shvu

Intelligent design does not specifically name a source, but given it's history and source, it is clear that it is a thin veil over the biblical view of creation starting from Adam, Eve and the apple. When evolution is taught in schools, it comes with concrete support and evidence. No such support nor evidence can be provided for ID without specifically selecting a religious source. This raises the next question. Which religious source is to be chosen? There are several creation stories in the world, each different from the other. Which among these will be taught as the correct story in schools, thereby dismissing all the other creation stories as false? Or will ID be country specific where ID in the US will teach the biblical version, Islamic countries will teach the Quranic version, China will teach the Buddhist version and India will teach one of the various Indian versions? If that happens, can it still be called science? Cheers

Raghu, Arguments & counter arguments are of no use as you must be aware of. What I have to say is complete in itself and does not require further justification or defense. Besides, I just don't understand what you are saying just as I am sure, you did not get at least half of what I said. I just read something that I find interesting and amusing and hopefully so will you. Some facts about Jim Carey, the unique movie star who is loved by some and hated by some. I love the guy, especially in the movie "Pet detective". · As a child, he used to wear his tap shoes to bed just in case his parents needed cheering up in the middle of the night · At age 10, he sent his resume to Carol Burnett · At one point he and his family all worked as janitors at a factory to make a living. · Wrote himself a check for $20 million and kept it in his wallet until he earned that amount for "The Cable Guy". · First actor ever to reach 20 million dollar mark salary. · Owns his own $25 million dollar plane. Cheers

What is really incredible is the way some people set all logic aside and believe in such ideas. They are the real ignorant ones. Just because a few dozen guys wrote some religious books does not mean the entire country was "spiritual". Such ridiculous ideas were first seen in the campaigns of Vivekananda as part of marketing his religious products at an international level and has been adopted by other religious organizations seeking followers from other countries. Perhaps it also works on some people and they join these organizations to invest their time and money. From a business perspective, any marketing campaign that works, is a good one. Man has always been materialistic and will always be. This has nothing to do with India or Russia or South Africa. More importantly, there is nothing wrong with being materialistic as that is our true nature. If a set of children were left by themselves to survive with no contact with other humans, their concern would be survival followed by comfort as that the true nature of life. They are not going to sing Bhajans. On the other hand, Abstinence, control, etc are unnatural and artifically imposed by religion. It is the religious people who project material life as bad so they may prevail. I know plenty of "religious" people who are miserable and material people who are doing just fine. It is usually the misfits who are incapable of living in the present who look for life beyond death, etc. About Sanathana Dharma: This is a funny one. No one here knows how or when this term was coined. Yet, people who really do not know what they are talking about take great pride in using every opportunity to say how SD is the right term to use and how Hinduism is the wrong term. If anyone is being fooled by these claims, it must be themselves. What is the ancient religion of India? The ancient religion followed by the Harrapans or the Vedic religion followed by the Brahmanas? Neither of them exist today and if any modern day religious organization thinks they are following ancient practices, they are just kidding themselves. The people of the Rig vedic period did not chant hare krishna, did not worship idols, did not eat halwa as prasadam, did not worship krishna in any way as he was not yet created at that time. Instead, they worshipped Indra, prayed that their enemies be vanquished, performed fire sacrifices, drank Soma juice and prayed for a good life of 100 years followed by a place in heaven after death. No link to the modern day ideals of iskcon or ramakrishna math or any other group in any way. People would be better off by accepting the truth and stop pretending that they are following ancient systems. Do not be fooled by propoganda. Before choosing such life altering paths, verify their credibility from diverse, independent sources. You will be very surprised at the results. Cheers

