HatterMaxwell started this thread which got closed by ArmsMerchant because there was no serious reply.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2184432

i got one that i would like to share.the paradox is this-

if god is omnipotent/omniscient and infallible, then that means everything is predetermined and therefore we were programed from the moment of creation to follow one path. therefore we have no free will.

am i right or wrong.

There was no serious reply because this subject has been visited many times already in this forum.

HatterMaxwell started this thread which got closed by ArmsMerchant because there was no serious reply.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2184432

i got one that i would like to share.the paradox is this-

if god is omnipotent/omniscient and infallible, then that means everything is predetermined and therefore we were programed from the moment of creation to follow one path. therefore we have no free will.

am i right or wrong.

I don't see the neccesary relation between god omni-ness and predetermination.

I don't see the neccesary relation between god omni-ness and predetermination.

It's simple, really. For god (or anyone else) to know future events with certainty , said events must be predetermined. If the future is predetermined, free will is merely an illusion, and you have no choice but to do that which was predestined.

Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

There was no serious reply because this subject has been visited many times already in this forum.

well not by me

It's simple, really. For god (or anyone else) to know future events with certainty , said events must be predetermined. If the future is predetermined, free will is merely an illusion, and you have no choice but to do that which was predestined.

Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

this

i am genuinely interested in a theists reply to this apparent paradox. if its been discussed before then there must be one

It's simple, really. For god (or anyone else) to know future events with certainty , said events must be predetermined. If the future is predetermined, free will is merely an illusion, and you have no choice but to do that which was predestined.

Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

It doesn't seem that way to me.


IF, assuming the omni-ness of God, we can do away with this linearity and 'Future'. God being omniscient is aware of all time in a single moment, God is not bound to time, because God is omnipotent, it is possible for him to be outside of time. There is no future, and no past to God, there can only be now.

Assuming this, God does not know events before they happen, but AS they happen. God knows what we do only because to his perspective we are in the process of doing, he does not see things as having been done, because he has no past, there is no sense of things to be done, because he has no future, there is only things as they happen.

Not sure if that's clear.

Either way, I think it entirely possible for God to know what we do, and for it not to hamper our free-will.

That said, I don't really think we have much free-will, but that has little to do with God and more to do with stuff.

That said, I don't really think we have much free-will, but that has little to do with God and more to do with stuff.

I believe you:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uE6Z1nBqLwo

Either way, I think it entirely possible for God to know what we do, and for it not to hamper our free-will.

That said, I don't really think we have much free-will, but that has little to do with God and more to do with stuff.

I agree with you jesuit, and I think you said it well.

I don't see the neccesary relation between god omni-ness and predetermination.

Ditto. OPs statement is a classic non sequitor.

Let's say I know you so well, that I can accurately predict what choices you will make--that in no way robs you of the freedom to make those choices.

It doesn't seem that way to me.

Your counter-argument ignores the crucial point: It's not god's "timeness" or timelessness (for lack of better words) that causes the problem, it's ours.

He knows that will happen before we are even born. That you want to label him as timeless doesn't change this. To us, the beings whose freewill is being questioned, the event is already set in stone before we are even born.

God being timeless is irrelevant so long as it can be said that future events in our timeline are known.

Ditto. OPs statement is a classic non sequitor.

Let's say I know you so well, that I can accurately predict what choices you will make--that in no way robs you of the freedom to make those choices.

You merely restated the claim and proved absolutely nothing... In fact, you contradict yourself in making the statement. You said "the choices you will make". "Will happen" implies inevitability, and thus predetermination.

Ditto. OPs statement is a classic non sequitor.

Let's say I know you so well, that I can accurately predict what choices you will make--that in no way robs you of the freedom to make those choices.

We're not talking about predictions when talking about omniscience. We're talking about knowing with infallible certainty in advance, what you will do.

He knows that will happen before we are even born. That you want to label him as timeless doesn't change this. To us, the beings whose freewill is being questioned, the event is already set in stone before we are even born.

God being timeless is irrelevant so long as it can be said that future events in our timeline are known.
I don't want to get in a debate about this (so this may be my only post in this thread), but there is a pretty good Wikipedia article pointing out the problem of the conclusion that free will and omniscient beings are incompatible.
One criticism of the Argument from Free Will is that in point 4 of the proof it simply assumes that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. It uses circular logic to "prove" this, by simply stating that "a being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices". Point 4 is therefore saying, in essence, "A being that knows its choices in advance has no free will, and therefore has no free will". By assuming what it is trying to prove, that point undermines the entire argument.

Specifically, point 4 commits the modal fallacy of assuming that because some choice is known to be true, it must be necessarily true (i.e. there is no way it could possibly be false).[11] Logically, the truth value of some proposition can not be used to infer that the same proposition is necessarily true.

