Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Name An Argument You've Ditched Due To DDO

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:08:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Title says it all.

I used to think omniscience and free will were incompatible, but then a debater here (I forget who, I think maybe Dakota) convinced me that this is just confusing cause and effect. We don't make a choice because God knows that choice, God knows that choice because we are going to make that choice. This made me ditch that particular incompatibility argument. There are more, but I just thought it would be fun to start a thread where people name an argument they have ditched, due to this website.

Have fun!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:14:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I used to think world war and civil war were inevitable until I heard other peoples opinions about all types of different things from here. Now I believe anything is possible.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:19:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:08:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Title says it all.

I used to think omniscience and free will were incompatible, but then a debater here (I forget who, I think maybe Dakota) convinced me that this is just confusing cause and effect. We don't make a choice because God knows that choice, God knows that choice because we are going to make that choice. This made me ditch that particular incompatibility argument. There are more, but I just thought it would be fun to start a thread where people name an argument they have ditched, due to this website.

Have fun!

Indeed it was I. Good times... gooood times.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:26:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bleh, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I like it, and I think it's sound, but I don't use it anymore because I've drifted towards Thomism in my time here, so I prefer TCAs.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:41:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:08:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Title says it all.

I used to think omniscience and free will were incompatible, but then a debater here (I forget who, I think maybe Dakota) convinced me that this is just confusing cause and effect. We don't make a choice because God knows that choice, God knows that choice because we are going to make that choice. This made me ditch that particular incompatibility argument. There are more, but I just thought it would be fun to start a thread where people name an argument they have ditched, due to this website.

Have fun!

I've done a lot of ditching of arguments/positions due to DDO. Some of the changes weren't directly caused by any particular user(s) but more indirectly caused by considering something else that someone said and then going off and researching/thinking about it on my own.

Some important ones would be inerrancy and eternal hell. There's a lot of "small" shifts that are too numerous to list off, too.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 9:10:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've changed my mind on allot of religious augments. First I changed most of my arguments I used to justify my Christian conservatism and creationism. Then I dropped all arguments I had for Christianity. Then I dropped all arguments I had for God. Also some I had against God, though I never agreed with that many.
"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)
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 9:32:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The most recent one I can think of is gun rights although I am not sure I would say it is because of DDO. I was against gun rights and even debated the topic but now I think that while we should have stringent background checks to limit the proliferation of guns, law abiding citizens should be allowed to have them.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 9:43:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

It's very easy. Assuming they are incompatible, is confusing cause and effect.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 9:50:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:26:47 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Bleh, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I like it, and I think it's sound, but I don't use it anymore because I've drifted towards Thomism in my time here, so I prefer TCAs.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 9:53:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 9:43:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

It's very easy. Assuming they are incompatible, is confusing cause and effect.

Omniscience means knowing all future events, which means all choices one makes are determined before they are made.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 9:58:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 9:53:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:43:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

It's very easy. Assuming they are incompatible, is confusing cause and effect.

Omniscience means knowing all future events, which means all choices one makes are determined before they are made.

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

^ this is the debate RT was referring to
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:02:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 9:53:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:43:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

It's very easy. Assuming they are incompatible, is confusing cause and effect.

Omniscience means knowing all future events, which means all choices one makes are determined before they are made.

Yes, but they are determined by you, not God. God's knowledge is based on what you are going to freely choose in the future. What you do, isn't based on God's knowledge. This is why I was claiming that you are confusing cause and effect. It's ok, I made the same mistake, just look at the debate Dakota posted.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:04:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 9:50:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/18/2013 8:26:47 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Bleh, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I like it, and I think it's sound, but I don't use it anymore because I've drifted towards Thomism in my time here, so I prefer TCAs.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net...

I wish there was a way to actually post pictures here...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:07:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.

He objects to modal logic entirely, so this is not really a good description for him lol
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:09:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 9:50:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/18/2013 8:26:47 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Bleh, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I like it, and I think it's sound, but I don't use it anymore because I've drifted towards Thomism in my time here, so I prefer TCAs.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net...

It's not pretentious enough. People can understand "beginning to exist" but not "act and potency."

...ha. For real though, I just like St. Thomas's arguments more, since I love the concept of Actus Purus especially with relation to verses like Exodus 3:14.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:10:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:07:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.

He objects to modal logic entirely, so this is not really a good description for him lol

How in the? What? Modal logic isn't some sly theistic invention...
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:13:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.

Omniscience entails complete knowledge of all past and future events. This knowledge precedes the events known, necessarily meaning any choices made are made deterministically.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:15:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:10:13 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:07:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.

He objects to modal logic entirely, so this is not really a good description for him lol

How in the? What? Modal logic isn't some sly theistic invention...

You were talking about modal fallacies. I was claiming that it doesn't matter, because he rejects all modal inferences anyway.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:15:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I used to think that Poop did have DNA but then someone convinced me otherwise. I cant remember who it was, but he was kind of an idiot....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:16:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:13:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.


Omniscience entails complete knowledge of all past and future events. This knowledge precedes the events known, necessarily meaning any choices made are made deterministically.

