So I am sure someone has posted a similar topic as this, but I have not been with totse that long and I would like to hear the opinions.

I am agonostic, I have always found it hard to believe in God. I wonder if he is so wonderful why did he make such a shitty society. Also if God is perfect, how could he make such a big mistake, once again humanity. God doesn't sin, well then why did he create a world full of sin?

People have explained to me that everyone makes their own choices and God didn't create us to sin, we choose to and that is why Jesus died for our sins. Well supposively God is all knowing, he creates us all and he knows who we will be, the decisions we will make, and whether we will go to hell or not. Is that really free will?

Also if God is so loving why would he send his child to earth knowing he would die, was he not man enough to fix the problem himself, the problem he created? I mean it just doesn't make sense to me.

Also it is a sin to be proud, well damnit would God not be the most proud thing ever? He has millions of people who worship him, something that possibly does not even exist! I mean God is the one who supposively spoke to moses and told him what to write in the bible right?

Oh and the bullshit about all sins are the same. Well fuck that because I see a BIG difference between someone who lies to their mother compared to someone who rapes a child!

I would just like to hear some opinions. I am fond of religion, but I believe their is a difference between spirituality and religion. Most people are religious for most people have their own theories on things.

I mean not to offend, I just need help to understand. Hypothetical answers are ok too, I just want to be able to understand what people see in religion whether I believe or not.

[This message has been edited by GodisHypocrisy (edited 04-06-2006).]

Free will. As long as mankind has had the capacity to think about it, great thinkers have... well, thought about it. A lot.

Suffice to say that your radical ideas on free will and nihilism have occurred to others.

Repeatedly.

What's really going to bake your noodle is this: You can take a simple creature, like an ant, in a lab. You can give it certain stimuli, and you can cause the ant to respond in certain ways. You can do it predictably, and there is undoubtedly some machination in that creature's brain that is linking stimulus A to reaction B, stimulus C to reaction D, and so forth.

You can take a rat and experiment in your lab. The chart of stimuli and responses is bigger, but you can map it out. You can do the same thing with a dog. You can observe its pack instinct, write it off as a survival feature. You can categorize and rationalize everything that dog does, from acting like it 'loves you' (just the pack instinct thing - survival of the fittest, you know) to peeing on your carpet.

What if you could do that with a human? Can you prove that everything we do is not simply the output from a stimulus input into an admittedly much more complex machine inside our skulls than the ant or the rat or the dog, but a machine nonetheless? Just input and output?

It could be proposed that the human brain contains absolutely no decision making power whatsoever, and simply responds to stimuli according to a program, parts of which are hardwired and parts of which are copied and immitated from other observations.

Everything.

Everything from what you 'decide' to have for breakfast this morning to your 'deciding' to start this thread, to my dissertation on the matter. Did I really think this through, or is it just the output of some electrons racing around in my brain in a physically predictable matter, as in a complex electrical circuit, according to the stimuli that you provided according to the stimuli you recieved...? And so forth.

Where does the processing happen? Can you explain it beyond 'it just does', or 'it must be magic'?

So, I'll ask again. Do we really have free will?

Yes, or 423624564573464634778 choices if you prefer.

First of all, forget about "sin." It is alabel, means nothing. Don't take the Bible literally, if at all--it is mostly myth and metaphor.

Sure , there is a lot of fucked up stuff in the world because so many people use their free will in harmful ways. But remember, our souls are immortal, so what happens to any individual person in any individual incarnation does not amount to a hill of beans in the context of eternity.

arms are you still doing readings?

Ofcourse there is free will. Not the bible/god kind though.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

First of all, forget about "sin." It is alabel, means nothing. Don't take the Bible literally, if at all--it is mostly myth and metaphor.

Prove it.

Also, you might want to drop the anger. It does nothing to bolster your argument.

A man of your age and "harmony" with nature shouldn't be exhibiting this kind of venom. I am not just referring to THIS post, but ALL of your posts regarding Christianity.

quote:Sure , there is a lot of fucked up stuff in the world because so many people use their free will in harmful ways. But remember, our souls are immortal, so what happens to any individual person in any individual incarnation does not amount to a hill of beans in the context of eternity.

How do you even understand the concept of "soul" without God ?

You are cherry-pickin', my friend.

The eternal state of your soul DOES amount to a hill of beans. Just because you don't think so doesn't mean you should drag others to Hell with you.

Prove it doesn't http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by ohhi (edited 04-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The eternal state of your soul DOES amount to a hill of beans. Just because you don't think so doesn't mean you should drag others to Hell with you.

A person with a different religion can say you're wrong and that you shouldn't be leading these people astray, Digital.

You're an arrogant fuck who thinks she knows it all because she reads the Bible. Well I got news for you, but I doubt you'll take it in, you're a blind fool.

OK. So, to get to the question of do you believe man has free will, I’m going to say yes.

You see, I’m an atheist. I believe there is no deities. Man is on his own in a world of nothingness, and meaninglessness. Because of this, man has the freedom to do anything. He has freedom of choice. At first this seems scary and depressing, this is our only life yadda yadda. But in fact it is highly liberating. This is our only life, it doesn’t matter if we make a mistake because nothing matters. We have the ability to reinvent ourselves a thousand times over in our finite. And when we’re dead we won’t know and it won’t bother us, so we might as well enjoy life.

Of course, religious people will say this is horrible because man would do nasty things and there would be no morals, but this is bullshit. Man can make morals without God. In fact, man made Gods morals when man wrote the bible and invented god.

If a god is all knowing and omnipotent he must be able to see the future and know what outcome will happen. There can be no uncertainty about this outcome. Free will cannot exist in a world where things have a predisposed outcome because if the outcome of task A is known it has theoretically already happened.

Ya I definitely think all life form has free will. We all make our own choices, but with the theory of the christian god the existence of free will would be pointless and nonexistence. I was trying to ask some of my christian friends about this and they told me God gives us free will to choose between right and wrong; well if we actually had this choice then predisposition could not exist. What would be the point?

quote:Originally posted by GodisHypocrisy:

Ya I definitely think all life form has free will. We all make our own choices, but with the theory of the christian god the existence of free will would be pointless and nonexistence. I was trying to ask some of my christian friends about this and they told me God gives us free will to choose between right and wrong; well if we actually had this choice then predisposition could not exist. What would be the point?

Free will and omnipotence are seperate subjects. The only way to know free-will is when it's taken away and choices are not void of consequence. WHen you add an omnipotent God to the mix then yes, He already knows the outcome of your life.

It would be like playing chess against yourself I suppose. You still have a free choice to make whatever move you like but as soon as you switch to the other side you already know the strategy and outcome. So predestination and free-will can co-exist but it is a matter or perception.

However, the idea that we can do whatever we want is summed up in the saying," all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial." This is in the bible and it is true. You choose your own path.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

WHen you add an omnipotent God to the mix then yes, He already knows the outcome of your life.

Then there is only one outcome to your life, and therefore no free will. You sir, once again, are making an idiot out of yourself.



[This message has been edited by Adrenochrome (edited 04-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

Then there is only one outcome to your life, and therefore no free will. You sir, once again, are making an idiot out of yourself.





Pre-destination doesn't guarantee an outcome. It is like ordering a new car. You give them all the specifics. They build it. you back out and decide not to buy it.

Ok..do you see that you marked a car for pre-destination? A choice changed the outcome? Get it?

So God created us - pre-destined us and it is up to us to decide if we will lead a life this way or that way. You chart your path. You are like a car being built in the factory - pre-destined to a certain owner but in this case it is your choices that will lead you to your final destiny.

Does that make more gooder sense?

(sorry, had to sound like an idiot somewhere in here so we can see what an idiot really looks like.)

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Pre-destination doesn't guarantee an outcome. It is like ordering a new car. You give them all the specifics. They build it. you back out and decide not to buy it.

Ok..do you see that you marked a car for pre-destination? A choice changed the outcome? Get it?

So God created us - pre-destined us and it is up to us to decide if we will lead a life this way or that way. You chart your path. You are like a car being built in the factory - pre-destined to a certain owner but in this case it is your choices that will lead you to your final destiny.

Does that make more gooder sense?

(sorry, had to sound like an idiot somewhere in here so we can see what an idiot really looks like.)





When you buy that car are you omnipotent? Certainly buying a car is not a guaranteed outcome from your point of view. You don't know what will happen. However, if the creator is truely omnipotent he will know the outcome and obliterate anything that could be called "free will."

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

Don't take the Bible literally, if at all--it is mostly myth and metaphor.

You forgot to add "Just like my Psychic Readings"

No.

quote:Originally posted by Atomical:



When you buy that car are you omnipotent? Certainly buying a car is not a guaranteed outcome from your point of view. You don't know what will happen. However, if the creator is truely omnipotent he will know the outcome and obliterate anything that could be called "free will."

I don't think you even tried to understand what I was saying. No I was not saying that when you order a car you will become omnipotent. Lets be reasonable. You and I are in the game of making choices. Those choices have an outcome. This is an elementary truth that the continual good choices will likely lead to good things wheras the opposite is true.

I know I don't have to explain this because it is self-evident. The outcome of ones way of life is dependent on their thoughts and deeds.

Just because God already knows what that will be does not void out your ability to choose. He just gave us the opportunity to live it all out. I was trying to look at it from God's point of view and understand how hard it would be to have knowledge of all things. He gave you a life and choices to make with full knowledge of what those choices will be before they are even made.

You may surrender your life to Jesus or you may go another way. To you and I it is a mystery but to God, it's already decided.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

How do you even understand the concept of "soul" without God ?

You are cherry-pickin', my friend.

The eternal state of your soul DOES amount to a hill of beans. Just because you don't think so doesn't mean you should drag others to Hell with you.

Just because he is not christian does not mean he do not understand soul or God. And, in my opinion, we have already been dragged to hell, the "debt" we have we must pay by understanding our place, by loving without the necessity of being loved back and by helping others achieve their (eternal) life dreams, and not by telling others that if he/she do not believe in God he will be doomed.

To stay in hell or to ascend to heaven, that is your choice and even God won't try to make it happen before you are really ready to go, so if he is stay, why should you stop him?

From: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy-

Foreknowledge and Free Will:

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) has set out the problem in the traditional manner:

… "Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect. …"



If God is omniscient, you merely have the illusion of free will. If the outcome is known in advance, your choice is predetermined.



Edit: Added source of quote.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 04-11-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:





Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) has set out the problem in the traditional manner:

… "Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect. …"



If God is omniscient, you merely have the illusion of free will. If the outcome is known in advance, your choice is predetermined.



So be it...but, it is not God making the choice. Unlike a master of chess who can predict the outcome of your move and build a strategy based on projecting the next 10 to 20 moves later the outcome is still uncertain. However, to God - the end game is already certain. The victory is set even before the game is played. God will win.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

So be it...but, it is not God making the choice. Unlike a master of chess who can predict the outcome of your move and build a strategy based on projecting the next 10 to 20 moves later the outcome is still uncertain. However, to God - the end game is already certain. The victory is set even before the game is played. God will win.

The obvious point that you fail to see is that it was God who made the choice. According to Christianity, God knew everything that would happen in the future from the moment of creation. If God created everything according to His plan, your actions were predetermined. Your choices were made by God, before you ever existed. Free will is an illusion.

Unless , of course, God isn't really omniscient.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The obvious point that you fail to see is that it was God who made the choice. According to Christianity, God knew everything that would happen in the future from the moment of creation. If God created everything according to His plan, your actions were predetermined. Your choices were made by God, before you ever existed. Free will is an illusion.

Unless , of course, God isn't really omniscient.

WHen I said "so be it" I meant I tilt. You win. Free will is an illusion. There is no choices to make in this life. All choices are made for us.

Now that I think of it that way...free will actually does exist in reality. In fact the issue really isn't whether we have free will or not. It's plain and simple that we do. So, free will is not an illusion. To argue against that point would be kind of silly.

So the the part I think you find hard to accept is God's all knowing attributes. The truth is you think God is the illusion and not the ability to freely choose. So be it.

I have no proof contrary other then I know half of it is true. I have a free will to choose what I may. The consequences are still coming but what matters little to us, who do not have full knowledge of all things, is what God already knows.

I say my life is already charted out since I know God exists. You say all of lifes choices are all an illusion if God exists. It's all very interesting to consider..

The debate seems to hinge on faith. You won't believe in the lamb's book of life or predestination doctrines if you can't even get past the existence of an all mighty creator.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

WHen I said "so be it" I meant I tilt. You win. Free will is an illusion. There is no choices to make in this life. All choices are made for us.

I read this and almost believed you were beginning to comprehend. Then I read the remainder of your post and realized I should have known better.



quote:Now that I think of it that way...free will actually does exist in reality. In fact the issue really isn't whether we have free will or not. It's plain and simple that we do. So, free will is not an illusion. To argue against that point would be kind of silly.

If an omnicient god exists, who knows your future actions in advance, free will is impossible. It's far from silly. It's the only logical conclusion.



quote:So the the part I think you find hard to accept is God's all knowing attributes. The truth is you think God is the illusion and not the ability to freely choose. So be it.

My belief in God(or lack thereof) is irrelevant to this discussion.



quote:I have no proof contrary other then I know half of it is true. I have a free will to choose what I may. The consequences are still coming but what matters little to us, who do not have full knowledge of all things, is what God already knows.

I say my life is already charted out since I know God exists. You say all of lifes choices are all an illusion if God exists. It's all very interesting to consider..

How can you not understand that if your life is already charted out, that you have no control over the outcome. Your free will is an illusion. It's not something interesting to consider. It's the only logical conclusion.

quote:The debate seems to hinge on faith. You won't believe in the lamb's book of life or predestination doctrines if you can't even get past the existence of an all mighty creator.

I don't believe in these things because I have gotten past the illogical belief in an all mighty Creator.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 04-12-2006).]

Look at it this way. Even if free will does exist (the bible one), that doesn't change the fact that god already knew even before you were born that you would be against him and will go to hell. Question is. Since he is all loving, just etc etc god... why would he even "create" the person in the first place? That's one less person who will be spending all his/her eternity worshipping him in heaven. Doesn't make much sence to me.

quote:Originally posted by ohhi:

Look at it this way. Even if free will does exist (the bible one), that doesn't change the fact that god already knew even before you were born that you would be against him and will go to hell. Question is. Since he is all loving, just etc etc god... why would he even "create" the person in the first place? That's one less person who will be spending all his/her eternity worshipping him in heaven. Doesn't make much sence to me.

That's what he's been saying. So either God is a nasty piece of work or isn't real.

Not much time to think... but must type.

God creates people to serve him or glorify him in some way. If he creates one who he "knows" will go to hell anyway, then his purpose is probably to help another soul along their life's path, towards God, like doing wrong to somebody that NEEDS that wrong done in order to turn to God.

If he knows what the world'll be like, what does that say about the people's free will who are involved in that change? Will it be free will that elects the next president? Will it be free will that stops the next Hitler from killing himself while still young? Or will it be the will of God?

Is it free will that causes the random passerby to smell smoke and see a fire in a building? Free will that he was out in the first place? Free will of the dog that knocked over a candle, or something to cause the fire(Man, I am doing some serious reaching)?

Yeah. Everything's free will. To me, at least. Go Atheism!

quote:Originally posted by GodisHypocrisy:



Also if God is so loving why would he send his child to earth knowing he would die, was he not man enough to fix the problem himself, the problem he created? I mean it just doesn't make sense to me.





Thats what i allways wondered. If god is real, i dont think he gives a shit about us. He didnt even care about his own son being cucified, which is the same way they killed criminals in the old days...

Also, you are more athiest. Agnostics believe that theres no proof of god but does acknowledge the fact that he might exist.

Well, i definately feel like there is free will so in that case it's ok. But if there wasn't any free will i would definately be very dissapointed in reality.

quote:Originally posted by GodisHypocrisy:

I am agonostic, I have always found it hard to believe in God. I wonder if he is so wonderful why did he make such a shitty society. Also if God is perfect, how could he make such a big mistake, once again humanity. God doesn't sin, well then why did he create a world full of sin?

Or maybe our notion of God, morality, perfection etc. is not correct. Theism doesn't have to be classical, where God is an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being.

Deism?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but a lot of religions justify all the bad things that happen by saying that god is giving us free will, right? If God wanted us to have free will, then why do negative choices or bad actions always eventually have negative consequences? God can't just give us freedom on one hand and punishment for excercising it on the other, that is hypocritical, it is utterly immoral and all the Christians, Muslims and Jews know it! They aree just too scared to live a life of free thought.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

I'm not sure what you're asking, but a lot of religions justify all the bad things that happen by saying that god is giving us free will, right? If God wanted us to have free will, then why do negative choices or bad actions always eventually have negative consequences? God can't just give us freedom on one hand and punishment for excercising it on the other, that is hypocritical, it is utterly immoral and all the Christians, Muslims and Jews know it! They aree just too scared to live a life of free thought.

I try to apply my thoughts to reality and project outwards toward the outcome of an action. We can redefine morales all day long and it won't change the eventual consequence. The natural laws laid down by God can not be removed and neither can removing bad consequences from bad actions.

Free will is real and can't be contested. To argue beyond that point is pointless. (as I was trying to say earlier.)

The problem is believing in an all knowing God. Everything was made perfectly imperfect and if this is the one point that keeps you from believing in God then I hope the answer comes to you soon. However, if you only use this arguement in attempts to destroy the faith in others then I can only say why?

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I try to apply my thoughts to reality and project outwards toward the outcome of an action. We can redefine morales all day long and it won't change the eventual consequence. The natural laws laid down by God can not be removed and neither can removing bad consequences from bad actions.

Free will is real and can't be contested. To argue beyond that point is pointless. (as I was trying to say earlier.)

Sorry, but simply because you say it does not make it so.It has been contested and proven locically false(if ,in fact ,God were to exist and be omniscient). Either free will is real and God is not omniscient, or free will is an illusion because the future is predestined by God. You can't have it both ways.

I agree though, that to argue the point (at least with you) is pointless, as you appear to have considerable difficulty applying logic. This wasn't intended as an insult. Just an observation.



quote:The problem is believing in an all knowing God. Everything was made perfectly imperfect and if this is the one point that keeps you from believing in God then I hope the answer comes to you soon. However, if you only use this arguement in attempts to destroy the faith in others then I can only say why?

"This one point" is only a single drop in the ocean of reasons I cannot believe in God.

I have no desire to destroy anyone's faith. I do believe that the basis for one's faith should be sound. Belief should not be based on false premise.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 04-13-2006).]

quote: ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------



Sorry, but simply because you say it does not make it so.It has been contested and proven locically false(if ,in fact ,God were to exist and be omniscient). Either free will is real and God is not omniscient, or free will is an illusion because the future is predestined by God. You can't have it both ways.



I'm glad we aren't playing by your rules then.

Our God is a soverign God - If he so chooses to give us even the illusion of free will I gladly accept it. I mean what would the point of life be if we knew what the future holds? I'm sure that is a boundry left as a mystery for us to discover. What else would propell us forward through time?

The outcome of this universe is written and all things are predestined to meet one fate or another. Just because God may know what we will choose doesn't mean He has made the choice for us.



quote:

I agree though, that to argue the point (at least with you) is pointless, as you appear to have considerable difficulty applying logic. This wasn't intended as an insult. Just an observation.



fair enough - however, it is possible that some people have a better vantage point then others in life. A man on the street can not see the same things as a man in a tower. Neither is right or wrong but, it's just how things appear to them. I'm willing to say that I don't just apply temporal logic to things. I also have a spiritual insite and rely on that as well. In fact it is when I use the temporal logic is when I usually begin making mistakes. This is just my experience though. You could have the right answer or I could - we will never know unless we can see it from each others perspectives.



quote:

"This one point" is only a single drop in the ocean of reasons I cannot believe in God.

I have no desire to destroy anyone's faith. I do believe that the basis for one's faith should be sound. Belief should not be based on false premise.

I understand but you are here for a reason. You are either seeking to find the answer or to destroy it in someone else. What else is there?



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 04-13-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

I'm not sure what you're asking, but a lot of religions justify all the bad things that happen by saying that god is giving us free will, right? If God wanted us to have free will, then why do negative choices or bad actions always eventually have negative consequences? God can't just give us freedom on one hand and punishment for excercising it on the other, that is hypocritical, it is utterly immoral and all the Christians, Muslims and Jews know it! They aree just too scared to live a life of free thought.

He gives you free will hoping you will make the right choices. Hell is his punishment for those who didn't CHOOSE to follow the rules he laid down for you. He knows you'll do what you want, but ultimately it is a test to see if you love him enough to do what HE wants. He wants his children to find their own way in life.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

He knows you'll do what you want, but ultimately it is a test to see...



He doesn't need a test as he already knows. Or don't you believe that god is omniscient?

I don't believe in God, I've just read up on it. And was Catholic (because my mom was) until I actually thought about it.

One way I've heard it described is He can know what you'll do, but He chooses not to. I don't know what to think about that.

He can't use his knowledge that you'll sin to sentence you to Hell as soon as you're born... you haven't done anything yet. You have to reach that point and choose to sin before you can be a sinner.

[HomoBlaxican]



[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 04-15-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

[b] I understand but you are here for a reason. You are either seeking to find the answer or to destroy it in someone else. What else is there?



Thats not neccesarily true. He questions yes? He seeks flaws, logical impossibilities. But questions are not always intended to destroy ,Im sure if logically you could ratinalize belief and worship of god there would be no problems. It is the logical irrationality that is the problem.

A man inn the street can see exactly the same things that man in a tower can ,and in a far better fashion. Religion is the tower from which men watch the wordl ,ever striving to seperate themselves ,watching through windows to the outside and saying "Im am part of the world in my tower, and those that walk the streets cannot see wha I see and are not what I am." When in fact the tower allows you to see the surface ,it is a nice warm safe place with no problems with the outside...

You CAN believe in god without religion . Too many people go seeking God and find religion instead.

Give up religion ,give up the books and believe. Walk the streets. Your faith doesn not require you to adhere to the words of the dead ,your duty is to the living. Do it.

quote:Originally posted by Fate:

Free will. As long as mankind has had the capacity to think about it, great thinkers have... well, thought about it. A lot.

Suffice to say that your radical ideas on free will and nihilism have occurred to others.

Repeatedly.

What's really going to bake your noodle is this: You can take a simple creature, like an ant, in a lab. You can give it certain stimuli, and you can cause the ant to respond in certain ways. You can do it predictably, and there is undoubtedly some machination in that creature's brain that is linking stimulus A to reaction B, stimulus C to reaction D, and so forth.

You can take a rat and experiment in your lab. The chart of stimuli and responses is bigger, but you can map it out. You can do the same thing with a dog. You can observe its pack instinct, write it off as a survival feature. You can categorize and rationalize everything that dog does, from acting like it 'loves you' (just the pack instinct thing - survival of the fittest, you know) to peeing on your carpet.

What if you could do that with a human? Can you prove that everything we do is not simply the output from a stimulus input into an admittedly much more complex machine inside our skulls than the ant or the rat or the dog, but a machine nonetheless? Just input and output?

It could be proposed that the human brain contains absolutely no decision making power whatsoever, and simply responds to stimuli according to a program, parts of which are hardwired and parts of which are copied and immitated from other observations.

Everything.

Everything from what you 'decide' to have for breakfast this morning to your 'deciding' to start this thread, to my dissertation on the matter. Did I really think this through, or is it just the output of some electrons racing around in my brain in a physically predictable matter, as in a complex electrical circuit, according to the stimuli that you provided according to the stimuli you recieved...? And so forth.

Where does the processing happen? Can you explain it beyond 'it just does', or 'it must be magic'?

So, I'll ask again. Do we really have free will?