Using logical terminology and applying it to AFFW, there is a marked distinction between the statement “It is impossible (for God to know a future action to be true and for that action to not occur)” and the statement “If God knows that a future action is true, then it is impossible for that action to not occur.” While the two statements may seem to say the same thing, they are not logically equivalent. The second sentence is false because it commits the modal fallacy of saying that a certain action is impossible, instead of saying that the two propositions (God knows a future action to be true, and that action does not occur) are jointly impossible. Simply asserting that God knows a future action does not make it impossible for that action not to occur. The confusion comes in mistaking a semantic relation between two events for a causal relation between two events.

With these assumptions more explicitly stated, the proof becomes:

1. Assume that person X has free will (assumption).
2. By the definition of free will, at any point in time, X can choose to do any action A, where A belongs to A(T), the set of all actions that X is physically capable of at time T (definition of free will).
3. At time T, person X will choose to do action A (i.e. a person can not logically choose to do both A and not A) (Law of the Excluded Middle).
4. Assume that an omniscient God exists (assumption).
5. By the definition of omniscience, God knows everything that will happen at any point in time (definition of omniscience).
6. From 3. and 5., God knows that at time T, person X will choose to do action A (logical conclusion).
7. Therefore, person X must do action A at time T.

This claims to prove that at time T, person X is unable to do any action other than A. However, you could also remove steps 4–6, and arrive at the same conclusion. This is called logical determinism, and it suffers from the same modal fallacy as AFFW. If a certain proposition is true, that does not imply that the proposition is logically necessary. Once you remove the invalid assertion, then the argument for logical determinism is shown to be false. Similarly, when that same invalid assertion is removed from AFFW (“by the definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘choice’, if one knows for certain what choice one will make in the future, one will not be able to make the opposite choice”), the proof is shown to be false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

Except:

1. The article deals mainly with a specific form of the argument. Not all arguments have the same form, and thus not all of the have the same flaws.

2. They attack logical determinism by saying "If a certain proposition is true, that does not imply that the proposition is logically necessary". Arguably, however, infallible omniscience does just that: An event known by an infallible omniscient being must happen... it could not have not happened or the being would be fallible.

An event known by an infallible omniscient being must happen... it could not have not happened or the being would be fallible.
Right- but this being can give free will and also know what will happen. Must it happen? Yes. Can this being give free will and foretell future events with 100% accuracy? I see no reason why not. The argument, "because it must happen and therefore you can't change your mind, and if you can't change your mind you don't have free will" doesn't work. Why? Because you can "change your mind" all you want; it's just that an infallible, omniscient being knows what changes (if any) you will freely choose to make.

"But once God says this will happen, it must happen. If it must happen, you have no free will."

Poppycock! It must happen because he's always right. You can have free will and he can be clairvoyant.

I've debated this with others and it usually just goes around in circles, so I'll just bow out of this debate now. :)

HatterMaxwell started this thread which got closed by ArmsMerchant because there was no serious reply.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2184432

i got one that i would like to share.the paradox is this-

if god is omnipotent/omniscient and infallible, then that means everything is predetermined and therefore we were programed from the moment of creation to follow one path. therefore we have no free will.

am i right or wrong.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAR, CONGRATULATIONS HERE'S YOUR PRIZE: ENLIGHTENMENT.

No, no one has ever thought of that before. Also, just because you know something is going to fall doesn't mean the fall is predetermined. For example, if you see a loose berry on a tree and know the wind will knock it down, does that mean you predetermined to make it fall? No.

The argument, "because it must happen and therefore you can't change your mind, and if you can't change your mind you don't have free will" doesn't work. Why? Because you can "change your mind" all you want; it's just that an infallible, omniscient being knows what changes (if any) you will freely choose to make.

No, the argument works just fine precisely because you cannot change your mind all you want. If the number of times I will change my mind is set in stone before hand (by his omniscience) then I cannot change my mind more than that!

If he sees 2 changes, I cannot then at the day of the choice/event do 3!

Right- but this being can give free will and also know what will happen. Must it happen? Yes. Can this being give free will and foretell future events with 100% accuracy? I see no reason why not. The argument, "because it must happen and therefore you can't change your mind, and if you can't change your mind you don't have free will" doesn't work. Why? Because you can "change your mind" all you want; it's just that an infallible, omniscient being knows what changes (if any) you will freely choose to make.

Imagine your entire lifetime recorded as a movie. An omniscient god knows your life frame by frame. There's not a single frame of the movie that is your life, that he did not know of with certainty even before he said "let there be light". He knows every thought you will think before you even exist. Every breath you will breathe. What you will have for breakfast next Tuesday.

The future cannot be known in advance unless it is predetermined.

"But once God says this will happen, it must happen. If it must happen, you have no free will."

