Babadeen:






Just give up, you have been nailed harder than Jesus on this thread.

Yeah, you'd like me to give up, wouldn't you? Sorry to disappoint you but Resurrection runs in my family. Our firstborn wouldn't even stay dead when he got killed.

Ihedinobi:

Yeah, you'd like me to give up, wouldn't you? Sorry to disappoint you but Resurrection runs in my family. Our firstborn wouldn't even stay dead when he got killed.

That was dry.

Ihedinobi: @wiegraf, are you perhaps better equipped to explain how omniscience negates free will? I'm still failing to see it. I've heard that assertion so much that it's giving me headaches. Do you have some kind of clear, coherent argument to back it up?

Probably no, as my post above is about arguably as simply as I can put it I think. I'll still try though, just to please my ego

Do you believe freewill can exist in a determined universe? One where the laws of physics are exact, with no possibility of probabilities at all? Everything (and absolutely everything, including say your actions) being mechanical, calculated, following exact laws, being predictable?

Perhaps try something else, like the often used (and I'm sure you're tired of seeing it) computer programmer and his program. Patience, just think about it carefully and you'll probably see what we're trying to say.

Assuming the programmer could write ai into his program that has genuine freewill (which is in theory unpredictable, it implies something from nothing, but let's sort of ignore that for now), depending on how he writes the program he may still be capable of calculating all the possible choices his ai will take, true. However, if he can determine the exact sequence of events with 100% certainty for any given point in time in the future, this of course includes choices the ai will take, its thoughts etc, then the ai ultimately has no choice in the matter. It might seem to the ai that it has a choice, but it doesn't, as no matter what it tries to do it cannot affect the sequence of events the programmer has predicted will take place. If it deviates from said path using its freewill, then the programmer didn't know the choice it was going to take. He only knew the possible choices, not the what the actual choice would be, thereby voiding his omniscience.

Whether the ai consciously made the choice with its 'freewill' or not is irrelevant, whether the programmer directly manipulates conditions is more or else irrelevant as well. The fact that the ai cannot make any choice other then the predicted one when the time comes is all that is needed to void its freewill.

Water splashing for instance may look unpredictable, but in actuality every single movement it makes is determined. The water cannot splash in any other way then the way the laws of physics predict (here we ignore quantum mechanics abeg). The water example may not be appropriate you might say, as water doesn't have freewill, but that's more or else the point. Even allowing for freewill it must splash the way the laws of physics dictate, else the laws are wrong (or at least not 100% accurate). In the case of our omniscient programmer, the ai must act according to the programmers predictions else the programmer is wrong, voiding his omniscience. To maintain his omniscience the ai must mechanically go through the predicted motions, its path already determined.

There's the issue of the omniscient's freewill as well, and how it will effect the universe it creates, but that's another story in a sense.

In simpler words.

God knows all the possible outcomes/paths a chess game will take?

Does HE know exactly how the game will turn out? If he does, then he's omniscient.

The moment he knows exactly what path a game will take, it's no longer a probability, but now a fixed path.

In essence, once the game starts, you start moving according to what God has already known.

FREEWILL, then becomes an illusion to the player.

Brah wiegraf, hope I transcribed right

musKeeto: In simpler words.

God knows all the possible outcomes/paths a chess game will take?

Does HE know exactly how the game will turn out? If he does, then he's omniscient.

The moment he knows exactly what path a game will take, it's no longer a probability, but now a fixed path.

In essence, once the game starts, you start moving according to what God has already known.

FREEWILL, then becomes an illusion to the player.

Brah wiegraf, hope I transcribed right

Ehn, it's not as pompous and conceited as it could be. In fact, it's downright lucid. Is that how it was supposed to be?

wiegraf:

Probably no, as my post above is about arguably as simply as I can put it I think. I'll still try though, just to please my ego

Do you believe freewill can exist in a determined universe? One where the laws of physics are exact, with no possibility of probabilities at all? Everything (and absolutely everything, including say your actions) being mechanical, calculated, following exact laws, being predictable?

Free will cannot exist where every outcome is predetermined. Whether I believe that or no, it is true. However, I believe it.

Perhaps try something else, like the often used (and I'm sure you're tired of seeing it) computer programmer and his program. Patience, just think about it carefully and you'll probably see what we're trying to say.