This is true. Very true. however, you leave out one key facet: We can enver compute the nigh-infinite number of variables! It is through this that the illusion of free will is created. Whether it is real or not doesn't matter. The turth never matters in the end. it's what we see and what we think. The fact of the matter is that we think we have free will, we feel like we have free will and we see the effects of free will. Thus, we have free will. We don't. it's not real. but we do because the illusion is so real.

And whoever said illusions are so bad? After seeing both sides of the void, I'm happier with an imaginary enlightenment than nihilism. The illusion, despite not being real, gives us strength. All of our illusions do. Do you think we are in control? Do you really think you know who you love most? Do you really think that you have the power to stop what you fear? Do you really think that, in the end, everything will be ok? Do you really believe peace is possible? Do you really believe we can conquer death? In the end, these thoughts are nothing but thoughts. However, they ahve driven the best of mankind to do the greatest of actions. Real or not, they are powerful and controlling the illusions around you ammounts to controlling reality.

A crash course in the philosophy behind ritual magick.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



One way I've heard it described is He can know what you'll do, but He chooses not to. I don't know what to think about that.



If he chooses not to know something, then he lacks that knowledge, and therefore is not omniscient. Christians believe that their god is omniscient, and as such, you would not be describing their god at all.

He must know everything in order to be omniscient in the first place.

quote:

He can't use his knowledge that you'll sin to sentence you to Hell as soon as you're born... you haven't done anything yet. You have to reach that point and choose to sin before you can be a sinner.



Whether the events have actually happened is is not at all important. If he were truly omniscient, there would be absolutely no doubt as to whether or not you will choose to sin and be a sinner.

He can not only sentence you the moment you're born, but is in fact actually sentencing you the moment he created the universe.

Hypothetically, if God is controlling our environment around us, and we act accordingly to these changes based on everything we have experienced before, the outcome is certain to an omniscient God. What I mean is, God would know how we react in every situation.

Even if he weren't controlling everything, and even if the whole universe was completely chaotic, he must know what wer are going to do by the very definition of omniscience.

Good point there Rust. I think the Judeo-Christian god is a little sketchy. He seems to cancel himself out.

quote:Originally posted by smallpox champion:

Good point there Rust. I think the Judeo-Christian god is a little sketchy. He seems to cancel himself out.

I've tried explain it - however difficult it may be to understand - that we all have the free-will to choose or reject God - this is a proven fact among us here alone.

This doesn't negate the fact that God is already aware of the choice. If there were no free will then there would be no choice to make. We would all just exist as if we were a slot car spinning around an oval track mindlessly.

If you refuse to accept that there is a God that knows all then fine - continue to exercise your free-will and chart your course. What difference does it make?

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I've tried explain it - however difficult it may be to understand - that we all have the free-will to choose or reject God - this is a proven fact among us here alone.

This doesn't negate the fact that God is already aware of the choice. If there were no free will then there would be no choice to make. We would all just exist as if we were a slot car spinning around an oval track mindlessly.

If you refuse to accept that there is a God that knows all then fine - continue to exercise your free-will and chart your course. What difference does it make?

Just proves onceagain that he is a shitty god if he created me knowing that he will be sending me to hell.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I've tried explain it - however difficult it may be to understand - that we all have the free-will to choose or reject God - this is a proven fact among us here alone.

Wrong. That is not a proven fact at all. The only thing you can say is that it seems that we have free will; nothing else.

quote:

This doesn't negate the fact that God is already aware of the choice. If there were no free will then there would be no choice to make. We would all just exist as if we were a slot car spinning around an oval track mindlessly.

If everything is in fact predetermined, then your belief that we do have choices (that we do have free will) would have been predetermined as well, which means that you wouldn't notice. Therefore, you cannot prove free will in any way, shape or form.

The only thing we can say without a shadow of a doubt is that if god were omniscient, we wouldn't have free will. That is a fact.

quote:

If you refuse to accept that there is a God that knows all then fine - continue to exercise your free-will and chart your course. What difference does it make?

Who said we aren't? We're not discussing the effects on that on our lives. The point being accessed is whether or not you are correct - if you believe in an onmniscient being then you're incorrect if you believe in free will; it's a logical necessity.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-14-2006).]

I know it's not the same, but look at omnipotence. I mean...

Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?

Can God create a being equal to himself?

Can God draw a picture so small he cannot see it?

Shit! I double-posted.

*Erased

[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 04-15-2006).]

Even with an omniscient God, free-will can still exist. He'll just know what you'll do before you do it. He doesn't force you to do it. He just observes as you use your free will to do exactly what he knew you were going to do.

An interesting argument:

+Say I took a trip to Next Saturday and watched everthing you do. I write all of these future events in a journal and go back to today.

+I give you the journal, locked up or something, and tell you not to read it until Next Sunday.

+You go through your day Next Saturday, exerting your free will all day, choosing all of your actions.

+The day after, you read what I had written. You see that I knew (just like God did) what you were going to do.

You still had your free will on Saturday; my prior knowledge didn't take it away. I just knew what you were gonna do.

[HomoBlaxican]

[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 04-15-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

I don't believe in God, I've just read up on it. And was Catholic (because my mom was) until I actually though about it.

One way I've heard it described is He can know what you'll do, but He chooses not to. I don't know what to think about that.

He can't use his knowledge that you'll sin to sentence you to Hell as soon as you're born... you haven't done anything yet. You have to reach that point and choose to sin before you can be a sinner.

[HomoBlaxican]





Can't? well so much for god's omnipotence.

...Ummm that point was already disproven by Rust.

Get off my fucking back.

It doesn't matter if there's free will or not, seing as we'll never know and stuff will continue in life anyway, including our own predestined paths leading to death...

I personally believe in free will, but it doesn't really bother me much either way, life can still pwn.

One way to solve the problem of Free Will is to surprise God, But how...?

I Know!!!

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Nah, I'm just fucking with you, God. I know I can't surprise you.

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:

Thats not neccesarily true. He questions yes? He seeks flaws, logical impossibilities. But questions are not always intended to destroy ,Im sure if logically you could ratinalize belief and worship of god there would be no problems. It is the logical irrationality that is the problem.

A man inn the street can see exactly the same things that man in a tower can ,and in a far better fashion. Religion is the tower from which men watch the wordl ,ever striving to seperate themselves ,watching through windows to the outside and saying "Im am part of the world in my tower, and those that walk the streets cannot see wha I see and are not what I am." When in fact the tower allows you to see the surface ,it is a nice warm safe place with no problems with the outside...

You CAN believe in god without religion . Too many people go seeking God and find religion instead.

Give up religion ,give up the books and believe. Walk the streets. Your faith doesn not require you to adhere to the words of the dead ,your duty is to the living. Do it.

If you knew me, you would know I am the last person to promote religion. I don't like it and it is often contentious with faith.

I stand by my previous words...people are here to learn to gain something or destroy what somebody else already has. Illogical rationality is no excuse for attacking someone who has already got past those stumbling blocks of logic and reasoning when trying to understand faith and the spiritual.

The laws of physics, time or space do not apply to the spirit world. This is where most people get confused. They try to apply the views and perceptions of carnal things to understanding the eternal spiritual things when you can not.

If you can't see the intent of some of the "questions" and think it is all innocent then you are blinded. Most questions here are asked to troll or bait somebody into a debate with hopes of making a mockery or a fool of someone who walks in faith and not scientific logic.

I have yet to see anybody seriously asking questions about the existence of God but more on the lines of tearing down religions or somebody's faith in God by Christianity.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



I have yet to see anybody seriously asking questions about the existence of God but more on the lines of tearing down religions or somebody's faith in God by Christianity.



Well... this thread isn't about asking about His existence. It's about free will can exist while He does.

You kinda havta start tearing down their faith to see some of the theories on free will. Because most of them say that if He knows, then it's not Free, but Forced.

But I like that time-travelling way to look at it. You use your free will, He just knew what you were going to use it to do.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Well... this thread isn't about asking about His existence. It's about free will can exist while He does.

You kinda havta start tearing down their faith to see some of the theories on free will. Because most of them say that if He knows, then it's not Free, but Forced.

But I like that time-travelling way to look at it. You use your free will, He just knew what you were going to use it to do.

I fully understand what you are saying here. Opening the hood to see how things work is one thing..but the obvious things like...you die muthaF'r and I want to bash your skull in because of what you believe is something else. But, I digress.

If the debate leads to the point where the only answer is there is no God or God isn't what He claims then the the conclusion is based on carnal knowledge and applying that way of thinking to understand the concept of an all knowing God vs the choices we make.

To God, since He has predestined those who are His then there is only an illusion of free will like you say.

However, to us, since we are guided by faith. Our hope is we have been predestined by God.

If one doesn't believe in God then what's the point at all? If you take God from the equation, we'll see that there are no strings attached to our hands and feet nor is there anybody with a gun to our heads making decisions for us. We freely choose whatever it is we want to do. This is a fact. This doesn't, however, negate the consequence of choice nor does it effect us if someone else has imprisoned us. The fact remains we will make choices. (Rust)

Now add God again and we are back to square one - while we still make choices, having full knowledge of God free will has a new set of consequence but doesn't remove the fact that God already knows the outcome.

To us mortals dealing with the concepts of time and death, we make decisions all day long without prior knowledge of the outcome. Thus, free will exists and the only being who knows the outcome is God. If someone does not believe in God, it doesn't change a thing.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 04-16-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

However, to us, since we are guided by faith. Our hope is we have been predestined by God.

If one doesn't believe in God then what's the point at all? If you take God from the equation, we'll see that there are no strings attached to our hands and feet nor is there anybody with a gun to our heads making decisions for us. We freely choose whatever it is we want to do. This is a fact. This doesn't, however, negate the consequence of choice nor does it effect us if someone else has imprisoned us. The fact remains we will make choices. (Rust)

No such fact remains, if there is an omniscient god, which was the point all along - a point which you keep ignoring.

Again, if an omniscient being exists, then you cannot claim that we can make choices. The fact is that our "choices" would have been predetermined by him the moment he supposedly knew what they were. In the case of your god, you assert that he knew our choices before we even existed, hence, our "choices" are in fact pre-determined.

quote:Now add God again and we are back to square one - while we still make choices, having full knowledge of God free will has a new set of consequence but doesn't remove the fact that God already knows the outcome.

To us mortals dealing with the concepts of time and death, we make decisions all day long without prior knowledge of the outcome. Thus, free will exists and the only being who knows the outcome is God. If someone does not believe in God, it doesn't change a thing.

Wrong, we wouldn't make choices, which is the fact that you're deliberately ignoring.

If he knows what we will do before we even do it (actually, before we even know that a choice exists) then the outcome is predetermined. I cannot change my mind, because that would refute his existence completely - that's predeterminism.

You have not dealt with anything that has been said, and have only delbierately and dishonestly ignored it in order to keep repeating your baseless assertions.

Sorry, but if you can make claims of the existence of your god under the guise of "understanding the spiritual" then so can I. I am understanding your definition of god to be completely and utterly false; something which undoubtedly has spiritual repercussions - I'm merely growing in my "spiritual" understanding of the falsehood of your particular god.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-16-2006).]

-Our choices aren't predetermined (forced), because of (guess what?) Free Will. Like I said before, God just has prior knowledge of them. He doesn't make the choices for us. That's how we can get sent to Hell and shit like that, because he doesn't force our hand. He's left it up to us to decide where our lives will go. Just because he knows what'll happen, though, doesn't take away our ability to make those choices.

- It only means that we have one path, the path that was always ours, that we go along during life. We make decisions every day, and no matter how random they may seem, it was always going to be those choices. It was always going to end at that final outcome. Nonetheless, we are the makers of that final outcome, he is the predictor. He doesn't put any effort into changing what we do.

-Knowledge of the final outcome is the only reason why you're [Rust] so adamant in saying that we cannot have free will, yet you haven't put forth any reasons why His prior knowledge takes away your will. You are not a robot. There's not going to be a situation where you cannot (say) turn your car to the left, having it been blocked by some force field -or something equally extraordinary- because God knew you were going to turn right, and to turn left would be to prove Him wrong. You turn left, and God knew it was going to be left, easy as that. You choose to eat Fruit Loops, but find out that the box is empty, leaving you with only Fruity Pebbles. Forgetfullness. Man's error. God didn't make the Fruit Loops disappear, taking away your choice. He already knew.

-He already knows, he doesn't change anything. Your choices are still yours to make.



[HomoBlaxican]

[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 04-17-2006).]

God gave all men and women free will.

quote:Originally posted by The Blue Preacher:

God gave all men and women free will.

OMG We had no idea. Thank you for clearing that up.

...?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong, we wouldn't make choices, which is the fact that you're deliberately ignoring.

If he knows what we will do before we even do it (actually, before we even know that a choice exists) then the outcome is predetermined. I cannot change my mind, because that would refute his existence completely - that's predeterminism.

You have not dealt with anything that has been said, and have only delbierately and dishonestly ignored it in order to keep repeating your baseless assertions.

Sorry, but if you can make claims of the existence of your god under the guise of "understanding the spiritual" then so can I. I am understanding your definition of god to be completely and utterly false; something which undoubtedly has spiritual repercussions - I'm merely growing in my "spiritual" understanding of the falsehood of your particular god.



I think you are debating for the sake of debating. You can't honestly believe what you are saying? Can you? I mean honestly...when you click on the reply button where you forced to do it or did you "freely choose" to click on the button?

You can't honestly say that free will doesn't exist? I can accept you saying that God doesn't exist and that is ok... That is something that has to be taken by faith. But as for free will - come on...just try and accept that we freely make our own choices. Work with me here...

You don't believe in God..that's ok. I'm not forcing it on you. I'm only trying to explain that there is no other being, either temporal or spiritual that knows the outcome of your life other then God. No angels, no demons, no policemen, your mother, ghosts, gypsies with crystal balls and palm readers...not one of them knows the outcome of your life.

The bible shows that the lambs book of life is closed up until the judgement day. Nobody knows whose names are in it. This is a mystery. You don't know the outcome of your life and neither do I likewise. In 40 years your and my views may be very different then the ones we carry now. And it could come about by significant events that are still held up and reserved in the future for us.

Maybe I'll bow down to a science book and maybe you will bow down to God by Jesus. Who knows?

That is why we can't judge anybody or condemn anybody. We simply don't have the power to change the names in that book..

Of course this is probably just religious babble to you but nobody knows the outcome of this life except for God who created everyone for their individual purpose.

As for God predetermined everything, like I tried to say earlier..it's like playing a game of chess by yourself. How can you win if you already know the strategies you will use on both sides? So, all of this may be no fun for God if He is in it for the suprises.

Life is for us to experience and grow up in. The choices we make - whether it is an illusion to all created things less God - are for our pleasure and pain. It is a gift from God to live out the full spectrum of the human drama.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I think you are debating for the sake of debating. You can't honestly believe what you are saying? Can you? I mean honestly...when you click on the reply button where you forced to do it or did you "freely choose" to click on the button? You can't honestly say that free will doesn't exist? I can accept you saying that God doesn't exist and that is ok... That is something that has to be taken by faith. But as for free will - come on...just try and accept that we freely make our own choices. Work with me here...

Like I already said, it seems that I am choosing to do so. It seems that I have free will; but I cannot be certain of that since the belief that I do have free-will might have been predetermined in the first place! That is, I might have been pre-determined to believe that I have free will.

I already covered that with my previous post. Please read what I said. One thing's for certain... if we do in fact have free will, then you've clearly chosen not to read correctly.

quote:

You don't believe in God..that's ok. I'm not forcing it on you. I'm only trying to explain that there is no other being, either temporal or spiritual that knows the outcome of your life other then God. No angels, no demons, no policemen, your mother, ghosts, gypsies with crystal balls and palm readers...not one of them knows the outcome of your life.

[...]

That is why we can't judge anybody or condemn anybody. We simply don't have the power to change the names in that book..

Of course this is probably just religious babble to you but nobody knows the outcome of this life except for God who created everyone for their individual purpose.

This has nothing to do with what I said. Please reply only to what I say. You have enough trouble replying to what I did say, don't add more (irrelevant and inconsequential) work for yourself.

quote:

As for God predetermined everything, like I tried to say earlier..it's like playing a game of chess by yourself. How can you win if you already know the strategies you will use on both sides? So, all of this may be no fun for God if He is in it for the suprises.

Life is for us to experience and grow up in. The choices we make - whether it is an illusion to all created things less God - are for our pleasure and pain. It is a gift from God to live out the full spectrum of the human drama.

You are deliberately ignoring the problem that arise. You have yet to reply to what was said in this thread.

I'll repeate myself:

"Again, if an omniscient being exists, then you cannot claim that we can make choices. The fact is that our "choices" would have been predetermined by him the moment he supposedly knew what they were. In the case of your god, you assert that he knew our choices before we even existed, hence, our "choices" are in fact pre-determined."

There is a clear and undoubtable contradiction in your religious dogma. You cannot maintain that your god is omniscient while at the same time that we have free will. The two are mutually exclusive.

Either refute this, or change your stance on the issue.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You are deliberately ignoring the problem that arise. You have yet to reply to what was said in this thread.

I'll repeate myself:

"Again, if an omniscient being exists, then you cannot claim that we can make choices. The fact is that our "choices" would have been predetermined by him the moment he supposedly knew what they were. In the case of your god, you assert that he knew our choices before we even existed, hence, our "choices" are in fact pre-determined."

There is a clear and undoubtable contradiction in your religious dogma. You cannot maintain that your god is omniscient while at the same time that we have free will. The two are mutually exclusive.

Either refute this, or change your stance on the issue.



I won't change my stance because I'm telling it straight up. As for refuting your belief - that wouldn't be the right thing to do now would it? We are seeing things from different perspectives and mine is no more right then yours. It is reality as we see it. How can I change your reality?

All this time I have trying to explain to you how the two can co-exist. However, you have rejected my every attempt at explaining this. If all you want me to say is what you believe, then we will be here for a long time going in circles.

God set all things in motion and all things will conclude at their pre-determined end. Even the concept of time itself will end at one point.



If you created a robot and programmed it's AI then you will know how it will respond in every single situation you programmed it for.

From blinking an eye to throwing a ball to walking - everything will have a predetermined outcome as the code dictates.

To us, if we choose to stand up or sit down matters nothing to God, He already knows the outcome of our thoughts and deeds. After all, He created them, as all things have a natural consequence set by God.

If you can mathmatically determine the cause and effect of an action to it's outcome then we can see these natural laws defined. In fact, if we can substitute numbers with deeds we can do the same thing.

Choosing to do one bad thing after another will have a predetermined outcome. There is no escaping this. If you need an example - if you continue to bash your hand with a hammer - eventually something bad will happen to your hand. Despite you using your free will to do this - God already knows the outcome because He created the outcome. Get it?

Does that help in explaining it yet or do I need to continue with this?

Ya know Rust, I don't know about this one. His knowledge doesn't change our ability to decide. The argument is that he is outside of time. You are always free to decide. If you want to go left, you can go left, and God always knew that you went left because he is present in all times at once, meaning you always went left. If you want to go right, you can, and God just always knew all the same because he's outside of time.

He knows what you've decided because to him everything is at once, a lifetime in one moment. It is the eternal 'now' for God.

I see your point, however, if God created us knowing in advance exactly what the minds he gave us would choose. In that sense, we have no free will because when creating us he did so knowing full well what the being he was creating would choose.

So I don't know, your statement that an omniscent God removes free will doesn't seem right.

Strange, that for once I am arguing against Rust.

Christians, take note of this. I am not against you. I follow the truth, wherever it leads. In this case, I think your side is right, so I am not afraid to argue for it. Keep this in mind.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I won't change my stance because I'm telling it straight up. As for refuting your belief - that wouldn't be the right thing to do now would it? We are seeing things from different perspectives and mine is no more right then yours. It is reality as we see it. How can I change your reality?

You can't refute my belief, because I haven't stated my belief. You on the other hand, have. You have not only stated a belief, but have made a claim, a claim that stands refuted until you manage to somehow resolve the blatant contradiction already pointed out days ago (by truckfixer initially).

quote:

All this time I have trying to explain to you how the two can co-exist. However, you have rejected my every attempt at explaining this. If all you want me to say is what you believe, then we will be here for a long time going in circles.

You have been trying to explain this? How? By ignoring what I say? Please quote me something you have said which does not ignore what I have said. Go ahead. I mean, you go on to ignore what was said right in this reply of yours! Look:

quote:

Choosing to do one bad thing after another will have a predetermined outcome. There is no escaping this. If you need an example - if you continue to bash your hand with a hammer - eventually something bad will happen to your hand. Despite you using your free will to do this - God already knows the outcome because He created the outcome. Get it?

Does that help in explaining it yet or do I need to continue with this?



You didn't explain anything, in fact, you keep falling for the same error that you did in the beginning!

You cannot say "Despite you using your free will to do this - God already knows the outcome because He created the outcome."

That's the inherent error that we've been trying to explain to you since the beginning, repeating it sin't going to expalin anything other than the fact that you haven't understood a word we've said.

Again, if he knows the outcome, then we can't use our free will. We can decide to change our mind, because that would mean that god would have been incorrect in the knowledge of the outcome. We must, lest we refute him, do exactly as he "knows" we will do, and do away with our ability to change our mind. That's not free will.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Ya know Rust, I don't know about this one. His knowledge doesn't change our ability to decide.

It most certainly does.

Let's think of a generalized scenario first. You're about to "choose" between A and B. If god "knows" that you are going to choose A, can you ultimately change your mind and choose B? No. You cannot. You must choose A, or his omniscience is refuted. That's not free will. That's predetermination.

Now let's look at a more "real-life" scenario. Boxing. God knows that Tyson is going to bite Holyefields ear off. Can Tyson decide not to? No. He must bite his ear off whether he wants to or not! He has to bite Holyfield's ear off. Again, that's not free-will, that's predetermination. If Tyson did in fact have free-will, he would have the ability to ultimately change his mind and decide not to bite Holyfield's ear off; that is something he cannot possibly do if the god is omniscient, since that would directly contradict what the god "knew" would happen (i.e. that Tyson would do it).

The fact is that his previous knowledge does do away with our free will because it completely removes our ability to change our mind. We must act as robots and do exatly as he "knew" we would do -without ever changing our mind and without ever really making a decision.

quote:

The argument is that he is outside of time. You are always free to decide. If you want to go left, you can go left, and God always knew that you went left because he is present in all times at once, meaning you always went left. If you want to go right, you can, and God just always knew all the same because he's outside of time.

He knows what you've decided because to him everything is at once, a lifetime in one moment. It is the eternal 'now' for God.

That is a non-issue. The issue of time is quite simply irrelevant in the argument. As long as he knows things before they happen, which he must by his very definition, he is hindering free will.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-19-2006).]

You say "change you mind" like you've never done it. What happens when you decide not to take a certain route somewhere, you changed your mind. Did God (anybody's) know you would? Hell yeah. Did you change your mind from the original route? Yes. Using your Free-Will.

How could Tyson change his mind when he was gonna bite the ear off? It's not like they watch a video tape of it and THEN he can decide to change his mind.

Shit, he could've changed his mind right before biting him, originally wanting to go the route lacking a chunk of ear in his mouth, then thinking "Fuck it," and biting him.

I do not understand how you can say we cannot change our mind.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

You say "change you mind" like you've never done it.

I don't necessarilly believe that a omniscient being exists, do I? If I don't believe in a omniscient god, then I could conclude that I can change my mine. The fact that you think I have done it before, is inconsequential to the argument at hand. In fact, if I have done it before, it would mean an omniscient being does not exist.

You see, I could think that I am changing my mind when in fact I'm doing as I was pre-determined to do. The fact that it may seem that I have free will, or that I change my mind, does not mean that I actually do.



quote: What happens when you decide not to take a certain route somewhere, you changed your mind. Did God (anybody's) know you would? Hell yeah. Did you change your mind from the original route? Yes. Using your Free-Will.

