Re: Free Will vs Determinism
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:10 pm
Why not? except in your human argument, but really there is no reason for God to be bound by human expectations or limits.
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Why not? except in your human argument, but really there is no reason for God to be bound by human expectations or limits.
Being omniscient means that God can know the future not that god must know the future. Choosing not to know does not diminish God's omniscience at all, omniscience is the ability to know, there is no obligation to know, just as you are not obliged to understand this at all.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:27 am If you are saying your 'God' chooses not to know then it is not omniscient is it as 'it' doesn't know something.
Right. I just ignore him nowadays.
And some people understand and point to logical consequences, it's called Philosophy, maybe you and IC should go to a theology site instead as you are clearly not listening to my argument but just living in your little back-rubbing theist bubble.thedoc wrote:Some people don't understand any explanation at all.
You really need to get to grips with why Logic occurs and how it applies to anything that exists, unless of course you are saying your 'God' does not exist and hence Logic does not apply to 'it', I'll go with that.thedoc wrote: Why not? except in your human argument, but really there is no reason for God to be bound by human expectations or limits.
IC said he ignores me because I said that by the definition of a bastard his 'God' is one and he did not wish to be party to my infernal eternal punishment? Nothing about my arguments.Immanuel Can wrote:Right. I just ignore him nowadays. ...
And my point is exactly that it does not have to be this 'God' doing it but that something has to be doing it if this 'God' is going to be omniscient otherwise there is a high chance that it won't be turning out how 'it' says it will and hence 'it' won't be omniscient. As such if 'it' is omniscient then there has to be a determiner somewhere.Omniscience means "knowing everything beforehand," not "forcibly arranging everything beforehand." ...
So IC agrees, something else is doing some of the doing.Omnipotence means "able to do anything," not "having to do everything."
Surely he means immanent?Omnipresence means "present everywhere," not "imminent in everything."[/color]
I see, so apparently you can use your human reasoning to know what your 'God' is up to but I can't use Logic to say what it can and cannot do, theology forum for you my son.thedoc wrote:Being omniscient means that God can know the future not that god must know the future. Choosing not to know does not diminish God's omniscience at all, omniscience is the ability to know, there is no obligation to know, just as you are not obliged to understand this at all.
What you overlook is that it doesn’t matter if the future is fixed. Of course it is fixed, if an OA knows in advance what will happen. But as a matter of logic, fixity is not necessity.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:30 amI have and so far I have a big problem in that you do not address the temporal factor in all this. When does this OA know what it is supposed to know? Because when it does then the future must be fixed for it to become true and that means no more freewill and no accidental events and this means to me a determining agent(DA) somewhere in the mix.davidm wrote:Omniscience and free will are not just compatible, it is logically necessary they be so -- as I explained upthread.
Suggest you carefully reread and think about it,
No this is incorrect, when you start a row of Domino's you don't need to push each one (unless they are too far apart) you push the first one and each will topple the next in turn. That is why God doesn't need to micro-manage everything and there doesn't need to be another agent for things to happen. It sounds like you are claiming that for anything to happen, God or some other agent has to make it happen. That is just silly, sometimes things just happen without intervention. God doesn't cause each little thing, but God was the original cause of every chain of events.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:10 pmAnd my point is exactly that it does not have to be this 'God' doing it but that something has to be doing it if this 'God' is going to be omniscient otherwise there is a high chance that it won't be turning out how 'it' says it will and hence 'it' won't be omniscient. As such if 'it' is omniscient then there has to be a determiner somewhere.Immanuel Can wrote:Omniscience means "knowing everything beforehand," not "forcibly arranging everything beforehand." ...So IC agrees, something else is doing some of the doing.Omnipotence means "able to do anything," not "having to do everything."
Er!? This chain of dominoes is exactly Determinism.thedoc wrote:No this is incorrect, when you start a row of Domino's you don't need to push each one (unless they are too far apart) you push the first one and each will topple the next in turn. That is why God doesn't need to micro-manage everything and there doesn't need to be another agent for things to happen. It sounds like you are claiming that for anything to happen, God or some other agent has to make it happen. That is just silly, sometimes things just happen without intervention. God doesn't cause each little thing, but God was the original cause of every chain of events.
But it is if this OA states beforehand what is going to happen?davidm wrote:What you overlook is that it doesn’t matter if the future is fixed. Of course it is fixed, if an OA knows in advance what will happen. But as a matter of logic, fixity is not necessity.
And yet you can't do anything different otherwise it can't 'foreknow' it at any time beforehand?In the case of humans, what “fixes” the future (and the past and the present) with regard to what we do, are our free choices. If I freely do x, and some OA knows this even before I do it, so what? What this OA foreknows, is entirely dependent on what I will do.
You're asking what would happen if the OA tapped me on my shoulder and told me that he knew what I was about to do, and then told me what that thing was, and I decided to do differently? Is that your question?Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:52 pmBut it is if this OA states beforehand what is going to happen?davidm wrote:What you overlook is that it doesn’t matter if the future is fixed. Of course it is fixed, if an OA knows in advance what will happen. But as a matter of logic, fixity is not necessity.
I can do x or y. If I do x OA will foreknow x. If I do y, OA will foreknow y instead. But I am free to do x or y.And yet you can't do anything different otherwise it can't 'foreknow' it at any time beforehand?
No, I'm asking you that if the OA told me what you were going to do how would it be possible for you to do it differently?davidm wrote:You're asking what would happen if the OA tapped me on my shoulder and told me that he knew what I was about to do, and then told me what that thing was, and I decided to do differently? Is that your question? ...
What do you actually mean by this 'foreknow'?I can do x or y. If I do x OA will foreknow x. If I do y, OA will foreknow y instead. But I am free to do x or y.
I went over the modal logic of this in some detail upthread.
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:03 amNo, I'm asking you that if the OA told me what you were going to do how would it be possible for you to do it differently?davidm wrote:You're asking what would happen if the OA tapped me on my shoulder and told me that he knew what I was about to do, and then told me what that thing was, and I decided to do differently? Is that your question? ...
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:09 amArising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:03 amNo, I'm asking you that if the OA told me what you were going to do how would it be possible for you to do it differently?davidm wrote:You're asking what would happen if the OA tapped me on my shoulder and told me that he knew what I was about to do, and then told me what that thing was, and I decided to do differently? Is that your question? ...
This makes no sense. Why would it matter if the OA told me what someone else was going to do?
You have a much more powerful case if you asked as I indicated: Suppose an OA told me what he infallibly predicted that I was going to do, and then I decided to do differently. But it's impossible that I should do differently, given that the OA is infallible. Therefore (it seems to follow) I must do what the OA predicts, even if I try to do otherwise. That would destroy my whole argument. Wouldn't you care to follow this much more promising line of attack instead?