Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free-Will and Omniscience

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 4:23:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tomorrow, John Doe will choose to eat a Milky Way for lunch.

If God knows everything, He knows what John Doe will eat. The question is whether or not John Doe eats what he eats because God knows it is what he will eat, or whether God knows what John Doe eats because he knows what choice John Doe will make.

The way I see it, there are at least four ways that God could know what John Doe will eat.

1 - God understands J.D. perfectly. He knows J.D.'s desires and thought processes perfectly, so He knows exactly what J.D. will choose. This can be illustrated with (albeit imperfect) examples such as a parent holding a dollar in one hand and a favorite snack in the other hand as a choice to a young child. The young child, with no grasp of money, will choose the favorite snack over the dollar that could buy more of the favorite snack. The child is still making a decision, and the best you can say is the parent limits the choices, but the decision is still the child's. Similarly, God could know J.D. so perfectly that He knows exactly what J.D. will do in any situation, without limiting J.D.'s free will.

2 - God exists outside of our four dimensions. 3-dimensions, plus the progression of time, makes 4. If God exists in some higher dimension, then He could have the capability to observe all events independent of our time, similar to the way we can observe all of the events in a comic strip, independent of the 'time' that exists in the progression from frame to frame. This would allow God to see the future, and know it, again without limiting J.D.'s free will.

3 - God has some kind of crystal ball, which allows either the transmission of information back in time from the future, or allows the projection of His consciousness into the future. Either way, this would allow the transmission of data through time, so God could directly observe J.D.'s choice, from the past.

4 - God has pre-destined everything that will happen. In this case, He knows what J.D. will eat(not what he will choose) because He has programmed it that way. This is the only scenario that takes away J.D.'s free-will.

Those who say free-will and omniscience *cannot* co-exist, must somehow show that the first three scenarios are impossible. Honestly, I've been surprised seeing comments about this mutual exclusivity on this forum, and would like to see those who uphold this stance actually defend their position, instead of changing the subject.

I would also like to hear any other possible scenarios you can think of.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 5:04:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Your debate was actually supposed to be me against Rational... Rational and I were discussing this, he challenged me to the debate, but didn't put it up. He also never responded in the thread, so I stopped looking for it.

You did a good job, sorry that I can't vote.

Some people seem to think that omniscience is the same thing as predestination.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 6:20:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I find this amazing. It is not your subjective understanding of a theological construct which is at issue to anyone but yourself, it is the theology in its entirety. ALL the eg indicate a distinct misunderstanding of the omniscient
doctrine as well as a misunderstanding of free will, additionally a complete absence of a theological operant from which you make determinations.

Will has squat all to do with candy bars....unless gluttony is something you have a problem with, in which case its gonna be alot more than one candy bar. (and so on)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:21:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In my opinion, to say there cannot be freewill if God is omniscient, is to say freewill does not exist even without an omniscient God. Tomorrow I will get up at a certain time. Nothing will change that fact. Whether God knows what time I will get up does not change things. Why would it? Every act of the future is fixed nothing can change the future because, simply put the future is what is going to happen. I don't see how a certain being knowing what will happen in the future or not changes things.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 12:43:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Yes, that's the main argument against it, weak as it is. You clearly didn't read the debate or the original post in this thread.

Knowing what will happen does not equate to causing what will happen.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 1:13:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 12:43:55 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Yes, that's the main argument against it, weak as it is. You clearly didn't read the debate or the original post in this thread.

Knowing what will happen does not equate to causing what will happen.

Yep
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 1:16:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Do you care to actually respond to the points in the thread?

WHY does an omniscient being know what will happen?

Only in the case of 'because the being determined it to have to happen that way' is there no free will.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 1:18:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:21:28 AM, phantom wrote:
In my opinion, to say there cannot be freewill if God is omniscient, is to say freewill does not exist even without an omniscient God. Tomorrow I will get up at a certain time. Nothing will change that fact. Whether God knows what time I will get up does not change things. Why would it? Every act of the future is fixed nothing can change the future because, simply put the future is what is going to happen. I don't see how a certain being knowing what will happen in the future or not changes things.