You're not following what I'm saying.

Let's use your example of the route. Let's say that there is a route A and a route B. If god knows that I am going to take route A before I even exist, can I choose route B the moment I am faced with the "choice"? No. I cannot. Therefore, there is no free will.

You are ignoring the fact that I cannot deviate from what god supposedly knows what I will do, which means that I have no free will to ultimately choose a different route.



So, the answer is "no". I cannot change my mind and choose another route if someone already knows (as a matter of unwavering fact) that I will choose a certain route. In the scenario god knows that I will choose route A, and thus I cannot ultimately decide to choose route B.

Of course, he might know that I will change my mind a few times before... but ultimately (and that is the key word) I cannot choose route B. Regardless of how many times a "change my mind" in between, I will be forced to reach route A as a conclusion, and therefore I lack the free will to ultimately choose route B.

quote:

How could Tyson change his mind when he was gonna bite the ear off?

He could not, which is exactly the point. That's what refutes free will. For there to be free will Tyson must be able to change his mind, something he cannot do if god already concluded what Tyson would do.

quote:

Shit, he could've changed his mind right before biting him, originally wanting to go the route lacking a chunk of ear in his mouth, then thinking "Fuck it," and biting him.

He could do that if god knew he was going to bite his ear off, he however cannot choose the opposite (i.e. to not bite it off) - which you do not deal with in your reply. Again, he cannot ultimately change his mind and choose to not bite the ear off, if god "knew" he was going to do it.

If god "knows" Tyson is going to bite the ear off, even before Tyson existed as a human being, Tyson cannot choose to not bite the ear of the moment he is in that position. He must do whatever god saw that he would do, and in this hypothetical scenario god saw that he would bite the ear off. Thus, he must bite the ear off. He cannot change his mind.

Free will doesn't stand at all since it is obvious that Tyson cannot choose to not bite the ear off, and I cannot choose to take route B. He must bite the ear off, and I must take route A.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-19-2006).]

But it was still chosen. And known beforehand.

Ok, I'll try to simplify Rust's argument.

If God is omniscient, by definition, he knows everything that has happened in the past or will happen in the future. If the future is known for certain by anyone, be it God or other, your actions and decisions are predetermined. If you change your mind about doing something, He knows in advance that you would do so , thus the change was predetermined. It's not just the final outcome that is predetermined . It's every choice in the process toward said outcome, as God knows for certain what choices you will make along the way. Thus, even though you have the perception of having free will, you simply have the illusion.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Even with an omniscient God, free-will can still exist. He'll just know what you'll do before you do it. He doesn't force you to do it. He just observes as you use your free will to do exactly what he knew you were going to do.

An interesting argument:

+Say I took a trip to Next Saturday and watched everthing you do. I write all of these future events in a journal and go back to today.

+I give you the journal, locked up or something, and tell you not to read it until Next Sunday.

+You go through your day Next Saturday, exerting your free will all day, choosing all of your actions.

+The day after, you read what I had written. You see that I knew (just like God did) what you were going to do.

You still had your free will on Saturday; my prior knowledge didn't take it away. I just knew what you were gonna do.

[HomoBlaxican]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

But it was still chosen. And known beforehand.

Free will does not simply mean "something being chosen". For free will to exist I must have the ability to change my mind, which I cannot do. You're deliberately ignoring this fact.

quote:+Say I took a trip to Next Saturday and watched everthing you do. I write all of these future events in a journal and go back to today.

+I give you the journal, locked up or something, and tell you not to read it until Next Sunday.

+You go through your day Next Saturday, exerting your free will all day, choosing all of your actions.

+The day after, you read what I had written. You see that I knew (just like God did) what you were going to do.

You're using circular logic when you say "You go through your day Next Saturday, exerting your free will all day".

You cannot claim that I went along exerting my free will, when you're trying to prove just that! That's circular logic. In order to answer the question of whether or not I used free will, you must answer whether what I did consitutates a free will or not to begin with; you cannot simply conclude that it does as you did here.

If you saw the actions I will take next Saturday, then next Saturday I must take those actions. How is that fee will? If I cannot change my mind in order to do something that deviates from those actions you wrote down, I lack free will.

Acting according to what you wrote down, without a single possible chance of deviating from what you saw - without the possibility of doing something else - is not free will by any reasonable definition. I would lack the will to do anything else! That's not free will, that's predetermination.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-19-2006).]

If we have free will then the future is a blank slate that can't be seen or travelled in to because it is being created as we act of our own accord and thus indeterminable.

If you can travel into the future, then the future must have been written or somehow determined.

And if the future is determined in advance, then free will is a sham.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

If we have free will then the future is a blank slate that can't be seen or travelled in to because it is being created as we act of our own accord and thus indeterminable.

If you can travel into the future, then the future must have been written or somehow determined.

And if the future is determined in advance, then free will is a sham.

I see the arguement but I can only continue on saying the two can co-exist. God can have knowledge of all things but you can still exercise your free will despite His knowledge. He is not an all-controlling God - he is an all-knowing God. There is a difference.

To remove God from this then you see your choices and decisions are freely yours to make. Life goes on - you can't deny you have the ability to choose.

Put God back into this changes nothing of the fact - He just knows - He doesn't make decisions for you. If your name is in the lambs book of life or not doesn't mean God charted out your life - He just knows before hand the outcome of all your decisions to the conclusion of your life.

You can freely change your mind with no influence or manipulation at all - This doesn't change the fact that GOd knew what that decision is. He didn't make it for you.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I see the arguement but I can only continue on saying the two can co-exist. God can have knowledge of all things but you can still exercise your free will despite His knowledge. He is not an all-controlling God - he is an all-knowing God. There is a difference.



You can continue syaing it as much as you can continue saying that 2 + 3 = 7.8 It is a completely false statement to say that the two can co-exist, because the two are contradictory of each other by their very definition.

quote:

Put God back into this changes nothing of the fact - He just knows - He doesn't make decisions for you. If your name is in the lambs book of life or not doesn't mean God charted out your life - He just knows before hand the outcome of all your decisions to the conclusion of your life.

You can freely change your mind with no influence or manipulation at all - This doesn't change the fact that GOd knew what that decision is. He didn't make it for you.



He only has to see the future so as to deny me the ability to change my mind. If I cannot change my mind, I cannot have free will.

This is exactly what you've failed to deal with since the argument was brought up.

If god knows that I will chose A, then I can not change my mind and ultimately choose B, because that would refute his knowledge in the first place. As such, I do not have the free will to choose B.

Either justify how me lacking the free will to choose B equals free will, or admit that you cannot. There are no other options.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-20-2006).]

Ahh..

here'a a link to a video that might help you out.

the video is titled " does free will exist"

http://www.givemeananswer.org/main/watch/FL3-GM2902B.html

tinurl: http://tinyurl.com/oem6x

I posted my idea earlier, but I'll try to rephrase it better.

Every decision we make is based on something that has already happened to us. If God controls our environment around us, then we are being controlled.

Since an omniscient God controls our environment, it cancels free will. Hypothetically.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

quote:

You can continue syaing it as much as you can continue saying that 2 + 3 = 7.8 It is a completely false statement to say that the two can co-exist, because the two are contradictory of each other by their very definition.

They are contradictory of each other "by your definition". Which is not completly true.

Your assumption is knowledge is the same as intervention. There is not correlation between the two.

If God intervined and forced you to do something then there would be no free will and I would agree with you. However, by taking a step back and taking a look at reality we see that this is not true.

God provides another way and then ask you to make the choice to follow or not follow.

He will not make the decision for you. Thus, free will. His knowledge of the outcome of your choice doesn't matter. You will still be held to account for your choice.

quote:

He only has to see the future so as to deny me the ability to change my mind. If I cannot change my mind, I cannot have free will.

I suppose if you had knowledge of your future you wouldn't be able to change your mind. God appears to be a spectator in this one. Your choice is as much a part of you sa your arms and legs. All of them will testify to who you are. That is because in the end you will have no excuses. "The devil made me do it" will not fly. nor will "I had no free will to choose the life I lead" will fly either.

Eventually you will have to accept the reality that you make choices without knowledge of the future. Whatever God knows has no bearing on this fact.



quote:

This is exactly what you've failed to deal with since the argument was brought up.

I can only try to define the error in the logic. Your interpretation is flawed as I have stated above. "Your assumption seems to be knowledge is the same as intervention."

quote:

If god knows that I will chose A, then I can not change my mind and ultimately choose B, because that would refute his knowledge in the first place. As such, I do not have the free will to choose B.

If you were God and had advanced knowledge of the outcome of your life then I would agree. Since you are not and neither am I we freely make our decisions. One day we will have to account for them and take ownership of them as they will have a heavy weight on the scales of judgement.

quote:

Either justify how me lacking the free will to choose B equals free will, or admit that you cannot. There are no other options.



Since you are content in keeping with the strawman arguement there isn't much I can do. There are other options and I have presented them. Because they don't fit in your definition doesn't mean it should be discounted.





[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 04-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

They are contradictory of each other "by your definition". Which is not completly true.

Your assumption is knowledge is the same as intervention. There is not correlation between the two.

If God intervined and forced you to do something then there would be no free will and I would agree with you. However, by taking a step back and taking a look at reality we see that this is not true.

God provides another way and then ask you to make the choice to follow or not follow.

He will not make the decision for you. Thus, free will. His knowledge of the outcome of your choice doesn't matter. You will still be held to account for your choice.

Wrong. We already showed you how knowledge does remove free will. To summarize, the mere fact that he "knows" what I will do removes any possibility of me changing my mind, and therefore, that knowledge has done away with free will.

That is what refutes free will. Whether we consider that a physical act of intervension or not is irrelevant, as that does not refute the fact that it is predetermination and not free will.

Moreover, you are also assuming that only what you term an "intervension" is the only thing that removes free will, which is fallicious to being with - and ironic given your baseless assertion that I was making an assumption!

quote:I suppose if you had knowledge of your future you wouldn't be able to change your mind. God appears to be a spectator in this one. Your choice is as much a part of you sa your arms and legs. All of them will testify to who you are. That is because in the end you will have no excuses. "The devil made me do it" will not fly. nor will "I had no free will to choose the life I lead" will fly either.

Eventually you will have to accept the reality that you make choices without knowledge of the future. Whatever God knows has no bearing on this fact.

You've done nothing to refute the point. The fact still remains (after all your irrelevant ranting) that knowledge of the future still removes the ability for me to change my mind and choose something else. I must conform to everything he (whoever 'he' is - be it you, god or myself) "knows" I will do and thus my free will is removed.

quote:I can only try to define the error in the logic. Your interpretation is flawed as I have stated above. "Your assumption seems to be knowledge is the same as intervention."

Wrong. I'm stating that the mere fact that he knows the future means that I cannot act differently from what he "knows" and therefore that my ability to choose differently has been userped.

Whether you consider that "intervention" or not is wholly irrelevant, because it being clasified as "intervension" by you (how convinient I should add) does not refute the argument at hand.

quote:If you were God and had advanced knowledge of the outcome of your life then I would agree. Since you are not and neither am I we freely make our decisions. One day we will have to account for them and take ownership of them as they will have a heavy weight on the scales of judgement.



I don't have to be god, because the problem still exists if someone else "knows" what will do. The problem doesn't magically disappear if it is someone else who restricts my free will.

The fact remains thatanyone having previous knowledge of the future means that I must conform to that knowledge (regardless of who posseses it - again, be it you, me or a god) and therefore, I cannot ultimately change my mind and choose. My free will is removed, and predermination exists in its place.

quote:Since you are content in keeping with the strawman arguement there isn't much I can do. There are other options and I have presented them. Because they don't fit in your definition doesn't mean it should be discounted.

How is that strawman argument? Do you even know what that is?

If you claim there are other options, then please tell me where those other options exist in the scenario I presented. I'll repeat the scenario for your sake:

"If god knows that I will chose A, then I can not change my mind and ultimately choose B, because that would refute his knowledge in the first place. As such, I do not have the free will to choose B."

--

Either I am forced to preserve the knowledge he had of my choice and therefore forced to choose A, or I am free to choose B and therefore, able to refute the knowledge he had of my choice (since he claimed I was going to choose A). If you believe there are other choices, point them out. If you don't, please admit that you cannot or shut up.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-21-2006).]

+1 Free will is a big ILLUSION

The mere fact that people are arguing FOR free will is pretty befuddling. On top of that arguing FOR free will AND an omniscient god, DOUBLE WHAMMY!!!

I don't feel (right now atleast) like pointing out all the problems of this thread. For instance, coming up with a solid and consistent definition of free will, as there are many different usages of the term, would be a good start. Anyhow, this is my basic take on the idea of free will in compact form, taken from a class paper on human freedom I wrote last semester -

Rather, the words used to describe these processes, such as 'freedom' and 'choice', are instead labels for what we observe and experience. These words are closely related to the functions of such words as 'mind' and 'consciousness'; it is not that these metaphysical entities actually exist, rather the words are used to describe brain processes. In this example of a person 'choosing' whether or not to move to a new city, her actions are decidedly anything but her own freedom. Our will is not free, rather it is driven by subjectively filtered physical and psychological motivations.

///i.e. we are basically running on neurochemical processes and fuzzy logic///

...

Let's take the example of a teenage girl that fancies the color purple. No doubt she accounts for her opinion by way of her own free will. Yet oddly enough, she has no justification for her preference nor any recollection of memories where she decidedly chose this color as her favorite. The color may very well have been put in her crib as an infant or maybe her mother wore an abundance of purple maternity clothing. She still views this preference by way of her own choice. In this particular case, her choice is simply the process by which it came to be in her liking. The process never included any form of choosing from herself, it was simply a subjective infatuation caused by emotional reactions when she was younger.

...

This feeling of free will which we often encounter is caused by a barrier between our conscious and subconscious thoughts. The subconscious effeciently hides from our conscious self our deepest thought processes, only letting us revel in seeing the surface of what is really going on and blinding us with a light, telling us we are making a 'choice'. This feeling we get is simply a derivative of our own ignorance.



Btw, my basis for rejecting free will is on basic materialistic principles. We live in a physical world, ruled by physical and chemical laws. So how are we, beings part of this universe, able to extricate ourselves from these restraints? Well, there are a few ideas(crazy ones at that) which people have historically had which can save us from our dilemma:

A) Soul/mind/Godstuff

-All of these are completely baseless and are only kept alive by people who read one book and believe in this type of nonsense.

reference - DOGMA

B) Quantum physics

Quantum physics says that atoms 'randomly swerve' and there are only possibilities, but no hardline rules or laws which dictate their movements, aha! room for free will maybe? MAYBE NOT, here we are left as a conglomerate of crazy and whimsical 'randomly swerving' atoms....I'd rather be a finely tuned machine. Even here, we need some metaphysical matter to come into play so that we may have free will, any of which, BY DEFINITION, cannot be physically explained.



I think the most important point I can make, which I pointed to earlier, is that our language concerning free will is descriptive at best. When we use words like 'choice', it does not mean I have some transcendent freedom of choice, but rather it is simply a label for the logical and mechanical processes are brain goes through in determining something. It is like any other thought process, 1+1=2, we're not making CHOICES there, simply thinking things out logically, just as we do in CHOOSING whether to go play golf or sit at home.

If you guys want to make the question of free will REAL SIMPLE, then of course you can bring an omniscient god into the scenario. Of course, this is superfluous and not the common presupposition to the question. Once IT is brought into the situation, I don't see how the two concepts can be reconciled. It is like you are saying this: I was born at point A and god has already made my day of death at waypoint B, but everything in between is up to you. But it isn't, this is completely illogical. If waypoint B is already placed, then a PREDETERMINED LINE has already been place between these two points, all CHOICES already decided ahead of time. I see this idea as a manisfestation of nature's laws, both physical and chemical. Of course everything is predetermined, but not by some being which has interest and an agenda, but instead because we have laws which rule us which are inescapable. This just seems common sense. Without rules to nature, all would be chaos and it still would not be free will. There is basically no possible scenario in which free will can exist, it is either machine or chaos.

Alas, god or no god,

omniscient god or clockwork god or whatever god

free will is just an illusion, but who cares...we still have to live like we have it.

[This message has been edited by KikoSanchez (edited 04-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

///i.e. we are basically running on neurochemical processes and fuzzy logic///

...

Let's take the example of a teenage girl that fancies the color purple. No doubt she accounts for her opinion by way of her own free will. Yet oddly enough, she has no justification for her preference nor any recollection of memories where she decidedly chose this color as her favorite. The color may very well have been put in her crib as an infant or maybe her mother wore an abundance of purple maternity clothing. She still views this preference by way of her own choice. In this particular case, her choice is simply the process by which it came to be in her liking. The process never included any form of choosing from herself, it was simply a subjective infatuation caused by emotional reactions when she was younger.



Or She genuinely chose it for herself. It doensn't have to have anything to do with her childhood. And if she did have a recollection where she actually said "This will be my favorite color, because I want it to be," one could STILL argue that it was the result of colors from infancy or a certain important memory; there's no way you can always argue that it played a part, because you don't know. This negates your theory there.



quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:



...

This feeling of free will which we often encounter is caused by a barrier between our conscious and subconscious thoughts. The subconscious effeciently hides from our conscious self our deepest thought processes, only letting us revel in seeing the surface of what is really going on and blinding us with a light, telling us we are making a 'choice'. This feeling we get is simply a derivative of our own ignorance.



So you feel that it was your decision to eat beef instead of chicken because of your ignorance? Not because you felt like having one over the other?

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:



B) Quantum physics

Quantum physics says that atoms 'randomly swerve' and there are only possibilities, but no hardline rules or laws which dictate their movements, aha! room for free will maybe? MAYBE NOT, here we are left as a conglomerate of crazy and whimsical 'randomly swerving' atoms....I'd rather be a finely tuned machine. Even here, we need some metaphysical matter to come into play so that we may have free will, any of which, BY DEFINITION, cannot be physically explained.



That is because the particles are connected on a level that we cannot see. There is another layer of "reality" through which they move. That is how they seem so random. From what we can see and interpret, the behavior is erratic, but (cliche) I'm sure there's a logical explanation. Though I cannot give one better than that.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:



It is like you are saying this: I was born at point A and god has already made my day of death at waypoint B, but everything in between is up to you. But it isn't, this is completely illogical. If waypoint B is already placed, then a PREDETERMINED LINE has already been place between these two points, all CHOICES already decided ahead of time. I see this idea as a manisfestation of nature's laws, both physical and chemical. Of course everything is predetermined, but not by some being which has interest and an agenda, but instead because we have laws which rule us which are inescapable. This just seems common sense.



So you get hit by a bus. That was the predetermined point B. That was because of nature's laws, right? Chemical and physical laws must have caused that. If so, then you could someday predict anything using science, from terrorist attacks to flash floods, either taking place 50 years after the prediction was given, by mapping out these laws. But the thing is, YOU CAN'T. The only way that at your birth, your getting hit by a bus was written in stone, destined to succeed because of laws, is if God knew (not endorsing his existence).

Common sense that we don't make our own choices WITHOUT a God? Come on, man.



[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 04-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



Or She genuinely chose it for herself. It doensn't have to have anything to do with her childhood. And if she did have a recollection where she actually said "This will be my favorite color, because I want it to be," one could STILL argue that it was the result of colors from infancy or a certain important memory; there's no way you can always argue that it played a part, because you don't know. This negates your theory there.



[/B]

Sure I can always argue that experiences, predisposition and chemical reactions have to do with every supposed CHOICE. And if not for these things, then what shall our 'decisions' be based upon? Ah yes, our magical free will which is based nowhere in reality.



quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



So you feel that it was your decision to eat beef instead of chicken because of your ignorance? Not because you felt like having one over the other?



[/B]

You are arguing the same thing in both sentences, not giving two sides. Reread your two statements and see what I mean. All I mean is your feeling of 'free will' comes from your ignorance of your deepest thoughts. You don't usually consciously think about many 'decisions', so you simply say they were of 'free will'.



quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



That is because the particles are connected on a level that we cannot see. There is another layer of "reality" through which they move. That is how they seem so random. From what we can see and interpret, the behavior is erratic, but (cliche) I'm sure there's a logical explanation. Though I cannot give one better than that.



[/B]

There should could be, which sticks us right back into the realm of laws and puts us back into the category of machinery.





So you get hit by a bus. That was the predetermined point B. That was because of nature's laws, right? Chemical and physical laws must have caused that. If so, then you could someday predict anything using science, from terrorist attacks to flash floods, either taking place 50 years after the prediction was given, by mapping out these laws. But the thing is, YOU CAN'T. The only way that at your birth, your getting hit by a bus was written in stone, destined to succeed because of laws, is if God knew (not endorsing his existence).

Common sense that we don't make our own choices WITHOUT a God? Come on, man.

[/QUOTE]



We may not have the resources for such a calculating machine to predict the future, but it seems wholly possible.

Why does god's existence and omniscience seem pertinent to the question of whether or not physical laws will play out? They will play out god or no god, omniscience or clockwork.

I was saying that it seems common sense that we are bound by inescapable physical laws in a completely material world, thus deterring any possible chance of free will.

But nonetheless, YES it is true that we can't make our own choices WITHOUT a God. I already laid out a few possibilities of ways to get around our dilemma. One was Quantum physics, which gets us nowhere. The only true salvation from this problem is for us to have some sort immaterial godstuff, not bound by our physical laws, yet somehow can interact metaphysically with physical entities.(lol) So for this we need GOD or atleast some other realm of reality which we cannot prove or even have basis for, for if it were it would instantly cease to exist as metaphysical, thus falling under our laws and poof! any chance of free will is lost. So yes, the only hope of free will is WITH god, but definetly not an omniscient one, that is incompatible.



[This message has been edited by KikoSanchez (edited 04-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

You are arguing the same thing in both sentences, not giving two sides. Reread your two statements and see what I mean. All I mean is your feeling of 'free will' comes from your ignorance of your deepest thoughts. You don't usually consciously think about many 'decisions', so you simply say they were of 'free will'.

But it still stands... on a whim you decide chicken. Or beef. Or Ramen. This isn't caused by mechanics, but your mind.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:



We may not have the resources for such a calculating machine to predict the future, but it seems wholly possible.



Lol, no. Just no. Using your laws of mechanics, you'd know the bus driver's wife divorced him, you'd know he went to the liqur store at 9AM and got piss drunk. You'd know that he saw you walking and decided to hit you anyway, not caring about the consequences. You would know what anybody everybody would be thinking at every moment in the future. As well as the actions of every animal, the weather, and whether or not aliens will visit our planet. How can that be possible? How can a machine, built by man, bound by man's laws, predict the thoughts of sentient beings?

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:



But nonetheless, YES it is true that we can't make our own choices WITHOUT a God. I already laid out a few possibilities of ways to get around our dilemma. One was Quantum physics, which gets us nowhere. The only true salvation from this problem is for us to have some sort immaterial godstuff, not bound by our physical laws, yet somehow can interact metaphysically with physical entities.(lol) So for this we need GOD or atleast some other realm of reality which we cannot prove or even have basis for, for if it were it would instantly cease to exist as metaphysical, thus falling under our laws and poof! any chance of free will is lost. So yes, the only hope of free will is WITH god, but definetly not an omniscient one, that is incompatible.



In quantum physics, it's the tiny, tiny, t...i...n...y (for emphasis) particles that behave randomly, anyway. It's not like your arm is going to spontaniously transform into a leg or a lizard. It's the majorly microscopic ones that do the wierd shit. And the metaphysical matter can be physically explained, just not be "physical". No god or entity is needed, for free will exists anyway.

So we've got Kiko: "Free will cannot exist without a God (sans omniscience)"

Rust: "Free will cannot exist with an omniscient god."

