Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 8:22 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 8:13 pmWill Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 3:37 amEither God knows which of the five roads we are going to choose, or he doesn't.
He does. Just as I
knew you'd reply. You could have chosen not to. You could have chosen to reply differently. But you replied as you saw fit, and I was quite right about my prediction.
The difference between God and you is that you made a prediction that happened to come true. Your God, on the other hand, did not predict that I would reply, he knew exactly how I would do so.
That's not a difference that makes any difference, really. That my prognostication was a good guess and His is a perfect knowing doesn't alter the dynamic one bit: it was your choice. You were uncompelled -- either by me or by God -- to write as you did. You chose what you chose.
And I'll bet that is exactly how you feel about it, too...and it's certainly the way you're acting when you debate. Because you don't say, "I am being compelled to make the following argument," but rather, "I think..." or "in my opinion," or some such phrase. You wouldn't naturally be willing to believe that the reason you and I see this differently is because you are compelled to see it that way by Determinism (either from God or from natural-law-type causal chains) and I am likewise compelled to see it my way, by the power of the same causal chains or fatalistic "god."
So if anybody sees it differently, the burden of proof is on them. They need to show you that Will and IC are not having a genuine disagreement at all, but merely "dancing to their [respective] DNA," or "being manipulated by a causal chain," or "being micromanaged by a deterministic 'god' of some sort." It feels, to Will and IC, as if their disparate viewpoints are their own, are being produced for reasons they have, and are being articulated by individuals free to do otherwise.
So how is the Determinist going to prove that all that is an illusion?
Unless I am mistaken, the two premises represent your beliefs:
God knows everything that we will ever do
God gave us freewill to choose what we do
Therefore freewill is the freedom to choose exactly what God already knows we are going to do.
Um...well, I'm sure you know this, but I have to say it anyway: your syllogism isn't sound. So it doesn't make sense, even on basic logical terms, because it doesn't follow logical structure. It doesn't even have a middle term, and it amphibolizes. That means that not only is the conclusion "avoidable," it's logically invalid, and is most improbable to contain a true conclusion; and if perchance it does, it would only be by accident, not by virtue of the rationale expressed.
So it can't possibly be a right articulation of what I believe, obviously. Let me see if I can suggest some way you could make your point in a formal syllogism. Do you mean to assert something like that you suppose I believe:
God has foreknowledge of what humans do.
Determinism (or "foremaking") is entailed in foreknowledge.
Therefore, God predetermines (or "foremakes") what humans do.
If that's what you mean, then premise 2 would be obviously false. Knowledge and determination are not the same, and don't entail each other. And, of course, I don't believe they do. But maybe that's not a right representation of your argument, so feel free to articulate it your own way. However, it will need to be in valid form in order to do justice to my argument, of course.