From a traditional perspective, the start date of Kaliyuga is a matter of speculation as no one really knows. From a non-traditional approach, there is no Kaliyuga at all. Coming to the SB -- from a traditional perspective -- the SB was not really authored by Vyasa and it was most definitely not written by him. It was not authored by him as the SB itself says it was originally spoken among the Gods. It was not written by Vyasa as the SB again clearly is a narration by A who heard it from B who heard it from C and so on. Vyasa is somewhere up in the chain. So, why is Vyasa's name associated with the SB at all? He figures in because he is the one who revealed this text to humans, but this does not make him the author. It should be clear that there can be no meaningful date assignments to the SB (traditionally that is). What are we trying to date here? The origin is timeless, Vyasa was not the author and so his date is not relevant. The unknown gentleman who finally put the text in written form was merely a scribe and therefore his date is inconsequential. From a modern, critical, rational perspective, when the puranas are studied critically, it is apparent that they were not written by one author or even by a single generation. They have been rehashed over the centuries several times until no clear origin can be assigned to them and therefore no one really tries their hand at it. What is possible is to assign "end dates" to them and this is what is tried. Without going into details, this kind of research gives the final form of the SB a date between 600 AD - 800 AD. The major factors that go into dating (the end date) are that it is post Ashoka (and hence, post Buddhist as are all Puranas), but before the trend of Radha worship (she is not mentioned in any of the old Krishan related texts such as Mahabharatha, Vishnu Purana, Hari Vamsha & SB) and the fact that the Sri Vaishnava founder (11th century) has not quoted from this text although it contains plenty of support for his doctrine. As an aside, the proposed 5000 year old date for Vyasa has no basis in scripture and it is not required for people to accept it (Vyasa never dates himself in any of his works). From a realistic position -- when all possibilities are taken into account, based on all the evidence we have in hand today -- the 5000 year old is impossible. Cheers

I have no idea what the 6th dimension is. I will have to read about it, when I find time. Cheers

Theist, At this point , I would like to remind you & myself that the reason we are having this discussion is your opinion that atheists lack reasons for not believing in God. My argument is that it is the other way around. Even if atheists offer no reasons for their position that is fine, as the believer needs to supply reasons to support his belief, not the non-believer. For example, if X claims that he believes in the existence of Santa Claus or talking Dolphins, he needs to justify his claims, if he wishes to be taken seriously. It is not the case that others have to provide reasons to X for not believing in Santa. The exact same logic applies in the case of God. 1. The universe is self sustaining and needs no creator/controller. The idea of a creator creates the infinite regression problem & is superfluous. 2. The information I get about God is from dubious sources, who are in no way better qualified than myself to have seen/known something that cannot be peceived by me and on close scrutiny, these sources themselves differ and are in conflict with one another (Compare the ex nihilo creation of the Jewish God who creates souls with the Indian God who does not create souls). 1 and 2 are sufficient reasons (each independently) to justify atheism. Note that it is not the intent to convince theists that they are wrong. The intent here is simply to show that atheists have sufficient reasons to support their position with almost no dependance on faith (blind or otherwise), unlike your claim. To comment on some of your points, 1. Material scientists are very intelligent. I honor their intelligence but from these books I have also learned that their intelligence is on loan from Krsna and when expertly displayed represents Krsna. 2. Why are these accomplished scientists not able to understand even theorhetically that they are not the body? One indicates your faith in religious books. You believe in the existence of a higher power and have formulated an opinion on the limitations of science based on faith. The reason for 2 is I do not think I am not the body because I am the body and so is the case with the accomplished scientists and everyone else. Put a bullet into someone and that the end of that person. The only way anyone would even think of the possiblity of not being the body is if they read or listen to religious material about souls & afterlife which again goes back to speculation, conjecture & faith. 3. So much of this guru stuff is just an imitation for us at our present level but at some point we will fully know 100% and beyond all doubting. Since you accept that at our present level there exists the possiblity that the Guru may ultimately turn out to be a dud, on what ground are you willing to throw away your life in pursuit of something that at this point is only a belief and has no grounds in reality? It is faith again. 4. I have yet to hear a rational reason that God does not exist. If someone tells me they are an agnostic I can respect that honesty but if someone says they are an atheist and *knows* there is no God I know he is a fool. I think it was an argument of Descarte that if someone says there is no God they are really saying they are God themselves. Who but God can claim to have properly analyzed all knowledge (omniscience) and have come to a conclusion of any kind? I have to disagree with both you & Descartes ( if he did say that). Please refer to my example of Santa above. I am sure you will agree that people who deny the existence of Santa or talking dolphins are not fools nor are they all dishonest. The same logic applies to God. Only God being able to claim "proper analysis", is an incorrect argument against an atheist as there is no God and therefore the ultimate analysis can only be by man. 5. Yes there are many fake stories. But don't you view the sun hanging in the sky as a daily miracle? If not you must have extraordinarily high standards on what makes a miracle. By your definition, all events are miracles, causing the word to lose it's significance. A virgin giving birth is a miracle, but a woman giving birth by the regular process is not a miracle. It then becomes clear that miracles -- as I define them -- are not real. Even if I were to see someone create an apple out of thin air, I would not be satisfied until I can test the event to my satisfaction as such an event would seriously violate simple laws of physics. 6. You do not even know who you are so why have faith in your ability to evaluate and place your trust in the proper source? Something may indeed be true but we fail to recognize it. You say not to have faith in God yet you have faith in your own tiny conditoned mind? The theist says you have misplaced your faith. And *that* logic is more convincing than the so-called logic of the atheist. Only a demented person or one with amnesia will not know who he/she is All normal & sane people know who they are. I do not consider my mind tiny as Homo Sapiens, till date, has had the best brains ever and based on my own experience, my brain is at least average-sized. You pre-assume the existence of a creator and then say the human brain is tiny, which is faith once again. I fail to see any logic here. It is similar to the child who has faith in Santa and believes that Santa has more toys than Toys-r-us. Incidentally, you have faith in your tiny mind too. It is your tiny mind you are using all the time to learn and make choices. How can you have less faith in your mind than something (God) that you learnt about using your mind? It should be clear to you that you have accepted the existence of a God as an article of faith and then you say anyone who does not think on your lines are foolish & illogical. I do not have a problem with that. The point I am making is the "foolish" atheist has his reasons for being foolish and is certainly not wanting in reasons to justify his position, foolish as it may be, which goes against your original claim that atheists have no reasons. Cheers

