if it does your belief takes away your freedom of choice.sinds if something can be predicted in theory it allready happened.

i got this from an argument i had with my sister(shes a muslim,i'm an atheist)she told me god,allah is allmighty and all knowing,he knows all that happpened in the past,now and the future. then i said the future?now look at me,if god knows your future. you wont have any choice to do something because god allready knows whats going to happen and then it will be predecided if you go to heaven or hell.You can't be more wrong!

you think time is linear?

I bet she knows a lot of things, but I don't think she worries too much.

What you are speaking of though is the paradox of omnipotence, personally I don't believe any being can be almighty.

quote:Originally posted by Z:

What you are speaking of though is the paradox of omnipotence...

"Knowing everything" would be omniscience.

quote:Originally posted by Frontier Psychiatrist:

"Knowing everything" would be omniscience.

But we are speaking of so-called omnipotent beings, and you can't have omnipotence without omniscience (should you be able to do anything, you should also be able to acquire any information, thus making you omniscent).

quote:Originally posted by Obbe:

you think time is linear?

Good point. In the highest reality, there is no time, eternity consists of a timeless moment.

Back to topic. . .my answer would yes and no. That is, my God COULD see the future but chooses not to, since it is more interesting to simply watch as his will is played out.

Like you are reading a novel--you COULD skip ahead and read the ending first, but what would be the point?

quote:Originally posted by Levo75:

if it does your belief takes away your freedom of choice.sinds if something can be predicted in theory it allready happened.

i got this from an argument i had with my sister(shes a muslim,i'm an atheist)she told me god,allah is allmighty and all knowing,he knows all that happpened in the past,now and the future. then i said the future?now look at me,if god knows your future. you wont have any choice to do something because god allready knows whats going to happen and then it will be predecided if you go to heaven or hell.You can't be more wrong!

Why can't you have free will if an omniscient being exists? If someone is psychic and can tell what others are going to do in the future, his ability doesn't take away others free will.

What I wrote above is just in theory of course. I don't believe in God, psychics or free will.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Why can't you have free will if an omniscient being exists? If someone is psychic and can tell what others are going to do in the future, his ability doesn't take away others free will.

What I wrote above is just in theory of course. I don't believe in God, psychics or free will.

If you know, for sure, 100% accurately, that I am going to drink water after I write this post... then how can I do anything but drink water? There's only one possible action left to me, or your knowledge would be false. It's not that omniscience causes free will to magically disappear; it's that any certain knowledge of the future is an indicator that no free will is operating in that universe.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



If you know, for sure, 100% accurately, that I am going to drink water after I write this post... then how can I do anything but drink water?

If there is such a thing as free will, and I am a psychic who can see the future, and I have a 100% accuracy rate, my seeing the future of what choice you will make does not take away the fact that you are the one to make the choice. The fact that I have a power that enables me to see what choices people end up making before they actually make them, does not change the fact that those choices were made of others own free will.



quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



There's only one possible action left to me, or your knowledge would be false.

As a psychic, part of my knowledge would be the awareness that you have free will to do what you want; I just happen to know what you want before you do.

thank you all this really enlightened my point of view.

i still think that if there is a god and it is is omnipitent and has/knows omniscience (wich means he can or knows the future) that everything allready happened in theory wich means we are all in some kind of predestined road of actions and choices.

off course if god exists wich i still really doubt.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

If there is such a thing as free will, and I am a psychic who can see the future, and I have a 100% accuracy rate, my seeing the future of what choice you will make does not take away the fact that you are the one to make the choice. The fact that I have a power that enables me to see what choices people end up making before they actually make them, does not change the fact that those choices were made of others own free will.



It certainly does if you consider that he would not be able to change his mind, which is the center piece of what "free will" actually is!

If you know that he will drink a water in the future, then he cannot, by any means, change his mind. He must drink the water, which is not free will at all; being forced to a certain outcome, without the possibility of changing your mind, is not free will, or at least not a reasonable definition of it.

With free will, the future must be unknown, because the possible results and the choices are ever changing. If a certain result is known before hand, then that means we would never be able to choose an action which results in a different outcome. That's not free will. If a psychic knows the result of a certain baseball game (e.g. Team A wins), then Team A cannot forfeit/lose the game by any means. They cannot fight with the umpire, refuse to play, deliberately play badly, et cetera. They are forced to win. That's not free will either.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It certainly does if you consider that he would not be able to change his mind, which is the center piece of what "free will" actually is!



