then.

@bolded. So basically your god has predetermined particular chosen people to be sons of Jesus! That must be what you mean by "an eternal family of willing subjects", no?

To this lucky people God has "freely given" Jesus. But to the others, there is no access to heaven? LOL. You must be kidding me

So, if I may ask, why did God create the people who'd later rebel against him? Are you saying he was not aware of their eventual fate? Or he just did it cos he can?

Ihedinobi3:

"@bolded answers free will a bit. But concedes that God has no plan."
- IAmSabrina (https://www.nairaland.com/5020369/god-shoes/3#76350436)

That was you admitting that at least a part of my post at least explained free will to some extent for you. Then, I found that I had to start over again and run the gamut several times.

This is my problem with you. You assert things as positive even if you don't fully understand.

If you didn't get it, let me clue you in: that was me establishing that you can explain free will and explain God's plan seperately, but cannot explain them together. Something you've failed woefully to understand time and time... and time....... and time again.

Ihedinobi3:

And again, I ask you what your question means. Does omnipotence mean the power to contradict things and even one's own nature? If possession of free will means that some creatures will sin and thus introduce pain and suffering into the world, how then can a world where free will exists be devoid of these things? Is it still free will if God were to "alter" it, as you said?

For your information, i have no problem with free will as a concept. I have a problem with it when a supposedly tri-omni being who watches over reality and supposedly loves us exists. You should know by now that my arguments are hypothetical.

Ihedinobi3:

As you know, I don't take your word for it.

Whatever

Ihedinobi3:

Have you ever heard of a non sequitur?

Explain how my response was a non sequitur. I'm waiting

Ihedinobi3:

Yeah, still a non sequitur. Even if you say it a little louder and a few more times too.

Do you even know the meaning of non-sequitur?
You said god created alternate possibilities for us to choose from. Now i'm asking you if he knows what choice will be made....

Ihedinobi3:

I know that you and other atheists are very sensitive to any mention of Hell **LOLZ** but I was only saying that if we have no choice, then, of course there was no point in these arguments since I am a believer and you're not. We're not going to be choosing anything different, are we?

You must be wondering why we're still here shooting and missing then.....

Ihedinobi3:

Why is this not special pleading?

Because the part I bolded pretty much summarizes everything else you said prior to that statement.

Ihedinobi3:

I take it that there are no implications in such a rejection?

What you don't realize, Ihedinobi, is that atheism is rather eclectic in that it is NOT defined as a positive philosophical position which some people choose to take, but rather as a negation of the many and diverse religious positions taken by other people – ie: theists – the world over, and throughout history. Let us examine your logic here....
Do you believe in Santa Claus? Obviously you'll agree with me that he's just a made up mythological fun figure for children during christmas, innit?
Now what are the goals of aSANTAism? what goal-oriented behaviour arises from your own personal aSANTAism? Like pretty much everybody else, my educated guess is that you haven’t ANY goals you’re aiming to fulfil as a direct consequence of your disbelief in Santa Claus – am I right?

Ihedinobi3:

Second time now that you are offering me that advice. Still not clear why you do.

Why not actually look it up and find out?

Ihedinobi3:

As for drifting from reality, I'm a Christian, you're an atheist. Reality has very different meanings for both of us.

Obviously

Ihedinobi3:

Easy: deductive reasoning.

And what makes you think atheists have this fantasy?
Come to think of it, isn't this a generalization fallacy?

Ihedinobi3:

I will answer this in another post. Your premises are faulty (because of those straw men I always talk about) and your conclusion is a non sequitur.

Lol. Whatever you say

Ihedinobi3:

You are correct about Omnipresence as the attribute of God that describes His ability to be everywhere at once. He is "bigger" (we describe Him spatially for convenience since His existence is independent of space) than the Universe after all.

You are wrong about Omnipotence which actually means that God has no real opposition to His Will. It is not the ability to do just anything. It is God's ability to do whatever He wants. In other words, it does not stretch to accommodate the ability to contradict His Own Nature. God cannot lie. That does not have anything to do with His Omnipotence. It is a statement about His Character.