Is Buddhism a religion for Asuras? A common-sense answer is no. If the comic book defintion of Asuras is taken, there are no Asuras in the world. If the Asuras were a certain group of people, then the answer is no again as nowhere does Buddhism fix it's target audience. Buddhism has been around for over 2k years and there are billions of Buddhists in the world and these billion+ people are just as good or bad as the rest of the population. Is there any shastric evidence that Gautama Buddha was incarnation of Lord Vishnu whose mission was preaching atheistic religion to fallen with purpose of stoping animal sacrifices? What is meant by Shastric evidence? Valid references to the Buddha, if any, should be found in Buddhist scriptures and can only be valid for Buddhists. Stories found in non-Buddhist scriptures are of no value as they are politically motivated (They have no business writing about the origin/history of other religions). Since the idea of Vishnu itself does not exist in Buddhism, the idea of Vishnu incarnating as Buddha is incorrect. It is true however that Buddhism is one of the many "heretical" religions that popped up during it's time which opposed the religion of the Brahmanas. consisting of basically two streams -- the Yajna performing, animal sacrificing, Vedic style and the introspective Vedanta style. The animal sacrificing stream was mainly targetted by Buddhism & the other isms of that time. Is Buddhistic thought opposed to original Vedic teaching including dvaita, visisthadavita and even impersonal advaita philosophy? Dvaita, Advaita et al., are not "original vedic" teachings. The original vedic teachings did not involve idol worship, temples, etc., and was focused on Yajnas. The new streams of thought are a hotch-potch of some vedic elements, Bhakti and some of their own ideas thrown in. Buddhism again is a mix of several ideas that existed during it's time, mainly reincarnation and liberation. It looks like something created for modern minds suffering from depression. Modern or old, all people have their share of problems. In this respect, there is no difference between today's man and the man who lived 50000 years back or the man who will live 50000 years in future, assuming the human race exists until then. Religion is for people who are unhappy and are looking for ways to be happy. The happy person, by definition, is happy and living now and does not need anything he does not have. Buddhism like any other thriving religion has been appreciated & accepted by countless people -- modern & old. For a clear understanding, A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy - Hajime Nakamura Buddhism : Its Essence and Development - Adward Conze Buddhism - A history - Noble Ross Reat Cheers

Excuse me, folks; this is not really a topic. Just dropped in to say Hi to my one time sparring partners - Jndas, Gauracandra & Maitreya(now theist). Hope you are all doing well. After all these months, neither you people have changed your beliefs nor have I /images/graemlins/wink.gif. You will still say "Rama stroked the Indian squirrel" where I will say genetic mutation, to explain the stripes. To think, we wasted all that time slugging it out. Anyway, keep the flame burning, friends and good luck with the quest! If you change your beliefs at some point, then you should definitely try the Tiramisu from Eli's Cheese cakes. It is out of the world. But you will need to change because I am pretty sure it will contain some quantity of egg and a tiny portion of brandy or rum. Anything that maybe perceived as a pattern in nature, is just a coincidence - Shiv (myself) Cheers