Right, you can only do what you are going to do, and God can only know what you are going to do. How could you ever do something that you won't, and how could an omniscient being ever know something that isn't?

It's the cause and effect problem.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:28:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good post.

I never really understood the whole "Omnisicent God = No Free Will" Argument.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 6:38:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 1:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Do you care to actually respond to the points in the thread?

WHY does an omniscient being know what will happen?

Because that's what omniscient means.


Only in the case of 'because the being determined it to have to happen that way' is there no free will.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 8:47:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:28:40 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Good post.


I never really understood the whole "Omnisicent God = No Free Will" Argument.

I think it is because those who hold that view seem unable and unwilling to discuss a viewpoint other than their own, so they can never see why they have mixed up cause and effect.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 8:50:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 6:38:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 1:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Do you care to actually respond to the points in the thread?

WHY does an omniscient being know what will happen?

Because that's what omniscient means.


That's deep.

Why is the sky blue? Because the sky is blue.

Did you read the OP? Do you understand the causality?

It's not

'You aren't free to choose anything other than what God knows you will choose.'

It's

'God can't know anything other than what you will choose.'


Only in the case of 'because the being determined it to have to happen that way' is there no free will.

Can you acknowledge the possibility of one of the first three scenarios?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 12:26:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 8:50:48 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 6:38:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 1:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Do you care to actually respond to the points in the thread?

WHY does an omniscient being know what will happen?

Because that's what omniscient means.


That's deep.

Why is the sky blue? Because the sky is blue.

Did you read the OP? Do you understand the causality?

It's not

'You aren't free to choose anything other than what God knows you will choose.'

It's

'God can't know anything other than what you will choose.'

Except, if God is omniscient, his knowledge of my choice precedes the choice!



Only in the case of 'because the being determined it to have to happen that way' is there no free will.

Can you acknowledge the possibility of one of the first three scenarios?

No, because they don't resolve anything.

1. Yeah, if God is omniscient then he knows everything about everything perfectly. THAT'S THE POINT. If God knows I will make a specific choice tomorrow, then he always knew it. He knew it before I was born. He knew it 54 trillion years ago. So if God knows it, in what way am I free when I am actually presented with the choice?

2. How God exists is irrelevant. The 4 dimensions exist and we live in them. This "then", "now", and "tomorrow" EXIST FOR US. So it is still meaningful to say: "God knows X" now because now exists for us. Even if you object to this, all that is required is a reformatting of the statements. Instead of God knowing something in time, he knows something about time since time exists.

3. This doesn't resolve anything. How God gets this information is irrelevant. All that matters is the fact that he has this information and we cannot choose otherwise.

4. Is the common fallacy that compatabilists put forth: that the incompatabilism arises from an assertion that God's knowledge plays some active role that deliberately removes Free Will. It is a straw man.

The issue isn't that omniscience removes Free Will, but that such omniscience can't exist with Free Will. Whichever exists (if any), the other cannot. No one is proposing some interaction by which one actively removes the other. They simply cannot coexist.

It's simple.
1. Whatever God knows in (or about) one state in time, that knowledge necessarily persists through time. If we can say that "God knows X" at time T. The that is true for all other times as well. It cannot be the case that "God knows X" at time T and then "God doesn't know X" at time T+1.

2. Reality cannot be other than what God knows.

3. Free Will requires that alternate choices are accessible.

4. So lets say that, at time T I am presented with a choice between "A" and "B". Also, since God is omniscience, he knows which I will choose. Let's say he knows I will choose "A".

5. Option B is not accessible to me since, at all future times God knowledge of me choosing A persists (#1), so if I actually choose B it will be the case that I chose B while God knows I chose A, a contradiction (#2).