You are also wrong about Omniscience. It only describes God's Perfect Eternal Knowledge. God's Knowledge does not evolve over time. He does not come to know things. He does not have "infinite possibilities" which He has perfect understanding of to choose from. Rather, God has always known everything there is to know because His Knowledge is perfect and complete. Thus, God does not choose from infinite possibilities. Rather, He does exactly what He pleases.


Perhaps one way to appreciate God's Omniscience is to imagine writing a program. When God created the Universe, He didn't do so knowing that if He did this or that, that or the other would result, no. He decided exactly what would result in each and every case, a little like when you tell the computer through the program every single thing that it must do. If you don't describe every single detail to the computer about how it should function in the program, it simply doesn't do anything at points where it has no information. God's Omniscience means that He wrote the rule book Himself.

God's Omnipotence and Omniscience mean that He knew what each creature would choose once He brings them into existence and gives them a free will and therefore He guaranteed that choice by a "code" in the program so that the choice would be made without anything preventing it.

In other words, the connection of Omniscience and Omnipotence to Free Will is immediate and obvious here.

But when you say that because God knows what you will choose, you cannot choose contrary to His Knowledge thereby invalidating free will, that is a huge non sequitur. The connection is not clear. Why does your choice need to be guaranteed by God's Ignorance? What is the relationship here? It is completely mysterious. This is more truly a complaint that you are not God yourself able to act with fiat.

But you christians always call your god an infinite god, no? I personally defined those terms independent of the christian god using their proper meaning before relating it to him. Seems to me you're defining these qualities dependent on your god and then finetuning it which just exposes the contradiction of his nature to me. Yet another epic christian fail in my book.

IAmSabrina:

@bolded. So basically your god has predetermined particular chosen people to be sons of Jesus! That must be what you mean by "an eternal family of willing subjects", no?

To this lucky people God has "freely given" Jesus. But to the others, there is no access to heaven? LOL. You must be kidding me

So, if I may ask, why did God create the people who'd later rebel against him? Are you saying he was not aware of their eventual fuate? Or he just did it cos he can?

I assume bald-faced lying is now back in the menu too.

IAmSabrina:
This is my problem with you. You assert things as positive even if you don't fully understand.

If you didn't get it, let me clue you in: that was me establishing that you can explain free will and explain God's plan seperately, but cannot explain them together. Something you've failed woefully to understand time and time... and time....... and time again.

Okay. So why did I have to explain free will again after this?

IAmSabrina:
For your information, i have no problem with free will as a concept. I have a problem with it when a supposedly tri-omni being who watches over reality and supposedly loves us exists. You should know by now that my arguments are hypothetical.

Not sure how this answers what I said there.

IAmSabrina:
Whatever

Okay.

IAmSabrina:
Explain how my response was a non sequitur. I'm waiting

Already did elsewhere.

IAmSabrina:
Do you even know the meaning of non-sequitur?
You said god created alternate possibilities for us to choose from. Now i'm asking you if he knows what choice will be made....

I do. Do you?

IAmSabrina:
You must be wondering why we're still here shooting and missing then.....

I don't understand this response.

IAmSabrina:
Because the part I bolded pretty much summarizes everything else you said prior to that statement.

I don't understand this response either.

IAmSabrina:
What you don't realize, Ihedinobi, is that atheism is rather eclectic in that it is NOT defined as a positive philosophical position which some people choose to take, but rather as a negation of the many and diverse religious positions taken by other people – ie: theists – the world over, and throughout history. Let us examine your logic here....
Do you believe in Santa Claus? Obviously you'll agree with me that he's just a made up mythological fun figure for children during christmas, innit?
Now what are the goals of aSANTAism? what goal-oriented behaviour arises from your own personal aSANTAism? Like pretty much everybody else, my educated guess is that you haven’t ANY goals you’re aiming to fulfil as a direct consequence of your disbelief in Santa Claus – am I right?