Assuming the programmer could write ai into his program that has genuine freewill (which is in theory unpredictable, it implies something from nothing, but let's sort of ignore that for now), depending on how he writes the program he may still be capable of calculating all the possible choices his ai will take, true. However, if he can determine the exact sequence of events with 100% certainty for any given point in time in the future, this of course includes choices the ai will take, its thoughts etc, then the ai ultimately has no choice in the matter. It might seem to the ai that it has a choice, but it doesn't, as no matter what it tries to do it cannot affect the sequence of events the programmer has predicted will take place. If it deviates from said path using its freewill, then the programmer didn't know the choice it was going to take. He only knew the possible choices, not the what the actual choice would be, thereby voiding his omniscience.

When you said 'determine with certainty', you meant 'know perfectly by accurate calculations', didn't you?

Whether the ai consciously made the choice with its 'freewill' or not is irrelevant, whether the programmer directly manipulates conditions is more or else irrelevant as well. The fact that the ai cannot make any choice other then the predicted one when the time comes is all that is needed to void its freewill.

Perhaps when you answer my question above, I'll understand better, but right now, I confess that I still don't see how an omniscient's comprehension and perfect knowledge of its creation results in the loss of the creature's free will.

Water splashing for instance may look unpredictable, but in actuality every single movement it makes is determined. The water cannot splash in any other way then the way the laws of physics predict (here we ignore quantum mechanics abeg). The water example may not be appropriate you might say, as water doesn't have freewill, but that's more or else the point. Even allowing for freewill it must splash the way the laws of physics dictate, else the laws are wrong (or at least not 100% accurate). In the case of our omniscient programmer, the ai must act according to the programmers predictions else the programmer is wrong, voiding his omniscience. To maintain his omniscience the ai must mechanically go through the predicted motions, its path already determined.

There's the issue of the omniscient's freewill as well, and how it will effect the universe it creates, but that's another story in a sense.

You speak of the laws of physics as though they were commandments written on a tablet somewhere or a bundle of rules bound in a constitution. Do you think that that is what they are? Do you think that water would be water if it splashed like mercury? Do you think this earth would be an earth if we walked on clouds and rain fell from overhanging rocks? Or the sun would be a sun if it blew refreshing breezes scented with flowers instead of blazing like a furnace?

As for the AI, I'm still asking how the fact that the programmer has perfect knowledge of what its choice will be prevents it from making another choice. You appear to be saying that somehow the AI is obliged to maintain the programmer's omniscience, why is this? What obligates the AI to maintian the programmer's omniscience? And who could the programmer be trying to impress with his omniscience by rigging his AI to follow a path he has predicted? Or how does his perfect knowledge of the AI result in the AI choosing as he knows it will?

Ihedinobi:

Free will cannot exist where every outcome is predetermined. Whether I believe that or no, it is true. However, I believe it. Exhibit A






Perhaps when you answer my question above, I'll understand better, but right now, I confess that I still don't see how an omniscient's comprehension and perfect knowledge of its creation results in the loss of the creature's free will. Exhibit B

Why bother with this arrogant blockhead? This guy makes Exhibit A and then makes Exhibit B!


Does Exhibit A not answer the question in Exhibit B?


Either this guy is in epic denial (A delusion of grandeur that he cant be wrong) or he is really dumb

Logicboy03:



Why bother with this arrogant blockhead? This guy makes Exhibit A and then makes Exhibit B!


Does Exhibit A not answer the question in Exhibit B?


Either this guy is in epic denial (A delusion of grandeur that he cant be wrong) or he is really dumb

Lol. Empty barrel.

Ihedinobi:

Free will cannot exist where every outcome is predetermined. Whether I believe that or no, it is true. However, I believe it.



When you said 'determine with certainty', you meant 'know perfectly by accurate calculations', didn't you?



Perhaps when you answer my question above, I'll understand better, but right now, I confess that I still don't see how an omniscient's comprehension and perfect knowledge of its creation results in the loss of the creature's free will.



