08 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzFree will is imcompatible with an omniscient God if the means by which he comes by his omnisicient knowledge is because he predicts or sees into the future. This is however not what christians believe. God knows what you have done tomorrow because he is not time bound. How does he know? because YOU did it. He does not know what you WILL do tomorrow only what you HAVE done. This makes no sense to us being entities travelling along a time line. Does you knowing Hitler's future prove that he could not have had free will?
And free will is incompatible with an omniscient God. Whatcha gonna do?
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterGod knowing what they will or did do is irrespective, the very fact that he knows before we do something that we'll do it, means that we could have no other choice.
Free will is imcompatible with an omniscient God if the means by which he comes by his omnisicient knowledge is because he predicts or sees into the future. This is however not what christians believe. God knows what you have done tomorrow because he is not time bound. How does he know? because YOU did it. He does not know what you WILL do tomorrow on ...[text shortened]... along a time line. Does you knowing Hitler's future prove that he could not have had free will?
Please, tell me where you get your information on these properties of God's temporal existence. Surely you didn't make them up!
08 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is getting tiresome. Read what I said. I did not say I could, in actuality, have had different beliefs.
When you say "I could have had different beliefs" it just sounds silly because you might as well say "I could have been an eagle".
I said "If I had known X I wouldn't have done Y" can be a true statement. "I could have been an eagle" cannot. I've stated the reasons very clearly. The fact I couldn't, de facto, have had different beliefs at a prior time is utterly irrelevant. The counterfactual statement can still be true.
08 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe fact is it is open to me to choose the apple or the pear. Even if someone could predict my choice with 100pc accuracy, it wouldn't mean it wasn't a free choice and it wouldn't mean there was any thing compelling me. It simply means that I - like everything else in the universe - am ultimately predictable, and my behaviour is ultimately determined.
You must have been compelled or under the influence of some force acting on you that was not going to give you any chance of doing anything else. Something causes you to make that choice that forces that choice in a way that means the choice is alwasy predictable. If you weren't compelled by something to eat the pear then one would never be able to pre ...[text shortened]... that you would do that. It would not be inevitable if it wasn't compelled. Do you grasp this?
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzPlease, tell me where you get your information on these properties of God's temporal existence. Surely you didn't make them up!.....
God knowing what they will or did do is irrespective, the very fact that he knows before we do something that we'll do it, means that we could have no other choice.
Please, tell me where you get your information on these properties of God's temporal existence. Surely you didn't make them up!
....you really think GOD has to wait around for tomorrow to come before he can see what you are doing in tomorrow? Tsk. How do you think God comes by all this information? If he's omnipresent then he's omnipresent across time . That means that he is present at your death and your birth simultaneously.
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by dottewellSo if you are not compelled to eat the pear then what makes you eat it? Is your pear eating caused by something non-compelling in such a way that it does not make you eat it? Does the force that makes you eat the pear require your co-operation in order for the pear to be eaten ? If so can your co-operation be withheld in such a way that you could stop yourself from eating the pear? But that wouldn't make sense would it?
The fact is it is open to me to choose the apple or the pear. Even if someone could predict my choice with 100pc accuracy, it wouldn't mean it wasn't a free choice and it wouldn't mean there was any thing compelling me. It simply means that I - like everything else in the universe - am ultimately predictable, and my behaviour is ultimately determined.
For if you are unable to prevent yourself from eating the pear then the force/causation that is making you eat the pear must be so compelling as to not leave any other choice open to you. It must be forced. If it wasn't forced then the apple would be a genuine option. You have no choice but to co-operate with the force compelling you to eat the pear. My God man , it's so obvious!
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut you are the force and thus your will is still free. I cant see why you are having so much trouble understanding this.
For if you are unable to prevent yourself from eating the pear then the force/causation that is making you eat the pear must be so compelling as to not leave any other choice open to you. It must be forced. If it wasn't forced then the apple would be a genuine option. You have no choice but to co-operate with the force compelling you to eat the pear. My God man , it's so obvious!
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterAh, so he's not looking "back from the end" at all. Now you're contradicting your own fabrications!
Please, tell me where you get your information on these properties of God's temporal existence. Surely you didn't make them up!.....