6. Since an option is no available to me, I don't have free will (#3).
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 12:33:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This entire argument wouldn't even get off the ground if one were an open theist...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:45:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 12:26:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/4/2012 8:50:48 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 6:38:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 1:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Do you care to actually respond to the points in the thread?

WHY does an omniscient being know what will happen?

Because that's what omniscient means.


That's deep.

Why is the sky blue? Because the sky is blue.

Did you read the OP? Do you understand the causality?

It's not

'You aren't free to choose anything other than what God knows you will choose.'

It's

'God can't know anything other than what you will choose.'

Except, if God is omniscient, his knowledge of my choice precedes the choice!



Only in the case of 'because the being determined it to have to happen that way' is there no free will.

Can you acknowledge the possibility of one of the first three scenarios?

No, because they don't resolve anything.

1. Yeah, if God is omniscient then he knows everything about everything perfectly. THAT'S THE POINT. If God knows I will make a specific choice tomorrow, then he always knew it. He knew it before I was born. He knew it 54 trillion years ago. So if God knows it, in what way am I free when I am actually presented with the choice?

2. How God exists is irrelevant. The 4 dimensions exist and we live in them. This "then", "now", and "tomorrow" EXIST FOR US. So it is still meaningful to say: "God knows X" now because now exists for us. Even if you object to this, all that is required is a reformatting of the statements. Instead of God knowing something in time, he knows something about time since time exists.

3. This doesn't resolve anything. How God gets this information is irrelevant. All that matters is the fact that he has this information and we cannot choose otherwise.

4. Is the common fallacy that compatabilists put forth: that the incompatabilism arises from an assertion that God's knowledge plays some active role that deliberately removes Free Will. It is a straw man.

The issue isn't that omniscience removes Free Will, but that such omniscience can't exist with Free Will. Whichever exists (if any), the other cannot. No one is proposing some interaction by which one actively removes the other. They simply cannot coexist.

It's simple.
1. Whatever God knows in (or about) one state in time, that knowledge necessarily persists through time. If we can say that "God knows X" at time T. The that is true for all other times as well. It cannot be the case that "God knows X" at time T and then "God doesn't know X" at time T+1.

2. Reality cannot be other than what God knows.

3. Free Will requires that alternate choices are accessible.

4. So lets say that, at time T I am presented with a choice between "A" and "B". Also, since God is omniscience, he knows which I will choose. Let's say he knows I will choose "A".

5. Option B is not accessible to me since, at all future times God knowledge of me choosing A persists (#1), so if I actually choose B it will be the case that I chose B while God knows I chose A, a contradiction (#2).

6. Since an option is no available to me, I don't have free will (#3).

No drafter, you are still looking at it wrong.

God can't know that you are going to choose B if you are going to choose A, so he can only know what you are going to choose. You are still the one doing the choosing.

As someone said earlier, you are going to do what you are going to do. You will never do something that you won't do, so in the same way you could argue that you have no choice.

You have to look at the CAUSE. Does God know what you will choose because it is what you are going to choose? In options 1,2,3 that is the case. You don't choose because God knows it, but he knows it because it is what you are going to choose.

It's like saying, I know that a ball I have balanced on a shelf is going to fall tomorrow. When it falls, it it going to make a noise.

Therefore, since the ball is going to make a noise, it has no choice but to fall. (This argument is wrong, since the noise is the effect, not the cause. You are doing the same thing with arguments 1, 2, 3).
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:51:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wouldn't say that Free-Will and Omniscience cannot co-exist, but that they pretty much don't make sense (In the case of a Christian God). He would have no reason to test any people, he would know the outcome. He would have no need of telling Abraham to sacrifice his son if he knew the outcome already.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:53:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:51:31 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I wouldn't say that Free-Will and Omniscience cannot co-exist, but that they pretty much don't make sense (In the case of a Christian God). He would have no reason to test any people, he would know the outcome. He would have no need of telling Abraham to sacrifice his son if he knew the outcome already.