Interest: "Free will can exist with or without a God (and omniscience)"

Merlinman: same^^

Right? Anyone wanna offer any other ways of looking at it (are there any more?)

1. Kiko's argument isn't at odds with mine, it's at odds with yours. So his argument could co-exist with mine; thus taking them as seperate isn't that accurate.

2. You keep thinking that this is something that is up to debate, when it is not.

If god "knows" that I will choose A before I even exist, then I cannot ever choose B the moment I'm put in that position, because that would refute his knowledge. Not having the ability to ultimately choose different goes against the whole definition of free will; hence no free will exists.

Either you somehow show that I could possibly choose B (so as to satisfy free will) or you admit that I could not, and therefore no free will exists. There is nothing else to discuss.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



But it still stands... on a whim you decide chicken. Or beef. Or Ramen. This isn't caused by mechanics, but your mind.



Here you go trying to assume such a crazy thing as a 'mind'. I would completely agree that free will could exist if a mind did, but there is no basis for such an idea. Sure Descartes thought a mind existed, but he also never had an explanation for the mind-body problem other than the 'pineal gland' ordeal. The problem is that our endowment of a mind cannot even be supported, so should be thrown out for this argument. Then we are left with our brains, which are subject to the neurochemical and physical laws of nature.



quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



Lol, no. Just no. Using your laws of mechanics, you'd know the bus driver's wife divorced him, you'd know he went to the liqur store at 9AM and got piss drunk. You'd know that he saw you walking and decided to hit you anyway, not caring about the consequences. You would know what anybody everybody would be thinking at every moment in the future. As well as the actions of every animal, the weather, and whether or not aliens will visit our planet. How can that be possible? How can a machine, built by man, bound by man's laws, predict the thoughts of sentient beings?



Well, again, this is just in the theoretical realm. Our level of ignorance about our universe is IMMENSE, so I would not say that we could possibly do it now. But, people once thought the sun rose by magical powers and apples fell from trees by god's hand(literally). Now we know better and we will continue to grow in our knowledge of how the brain and human body works. I mean hell, serious brain research has only been going on for maybe 20 years, give it some time.



Now, to back up Rust in the actual argument at hand: can free will exist with an omniscient god? Let's take a story we all know well, Adam and Eve.

A) God creates Adam and Eve on earth

B) God creates a garden in Eden

C) God places them in the garden

D) Serpent talks/tricks Adam and Eve

E) Eve, then Adam eat of the tree of knowledge

Now, on god's little timeline of history he saw that they would eat of the tree. So, when Eve took a bite of the apple, was this of free will? Well, free will means there is a decision between 2 or more OPTIONS. Now I ask you all defending this view of free will, does Eve have an option or is she simply part of the machine?





[This message has been edited by KikoSanchez (edited 04-21-2006).]

Rust - I've been trying to make people understand that point for as long as i care to remember...

Here's another little twist to add to the argument:

You are faced with choice A and choice B.

God knows you will choose B.

God tells you that you will choose B.

Can you then choose A??

What is stopping you from choosing A??

Either you have no free-will or God is not omniscient.

Even if God isn't omniscient (doesn't exist according to traditional definitions) We still lack free-will due to Determinsism.

Either way it is an illusion.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

How is that strawman argument? Do you even know what that is?

If you claim there are other options, then please tell me where those other options exist in the scenario I presented. I'll repeat the scenario for your sake:

"If god knows that I will chose A, then I can not change my mind and ultimately choose B, because that would refute his knowledge in the first place. As such, I do not have the free will to choose B."

--

Either I am forced to preserve the knowledge he had of my choice and therefore forced to choose A, or I am free to choose B and therefore, able to refute the knowledge he had of my choice (since he claimed I was going to choose A). If you believe there are other choices, point them out. If you don't, please admit that you cannot or shut up.



You base your arguement on the simple fact that you are making a choice. Or choosing between a or b. You can choose either. Nobody stops you. Are you paying attention to what you are typing? You are making a choice of your own free will. Accept it as an illusion or a true fact. Either way you make the choice without intervention or intimidation.

Then the only outcome you leave with your view is "life is all an illusion and we make no choices of our own" or "there is no God."

This is why your arguement makes no sense...the outcome to the options you provide of this stance do not cover all options. You obviously make choices and whether there is a God or not has no consequence on your ability to make those choices.

So the next option you won't present is - If I chose A and God already knew I would choose A then ~ Amen. There is a God in Heaven afterall. There is another option then what you present.

Your entire arguement is designed to give no other choice but "no free will" or "no God".

You're saying if you believe in God there is no freewill...if you believe in freewill there is no God. Hence the strawman -

of course the third choice is:

If you have freewill and you believe in God then you have salvation.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 04-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

You base your arguement on the simple fact that you are making a choice. Or choosing between a or b. You can choose either. Nobody stops you. Are you paying attention to what you are typing? You are making a choice of your own free will. Accept it as an illusion or a true fact. Either way you make the choice without intervention or intimidation.

No, I don''t make a choice at all, because that is predetermined by the being (god, or any other person) who supposedly knows the future. I say I don't make a choice, because If cannot change my mind (which I cannot) there is nothing to choose, no ability to really choose.

If it's an illusion, the free will doesn't exist.

quote:This is why your arguement makes no sense...the outcome to the options you provide of this stance do not cover all options. You obviously make choices and whether there is a God or not has no consequence on your ability to make those choices.

Again, you cannot say that I "obviously make choices" because that is neither a valid argument, nor a valid form of evidence. Not only could I say the exact opposite to you: "It is obvious I don't make a choices", but you have no way of saying what is "obvious" nor if I'm really making choices. It could be (and I'm repeating this for the third time now) that we've been predetermined to think that we are making choices.



quote:So the next option you won't present is - If I chose A and God already knew I would choose A then ~ Amen. There is a God in Heaven afterall. There is another option then what you present.

No, you just can't say "amen" ( http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ), because you are deliberately (and very dishonestly I might add) ignoring the rest of the outcome. You simply ignore the fact that if that were the case, I would not have been able to choose B because the god/being supposedly knows the future (and I would be contradicting his knowledge if I changed my mind), and therefore, because I have no ability to change my mind, I have no free will.

The inability to change my mind is completely inherent in every scenario, if we assume that the god we are dealing with is omniscient and infallible - which is the case of Judeo-Christianity, the god we are dealing with here.

So you cannot simply ignore this blatant fact because it is convenient to you; that is dishonesty at it's very worse.

quote:Your entire arguement is designed to give no other choice but "no free will" or "no God".

You're saying if you believe in God there is no freewill...if you believe in freewill there is no God. Hence the strawman -

of course the third choice is:

If you have freewill and you believe in God then you have salvation.

1. No, my entire argument is designed to mimic exactly what would happen if there were a being who knows the future.

Again, if a being "knows" what I will do in the future and he "knows" that I will choose A, then when I get up to that point in time, I cannot choose B, and therefore my ability to change my mind has been removed.

That's exactly what would happen if someone "knew" what I was going to do before I even got the chance to do it, and you've shown nothing to the contrary, but merely your silly attempts to ignore the consequences of he being able to know what I happened, and me having to do that which he "knew".

2. I'm not saying "there is no god" I'm saying, either an omniscient being doesn't exist, of if he does, we have no free will. There could be gods that are omniscient and therefore we have no free will, or gods that aren't omniscient.

3. That is not a strawman, as that is exactly what we are arguing about (strawmen are fallacies of irrelevancy) and moreover, those are the only two choices. I've asked you to point out how there could be any more choices, and you've failed. That's your problem, certainly not mine.

---

So again:

"If god knows that I will chose A, then I can not change my mind and ultimately choose B, because that would refute his knowledge in the first place. As such, I do not have the free will to choose B.

Either I am forced to preserve the knowledge he had of my choice and therefore forced to choose A, or I am free to choose B and therefore, able to refute the knowledge he had of my choice (since he claimed I was going to choose A). If you believe there are other choices, point them out. If you don't, please admit that you cannot or shut up."

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

....Then the only outcome you leave with your view is "life is all an illusion and we make no choices of our own" or "there is no God."



No one is asserting anything about life being an illusion. Where did you come up with that notion? The argument is: If one's choices are known in advance by anyone, be it God or man, free will cannot exist.



quote:This is why your arguement makes no sense...the outcome to the options you provide of this stance do not cover all has no consequence on your ability to make those choices.

The argument makes perfect sense and is completely logical. You simply wish to deny it or can't understand it.



quote:So the next option you won't present is - If I chose A and God already knew I would choose A then ~ Amen. There is a God in Heaven afterall. There is another option then what you present.

Nonsense. That option (omniscient God/no free will) was established at the beginning. But before this option can be considered as being sound, evidence of an omniscient God's existance must be presented.

quote:Your entire arguement is designed to give no other choice but "no free will" or "no God".

No, wrong again. The options are "no free will" or "no foreknowledge".

quote:You're saying if you believe in God there is no freewill...if you believe in freewill there is no God. Hence the strawman -

of course the third choice is:

If you have freewill and you believe in God then you have salvation.

If an omniscient God exists, free will cannot. If free will exists, an omniscient God cannot exist. This does not refute the possibility of the existance of a God. It only refutes omniscience(or free will).

There is no strawman. There is no third option. Only your failure to understand the two available.





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 04-22-2006).]

You still don't seem to be taking into account what I said about how the word 'choice' is simply descriptive, but we do not literally have options if one is picked for us ahead of time. Look back at my story of Adam and Eve and answer if they had OPTIONS to choose from or not.

And when you say 'it's obvious we have a choice' that is just the veil of illusion stuck over your eyes.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



No one is asserting anything about life being an illusion. Where did you come up with that notion? The argument is: If one's choices are known in advance by anyone, be it God or man, free will cannot exist.



Because - what you won't accept is you made the choice to hit reply and type that message. That is reality - which is the thing nobody is willing to apply to this argument.

The illusion is you have to have either "A" free will and a God that is NOT all knowing or "B" No God.

Since you have made a choice - you prove you have free will. Because you don't believe in God you are unable to see that both can and do co-exist. Either A. You don't understand predestination or B. You don't understand what it means to be all knowing.

If we play by your definitions and your rules then you win. But the problem that is presented is flawed becaues of those rules. I'll explain in the rest of this reply below.

quote:

Nonsense. That option (omniscient God/no free will) was established at the beginning. But before this option can be considered as being sound, evidence of an omniscient God's existance must be presented.

I'm starting to see the problem. You are apllying scientific logic where all things must be proven false before it can be true.

quote:

No, wrong again. The options are "no free will" or "no foreknowledge".

No - false. The bible claim is God is all knowing. Since this is where the concept came from we ought to go back to the source.

If you claim the option is "no foreknowledge" then you are also saying God is a liar. Therefore, the God of the bible is false by your definition that he can not have foreknowledge to be real.

quote:

If an omniscient God exists, free will cannot. If free will exists, an omniscient God cannot exist. This does not refute the possibility of the existance of a God. It only refutes omniscience(or free will).

There is no strawman. There is no third option. Only your failure to understand the two available.

I just explained it above. The claim is God is all knowing - if He is not, as you say, then you are calling Him a liar. Therefore, refuting His existence by contradiction.

If we remove the "scientific logic of the world" and apply "Spiritual" logic, we'll see that a third option exists. God is real, He knows all, and by His knowledge by default has predestined all, but He has given you a free will.

Let's apply this to reality now and see the third option - You chose to follow or not to follow God. It is a choice. I know God exists by experience. The only arguement left beyond that is "how do I know for sure?"

Illusionary or not you make choices that are not predetermined by you. In fact saying this you may think that you can out wit or out smart God who created everything about you.

Of course this will not make sense to those who use carnal logic as the problem also includes things that are not governed by the ways of this world.

As Jesus said, "you think as men do"

[/B][/QUOTE]

How wonderfully convenient; logic - which has served humanity for millenia, which permeates everything we know about the universe, and which is the very thing that allows us to converse just now - is suddenly not appropriate for determining how incorrect you are, the moment you've argued yourself into absurdity.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Either answer the problem, or stop wasting everyone's time with you inane bullshit.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

How wonderfully convenient; logic - which has served humanity for millenia, which permeates everything we know about the universe, and which is the very thing that allows us to converse just now - is suddenly not appropriate for determining how incorrect you are, the moment you've argued yourself into absurdity.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Either answer the problem, or stop wasting everyone's time with you inane bullshit.



Why do you always resort to intimidation?

Anyway,

You missed my point...which is, you use only scientific logic to solve the problem when the problem includes both "scientific" and "spiritual" expressions.

The problem has elements of the carnal and spiritual. So in order to undertand it you can not just use one logic over the other but you need both.

When I say spiritual logic, I mean faith for all it is defined. We can scientifically prove "free-will". Therefore, we have half of the problem. The rest is solved by faith.

There is nobody here that can answer this question beyond the shadow of doubt. Not even the strongest believer or the strongest non-believer. Of course the only answer for the non-believer is - why did I just spend all this time talking about a God I don't even believe exists??

Faith is believing in something with no logical proof of it’s existence.

C’mon, man. That’s just silly.

[This message has been edited by Adrenochrome (edited 04-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Why do you always resort to intimidation?



Where have I intimidated you? Pointing out how you've wasted our time, and how you are merely grasping at straws by arguing that suddenly a contradiction in terms cannot be understood without faith, is not intimidation in any way; it's the truth.

quote:

Anyway,

You missed my point...which is, you use only scientific logic to solve the problem when the problem includes both "scientific" and "spiritual" expressions.

The problem has elements of the carnal and spiritual. So in order to undertand it you can not just use one logic over the other but you need both.

When I say spiritual logic, I mean faith for all it is defined. We can scientifically prove "free-will". Therefore, we have half of the problem. The rest is solved by faith.

No, if anyone missed the point, it is you. The argument is completely based on logic, because logic is what allows us to define a contradiction and an impossibility in the first place. Faith doesn't come into this argument; not only because faith is belief without evidence (which would prove a ridiculous thing to argue) but because it is meaningless in the context of what is a contradiction and what is not - only logic allows us to arrive at a conclusion within that context and the conclusion, without a shadow of a doubt, is that you argument is contradictory. Period.

You bringing up "spiritual logic" is merely a cop-out on your part, product of you failing to resolve the blatant contradiction in your beliefs.

quote:

There is nobody here that can answer this question beyond the shadow of doubt. Not even the strongest believer or the strongest non-believer. Of course the only answer for the non-believer is - why did I just spend all this time talking about a God I don't even believe exists??

1. We can answer this beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt, because that's exactly what logic allows us to do.

2. I'm not talking about a god, I'm talking about your contradictory beliefs, and how you've failed to justify them.

Even then, that is just a silly argument to begin with; someone who lacks a belief in gods has all the reason in the world to argue about their possible existence.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Again, if an omniscient being exists, then you cannot claim that we can make choices. The fact is that our "choices" would have been predetermined by him the moment he supposedly knew what they were. In the case of your god, you assert that he knew our choices before we even existed, hence, our "choices" are in fact pre-determined."



Of course.

Also keep in mind that this isn't exclusive to god entities. If the future is absolutely knowable with no chance of the knowledge of the future and the course of events ever deviating from each other, then there is not, will never be, and never was any such thing that could be called "free will".

Now I'm not saying that anyone even has to know the future. If the future, by it's nature, is in fact even knowable (that is, to the extent that it could be absolutely ascertained), then "free will" is a term for something that never existed.

quote:2. I'm not saying "there is no god" I'm saying, either an omniscient being doesn't exist, of if he does, we have no free will. There could be gods that are omniscient and therefore we have no free will, or gods that aren't omniscient.

Yeah, but given that it has been shown that humans have a tendency to invent gods for that which they do not understand, which seems more likely? That people have been just making shit up the whole time (which would explain the complete lack of evidence - the whole god concept was made up and thus independent of it), or that these things which show absolutely none of the properties of existence actually do, in fact, exist?

If I were a betting man (and I am, but only when it's pretty much a sure deal), my money would go on the first one.

We know that humans can and do invent gods, so would it really be any suprise if gods were invented?

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Of course.

Also keep in mind that this isn't exclusive to god entities. If the future is absolutely knowable with no chance of the knowledge of the future and the course of events ever deviating from each other, then there is not, will never be, and never was any such thing that could be called "free will".

Now I'm not saying that anyone even has to know the future. If the future, by it's nature, is in fact even knowable (that is, to the extent that it could be absolutely ascertained), then "free will" is a term for something that never existed

Exactly, which is another reason why "spiritual logic" has no place in the argument at hand. This is something that is aside from a religious context (though, of course, there are religious ramifications), precisely because it would apply even if 'Average Joe # 2' had knowledge of the future.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. We can answer this beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt, because that's exactly what logic allows us to do.

2. I'm not talking about a god, I'm talking about your contradictory beliefs, and how you've failed to justify them.

Even then, that is just a silly argument to begin with; someone who lacks a belief in gods has all the reason in the world to argue about their possible existence.



Have it your way. I am only trying to help make sense of it if it were possible. I have justified my beliefs despite you playing the part of judge and dismissing arguements to the point where yours is the only valid arguement left. Your stance makes it difficult to come to an honest conclusion since the rules you use only allows for "scientific" reasoning to understand the problem. If you can't hold it in your hand or measure it in a beaker doesn't mean it isn't real or true.

What you are saying is if it doesn't make sense to you then it can't be true despite the fact that abstract "spiritual" reasoning is required to help come to the conclusion in the problem.

My point is you can't come to a "logical" conclusion when not all expressions in the problem are "logical" to begin with.

What you are doing is going back into the proving/disproving God by science defence which by reasonable expectations, can not be done. You can not remove God from the hearts of men by attempting to prove his faults with perceived contradiction or His failure to meet the "logic" of men.

But, I agree with you on one point..this is a silly debate.

This thread seems a bit flawed. If there is no freewill then you are incapable of changing your behavior before it happens in real-time. That would mean that you are on a fixed point with no chance of deviation. If that's the case, then something has caused this course because it would be required of a programmer of some sort to plot your course. Do we have freewill? Of course we do. But you could argue that this freewill is not from the volition of God, but rather gives credence to the supposition that we are on an unguided, purposeless course of the arbitrary kind.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Have it your way. I am only trying to help make sense of it if it were possible. I have justified my beliefs despite you playing the part of judge and dismissing arguements to the point where yours is the only valid arguement left.

No, you have justified absolutely nothing because you have failed, time and time again, to explain how I could possibly choose B in the scenario I have outlined. The only thing you managed to do is provide nonsensical complaints that have been refuted in their entirety.

quote: Your stance makes it difficult to come to an honest conclusion since the rules you use only allows for "scientific" reasoning to understand the problem. If you can't hold it in your hand or measure it in a beaker doesn't mean it isn't real or true.

It only makes it difficult for those who don't want to accept the only logical conclusion because they are unwilling to admit that their religious beliefs are inherently illogical... namely you.

Again, logic is the only thing that is valid in this debate, because not only is a contradiction only defined in logic (and therefore, only justified, or proven in logic) but this debate has nothing to do with religion or faith out of necessity. This would apply even if the being were not a god, but simply a normal man.

quote:

What you are saying is if it doesn't make sense to you then it can't be true despite the fact that abstract "spiritual" reasoning is required to help come to the conclusion in the problem.

My point is you can't come to a "logical" conclusion when not all expressions in the problem are "logical" to begin with.

I'm not saying anything of the sort, so please stop saying that I am. I'm saying that it is an illogical belief, which it is.

As for the rest, no, "religious reasoning" (i.e. no reasoning at all) isn't required to define anything. Knowledge isn't defined by faith, and contradictions aren't defined by faith. Faith is simply irrelevant, and this is clearly seen in the fact that the debate can exist completely out of a religious context - something which you keep ignoring.



quote:

What you are doing is going back into the proving/disproving God by science defence which by reasonable expectations, can not be done. You can not remove God from the hearts of men by attempting to prove his faults with perceived contradiction or His failure to meet the "logic" of men.

1. I'm not refuting god. That you keep repeating this nonsense is proof positive you're not paying attention:

"I'm not saying "there is no god" I'm saying, either an omniscient being doesn't exist, of if he does, we have no free will. There could be gods that are omniscient and therefore we have no free will, or gods that aren't omniscient."

2. I'm not here to "remove gods from the hearts of men".

quote:

But, I agree with you on one point..this is a silly debate.

I didn't say the debate was silly, I said that your statement (i.e. " Of course the only answer for the non-believer is - why did I just spend all this time talking about a God I don't even believe exists??") was silly, as "someone who lacks a belief in gods has all the reason in the world to argue about their possible existence".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

This thread seems a bit flawed. If there is no freewill then you are incapable of changing your behavior before it happens in real-time. That would mean that you are on a fixed point with no chance of deviation. If that's the case, then something has caused this course because it would be required of a programmer of some sort to plot your course.

How does that show that the thread is in any way flawed? That is what we have been saying; the "knowledge" is what "plots" the future, thus making it a predetermined one.

quote:Do we have freewill? Of course we do.

You can't say that at all. To say that is to claim that you know for certain that your belief in free will (or the aspects which make it seem like you have free will) haven't been pre-determined to begin with - which you can't.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-26-2006).]

How does that show that the thread is in any way flawed?

I meant the thread in conglomerate, not the OP's premise. It seems that some people can't concieve of their being freewill apart from God, or with God.

That is what we have been saying; the "knowledge" is what "plots" the future, thus making it a predetermined one.

If its pre-determined, then what determined it to begin with? Isn't that indicative of cognizance? If there is a fixed gulf that is currently inviolate of passing, then something deterministic causes and plots out our course.

You can't say that at all.

I suppose we can't state empirically whether or not there is a freewill or not if this is the case. It hardly seems logical that it is my predestination to go: awefohaeroiheio;aoifdasehior... that I somehow had no choice whether I was going to do that or not seems absurd. It snot impossible, but for you to suggest that there is no purpose to our lives in one breath, and then to say that our lives are comlpetely deterministic seems self-refuting to me. If you have an aversion towards God, then couldn't you just say that freewill shows that there is no God? Wouldn't it give this purposeless, guideless, and blind watchmaker stance all the more credence?

To say that is to claim that you know for certain that your belief in free will (or the aspects which make it seem like you have free will) haven't been pre-determined to begin with - which you can't.

Again, if our life is completely pre-determined, then something had to create the future and create the programme for us, forcing us to live out lives in the fashion that IT wants us to.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I meant the thread in conglomerate, not the OP's premise. It seems that some people can't concieve of their being freewill apart from God, or with God.

Nobody said that free will couldn't exist, either apart from a god, or with a god. A god could very well exist, that is not omniscient; or free will could very well exist, without a god. What is being said is that you cannot maintain the belief that free will exists, with knowledge of the future (which, in the case of gods, would be given by their omniscience - if they indeed are omniscient).

quote:

If its pre-determined, then what determined it to begin with? Isn't that indicative of cognizance? If there is a fixed gulf that is currently inviolate of passing, then something deterministic causes and plots out our course.

The very knowledge of what is to happened did. Of course it is indicative of cognizance, if it is indeed the case that someone possesses knowledge of the future - it however, is not indicative of a god, because if I were to know what you were going to do this Friday, the outcome would be pre-determined by what I saw, and I'm mot definitely not a god (by any meaningful definition).

quote:

I suppose we can't state empirically whether or not there is a freewill or not if this is the case. It hardly seems logical that it is my predestination to go: awefohaeroiheio;aoifdasehior... that I somehow had no choice whether I was going to do that or not seems absurd. It snot impossible, but for you to suggest that there is no purpose to our lives in one breath, and then to say that our lives are comlpetely deterministic seems self-refuting to me.

My beliefs are wholly irrelevant to this topic. But since you bring them up, they are most definitely not self-refuting as I never claimed our lives are completely deterministic.