Poppycock! It must happen because he's always right. You can have free will and he can be clairvoyant.

He's always right because he knows what the future holds. He's not predicting or guessing. He knows with certainty.

You cannot have free will. Merely the illusion of such.


I've debated this with others and it usually just goes around in circles, so I'll just bow out of this debate now. :)

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Your lifetime isn't a movie being recorded frame by frame. There is no future or past. God knows all because it is happening as it happens. I can change my mind and God has not predetermined this. He knows whats gonna happen before I make up my own mind, because to God "right now" and "when I make up my mind" are not on some linear time-scale but are in the same process of happening as any other moment or "frame".

We are not experiencing some previously created, already recorded moment of time. There is no linear scale, there is only now.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAR, CONGRATULATIONS HERE'S YOUR PRIZE: ENLIGHTENMENT.

No, no one has ever thought of that before. Also, just because you know something is going to fall doesn't mean the fall is predetermined. For example, if you see a loose berry on a tree and know the wind will knock it down, does that mean you predetermined to make it fall? No.

DING DING DING DING DING DING. WE HAVE A RETARD.
CONGRATULATIONS HERE'S YOUR PRIZE:
FUCK ALL

your example sucks. because:
1. i am not the subject of this paradox
2. if i KNOW something is going to happen then it IS predetermined.
3. your retarded

pre⋅de⋅ter⋅mine:
–verb (used with object), -mined, -min⋅ing.
1. to settle or decide in advance
2. to ordain in advance; predestine
3. to direct or impel; influence strongly

I see omniscience as complete knowledge.

It is arguable that there is one reality in which knowledge is contained in, therefore knowledge is not derived from consciousness or acquisition of knowledge. When we discover knowledge we are discovering something that already existed but were not aware of.

For example when were born into this world we don't know what apples are but as we grow older and experience more of reality many people come to realize that apples exist and an even smaller amount of people become experts on apples.

The point is just because an individual lacks a certain knowledge does not mean the knowledge does not exist. All knowledge is always their, its just most people experience a fraction of it especially because our minds are limited.

Of course history and future are part of knowledge, but its only in the context of time. History a holistic view of any knowledge in the context of time.

I see knowledge that can be understood with the mind and the soul as different to knowledge of the body.

To put it this way: Complete knowledge is an understanding of anything that can be experienced, all of which has a context. Just like a human can maintain alot of knowledge he/she would still not know much of other peoples knowledge, ontology or actions, if a human were to maintain complete knowledge the human would be a marvelous scholar for sure; but would not be a psychic or a prophet.

But if God did know about all knowledge, actions and experiences as said previously that does not necessarily or automatically mean an interfering God hence a lack of free will.

If God loves us then God respects our decisions whether it is to be with him or without him.

The semantics on this issue seems to stem from debate against an impersonal God. That is only one denomination of theism.

Your lifetime isn't a movie being recorded frame by frame. There is no future or past. God knows all because it is happening as it happens. I can change my mind and God has not predetermined this. He knows whats gonna happen before I make up my own mind, because to God "right now" and "when I make up my mind" are not on some linear time-scale but are in the same process of happening as any other moment or "frame".

We are not experiencing some previously created, already recorded moment of time. There is no linear scale, there is only now.

If an omniscient God knows what happens 'now' but does not know what choices an individual human will make in its own subjective timeline, that God does not meet the definition of omniscient

however I do not see how the perfect illusion of free will is distinguishable from true free will in any meaningful sense

But if God did know about all knowledge, actions and experiences as said previously that does not necessarily or automatically mean an interfering God hence a lack of free will.



Wrong. He interferes the moment he "knows" what will happen. The moment he is omniscient, is the moment the future is set in stone.

If an omniscient God knows what happens 'now' but does not know what choices an individual human will make in its own subjective timeline, that God does not meet the definition of omniscient

If God knows what happens 'now', and past and future are really just illusions and all events are actually happening 'now', then why wouldn't God know what choices an individual will make during their lifetime? I did not say that.

Knowing what choices the individual will make has nothing to do with predetermining those choices for the individual. All time is 'now' to God.

however I do not see how the perfect illusion of free will is distinguishable from true free will in any meaningful sense

Free will could certainly be an illusion.

If God knows what happens 'now', and past and future are really just illusions and all events are actually happening 'now', then why wouldn't God know what choices an individual will make during their lifetime? I did not say that.

If all events are happening at a singular point, how can you make the claim that we have free will when all our actions are concurrent and fixed?

also I do believe that free will is an illusion although theological reasons do not influence this belief

An all knowing being would know all the possible outcomes of any decision and every decision you can make. You can choose what to do, but no matter what you do it is already known.