Unless the test isn't for God's benefit, but our own instead.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:58:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:53:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:51:31 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I wouldn't say that Free-Will and Omniscience cannot co-exist, but that they pretty much don't make sense (In the case of a Christian God). He would have no reason to test any people, he would know the outcome. He would have no need of telling Abraham to sacrifice his son if he knew the outcome already.

Unless the test isn't for God's benefit, but our own instead.

The point is God would have no logical to reason to test anyone's faith for example, because he would already know how much faith they had due to God being all knowing.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 3:02:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:58:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:53:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:51:31 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I wouldn't say that Free-Will and Omniscience cannot co-exist, but that they pretty much don't make sense (In the case of a Christian God). He would have no reason to test any people, he would know the outcome. He would have no need of telling Abraham to sacrifice his son if he knew the outcome already.

Unless the test isn't for God's benefit, but our own instead.

The point is God would have no logical to reason to test anyone's faith for example, because he would already know how much faith they had due to God being all knowing.

Again, unless the test is for our benefit. Are you saying that 'tests of faith' couldn't possibly benefit us?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 3:04:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:53:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:51:31 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I wouldn't say that Free-Will and Omniscience cannot co-exist, but that they pretty much don't make sense (In the case of a Christian God). He would have no reason to test any people, he would know the outcome. He would have no need of telling Abraham to sacrifice his son if he knew the outcome already.

Unless the test isn't for God's benefit, but our own instead.

Indeed, I've thought of that. Dunno, really.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 3:05:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:53:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:51:31 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I wouldn't say that Free-Will and Omniscience cannot co-exist, but that they pretty much don't make sense (In the case of a Christian God). He would have no reason to test any people, he would know the outcome. He would have no need of telling Abraham to sacrifice his son if he knew the outcome already.

Unless the test isn't for God's benefit, but our own instead.

Indeed. I've heard the argument that if God were omniscient then He would have no reason to test anyone, but this starts from the false premise that the only reason for a test is to increase one's own knowledge.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 3:10:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 3:05:54 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:53:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:51:31 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I wouldn't say that Free-Will and Omniscience cannot co-exist, but that they pretty much don't make sense (In the case of a Christian God). He would have no reason to test any people, he would know the outcome. He would have no need of telling Abraham to sacrifice his son if he knew the outcome already.

Unless the test isn't for God's benefit, but our own instead.

Indeed. I've heard the argument that if God were omniscient then He would have no reason to test anyone, but this starts from the false premise that the only reason for a test is to increase one's own knowledge.

I agree, but wouldn't it be a double-edged sword? This argument, misunderstood, might take away one's belief in God and turn him into an atheist? Just a thought.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 3:39:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 3:02:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:58:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:53:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:51:31 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I wouldn't say that Free-Will and Omniscience cannot co-exist, but that they pretty much don't make sense (In the case of a Christian God). He would have no reason to test any people, he would know the outcome. He would have no need of telling Abraham to sacrifice his son if he knew the outcome already.

Unless the test isn't for God's benefit, but our own instead.

The point is God would have no logical to reason to test anyone's faith for example, because he would already know how much faith they had due to God being all knowing.

Again, unless the test is for our benefit. Are you saying that 'tests of faith' couldn't possibly benefit us?

Then that wouldn't be a test. If you are trying to increase someone else's knowledge and not your own, that would be either revealing or teaching.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 3:53:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 3:39:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 3:02:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:58:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:53:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:51:31 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I wouldn't say that Free-Will and Omniscience cannot co-exist, but that they pretty much don't make sense (In the case of a Christian God). He would have no reason to test any people, he would know the outcome. He would have no need of telling Abraham to sacrifice his son if he knew the outcome already.

Unless the test isn't for God's benefit, but our own instead.

The point is God would have no logical to reason to test anyone's faith for example, because he would already know how much faith they had due to God being all knowing.

Again, unless the test is for our benefit. Are you saying that 'tests of faith' couldn't possibly benefit us?