He can change his mind. It's just that a psychic knows what changes he will make ahead of time. If a psychic wins Randi's challenge, and can forecast what choices people will choose to make, will you stop beleiving in free will?

If a father knows his six year old so well, that he can tell what the boy will do based on his mood (he knows when he will smile when offered a cookie, how he will react to being told that he must take a bath, etc.), does the boy have no free will?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



He can change his mind. It's just that a psychic knows what changes he will make ahead of time.

No, he can't. Not after the psychic has knowledge of what event will happen. After an event is known before hand, that event is set in stone. The person cannot change his mind when the time has come if the outcome was known before hand.

If you know that I will choose A beforehand, then when the time comes to choose, I cannot pick B. I cannot change my mind, because I lack the free will to pick another choice.

quote:

If a psychic wins Randi's challenge, and can forecast what choices people will choose to make, will you stop beleiving in free will?

If I were to believe that he did in fact had that ability then yes. However, whether I would do so or not is irrelevant to whether or not there is free will if that were the case.

quote:

If a father knows his six year old so well, that he can tell what the boy will do based on his mood (he knows when he will smile when offered a cookie, how he will react to being told that he must take a bath, etc.), does the boy have no free will?



There's a difference between having knowledge of past events and expecting an outcome (one which could be different form his expectations) and foreknowledge. If the knowledge this father possesses is only that of what has happened before when he has offered his child a cookie, then he does not possess foreknowledge of the event - the child could in fact frown when offered a cookie.

If, however, the father possesses foreknowledge of the events, then yes, the child would lack the free will to frown when offered a cookie.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



There's a difference between having knowledge of past events and expecting an outcome (one which could be different form his expectations) and foreknowledge.

Why is it any different? An omniscient god would of course have knowledge of past events also. This god knows exactly what your brain is made from, knows all of your past decisions, and has a 100% accuracy rating of figuring out what choices others will make.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



If the knowledge this father possesses is only that of what has happened before when he has offered his child a cookie, then he does not possess foreknowledge of the event - the child could in fact frown when offered a cookie.

If, however, the father possesses foreknowledge of the events, then yes, the child would lack the free will to frown when offered a cookie.

Yes, the child could behave differently (because he has free will), but the father knows how his child will behave so well, he knows in advance what choice the child will make. It's not far fetched at all that an omniscient god could do the same thing only with an accuracy rating of 100%.

As I said earlier, this is all supposing that free will actually exists. I'm sure that it doesn't. Do you believe that we have free will?

quote:The fact that I have a power that enables me to see what choices people end up making before they actually make them, does not change the fact that those choices were made of others own free will.

It itself does not change anything; it's just an indicator. I had this problem when first contemplating this, myself; I thought, "how can mere knowledge actively inhibit free will?" I realize, though, that it's not your knowledge suddenly eliminating free will; rather, it's the fact that you can know that means there is no free will. It's merely a symptom, not a cause. An indicator of a predetermined action.

The only way that you could know a future event with 100% accuracy is it were set in stone; if it weren't, if it could still be different, then you would not have 100% accurate knowledge.

quote: This god knows exactly what your brain is made from, knows all of your past decisions, and has a 100% accuracy rating of figuring out what choices others will make.

This would mean that everything is, in fact, pre-determined. That's the only way you would be able to compute future events by present ones. Like the "clockwork universe", if there's no room for unexpected events - such as someone choosing not to drink water - where is the room for free will? Any choices you could make would be derived directly from past events, not really "choices" at all.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



it's the fact that you can know that means there is no free will. It's merely a symptom, not a cause. An indicator of a predetermined action.

As I said, I don't believe in free will; I was taking attacking the scenario from the perspective of someone who does. If free will existed, I don't see a problem with an omniscient being existing also.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



The only way that you could know a future event with 100% accuracy is it were set in stone; if it weren't, if it could still be different, then you would not have 100% accurate knowledge.

Everything that has ever happened and will happen was set in stone.

Let us not forget quantum solipcism. Okay, this gets a tad complicated, but this idea postulates that there is an infinite number of dimensions, or parallel universes.

Therefore, everything that happens in this one HAS to happen as it does, since all the other possibilities are being played out in other dimensions or universes.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

Let us not forget quantum solipcism. Okay, this gets a tad complicated, but this idea postulates that there is an infinite number of dimensions, or parallel universes.