That was me, theist. Forgot to log in. Let us face it. Without money, no organizations, no temples, no preaching and no charity is possible. Hard fact of life. Vivekananda and therefore Prabhupada, went all the way to America only because that was the best place to start in terms of acquiring resources. There were several countries on the way they could have chosen for preaching, but that would have been bad strategy. No matter how much spiritual one is, if he wishes to propogate his ideas, he needs money - plain and simple. Hence the rush for Indian godmen to go to America and not to kazhakstan or Namibia. You are kidding, I am sure. India with it's vast religious literature has nothing to contribute to the world. Spiritual knowledge is just spiritual knowledge and is in no way "the essence of all learning". Every technology and modern comfort [such as your computer for instance] you use has nothing to with spiritual knowledge. As far as I am concerned, killing a cow is no worse than killing any other animal; I simply cannot impose an artifical criterion that killing a cow is somehow a more serious offense because some joker said so many centuries past. Animal killing has been going on in India from time immemorial and is not something that was learnt from the west. Progress is when people begin to live better lives and have a pragmatic view towards life, compared to the original closed, rigid outlook of the Indian way of life. When speaking of a country, material progress is all there is. Spiritual progress is purely a personal thing and it makes no sense to extend it to a whole country. Let us talk reality. Spiritual literature is written by a tiny fraction of the population and it is incorrect to think India was spiritual because vast amounts of literature was churned out from that area. If you want the correct picture, look at what the majority of the people did/do. Cheers

The summary of your position is, Hindu culture is great. Hindu people are lowly. The two points contradict one another. Since culture is created by people how did lowly [sic] Hindus create an elevated culture? It is practically impossible. If the culture is great, the people are equally great, which invalidates your position. If the people are lowly, the culture is also lowly and there is no difference between India and any other country. All types of people can be found in all countries. Therefore, either way, your question does not make sense. Cheers

Obviously not, considering the BG is atleast 2000 years old, if not older. Anyway, assuming such a document was available, how can one know for sure that it was authored by Vyasa? Working this way, all history can be rejected. The inscriptions may be fake, archeological evidence may be planted and records may just be mere stories. Although speculation is rife, there is no evidence to show that the original BG may have been tampered with. So long as no evidence is uncovered, there is no reason to suspect it's authenticity. For example, it is clear that the Bhagavatam and the Mahabaharata were authored by different people. Since Vyasa is known as the author of the MB, it is obvious that the Bhagavatam as we know it today was authored or atleast interpolated by someone else. However, no such problems can be identified with the BG. Cheers

Obviously not, considering the BG is atleast 2000 years old, if not older. Anyway, assuming such a document was available, how can one know for sure that it was authored by Vyasa? Working this way, all history can be rejected. The inscriptions may be fake, archeological evidence may be planted and records may just be mere stories. Although speculation is rife, there is no evidence to show that the original BG may have been tampered with. So long as no evidence is uncovered, there is no reason to suspect it's authenticity. For example, it is clear that the Bhagavatam and the Mahabaharata were authored by different people. Since Vyasa is known as the author of the MB, it is obvious that the Bhagavatam as we know it today was authored or atleast interpolated by someone else. However, no such problems can be identified with the BG. Cheers

The merit of a translation is in it's accuracy and should be judged by taking the whole context into account. As such a "mere translation" with no comments and no extraenous material can in fact be an excellent one. As far as I know, there is no information in the Gita to help one advance in the material world and I am not aware of any translations hinting at material progress. Perhaps he was discussing the Karma Yoga part of the Gita? Everything you've mentioned above is found in the Gita. The BG as you know, is a text which covers a lot of ground. skipping to the last part... Non-sequitur. How can translations by themselves hold widely different meanings and yet be correct? It is the commentator who through his own interpretation, tries to project a certain scripture as supporting his own doctrine. The Gita was spoken to Arjuna by Krishna because Arjuna was unwilling to go to war. In other words, If Arjuna had no problems fighting, there would have been no Gita. Thus, the primary objective of the Gita was to prompt Arjuna to perform his duty without misgivings. The rest of the Gita such as Yoga, Jnana, Bhakti, etc., are secondary objectives. Therefore among the various commentaries in the market, a commentary which ennunciates the primary goal is the superior one. Shankara, Prabhupada et al., who have tried to show the Gita's primary objective to be "Moksha through Jnana" and Bhakti respectively, have missed the main point in their zeal to draw support for their own doctrines. For example, the BG as it is, Prabhupada in his purport to 18.66 says, "Now, in summarizing Bhagavad-gita, the Lord says that Arjuna should give up all the processes that have been explained to him; he should simply surrender to Krsna. " which does not make sense. If that was Krishna's intention all along, why bother with the various processes in the previous 17 chapters and 65 verses? Since Krishna instructed Arjuna to perform his duty in more than one place, according to Prabhupada, all that should be given up and Arjuna should not do his duty. In fact, Prabhupada need not have commented on the previous chapters simply stating that they were to be given up. Similar mistakes can be identified in every translation and commentary. Translators and commentators are humans and are prone to errors just like anyone else. No one is specially empowered and flawless -- except in the minds of his/her own followers. Cheers