Then that wouldn't be a test. If you are trying to increase someone else's knowledge and not your own, that would be either revealing or teaching.

Your viewpoint is astonishingly limited, to the point of not even considering alternatives. We use the word 'test' to mean many things. Abraham's test wasn't a Q&A test taken on paper. It was an experience that, even though God knew he would be willing, Abraham didn't until he went through it. If it really makes you feel so much better, call it a trial of faith. Everyone knows God knew the outcome, but that doesn't mean we can't call it a test.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 4:22:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:45:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:26:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/4/2012 8:50:48 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 6:38:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 1:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Do you care to actually respond to the points in the thread?

WHY does an omniscient being know what will happen?

Because that's what omniscient means.


That's deep.

Why is the sky blue? Because the sky is blue.

Did you read the OP? Do you understand the causality?

It's not

'You aren't free to choose anything other than what God knows you will choose.'

It's

'God can't know anything other than what you will choose.'

Except, if God is omniscient, his knowledge of my choice precedes the choice!



Only in the case of 'because the being determined it to have to happen that way' is there no free will.

Can you acknowledge the possibility of one of the first three scenarios?

No, because they don't resolve anything.

1. Yeah, if God is omniscient then he knows everything about everything perfectly. THAT'S THE POINT. If God knows I will make a specific choice tomorrow, then he always knew it. He knew it before I was born. He knew it 54 trillion years ago. So if God knows it, in what way am I free when I am actually presented with the choice?

2. How God exists is irrelevant. The 4 dimensions exist and we live in them. This "then", "now", and "tomorrow" EXIST FOR US. So it is still meaningful to say: "God knows X" now because now exists for us. Even if you object to this, all that is required is a reformatting of the statements. Instead of God knowing something in time, he knows something about time since time exists.

3. This doesn't resolve anything. How God gets this information is irrelevant. All that matters is the fact that he has this information and we cannot choose otherwise.

4. Is the common fallacy that compatabilists put forth: that the incompatabilism arises from an assertion that God's knowledge plays some active role that deliberately removes Free Will. It is a straw man.

The issue isn't that omniscience removes Free Will, but that such omniscience can't exist with Free Will. Whichever exists (if any), the other cannot. No one is proposing some interaction by which one actively removes the other. They simply cannot coexist.

It's simple.
1. Whatever God knows in (or about) one state in time, that knowledge necessarily persists through time. If we can say that "God knows X" at time T. The that is true for all other times as well. It cannot be the case that "God knows X" at time T and then "God doesn't know X" at time T+1.

2. Reality cannot be other than what God knows.

3. Free Will requires that alternate choices are accessible.

4. So lets say that, at time T I am presented with a choice between "A" and "B". Also, since God is omniscience, he knows which I will choose. Let's say he knows I will choose "A".

5. Option B is not accessible to me since, at all future times God knowledge of me choosing A persists (#1), so if I actually choose B it will be the case that I chose B while God knows I chose A, a contradiction (#2).

6. Since an option is no available to me, I don't have free will (#3).

No drafter, you are still looking at it wrong.

God can't know that you are going to choose B if you are going to choose A, so he can only know what you are going to choose. You are still the one doing the choosing.

As someone said earlier, you are going to do what you are going to do. You will never do something that you won't do, so in the same way you could argue that you have no choice.

You have to look at the CAUSE. Does God know what you will choose because it is what you are going to choose? In options 1,2,3 that is the case. You don't choose because God knows it, but he knows it because it is what you are going to choose.

It's like saying, I know that a ball I have balanced on a shelf is going to fall tomorrow. When it falls, it it going to make a noise.

Therefore, since the ball is going to make a noise, it has no choice but to fall. (This argument is wrong, since the noise is the effect, not the cause. You are doing the same thing with arguments 1, 2, 3).

Incompatibilism doesn't depend on causality, just determinism. Your attempts to restrict the argument are rejected.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 4:32:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 4:22:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:45:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:26:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/4/2012 8:50:48 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 6:38:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 1:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Do you care to actually respond to the points in the thread?