Therefore, everything that happens in this one HAS to happen as it does, since all the other possibilities are being played out in other dimensions or universes.



If there are an infinte number of universes, not only is every other possibility being played out, but everything in this universe is being played out somewhere else an infinite amount of times.

Why are you supposing that every possible outcome is only happening once?

quote:If free will existed, I don't see a problem with an omniscient being existing also.

That's what I was trying to explain. They're mutually exclusive.

god is the past, present, and future

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Why is it any different?

It is different because one would entail a that a certain event must happen out of logical necessity, and the other does not.

Foreknowledge means that the event known must happen, that is not the case in your scenario since the kid could have reacted differently.

Knowledge means 100% certainty. The dad in your scenario obviously lacks 100% certainty because you admit that the kid could have reacted differently.

quote: An omniscient god would of course have knowledge of past events also. This god knows exactly what your brain is made from, knows all of your past decisions, and has a 100% accuracy rating of figuring out what choices others will make.



1. What an omniscient god would know is not up to debate, I understand what omniscience entails and what it would mean.

2. "100% accuracy rating" is what the dad in your scenario is lacking. Your analogy, therefore, is not valid; it fails to represent what we're discussing which is an omniscient being with 100% certainty, not a father guessing what his child's reaction is going to be.

quote:Yes, the child could behave differently (because he has free will), but the father knows how his child will behave so well, he knows in advance what choice the child will make. It's not far fetched at all that an omniscient god could do the same thing only with an accuracy rating of 100%.

No, the dad doesn't "know" anything. He assumes, he expects, he guesses, but he doesn't "know" anything. Knowledge would mean that the kid would not be able to do anything else; if he could, then the father obviously didn't know what was going to be the case. Since you readily admit that the child could react differently, then the dad didn't "know" anything; he guessed, assumed, or expected based on past experiences. That is not foreknowledge.

quote:As I said earlier, this is all supposing that free will actually exists. I'm sure that it doesn't. Do you believe that we have free will?

Yes, I do. I believe I have free will because I don't have any reason to believe a being exists which has foreknowledge of the future, and because it seems to me that I do have free will. Surely, there might exist such a being, and surely I might actually be predetermined to believe that I have free will, but I have no reason (as of now) to believe that either of those is the case.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Foreknowledge means that the event known must happen, that is not the case in your scenario since the kid could have reacted differently.

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that the event must happen; it's just knowledge of what will end up happening. I have a feeling we'll just go around in circles with this with my explanation, so I did a little Googling and found an explanation that puts it much better than I can. It's from a Christian apologist site. HA!

http://www.carm.org/questions/free_will.htm

A good question that is asked towards the end is:

quote:It seems that the critics are saying that the choice-maker is affected by God's knowledge to such an extent that his freedom is lost. If that is the case, then can they prove this logically? If not, then how can they maintain their position?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that the event must happen; it's just knowledge of what will end up happening.

It certainly does, since after you have foreknowledge, that event must happen or you didn't have foreknowledge in the first place!

If I know A will occur, then A must occur. If A must occur, then I lack the free will to do any action which would make it so that A would not occur. I lack a free will.

We're not running around in circles, you're just ignoring my points.

As for the article, it doesn't explain anything at all since it falls in the same fallacy you did. It equates an educated guess with 100% accuracy foreknowledge which are not the same thing. The dad doesn't know, with 100% accuracy, that his child will "choose to eat chocolate cake over a bowl full of stinking dead mice". The child could very well end up choosing the dead mice. He only has past experiences to guide his guesses; it's an educated guess, not foreknowledge. The article also ignores the issue of changing ones mind.

If you think this issue is resolved by a mediocre article in a Christian website then you're painfully mistaken. This is a long-lasting philosophical debate which has stumped the best theistic philosophers.

quote:It seems that the critics are saying that the choice-maker is affected by God's knowledge to such an extent that his freedom is lost. If that is the case, then can they prove this logically? If not, then how can they maintain their position?

Yes.

God knows that from a set of possible choices (denoted A, B, C, D...) I will choose A. When the moment comes, I lack the freedom to change my mind.

If you want a more formal proof, the this can easilly be done by contradiction. Assume the oppossite of what we want to prove, and find a contradiction.

Let's assume that I would in fact have the freedom to change my mind. I decide to choose B instead of A. That would mean that god did not have foreknowledge of what I was going to pick ultimately - thus contradicting the premise that god had foreknowlege that I would choose A.