Your lifetime isn't a movie being recorded frame by frame. There is no future or past. God knows all because it is happening as it happens. I can change my mind and God has not predetermined this. He knows whats gonna happen before I make up my own mind, because to God "right now" and "when I make up my mind" are not on some linear time-scale but are in the same process of happening as any other moment or "frame".

We are not experiencing some previously created, already recorded moment of time. There is no linear scale, there is only now.

For God to be able to see all of time as a
single "moment", all of time must already exist. If it did not exist, it would not be there for Him to see. If any event (in our future) can be seen by God in His "now", such event must occur in our future.

We are confined within the limits of space-time even if God is not. We therefore are required to travel through time in a liner progression from our past to our future, with "now" being the only frame of reference that exists to us. For us, the future that is seen in God's "moment" does not exist. For our future to coincide with God's "moment", every aspect of our future must be set in stone.

Omniscience renders free will an illusion.

For God to be able to see all of time as a
single "moment", all of time must already exist. If it did not exist, it would not be there for Him to see. If any event (in our future) can be seen by God in His "now", such event must occur in our future.

We are confined within the limits of space-time even if God is not. We therefore are required to travel through time in a liner progression from our past to our future, with "now" being the only frame of reference that exists to us. For us, the future that is seen in God's "moment" does not exist. For our future to coincide with God's "moment", every aspect of our future must be set in stone.

Omniscience renders free will an illusion.

Omnipotentence renders it a reality.
I really think that omnipotence can easily render the argument completely pointless... SO I won't try to rely on it :D

I think this relates to your reply , Rust, so I'll reply to that post here.

I'm really not sure how to reply to this, so I'm basically just gonna list some shit that pops to mind.

First, even if God knows what we're are going to do, presumably we've already done it? I mean, Seriously, God knows what we do before we do it, but We are still that ones that did/do it. It is I that performs the act, even if someone knows that I am going to do it, it was my choice, regardless of whether someone knows.

Fuck it, let's try an analogy:
I am a uhh, plane scientist, I want to know how my new plane is going to fly for the first time, and so I decide to do a simulation on my computer before-hand, for the sake of the argument the simulator is 100% correct to what will happen. Now, before I have physically flown the plane, I now exactly what will happen. A few points from this:

1. The only reason I can predict anything about that plane is because the data entered into the machine was minutely precise and personal to the plane I was testing, I know what the plane is going to do before it does it, but only because that is the way that that Plane must react to the situations around it. Relating this to a person, God knows exactly what a person will do before they do it, because of the infintely precise 'measurements' that God has about that person, but this only works because as a person we act in certain ways because of the person that we are. I can know in advance that I won't pick up a raw tomato to eat, I know that this is because I am a person that hates raw tomatoes.

I think that Identity is closely, if not inextricably, linked to Free-will. Flipping a coin to decide whether I eat a tomato or not is not free will, it is random chance. As a free agent I make predertiminable choices, in this case not to eat the tomato, because of who I am. Now, God only knows the choices that I will make because he knows more more closely than anyone else and so can know my choice before I make it.

Also, seeing as God is also in this, I'm gonna bring in souls, because, fuck it, why not.

It is possible that my soul is as immortal and timeless as God, and that this timeless entity dips it's ethereal tentacles into my timeline. Let's try another analogy: My soul is a cylindrical block, time is a table with a square, triangle and circular hole in it. My soul will only ever fit into the circular holes because that is the shape of my soul, it is the nature of my soul to only enter circular holes, and to not enter square or triangular ones.

To say,'Well why can't the circular block enter the square of triangular holes!'
Can only be answeed by:
'Because if it could, it wouldn't be a cylinder.'


Either way, I don't believe that knowing what someone is gonna do before they do it in any way infringes their free-will if they make a free choice.

That said, I still don't really believe in free-will.

if i KNOW something is going to happen, then it IS predetermined


Predicted =/= Predetermined

I could say "One day America will have a war with Russia." This is not me predetermining it, this is me predicting it based on evidence to suggest that it will happen. Predetermining it would mean that I decided it would happen, and that my decision that it would happen caused it to happen.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A RETARD.

Seto x

Predicted =/= Predetermined

I could say "One day America will have a war with Russia." This is not me predetermining it, this is me predicting it based on evidence to suggest that it will happen. Predetermining it would mean that I decided it would happen, and that my decision that it would happen caused it to happen.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A RETARD.

Seto x


Wrong. There is a difference between you making a guess, however "Eduacated" that guess is, and knowing without any possible doubt in the world that something must necessarily happen. Once you know something must necessarily happen you have set that outcome in stone, and thus there is no possibility from deviation.

I mean, Seriously, God knows what we do before we do it, but We are still that ones that did/do it. It is I that performs the act, even if someone knows that I am going to do it, it was my choice, regardless of whether someone knows.