WHY does an omniscient being know what will happen?

Because that's what omniscient means.


That's deep.

Why is the sky blue? Because the sky is blue.

Did you read the OP? Do you understand the causality?

It's not

'You aren't free to choose anything other than what God knows you will choose.'

It's

'God can't know anything other than what you will choose.'

Except, if God is omniscient, his knowledge of my choice precedes the choice!



Only in the case of 'because the being determined it to have to happen that way' is there no free will.

Can you acknowledge the possibility of one of the first three scenarios?

No, because they don't resolve anything.

1. Yeah, if God is omniscient then he knows everything about everything perfectly. THAT'S THE POINT. If God knows I will make a specific choice tomorrow, then he always knew it. He knew it before I was born. He knew it 54 trillion years ago. So if God knows it, in what way am I free when I am actually presented with the choice?

2. How God exists is irrelevant. The 4 dimensions exist and we live in them. This "then", "now", and "tomorrow" EXIST FOR US. So it is still meaningful to say: "God knows X" now because now exists for us. Even if you object to this, all that is required is a reformatting of the statements. Instead of God knowing something in time, he knows something about time since time exists.

3. This doesn't resolve anything. How God gets this information is irrelevant. All that matters is the fact that he has this information and we cannot choose otherwise.

4. Is the common fallacy that compatabilists put forth: that the incompatabilism arises from an assertion that God's knowledge plays some active role that deliberately removes Free Will. It is a straw man.

The issue isn't that omniscience removes Free Will, but that such omniscience can't exist with Free Will. Whichever exists (if any), the other cannot. No one is proposing some interaction by which one actively removes the other. They simply cannot coexist.

It's simple.
1. Whatever God knows in (or about) one state in time, that knowledge necessarily persists through time. If we can say that "God knows X" at time T. The that is true for all other times as well. It cannot be the case that "God knows X" at time T and then "God doesn't know X" at time T+1.

2. Reality cannot be other than what God knows.

3. Free Will requires that alternate choices are accessible.

4. So lets say that, at time T I am presented with a choice between "A" and "B". Also, since God is omniscience, he knows which I will choose. Let's say he knows I will choose "A".

5. Option B is not accessible to me since, at all future times God knowledge of me choosing A persists (#1), so if I actually choose B it will be the case that I chose B while God knows I chose A, a contradiction (#2).

6. Since an option is no available to me, I don't have free will (#3).

No drafter, you are still looking at it wrong.

God can't know that you are going to choose B if you are going to choose A, so he can only know what you are going to choose. You are still the one doing the choosing.

As someone said earlier, you are going to do what you are going to do. You will never do something that you won't do, so in the same way you could argue that you have no choice.

You have to look at the CAUSE. Does God know what you will choose because it is what you are going to choose? In options 1,2,3 that is the case. You don't choose because God knows it, but he knows it because it is what you are going to choose.

It's like saying, I know that a ball I have balanced on a shelf is going to fall tomorrow. When it falls, it it going to make a noise.

Therefore, since the ball is going to make a noise, it has no choice but to fall. (This argument is wrong, since the noise is the effect, not the cause. You are doing the same thing with arguments 1, 2, 3).

Incompatibilism doesn't depend on causality, just determinism. Your attempts to restrict the argument are rejected.

The whole purpose of this thread is to explain how they CAN coexist, rather than try to prove that they can't. Try opening up to the possibilities.

Knowing something that is going to happen doesn't necessarily mean you determined it.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 4:42:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 4:32:08 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 4:22:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:45:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:26:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/4/2012 8:50:48 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/4/2012 6:38:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 1:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 7:03:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/3/2012 4:52:26 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
What a coincidence, I just debated this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

I personally see no discernible reason why omniscience would necessarily contradict human free will.

Because you aren't free to choose other than what an omniscient being knows will happen.