EDIT:

"It would be a list of things you freely chose to do -- or should I say, that you will freely choose to do."

One particuarly amusing statement from that article you cited. You will choose that... 'freely' of course!

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



If I know A will occur, then A must occur. If A must occur, then I lack the free will to do any action which would make it so that A would not occur. I lack a free will.

We're not running around in circles, you're just ignoring my points.





I'm not ignoring your points. I could just as easily keep repeating my same points and say that you're ignoring mine. That's why we're going around in circles; your points haven't changed and neither have mine.

You see it as "If I know A will occur, then A must occur." I see it as "People have free will to choose to pick choice A or B, an omniscient being just knows what will be chosen.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



As for the article, it doesn't explain anything at all since it falls in the same fallacy you did. It equates an educated guess with 100% accuracy foreknowledge which are not the same thing.

It is the same thing. The father is merely human, yet he can forecast with amazing accuracy what his son will do in some cases. He does this with some knowledge of child psychology, knowledge of his son's fears, preferences, etc. Even though the father may have never been wrong, that doesn't mean the son didn't have the free will to change his mind and do something unusual.

Now imagine an omniscient god. The son would have the same free will, but this god would have an infinite amount of knowledge about child psychology, the kid's personality, every little particle that his brain is made out of, including every memory the kid has, etc., etc. Don't you believe that this god could forecast with 100% accuracy?

Earlier you said that if you were convinced that a psychic could forecast the future, you would stop believing in free will. I don't understand that. The psychic is merely forecasting what will happen. What choices you will eventually make even though you are free to change them, he also knows what changes you will make.



quote:Originally posted by Rust:



God knows that from a set of possible choices (denoted A, B, C, D...) I will choose A. When the moment comes, I lack the freedom to change my mind.

We're still going around in circles. God knows everything about your brain, human psychology, etc. He has knowledge of what choices you will make along with whether or not you'll make last minute choices. His existance does not change anything about your free will. He's just one smart mother fucker.



quote:Originally posted by Rust:



If you want a more formal proof, the this can easilly be done by contradiction. Assume the oppossite of what we want to prove, and find a contradiction.

You now think you can easily prove that you're correct with a contradiction, but you wrote this earlier?:

quote:If you think this issue is resolved by a mediocre article in a Christian website then you're painfully mistaken. This is a long-lasting philosophical debate which has stumped the best theistic philosophers.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Let's assume that I would in fact have the freedom to change my mind. I decide to choose B instead of A. That would mean that god did not have foreknowledge of what I was going to pick ultimately - thus contradicting the premise that god had foreknowlege that I would choose A.

He has foreknowledge of all the changes you will make also, because of his omniscient knowledge of your brain's makeup, human psychology, etc.

quote:Now imagine an omniscient god. The son would have the same free will, but this god would have an infinite amount of knowledge about child psychology, the kid's personality, every little particle that his brain is made out of, including every memory the kid has, etc., etc. Don't you believe that this god could forecast with 100% accuracy?

Yes... if there is nothing random in the universe; if there can be no unexpected changes. If everything is determined by previous events. In which case, there was no free will in the first place.

quote:Earlier you said that if you were convinced that a psychic could forecast the future, you would stop believing in free will. I don't understand that. The psychic is merely forecasting what will happen. What choices you will eventually make even though you are free to change them, he also knows what changes you will make.

The only way that future events can be predicted with 100% accuracy is if they are set in stone.

quote:His existance does not change anything about your free will.

I explained this! It, by itself, doesn't change anything. It is just a sign of predetermination; an indicator that nothing is changable, because even the "changes" you make were actually known and determined long beforehand. You could take God entirely out of that universe and you'd still have no free will, because that universe would still be deterministic. Either way, you would not be able to veer from the path God knows - or knew - you will take.

quote:You now think you can easily prove that you're correct with a contradiction, but you wrote this earlier?:

"If you think this issue is resolved by a mediocre article in a Christian website then you're painfully mistaken. This is a long-lasting philosophical debate which has stumped the best theistic philosophers."

He did say that it has stumped the best theistic philosophers. Presumably, it's not a problem for the atheist or agnostic, who could easy see the solution, not being bound by inviolable theistic beliefs.

quote:He has foreknowledge of all the changes you will make also, because of his omniscient knowledge of your brain's makeup, human psychology, etc.

So even that was determined before, eh? The only way future events could be predicted with 100% accuracy from present conditions is if the universe is deterministic, a giant clockwork machine of action --> reaction. In such a place, there could be no free will.