1. "God does not know events before they happen, but AS they happen." Contradicts "I mean, Seriously, God knows what we do before we do it,".

2. Are you saying that I've performed an act before I'm even born? Do you not see a problem with that?

3. After whatever god sees, I cannot change my mind. For example, if he sees "N changes of mind" when it comes the day of the choice, I cannot do N+1.



I am a uhh, plane scientist, I want to know how my new plane is going to fly for the first time, and so I decide to do a simulation on my computer before-hand, for the sake of the argument the simulator is 100% correct to what will happen. Now, before I have physically flown the plane, I now exactly what will happen. A few points from this:

1. The only reason I can predict anything about that plane is because the data entered into the machine was minutely precise and personal to the plane I was testing, I know what the plane is going to do before it does it, but only because that is the way that that Plane must react to the situations around it. Relating this to a person, God knows exactly what a person will do before they do it, because of the infintely precise 'measurements' that God has about that person, but this only works because as a person we act in certain ways because of the person that we are. I can know in advance that I won't pick up a raw tomato to eat, I know that this is because I am a person that hates raw tomatoes.


I don't see how the analogy works at all. There are no people or beings making any decisions.

We don't doubt that if you have "infinitely precise measurements" about something, that you can foretell how it will turn out. That's precisely the problem!

The infinitely accurate simulation plays out like a predetermined movie, just like the plane ride: Every frame is known before hand. No deviations exist.

Same with our life if the future is known. It plays out like a movie, every single frame is known, and no deviation is possible. Not being able to deviate from a script that exists before the events actually happen is not free will.


The other analogy regarding the soul, just doesn't make any sense. Sorry.

1. God is omniscient.
2. Since God is omniscient, God has infallible foreknowledge.
3. God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will X.
4. You must invariably X.

Doesn't matter if you talk to a psychic and she tells you what you what X is, and you decide X isn't something you want to do.

You must invariably X.

This is one of the many, many, many God questions that can be easily answered by starting with this premise:

1. God is total bullshit

You will find the above premise will save a lot of time and effort when trying to figure out the contradictory circular reasoned logical fallacies that seem to follow God around like a retarded puppy.

A lot of time.

How about this one.....

If God knew that Abraham would sacrfice his son for him, why did he put Abraham through the bullshit of it?

If God knew Adam and Eve would eat the apple, why did he even start off with a garden?

If God knew Job would still have faith in him after he fucked Job's entire life up, why did he fuck it up?

If God knows what choices I will make, where my soul will go when I die as a result, why have me play the game of life?

Why have anything or anyone here?

Why the grand and secret show?

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

These are some tough questions, but I imagine each theist will offer his own justification for it, and each justification will be like a snowflake. Different.

That is b/c they are personal justifications designed by you, on the spot to maintain your fantasy.

Again, starting with this premise:

1. God is bullshit

The answers to all these questions and more, just got a fuck of a lot simpler, and more universal (i.e. not little personal justifications and interpretations).

Predicted =/= Predetermined

I could say "One day America will have a war with Russia." This is not me predetermining it, this is me predicting it based on evidence to suggest that it will happen. Predetermining it would mean that I decided it would happen, and that my decision that it would happen caused it to happen.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A RETARD.

Seto x

read this again carefully:

pre⋅de⋅ter⋅mine:
–verb (used with object), -mined, -min⋅ing.
1. to settle or decide in advance
2. to ordain in advance; predestine
3. to direct or impel; influence strongly

you fucktard

These are some tough questions, but I imagine each theist will offer his own justification for it, and each justification will be like a snowflake. Different.

Perhaps God himself is not burdened by free will and His omniscience includes the exact and unperturbable knowledge of His own actions from now until eternity

although that would of course shift the problem from omniscience to omnipotence

For God to be able to see all of time as a
single "moment", all of time must already exist. If it did not exist, it would not be there for Him to see. If any event (in our future) can be seen by God in His "now", such event must occur in our future.

Who says it must already exist? It cannot be in a process of happening as is the present moment?

God isn't "remembering" what we are going to choose. He is experiencing it as we choose it. Experiencing all the choices I will ever make as happening 'now' has no impact on my ability to make those decisions for myself.

We are confined within the limits of space-time even if God is not. We therefore are required to travel through time in a liner progression from our past to our future, with "now" being the only frame of reference that exists to us. For us, the future that is seen in God's "moment" does not exist. For our future to coincide with God's "moment", every aspect of our future must be set in stone.

I do not see why God experiencing what choice I will make in the next five minutes affects my ability to make that choice. God is not confined to a time-line, he is not "remembering" what choice I will make, it is not set in stone. It is not set at all, as God is experiencing my decision as I am making it.

Omniscience renders free will an illusion.

If it does, I don't see why that matters.

If all events are happening at a singular point, how can you make the claim that we have free will when all our actions are concurrent and fixed?