You speak of the laws of physics as though they were commandments written on a tablet somewhere or a bundle of rules bound in a constitution. Do you think that that is what they are? Do you think that water would be water if it splashed like mercury? Do you think this earth would be an earth if we walked on clouds and rain fell from overhanging rocks? Or the sun would be a sun if it blew refreshing breezes scented with flowers instead of blazing like a furnace?

As for the AI, I'm still asking how the fact that the programmer has perfect knowledge of what its choice will be prevents it from making another choice. You appear to be saying that somehow the AI is obliged to maintain the programmer's omniscience, why is this? What obligates the AI to maintian the programmer's omniscience? And who could the programmer be trying to impress with his omniscience by rigging his AI to follow a path he has predicted? Or how does his perfect knowledge of the AI result in the AI choosing as he knows it will?

The ai cannot but oblige the programmer, wittingly or no matters not, whether the programmer wants it to or not. If he doesn't the programmer is wrong. You can't have a wrong omniscient being, can you? The programmer is not trying to impress anyone in this case (I hope), he does not even have to manipulate the program/ai in any way at all, in fact he need not have the ability to influence the programmers actions at all. If he's omniscient, it means he knows everything. Simple. If he's wrong about what the AI will actually do, then he obviously isn't omniscient.

AI may be sitting around now, thinking he might as well speak some sense into those damned atheists. Should he, or should he not? Using his freewill he decides why the hell not? Then proceeds to get his a$$ handed to him. Well, assuming the programmer was omniscient, the AI had no choice but to make the decisions exactly as foretold by the programmer, regardless of either of their wishes. Else, again, the programmer isn't omniscient. He must go through with the charade.

Your definition of omniscience/freewill probably aren't the default.

And the water example is meant to highlight that in a determined universe you are more or else a machine, regardless of how it may seem to you. You have no freewill, you are just going through the motions, like water splashing.

Ihedinobi:

Lol. Empty barrel.

Oooh, though he might have caught it. Once an omniscient exists in a universe, a completely infallible one, that universe is determined.

wiegraf:

The ai cannot but oblige the programmer, wittingly or no matters not, whether the programmer wants it to or not. If he doesn't the programmer is wrong. You can't have a wrong omniscient being, can you? The programmer is not trying to impress anyone in this case (I hope), he does not even have to manipulate the program/ai in any way at all, in fact he need not have the ability to influence the programmers actions at all. If he's omniscient, it means he knows everything. Simple. If he's wrong about what the AI will actually do, then he obviously isn't omniscient.

AI may be sitting around now, thinking he might as well speak some sense into those damned atheists. Should he, or should he not? Using his freewill he decides why the hell not? Then proceeds to get his a$$ handed to him. Well, assuming the programmer was omniscient, the AI had no choice but to make the decisions exactly as foretold by the programmer, regardless of either of their wishes. Else, again, the programmer isn't omniscient. He must go through with the charade.

Are you saying, in other words, that, for instance, I being the product of an omniscient have a choice, not between one ice cream flavor and another, but between what the omniscient knows that I will choose and what it doesn't know that I will choose? That the real choice I'm faced with is between knowledge the omniscient possesses and knowledge it does not?

Your definition of omniscience/freewill probably aren't the default.

I confess I don't understand.

And the water example is meant to highlight that in a determined universe you are more or else a machine, regardless of how it may seem to you. You have no freewill, you are just going through the motions, like water splashing.

You are free to make this assertion. My problem is that it is not enough to make an assertion, you must also provide clear arguments to back up the assertions. My request was that you show me the mechanics for how foreknowledge turns into predestination. That is what I am failing to see.

wiegraf:

Oooh, though he might have caught it. Once an omniscient exists in a universe, a completely infallible one, that universe is determined.

The question is how. I already gave logicboy an opportunity to explain it and he bungled it quite handsomely, I figured you could do a better job. Again, you are free to say that the existence of an omniscient renders the future of any universe it creates determined and I'm free to ask how and refuse to accept the answer, "because if the universe could deviate from what the omniscient knows, the omniscient would not be omniscient", on the ground that it is a circular argument. I eould like to see what it is that turns foreknowledge into predestination. Telling me that if B does not result then A was not true is not good enogh for explaining how given, B results. That just doesn't cut it.