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-21-2006).]

God does not exist, neither does time. The only thing that exists is matter and energy in its current state this instant.

-deus-

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



I explained this! It, by itself, doesn't change anything. It is just a sign of predetermination; an indicator that nothing is changable, because even the "changes" you make were actually known and determined long beforehand. You could take God entirely out of that universe and you'd still have no free will, because that universe would still be deterministic. Either way, you would not be able to veer from the path God knows - or knew - you will take.

I agree (so far). It seems to me that there is no randomness in the universe, but I've been reading so many different opinions on whether or not quantum mechanics proves or disproves randomness, that I want to get around to learning more about it.

As I said before, I don't believe in free will. Even if there is randomness in the universe, what's in our brains cannot be changed. Our brains are all that affect what choices we will make. Even if the weather is random, which would mean that everything is not set in stone and what we will decide to do on a rainy day will change, we don't have free will with what we will choose to do on that rainy day. All the thinking we may do on a rainy day about what to do, and as much as it seems we are freely making the choice, our brains are selected by are nature and what's in it is in there by its nurture.



quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



He did say that it has stumped the best theistic philosophers. Presumably, it's not a problem for the atheist or agnostic, who could easy see the solution, not being bound by inviolable theistic beliefs.

Presumably it's not a problem for the atheist or agnostic? Are you just clarifying Rust's statement, or do you think that being an atheist or agnostic makes the problem easily solvable?



quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



So even that was determined before, eh? The only way future events could be predicted with 100% accuracy from present conditions is if the universe is deterministic, a giant clockwork machine of action --> reaction. In such a place, there could be no free will.

C'mon we're talking about God here. He could make all actions in the universe completely random (or even non-random) with the exception that he gives you free will and yet can see the future.

If someone can travel to the future and back and saw what choices you've made, is that proof of the non-existance of free-will?

quote:I agree (so far). It seems to me that there is no randomness in the universe, but I've been reading so many different opinions on whether or not quantum mechanics proves or disproves randomness, that I want to get around to learning more about it.

As I said before, I don't believe in free will. Even if there is randomness in the universe, what's in our brains cannot be changed. Our brains are all that affect what choices we will make. Even if the weather is random, which would mean that everything is not set in stone and what we will decide to do on a rainy day will change, we don't have free will with what we will choose to do on that rainy day. All the thinking we may do on a rainy day about what to do, and as much as it seems we are freely making the choice, our brains are selected by are nature and what's in it is in there by its nurture.

I agree with that. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Presumably it's not a problem for the atheist or agnostic? Are you just clarifying Rust's statement, or do you think that being an atheist or agnostic makes the problem easily solvable?

Clarifying Rust's statement, or at least my interpretation. I think it might be correct, though; believing in God and being unwilling to hold any notion that would contradict that belief would stump you if you came up against a problem where the obvious solution is contradictory to said belief in God. I think this is such a problem, but then, I could be wrong.

quote:C'mon we're talking about God here. He could make all actions in the universe completely random (or even non-random) with the exception that he gives you free will and yet can see the future.

So God can do logically contradictory things?

quote:If someone can travel to the future and back and saw what choices you've made, is that proof of the non-existance of free-will?

I don't know how time travel would work, so I have a hard time answering this. It seems to me that any time travel would have to involve paradoxes, and thus renders speculation of this sort meaningless. For instance, he might've come back and told me what I'd do, so I would attempt to change it. However, that would change the future, and he would've seen that; and possibly told me about that; so I could change again... this doesn't seem to me to argue either way; on one hand, it'd seem that I do have free will, because I keep changing; but on the other, he never actually sees the "final" future. We could suppose that he travels forward, sees, and doesn't tell me - but is what he sees anything more than a possible future, not actually "the" future, since it can be changed at will (though not necessarily free will)? It could be a different universe altogether!

After more though, I think I'd conclude that the answer is yes: it is indeed proof of the non-existance of free will. The only way he could know that nothing would change from the universe he saw - the only way his vision would be 100% accurate, for sure - is if the course of the universe was set in stone and immovable.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



So God can do logically contradictory things?

I don't know if an omnipotent god could do things we call contradictory, but what part is contradictory?

quote:

I don't know how time travel would work, so I have a hard time answering this.

Yeah, the time travel thing was a bad question.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



After more though, I think I'd conclude that the answer is yes: it is indeed proof of the non-existance of free will. The only way he could know that nothing would change from the universe he saw - the only way his vision would be 100% accurate, for sure - is if the course of the universe was set in stone and immovable.