The merit of a translation is in it's accuracy and should be judged by taking the whole context into account. As such a "mere translation" with no comments and no extraenous material can in fact be an excellent one. As far as I know, there is no information in the Gita to help one advance in the material world and I am not aware of any translations hinting at material progress. Perhaps he was discussing the Karma Yoga part of the Gita? Everything you've mentioned above is found in the Gita. The BG as you know, is a text which covers a lot of ground. skipping to the last part... Non-sequitur. How can translations by themselves hold widely different meanings and yet be correct? It is the commentator who through his own interpretation, tries to project a certain scripture as supporting his own doctrine. The Gita was spoken to Arjuna by Krishna because Arjuna was unwilling to go to war. In other words, If Arjuna had no problems fighting, there would have been no Gita. Thus, the primary objective of the Gita was to prompt Arjuna to perform his duty without misgivings. The rest of the Gita such as Yoga, Jnana, Bhakti, etc., are secondary objectives. Therefore among the various commentaries in the market, a commentary which ennunciates the primary goal is the superior one. Shankara, Prabhupada et al., who have tried to show the Gita's primary objective to be "Moksha through Jnana" and Bhakti respectively, have missed the main point in their zeal to draw support for their own doctrines. For example, the BG as it is, Prabhupada in his purport to 18.66 says, "Now, in summarizing Bhagavad-gita, the Lord says that Arjuna should give up all the processes that have been explained to him; he should simply surrender to Krsna. " which does not make sense. If that was Krishna's intention all along, why bother with the various processes in the previous 17 chapters and 65 verses? Since Krishna instructed Arjuna to perform his duty in more than one place, according to Prabhupada, all that should be given up and Arjuna should not do his duty. In fact, Prabhupada need not have commented on the previous chapters simply stating that they were to be given up. Similar mistakes can be identified in every translation and commentary. Translators and commentators are humans and are prone to errors just like anyone else. No one is specially empowered and flawless -- except in the minds of his/her own followers. Cheers

Yes. Check the Mahabharatha. Since the original Bg exists, there should be no doubt. Cheers

Yes. Check the Mahabharatha. Since the original Bg exists, there should be no doubt. Cheers

No one. The concept of Karma running our lives, is probably not found in any text older than the Gita. To the best of my knowledge, it is not found in any of the Vedas. And the Gita, unfortunately does not provide a detailed list of Good and bad Karmas. The main schools of Vedanta state that souls and Karma are beginningless. Since Karma is beginningless, the rules of Karma were not made by anyone -- not even God. They just are. As for the poor guy stealing to satisfy his hunger, no one can state if it is right or wrong -- because no one has in his possession, the set of rules of Karma. If you have faith in a Guru/book and if you are satisfied with the answer given by that source, that is the correct answer. That is as far as one can go. Cheers

Trisilex, 3 questions... 1. Can you do that at will? 2. Can you go to any place you wish or is it restricted? 3. Can you travel in time? My e-mail id is shvu@hotmail.com Thanks

I raised this point because the Brahma-samhita was being quoted, which is authoritative only to Gaudiyas. This is what I was talking about. Krishna claiming Bhagavan status for himself in the Gita is interpreted differently by different schools. The 'I' is interpreted as the supreme Narayana/Vishnu/Brahman who has incarnated as Krishna. This interpretation is in line with the many statements found in VP, SB, etc that Krishna is one of Vishnu's avatars. I am not arguing over who is right and who is wrong, but am only saying that all the "clear" points stated by you are not infact clear. They are all prone to mutiple interpretations. Similarly, there are traditions which view Krishna as an avatar and their own founder/icon as the source of all. This is very, very common in India. Even as we speak, there are hundreds of such icons being worshipped as avatars or even higher by millions. Since this belief rests on faith, it is practically impossible to show them they may be incorrect. One of the arguments I heard from one such faithful follower was, "Why should Kalki come only at the end of Kali-yuga? God is all powerful and will come and go as he wishes." That was the end of the discussion. Cheers