Ihedinobi:

The question is how. I already gave logicboy an opportunity to explain it and he bungled it quite handsomely, I figured you could do a better job. Again, you are free to say that the existence of an omniscient renders the future of any universe it creates determined and I'm free to ask how and refuse to accept the answer, "because if the universe could deviate from what the omniscient knows, the omniscient would not be omniscient", on the ground that it is a circular argument. I eould like to see what it is that turns foreknowledge into predestination. Telling me that if B does not result then A was not true is not good enogh for explaining how given, B results. That just doesn't cut it.

Ihedinobi:

I'm free to ask how and refuse to accept the answer, [size=18pt]"because if the universe could deviate from what the omniscient knows, the omniscient would not be omniscient", on the ground that it is a circular argument[/size].

Ihedinobi: [size=18pt]"because if the universe could deviate from what the omniscient knows, the omniscient would not be omniscient", on the ground that it is a circular argument[/size]

See how my guy shoots himself with denial and foolishness? He doesnt even know what a circular argument is- he has just deemed a proper argument to be circular



a) An Omniscient being must know everything including what will happen
b) then, Future events will happen according to what has been seen and is known by the omnipotent being
Therefore


c) therefore, the future can not deviate from what the omniscient being has seen unless the being is no longer omniscient
d) therefore, a person can not change his future outside what the omnisicent being has seen

Logicboy03:









See how my guy shoots himself with denial and foolishness? He doesnt even know what a circular argument is- he has just deemed a proper argument to be circular



a) An Omniscient being must know everything including what will happen
b) then, Future events will happen according to what has been seen and is known by the omnipotent being
Therefore


c) therefore, the future can not deviate from what the omniscient being has seen unless the being is no longer omniscient
d) therefore, a person can not change his future outside what the omnisicent being has seen

My friend, we are not in disagreement that an omniscient has definite knowledge of the future or that to it the future is not variable. What you havr asserted is that because it holds perfect knowledge of the future, the future is invariable to the human person. I have only asked you how this is so. And your answer has constitently been that if it were not, the omniscient would no longer be omniscient. This is circular because it is an argument that flowss thus:

1. If A
2. then B

because

3. If not B
4. then not A.

It circles back to a given premise and varies it to accommodate itself. A is the fixed condition, B is the result you're arguing for. You cannot argue for B by going back to A. Thus if you hold that the existence of an omniscient takes away free will, you cannot explain your position by saying that free will takes away omniscience. You havr only repeated your assertion in other words.

The question you are to answer is, "how does omniscience take away free will?" Or, in other words, "what are the mechanics for the transformation of foreknowledge into predestination?"

In short, how does God's knowing that I'll choose a vanilla ice cream instead of a strawberry and a chocolate prevent me from picking, say, the chocolate? And if you answer again that I can't because God would then cease to be omniscient, you'll still have to tell me what the relationship is between my power of choice and God's omniscience and whether or not my choice is among ice cream flavors or between God's knowledge and His ignorance.

If there is only one possible future then how does one have a choice?

Ihedinobi:
And if you answer again that I can't because God would then cease to be omniscient, you'll still have to tell me what the relationship is between my power of choice and God's omniscience and whether or not my choice is among ice cream flavors or between God's knowledge and His ignorance.

Your power of choice would not be genuine as it has already been determined.

Some of you for instance claim you cannot defy your god, all is his will. Is that the view you hold?

Ihedinobi:

My friend, we are not in disagreement that an omniscient has definite knowledge of the future or that to it the future is not variable. What you havr asserted is that because it holds perfect knowledge of the future, the future is invariable to the human person. I have only asked you how this is so. And your answer has constitently been that if it were not, the omniscient would no longer be omniscient. This is circular because it is an argument that flowss thus:

1. If A
2. then B

because

3. If not B
4. then not A.

It circles back to a given premise and varies it to accommodate itself. A is the fixed condition, B is the result you're arguing for. You cannot argue for B by going back to A. Thus if you hold that the existence of an omniscient takes away free will, you cannot explain your position by saying that free will takes away omniscience. You havr only repeated your assertion in other words.

The question you are to answer is, "how does omniscience take away free will?" Or, in other words, "what are the mechanics for the transformation of foreknowledge into predestination?"