The only answer I can come up to that is one I already gave. I just don't see a problem with God giving free will and having magical abilities to see what choices people will be before hand, and not afterwards like the rest of us.

Goddamn Rust, how many of these topics have you done now, with the exact same question and answer which they just cannot seem to comprehend, those dumbass. I respect you for your endless patience.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

I'm not ignoring your points. I could just as easily keep repeating my same points and say that you're ignoring mine. That's why we're going around in circles; your points haven't changed and neither have mine.

You see it as "If I know A will occur, then A must occur." I see it as "People have free will to choose to pick choice A or B, an omniscient being just knows what will be chosen.



No, I see it as "People lack the free will to change their mind", which you've yet to refute. That alone makes it so that there is no free will. I find it hard to call that anything else but you ignoring my points, especially if you keep saying that I would be "choosing" something when it has been established that I would be forced to do so, and moreover, when you keep saying that a father making a guess would be analogous to an omniscient being when it has been shown they are not the same thing.

quote:It is the same thing. The father is merely human, yet he can forecast with amazing accuracy what his son will do in some cases. He does this with some knowledge of child psychology, knowledge of his son's fears, preferences, etc. Even though the father may have never been wrong, that doesn't mean the son didn't have the free will to change his mind and do something unusual.

No, it is not the same thing. The father can be incorrect, while someone with foreknowledge cannot be incorrect. You're simply unable or unwilling to admit this is so.



quote:

Now imagine an omniscient god. The son would have the same free will, but this god would have an infinite amount of knowledge about child psychology, the kid's personality, every little particle that his brain is made out of, including every memory the kid has, etc., etc. Don't you believe that this god could forecast with 100% accuracy?

Earlier you said that if you were convinced that a psychic could forecast the future, you would stop believing in free will. I don't understand that. The psychic is merely forecasting what will happen. What choices you will eventually make even though you are free to change them, he also knows what changes you will make.



Yes, the god would be able to forecast with 100% accuracy, while the father would not; hence why they are not "the same thing" as you so erroneously keep saying.

If he has foreknowledge of the future, then the future is set in stone. It cannot change, the outcomes and the choices have all been set in stone. This is not free will, because, by definition, free will entails the ability to changes ones mind; it entails that the outcome isn't known, because the outcome can change at any moment, for any reason.

quote:We're still going around in circles. God knows everything about your brain, human psychology, etc. He has knowledge of what choices you will make along with whether or not you'll make last minute choices. His existence does not change anything about your free will. He's just one smart mother fucker.

Again, I know what omniscience entails. You don't have to keep repeating yourself because nowhere have I said anything that hints that I do not know what it entails.

His knowledge does in fact change everything about my free will, because I would be incapable of changing my mind, something which you keep ignoring.

If he knows that Team A will win, the Team A lacks the free will to lose on purpose. How is that not affecting free will? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:You now think you can easily prove that you're correct with a contradiction, but you wrote this earlier?:

I meant it has stumped those trying to resolve the conundrum. That's very different from saying that there is no logical proof. There is, they just ignore it or refuse to accept it.

quote:He has foreknowledge of all the changes you will make also, because of his omniscient knowledge of your brain's makeup, human psychology, etc.

Which is meaningless because we are speaking of the ultimate choice; he must have knowledge of what I will ultimately pick. That's all the matters; whether he has knowledge of "changes" I made before the ultimate choice is irrelevant.

When he has knowledge of the ultimate result, then when the time comes, I cannot change my mind. I must ultimately pick what he saw because if I do not, I would contradict his foreknowledge.

The question at the heart of this debate is whether or not I have the free will to do something which other that what is foreknown. If you answer "yes (which you must, in order for there to be free will), then you'd have to show how I could choose another outcome. Either do so, or kindly admit that you cannot.

----------------

This is the simplification of the argument. If you want, you may ignore everything else and simply reply to this:

1. An infallible, omnscient, being exists. [Assumption]

2. This being has foreknowledge that event 'A' will occur. [Definition of omniscience]

3. 'A' must occur. [Definition of infallible]

4. I cannot choose to do any action which would make it so that 'A' does not occur. [Points, 1, 2, 3]

5. I lack free will. [Point 4]

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Again, I know what omniscience entails. You don't have to keep repeating yourself because nowhere have I said otherwise.