A quick note. You cannot quote Gaudiya texts such as the Brahma-Samhita to diasgree with non-Gaudiyas. You will have to quote from scriptures common to both traditions. Also, the alleged differences between avatars and Bhagavan is not clearly mentioned in Shaastra-s as you say. Different schools hold different, conflicting views on this topic and therefore it is not as simple and transparent as you are making it out to be. Cheers

O Arjuna, foremost of the Bharata dynasty, four classes of people of virtuous deeds adore Me: the afflicted, the seeker of Knowledge, the seeker of wealth and the man of Knowledge. -- BG 7.16 The difference is one is seeking to known the reality of the Lord and the other knows the reality of the Lord and now seeks Liberation. Shankara's commentary on this verse translated by Gambhirananda -- 7.16 Again, O Arjuna, foremost of the Bharata dynasty, caturvidhah, four classes; of janah, people; who are eminent among human beings and are pious in actions, and are sukrtinah, of virtuous deeds; bhajante, adore; mam, Me; artah, the afflicted-one who is overcome by sorrow, who is in distress, ['One who, being in distress and seeking to be saved from it, takes refuge (in Me).'] being over-whelmed by thieves, tigers, disease, etc.; jijnasuh, the seeker of Knowledge, who wants to know the reality of the Lord; artharthi, the seeker of wealth; and jnani, the man of Knowledge, [i.e. one who, already having intellectual knowledge, aspires for Liberation.] who knows the reality of Visnu. Cheers

For most part of the time, we (including myself) are content enough, accepting whatever stories we are told and repeating them to the rest of the world. It does not require much intelligence and effort to passively accept and repeat. In short, it is the easy way out. One such item is the usage of the name "Sanatana dharma". Every T, D & H appears to take a lot of pride in calling Indian religion as Sanatana Dharma and is very quick to correct someone of using the "wrong" name Hinduism, for it is actually a distortion of the name Sindhu, coined by muslims (apparently), has a foreign origin, yaada, yaada, yaada... The next immediate, natural question, although surprisingly seldom asked, is about the source of the name "Sanatana Dharma". Who coined this name and when? I have posed this question to a couple of know_alls who are very keen on correcting Indian history of distortions by the British Marxists, leftists, rightists, bottomists, etc. For reasons best known to them, they have this strong notion that Indian history has got to be older than what is said in the Textbook. It does not matter how old, but as long as a theory gives an older date, they are fully willing to support it. They of course, knew everything about the term hinduism, but not_so_surprisingly it had never occured to them to trace the origin of the label Sanatana Dharma. Anyway, I am sure there must be someone out there who knows the answer. If someone does, please enlighten. Thanks

Theist, You are correct, it is circular logic. Why is Shaastra flawless? Because the Guru says so. Why is the Guru infallible? Because shaastra says so. And round and round we go.... Cheers

That's interesting. I am aware of 2 threads which dealt with this issue and were discontinued because the administrator felt they were going nowhere with each person repeating the same arguments. How does this mean that the threads concluded with Vaishnavism being synonymous with SD while Hinduism was not? Unless, you mean a different set of threads, in which case I request you to name them. Since you appear to be clear that "Vaishnavism is synonymous with Sanatana-dharma whilst "Hinduism" is not", I also request you to provide a reference to Sanatana-dharma. What is the origin of this label and what what is it's definition? Thanks

In which case, one must take the position that God is not omniscient. His knowledge about the future is limited for he does not know what decisions we will make, because we have freewill and can choose anything. For instance, I am at the bakery, trying to choose between strawberry cheesecake and Tiramisu. If I had freewill, the chances of choosing Tiramisu are 50%. In this case it follows that until I make a decision, God *does not know* what my choice will be. But if God already knows that I will eventually choose cheesecake, then my chances of picking Tiramisu are 0%. It was already predetermined that I would go to the bakery and after some thought would choose cheesecake *only* and not Tiramisu or anything else. My freewill is only apparent. The way I see it, an omniscient God and freewill are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true at the same time. Cheers