I just explained why that was false. You're erroneously applying the necessity of God's foreknowledge with relation to the choices we make to the contingency of the consequent. This is a known modal fallacy.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:17:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:15:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:10:13 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:07:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.

He objects to modal logic entirely, so this is not really a good description for him lol

How in the? What? Modal logic isn't some sly theistic invention...

You were talking about modal fallacies. I was claiming that it doesn't matter, because he rejects all modal inferences anyway.

Oh, yeah, I know what you were saying. I was expressing my surprise at someone flat-out rejecting a branch of logic like that.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:19:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:16:28 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:13:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.


Omniscience entails complete knowledge of all past and future events. This knowledge precedes the events known, necessarily meaning any choices made are made deterministically.

I just explained why that was false. You're erroneously applying the necessity of God's foreknowledge with relation to the choices we make to the contingency of the consequent. This is a known modal fallacy.

I'm less concerned with God's knowledge than I am with this knowledge entailing a deterministic universe, ruling out the possibility of free will.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:21:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:17:31 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:15:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:10:13 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:07:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.

He objects to modal logic entirely, so this is not really a good description for him lol

How in the? What? Modal logic isn't some sly theistic invention...

You were talking about modal fallacies. I was claiming that it doesn't matter, because he rejects all modal inferences anyway.

Oh, yeah, I know what you were saying. I was expressing my surprise at someone flat-out rejecting a branch of logic like that.

Well, he objects to other premises of the MOA, besides P1. This leads me to believe, that he rejects modal logic.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:22:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:19:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:16:28 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:13:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.


Omniscience entails complete knowledge of all past and future events. This knowledge precedes the events known, necessarily meaning any choices made are made deterministically.

I just explained why that was false. You're erroneously applying the necessity of God's foreknowledge with relation to the choices we make to the contingency of the consequent. This is a known modal fallacy.

I'm less concerned with God's knowledge than I am with this knowledge entailing a deterministic universe, ruling out the possibility of free will.

That's what I'm discussing as well. His knowledge doesn't imply a deterministic universe, at least with respect to free will, because his knowledge doesn't determine our choices, our choices determine his foreknowledge.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:23:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:04:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:50:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/18/2013 8:26:47 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Bleh, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I like it, and I think it's sound, but I don't use it anymore because I've drifted towards Thomism in my time here, so I prefer TCAs.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net...

I wish there was a way to actually post pictures here...

I agree
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:23:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:21:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:17:31 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:15:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:10:13 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:07:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.

He objects to modal logic entirely, so this is not really a good description for him lol

How in the? What? Modal logic isn't some sly theistic invention...

You were talking about modal fallacies. I was claiming that it doesn't matter, because he rejects all modal inferences anyway.

Oh, yeah, I know what you were saying. I was expressing my surprise at someone flat-out rejecting a branch of logic like that.

Well, he objects to other premises of the MOA, besides P1. This leads me to believe, that he rejects modal logic.

Your improper commas are starting to irritate me lol
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:25:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:22:54 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:19:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:16:28 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:13:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:05:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/18/2013 9:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand how omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

I'll let you slide on this one, Dylan Catlow.

But it's a really subtle modal fallacy. To use pretentious-sounding medieval terminology, it confuses the necessitas consequentiae with the necessitas consequentis -- that is, the necessity of the inference with the necessity of the consequent. It takes the following fallacious format:

1. Necessarily, P implies Q
2. P
3. Hence, necessarily, Q

or

1. Necessarily, if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice
2. God predicts a choice we make
3. Hence, necessarily, we will make that choice

It's confusing the necessity of the inference -- that if God predicts a choice we make, we will make that choice, with the consequent itself, which relies on the contingency of P. So Q will occur if P is true, due to the necessity of the inference, but P itself is contingent; hence, we cannot assert Q to be necessary. In other words, if we make a different choice, then God would predict a different way.


Omniscience entails complete knowledge of all past and future events. This knowledge precedes the events known, necessarily meaning any choices made are made deterministically.

I just explained why that was false. You're erroneously applying the necessity of God's foreknowledge with relation to the choices we make to the contingency of the consequent. This is a known modal fallacy.

I'm less concerned with God's knowledge than I am with this knowledge entailing a deterministic universe, ruling out the possibility of free will.

That's what I'm discussing as well. His knowledge doesn't imply a deterministic universe, at least with respect to free will, because his knowledge doesn't determine our choices, our choices determine his foreknowledge.

Necessarily meaning our choices are predetermined, which is why that knowledge is possible.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:26:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:08:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Title says it all.

I used to think omniscience and free will were incompatible, but then a debater here (I forget who, I think maybe Dakota) convinced me that this is just confusing cause and effect. We don't make a choice because God knows that choice, God knows that choice because we are going to make that choice. This made me ditch that particular incompatibility argument. There are more, but I just thought it would be fun to start a thread where people name an argument they have ditched, due to this website.

Have fun!

They are. It's caaaaaaalled: Compatibilism! and it is accepted by most philosophers today.

See how much you learned today?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."