I don't have to keep repeating myself but you do? You're not exactly coming up with any new arguements, which is why I said we're going around in circles.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



His knowledge does in fact change everything about my free will, because I would be incapable of changing my mind, something which you keep ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it; I just don't agree with it. There was only one past; there will be only one future. I can see all of the choices you've made in your past, and you can no longer change what you've done. That doesn't mean you didn't have free will. A magical being can see the future just as I see the past. You still have free will.

I think this passage from the article I linked to explains it best:

quote:A better understanding of the "list" idea would be if God wrote a list of the things you did after you did them. He can do this since He is in the future and can look back from the future to see what you chose to do at any time. Time is relative to God. Because you have already done them freely (from God's future perspective looking backward), the list can be made accurately by God. Since He is also in the past and present, He can even show us this list in advance...only for Him it happened a long time ago as He watched you freely do what you wanted to do. So, since God is in all places at all time, He can look back in time to get the list, and then even reveal it in advance to you. It would be a list of things you freely chose to do -- or should I say, that you will freely choose to do.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



This is the simplification of the argument. If you want, you may ignore everything else and simply reply to this:

1. An infallible, omnscient, being exists. [Assumption]

2. This being has foreknowledge that event 'A' will occur. [Definition of omniscience]

3. 'A' must occur. [Definition of infallible]

4. I cannot choose to do any action which would make it so that 'A' does not occur. [Points, 1, 2, 3]

5. I lack free will. [Point 4]



In regards to #3, it's not that 'A' must occur; it's that it already did and at the same time didn't yet occur. God is in all places at all times.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

I don't have to keep repeating myself but you do? You're not exactly coming up with any new arguements, which is why I said we're going around in circles.



The difference being that I've already explained to you that I know what omniscience is (and nothing I've said shows points to me not knowing what it is and what it entails) and that I've also explained to you how the father would not be the "same thing" as a god with foreknowledge (which you've gone to acknowledge by admitting the father could be incorrect) yet you continue, for some unknown reason, to not only use that example, but to keep claiming that they are "the same thing".

So please, don't compare what you're doing, to what I am doing, they are nothing alike.

quote:I'm not ignoring it; I just don't agree with it. There was only one past; there will be only one future. I can see all of the choices you've made in your past, and you can no longer change what you've done. That doesn't mean you didn't have free will. A magical being can see the future just as I see the past. You still have free will.

I think this passage from the article I linked to explains it best:

It explains absolutely nothing, because it fails to acknowledge the fact that I would be unable to change my mind. Claiming that I've already "done" the choice, when the that time hasn't come does not prove your case.

"It would be a list of things you freely chose to do -- or should I say, that you will freely choose to do."

That makes absolutely zero sense in the context of free will. If you have free will, then by definition, it can't be said that you "will" do anything! What you will or will not do must remain a mystery till the time you do it, or it is not free will.

Your idea of free will if an omniscient being were to exist is essentially the same as predetermination. You would be forced to follow a certain path without the possibility of deviation, and without the possibility of changing your mind. It would be like seeing a movie.



quote:In regards to #3, it's not that 'A' must occur; it's that it already did and at the same time didn't yet occur. God is in all places at all times.

We're talking about what will happen to us, not what god has/can/will experience. Unless you're suggesting that we are experiencing past, present and future right now, then you have absolutely no point. To us, A must happen, and it must happen in the future. I cannot do anything that would make it so that A does not happen, therfore I lack free will. Whether god exists in all places at all times does not change the fact that we would be unable to choose any action which would cause 'A' to not occur.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

It seems to me that there is no randomness in the universe, but I've been reading so many different opinions on whether or not quantum mechanics proves or disproves randomness,

From what I understand of quantum non-locality it is not possible to accurately plot the speed and position of a quantum particle with any accuracy because the method of measuring involves applying a force, usually light, to the particle. That force initiates a change in the quantum particle. In other words the act of observation changes the speed or position of the particle and thus it is not possible to accurately describe it's state.

In the context of the version of god we are discussing(a god the bible sometimes describes as Light), would the very act of God observing us exert a force that would influence our behaviour, in effect creating a powerful cause that would, irrespective of free will, determine the outcome of any choice made?

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by redzed:



In the context of the version of god we are discussing(a god the bible sometimes describes as Light), would the very act of God observing us exert a force that would influence our behaviour, in effect creating a powerful cause that would, irrespective of free will, determine the outcome of any choice made?