The fact remains that it is impossible to say either way, only to say what it seems to be the case - which is essentially meaningless in determining what actually is the case.

quote:

If you have an aversion towards God, then couldn't you just say that freewill shows that there is no God? Wouldn't it give this purposeless, guideless, and blind watchmaker stance all the more credence?

1. I have no aversion to the possibility of a god, I have aversions to the ones described by humanity - because they prove to be meaningless, illogical, immoral and/or unsubstantiated.

2. Free will doesn't refute the possibility of gods, because it could be that a god is simply not omniscient.

quote:

Again, if our life is completely pre-determined, then something had to create the future and create the programme for us, forcing us to live out lives in the fashion that IT wants us to.



What does that have to do with what you quoted? I was saying that it remains a fact that you cannot say that what you perceive as free will hasn't been predetermined.

In any case, I already said that it would have been predetermined by the very act of seeing the future - whether you consider it the person who did the viewing as the being who did the predetermination, or you personify knowledge and say that it is knowledge itself that did it, is not at all important.

Nobody said that free will couldn't exist, either apart from a god, or with a god. A god could very well exist, that is not omniscient; or free will could very well exist, without a god. What is being said is that you cannot maintain the belief that free will exists, with knowledge of the future (which, in the case of gods, would be given by their omniscience - if they indeed are omniscient).

Who among us can see into the future that this is somehow a problem? I guess I'm not understanding your point. Are you refering to prophecy?

The very knowledge of what is to happened did. Of course it is indicative of cognizance, if it is indeed the case that someone possesses knowledge of the future - it however, is not indicative of a god, because if I were to know what you were going to do this Friday, the outcome would be pre-determined by what I saw, and I'm mot definitely not a god (by any meaningful definition).

God knowing what your choices will be does not mean that He controls your choices, it means that He allows you to be a big boy. If you choose to be irresponsible, then that is with you. If you choose to be responsible, that is also enitrely up to you.

My beliefs are wholly irrelevant to this topic. But since you bring them up, they are most definitely not self-refuting as I never claimed our lives are completely deterministic.

Your beliefs are not wholly irrelevant. That's the purpose of forums. Compare and contrasting opinions is the whole idea. But your point is taken, nonetheless.

I have no aversion to the possibility of a god, I have aversions to the ones described by humanity - because they prove to be meaningless, illogical, immoral and/or unsubstantiated.

You assigning morality completely nullifies and undermines your nihilistic stance as it relates to epistemics. The very fact that you dislike God's plan, whether the Judeo-Christian God is real or not, shows that you do have an aversion to the premise of it.

What does that have to do with what you quoted? I was saying that it remains a fact that you cannot say that what you perceive as free will hasn't been predetermined.

Knowing the future does not equal controlling the future, though He has the power to do as He wishes.

In any case, I already said that it would have been predetermined by the very act of seeing the future - whether you consider it the person who did the viewing as the being who did the predetermination, or you personify knowledge and say that it is knowledge itself that did it, is not at all important.

Let me give you an example of future knowledge. Suppose you are a bank robber and you've planned out a heist. Unbeknownst to you, the FBI has been monitoring your every move, taking in account all your schematics to pull it off. The day for the plan to come into action arrives and you head out to the bank. Just prior to you breaching the doors, SWAT/SRT springs into action and arrests you. You can be prosecuted because they established your motive and you gave every indication of intent. Now, had you known the FBI was watching you, would you have pulled off the heist at such a great risk? Probably not. Is it the FBI's job to inform you that you were under surveillance? No. Therefore, their foreknowledge of the future did not impact your personal choice of whether or not you were going to rob the bank. It was your choice, and you were busted. Its our choice to do what is righteous in the eyes of God, or to do that which is reprehensible. The choice is with us. The only drawback is.... We'll always be busted.

Now, how does that fit into prophecy? Can prophecy be averted? Yes. When Jonah was asked of God to prophecy to Ninevah, he refused and tried to hide from God. However, he eventually prophesied to the people of Ninevah. God was going to destroy Ninevah, in a short time. But they repented in sackcloth and ashes and were spared the same fate that befell the inhabitants of Sidom and G'morah. So what does that tell us? It tells us that there are multiple variables when speaking out the future. there are virtually unlimited and an infinite number of possibilities. But if we choose to walk down the primrose path, disaster will come upon us. Only God knows the future and its only because time is of no relation to Him. Past, present, and future are constraints to the physical world. In the God-realm there is no distinction. And that is precisely why He is the great 'I AM', and we are ultimately carrion in this mortal body.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Who among us can see into the future that this is somehow a problem? I guess I'm not understanding your point. Are you refering to prophecy?

It's called a hypothetical scenario for a reason. Nobody at present time must have that ability - we're merely discussing what would happen if someone did.

quote:

God knowing what your choices will be does not mean that He controls your choices, it means that He allows you to be a big boy. If you choose to be irresponsible, then that is with you. If you choose to be responsible, that is also enitrely up to you.

It means I cannot change my mind and deviate from what he allegedly saw, and hence I lack a free will. We've discussed this here before, please read our posts.

If god "knows" that I will choose A, I cannot change my mind and choose B. I must, without any possibility of deviating choose B. That's predetermination.

quote:Your beliefs are not wholly irrelevant. That's the purpose of forums. Compare and contrasting opinions is the whole idea. But your point is taken, nonetheless.

They are irrelevant, because the discussion at hand has nothing to do with my personal beliefs - the argument would stand where I a Hindu, a Christian, an atheist, or a Gnostic. If the discussion was centered around what I believed, you would have a point, but it simply does not.

quote:You assigning morality completely nullifies and undermines your nihilistic stance as it relates to epistemics. The very fact that you dislike God's plan, whether the Judeo-Christian God is real or not, shows that you do have an aversion to the premise of it.

1. I don't have a nihilistic stance. Thank you for exposing the inherent problem of talking about irrelevant things: they not only confuse the issue, but are prone to be complete utter fabrications, as is the case here. I'm not a nihilist, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

2. Adverse at his existence (because I would dislike his properties), not adverse at the possibility of a god existing. Two very different things - both irrelevant I will remind you.

quote:Knowing the future does not equal controlling the future, though He has the power to do as He wishes.

It doesn't? Great, the please explain how I could possibly choose B in the scenario I have outlined in this thread. If you cannot do so, then you have nothing to base your assertion on, and it remains baseless.

I'll repeat the scenario. If god knows that I will ultimately choose A, then I cannot possibly change my mind and choose B, because that would refute his prior knowledge. Lacking the ability to change my mind is not indicative of free will, but of predetermination. Either show how I could possibly choose B as my ultimate decision, or admit that you cannot.

quote:Let me give you an example of future knowledge. Suppose you are a bank robber and you've planned out a heist. Unbeknownst to you, the FBI has been monitoring your every move, taking in account all your schematics to pull it off. The day for the plan to come into action arrives and you head out to the bank. Just prior to you breaching the doors, SWAT/SRT springs into action and arrests you. You can be prosecuted because they established your motive and you gave every indication of intent. Now, had you known the FBI was watching you, would you have pulled off the heist at such a great risk? Probably not. Is it the FBI's job to inform you that you were under surveillance? No. Therefore, their foreknowledge of the future did not impact your personal choice of whether or not you were going to rob the bank. It was your choice, and you were busted. Its our choice to do what is righteous in the eyes of God, or to do that which is reprehensible. The choice is with us. The only drawback is.... We'll always be busted.

Now, how does that fit into prophecy? Can prophecy be averted? Yes. When Jonah was asked of God to prophecy to Ninevah, he refused and tried to hide from God. However, he eventually prophesied to the people of Ninevah. God was going to destroy Ninevah, in a short time. But they repented in sackcloth and ashes and were spared the same fate that befell the inhabitants of Sidom and G'morah. So what does that tell us? It tells us that there are multiple variables when speaking out the future. there are virtually unlimited and an infinite number of possibilities. But if we choose to walk down the primrose path, disaster will come upon us. Only God knows the future and its only because time is of no relation to Him. Past, present, and future are constraints to the physical world. In the God-realm there is no distinction. And that is precisely why He is the great 'I AM', and we are ultimately carrion in this mortal body.



Your analogy fails.

The FBI had absolutely no "foreknowledge of the future"; it had pieces of evidence which alluded to a possible outcome. That in no way equals knowledge, but at best, a simple educated guess. I could have very well decided not to rob the bank that day because the weather was bad, or any other reason.

Thus, your analogy fails to represent the issue at hand, because the "being" described does not possess knowledge of the future, but merely evidence on which he bases an educated guess of what the future might be - the two are nothing alike. One allows for possible deviation, the other does not.

If the FBI had knowledge of what I was going to do (say a magical crystal ball) then I was going to rob that bank no matter what. I could not change my mind based on the weather that day or any other factor.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-26-2006).]

It means I cannot change my mind and deviate from what he allegedly saw, and hence I lack a free will. We've discussed this here before, please read our posts.

And I disagree with that. How does God's foreknowledge equate to it not being your choice? That makes no sense. If God truly is God, then He can know everythng about you, have every hair on your head numbered, know what your breath smells like today, tomorrow, and the next day, knows that you will have arroz con pollo for dinner tonight, and every thought that will pop in your mind until you die. I really don't understand why this concept stumbles you. For the sake of the argument, assume that God is real. How could He not be able to know all things while not affecting your free-will?

If god "knows" that I will choose A, I cannot change my mind and choose B. I must, without any possibility of deviating choose B. That's predetermination.

If God knows that you are going to do something bad in 21 days, then He knows it and allows it because He granted you freewill instead of being some mindless automaton. You might actually have some justification in saying, "He knows what I'm going to do but won't warn me." But even that falls short because the Bible and consequence is your warning. So if you opt to take the road most travelled, that's on you, not Him.

They are irrelevant, because the discussion at hand has nothing to do with my personal beliefs - the argument would stand where I a Hindu, a Christian, an atheist, or a Gnostic. If the discussion was centered around what I believed, you would have a point, but it simply does not.

That's your problem Rust. You are as vague as you possibly can be, keeping your distance with your own personal beliefs, presumably to ensure there is no ammuntion that can be used against you in the future. All you do is argue with someones personal opinion and give a plethora of reasons for why their opion is false. That's what polemicists do.

1. I don't have a nihilistic stance. Thank you for exposing the inherent problem of talking about irrelevant things: they not only confuse the issue, but are prone to be complete utter fabrications, as is the case here. I'm not a nihilist, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

Then you agree that morals are set by a Higher standard. There really is no middle ground. The only other option is to be a solipsist, which really is the softest form of nihilism.

2. Adverse at his existence (because I would dislike his properties), not adverse at the possibility of a god existing. Two very different things - both irrelevant I will remind you.

What?

It doesn't? Great, the please explain how I could possibly choose B in the scenario I have outlined in this thread. If you cannot do so, then you have nothing to base your assertion on, and it remains baseless.

I really didn't understand option B. It sounded like a bunch gobbledegook.

I'll repeat the scenario. If god knows that I will ultimately choose A, then I cannot possibly change my mind and choose B, because that would refute his prior knowledge. Lacking the ability to change my mind is not indicative of free will, but of predetermination. Either show how I could possibly choose B as my ultimate decision, or admit that you cannot.

You DO have the ability to change your mind everyday of your life. You are blaming God for your actions. That's a copout and completely untrue. Once again, His foreknowledge does not negate the fact that it was you that choose whatever you will do in this life.

Your analogy fails.

The FBI had absolutely no "foreknowledge of the future"; it had pieces of evidence which alluded to a possible outcome. That in no way equals knowledge, but at best, a simple educated guess. I could have very well decided not to rob the bank that day because the weather was bad, or any other reason.

Thus, your analogy fails to represent the issue at hand, because the "being" described does not possess knowledge of the future, but merely evidence on which he bases an educated guess of what the future might be - the two are nothing alike. One allows for possible deviation, the other does not.

If the FBI had knowledge of what I was going to do (say a magical crystal ball) then I was going to rob that bank no matter what. I could not change my mind based on the weather that day or any other factor.

The FBI analogy is the only reasonable basis for comparison because no one knows the future definitavley but God. Not even the angels in heaven, saith Jesus. But the point that someone knew your plans unbeknownst to you shows that your course was not the mastermind of someone else's will for you, but rather, of your own devise.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



And I disagree with that. How does God's foreknowledge equate to it not being your choice? That makes no sense. If God truly is God, then He can know everythng about you, have every hair on your head numbered, know what your breath smells like today, tomorrow, and the next day, knows that you will have arroz con pollo for dinner tonight, and every thought that will pop in your mind until you die. I really don't understand why this concept stumbles you. For the sake of the argument, assume that God is real. How could He not be able to know all things while not affecting your free-will?

It doesn't just "stumble" me, it has stumbled any other rational human being because the two cannot co-exist logically. The only way they can co-exist is if you claim that your god can do the illogical. Simple as that. If he cannot, then the two cannot co-exist, because I would lack the free will to change my mind.

quote:

If God knows that you are going to do something bad in 21 days, then He knows it and allows it because He granted you freewill instead of being some mindless automaton. You might actually have some justification in saying, "He knows what I'm going to do but won't warn me." But even that falls short because the Bible and consequence is your warning. So if you opt to take the road most travelled, that's on you, not Him.

You avoided the question completely and failed to deal with the problem. The problem is, again, that I would lack a free will to change my mind because in doing so I would refute his "knowledge". I cannot change my mind and therefore, I have no free will.

quote:That's your problem Rust. You are as vague as you possibly can be, keeping your distance with your own personal beliefs, presumably to ensure there is no ammuntion that can be used against you in the future. All you do is argue with someones personal opinion and give a plethora of reasons for why their opion is false. That's what polemicists do.



http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

So, I'm a polemicist simply because I don't want to introduce things that are irrelevant to the debate... What an idiotic thing to say.

Since you cannot justify them being relevant, you now try to argue the reasons for why I don't post things that are irrelevant (which is not only irrelevant in and of itself, but should be self evident: I don't discuss them precisely because they are irrelevant, unimportant, and inconsequential to what is being discussed).

The fact is, these things are not relevant for a reason. The reason being, they are unimportant. If you cannot see how a rational human being would want to not clutter a debate with unimportant things or waste time doing so, then that is your problem, definitely not mine.



quote:

Then you agree that morals are set by a Higher standard. There really is no middle ground. The only other option is to be a solipsist, which really is the softest form of nihilism.

Again, this is irrelevant. You want to move the discussion towards my beliefs because you fail miserably in justifying yours. If you want to discuss my beliefs, by all means, create a thread in the appropriate place or contact me some other manner, but I'm not going to indulge you in this thread because they are completely trivial to the matter at hand, and are only your way of changing the debate when your arguments fail miserably.



quote:

What?

What is it that you don't understand?

You said:

"The very fact that you dislike God's plan, whether the Judeo-Christian God is real or not, shows that you do have an aversion to the premise of it."

I replied that I would be adverse to his properties(i.e. to what he is), not to the possibility of a god existing.

But again, this is irrelevant. If you still cannot understand then don't bother.

quote:I really didn't understand option B. It sounded like a bunch gobbledegook.

What confused you? Because I don't define what B is... B can be anything. So from where exactly did you get "gobbledegook"? The part where I deliberately don't define what it is so as to allow the variable B to stand for any set of choices?

quote:You DO have the ability to change your mind everyday of your life. You are blaming God for your actions. That's a copout and completely untrue. Once again, His foreknowledge does not negate the fact that it was you that choose whatever you will do in this life.

Once again, if his foreknowledge does not negate the "fact" that I can choose whatever choice I want, then please show how I could possibly choose B if he "knew" I was going to ultimately choose A (that would be a requirement for your claim to stand). Stop evading the question and either answer it or admit that you cannot.

quote:The FBI analogy is the only reasonable basis for comparison because no one knows the future definitavley but God. Not even the angels in heaven, saith Jesus. But the point that someone knew your plans unbeknownst to you shows that your course was not the mastermind of someone else's will for you, but rather, of your own devise.

It shows nothing, because you analogy fails completely. Since the FBI doesn't know the future, it cannot limit it by the way I am saying it would, and hence it fails to be reasonable basis for comparing anything!

The fact, which you keep avoiding, remains:

If god knows I will choose 'A', then I cannot choose 'B' because that would refute his omniscience. This shows a lack of free will to change my mind, therefore I lack free will. Either justify that or admit that you cannot.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-26-2006).]

It doesn't just "stumble" me, it has stumbled any other rational human being because the two cannot co-exist logically. The only way they can co-exist is if you claim that your god can do the illogical. Simple as that. If he cannot, then the two cannot co-exist, because I would lack the free will to change my mind.

I simply disagree. God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with your future actions. Perhaps it just eats at you that you don't know what you're going to do, so you'll just blame Him when the time comes.

You avoided the question completely and failed to deal with the problem. The problem is, again, that I would lack a free will to change my mind because in doing so I would refute his "knowledge". I cannot change my mind and therefore, I have no free will.

You can change your mind. You just aren't aware of what choice you will make... He is aware of what you will choose.

I'm a polemicist simply because I don't want to introduce things that are irrelevant to the debate... What an idiotic thing to say.

No, I'm saying that I think you are like most of the people in this world who gravitate towards controversy. Its like how reality tv, and soap operas, and Jerry Springer type shows are so popular. They are popular because some people love to see conflict, because conflict rages in their heart. Some people, much like yourself, argue just for the sake of arguing, which to me is just sickeningly disturbing.

Since you cannot justify them being relevant, you now try to argue the reasons for why I don't post things that are irrelevant (which is not only irrelevant in and of itself, but should be self evident: I don't discuss them precisely because they are irrelevant, unimportant, and inconsequential to what is being discussed).

Everything you espouse comes from your personal beliefs, do they not? Otherwise, how did you come to the conclusions you maintain? I'm simply pointing out that you tend to be vague on any personal issues in the positive, (meaning, you don't like to share your personal feelings or ascribe to anything that might be used as a weapon against you). I'm a Christian, therefore I'm held down by a specific criteria, and you know that. Nobody knows what you are because you choose not to specify because if we all knew, we would hold you accountable for the things you say. So because you have established yourself the judge, jury, and executioner over yourself, there is no basis for anyone to really flame you for anything, unless its something that you've contradicted yourself on. Instead, you espouse your negative feelings on virtually all subjects in here. So, we have no basis for truly understanding who Rust is or what he believes in. All we really know is that you love to argue for the sake of arguing. It makes me wonder what inscription would adorn your headstone.















The fact is, these things are not relevant for a reason. The reason being, they are unimportant. If you cannot see how a rational human being would want to not clutter a debate with those things or waste time doing so, then that is your problem, definitely not mine.

Okay..........

Again, this is irrelevant. You want to move the discussion towards my beliefs because you fail miserably in justifying yours. If you want to discuss my beliefs, by all means, create a thread in the appropriate place or contact me some other manner, but I'm not going to indulge you in this thread because they are completely trivial to the matter at hand, and are only your way of changing the debate when your arguments fail miserably.

If discussing your beliefs is off limits in Totse then so is everyone's; that includes general questions about Christians in relation to me.

What is it that you don't understand?

You said:

"The very fact that you dislike God's plan, whether the Judeo-Christian God is real or not, shows that you do have an aversion to the premise of it."

I replied that I would be adverse to his properties(i.e. to what he is), not to the possibility of a god existing.

But again, this is irrelevant. If you still cannot understand then don't bother.

What is relevant then Rust? You've ruled out having an opinion, so that leaves us left with, what, as a dialogue?

What confused you? Because I don't define what B is... B can be anything. So from where exactly did you get "gobbledegook"? The part where I deliberately don't define what it is so as to allow the variable B to stand for any set of choices?

No, it wasn't the variable factor, it was your wording.

Once again, if his foreknowledge does not negate the "fact" that I can choose whatever choice I want, then please show how I could possibly choose B if he "knew" I was going to ultimately choose A (that would be a requirement for your claim to stand). Stop evading the question and either answer it or admit that you cannot.

You can choose A or B, but only He knows what you are going to choose. Time means nothing to that which is timeless. Its only important to physical beings, i.e., you and I.

It shows nothing, because you analogy fails completely. Since the FBI doesn't know the future, it cannot limit it by the way I am saying it would, and hence it fails to be reasonable basis for comparing anything!

The fact, which you keep avoiding, remains:

If god knows I will choose 'A', then I cannot choose 'B' because that would refute his omniscience. This shows a lack of free will to change my mind, therefore I lack free will. Either justify that or admit that you cannot.

It would only present a problem if God was physical, confined by time as we are. But since God is above and beyond the time domain, He is past, present and future. Its still your choice, He just knows what you are going to choose. Seriously, its mind-boggling that you are so tripped up by it. In simple philosophy, it makes total and complete sense.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I simply disagree. God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with your future actions. Perhaps it just eats at you that you don't know what you're going to do, so you'll just blame Him when the time comes.



There is nothing to disagree with here, because it is the only logical conclusion. Logic isn't up to debate.

The fact is, they do contradict each other, which is why you have failed to justify both beliefs; nobody has, they have stood since the time they were first brought up, centuries ago.

quote:

You can change your mind. You just aren't aware of what choice you will make... He is aware of what you will choose.



So I can choose B after he "knew" I was going to choose A? No, because that would mean he didn't know I was going to ultimately choose A. You fail to answer the question.

quote:

No, I'm saying that I think you are like most of the people in this world who gravitate towards controversy. Its like how reality tv, and soap operas, and Jerry Springer type shows are so popular. They are popular because some people love to see conflict, because conflict rages in their heart. Some people, much like yourself, argue just for the sake of arguing, which to me is just sickeningly disturbing.

Wonderful, you think whatever it is you want to think are my reasons - I don't really give a shit, especially not when what you have is baseless speculation and nothing else. Now please, keep your irrelevant fluff to yourself and answer the problems at hand.

quote:

... there is no basis for anyone to really flame you for anything, unless its something that you've contradicted yourself on. Instead, you espouse your negative feelings on virtually all subjects in here. So, we have no basis for truly understanding who Rust is or what he believes in. All we really know is that you love to argue for the sake of arguing. It makes me wonder what inscription would adorn your headstone.

I have stated many times what I believe, if you weren't paying attention, then that is your problem. I'm not here to provide you with information, especially not when that information is completely useless to what is being discussed. That doesn't allow you to answer the problem at hand, hence there is no need for me to provide it.

And yes, it does prove convenient when it comes to people bringing up my beliefs - because they can't do so when they are not important to the debate at hand, as is the case here. If my beliefs prove to be relevant, then I will provide them.

quote:

Okay..........

Great, then please stop whining about me no providing useless and irrelevant information for you.

quote:

If discussing your beliefs is off limits in Totse then so is everyone's; that includes general questions about Christians in relation to me.

I said they are "off-limits" in threads that make them irrelevant, such as this one. Have I asked you what color you like or whether you like DS to lick you balls? No. Because that is inconsequential to this thread. If our argument centered around ball-licking, then that is another matter. The same applies here. This argument does not center around my atheist position, because my argument would ring true whether I was atheist, Hindu, Christian, or a brainless amoeba.

quote:

What is relevant then Rust? You've ruled out having an opinion, so that leaves us left with, what, as a dialogue?

Isn't it obvious? Anything which has to do with the logical vacuity of your belief in both an omniscient god and our free will.

quote:

You can choose A or B, but only He knows what you are going to choose. Time means nothing to that which is timeless. Its only important to physical beings, i.e., you and I.

1. I cannot choose B after he knows that I will choose A, because that would contradict what he knows the future will bring. You failed to answer the problem.

2. Time is not important because the fact remains that he knows things before they happen: that's the only requirement.

quote:

It would only present a problem if God was physical, confined by time as we are. But since God is above and beyond the time domain, He is past, present and future. Its still your choice, He just knows what you are going to choose. Seriously, its mind-boggling that you are so tripped up by it. In simple philosophy, it makes total and complete sense.