Maybe we do not have freewill. I don't have a problem with that.

Maybe things aren't fixed but are in a process of happening, are all happening 'now'. Not some point in the past, right now. Why would that effect freewill in any way?

It's simple, really. For god (or anyone else) to know future events with certainty , said events must be predetermined. If the future is predetermined, free will is merely an illusion, and you have no choice but to do that which was predestined.

Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

Only if time is an objective dimension rather than a measurement of changing configurations in the purely material dimensions.

If there is no past nor future, but only present, then there is no conflict between omniscience and freewill; there would simply be infinite awareness of the processes of all acts of will and their unfolding consequences.

However, the conflict still persists with omnipotence and free will (which I believe to be a much more pertinent discussion of free will). Now, if a human's will is powered by the individual, rather than a deity, then there may be no omnipotence in that deity. Omnipotence, being in possession of all and infinite power, is contradictory to the notion of sharing power with another. There is a resolution to this though, held within omnipotence itself: If a being is in possession of all and infinite power, then it would surely be able to relinquish a quantity of power to what it pleases, while still maintaining infinite power, as a removal of some portion of the infinite does not diminish the infinite. Think of it like this: Taking an apple from an inexhaustible basket of apples.

This gives rise to a hypothetical question though: In the situation of power sharing between human and divine will which one is given preeminence in the case of conflicting wills? Could the deity withdraw its omnipotence to give the limited will its decision, or would the infinite power always win out? (I think this is the final and most important question regarding predetermination in regards to human will and an omniscient and omnipotent entity)

Of course though, all of this is ultimately moot by this: If a deity is indeed omnipotent, it could be omniscient and all powerful without interfering with free will as it would be unbound by all form of limitation, including that of paradox and contradiction. I hope you do put some thought into what I've typed though. :)

This gives rise to a hypothetical question though: In the situation of power sharing between human and divine will which one is given preeminence in the case of conflicting wills? Could the deity withdraw its omnipotence to give the limited will its decision, or would the infinite power always win out? (I think this is the final and most important question regarding predetermination in regards to human will and an omniscient and omnipotent entity)

If we have free will, it doesn't appear to be completely free. I appear to be limited by things like gravity, or requiring a specific environment to live. Death itself is something many try to will out of their lives, but appears to be unavoidable. It seems the infinite has greater power then the finite.

paradox and contradiction

Those are only holes in the finite veil of logical order which is draped over the observer of the illogical chaotic infinite.

I think there's a misunderstanding of what free will is amongst the athiest heathen and religously misguided alike:

Free will is merely the ability to choose one's own actions. To be able to choose an action something by definition implies that you have a choice of action which means there must be more than one option.

In the context of organic decay and progression of time, you simply have no other option besides death, therefore you cannot choose not to die, because there is no choice.

God doesn't make choices for you, therefore you have free will. That said, he does know what choice you're going to make, but that's neither here nor there. Keep in mind too, that you can choose to carry out an action can and still fail it.

I'm glad I could enlighten you all.

God Bless,

Doctor Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

2. if i KNOW something is going to happen then it IS predetermined.
1. to settle or decide in advance
2. to ordain in advance; predestine
3. to direct or impel; influence strongly

Okay, you are actually retarded. Just because you know something is going to happen, doesn't mean that you have predetermined it. You know that Autumn follows Summer, right?Did YOU settle this in advance? Did YOU directly influence/impell this? NO, hence you did not predetermine this.
Kthx

Free will is merely the ability to choose one's own actions. To be able to choose an action something by definition implies that you have a choice of action which means there must be more than one option.

Which is precisely why there is no free will once the future is known before hand.

I do not have more choices. There are only those actions that have been known before hand. None others.

You merely glossed over all the arguments in the thread and then claimed you've "enlightened" us...

Which is precisely why there is no free will once the future is known before hand.

You are limiting God to a time-line.

God isn't "remembering" what I am going to choose, he experiences it as I make the decision. How does experiencing my decision hamper my ability to decide for myself?

I'm not limiting god to a timeline. God can be timeless and my point would be made. The only thing that matters is that I can say, in my timeline, that my future is known. If it is, then it's set in stone.

Not that this matters because you are a complete fucking moron that doesn't believe in reason thus making any argument with you utterly pointless. Stop wasting bandwith.

You are limiting God to a time-line.

God isn't "remembering" what I am going to choose, he experiences it as I make the decision. How does experiencing my decision hamper my ability to decide for myself?

Your mistake is thinking that you can even begin to comprehend how God, a supposedly eternal entity, functions and exists.

I should point out I'm an Atheist, but i'm going to argue as if I believe, for make easy understanding in speeches mine.