In short, how does God's knowing that I'll choose a vanilla ice cream instead of a strawberry and a chocolate prevent me from picking, say, the chocolate? And if you answer again that I can't because God would then cease to be omniscient, you'll still have to tell me what the relationship is between my power of choice and God's omniscience and whether or not my choice is among ice cream flavors or between God's knowledge and His ignorance.

Even great philosophers have noted this problem of freewill and omnipotence and the contradiction.


Keep fooling yourself
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

wiegraf: If there is only one possible future then how does one have a choice?

I believe you're just having a laugh, wiegraf. Why do you think there is only one possible future?

wiegraf:

Your power of choice would not be genuine as it has already been determined.

Some of you for instance claim you cannot defy your god, all is his will. Is that the view you hold?

Who/what determined it? And how?

What does my view have to do with your explanation of your assertion, wiegraf? Will my telling it help you explain your assertion any better?

Logicboy03:



Even great philosophers have noted this problem of freewill and omnipotence and the contradiction.


Keep fooling yourself
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

What else is new? Whenever logicboy gets stuck, he resorts to empty retorts. Have I implied that it is no major philosophical argument? Are you not the one who treats it like a simple issue that any fool can answer? That is not to say, of course, that its being a major philosophical debate matters so much to me or intimidates me in any way as it does you apparently.

Ihedinobi:

I believe you're just having a laugh, wiegraf. Why do you think there is only one possible future?

For the obvious reason. If there's only one possible outcome that can take place, one predicted by an infallible omniscient, then there's only one possible future.

If you believe in hypothetical other futures that's maybe cool, but they will not take place, no matter whatever anyone (including the omniscient) wills. Thus there's only one possible future, ultimately no real choice. You and the omniscient have no say in the matter, that future must take place.

Ihedinobi:
Who/what determined it? And how?

Doesn't matter who determined. Doesn't matter how even (in this case). All that matters is that there's only one possible outcome. Events MUST play out as predicted.

Ihedinobi:
What does my view have to do with your explanation of your assertion, wiegraf? Will my telling it help you explain your assertion any better?

Yes

wiegraf:

For the obvious reason. If there's only one possible outcome that can take place, one predicted by an infallible omniscient, then there's only one possible future.

If you believe in hypothetical other futures that's maybe cool, but they will not take place, no matter whatever anyone (including the omniscient) wills. Thus there's only one possible future, ultimately no real choice. You and the omniscient have no say in the matter, that future must take place.

No question about the fact that the future must take place but what makes only one future possible and not others?

Also, you still haven't shown me how the omniscient's knowledge fixes the future. Are you insisting that I believe with blind faith that an omniscient's knowledge of the future fixes it?

Doesn't matter who determined. Doesn't matter how even (in this case). All that matters is that there's only one possible outcome. Events MUST play out as predicted.

How is there only one possible outcome? Why must events play out as predicted? Or, do you want me to believe by blind faith that there is and they do?

Yes

How?

Ihedinobi:

No question about the fact that the future must take place but what makes only one future possible and not others?

Also, you still haven't shown me how the omniscient's knowledge fixes the future. Are you insisting that I believe with blind faith that an omniscient's knowledge of the future fixes it?



How is there only one possible outcome? Why must events play out as predicted? Or, do you want me to believe by blind faith that there is and they do?

For the bolded, no. It's simple logic. This is a 1 + 1 = 2.

Infallible omniscient cannot be wrong, therefore the future it predicts must come to pass. If it doesn't, then it was wrong, therefore it was not an infallible omniscient. Simple.

And the omniscient's knowledge doesn't fix the future, the future simply has to be fixed regardless of its desires. If the future isn't fixed then there's no way it can be omniscient. Or do you want the omniscient to make guesses?

Ihedinobi:
How?

Never mind.

Ihedinobi:






What else is new? Whenever logicboy gets stuck, he resorts to empty retorts. Have I implied that it is no major philosophical argument? Are you not the one who treats it like a simple issue that any fool can answer? That is not to say, of course, that its being a major philosophical debate matters so much to me or intimidates me in any way as it does you apparently.

lol....did you feel foolish that you didnt realise a simple contradiction? Religion does that to people

Philosophy is the tool for any thinking man!

wiegraf:

For the bolded, no. It's simple logic. This is a 1 + 1 = 2.