If He is literally light, then He would affect everything, but then again my own existence affects everything also. Him being God, could also magically make His light not affect us.

Of course the other possibility is that He isn't literally light.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



Of course the other possibility is that He isn't literally light.



Yes, however in context he is an all-powerful being, controlling the force/s that sustain the universe, being all-seeing he is observing everything. Quantum mechanics suggests the act of observation is an application of force. One experiment involving quantum particles, that were joined and then split apart, showed that a spin was imparted to one particle as soon as consciousness was directed in the act of observation. (It also showed that no matter how far apart the two particles travelled the instant the spin occurred on the one observed, the other particle exhibited the same behaviour, without any force acting between the particles known within the physical universe being applicable.)

There's much I need to learn about Quantum Physics and randomness as well, however whether or not god is literally light, and excepting he uses some illogical means to transcend the laws of physics, it seems, if God is observing us, that act of observation will powerfully effect our behaviour - in effect determining one's future independently of one's will. A loose analogy might be in simply believing God is observing us, that will effect one's behaviour and in believing so, one would not act from one's free will but because of what was believed to be God's will.

There's a bit of thinking out loud here so feel free to correct me, but some of what is being said in this thread relates to the other failed thread of God's omnipotence. If God is not omnipotent(able to do the illogical or not) can he still be omniscient? And would there be a difference?



Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

In regards to #3, it's not that 'A' must occur; it's that it already did and at the same time didn't yet occur. God is in all places at all times.



I'd like to add something which I failed to notice and point out when you first said this.

"God is in all places at all times" is not a premise given. You are changing the argument by assuming that we're talking about a god which possesses that ability when we are not. Nowhere do I say that this being is omnipotent or is "in all places at all times", only that he is omniscient and infallible.

So your "answer" is no answer in the first place, because it fails to follow the argument given! Even if we ignore the objections I've already given, you've yet to answer the deductive argument I've given, and instead have provided a red herring by inventing new premises out of convenience.

You said that "free will" would stand even if it were a psychic with 100% accuracy, thus you must be able to answer the following argument without having to give this being new qualities (and thus change the argument completely):

1. An infallible, omniscient, being exists. [Assumption]

2. This being has foreknowledge that event 'A' will occur. [Definition of omniscience]

3. 'A' must occur. [Definition of infallible]

4. I cannot choose to do any action which would make it so that 'A' does not occur. [Points, 1, 2, 3]

5. I lack free will. [Point 4]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



"God is in all places at all times" is not a premise given. You are changing the argument by assuming that we're talking about a god which possesses that ability when we are not.

Rust, unless you give me something new to think about, you won't be hearing back from me that my mind has changed. I'm more than open minded enought to change my mind on just about any topic, but I still don't see any problems with a magical being who knows all, created all, etc, giving us free will and having the power to see in the future.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Nowhere do I say that this being is omnipotent or is "in all places at all times", only that he is omniscient and infallible.

It's not for you to say. The premise was given by the OP, not you. The OP stated that this was an arguement he had with his sister. His sister is Muslim. According to every Muslim sect that I'm aware of, Allah has no limits and is of course omnipotent.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Rust, unless you give me something new to think about, you won't be hearing back from me that my mind has changed. I'm more than open minded enought to change my mind on just about any topic, but I still don't see any problems with a magical being who knows all, created all, etc, giving us free will and having the power to see in the future.



If a deductive argument which you have yet to refute is not enough to change your mind the that is a problem with your intellectual honesty, not mine.

quote:It's not for you to say. The premise was given by the OP, not you. The OP stated that this was an arguement he had with his sister. His sister is Muslim. According to every Muslim sect that I'm aware of, Allah has no limits and is of course omnipotent.

1. I'm talking with you. You claimed that this would be the case even if it were a psychic who knew the future:

"If there is such a thing as free will, and I am a psychic who can see the future, and I have a 100% accuracy rate, my seeing the future of what choice you will make does not take away the fact that you are the one to make the choice."

I'm debating what you said, not what the OP said. Either answer the argument

(which you must be able to do if what you said above is true), or admit that you cannot. Stop grasping at straws by conjuring new premises out of thin air and then using what someone else said as a defence.

2. Even if we ignore that I'm not talking about Allah, the Christian god, or anything with omnipotence, your objection is still meaningless, which is, I suspect, why you didn't defend it. Whether god is timeless or not, does not change the fact that we lack the ability to anything which would make it so 'A' does not occur.