I'm not limiting god to a timeline. God can be timeless and my point would be made. The only thing that matters is that I can say, in my timeline, that my future is known. If it is, then it's set in stone.

Unless there is no past or future, all events are actually occurring 'now', and you are making all your decisions for yourself. Nothing is predetermined because there is no time.

Not that this matters because you are a complete fucking moron that doesn't believe in reason thus making any argument with you utterly pointless. Stop wasting bandwith.

Not that it matters, but I believe in reason. I just believe reasons are created to order the chaos, and are really meaningless. Stop addressing your personal dissent of my beliefs in this thread, which is off-topic. Bring that up in one of my many own threads if you wish.

Your mistake is thinking that you can even begin to comprehend how God, a supposedly eternal entity, functions and exists.

I don't think I can, but I see no problem in pretending I can when other posters are pretending they can comprehend how a supposedly eternal entity can be defeated by logical paradoxes and contradictions.

I don't think I can, but I see no problem in pretending I can when other posters are pretending they can comprehend how a supposedly eternal entity can be defeated by logical paradoxes and contradictions.


Good point. That comment wasn't particularly aimed at you by the way, I don't even know why I quoted you.

Unless there is no past or future, all events are actually occurring 'now', and you are making all your decisions for yourself. Nothing is predetermined because there is no time.

So essentially your argument is:

"You would be wrong, if ... you were wrong"? Because that's what "If there was no past or future and you were really making all your decisions for yourself" entails... No shit Sherlock; if you have anything indicating that's the case then please present it, until then...

Thought processes aren't instant, therefore the very idea of "making a choice" implies that I am able to process information and then make a decision. It assumes the existence of future events (i.e. A before B, where A is the processing of information and B the alleged choice").

Also, I'm glad we agree you were wrong in claiming I was limiting god.

Not that it matters, but I believe in reason. I just believe reasons are created to order the chaos, and are really meaningless. Stop addressing your personal dissent of my beliefs in this thread, which is off-topic. Bring that up in one of my many own threads if you wish.Your beliefs are relevant in that it is very important to point out how fruitful debate with someone who doesn't believe in any objective form of reason is impossible.

Stop telling me where to bring this up.

Thought processes aren't instant, therefore the very idea of "making a choice" implies that I am able to process information and then make a decision. It assumes the existence of future events (i.e. A before B, where A is the processing of information and B the alleged choice").

The past and the future are invented to bring order to the chaos. Does the past really exist anywhere? Does the future?

If all events are occurring 'now', that is, every A and every B are all happening 'now', how does this hamper the individuals ability to both A and B?

Your beliefs are relevant in that it is very important to point out how fruitful debate with someone who doesn't believe in any objective form of reason is impossible.

I don't think that's important. :)

You're under the mistaken impression that your opinions are important here. They aren't. What you think (i.e. "the past and future are invented") is utterly inconsequential.

Even if you could prove that bullshit, which you cannot, I'm not speaking with people that agree with you, but agree with me in the existence of the past and the future.

Now, in order not to derail the thread any longer with your inanity, I won't be replying to your ignorance in this thread any longer. Congratulations

You're under the mistaken impression that your opinions are important here. They aren't. What you think (i.e. "the past and future are invented") is utterly inconsequential.

I don't think my opinions are important, please, don't project your own imagined importance on my character; do you think anyone gives a shit what gets said in those long, drawn out conversations? Do you think people appreciate having their reasoning debated?

Even if you could prove that bullshit, which you cannot, I'm not speaking with people that agree with you, but agree with me in the existence of the past and the future.

Why does that matter? You are also speaking with people believe in God, which you disagree with; you are critiquing something you don't think exists!

Your opinion matters no more then mine.

Now, in order not to derail the thread any longer with your inanity, I won't be replying to your ignorance in this thread any longer. Congratulations

Good. :)

You know that Autumn follows Summer, right?Did YOU settle this in advance? Did YOU directly influence/impell this? NO, hence you did not predetermine this.
Kthx

alright, i'll spell it out for you.
no i do not directly influence/impel the turning of the seasons. nor have i ever claimed to be able to do so.

the point you are missing is that, as a human, i predetermine things through the use of logic and comparison with past experience. e.g. i can determine that the sun will rise tomorrow morning because it has done so, every day, as far back as i can remember. logically it will do so again tomorrow as i can find no reasons as to why it shouldn't. therefore i have predetermined the rise of the sun tomorrow.

1. to settle or decide in advance

now god, as an allllll powerful and allllllll knowing supreme being does not use logic or past experiences. BECAUSE HE ALL READY FUCKING KNOWS EVERYTHING. when god predetermines something there is no possibility of it being wrong because he is infallible.