1. Wrong. Whether he is past, present, or future is not at all important. The only requirement for the argument to be perfectly valid is that he know something before it happens, which he does. The point still stands.

I cannot choose B after he knows I will chose A, because that would refute his "knowledge" of what will happen.

2. Again, the only reason you're not "mind-boggled" is because you are ignorant of logic. This is a fundamental problem in your beliefs, one that is centuries old. This is not a fluke, or a lack of understanding on my part, it is a good understanding of the rules of logic - which apparently you do not posses. That's exactly why you fail to show how I could possible choose B, after he "knew" I was going to choose A.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-27-2006).]

we still have free will, its just god is out side of time,therefore, he knows everything we do. and he did handle to problem himself...kinda, jesus was not only his son,but god himself

So I can choose B after he "knew" I was going to choose A? No, because that would mean he didn't know I was going to ultimately choose A. You fail to answer the question.

For somebody that likes to bring up logical fallacies so much, you sure are slinging them around liberally. You are making the grand assumption of knowing what would already happen. No, you can't choose B if He knew you would choose A, but this would place you on par with God in knowing the future. Or, there are multiple variables to the same problem when dealing withthe God realm, making infinite possibilities. God would never do anything against His own nature, but you are making a massive assumption. You are trying to philosophically pit God against His own omniscience. But in order to do this, you have to assume that you know the future as well. In other words, you can't prove your theory because its required of you to also know the future, so you'll have no way of knowing. Therefore, the point stands firm, that freewill exists and it in no wise conflicts with God.

Wonderful, you think whatever it is you want to think are my reasons - I don't really give a shit, especially not when what you have is baseless speculation and nothing else.

Pleading the fifth and preaching to the choir. Say it ain't so.

I have stated many times what I believe, if you weren't paying attention, then that is your problem. I'm not here to provide you with information, especially not when that information is completely useless to what is being discussed. That doesn't allow you to answer the problem at hand, hence there is no need for me to provide it.

No, you conveniently place yourself in the safe zone of ambiguity. I've watched you do it for about three years. But we won't talk about your personal beliefs anymore

1. Because I don't what they are.

2. Because it makes you uncomfortable.

And yes, it does prove convenient when it comes to people bringing up my beliefs - because they can't do so when they are not important to the debate at hand, as is the case here. If my beliefs prove to be relevant, then I will provide them.

When should a more appropriate time arise than on a forum where everyone is discussing their personal eliefs other than you? Anyway, whatever... I sense that I've hit a sore spot with you, so I'll just drop it.

I said they are "off-limits" in threads that make them irrelevant, such as this one. Have I asked you what color you like or whether you like DS to lick you balls? No. Because that is inconsequential to this thread. If our argument centered around ball-licking, then that is another matter.

LOL!!! That was pretty funny. I'd agree with your point if I asked you something similarly as asinine as whether or not we like our balls being licked. Unfortunately for you, that isn't even the same ballpark of what was refering to... That's not even the same sport. Wondering what you positively ascribe to about a particular subject isn't bringing up something irrelevant, like, "What's your favorite food," when we are talking about the omniscience of God.

Isn't it obvious? Anything which has to do with the logical vacuity of your belief in both an omniscient god and our free will.

But your logical vacuity stems from your personal beliefs, do they not? Or is there a monkey whispering in your ear, providing you with your answers?

1. I cannot choose B after he knows that I will choose A, because that would contradict what he knows the future will bring. You failed to answer the problem.

The way you are presenting the problem is the fallacy. You are assuming that such a scenario would ever happen and that you could have a glimpse into the future in which to make this accusatory staement against God. Just like, "Could God create a rock sooooo big that He couldn't lift it?" These psuedo-intellectual debates don't offer anything.

2. Time is not important because the fact remains that he knows things before they happen: that's the only requirement.

No, because you have the choice, He just knows what you will choose. Your analogy simply does not suffice because it presumes more than it can prove. It also assumes that you could look into the future, for even a glimpse, in order to verify whether or not God would ever do that.

1. Wrong. Whether he is past, present, or future is not at all important. The only requirement for the argument to be perfectly valid is that he know something before it happens, which he does. The point still stands.

Nope.... Moot.

2. Again, the only reason you're not "mind-boggled" is because you are ignorant of logic. This is a fundamental problem in your beliefs, one that is centuries old. This is not a fluke, or a lack of understanding on my part, it is a good understanding of the rules of logic - which apparently you do not posses. That's exactly why you fail to show how I could possible choose B, after he "knew" I was going to choose A.

Nope, you are inventing ways to philosophically pit God against Himself. And Augustine destroyed such arguments centuries ago, because it makes claims that it can't offer an actual solution to.

To make the argument even easier to understand (Hyro: if you want to ignore everything I've said and just reply to this - you are welcome to do so):

1. An infallible, omniscient God exists. [assumption]

2. God has knowledge the future. [follows from omniscience]

3. God has foreknowledge that out of two or more mutually exclusive choices (denoted A, B, C...), 'A' will be chosen. [follows from omniscience]

4. A must be chosen. [Follows from infallibility].

5. The free will to choose B, C, D... does not exist. [Follows from law of non-contradiction, infallibility, point 3 and 4].

Conclusion: There is no free will. [Follows directly from point 5].

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

For somebody that likes to bring up logical fallacies so much, you sure are slinging them around liberally. You are making the grand assumption of knowing what would already happen. No, you can't choose B if He knew you would choose A, but this would place you on par with God in knowing the future. Or, there are multiple variables to the same problem when dealing withthe God realm, making infinite possibilities. God would never do anything against His own nature, but you are making a massive assumption. You are trying to philosophically pit God against His own omniscience. But in order to do this, you have to assume that you know the future as well. In other words, you can't prove your theory because its required of you to also know the future, so you'll have no way of knowing. Therefore, the point stands firm, that freewill exists and it in no wise conflicts with God.

That isn't a logical fallacy, yours is.

I need not know what I will choose, only god needs to know. Your argument is tantamount to arguing that predetermination cannot exist, if we are not aware of it existing, which is fallacious. If predetermination exists, I need not know what I will do in the future for it to be a fact - it could very well be that I am predetermined to not know!

I don't need to know what I will choose (either A or B)... I don't need to know anything! It is god who needs to "know" what will happen, since it is his knowledge being used.

The same would apply if I would have used "Joe" instead of me in the scenario. Let's try it again, God knows that Joe will choose A. Can Joe choose B after god knows Joe will choose A? No. The point still stands - and as it is clearly evident, knowhere is the issue of Joe's knowledge ever mentioned or required.

quote:Pleading the fifth and preaching to the choir. Say it ain't so.

Ironic, then, that you have wasted time asking me for the information.

quote:No, you conveniently place yourself in the safe zone of ambiguity. I've watched you do it for about three years. But we won't talk about your personal beliefs anymore

1. Because I don't what they are.

2. Because it makes you uncomfortable.

Than you for not talking about my beliefs in a thread where they are not relevant. As for it making me uncomfortable - a laughable statement given that I already asked you to make a thread about the issue (in a place where they would be relevant) and given that you also have know knowledge of that either.

quote:When should a more appropriate time arise than on a forum where everyone is discussing their personal beliefs other than you? Anyway, whatever... I sense that I've hit a sore spot with you, so I'll just drop it.

How about in that very forum, but in a thread where those opinions would be relevant? And again, you haven't hit a sore spot, because I don't mind talking about my beliefs when it is relevant to do so.

quote:LOL!!! That was pretty funny. I'd agree with your point if I asked you something similarly as asinine as whether or not we like our balls being licked. Unfortunately for you, that isn't even the same ballpark of what was refering to... That's not even the same sport. Wondering what you positively ascribe to about a particular subject isn't bringing up something irrelevant, like, "What's your favorite food," when we are talking about the omniscience of God.

Either something is irrelevant, or it is not - I don't concern myself with arbitrary (and convenient) degrees of relevancy. My beliefs are irrelevant in this discussion, just as your like (or dislike) of having your balls licked by your wife is irrelevant. They are inconsequential because neither of them can be used to support or discredit the issue of foreknowledge and free will.

quote:But your logical vacuity stems from your personal beliefs, do they not? Or is there a monkey whispering in your ear, providing you with your answers?

Beliefs of the argument at hand, not beliefs on the existence of a god or the set of moral guidelines I may or may not ascribe to. The point still stands.

quote:The way you are presenting the problem is the fallacy. You are assuming that such a scenario would ever happen and that you could have a glimpse into the future in which to make this accusatory staement against God. Just like, "Could God create a rock sooooo big that He couldn't lift it?" These psuedo-intellectual debates don't offer anything.

Wrong. I'm not assuming that I could glimpse in to the future, because I don't need to know the future in order for the point to be valid, it is god who needs to know the future. I could be completely ignorant of what is happening, and the point still stands.

quote:No, because you have the choice, He just knows what you will choose. Your analogy simply does not suffice because it presumes more than it can prove. It also assumes that you could look into the future, for even a glimpse, in order to verify whether or not God would ever do that.

Wrong. I'm not assuming that I could glimpse in to the future, because I don't need to know the future in order for the point to be valid, it is god who needs to know the future. I could be completely ignorant of what is happening, and the point still stands.

quote:Nope, you are inventing ways to philosophically pit God against Himself. And Augustine destroyed such arguments centuries ago, because it makes claims that it can't offer an actual solution to.

Wrong. I've shown that I need not know the future for the point to stand. The only knowledge being discussed, is that of god. I don't need to be aware of his knowledge, I don't even need to be aware of his possible existence - the fact remaisn that if he knew that I was going to choose A, then I cannot choose B when the moment comes, because that would refute his omniscience. I don't need to be aware of that lack of free will.

Also, if you claim that Augustine refuted the issue, then by all means, provide his argument; it's obvious you desperately need it because you've failed miserably in justifying your illogical beliefs.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-27-2006).]

This thread is seriously getting dull because both you and I are rehashing over the same arguments. If I can't explain it to you, then allow someone who stands with the Augustinian stance on the matter other than myself.

"The Free-Will Argument

1. Evil is the result of human error

2. Human error results from free-will (the ability to do wrong)

3. If we didn't have free-will we would be robots

4. God prefers a world of free agents to a world of robots

5. Evil is therefore an unfortunate - although not unavoidable outcome - of free-will

6. For God to intervene would be to go take away our free-will

7. Therefore, God is neither responsible for evil nor guilty of neglect for not intervening"

The first argument is on predeterminism and the second is directed to the philosophical, mathematical, and metaphysical assumptions made by Georg Cantor, a philosophy that Bertrand Russell has subscribed to.

http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/Determinism.html

http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/gmar/cantor.txt

It's going to take more than a hastily done google search to refute the problem at hand.

1. The argument you outline, is not the argument being made here in this thread.

2. The first link does not deal with the argument at hand either. The only thing it deals with concerning the argument of omniscience is...

"It is true that everything God knows must occur according to His will. If it did not, then God would be wrong in what He knew. For an omniscient Mind cannot be wrong in what it knows. However, it does not follow from this that all events are determined (i.e. caused by God). God could simply determine that we be self-determining beings in a moral sense. The fact that He knows for certain what free creatures will do with their freedom is enough to make an event determined. But the fact that God does not force them to choose, is enough to establish that human free acts are not determined (caused) by another but by oneself. God determined the fact of human freedom, but free creatures perform the acts of human freedom."

It admits that the events will be determined. If the events are determined by god's prior knowledge, then we cannot make choices that chage the pre-determined events, therefore we lack a free will.

3. The second link does not deal with the argument we are making either, but a different one that is unimportant in our discussion.

---

Again, please reply to the outline I have made. Refute the conclusion or admit that you cannot:





1. An infallible, omniscient God exists. [assumption]

2. God has knowledge the future. [follows from omniscience]

3. God has foreknowledge that out of two or more mutually exclusive choices (denoted A, B, C...), 'A' will be chosen. [follows from omniscience]

4. A must be chosen. [Follows from infallibility].

5. The free will to choose B, C, D... does not exist. [Follows from law of non-contradiction, infallibility, point 3 and 4].

Conclusion: There is no free will. [Follows directly from point 5].

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-27-2006).]

Hey Hyro dude, you should stop. I can see where Rust is correct in his(?) rebuttals. The way you respond to them is wrong.

But I still think that omniscience and free-will can co-exist. I just need to figure out how to argue it. As soon as I do, Rust, YOU'RE ON!!

It's going to take more than a hastily done google search to refute the problem at hand.

I don't support Google because they are down with the suppression of freedom of speech in China. And if it was done quickly its only because I found what I was looking for. I looked for Augustine's actual book, entitled, "Free Will," but I don't think anyone has transposed it onto the web yet and unfortunately I don't own a copy. Perhaps I'll take a trip to the library tomorrow.

It admits that the events will be determined. If the events are determined by god's prior knowledge, then we cannot make choices that chage the pre-determined events, therefore we lack a free will.

No, that's not what it says. It says that things are determined only by our actions from our own will, and that His foreknowledge of events does not impede our freedom of choice, which is what I've been saying since post 1.

3. The second link does not deal with the argument we are making either, but a different one that is unimportant in our discussion.

What about it doesn't coincide with the topic at hand?



Again, please reply to the outline I have made. Refute the conclusion or admit that you cannot:

What have been doing for 4 hours now?

1. An infallible, omniscient God exists. [assumption]

Answer: Believeing that God is not infallible or omniscient [assumption]

2. God has knowledge the future. [follows from omniscience]

Answer: God has knowledge of the future (follows omniscience and omnipotence)

3. God has foreknowledge that out of two or more mutually exclusive choices (denoted A, B, C...), 'A' will be chosen. [follows from omniscience]

Answer: God has exclusive knowledge of all things [which follows omnipotence].

4. A must be chosen. [Follows from infallibility].

Answer: A must be chosen? Did you mean that a choice must be made of either B, C, or D, whatever those variables might be?

5. The free will to choose B, C, D... does not exist. [Follows from law of non-contradiction, infallibility, point 3 and 4].

Answer: The ability to choose B, C, D is of no consequence because it makes the assumption that God would intentionally refute Himself. (emphasis added for effect)

Conclusion: There is no free will. [Follows directly from point 5].

Answer: There is a free will, you exercise it daily, and it is completely up to you. God knows what you will choose, but intervention would effect His choice of giving us our own will rather than making us mindless autamotons.

There is no contradiction. The only thing I see is you making an assumption that could only be verified one way or the other if you, yourself were able to see into the future. Therefore, your point still makes no sense logically. And I've grown tired of this debate because you are grasping at straws. Repeating yourself doesn't make your point any more valid or offer any veracity to your claim.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

This thread is seriously getting dull because both you and I are rehashing over the same arguments. If I can't explain it to you, then allow someone who stands with the Augustinian stance on the matter other than myself.

"The Free-Will Argument

1. Evil is the result of human error

2. Human error results from free-will (the ability to do wrong)

3. If we didn't have free-will we would be robots

4. God prefers a world of free agents to a world of robots

5. Evil is therefore an unfortunate - although not unavoidable outcome - of free-will

6. For God to intervene would be to go take away our free-will

7. Therefore, God is neither responsible for evil nor guilty of neglect for not intervening"

You left one out:

8. Therefore, heaven either has evil free-agents, or mindless people devoid of any evil (Logically follows from premise 3).

At any rate, trying to reconcile this "free will" concept with omnicience simply isn't going to work because their definitions preclude one another.

It's like trying to say an object can be a square and a circle at the same time. If it's a square, it precludes it being a circle by definition, and vice versa.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

No, that's not what it says. It says that things are determined only by our actions from our own will, and that His foreknowledge of events does not impede our freedom of choice, which is what I've been saying since post 1.

That's exactly does (it just also assumes that we are "free" in doing so, which is illogical). It says:

"The fact that He knows for certain what free creatures will do with their freedom is enough to make an event determined."

The event is predetermined by their own admission, I'm merely following that to its conclusion: if the event is predetermined, then we lack the ability to make choices that deviate from that event, therefore we lack a free will.

quote:

What about it doesn't coincide with the topic at hand?

Because it deals with the specific argument (based on Cantor's theorem) which is outlined as follows:

"

1. If God exists, then God is omniscient.

2. If God is omniscient, then, by definition, God knows [the set of] all truths.

3. If Cantor’s theorem is true, then there is no set of all truths.

4. But Cantor’s theorem is true.

5. Therefore, God does not exist."

That is not our argument, in the least. Our argument doesn't rest on Cantor's theorem. A paper dealing with a "refutation" of that argument, is not important to my argument.

quote:What have been doing for 4 hours now?

Who knows? I only know that when I made that statement, you hadn't replied yet.

quote:Answer: A must be chosen? Did you mean that a choice must be made of either B, C, or D, whatever those variables might be?

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I said:

"God has foreknowledge that out of two or more mutually exclusive choices (denoted A, B, C...), 'A' will be chosen."

By "mutually exclusive choices" I mean choices which both cannot be chosen at the same time (i.e. I take the road to the left, or the road to the right).

By "A will be chosen" I am giving a name to the choice god knew would be chosen. The name is arbitrary, and could have been any of the variables I gave. So, yes, one of those choices would be chosen - that's what god knows with his omniscience.

quote:Answer: The ability to choose B, C, D is of no consequence because it makes the assumption that God would intentionally refute Himself. (emphasis added for effect)

1. Wrong. It makes not such assumption. In fact, it so doesn't make that assumption, that I never claimed god would refute himself! The conclusion is that free will could not exist - not that god refuted himself.

2. If god had said that free will existed, then he most certainly would be contradicting himself, but that would not be an assumption, that would be a direct result of the conclusion. If we reach the conclusion that free will doesn't exist, and then you say that god claimed it did exist, then he contradicted himself. No assumption - just a direct result of the conclusion.

So no, I'm not making that assumption. Nowhere in the argument is there mention of god refuting himself, nor does the argument require that he do. That would be something arrived at after the argument has concluded.

quote:Answer: There is a free will, you exercise it daily, and it is completely up to you. God knows what you will choose, but intervention would effect His choice of giving us our own will rather than making us mindless autamotons.

You're going to have to try harder than that.

Simply because you say I have free will, doesn't make it so. Ignoring my points isn't going to do that either...

If god knows my choice, then that choice must be chosen. I cannot change my mind. I therefore lack free will. You deliberately ignored the point.

quote:There is no contradiction. The only thing I see is you making an assumption that could only be verified one way or the other if you, yourself were able to see into the future. Therefore, your point still makes no sense logically. And I've grown tired of this debate because you are grasping at straws. Repeating yourself doesn't make your point any more valid or offer any veracity to your claim.

There is a contradiction, because if god knew I was going to choose choice A, then I would lack the free will to choose B. You haven't dealt with that at all, but are merely fabricating arguments out of thin air (i.e that I somehow need knowledge of the future - which is not the case at all).

Since you failed to refute any of the points, the argument still stands. The ability to choose B, C, D would not exist because his foreknowledge was that A would be chosen (not B, C, D or any other choice); since the ability to choose B, C, D... does not exist, I lack the free will to choose anything other than A. I lack free will.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

You left one out:

8. Therefore, heaven either has evil free-agents, or mindless people devoid of any evil (Logically follows from premise 3).

At any rate, trying to reconcile this "free will" concept with omnicience simply isn't going to work because their definitions preclude one another.

It's like trying to say an object can be a square and a circle at the same time. If it's a square, it precludes it being a circle by definition, and vice versa.



Heh, splitting hairs is the forte of the cynic because he can't reconcile with his own mind. There really is no ambiguity on the matter, because if something is outside of the time domain there is nothing that can encapsulate it. God knowing a choice does not negate us not having one. The massive staw man assuption, is this:

"If God knows that I will choose A and A will happen, then I cannot choose B."

For face value, I would agree. However, this assumes that the claimant too has a glimpse into the future in which to pin this accusatory implication against God. In other words, this assumes that God would intentionally pit His own omnipotence against Himself. Therefore, it fails to meet the criteria.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

However, this assumes that the claimant too has a glimpse into the future in which to pin this accusatory implication against God.

Incorrect. Nowhere is knowledge of the future on our part, required. Nor is the need for making that "accusatory implication against god" required either. We are simply concluding what would be the case in a given scenario:

It would be the case that if god knows that I will choose A and A will happen, then I cannot choose B. Period. That would be the case regardless of my knowledge. I could be completely unaware of concept of gods or of free-will/predeterminism and the point would still stand.

Just like we don't have to posses knowledge of natural laws, for those natural laws to exist, so is the case here. I would not need to know that I lacked a free will, for that to be the case.

quote: In other words, this assumes that God would intentionally pit His own omnipotence against Himself. Therefore, it fails to meet the criteria.



This assumes no such thing, because nowhere is god "pitting his omnipotence against himself". The argument doesn't make claims on what god wants or not.

Even then, that would be an argument for that particular god being illogical (how he would be contradicting himself), not an argument against the outline that has been given.

If your god said free will would exist, it's not our fault that your god chose actions that prove to be otherwise. That's your problem - a problem inherent in the ridiculous definition of a being which claims to both hold free-will and omniscience. That's exactly what we are exposing!



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I don't support Google because they are down with the suppression of freedom of speech in China. And if it was done quickly its only because I found what I was looking for. I looked for Augustine's actual book, entitled, "Free Will," but I don't think anyone has transposed it onto the web yet and unfortunately I don't own a copy. Perhaps I'll take a trip to the library tomorrow.



Yahoo sent some guy to prison for 10 years for saying the equivalent of "China sucks."

Cisco powers Chinas firewall. They are even worse than Google and Yahoo combined. In protest, I suggest you stop using the internet altogether, as there is no way in hell your packets can make their way to any destination without encountering a Cisco router.

Alright, I'll oblige one more on this subject because we aren't getting anywhere.

"The fact that He knows for certain what free creatures will do with their freedom is enough to make an event determined."

I agree that its determined......... By you! The argument is whether or not our actions are predetermined by God. Once again, God knows what you will do. He knew before you were born whether or not you would condemn yourself. Its true. So if you wanted to get mad at Him for anything, get mad at Him for not divinely intervening in your life.

The event is predetermined by their own admission, I'm merely following that to its conclusion: if the event is predetermined, then we lack the ability to make choices that deviate from that event, therefore we lack a free will.

That's not what it said. Why don't you look at that quote a third time. The event is solidified before it happened, but only by you. You keep reducing God to our level. He is outside of time, therefore it is largely inconsequential to Him. You keep limiting the Creator of the universe. If we are going to have this argument, then you have to pretend that God exists. If He exists, then stop reducing Him to the level of even the most skilled epistemologist. If God is real, He pwns us all by default. Knowing the future is only important to us in relation to it affecting us... But that is of our own volition.

Because it deals with the specific argument (based on Cantor's theorem) which is outlined as follows:

"

1. If God exists, then God is omniscient.

2. If God is omniscient, then, by definition, God knows [the set of] all truths.

3. If Cantor’s theorem is true, then there is no set of all truths.

4. But Cantor’s theorem is true.

5. Therefore, God does not exist."

That is not our argument, in the least. Our argument doesn't rest on Cantor's theorem. A paper dealing with a "refutation" of that argument, is not important to my argument.

I think its more than relevant because you keep weaving in and out of omnipotence, omniscience, and freewill by stating that one or more cancels the other. Therefore, Cantor's theorem bears complete relevance to our discussion.

Who knows? I only know that when I made that statement, you hadn't replied yet.

I'm sorry, I simply thought we had covered those bases fifteen times over.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I said:

"God has foreknowledge that out of two or more mutually exclusive choices (denoted A, B, C...), 'A' will be chosen."

By "mutually exclusive choices" I mean choices which both cannot be chosen at the same time (i.e. I take the road to the left, or the road to the right).

