Free will: an illusion

Depends on what the definition of a Christian is. The faith alone definition doesn't provide any mechanism for ceasing to be a Christian. Like the IRA motto, it's "Once in, Never Out.Other definitons of what constitutes a Christian might allow for an such an escape.There is nothing to stop yourself calling yourself a Christtian either Crevo. Just pick a definition that fits and you can be one. Its easier and quicker than registering at EvC

Well I guess only the people concerned (and God) are aware of whether or not they ever truely believed...however this is OT and not for discussion here

Right so we can just throw out a couple of contradictory premises and hand wave away all the problems it introduces.
Nice.
Obviously to you, the concept of omnipotence makes all the little problems just go away in pretty little POOFs.
To me this just deapens the underlying issue that Omnipotence and Omniscience are absolutely mutually exclusiv.If you want to just hand wave it away then fine. you just do that.
But if you want any kind of meaningfull discussion, you are gonna need to do a whole lot better otherwise we are all just wasting our time here.{ABE}PS. This site could really use a bunch of better emoticons. I had to grab this one off my own web site.Edited by PurpleYouko, : No reason given.

Yes, when dealing with something as logically rediculous as omni-anything, you're gonna need to do a lot of handwaving. Yeah, like you're gonna come up with some new philisophical discovery on the nature of omni-stuff. Meaningful discussions are fine but to argue from incredulity of the coexistance of a few omni-things is hardly anyhting but a waste of time. Why are they mutually exclusive?Seems like they are mutually inclusive.

There are any number of things going on with respect to my free will which mean that it is not free in the sense you mean free. To fast forward a little to a point in the discussion which we may get to.The biblical position is that we have "free will", but either have that will enslaved to Sin or have it become enslaved to God. Enslaved to Sin means we are addicted to sin. An addict can choose not to insert the needle (free will) but his will is so heavily influenced by his addiction, that insert it he more often than not will. (free will within boundaries and open to influence (or lobbying) by that which is external to it.I am not pushing aside anything however. I have pointed out a logical fallacy. The question "is free will illusionary due to Gods all knowing" cannot be answered in the affirmative by me without turning myself into a machine (which cannot ask that question: which only set things cruising in circles). The question is by definition impossible to answer. It is an illogical question. Now I could in theory, rid myself of the assumptions "God exists" and "is all knowing" but I cannot hold them and at one and the same time as asking this question.Logical fallacies cannot be resolved. Discussions attempting to so are irrational. It has nothing to do with being challenged or fear of consequences. I simply have nothing to report with regard to how one should square a circle to you, the observer. As the above hopefully makes clear it has nothing to do with right and wrong. Logical fallacies don't make it that far. This belongs to the realm of another discussion with another person about another God. I'm giving you my position w.r.t. the assumptions we both agree are reasonable to make (for the purposes of discussion). WE are at a boundary. There is a logical fallacy present and its effect is to place a barrier in front of me (for I cannot resolve it). And a barrier on front of you - for you cannot discuss with a machine - for that is what I become as soon as it is possible that the answer is in the affirmative. There is no point in asking a question the logical answer to which must be 'no'.The thread is not about the existance of God or whether he is all knowing. They are assumptions which might eventually allow for the issue of free will to be discussed by two people. That we have hit a barrier in a logical fallacy doesn't mean we are aided by throwing out the assumptions. Remember, the question 1 in your OP is yours. I didn't introduce the logical fallacy. I'm just pointing it outEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : "change cannot" ask to "cannot answer in the affirmative"

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

There isn't one jot of incredulity in my argument. Simply the logical projection of the meaning of the premises. Which, incidentally nobody has directly addressed yet. Maybe you will. It's pretty obvious why. At least to me anyway. just for you I will explain it one more time.First we have to agree on what the premises mean. Here is what they mean to me. Maybe I have this wrong and it is the sause of the contention. Maybe to you and Iano they mean something different.Omniscience: Knowing everything there is to know about everything that exists throughout all time. Knowing every event that will ever happen and at what time it will happen. Knowing the motions of every single subatomic particle throughout the entire universe and knowing exactly where it will be at any possible moment in time. This knowledge must also be 100% infallible.Would you agree?Omnipotence: The ability to do anything you like. Absolutely anything with no restrictions.Again do you agree?Well here is my problem. The ability to do absolutely anything without restriction must also include the ability to change something that happens in the universe. So what does this do to omniscience?God knows with absolute certainty that a certain particle will be in a certain spot at a certain time (and remember, he CANNOT be wrong no matter what, due to omniscience)
Then he make it go somewhere else (remember he can do anything he likes by means of his omnipotence)
Except that now his foreknowledge was wrong. the particle isn't where he knew it would be. It is somewhere else.
Since omniscience means that he cannot be wrong yet by means of his own omnipotence, he is wrong then either one or the other cannot exist.Either his knowledge is perfect and he is powerless to change what he already knows to be true or his power is perfect and he has no idea what he will do until he decides to do it.It is logically impossible for both to be true simultaineously.

LOL, when omnipotence is added into the mix they just add to the "cruel god" scenario. If god is truly omnipotent then s/he/it doesn't have to create all those destined to be damned..it really is capriciousness.