....you really think GOD has to wait around for tomorrow to come before he can see what you are doing in tomorrow? Tsk. How do you think God comes by all this information? If he's omnipresent then he's omnipresent across time . That means that he is present at your death and your birth simultaneously.
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by dottewellX: Oh God! What have I done! If I'd have known your children were playing in the road I would never have driven so fast!
X: Oh God! What have I done! If I'd have known your children were playing in the road I would never have driven so fast!
KM: No problem! You COULD EQUALLY HAVE BEEN AN EAGLE!
X: Er... okay.
KM: No problem! You COULD EQUALLY HAVE BEEN AN EAGLE!
X: Er... okay. DOTTY
RESPONSE---
Interesting example here, because the insinuation is that the person should have known or had the real option of driving more slowly , whereas in your view he was always determined to drive fast. We would be angry in this situation because unconsciously we believe that people do have real choices to make about how responsible they are/ are not on the road. But what does the concept of should have known better or done differently mean here? We would not apply such a concept to a cat that ran out and caused the accident , and yet both the man and the cat are equally compelled to do whatever they will do by determinism.
Of course , ultimately I agree with your little play because in reality people don't actaully believe your view. We treat each other as if free will exists and as if the person is involved in some kind of choice (maybe to avoid speeding signs) that they did not make. We actually believe that the accident was preventable (my view) . Compatabilism only works as a philosophy because it can't really be lived by logically . We HAVE to believe that we are living and making REAL choices otherwise (like in your play) the world would seem perverse.
People are not fatalists by nature. If I had run over your children I would be searching the events leading up to it to see if there was anything I could have reasonably done differently to avoid the accident. In your view , to be logically consistent , I would have to believe that there was no other choice I could have actually made and that those children were destined to die at the hands of my car. I would be illogical for me to feel guilty , but of course I would feel guilty because deep within me I would feel that there must have been some other possible way out of this scenario , some other choice I could have made to save those children.
If I REALLY believed the accident was completely inevitable , and there was nothing I could have actually have done (your view) then I would still be sad , but personal guilt would be illogical. But no-one really believes this do they . Most of us would rack our thoughts and find some choice that we had made and wish that we could go back in time to make a different choice (eg pay more attention to road signs). Regret would kick in for the choice we didn't make but could have (my view).
It would be silly to think that I could never had made the choice to pay more attention to road signs (your view) . It would be far more human and rational to feel deep regret for the alternate timeline that could have been but wasn't because of my choice. In that timeline your children would still be alive , but alas in your view that timeline is about as likely as ...erhem...me being an eagle. It could never have been.
Once you take compatabilism and determinism to it's logical ends it sounds silly (just like me being an eagle) which is precisely my point. You have to follow it through to the uncomforatable end to see the silliness of it in relation of the real world of human life and what people believe in their hearts about the choices they make. Thank you for doing this job for me.
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterWho knows why I choose to eat the pear. Maybe I just like pears. Maybe I feel like something different. Maybe it's national pear day.
So if you are not compelled to eat the pear then what makes you eat it? Is your pear eating caused by something non-compelling in such a way that it does not make you eat it? Does the force that makes you eat the pear require your co-operation in order for the pear to be eaten ? If so can your co-operation be withheld in such a way that you could stop ...[text shortened]... ut to co-operate with the force compelling you to eat the pear. My God man , it's so obvious!
The point is I choose it freely. No one is trying to make me do something else.
Your model is still some non-physical, non-determined self being stuggling against the forces of determinism. You still don't understand - perhaps you never will - that this is not the only model. Indeed it may be an incoherent model.
We are not struggling against, or cooperating with, some invisible force that seeks to bind our will. There is a deterministic universe, and we are part of that. Within that framework, we can still talk about acts being free if they are non-coerced. That's the limit of human freedom. It has nothing to with whether events could have been otherwise (they could not) or whether we could have chosen differently in identical circumstances (we could not).
Now either put forward a simple, coherent argument saying why this conception of freedom is inadequate or wrong.
Alternatively, accept you'll never understand it and move on.
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo; it requires only that IF they had known, THEN they would have driven more slowly. That can be true, even in a deterministic universe.
Interesting example here, because the insinuation is that the person should have known or had the real option of driving more slowly
Can you understand this?