By "A will be chosen" I am giving a name to the choice god knew would be chosen. The name is arbitrary, and could have been any of the variables I gave. So, yes, one of those choices would be chosen - that's what god knows with his omniscience.

And I agreed with you for face value. Yes, that would be self-refuting of God. But I added to that, that you are making an assumption on why God would intentionally place Himself in such a predicament. What I mean to say is, it would be required of you to also have foreknowledge of future events in order to verify if God would even do that. You say rather definitively, that you would choose A, but you have no way of knowing that because you can't see into the future. Therefore, if you say that freewill is an assumption, then so is your understanding of God can or can't do.

Can you hear me now?

1. Wrong. It makes not such assumption. In fact, it so doesn't make that assumption, that I never claimed god would refute himself! The conclusion is that free will could not exist - not that god refuted himself.

That is what your saying, no matter how you tacitly or cleverly repackage your words. The fact remains that in order to verify your assertion against God requires you omniscience as well. You don't know if you will choose A or B until the choice has been made. And by then, its too late to change your mind, the deed (whatever it may be) is done.

2. If god had said that free will existed, then he most certainly would be contradicting himself, but that would not be an assumption, that would be a direct result of the conclusion. If we reach the conclusion that free will doesn't exist, and then you say that god claimed it did exist, then he contradicted himself. No assumption - just a direct result of the conclusion.

Well, the argument isn't really whether or not we have a freewill. You know we have a freewill, otherwise you would have to concede that something programmed you a certain way, and that would be highly indicative of intent, and intent is highly suggestive of a Programmer (Creator). The argument is whether or not God's omniscience pits freewill against itself. As I've shared, the way you worded, just for face value alone, I agree with you. But where it falls short is in knowing if you would actually choose A or B, which can't be verified.

You're going to have to try harder than that.

Simply because you say I have free will, doesn't make it so. Ignoring my points isn't going to do that either...

Are you saying that you don't have a freewill? If so, this definitely will not be my last post on this subject. It might be for tonight because I'm tired, but I would be willing to extend it further if you choose to go that route.

If god knows my choice, then that choice must be chosen. I cannot change my mind. I therefore lack free will. You deliberately ignored the point.

I don't think you can honestly review this thread and say that with a straight face.

There is a contradiction, because if god knew I was going to choose choice A, then I would lack the free will to choose B. You haven't dealt with that at all, but are merely fabricating arguments out of thin air (i.e that I somehow need knowledge of the future - which is not the case at all).

Someone else's foreknowledge does not effect freewill. If you knew that you were being watched, you would change your mind because of the consequences. You don't believed that you are being watched. I believe you are being watched, even as you read this. Nice outfit by the way.

In any case, revert back to the FBI analogy. I agree that they don't know in the same way that God would know, but at least it gives yo a reference that some knowledge of future events doesn't effect the outcome.

Since you failed to refute any of the points, the argument still stands.

Meh. That's your interpretation and you are Constitutionally and Divinely afforded that right.

The ability to choose B, C, D would not exist because his foreknowledge was that A would be chosen (not B, C, D or any other choice); since the ability to choose B, C, D... does not exist, I lack the free will to choose anything other than A. I lack free will.

If you lack freewill then perhaps Providence will force you to punch yourself in the face..... But I don't have foreknowledge of the future so I can't say empirically.

quote:Originally posted by Atomical:

Yahoo sent some guy to prison for 10 years for saying the equivalent of "China sucks."

Cisco powers Chinas firewall. They are even worse than Google and Yahoo combined. In protest, I suggest you stop using the internet altogether, as there is no way in hell your packets can make their way to any destination without encountering a Cisco router.

I'm aware that Google, Yahoo, and Cisco have been implicated in this fiasco.

Does this mean that you support China suppressing the freedom of speech? Yes, I'm aware that their laws on the matter aren't as intricately and finely tuned as the American Constitution, however I would think that you would view the freedom of speech to be an unalienable right for all human beings.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I agree that its determined......... By you! The argument is whether or not our actions are predetermined by God. Once again, God knows what you will do. He knew before you were born whether or not you would condemn yourself. Its true. So if you wanted to get mad at Him for anything, get mad at Him for not divinely intervening in your life.

If god knows what I will do, then I cannot change my mind, and therefore I have no free will. If he knew I was going to condem myself, then I could not make choices that would end in me not condeming myself: no free will. You have ignored this since the first time it was brought up.

quote:That's not what it said. Why don't you look at that quote a third time. The event is solidified before it happened, but only by you. You keep reducing God to our level. He is outside of time, therefore it is largely inconsequential to Him. You keep limiting the Creator of the universe. If we are going to have this argument, then you have to pretend that God exists. If He exists, then stop reducing Him to the level of even the most skilled epistemologist. If God is real, He pwns us all by default. Knowing the future is only important to us in relation to it affecting us... But that is of our own volition.

1. The article says it has been determined, by god's knowledge; it just erroneously assumes that we were free make the choice, but that is illogical as I said. If god already knows the future before hand, then the outcome is predetermined before hand. I don't make a choice when I cannot possibly deviate from what that god saw. That's not a choice, that's acting as it was predetermined.

2. I already said that the problem can only be resolved by saying that god can do the illogical. It's not my problem that you think this can be resolved within logic (when it cannot). It would be you who is limiting him, not me.

quote:I think its more than relevant because you keep weaving in and out of omnipotence, omniscience, and freewill by stating that one or more cancels the other. Therefore, Cantor's theorem bears complete relevance to our discussion.

1. I'm not weaving in and out of anything.

2. Even if I was, which I'm not, that doesn't mean that Cantor's theorm has any relevance.

Do you even know what Cantor's theorem is? Apparently not, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand.

Cantor's theorm has to do with sets (a mathematical term), to quote your own article, "Cantor’s theorem implies that the iteration of the power set operation for infinite sets leads to an ever-

increasing Transfinite hierarchy of infinities. " In other words, if we repeat the power set operation for infinite sets, the resulting sets will be of larger size - if we repeat that infinitely for all truths, then we are left with sets of truths with more elements than the original sets ( in the context of truths - the set would leave out truths as one would have more than the other), thus making it (according to that argument) impossible to posses a set of all truths.

That has nothing to do with what is being argued here. I'm not arguing about sets. I'm not arguing that it is impossible to possess the set of all truths (I even assumed the opposite!)... you obviously didn't even bother to read your own article.

quote:And I agreed with you for face value. Yes, that would be self-refuting of God. But I added to that, that you are making an assumption on why God would intentionally place Himself in such a predicament. What I mean to say is, it would be required of you to also have foreknowledge of future events in order to verify if God would even do that. You say rather definitively, that you would choose A, but you have no way of knowing that because you can't see into the future. Therefore, if you say that freewill is an assumption, then so is your understanding of God can or can't do.

Can you hear me now?

I'm not assuming either of those things at all! I'm not assuming that god is putting himself on that predicament - I'm not assuming god is doing anything else other than knowing what I will supposedly do. That's it. That is what nets us a contradiction.

You cannot use the fact that your god decided to put himself in that predicament against me, because that is a flaw in your view of god, not mine. That's the inherent vacuity of your beliefs - hence, your problem to deal with, not mine.

I cannot be faulted by the predicaments which result from your ridiculous beliefs. If god is omniscient then the only logical conclusion is that there is no free will. If he has claimed otherwise, then it is he who is putting himself in this predicament, not me.

quote:That is what your saying, no matter how you tacitly or cleverly repackage your words. The fact remains that in order to verify your assertion against God requires you omniscience as well. You don't know if you will choose A or B until the choice has been made. And by then, its too late to change your mind, the deed (whatever it may be) is done.

I don't have to verify my "assertion"! That's what you keep ignoring.

I don't have to know that my choices are being predetermined, for that to be the case. I could be ignorant of what god is doing and of the future, and yet my choices could still be predetermined. Just like your choices could be being predetermined just now - and you would not need to "verify" anything for that to be the case.

The argument simply does not need any knowledge of the future on my part; that is a fabrication on your part, one which you keep repeating even though it has no basis in reality.

quote:Well, the argument isn't really whether or not we have a freewill. You know we have a freewill, otherwise you would have to concede that something programmed you a certain way, and that would be highly indicative of intent, and intent is highly suggestive of a Programmer (Creator). The argument is whether or not God's omniscience pits freewill against itself. As I've shared, the way you worded, just for face value alone, I agree with you. But where it falls short is in knowing if you would actually choose A or B, which can't be verified.

1. The argument is whether free will exists, or a being that knows the future does.

I don't "know" I have free will. I'm not making a claim either way. I am arriving at the only possible conclusion given the parameters of said scenario, and the only possible conclusion is that free will doesn't exist. The assumption that an infallible and omniscient being exists could prove to be incorrect, which would make your beliefs wrong either way.

2. Again, I don't have to verify anything for that to be the case. I would not need to possess knowledge of the future to verify anything, because that is not needed at all. The color of your t-shirt you are wearing will remain, regardless of my knowledge of said color. Predetermination would remain a fact in the scenario, regardless of whether or not I have knowledge of the future.

quote:Are you saying that you don't have a freewill? If so, this definitely will not be my last post on this subject. It might be for tonight because I'm tired, but I would be willing to extend it further if you choose to go that route.

I'm not making claims on whether or not I have free will - because my argument doesn't require me to make such claims.

quote:I don't think you can honestly review this thread and say that with a straight face.

Did you read what I said? What part of it is false, or ridiculous? No part is, because it's a truism:

If god knows that choice A will be chosen, then A will be chosen, and not something else. That's a truism.

quote:Someone else's foreknowledge does not effect freewill. If you knew that you were being watched, you would change your mind because of the consequences. You don't believed that you are being watched. I believe you are being watched, even as you read this. Nice outfit by the way.

It does affect my free will, because I cannot change my mind to deviate from their knowledge of the future. I must do exactly as they saw; that is not free will in the least, that is predetermination.

quote:In any case, revert back to the FBI analogy. I agree that they don't know in the same way that God would know, but at least it gives yo a reference that some knowledge of future events doesn't effect the outcome.

It doesn't give my any reference, precisely because they have no knowledge of future events! They have only a educated guess, which is nothing close to foreknowledge. I already explained to you how that was an atrocious analogy.

quote:If you lack freewill then perhaps Providence will force you to punch yourself in the face..... But I don't have foreknowledge of the future so I can't say empirically.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Please deal with what I said, and leave your silly comments to yourself:

The ability to choose B, C, D would not exist because his foreknowledge was that A would be chosen (not B, C, D or any other choice); since the ability to choose B, C, D... does not exist, I lack the free will to choose anything other than A. I lack free will.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-27-2006).]

If I went in the future, and came back in time knowing what you will do... that doesn't change your free will.. when the time comes, you will still make the decision, only, I know what decision you'll make, as opposed to not knowing.

You're saying that my foreknowledge means you no longer have free will... But, in essence, you're saying, that you would change your decision anyway for the very fact that I know?

Foreknowledge doesn't affect free will. You can have both because the two do not clash, contrary to what you're trying to say..

It doesn't really add up to say 'well, because this person knows what I will do, then I no longer have free will'. You were to make that decision anyway. He knows you will make that decision.... He does not influence it.

Foreknowledge and controlling are seperate.

It's not as if in 10 years I can't be an atheist because God has already seen me in 10 years and I'm Christian, so that's locked in... in 10 years, I'll make that decision, but God already knew.

If man is the author of no action, the faculty of deliberation is quite superfluous for to what purpose could deliberation be put if man is the master of none of his actions? Because all deliberation is for the sake of action.

It's a hard issue but I suppose ultimately it's how you look at it... But I don't agree that foreknowledge equals predetermination (for lack of a better word).

[This message has been edited by Jacobjac (edited 04-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

If I went in the future, and came back in time knowing what you will do... that doesn't change your free will.. when the time comes, you will still make the decision, only, I know what decision you'll make, as opposed to not knowing.

It changes my free will because the "decision" I will be making can only be the one you saw. I cannot decide to do anything else, I cannot change my mind ( a requirement for free will to exist), hence, there is no free will.

Everything that you said has been covered, and I'm not going to waste my time dealing with you as well.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It changes my free will because the "decision" I will be making can only be the one you saw. I cannot decide to do anything else, I cannot change my mind ( a requirement for free will to exist), hence, there is no free will.

Everything that you said has been covered, and I'm not going to waste my time dealing with you as well.

The decision I saw is a decision you decided to make, not me.

Covered incorrectly if you ask me. Omnipotent or not.. there is free will.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

The decision I saw is a decision you decided to make, not me.

Yet I cannot change my mind, and decide to do anything else, hence my point still stands.

There would be no free will, because my ability to change my mind and deviate from what you saw does not exist.

That's the very definition of predetermination: Events occurring according to a predetermined outcome. In this case, the outcome was the result of your knowledge of the future, and as such, when the time comes, those events must occur, and everybody must act according to those events, and those actions. That's predetermination. To use a real-life example, take a baseball game. God knows what the outcome will be. When that time comes, can the players make choices that will change the outcome of that game? No. They cannot lose on purpose if the god saw them win.

Please refute this outline:



1. An infallible, omniscient God exists. [assumption]

2. God has knowledge of the future. [follows from omniscience]

3. God has foreknowledge that out of two or more mutually exclusive choices (denoted A, B, C...), 'A' will be chosen. [follows from omniscience]

4. 'A' must be chosen. [Follows from infallibility].

5. The free will to choose B, C, D... does not exist. [Follows from law of non-contradiction, infallibility, point 3 and 4].

Conclusion: There is no free will. [Follows directly from point 5].



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yet I cannot change my mind, and decide to do anything else, hence my point still stands.

There would be no free will, because my ability to change my mind and deviate from what you saw does not exist.

That's the very definition of predetermination: Events occurring according to a predetermined outcome. In this case, the outcome was the result of your knowledge of the future, and as such, when the time comes, those events must occur, and everybody must act according to those events, and those actions. That's predetermination.

But before the 'predetermination', comes your decision. You will make that decision in the future and me knowing this doesn't effect it either way. You can change your mind a thousand times, but your final decision is what I would know. It was ultimately your decision.

Let's say a few psychics in the world are real... let's assume these few psychics have a genuine ability.... so we no longer have free will due to their knowledge? If tomorrow I decide to go to the fridge and get some lettuce.. my decision wasn't made because one of these psychics knew I was going to.

Your argument doesn't really add up. There's no second engine working on making your decisions for you.. foreknowledge of your free will decisions does not somehow automatically take away your free will even though you were going to do that anyway.



EDIT:

quote:

1. An infallible, omniscient God exists. [assumption]

2. God has knowledge of the future. [follows from omniscience]

3. God has foreknowledge that out of two or more mutually exclusive choices (denoted A, B, C...), 'A' will be chosen. [follows from omniscience]

4. 'A' must be chosen. [Follows from infallibility].

5. The free will to choose B, C, D... does not exist. [Follows from law of non-contradiction, infallibility, point 3 and 4].

You've essentially chosen the option (well, the future you) before God knows of this knowlegde. It wouldn't be foreknowledge unless you actually chose to do it. It's either only foreknowledge or forced choice.. and you're not forced to do anything. You seem to be refuting that the choice itself is your exercising of free will.

I'm unsure of the type of free will you're trying to depict? Do you want God to ask you for a second decision after you've already made your first? There's absolutely nothing stopping you from changing your mind... the only way it seems to have the free will you're depicting (an odd one which is a complete copy from the current) is if God was to just forget his knowledge and be completely surprised by decisions... What changed?



[This message has been edited by Jacobjac (edited 04-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

But before the 'predetermination', comes your decision. You will make that decision in the future and me knowing this doesn't effect it either way. You can change your mind a thousand times, but your final decision is what I would know. It was ultimately your decision.

Hence, why there is no free will! My final decision can never be set in stone, if free will exists, because I need to be able to change my mind whenever I want, for whatever reason I want. If the choice is set in stone, then there is no ability to change my mind, and therefore I have no free will.

If you "see" that I chose A, then I cannot choose B as my ultimate choice. A will always be the ultimate choice, hence when the time comes, B is out of the question.

You think the Christian god exists, right? Then that would mean that he knew that you are will be reading this, could you have chosen not to read this? No. If the Christian god eixstsa, then the present reality is merely a set of circumstances which he knows will happen before the universe was even created; a set of circumstances whihc caanot be changed. That is the very definition of predetermination. That is certainly not free will, because in free will, neither the present nor the future are certain.

quote:Let's say a few psychics in the world are real... let's assume these few psychics have a genuine ability.... so we no longer have free will due to their knowledge? If tomorrow I decide to go to the fridge and get some lettuce.. my decision wasn't made because one of these psychics knew I was going to.

Your argument doesn't really add up. There's no second engine working on making your decisions for you.. foreknowledge of your free will decisions does not somehow automatically take away your free will even though you were going to do that anyway.

It removes the ability for you to do something else other than what those people saw, hence it removes free will. I must act according to what those psychics saw, which means I cannot ultimately choose to deviate. That's not free will.

The argument adds up perfectly, you just fail to understand it.

quote:

You've essentially chosen the option (well, the future you) before God knows of this knowlegde. It wouldn't be foreknowledge unless you actually chose to do it. It's either only foreknowledge or forced choice.. and you're not forced to do anything. You seem to be refuting that the choice itself is your exercising of free will.

I can't chose anything before God knows it, by the very definition of omniscience, so you are wrong. He knows it before the choice was made. That's what removes the ability for me to change my mind, and what makes the "choices" at that time, not a choice a tall.

quote:

I'm unsure of the type of free will you're trying to depict? Do you want God to ask you for a second decision after you've already made your first? There's absolutely nothing stopping you from changing your mind... the only way it seems to have the free will you're depicting (an odd one which is a complete copy from the current) is if God was to just forget his knowledge and be completely surprised by decisions... What changed?

God's knowledge stops me from changing my mind. You are not replying to the outline given. Again, god knows a choice A will be chosen, therefore, A must be chosen. I cannot choose something else (call them B, C or D) because he knew A will be chosen. I cannot change my mind and choose B, because A wil be chose according to him. There is no free will.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The argument adds up perfectly, you just fail to understand it.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I'm aware that Google, Yahoo, and Cisco have been implicated in this fiasco.

Does this mean that you support China suppressing the freedom of speech? Yes, I'm aware that their laws on the matter aren't as intricately and finely tuned as the American Constitution, however I would think that you would view the freedom of speech to be an unalienable right for all human beings.



I'm saying that it's impossible for anyone to boycott google or cisco because of the multitude of services they provide.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

God's knowledge stops me from changing my mind. You are not replying to the outline given. Again, god knows a choice A will be chosen, therefore, A must be chosen. I cannot choose something else (call them B, C or D) because he knew A will be chosen. I cannot change my mind and choose B, because A wil be chose according to him. There is no free will.



It's only certain/uncertain in his mind only. You have free will because you chose the decision. The foreknowledge does not come before the choice. In time terms it does, but in realistic terms, the future you made the decision. He knows the future... he does not change it. What I don't understand is how your decisions are going to be the same whether God knows them or not.. But if God knows them.. you claim to have lost your free will, despite being able to change your mind whenever you like.

You don't lock in your answer, so to speak, until you've decided to.

I understand your argument... but I don't find you to be correct. You're saying if God knows, then we have no free will.... But in 10, 20, 30, 40 years when you have decisions to make... you'll still be able to make them at that time.

quote:

You are not replying to the outline given. Again, god knows a choice A will be chosen, therefore, A must be chosen. I cannot choose something else (call them B, C or D) because he knew A will be chosen. I cannot change my mind and choose B, because A wil be chose according to him. There is no free will.



You can change your mind however many times you like.



[This message has been edited by Jacobjac (edited 04-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

You can change your mind however many times you like.

That's the core of your argument, and you have failed to substantiate that at all. The fact is, that I cannot change my mind once he "knows" the future. If he knows A will happen, then I cannot do anything in order to prevent A from happening. I lack the free will to do so. You have yet to show otherwise - what you have provided are statements that do not support your assertion at all.

[I'm ignoring the rest of your post because this is the core of your objection]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Originally posted by Jacobjac:

You can change your mind however many times you like.

That's the core of your argument, and you have failed to substantiate that at all. The fact is, that I cannot change my mind once he "knows" the future. If he knows A will happen, then I cannot do anything in order to prevent A from happening. I lack the free will to do so. You have yet to show otherwise - what you have provided are statements that do not support your assertion at all.

[I'm ignoring the rest of your post because this is the core of your objection]



http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The core of my objection is that your free will does not change whether foreknowledge exists or not.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The core of my objection is that your free will does not change whether foreknowledge exists or not.

Which you argue by saying that I could change my mind in the scenario... my point still stands.

Please reply to what I said, or stop posting all together.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Which you argue by saying that I could change my mind in the scenario... my point still stands.

Please reply to what I said, or stop posting all together.

I didn't argue that point by saying you could change your mind. You just have to see for yourself.. God or no God.. How does this change your free will if your choices remain the same?

Please answer my question, given that you're the one making the claims that no one has free will. I've already answered yours. Foreknowledge is forknowledge.. not predestination.. in both concept and definition.

By analogy, knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen. The sun will rise tomorrow. I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen.

Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of a child, I know for a fact which one is chosen, the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict a child from making a free choice when the time comes. The child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it.

God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else. It means that God simply knows what we have chosen to do ahead of time. Our freedom is not restricted by God's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by God.

In this, our natural ability to make another choice has not been removed anymore than my choice of what to write inside the parenthesis (hello) was removed by God who knew I would put the word "hello" in the parentheses before the universe was made. Before typing the word "hello," I pondered which word to write.

My pondering was my doing and the choice was mine. How then was I somehow restricted in freedom when choosing what to write if God knew what I was going to do? No matter what choice we freely make can be known by God and His knowing it doesn't mean we aren't making a free choice.

But then you move your argument to 'well it can not be changed once God knows'.... You're speaking as if you were God, or as if God's mind is some kind of registry. It's as if you're trying to argue that to God, that is if you were God, the facts would not change in his mind....

To sum up, as I'm sure you've ignored everything that wasn't in reply to exactly what you believe you said... Here's a quote:

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity:

Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if he knows that I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here, once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today." All the days are "Now" for Him.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

I didn't argue that point by saying you could change your mind. You just have to see for yourself.. God or no God.. How does this change your free will if your choices remain the same?

Please answer my question, given that you're the one making the claims that no one has free will. I've already answered yours. Foreknowledge is forknowledge.. not predestination.. in both concept and definition.



No, you have answered absolutely nothing, because you have yet to justify how I could possibly change my mind if your god had knowledge of what I was going to do. What you have done is repeat yourself in a desperate attempt to avoid the issue.

The fact remains, that if god knows that I will choose A in the future, then when the time comes, I must choose A, and A alone, and cannot change my mind and ultimately choose B.

quote:

By analogy, knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen. The sun will rise tomorrow. I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen.

Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of a child, I know for a fact which one is chosen, the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict a child from making a free choice when the time comes. The child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it.

Atrocious analogies.

1. You do not know for an absolute fact that those things will happen. You have logical expectations that they may happen; that is, you are making an educated guess. That's not knowledge.

2. If you indeed had absolute knowledge, then to use your own analogies, the baby would have to eat the ice-cream. He couldn't surprise you by choosing the cauliflower. He could not choose it by mistake, or because he hates ice cream, or whatever other possible reason. He must choose the ice cream, because if he did not, that owuld mean you didn't know what he would choose.

quote:

God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else. It means that God simply knows what we have chosen to do ahead of time. Our freedom is not restricted by God's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by God.

It most certainly is. Your analogies were atrocious ones that do not represent the issue at hand. The fact of the matter is that foreknowledge makes the outcome a fixed one - in which there is no possibility of change. That is consistent with predtermination, but not at all consistent with free-will. That's exactly why the man you quote at the end of your reply had to conjure up some other pathetic excuse.

