4 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo let's say that God knows, infallibly at the moment he creates the universe that on, say, 01/03/2015-21:00:59:184249, Alice will choose to eat toast.
What if all of the multitudinous volumes of every decision OdBod and Grampy Bobby would ever make during their entire lifetimes were individual irregular pieces of gigantic jigsaw puzzles placed in enormous invisible celestial boxes before either of them was born and yet God's Omniscience knew in eternity past what the finished shapes of these two uniqu ...[text shortened]... eir next freewill chess move decisions on Red Hot Pawn? He does. And He didn't interfere.
Does Alice, prior to that time, have the option of choosing otherwise!? - noting that if she does choose otherwise, God ends up knowing both:
a) she will choose to eat toast
AND
b) he cannot know (a) because she might choose otherwise
If not then the entire sequence of actions and events that define her life were pre-determined by God itself at the point he instantiated the universe, and as such she does not make any free choices - she merely follows the script your god wrote before she was even born.
Originally posted by OdBodThe definition that makes the most sense to me is the one that I gave earlier:
I cannot see it, merely feel it, and yes it is so complex as to defy a correct definition. Could you come up with a definition of free will that works in all situations?
where the entity is not unduly influenced by immediate external factors when making its decision. Its a little vague, but I see no problem with that. I do not need to label every decision ever made either 'free will' or 'not free will'.
A popular way that theists handle free will is to invent a separate entity called the soul that does the 'free will' decision making, thus absolving the physical body from the determinism/randomness dilema, but then they refuse to think too hard about how the soul makes decision. Its a classic theistic tactic of 'move the problem and pretend its not there any more'.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySame response in meaning as your previous answers. All you are doing is using different words. All you have to do is concede that that god does not know with absolute certainty what choices man will make, and free will becomes possible. But you can't can you GB? I'm afraid that unless you are prepared to abandon logic and reason, the free will/omnipotent god paradox cannot be solved. If we abandon reason and logic what will we become?
What if all of the multitudinous volumes of every decision OdBod and Grampy Bobby would ever make during their entire lifetimes were individual irregular pieces of gigantic jigsaw puzzles placed in enormous invisible celestial boxes before either of them was born and yet God's Omniscience knew in eternity past what the finished shapes of these two uniqu ...[text shortened]... eir next freewill chess move decisions on Red Hot Pawn? He does. And He didn't interfere.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI get where you're coming from, but your use of the words "not unduly" gives your definition loads of wriggle room!😉
The definition that makes the most sense to me is the one that I gave earlier:
where the entity is not unduly influenced by immediate external factors when making its decision. Its a little vague, but I see no problem with that. I do not need to label every decision ever made either 'free will' or 'not free will'.
Originally posted by OdBodIf a man denies any possibility of the existence of an Omniscient God, does it follow that he will deny Omniscience?
Same response in meaning as your previous answers. All you are doing is using different words. All you have to do is concede that that god does not know with absolute certainty what choices man will make, and free will becomes possible. But you can't can you GB? I'm afraid that unless you are prepared to abandon logic and reason, the free will/omnipotent god paradox cannot be solved. If we abandon reason and logic what will we become?
Originally posted by AgergThis was thrashed out by some heavyweight philosophers, all of whom are atheists, in a couple of threads about four years ago. See threads Thread 130680, Thread 133337, and it was mentioned in a recent thread Thread 161771 which gives a quicker summary.
So let's say that God knows, [b]infallibly at the moment he creates the universe that on, say, 01/03/2015-21:00:59:184249, Alice will choose to eat toast.
Does Alice, prior to that time, have the option of choosing otherwise!? - noting that if she does choose otherwise, God ends up knowing both:
a) she will choose to eat toast
AND
b) he cannot kn ...[text shortened]... t make any free choices - she merely follows the script your god wrote before she was even born.[/b]
Essentially the argument is that there is no contradiction between the statement:
Necessarily if Alice eats toast, then God knew Alice would eat toast from the time of creation
and the statement:
Alice will not necessarily eat toast.
Because if Alice chose not to eat toast, but instead cereal then God would have known that she would eat cereal instead.
So at least within the modal logic they were using there is no contradiction between free will and omniscience. I've just noticed you made the opening post in one of those threads and may remember.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
If it is knowable to anyone, then it is preset. You cannot logically claim it is knowable but not preset.
If it is knowable to anyone, then it is preset. You cannot logically claim it is knowable but not preset.
preset
Syllabification: pre·set
Pronunciation: /prēˈset
Definition of preset in English:
verb (presets, presetting; past and past participle preset)
[with object] (usually as adjective preset)
Set or adjust (a value that controls the operation of a device) in advance of its use: ‘the water is heated quickly to a preset temperature’
noun
A control on electronic equipment or on software that is set or adjusted beforehand to facilitate use.
Example sentences ‘The player also has a built-in FM radio function with 10 presets and twelve hours' playtime.’
‘The earliest systems allowed the driver to control climate and radio presets by voice.’
‘It might be nice in the future to see the ability to assign keyboard shortcuts to these presets somehow.’
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/preset
Do you view human beings as inanimate objects without any immaterial components?
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
A popular way that theists handle free will is to invent a separate entity called the soul that does the 'free will' decision making, thus absolving the physical body from the determinism/randomness dilema, but then they refuse to think too hard about how the soul makes decision. Its a classic theistic tactic of 'move the problem and pretend its not there any more'.
A popular way that theists handle free will is to invent a separate entity called the soul that does the 'free will' decision making, thus absolving the physical body from the determinism/randomness dilema, but then they refuse to think too hard about how the soul makes decision. Its a classic theistic tactic of 'move the problem and pretend its not there any more'.
Did your body decide on "twhitehead" as your site nickname as well as the words typed in the post I'm quoting?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by twhitehead
If it is knowable to anyone, then it is preset. You cannot logically claim it is knowable but not preset.[b]preset
Syllabification: pre·set
Pronunciation: /prēˈset
Definition of preset in English:
verb (presets, presetting; past and past participle preset)
[with object] (usually ...[text shortened]... preset
Do you view human beings as inanimate objects without any immaterial components?[/b]Presumably you are if you logically follow through with
your belief in prophecy and a future that is "knowable".
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOriginally posted by DeepThought
This was thrashed out by some heavyweight philosophers, all of whom are atheists, in a couple of threads about four years ago. See threads Thread 130680, Thread 133337, and it was mentioned in a recent thread Thread 161771 which gives a quicker summary.
Essentially the argument is that there is no contradiction ...[text shortened]... omniscience. I've just noticed you made the opening post in one of those threads and may remember.
"So at least within the modal logic they were using there is no contradiction between free will and omniscience."
Doesn't the fact that man can decide and act contrary to the will of God support the existence of human freewill?
Note: Thanks for these thread links.
Originally posted by OdBodYes, and I am perfectly happy with wriggle room. Not everything can be defined to exact specifications. Take for example the word 'life' as used in science. There will always be borderline cases for which we are not quite sure if they are 'life' or not. But that does not take away from the fact that we know we are alive.
I get where you're coming from, but your use of the words "not unduly" gives your definition loads of wriggle room!😉