Evasion. False equivalence.

IAmSabrina:
Why not actually look it up and find out?

Still don't know why you assume I don't know what it is or why I would bother to look it up just because you say I should. You atheists are on a constant power trip.

IAmSabrina:
Obviously

Glad we agree on something. So, I'm hoping that you'll stop assuming that I am interested in making sense to you. You are just an opportunity for me to accomplish something else I care about.

IAmSabrina:
And what makes you think atheists alone have this fantasy?
Come to think of it, isn't this a generalization fallacy?

In answer to both questions, the issue is atheism itself and therefore all adherents of that philosophy.

IAmSabrina:
Lol. Whatever you say

Right.

Ihedinobi3:

Sure, my position is dumb because I won't jump through hoops for Your Bright Majesty Lord Reed. Please wait for me. I am coming to write a new argument for you. Do you have a list of other things you want me to do? Maybe roll over and play dead too?

That would be great, at least it would show you understand something.

IAmSabrina:

@bolded. So basically your god has predetermined particular chosen people to be sons of Jesus! That must be what you mean by "an eternal family of willing subjects", no?

To this lucky people God has "freely given" Jesus. But to the others, there is no access to heaven? LOL. You must be kidding me

So, if I may ask, why did God create the people who'd later rebel against him? Are you saying he was not aware of their eventual fate? Or he just did it cos he can?



This is my problem with you. You assert things as positive even if you don't fully understand.

If you didn't get it, let me clue you in: that was me establishing that you can explain free will and explain God's plan seperately, but cannot explain them together. Something you've failed woefully to understand time and time... and time....... and time again.



For your information, i have no problem with free will as a concept. I have a problem with it when a supposedly tri-omni being who watches over reality and supposedly loves us exists. You should know by now that my arguments are hypothetical.



Whatever



Explain how my response was a non sequitur. I'm waiting


Do you even know the meaning of non-sequitur?
You said god created alternate possibilities for us to choose from. Now i'm asking you if he knows what choice will be made....


You must be wondering why we're still here shooting and missing then.....


Because the part I bolded pretty much summarizes everything else you said prior to that statement.



What you don't realize, Ihedinobi, is that atheism is rather eclectic in that it is NOT defined as a positive philosophical position which some people choose to take, but rather as a negation of the many and diverse religious positions taken by other people – ie: theists – the world over, and throughout history. Let us examine your logic here....
Do you believe in Santa Claus? Obviously you'll agree with me that he's just a made up mythological fun figure for children during christmas, innit?
Now what are the goals of aSANTAism? what goal-oriented behaviour arises from your own personal aSANTAism? Like pretty much everybody else, my educated guess is that you haven’t ANY goals you’re aiming to fulfil as a direct consequence of your disbelief in Santa Claus – am I right?



Why not actually look it up and find out?


Obviously



And what makes you think atheists have this fantasy?
Come to think of it, isn't this a generalization fallacy?



Lol. Whatever you say

Trying to make him understand is like trying to find the general solution of the general 5th degree polynomial equation.

Martinez39:
Trying to make him understand is like trying to find the general solution of the general 5th degree polynomial equation.

And like pulling teeth when you think the anesthetic has kicked in but lo and behold the utter sobbing pain.

Ihedinobi3:

I assume bald-faced lying is now back in the menu too.

And i assume pointless fault finding and frantic straw grasping is also back on the menu

Ihedinobi3:

Okay. So why did I have to explain free will again after this?

Do I know for you? LoL

Ihedinobi3:

Not sure how this answers what I said there.

Ok

Ihedinobi3:

Okay.

Fine

Ihedinobi3:

Already did elsewhere.

Riiiiiight

Ihedinobi3:

I do. Do you?

Yes, sir. I do as a matter of fact

Ihedinobi3:

I don't understand this response.
I don't understand this response either.

And whose fault is that?

Ihedinobi3:

Evasion. False equivalence.