This is not an unfounded assertion. There is no basis for supposing a machine can think. All the evidence it to the contrary. The only thing you could hold to is that an omnipotent God could make a machine think, decide, consider....whilst having all the free will of your average machine, to whit: none.We might as well suppose that he can make free willed, thinking being whilst being all knowing.But it kind of short circuits the discussion to point to one illogic (God creates a machine that can think it is an 'I') in order to escape another illogic (God creates a machine that can think it is an 'I') There is no shame in conceding an illogical argument. There are other fish to fry contained within Crevos OP. Free will within boundaries and under influence. Its not my bubble you have to burst PY. You have to break out of illogic. You have to suppose a machine that thinks. That is illogical no matter which way you look at it. The reason they call it artificial intelligence is that no matter how intelligent it gets it will always be artificial. If you want to suppose that you are a biological machine whose thinking is predestined by either God or naturalistic causes then you may."I think, but I am not"The founding assumption for all of us, irrespective of God is that "I am" Kick that out and discussion becomes pointless. For without "I am" you argue in a circle. The machine deciding it is a maching argues in a circleEdited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

Will you stop with this one already?
This is NOT a logical falacy since there is no reason whatsoever why a machine cannot ask the question. This is particularly true if you are predestined to ask the question through Gods very pre-knowledge of the event.
That they cannot is simply an unfounded and unsupported assertion on your part.
This statement is not a valid argument. No there isn't a logical falacy. If you really think there is then please explain why a machine cannot ask the questionThe situation we truly have is that you are unwilling to ask the question because to do so means that one of two possible scenarios become evident.In one you are fully able to ask the question with your own free will because God is actually NOT omniscient.
In the other you aske the question because that is what you are predestined to do. You have no free will to NOT ask it. Since you are still under the illusion of free will this presents no problems. A robot automaton could just as easily ask the question (if that is what it was programmed to do) as a free willed individual could. If the question has any inherrent meaning or not is utterly irrelevent. Funny I kinda thought that was precisely what it is about.Your premise is that God exists, God is A.K and that we have free will.My premise (for the duration of this thread) is either that

• God exists, God is NOT A.K. and that we have free will
• Or that God exists, God is A.K. and we have the "Illusion" of free will.

I am already making a pretty big concession in agreeing that God exists. You can't expect me to accept a position which I am actively trying to refute.

A machine doesn't ask the question. That which designed it does. The machine is just an extension of that which designed it (God in this discussion)God asking himself whether his being all knowing makes our free will an illusionThis is getting more and more illogical by the minuteEdited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

I'm on the fence about free will, I guess. I don't see it as a terribly important question.But let me ask you this - do you percieve a difference between causing the coin to flip, and causing the coin to flip heads? Casinos do, I would imagine.

The Calvinist position is that we do not have free will in the sense you are describing it, the ability to choose and follow God. Adam and Eve did, but at the Fall we lost the ability to choose God.This is part of the contention between Calvinists and Arminians. Arminians claim we do have the free will to choose God.

But he knew he was going to change it all along. He did know where it was going to be.ABE:I guess you're gonna type that if he knew what he was gonna change it to then he doesn't have the power to change it to something other than that.That's where the hand waving comes in. I give precedence to power over knowledge because power could inlude knowledge.If god is all-powerful, then he can know everything while mainitining his power even if it is a contradiction.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

I just noticed that in the list of members above, Crevo was right next to you and PY was right under me. A divine appointment made manifest?Gods humor?Or even better a horizontal connection between you and crevo and a vertical one between me and PY. Kind of the element one would use in the manufacture of a cross Oops now poor old Crevo has it tough: you and me right next to himOops now all four of us in direct connection. FreakyNow jar comes between us. Typical and as simple as thatPY shifts right: jar accomplishing his mission. But Crevo, faith and iano still connected. Rivetting stuff. Spritual battle at EvC!PYs back. God on the offensive. Jar still hovering thoughYahoo! direct contact re establishedEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

there is not need to fast forward, i would prefer if you could explain to me why you feel that an A.K. God is not imcompatible with free will. I have Explained why I think the two are incompatible. If you cannot even attempt to refute this point move on to the others. They can be treated seperately. but that does not change the fact that if the outcome is foreknown any 'choice' is illusory, 'likelyhood' doesn't even come into it. God knows what will happen regardless of the outcome. it is unchangeable. otherwise God is wrong. Influence or lobbying is essentially irrelevant. the outcome is the outcome is the outcome, regardless of what influence I exert regardless of what lobbying i attempt, God knew from the dawn of eternity what the outcome would be. I don't see this, I have made a point in the plainest terms I can. I don't see how you answering this in the affirmative will turn you into a machine.What happens though is that it leaves two possibilities:
1) God does not exist, or
2) God is not all knowing
IF you are unwilling to entertain any notion which may lead to one of those conclusions you are in deed pushing the argument aside. You are unwilling to pursue an argument which may lead you down the path to questioning the nature or the existance of god. the question is not illogical, the question is based upon applying logic, when logic is applied, the a.k. God = free will scenario becomes illogical you need not rid yourself of these assumption to consider and answer the question (assuming you can answer it in such a way as to demonstrate the a.k. God and Free will are not mutually exclusive), But the answer, or the discussion may provoke you to rethink these assumptions, examine them closer consider if they are mutually exclusive or not. You keep mentioning Logical Fallacy, I either don't under stand what you mean by logical fallacy or simply don't see it. I am applying logic to the situation. the result is, the situation does not stand up to scrutnisation. Can you explain how you become a machine if you answer in the affirmative? as I see it, if you answer in the affirmative you either accept that god is not omnicient, or accept that he may not infact exist (at least as per the Xian definition). [/qs]The thread is not about the existance of God or whether he is all knowing.[/qs] That is precisely what it is about, The contradiction between A.K. God and free will results in these issues being called seriously into question.If you are unwilling or unable to consider the first point maybe you could consider the other 2?- Is it fair that God ask us to make a choice while withholding vital information/evidence?
- As a result of the fall, how can you trust your own judgement in recognising God? and making the right decision whether or not to reject him?