Originally posted by AgergGood luck getting a straight answer to that one 😉
I suppose my problem here is in how I interpret what a given theist is telling me, I have started thread: Thread 163055 with the hope that with sufficient explanation of my error I will be corrected.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOk, I agree and concede that under classical logic as you have outlined that
No, in classical logic the "if" is called the "material conditional" [1]. What you are describing is a "strict conditional" which is can be defined using modal operators [2]. However, such operators are not defined within classical logic. So the statement is formally correct. It's just not much use.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_conditional
the statement is not formally logically flawed, although it is, indeed, useless.
However, I would also add that I always use if ... then... as a strict conditional.
And given how useless if... then... can be when not used as a strict conditional
I am not sure where I would ever not use it as such...
EDIT: On further reading... I may be using IF... THEN... more in the vein of relevance
logic... However more reading of something more user-friendly and informative that
Wikipedia would probably be required for me to be definitive.
However I can definitively say that however I do use IF... THEN... I am almost certainly
not using it in the material conditional form.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI think the difference between the relevance and strict if depends on the modal operator. The thing about the material if is that we know the truth table, so it's easily analysed. We can do the trick I used in the other thread to get between the relevance or strict ifs and the material one:
Ok, I agree and concede that under classical logic as you have outlined that
the statement is not formally logically flawed, although it is, indeed, useless.
However, I would also add that I always use if ... then... as a strict conditional.
And given how useless if... then... can be when not used as a strict conditional
I am not sure where I wou ...[text shortened]... er I do use IF... THEN... I am almost certainly
not using it in the material conditional form.
□(P -> Q) ⊢□P -> □Q
and □P can be treated as if it were a proposition within classical logic. This trick is an axiom which has to be added to the set of rules. If the axiom is not present the step isn't possible.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThought (Page 18)Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not claiming that either omniscience or free will exist, merely that they do not contradict one another. However, if God exists then I see no reason why he shouldn't be omniscient at least as far as this universe is concerned, and if God exists then free will exists as otherwise we have a creator God judging people for things they have no con ...[text shortened]... s free will and it is more than just "freedom to act", but that the concept is not properly defined.
I'm not claiming that either omniscience or free will exist, merely that they do not contradict one another. However, if God exists then I see no reason why he shouldn't be omniscient at least as far as this universe is concerned, and if God exists then free will exists as otherwise we have a creator God judging people for things they have no control over, which if not exactly a contradiction would be bizarre. (1)
Having said that, free will is a tricky concept. Suppose I have a choice between taking some action and not taking it. I have some bias towards one of the choices, but could choose the other. Now, consider two possible worlds, one where I take the action and one where I don't. Up until I take make the decision the two worlds are identical in all respects, significantly with regard to my brain state and mind state. Given that my brain states are identical in both universes why, other than randomness, should I take the action in one universe and not the other? (2)
If random variation is all that free will is then free will, in the metaphysical sense, does not exist - we are forced into the conclusion that the concept is at best incoherent. Some philosophers talk about "freedom to act" which is essentially political free will and that metaphysical free will does not exist. But, we have the strong intuition that we do have control over our decisions and I feel that the denial of free will leaves us as philosophical zombies. So my feeling is that there is such a thing as free will and it is more than just "freedom to act", but that the concept is not properly defined. (3)
__________________________________________
(1) They do both exist and God judges people for rejecting His free gift of eternal life with separation from Him for eternity. (2) There are categorical distinctions. Some decisions relate to inconsequential decisions which may be delegated or taken on a whim of fancy; others are of critical importance; and there are a few decisions which are crucial because of their long term or eternal consequences. (3) Both "free will" and "freedom to act" are components of human self determination.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDeepThought, (Part 2) Thread 162611 (Page 15) is posted.
Footnote: DeepThought, since your interest in God's Omniscience and human freewill is genuine, I thought reference to an accurate explanation in context by Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom's Bible Ministries during 2002 [in another utility thread] might be relevant to our discussion without intruding on "Pascal's Wager Revisited". (Part 1) Thread 162611 (Page 15)
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThread 163049
__________________________________________
(1) They do both exist and God judges people for rejecting His free gift of eternal life with separation from Him for eternity. (2) There are categorical distinctions. Some decisions relate to inconsequential decisions which may be delegated or taken on a whim of fancy; others are of critical importance; a ...[text shortened]... sequences. (3) Both "free will" and "freedom to act" are components of human self determination.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeNatural language instances are the indicative conditional. Neither the material nor the strict conditionals adequately capture this; hence the need for other approaches like relevance logic. The truth-functionality of the material or strict are straightforward, but interpretation of the indicative is contextually rich. We would need something intermediate in strength between the material and strict in order to come close to capturing the indicative.
Ok, I agree and concede that under classical logic as you have outlined that
the statement is not formally logically flawed, although it is, indeed, useless.
However, I would also add that I always use if ... then... as a strict conditional.
And given how useless if... then... can be when not used as a strict conditional
I am not sure where I wou ...[text shortened]... er I do use IF... THEN... I am almost certainly
not using it in the material conditional form.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby1) That's a clear statement of belief, but hardly proof that libertarian free will exists.
Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not claiming that either omniscience or free will exist, merely that they do not contradict one another. However, if God exists then I see no reason why he shouldn't be omniscient at least as far as this universe is concerned, and if God exists then free will exists as otherwise we have a creator God judging ...[text shortened]... sequences. (3) Both "free will" and "freedom to act" are components of human self determination.
2) The importance of the decision to be made does not affect whether we have free will or not. Although, typically the more important the decision is the more external constraints there are on it.
3) Granted, but I don't think adding more terms will add clarity to the discussion.
Originally posted by OdBodThat depends on the properties that God has. If God is omniscient then God has to know everything and cannot unknow it, by the definition of omniscient. If God is omnipotent then God must have the power to unknow things, by the definition of omnipotent. Which leads to a contradiction, since omniscience is entailed by omnipotence. Some apologists have added the constraint that omnipotence is limited by not leading to logical contradictions. I tend to express this with statements like: "Omnipotent as far as this universe is concerned.".
Can god unknow what it knows? Is this self deception?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo you say then that in this Universe this god entity is indulging in self deception?
That depends on the properties that God has. If God is omniscient then God has to know everything and cannot unknow it, by the definition of omniscient. If God is omnipotent then God must have the power to unknow things, by the definition of omnipotent. Which leads to a contradiction, since omniscience is entailed by omnipotence. Some apologists have ...[text shortened]... I tend to express this with statements like: "Omnipotent as far as this universe is concerned.".
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodThe ability to do something is not the same as doing it. Why do you think that my point entails that, in the event God exists, if he is able to deliberately forget things and does so then he is engaging in self-deception? There's a step in your reasoning that is not obvious to me.
So you say then that in this Universe this god entity is indulging in self deception?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt seems to me that given that biblical prophecy( cock crowing three times etc) suggests that this god has used this ability. This being the case would suggest there is no free will in this Universe .Or, god cherry picks its periods of knowledge in this Universe , I think this amounts to self deception.
The ability to do something is not the same as doing it. Why do you think that my point entails that, in the event God exists, if he is able to deliberately forget things and does so then he is engaging in self-deception? There's a step in your reasoning that is not obvious to me.