Its a false equivalence because unlike atheists, you don't think your God a myth. Anyways, that's your cup o' tea

Ihedinobi3:

Still don't know why you assume I don't know what it is or why I would bother to look it up just because you say I should. You atheists are on a constant power trip.

I never declared your ignorance on the subject though.

Ihedinobi3:

Glad we agree on something. So, I'm hoping that you'll stop assuming that I am interested in making sense to you. You are just an opportunity for me to accomplish something else I care about.

You were never making sense to me. I was just giving you the benefit of doubt

Ihedinobi3:

In answer to both questions, the issue is atheism itself and therefore all adherents of that philosophy.

So no single christian or religious person on earth has such fantasy?

Ihedinobi3:

Right.

[img]https://media1./images/32f5fde1bb24fe4376bd17a105aba511/tenor.gif[/img]
As always, Ihedinobi, you do know how to put in the effort. But when you don't give certain terms their proper definition. Every argument you make from that moment just fails to hit the spot. Your arguments would been convincing if you hadn't diluted the implications of the OMNI adjective. Just saying

IAmSabrina:

And i assume pointless fault finding and frantic straw grasping is also back on the menu

More lies though.

IAmSabrina:
Yes, sir. I do as a matter of fact

Great.

IAmSabrina:
And whose fault is that?

I think it's yours.

IAmSabrina:
Its a false equivalence because unlike atheists, you don't think your God a myth. Anyways, that's your cup o' tea

Not quite. It's a false equivalence because Santa Claus is not a philosophy or a religion.

IAmSabrina:
I never declared your ignorance on the subject though.

You implied it.

IAmSabrina:
You were never making sense to me. I was just giving you the benefit of doubt

I don't believe you did nearly as much as you think you did but thanks anyway for the thought at least.

IAmSabrina:
So no single christian or religious person on earth has such fantasy?

As I said, I was not addressing individuals. If I was, then of course, I would mention that everyone at least struggles with that kind of arrogance. But atheism as a philosophy is all about that, thus all atheists are that way by definition.

IAmSabrina:
[img]https://media1./images/32f5fde1bb24fe4376bd17a105aba511/tenor.gif[/img]
As always, Ihedinobi, you do know how to put in the effort. But when you don't give certain terms their proper definition. Every argument you make from that moment just fails to hit the spot. Your arguments would been convincing if you hadn't diluted the implications of the OMNI adjective. Just saying

Thank you for your kind words. For once I am perfectly happy to have spoken with you. You are obviously smart enough to make and keep conversation interesting and you can be gracious and decent when you want to be. I always value such a disposition highly since religious and philosophical debates, especially informal ones, tend to be extremely emotional and cantankerous.

As to your observations or concerns or advice (as they may be), I have already told you a few times that one serious problem with debating against the Bible is that its opponents typically don't know what it says. That is because, first of all, the Bible, just like its Author God Himself, does not force itself on anyone. It is available to read, study and research and learn about from the right authorities, but it does not make as much noise about itself as other philosophies do. Human beings are naturally arrogant and tend to respond only to a high hand. So, they ignore the Bible for more forceful and aggressive ideas.

The second and even more important reason is that the Bible was written for Faith. That is, it does not eliminate the need to believe. So, it presents puzzles that demand patient and humble questioning in order to understand. This is what actually sends all willing students to gifted and prepared Bible teachers who can explain the puzzles to them.

Every arrogant person, then, will simply never understand what the Bible says. Given also that human beings (just like the angels) tend not to tolerate complete ignorance, they make up false ideas or adopt them to fill the void where true Bible knowledge should be. This is why you can make an argument about the Christian God on false premises that lead to faulty conclusions and not anticipate a correction of the premises. It is the Bible that explains the Christian God, therefore it is the Bible that can tell you what terms like free will, omnipotence, and omniscience mean. The words don't mean just whatever you want them to mean with respect to Christian theology.