Infallible omniscient cannot be wrong, therefore the future it predicts must come to pass. If it doesn't, then it was wrong, therefore it was not an infallible omniscient. Simple.

And the omniscient's knowledge doesn't fix the future, the future simply has to be fixed regardless of its desires. If the future isn't fixed then there's no way it can be omniscient. Or do you want the omniscient to make guesses?



Never mind.

Is it safe then to say that you've got no arguments for your assertion that God's omniscience voids free will?

Logicboy03:



lol....did you feel foolish that you didnt realise a simple contradiction? Religion does that to people

Philosophy is the tool for any thinking man!

A colossal waste of time as always, illogicboy

Ihedinobi:

Is it safe then to say that you've got no arguments for your assertion that God's omniscience voids free will?

^^^^
Denial. The same denial over 4 pages.....6 more pages and you will beat the anti-evolutionist record of 9 pages

Ihedinobi:

Is it safe then to say that you've got no arguments for your assertion that God's omniscience voids free will?

Heheh, no, the opposite. It's safe to say you have no arguments for your assertion that omniscience does not void freewill. Look around, it's a simple contradiction that you perhaps cannot see but is glaringly obvious. That's why generally discussions on this issue aren't based around the existence of the problem (unlike what we're doing now), they're based around how it can be resolved (eg the molinist position presented earlier, which is fairly good, at least a decent attempt but ultimately full of holes as well imo). The only possible way is to redefine terms. Using the terms in their default form the assertion simply does not hold, it's egregiously illogical. It's like saying 1 = 2.

If you assert god is omniscient and infallible, you have just asserted that this universe is determined as well, not me. I wouldn't be the one making that claim here, you would be. Omniscience cannot exist without determinism. The universe has to be determined else there's no way the omniscient could know the future, simple. Or perhaps you can show how one can determine the future in a universe that isn't....determined

There would be only one possible path in such a universe and you wouldn't have a say on proceedings. No one will actually, even god, thus we'd all lack free will.

You cannot have both existing in the same universe, they are mutually exclusive. Omniscience or freewill, it must be one or the other.

Logicboy03:

^^^^
Denial. The same denial over 4 pages.....6 more pages and you will beat the anti-evolutionist record of 9 pages

You can go wawawawawa all you want, boy, iy won't change the fact that y'all have zero arguments for your supposition.

Ihedinobi:

You can go wawawawawa all you want, boy, iy won't change the fact that y'all have zero arguments for your supposition.

lol...so the great philsophers also had no arguments as well

Wiegraf, this here's an interesting response.

wiegraf:

Heheh, no, the opposite. It's safe to say you have no arguments for your assertion that omniscience does not void freewill.

My assertion, wiegraf? Do you mind quoting the post in which I made this assertion?

Look around, it's a simple contradiction that you perhaps cannot see but is glaringly obvious.

It is?

That's why generally discussions on this issue aren't based around the existence of the problem (unlike what we're doing now), they're based around how it can be resolved (eg the molinist position presented earlier, which is fairly good, at least a decent attempt but ultimately full of holes as well imo). The only possible way is to redefine terms. Using the terms in their default form the assertion simply does not hold, it's egregiously illogical. It's like saying 1 = 2.

This sounds like an awfully poor attempt at waving away questions you can't answer, wiegraf. I opened this discussion with a question asking whether you had better arguments for the assertion that omniscience voids free will. You accepted the challenge is, so why are you now talking about resolving a problem you have not convinced me exists appealing to convention? Especially after you have expended effort on legitimizing the problem. It looks an awful lot like you're admitting both a failure at producing solid argument for your assertion and an inability to produce any. Is that what you're doing?

If you assert god is omniscient and infallible, you have just asserted that this universe is determined as well, not me. I wouldn't be the one making that claim here, you would be.

And, pray tell, where have I made this assertion/claim?

Omniscience cannot exist without determinism.

Yes, this is your claim. This is what you are meant to explain.

The universe has to be determined else there's no way the omniscient could know the future, simple. Or perhaps you can show how one can determine the future in a universe that isn't....determined

There would be only one possible path in such a universe and you wouldn't have a say on proceedings. No one will actually, even god, thus we'd all lack free will.