Do you care to actually respond to the points in the thread?

WHY does an omniscient being know what will happen?

Because that's what omniscient means.


That's deep.

Why is the sky blue? Because the sky is blue.

Did you read the OP? Do you understand the causality?

It's not

'You aren't free to choose anything other than what God knows you will choose.'

It's

'God can't know anything other than what you will choose.'

Except, if God is omniscient, his knowledge of my choice precedes the choice!



Only in the case of 'because the being determined it to have to happen that way' is there no free will.

Can you acknowledge the possibility of one of the first three scenarios?

No, because they don't resolve anything.

1. Yeah, if God is omniscient then he knows everything about everything perfectly. THAT'S THE POINT. If God knows I will make a specific choice tomorrow, then he always knew it. He knew it before I was born. He knew it 54 trillion years ago. So if God knows it, in what way am I free when I am actually presented with the choice?

2. How God exists is irrelevant. The 4 dimensions exist and we live in them. This "then", "now", and "tomorrow" EXIST FOR US. So it is still meaningful to say: "God knows X" now because now exists for us. Even if you object to this, all that is required is a reformatting of the statements. Instead of God knowing something in time, he knows something about time since time exists.

3. This doesn't resolve anything. How God gets this information is irrelevant. All that matters is the fact that he has this information and we cannot choose otherwise.

4. Is the common fallacy that compatabilists put forth: that the incompatabilism arises from an assertion that God's knowledge plays some active role that deliberately removes Free Will. It is a straw man.

The issue isn't that omniscience removes Free Will, but that such omniscience can't exist with Free Will. Whichever exists (if any), the other cannot. No one is proposing some interaction by which one actively removes the other. They simply cannot coexist.

It's simple.
1. Whatever God knows in (or about) one state in time, that knowledge necessarily persists through time. If we can say that "God knows X" at time T. The that is true for all other times as well. It cannot be the case that "God knows X" at time T and then "God doesn't know X" at time T+1.

2. Reality cannot be other than what God knows.

3. Free Will requires that alternate choices are accessible.

4. So lets say that, at time T I am presented with a choice between "A" and "B". Also, since God is omniscience, he knows which I will choose. Let's say he knows I will choose "A".

5. Option B is not accessible to me since, at all future times God knowledge of me choosing A persists (#1), so if I actually choose B it will be the case that I chose B while God knows I chose A, a contradiction (#2).

6. Since an option is no available to me, I don't have free will (#3).

No drafter, you are still looking at it wrong.

God can't know that you are going to choose B if you are going to choose A, so he can only know what you are going to choose. You are still the one doing the choosing.

As someone said earlier, you are going to do what you are going to do. You will never do something that you won't do, so in the same way you could argue that you have no choice.

You have to look at the CAUSE. Does God know what you will choose because it is what you are going to choose? In options 1,2,3 that is the case. You don't choose because God knows it, but he knows it because it is what you are going to choose.

It's like saying, I know that a ball I have balanced on a shelf is going to fall tomorrow. When it falls, it it going to make a noise.

Therefore, since the ball is going to make a noise, it has no choice but to fall. (This argument is wrong, since the noise is the effect, not the cause. You are doing the same thing with arguments 1, 2, 3).

Incompatibilism doesn't depend on causality, just determinism. Your attempts to restrict the argument are rejected.

The whole purpose of this thread is to explain how they CAN coexist, rather than try to prove that they can't. Try opening up to the possibilities.

I believe that they are logically contradictory concepts. Their coexistence is impossible.


Knowing something that is going to happen doesn't necessarily mean you determined it.

That's the fallacy you keep perpetuating. I'm not saying that knowing that something is going to happen makes it determined. I'm saying that you can't know that something is going to happen (in the perfect sense of omniscience) unless it is already determined to happen.

Foreknowledge doesn't make the outcome of choices determined, rather, foreknowledge requires that the outcome of choices already be determined for it to even exist. And foreknowledge is a component of omniscience.