Finally, about the effect of my arguments, consider that if God were to unveil Himself completely right now, you would be perfectly convinced of His Existence, but you would also be destroyed by that revelation. In the same vein, Christian arguments are not designed to negate free will. They are only meant to be true. Truth is not defined by its persuasiveness, only by its faithfulness to Reality (that is, to the Bible). So, I don't argue to convince. I argue to bear witness to the Truth. Those who love the Truth will hear me. Those who don't will not.

Ihedinobi3:

More lies though.



Great.



I think it's yours.



Not quite. It's a false equivalence because Santa Claus is not a philosophy or a religion.



You implied it.



I don't believe you did nearly as much as you think you did but thanks anyway for the thought at least.



As I said, I was not addressing individuals. If I was, then of course, I would mention that everyone at least struggles with that kind of arrogance. But atheism as a philosophy is all about that, thus all atheists are that way by definition.



Thank you for your kind words. For once I am perfectly happy to have spoken with you. You are obviously smart enough to make and keep conversation interesting and you can be gracious and decent when you want to be. I always value such a disposition highly since religious and philosophical debates, especially informal ones, tend to be extremely emotional and cantankerous.

As to your observations or concerns or advice (as they may be), I have already told you a few times that one serious problem with debating against the Bible is that its opponents typically don't know what it says. That is because, first of all, the Bible, just like its Author God Himself, does not force itself on anyone. It is available to read, study and research and learn about from the right authorities but it does not make as much noise about itself as other philosophies do. Human beings are naturally arrogant and tend to respond only to a high hand. So, they ignore the Bible for more forceful and aggressive ideas.

The second and even more important reason is that the Bible was written for Faith. That is, it does not eliminate the need to believe. So, it presents puzzles that demand patient and humble questioning in order to answer. This is what actually sends all willing students to gifted and prepared Bible teachers who can explain the puzzles to them.

Every arrogant person, then, will simply never understand what the Bible says. Given that human beings (just like the angels) tend not to tolerate complete ignorance, they make up false ideas or adopt them to fill the void where true Bible knowledge is. This is why you can make an argument about the Christian God on false premises that lead to faulty conclusions and not anticipate a correction of the premises. It is the Bible that explains the Christian God, therefore, it is the Bible that can tell you what terms like free will, omnipotence and omniscience mean. The words don't mean just whatever you want them to mean with respect to Christian theology.

Finally, about the effect of my arguments, consider that if God were to unveil Himself completely right now, you would be perfectly convinced of His Existence, but you would also be destroyed by that revelation. In the same vein, Christian arguments are not designed to negate free will. They are only meant to be true. Truth is not defined by its persuasiveness, only by its faithfulness to Reality (that is, to the Bible). So, I don't argue to convince. I argue to bear witness to the Truth. Those who love the Truth will hear me. Those who don't will not.

Thanks for the lovely words. I appreciate and respect your input as well

IAmSabrina:

But you christians always call your god an infinite god, no? I personally defined those terms independent of the christian god using their proper meaning before relating it to him. Seems to me you're defining these qualities dependent on your god and then finetuning it which just exposes the contradiction of his nature to me. Yet another epic christian fail in my book.

About this, I already explained elsewhere. Christian arguments are Christian arguments. Straw man fallacies are straw man fallacies.

In the Bible, the terms free will, omniscience, omnipotence etc are not used. They are terms of convenience coined to explain biblical concepts. So, when someone attaches a meaning to them that has nothing to do with the biblical concepts in question, they only create a straw man for Christian apologists to contend with.

That is why I insisted on correcting the meanings to reflect the biblical position.

As for contradictions in God's Nature, Satan banked on such a thing too to launch his pre-human coup d'etat. It failed, of course, for the same reason that your own arguments do here: the contradictions are not what you think. Mercy contradicts Justice, and God is both merciful and just, yet He had no problem at all reconciling both through the Sacrificial Death of the Lord Jesus Christ. The same way, He had no problem reconciling creature free will to His Own Sovereign Will. Rather than the latter making the former impossible, it actually makes it possible.