You cannot have both existing in the same universe, they are mutually exclusive. Omniscience or freewill, it must be one or the other.

This still fails very woefully to justify your assertion, wiegraf. In fact, it is not an explanation at all, it's just a reiteration of your assertion.

If you want, I could rephrase the question thus: how are free will and omniscience mutually exclusive? Or, how does omniscience prevent me from picking chocolate instead of vanilla?

Logicboy03:



lol...so the great philsophers also had no arguments as well

#ignored

wiegraf: Or perhaps you can show how one can determine the future in a universe that isn't....determined

If you can't, we're fast approaching the point where I tell you to shut up.

I accepted the challenge, true, but you asked, so allow me to serve the full course. You're being fairly stoopid here, it's hard to accept this isn't another case of slavish, willful blindness. If indeed you note a flaw with your concept of god and you resort to nonsense, it makes your 'faith' appear rather weak. I'd recommend looking for a valid solution rather than lalalala-ing it away, but that's just me.

If I told you I accelerated to 100km an hour from rest, then I must have passed 50km/h at some point, yes? There's no way I could have gotten to 100km/h without passing fifty. If I told you I had a thought that automatically means I have consciousness, yes? As only conscious beings can have thoughts. If you say an infallible omniscient exists you are also saying the universe is determined, yes? There is no way an omniscient can exist if the universe isn't determined, else how does it know what is going to happen? How can it know something that isn't determined? How can the omniscient be infallible yet be wrong about what is going to happen? I'll be here all day...

This isn't nuclear physics. A determined universe is a prerequisite for (or consequence of, depending on how you look at it) omniscience, so you sate that the universe is determined when you claim omniscience exists, not me. If you don't know the implications of your claims then perhaps you shouldn't be making them.

As omniscient, God not only know how many outcomes there could be, he knows exactly what outcome would be.

For example, if I throw a ball, God knows exactly where it would land. He already knew I would throw. He already knew I would be born. He knew my parents. He knew how they'd meet.

In essence, his omniscience doesn't limit him to probabilities of the occurrence of an event, it leaves him with certainties.

What this means is that we are all acting out his knowledge. Omniscence leads to predestination. Predestination voids freewill.
Bro Ihe, enough with the annoying dance moves.

wiegraf:

If you can't, we're fast approaching the point where I tell you to shut up.

Perhaps I can indeed show one, perhaps I can't. But don't dump responsibility on me when I have not claimed it in some way.

I accepted the challenge, true, but you asked, so allow me to serve the full course. You're being fairly stoopid here, it's hard to accept this isn't another case of slavish, willful blindness. If indeed you note a flaw with your concept of god and you resort to nonsense, it makes your 'faith' appear rather weak. I'd recommend looking for a valid solution rather than lalalala-ing it away, but that's just me.

Don't take your frustration out on me, wiegraf. I asked you a clear question and have given a clear reason why your answer has been unsatisfactory to me. If you think my reason is unreasonable, you could simply say that you think so and explain why without resorting to this kind of talk. You are under no obligation to answer me, you know. I don't have the power to subpoena you.

If I told you I accelerated to 100km an hour from rest, then I must have passed 50km/h at some point, yes? There's no way I could have gotten to 100km/h without passing fifty. If I told you I had a thought that automatically means I have consciousness, yes? As only conscious beings can have thoughts. If you say an infallible omniscient exists you are also saying the universe is determined, yes? There is no way an omniscient can exist if the universe isn't determined, else how does it know what is going to happen? How can it know something that isn't determined? How can the omniscient be infallible yet be wrong about what is going to happen? I'll be here all day...

And I still don't see how an omniscient's knowing the future strips me of choice. I don't disagree that the omniscient has an invariable knowledge of the future. I just don't see how that makes me choose vanilla instead of chocolate. I don't disagree that only one future results. I question the assertion that only one possibility can result simply because an omniscient is in the equation.

This isn't nuclear physics. A determined universe is a prerequisite for (or consequence of, depending on how you look at it) omniscience, so you sate that the universe is determined when you claim omniscience exists, not me. If you don't know the implications of your claims then perhaps you shouldn't be making them.