To use an anaolgy which works:

If he knows the outcome of a baseball game, then the teams lack the free will to do things that would change the outcome of the game. They cannot lose on purpose, kill themselves, or play better, or any other of the myriad of possible choices that could change the outcome of the game.

quote:

In this, our natural ability to make another choice has not been removed anymore than my choice of what to write inside the parenthesis (hello) was removed by God who knew I would put the word "hello" in the parentheses before the universe was made. Before typing the word "hello," I pondered which word to write.

My pondering was my doing and the choice was mine. How then was I somehow restricted in freedom when choosing what to write if God knew what I was going to do? No matter what choice we freely make can be known by God and His knowing it doesn't mean we aren't making a free choice.

No, it seemed that you were pondering that. It "seeming" that you have free will is not evidence of anything, because you could have been predetermined to think that you have free will. The fact of the issue is that if god had known you were going to write that "hello" then you weren't pondering anything, because you had to ultimately write it.

If you think not, then please do what I've been asking you to do since the beginning: If god knew that you would write (hello) then please tell me how you could have possibly decided not to when you were supposedly "pondering" the issue.

quote:

But then you move your argument to 'well it can not be changed once God knows'.... You're speaking as if you were God, or as if God's mind is some kind of registry. It's as if you're trying to argue that to God, that is if you were God, the facts would not change in his mind....

It can't change because that would mean he was wrong in his knowledge! That follows from infallibility.

If he knows that A will happen, then the "facts" can't suddenly "change" without he first being incorrect in once saying that A will happen. The point still stands.

quote:

To sum up, as I'm sure you've ignored everything that wasn't in reply to exactly what you believe you said...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

How fucking ironic, given the issue your quote deals with has already been covered. It seems that only one ignoring anything is you.

quote:

Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if he knows that I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here, once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today." All the days are "Now" for Him.

The problem (which, like I said, was already covered in this thread) is that god must know things before they happen, regardless of he being "outside our Time-line". He created us, and before he created us and the universe, he must have had knowledge of what would happen, as given to him by his omniscience. The point stands completely; god has foreknowledge, and this follows from his very omniscience - whether he is outside of time, inside of it or whatever other straw you want to grasp at - the only crucial issue is that he have foreknowledge, which he would if he were omniscient.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-28-2006).]

quote:No, it seemed that you were pondering that. It "seeming" that you have free will is not evidence of anything, because you could have been predetermined to think that you have free will. The fact of the issue is that if god had known you were going to write that "hello" then you weren't pondering anything, because you had to ultimately write it.

Your argument holds no credibility and you have as little 'proof' as I. You have failed to answer my question in the first paragraph. Perhaps you might like to stop posting here now http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:How fucking ironic, given the issue your quote deals with has already been covered.

It has been discussed...... Was your conclusion meant to be final?

The problem with your 'conclusion' is this... I can agree with you that God knows everything, and that once he knows, this can't be changed (can't be changed in his mind).... But do you understand, this is not required? Your free will is the choice you made, and subsequent choices. You have A and B. You choose B. God knows you will choose B. You no longer have free will because he knows? Do you understand? Exclude God and you have the same answer. So you're trying to say that things can't change in God's mind? You're kidding? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Your conclusion boggles the mind... 'God knows I will choose A, so now I can't choose B'... ?! There's no third system in free will. You get to choose, and you get to choose differently consecutive times, whenever, however, whatever you like. End of story.

If anything, the only point you're illustrating is that God is unable to change our free will.

Free will illusions? Give me a fucking break. If there's a God, he doesn't illusion us with free will. If he does, that's predestination.... You think the supposed creator of the universe was sitting there at the dawning of time, conjurring up a plan to have me take a sip of pepsi max right now?

Sigh. If you still think I'm ignoring your point.... You're the ignorant one.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

Your argument holds no credibility and you have as little 'proof' as I. You have failed to answer my question in the first paragraph. Perhaps you might like to stop posting here now.

My argument holds all the credibility in the world, which is why you failed to reply to what I said (ironic given that you want me to answer your question). The fact remains that it may seem like you have free will, but that means absolutely nothing given that the perception of free-will could have been predetermined itself. Again, if god knew that you would write (hello) then please tell me how you could have possibly decided not to write it when you were "pondering" the issue.

As for your question, it has already been answered before. He affects my free-will precisely because it has to remain the same, which is something conclusive of predetermination, not of free will.

quote:It has been discussed...... Was your conclusion meant to be final?

It was; unless of course you disagree, in which case the appropriate thing to do would be to reply to the argument I gave, and not to repeat the argument itself.

quote:You no longer have free will because he knows? Do you understand? Exclude God and you have the same answer. So you're trying to say that things can't change in God's mind? You're kidding?

Exactly. I have no free will because he knows. If he "knows" what I will choose A, then when the moment comes, I will have to choose A, and not B.

I'm not trying to say anything changes in his mind, because that is simply unimportant and is merely an attempt on your part to confuse the issue. The fact remains that if he knows the future, then the future is set is stone. The future being set in stone is no indicative of free will, but of predetermination.

quote:Your conclusion boggles the mind... 'God knows I will choose A, so now I can't choose B'... ?! There's no third system in free will. You get to choose, and you get to choose differently consecutive times, whenever, however, whatever you like. End of story.

1. It's only mind boggling to you because you've failed miserably to grasp the concept of what I am saying. Though I do find it hilarious that you feel my argument boggles the mind when it has stood for centuries un-refuted, and is exactly why people like C. S. Lewis have had to grasp at straws trying to unite the two as possible.

2. You keep ignoring that I cannot change my mind after he "knows" what I will do. That is not free will. For free will to exist I must be able to change my mind (when the moment comes) however many times I want, and both choices must be possible. That is not the case if he knows the future, because only one choice is possible, and therefore I cannot decide against it. The only thing really mind boggling is that you somehow think that is free will.

quote:Free will illusions? Give me a fucking break. If there's a God, he doesn't illusion us with free will.

You know this how? That's right, you don't know. Again, the point still stands. It could very well be an illusion.

quote: If he does, that's predestination...

... that's exactly what I am saying. It would be predetermination, but it would still seem like free will. Hence, you cannot argue that free will exists because it seems that you were "pondering" the issue for writing (hello).

quote: You think the supposed creator of the universe was sitting there at the dawning of time, conjurring up a plan to have me take a sip of pepsi max right now?

What I think is irrelevant. The issue is of the validity of determining free-will merely by what it "seems" to you. That is invalid, for the very reason I have told you. It only only fails to meet any credible criteria for determining anything on a factual basis, but fails to even be possible to ascertain, as it could very well be an illusion.



quote:

Sigh. If you still think I'm ignoring your point.... You're the ignorant one.

You did ignore what I said. That's clearly visible by anyone who reads your post. For example, you failed to explain how if god knew that you would write (hello) then please tell me how you could have possibly decided not to when you were supposedly "pondering" the issue.

I'll leave this to quotes from authors and the like, who are more knowledgeable on this topic than I... And you can, in your infinite wisdom, attempt to refute them. Then I might trust your seemingly floored logic which has supposedly worked for centuries.

1:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/newcomb.html

2:

quote:All events in history are both ‘foreknown’ (from the left) and ‘postknown’ (from the right). A person standing, for example, at Event B would know the ‘future’ of those standing at Event A, just as I “know the future” of when my newlywed mother will give birth to glenn, her firstborn son. For such a view of God—in which all events of history are perceived in some ‘Eternal Now’ (as the philosophers call it)—concepts such as ‘foreknowledge’ become much less useful for discussing this problem of ‘foreknowledge and the Plan’.





Now, I need to mention here that there is a HUGE philosophical question about what can be foreknown at all. A growing number of Christian philosophers (e.g., Swinburne, Hasker) have argued that foreknowledge can only apply to what is 'logically possible' to be known. Just as omnipotence does not suffer when God cannot make a "square circle," so also omniscience does not suffer when God cannot foreknow what the diameter of that square circle would be (as opposed to the foreknowledge of a great Zen master...smile). In other words, it might be logically impossible to foreknow what a free creature would 'freely' choose to do (except in the cases in which said freedom was 'over-ruled' for some specific purpose), for this would imply some type of causal determinism which mitigates the 'freely' word. Swinburne’s popular formulation of this can be found in Is there a God? (Oxford, 1996, p.7-9):



“It seems to me that the same considerations require that we understand God being omniscient in a similarly careful way. Just as God cannot be required to do what is logically impossible to do, so God cannot be required to know what is logically impossible to know. It seems to me that it is logically impossible to know (without the possibility of mistake) what someone will do freely tomorrow. If I am really free to choose tomorrow whether I will go to London or stay at home, then if anyone today has some belief about what I will do (e.g. that I will go to London), I have it in my power tomorrow to make that belief false (e.g. by staying at home). So no one (not even God) can know today (without the possibility of mistake) what I will choose to do tomorrow. So I suggest that we understand God being omniscient as God knowing at any time all that is logically possible to know at that time. That will not include knowledge, before they have done it, of what human persons will do freely. Since God is omnipotent, it will only be because God allows there to be free persons that there will be any free persons. So this limit to divine omniscience arises from the consequences (which God could foresee) of his own choice to create free agents. I must, however, warn the reader that this view of mine that God does not know (without the possibility of mistake) what free agents will do until they do it is not the normal Christian (or Jewish or Islamic) view. My view is, however, implied, I believe, by certain biblical passages; it seems, for example, the natural interpretation of the book of Jonah that, when God told Jonah to preach to Nineveh that it would be destroyed, he believed that probably he would need to destroy it, but that fortunately, since the people of Nineveh repented, God saw no need to carry out his prophecy. In advocating this refinement of our understanding of omniscience, I am simply carrying further the process of internal clarification of the basic Christian understanding of God which other Christian philosophers such as Aquinas pursued in earlier days.



“All this does of course assume that human beings have some limited free will, in the sense that no causes (whether brain states or God) determine fully how they will choose. That is the way it often seems to us that we have such a power. Even the inanimate world, scientists now realize, is not a fully deterministic world—and the world of thought and choice is even less obviously a predictable world.”

3:

quote:argument seems to have a hidden premise, which is that foreknowledge is causative. It’s not. The idea here seems to be that God’s foreknowledge constrains my choice, in the future, to be what it is. But why can’t we say just the opposite? That my free choice at Time 2, constrains God’s foreknowledge of it, at Time 1, to be just what it is?

4:

quote:How does God knowing that something is going to happen in the future, actually make it happen? It doesn’t. I think the confusion arises because of temporal asymmetry. God’s foreknowledge, it seems to me, is actually in the same class of God’s memory. I believe this to be so, and I further believe that it’s hard to see this fact, because of the asymmetry of the arrow of time. But I would argue: Suppose God had no perfect foreknowledge, but only perfect memory. And he can remember perfectly what some person did at T1 (in the past) at a future time (T2). In that case, would we say that God’s memory constrained my action at T1 to be just what it was? No, we wouldn’t. We’d say that my free action at T1 constrained God’s memory, in the future at T2, to be what it was at that time.

5:

quote:And likewise, I hold that my free action (stipulating for the sake of argument that we do have free will) at T2 constrains God’s foreknowledge at T1 to be what it is. God’s foreknowledge, under this account, is just a special case of God’s memory.

6 / 7:

quote:

One of the best-known Ockhamist proposals after Adams was made by Alvin Plantinga (1986), who defined the accidentally necessary in terms of lack of counterfactual power. For someone, Jones, to have counterfactual power over God's past beliefs, the following must be true:

(CPP) It was within Jones' power at t2 to so something such that if he did it, God would not have held the belief he in fact held at t1.

Plantinga argued that counterfactual power over God's past beliefs about human free choices is coherent and if it occurs, these beliefs are not accidentally necessary; they do not have the kind of necessity the past is alleged to have in premise (2) of the basic argument.

Notice that counterfactual power over the past is not the same thing as changing the past, nor is it the same thing as causing or bringing about the past. Changing the past is incoherent since it amounts to there being one past prior to t2 in which God has a certain belief at t1, and then Jones does something to make a different past. That requires two pasts prior to t2, and that presumably makes no sense. What (CPP) affirms instead is that there is only one actual past, but there would have been a different past if Jones acted differently at t2. (CPP) also does not require the assumption that what Jones does at t2 causes God to have the belief he has at t1. There is much debate about the way to analyze the causal relation, but it is generally thought that causation does not reduce to a counterfactual dependency of an effect on its cause. (CPP) is weaker than the claim that Jones' act at t2 causes God's belief at t1.

quote:It seems to me that it is very difficult to give an account of the necessity of the past that preserves the intuition that the past has a special kind of necessity in virtue of being past, but which has the consequence that God's past beliefs do not have that kind of necessity. The problem is that God's past beliefs seem to be as good a candidate for something that is strictly past as almost anything we can think of, such as an explosion last week. If we have counterfactual power over God's past beliefs, but not the past explosion, that must be because of something special about God's past beliefs that is intuitively plausible apart from the attempt to avoid theological fatalism. If it is not independently plausible, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Ockhamist solution is ad hoc.

8:

quote:Because then we are talking about a being that keeps getting better, but to improve one must be in a state of imperfection (unless one has a Cartesian God in mind, but that would make thism entire thread irrelevant). Furthermore, God is often considered perfection of being, rather than perfection of becoming. Of course, a perfect being may change for the worse, which is why God is considered to be immutable.

9:

quote:my intuition remains this: one is free to choose. What one freely chooses, is what God will foresee.

10:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm

All I see there is a list of contrived, ad-hoc rationalizations trying to explain away the obvious conclusions of foreknowledge and predestination.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

I'll leave this to quotes from authors and the like, who are more knowledgeable on this topic than I... And you can, in your infinite wisdom, attempt to refute them. Then I might trust your seemingly floored logic which has supposedly worked for centuries.

1. I'm not here to amuse you by replying to a list of quotations you have arrived at in a hastily done google search. Either provide the argument yourself or a specific one which you want me to refute. If a barrage of (atrocious) google results is a valid reply, then please say so, so that I may reply in kind...

Now, you are free to quote other articles to bolster your arguments, but that is hardly the same as blindly doing a search on google and then expecting me to reply to all the bullshit you found - especially not when it's extremely obvious that some (if not all) of those arguments have already been rendered invalid in the first place.

2. Some of your own arguments are refuted in the very sources you are quoting. You, in a extremely dishonest act, completely ignore the refutations provided. For example, in quotes 6/7 you hilariously fail to read the part where it says: "If it is not independently plausible, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Ockhamist solution is ad hoc". Just in case you didn't know, ad hoc, isn't a compliment. You fail to do any further research, as the Ockhamist "solution" to the problem is refuted in another article provided in that very source (i.e. 'Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'.)

In addition, in quote number 8, you fail to realize that the point mentioned there does not bolster your position at all. It has nothing to do with what we are arguing.

So please, if you made your post with an honest expectation of a reply and it is not simply a ploy, then please choose one of the points and I will reply to it specifically.

My mistake. I failed to see the ad hoc part. It may have been a reply to the argument. Despite your multiple Google references where I apparently hastily searched for them, I actually got these from a forum discussing it actively, with smarter minds than you and I.

The question you're asking is merely a variant of a popular 'paradox'. My point would be that there is either no reply for the 'paradox', or that it is flawed or meant to cause only confusion.. or all of the above. I can't provide you with an infallible point of view because I am not yet knowledgeable enough of it to debate it personally, which if you had read, I already said in my previous post.. which is why I'm leaving it to other's arguments against. You're very willing to ask questions of others, but give little insight.

There's never going to be an answer if all you're merely going to give me is 'all of these is just an attempt to escape the problem'. You need to be able to accept point of views because science doesn't seem to have the answer either.

I'll assume you're capable of answering more than one argument (or atleast attempt to). It's not for the sake of my amusement, as my posts seem to be for yours. It seems you have enough time to state your claims as fact, so I'm sure you have enough time to refute arguments against.

Please answer arguments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, why 9 is incorrect, and 10.

Please also give an answer to the following additional arguments:

http://www.paradoxes.info/NewcombsParadox.html

http://www.truthseeker.com/truth-seeker/1993archive/120_5/ts205f.html

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/freewill

quote:But if man believes what he has to believe, if he is not free to test his beliefs against reality and to validate or reject them -- if the actions and content of his mind are determined by factors that may or may not have anything to do with reason, logic and reality -- then he can never know if his conclusions are true or false.



Given you present yourself as knowledgeable on this subject, it shouldn't be too hard to quickly refute their findings.

It's worth noting... personally, I'm unsure. Perhaps God does not forsee the future. Perhaps because he is outside of time, there is no such thing as foreknowledge. Maybe this is a subject we cannot understand because it requires answers outside of human knowledge. However, I'm posting here for the sake of debate.

What i'm sure everyone is referring to is the 'Ultimate' free will. Are we actually choosing to do things or is it simply that we can experience something we have no independant part of?

Am i choosing to reply to this topic or am i being led to reply to this topic?

The best way i can answer that is that i am leading myself, rather than making a concious choice.

But what exactly is the difference between choosing to do something and being led to do something if there is ultimate fate?

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:



The question you're asking is merely a variant of a popular 'paradox'. My point would be that there is either no reply for the 'paradox', or that it is flawed or meant to cause only confusion.. or all of the above.

"Your point" is nothing but a conglomerate of search results that you yourself have no fucking clue what they mean or what they say (as you have exemplified in your previous post - by including arguments that have nothing to do with what I am arguing and arguments which are refuted by your own very sources).

So, again, I'm not here to reply to the results you arrive by doing a quick google search. I have no burden to do so. Like I said, if you honestly expect a reply, then choose one of them for me to reply to.

quote:I can't provide you with an infallible point of view because I am not yet knowledgeable enough of it to debate it personally, which if you had read, I already said in my previous post.. which is why I'm leaving it to other's arguments against. You're very willing to ask questions of others, but give little insight.

How ironic that you mention reading when I never said anything to contradict what you just said, and moreover, I already told you why I was not going to reply to all of those atrocious google results of yours. I asked you to choose one of those points if you honestly expected a reply from me; given that you didn't do so, either you failed to read (the irony continues) or you actually don't want me to reply.



quote: Maybe this is a subject we cannot understand because it requires answers outside of human knowledge. However, I'm posting here for the sake of debate.



You are most certainly not, since if that were the case, you would have done exactly as I requested, and chosen one of the points you want me to reply to, instead of ignoring this request and insisting that I reply to your atrocious google results - results which you have made obvious in this thread, your are blatantly ignorant about.

Again, I'm not here to answer whatever you get on a search. If that is a valid reply, then I will reply in kind and post all the results that support what I say (which you dishonestly ignored). So please, either choose one point for me to reply to, so as to continue the discussion, or simply stop posting all together.

Ok, I'm about to be really bold here.

It's easier for some people to say, "What IF you don't REALLY choose." Why? Let me be real. So you can BLAME it on someone else. It takes a MATURE, adult to say, "You know, where I am right now, is on account of the decisions I've made through out the years." That puts the responsibility right where it needs to be. ON YOU! The thing is, if you realize this, and admit it, you then acknowledge that YOU need to change something, somewhere. I heard someone say, "The definition of absurdity, is to DO the SAME THING, and EXPECT the SAME RESULTS." It's the truth! It really is.

Do you make your own deicions? Well, are you where you are in life, because of the decisions you've already made? YEP!

*I'm a Christian.

God loves you, and I do too. Shelly.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:



Ok, I'm about to be really bold here.

If by "bold" you mean, "extremely ignorant" than I agree.

Nobody here is claiming that free will doesn't exist; especially not so they can blame someone else (a ridiculous notion if I have ever heard one). What is being argued is the contradiction in the beliefs of some people, not an argument in favor of determinism.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Nobody here is claiming that free will doesn't exist

Could of fooled me http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

You've once again done very little to support your point. You've reverted back to calling my quotes 'google search results' numerous times, presumeably to lessen their credibility.. And you once again said 'choose one to reply to'.. I gave you a few and yet you seem unable to do anything. I didn't ask for your 'google search results', I asked for a reply to those arguments.

And now, you're deciding my decision for me.. I'm not posting for the sake of debate because I'm ignoring your request? You've merely said 'Heres A and B. If I choose B and god knows I will choose B, how can I choose differently'? .. I've given you philosophical responses to your floored paradox. Don't give you 'google search results'? Your whole floored paradox is borrowed from someone else. It isn't yours... sorry if you thought it was http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Given that my (or my 'google search') arguments are apparently so shit, it shouldn't be too hard for you to refute them quickly.. You pose yourself as knowledgeable. I don't really care if you refute them or not.. I'd like to see arguments against. I have plenty more if that's what you'd like.

Anyway.. I don't think I'll reply here again if I can help it... Rather than actually proving your point Rust, instead of insisting on an answer to your claim, you've merely demonstrated that you're the most arrogant and ignorant in this thread. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

Could of fooled me http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Really? Then you've made it even more clear that you don't understand what is being said.

Nowhere have I said that free-will doesn't exist. Free will could very well exist; in fact, the possibility of it existing is deliberately left open. So no, we're not saying free- will doesn't exist, we allow for the possibility for it to exist; what is being said is that if it does exist, then logically the future cannot be known.



quote:

You've once again done very little to support your point. You've reverted back to calling my quotes 'google search results' numerous times, presumeably to lessen their credibility.. And you once again said 'choose one to reply to'.. I gave you a few and yet you seem unable to do anything. I didn't ask for your 'google search results', I asked for a reply to those arguments.



1. I've called them exactly what they are: the results of your hastily done google search in a desperate attempt to find something that passes off as a reply.

2. I already told you to pick one, not just to give me all those results and ask me to refute them, because that is not a valid reply. You keep avoiding that, perhaps because you are afraid that I will reply to the point you choose.

3. I know you didn't ask for my search results, but apparently you think that's a valid reply (because that is what your reply amounts to); hence, if it's considered a valid reply, then I will reply in kind and merely make a search and ask you to refute the results.

quote:.

And now, you're deciding my decision for me.. I'm not posting for the sake of debate because I'm ignoring your request? You've merely said 'Heres A and B. If I choose B and god knows I will choose B, how can I choose differently'? .. I've given you philosophical responses to your floored paradox. Don't give you 'google search results'? Your whole floored paradox is borrowed from someone else. It isn't yours... sorry if you thought it was

1. If you have avoided choosing one of the points/arguments for me to refute, even when I told you that it was the way for the debate to continue (as I'm not here to refute all the myriad of results you can throw at me), then yes, you're choosing to not continue the debate.

2. I didn't say this argument was original(I wasn't even the first person who brought it up in this thread - making this comment of yours even more laughable); whether it is or not is inconsequential to the validity of the argument, or to the fact that your reply amounts to "Here, this is what I found in google, now refute what I throw at you".

You mentioning such a ridiculous thing out of nowhere is a nice indicator that you're grasping at straws.

quote:Given that my (or my 'google search') arguments are apparently so shit, it shouldn't be too hard for you to refute them quickly.. You pose yourself as knowledgeable. I don't really care if you refute them or not.. I'd like to see arguments against. I have plenty more if that's what you'd like.

Anyway.. I don't think I'll reply here again if I can help it... Rather than actually proving your point Rust, instead of insisting on an answer to your claim, you've merely demonstrated that you're the most arrogant and ignorant in this thread.

How ironic that you call me ignorant after you've proven yourself to be incompetent by actually posting things that refute you or have nothing to do with what is being argued, and passing them off as if they were valid points.

Again, choose one of those points for me to refute or kindly stop posting and keep your inane replies to yourself. You keep ignoring this reasonable request, which means that you either don't give a shit about the debate continuing, or you actually don't want me to reply to your points.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-30-2006).]