2. to ordain in advance; predestine

do you get it yet?

the point you are missing is that, as a human, i predetermine things through the use of logic and comparison with past experience. e.g. i can determine that the sun will rise tomorrow morning because it has done so, every day, as far back as i can remember. logically it will do so again tomorrow as i can find no reasons as to why it shouldn't. therefore i have predetermined the rise of the sun tomorrow.



While I agree that omniscience precludes free will, you are incorrect in that claim of yours.

That is the problem of induction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction


You have not "predetermined" that the sun will rise tomorrow, nor can you prove it through the use of logic (logic here not meaning "something that I'm convinced of", or "something that make sense to me", but the actual rules of inference in propositional logic, symbolic logic, etc.).

I think there's a misunderstanding of what free will is amongst the athiest heathen and religously misguided alike:

Orly?

Free will is merely the ability to choose one's own actions. To be able to choose an action something by definition implies that you have a choice of action which means there must be more than one option.

yes that is how i understand it. where's the misunderstanding?

In the context of organic decay and progression of time, you simply have no other option besides death, therefore you cannot choose not to die, because there is no choice.

completely irrelevant.

God doesn't make choices for you, therefore you have free will. That said, he does know what choice you're going to make, but that's neither here nor there. Keep in mind too, that you can choose to carry out an action and can still fail it.

in other words, don't think about the stuff that doesn't make sense.

I'm glad I could enlighten you all.

have you now? all you did was call me a heathen, reiterate what i already know and then tell me never mind about this logical flaw.

While I agree that omniscience precludes free will, you are incorrect in that claim of yours.

That is the problem of induction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction


You have not "predetermined" that the sun will rise tomorrow, nor can you prove it through the use of logic (logic here not meaning "something that I'm convinced of", or "something that make sense to me", but the actual rules of inference in propositional logic, symbolic logic, etc.).

so i've misused the word 'logic' have i?

how have i not predetermined that the sun will rise tomorrow?

so i've misused the word 'logic' have i?

It seems that way, yes.

Much like people misuse the word "theory" to mean "guess", "logical" sometimes is used to mean "something that seems right", not something that is shown by the rules of inference.


how have i not predetermined that the sun will rise tomorrow?

You? No. You don't have knowledge of the sun coming up tomorrow, you have an educated guess. The sun, however, could explode and not rise tomorrow. You cannot remove that possibility, however remote it may be.

On the other hand, an omniscient being can remove all doubt because he, supposedly, has knowledge of the event. He already "saw" it so to speak. You haven't.

It's simple, really. For god (or anyone else) to know future events with certainty , said events must be predetermined. If the future is predetermined, free will is merely an illusion, and you have no choice but to do that which was predestined.

Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.


Really? well then scientifically speaking that's a horribly flawed theory you got there! Why? See theres this thing called time travel which theoreticaly speaking is very possible even though doubtful we'll ever do it. And if Man was to ever stumble upon the secret or know how to do such a thing and traveled into the future two thousand years then that would mean for the next two thousand years Man would be stripped of their freewill. In fact for time travel to be plausible the future would already have to exist and guess what it does(not sure the science about that) then there has never been such a thing as freewill!

Im not sure if your arguement is what the real whole point of why "if something is omni-scient then there cant be freewill" is or not, but if it is then that arguement just got blown away, and that would be yet another of Dawkin's arguements that is logicaly off! (i could be wrong about that being Dawkins but i could have sworn Dawkins has used that one before)

^ Talk about logically off... you didn't refute anything!

You just said that if man traveled back in times, it would also mean there was no free will... Great. That's not a refutation, that's an example of a similar case happening.

Of course, that ignores that man doesn't have infallible knowledge like a god would, thus the future could still be fuzzy.

Really? well then scientifically speaking that's a horribly flawed theory you got there! Why? See theres this thing called time travel which theoreticaly speaking is very possible even though doubtful we'll ever do it. And if Man was to ever stumble upon the secret or know how to do such a thing and traveled into the future two thousand years then that would mean for the next two thousand years Man would be stripped of their freewill. In fact for time travel to be plausible the future would already have to exist and guess what it does(not sure the science about that) then there has never been such a thing as freewill!

How exactly does any point of your rant refute what I said? If you actually read this thread you would know that I have already made the point that for it to be possible to see/visit the future, the future must already exist. If the future already exists, all of your future actions are set in stone and are predetermined.

If the future can be known with certainty, free will can be no more than an illusion. Again, omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

for it to be possible to see/visit the future, the future must already exist. If the future already exists, all of your future actions are set in stone and are predetermined.

If the future can be known with certainty, free will can be no more than an illusion. Again, omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

Very succinct! Thanks truckfxr:)

for it to be possible to see/visit the future, the future must already exist. If the future already exists, all of your future actions are set in stone and are predetermined.

If the future can be known with certainty, free will can be no more than an illusion. Again, omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

Very succinct! Thanks truckfxr:)