Free Will is "now"..

Originally posted by Quirine
Your reasoning isn't correct. As explained before, there's only one outcome of choices being made in the past whether those were made out of free will or not. So the outcome of choices made in the past has no relation with there being free will or not.
You have to come up with something else to prove logically that free will does not exist.
I doubt very much that that can be done at all.

You are missing the key point. If God can know the future, then for him, all choices are made in the past. So from his point of view, there is no free will. The issue is whether or not our future is a static entity that essentially already exists in some higher dimensional reality or whether it is truly dynamic and being made as we go along.
I believe that I have proved logically that free will and a God that knows the future, cannot co-exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are missing the key point. If God can know the future, then for him, all choices are made in the past. So from his point of view, there is no free will. The issue is whether or not our future is a static entity that essentially already exists in some higher dimensional reality or whether it is truly dynamic and being made as we go along.
I believe that I have proved logically that free will and a God that knows the future, cannot co-exist.

If God can know the future, then for him, all choices are made in the past. So from his point of view, there is no free will. ----whitey----

You made a jump there that I dispute . How did you get from God knowing past choices proving we can't have free will?

1. Free will choices are made in the present moment , therefore the only thing needed for a free will choice to occurr is for that person to be free in that present moment - nothing more , nothing less. Therefore , even if God did see time "as if" we are following a future destiny as long as we are free in any given present moment we can stll have free will.

2. You have still to resolve the random event conundrum. If Hitler made his choices based on random decaying nuclear particles the his choices could not by definition be determined by anything. Therefore , it would be actually possible for you to know the outcome of a non-determined choice. Therefore , all known past choices do not have to be determined.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have repeatedly stated that I can see it from all perspectives just as you can. Why do you keep on claiming that I cant? Why do you keep avoiding my questions? Are you really that worried that your world view will be shattered if I show the flaw in your ideas?

Now tell me, can Hitler - from any perspective, decide not to start WW2?

Yes , he can from his perspective. Your knowledge of ww2 being started by him absolutely depends on him doing it in 1939. In 1939 he can decide not to do it because free will exists in the present moment.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The God you are postulating. would know everything he ever did and was ever going to do and thus would be powerless to change HIS fate. Thus, he couldn't be omnipotent; in fact, he would be a total automation.

Stick to the thread please.

Originally posted by Quirine
'See it this way: it God YESTERDAY already knew what you were going to do, there's no way you can do something different. Of course, when present time comes, you have the illusion you have two (or more) choices, but the whole world was made in a way to MAKE you chose one of them.'

Your reasoning isn't correct. As explained before, there's only one outcom ...[text shortened]... e logically that free will does not exist.
I doubt very much that that can be done at all.

I disagree . If you do not choose A God cannot know A.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I disagree . If you do not choose A God cannot know A.

Where do you disagree with? Me? Something I said? Or the quote from serigado in my post?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are missing the key point. If God can know the future, then for him, all choices are made in the past. So from his point of view, there is no free will. The issue is whether or not our future is a static entity that essentially already exists in some higher dimensional reality or whether it is truly dynamic and being made as we go along.
I believe that I have proved logically that free will and a God that knows the future, cannot co-exist.

No, you are missing the point. You did not even address the point I made.

Originally posted by Quirine
Where do you disagree with? Me? Something I said? Or the quote from serigado in my post?

Oops , miss read it!

Sorry I'm slow on the chess moves , I've got a touch of flu at the moment and what with chess being very precise I could easily wreck the game.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Stick to the thread please.

It's perfectly relevant and you know it. But you don't have an answer, so you try to ignore it.

What your bad analogies miss, is that God isn't like us in 2008 looking back in time at Hitler doing something in 1939. In your schema, God created the entire universe, knowing at the "time" he created it everything that would EVER happen in it. Thus, there was NEVER a chance that Hitler or you or anybody else could do anything differently from what they did, are doing or what they will do in the future. Augustine pointed this out long ago; predestination is the only logical position for a believer in a 3 O God.

Of course, to your automation God there was no "moment" of Creation and there are no moments at all. He does what was always going to do and thus has no more free will than humans. Oddly, he's a bit worse off; he knows he can't do anything else but humans have the illusion of free will. It kinda reminds me of a Harlan Ellison story, I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, where a superintelligent computer destroys the human race except for a small band of survivors that it mercilessly tortures because it despises the human race because it's "freer" than it is. Perhaps that story is an analogy that explains the twisted, insane God that you worship.

Originally posted by Quirine
No, you are missing the point. You did not even address the point I made.

If I am missing your point then please elaborate. I cannot address something I have missed. It appears to me that you are asserting that a free will choice always has one outcome and is therefore indistinguishable from a future perspective from a determined choice. Is that your point or not?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes , he can from his perspective. Your knowledge of ww2 being started by him absolutely depends on him doing it in 1939. In 1939 he can decide not to do it because free will exists in the present moment.

So, demonstrate it. Every time I put you on the spot and ask for some sort of evidence for your ridiculous assertions, you start a new thread instead of answering the question. If Hitler or anyone else can make a different choice then point to just one single case in all of history where it happened.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, demonstrate it. Every time I put you on the spot and ask for some sort of evidence for your ridiculous assertions, you start a new thread instead of answering the question. If Hitler or anyone else can make a different choice then point to just one single case in all of history where it happened.

You know of course that it is impossible to prove or provide evidence for because there is no time in history where any person is known to have split into two and made two mutually exclusive choices simultaneously. There is no evidence that Hitler started ww2 and didn't start it as well. There is no evidence either that within a given moment exist potentially different timelines.

However , I have not said that I can prove this . You HAVE said that you can prove that this cannot be logically possible and that knowing what Hitler did proves he could only have done one thing.

My point has always been and still is that knowing what Hitler did is inconclusive either way (unless one applies pre assumed models of determinism). So please stop trying to turn things around onto me as if the onus of proof is on me . I already accept that I can't prove it , you don't seem to accept the same from your side. So what do you do?

I 'll tell you . You either accept you can't prove your position without first pre-assuming you are right before you start OR you accept the onus of proof is on you and not me ---so which is it?