Wiegraf, I have made no claims in this discussion, I've only ever asked you questions. Of you say that the univeese must be determined such that only one kind of future is possible because an omniscient is in the picture, I can ask how and I do. Who/what determined or fixed the universe? I agree that thwre aren't multiple futures actualized, I just don't get how there aren't multiple futures realizable.

musKeeto: As omniscient, God not only know how many outcomes there could be, he knows exactly what outcome would be.

For example, if I throw a ball, God knows exactly where it would land. He already knew I would throw. He already knew I would be born. He knew my parents. He knew how they'd meet.

In essence, his omniscience doesn't limit him to probabilities of the occurrence of an event, it leaves him with certainties.

What this means is that we are all acting out his knowledge. Omniscence leads to predestination. Predestination voids freewill.
Bro Ihe, enough with the annoying dance moves.

Smack in that last paragraph is where all the trouble is. I have noy denied what God knoes or doesn't know. This has been vert simple from the beginning: given that God is omniscient, how does His knowledge of the future void man's free will? Answering me with "it just does" is not gonna solve the problem. And that's essentially what you did with the bolded.

Unless you guys want me to believe it with blind faith, you still have to show me a clear logical picture for how God's knowledge of the fact that I'll choose the vanilla prevents me from taking the chocolate. I really do not see that much of a problem here.

We are acting out a script God already knows, you say.

Ok, I agree. Who wrote the script?

You say, God.

I ask, how can that be since we're supposed to do the writing, free will and all?

You say, it's by knowing the script that He wrote it.

I'm more confused and say so.

And you explain that if He didn't write it, He couldn't know it.

And I'm worse off than before I started asking. Because I can't for the life of me see how an omniscient needs to write a script to know what's written in it. And you have decided that all the explanation necessary is that He had to have had to know what He knew.

Ihedinobi:

Smack in that last paragraph is where all the trouble is. I have noy denied what God knoes or doesn't know. This has been vert simple from the beginning: given that God is omniscient, how does His knowledge of the future void man's free will? Answering me with "it just does" is not gonna solve the problem. And that's essentially what you did with the bolded.

Unless you guys want me to believe it with blind faith, you still have to show me a clear logical picture for how God's knowledge of the fact that I'll choose the vanilla prevents me from taking the chocolate. I really do not see that much of a problem here.

We are acting out a script God already knows, you say.

Ok, I agree. Who wrote the script?

You say, God.

I ask, how can that be since we're supposed to do the writing, free will and all?

You say, it's by knowing the script that He wrote it.

I'm more confused and say so.

And you explain that if He didn't write it, He couldn't know it.

And I'm worse off than before I started asking. Because I can't for the life of me see how an omniscient needs to write a script to know what's written in it. And you have decided that all the explanation necessary is that He had to have had to know what He knew.

You are becoming more and more ridiculous. Muskeeto and Wiegraff have explained it and have seen that you are being willfully ignorant. So now, three of us are just lying or talking nonsense about omnipotence and freewill?

This is embarassing. I am sure that christians watching you on the sidelines are quite ashamed. This is good




Just to help you out of your ignorance, I will explain the problem with your analogy;

Ihedinobi:

We are acting out a script God already knows, you say.

Ok, I agree. Who wrote the script?

You say, God.

I ask, how can that be since we're supposed to do the writing, free will and all?

You say, it's by knowing the script that He wrote it.

I'm more confused and say so.

And you explain that if He didn't write it, He couldn't know it.

And I'm worse off than before I started asking. Because I can't for the life of me see how an omniscient needs to write a script to know what's written in it. And you have decided that all the explanation necessary is that He had to have had to know what He knew.

You ask to know wrote the script. That is a strawman right there. There is no need for it to be written from the omnipotent being's view. The script is already in known in the omnipotent beings foreknowledge. Writing it out or acting it out makes no difference- you cant deviate from the beings mind.

Imagine someone is going to make an exact movie out of a sad day in your life and the director needs you to narrate the story to them to write the script to the exact way you experienced the sad day.

Now the movie comes out exactly as you have narrated it. Does your knowledge of the experience not control the script and the actions of the characters in the movie?

Does the knowledge of the omnipotent being not control the script of life and the actions? His knowledge of the script comes before the script is in action.




I am waiting for you to lie your way out of this one