Free will: an illusion

Yes I notice that stuff too, but then I shake my head hard to clear it. You maybe need a break from the salt mines? I've been needing one for some time.Also, I haven't read through this thread thoroughly I must admit, but you are defending the idea that we have free will, Arminian style, aren't you? I as a Calvinist am then disagreeing with you.Lost jar it seems; now three on the top line and PY below.

Iliogical within the confines of an A.K. God.If God is not A.K however...

I will be bailing out for now... work commitments and the weekend, hope to pick back up on monday (or if the work day slows down)

So this is truly the impasse then.
I contend that there are machines that can think. You are one and so am I. How much more evidence do you need?You are right that there is zero evidence that a machine that is not "made by a creator God can think. We haven't made one yet.
The problem is that there is also zero evidence that we are created by a creator God. While I accept that as a possibility it is by no means the only one.The assumptions that I am being asked to accept are steadily growing it appears. I now have to accept that this God ..

1. Exists
2. Is omniscient
3. Is the only possible cause for life the universe and everything.

I never agreed to the third premise yet you seem to be using it to argue your point. If I made concessions then you have to as well.
You cannot prove that God did make us and I cannot prove that he didn't so your point that there cannot be non-created free willed inteligence carries the same weight as my point that there can be
Both points would be unsubstantiated assertions and must be dropped from the discussion.Since your aleged logical falacy relies entirely on us being created and there being zero possibility for non-created inteligence, you cannot substantiate it so it cannot be used in an argument where the assumption of creation being the only possible source of inteligence and free will is NOT a prerequisite.Or have we now moved (or possibly re-defined) the goal posts?The fact is that i still do not accept that we have a logical facacy even if we did assume that creation was the only source of inteligent self willed life.Just for the moment though, let's go there and see what drops out.assuming that

1. God exists
2. God is is A.K.
3. God is the only possible source of inteligent free willed life.

We ask the question.
Does Gods quality of A.K.ness (another new word) mean we have nothing more than the illusion of free will?I still say YES. A big fat resounding YES.
The fact is that he knows everything we will ever do so we are not free to do anything else.
Are we robots?
Again with the Hell Yes!
Without free will are we truly thinking?
No of course we aren't. It just seems that way. God just made us that way. We have nothing to say about it one way or the other.If you cannot accept this conclusion then the only possible way out of this dilema is to discard one or more of the premises since by logical deduction we have falsified at least one of them. except that there is nothing illogical about it. Accepting your premises puts me in a contradictory position which cannot be maintained. Even under your stringent premises you still do not have to assume a "machine that thinks"
In fact I most certainly do not assume a machine that thinks. Under your premises the only conclusion I can draw is a machine that DOESN't think
That is and always has been my entire argument.
God's A.K.ness implies that I DO NOT THINK at all. I am simply following a predestined path. All "thoughts" that go through my brain are nothing more than pre-programmed chemical impulses following a determistic and pre-known path that was laid down at the dawn of time. (whether designed or not is another issue) Another unfounded assertion. You can no more prove this than I can prove the non-existence of God. You have to stop stating your personal opinions as fact. I quite agree. We do need the "I am" and that is why I follow the only available and logiclally conducive path in throwing out the eronious premise that God is A.K. That is the way we advance knowledge. You propose a scenario, pick it apart and explore where it takes your then when you reach a point where something is obviously wrong with the premise, you chuck it out and start over with a new one.If you aren't willing to even consider that possibility then we really are wasting our time.
You can't examine the true nature of the Earth if you establish 'a priori' that you are unwilling to shift from your belief in a flat world but instead have to warp other logical conclusion to fit it.

It would appear that way wouldn't it? Doesn't make much sense does it? Actually no it isn't. This is getting more logical by the minute.
The fact that pure logic brings us to a point where the ooutcome is ridiculous just means we have to re-examine the premises that lead to the outcome.

This is the nub of your post and I'll have to head soon so will just deal with this. You answer yourself what sort of illogic arises where I to answer this question in the affirmativeI cannot answer "God being all knowing makes free will an illusion" in the affirmative and at the same time accept (as you suggest I must above) that he is not all knowing. That is more illogic CrevoNor can I answer "God being all knowing makes free will an illusion" in the affirmative if it makes God not exist. For then there is no God to be all knowing or otherwiseAll you are asking me to do is to discard the two assumptions we started out with. That is your perogative. But you asked me to partake so we could find out what my position has to say about free will. The starting assumptions threw up an illogic in your first question. The solution to the illogic is not to dump the assumptions that cause it to be. At least not if one want to discuss my view on free-will based as it is on the starting assumptions I thought we had agreed on.To discuss, the illogic has be resolved or question dumped as illogical given the starting assumptions. Otherwise you are seeking the view of the wrong person. You must find a person whose starting assumptions better accomodate your first question. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi Crash Then again are you willing to first accept the premises?
And no it isn't very important really. In the grand scheme of things (which for the duration of this thread i am assuming actually exists) it, in fact means bugger all.

Haha. you beat me to it. Me too. And that means he has the power to do something that he doesn't know he is going to do. Again this negates omniscience since if he doesn't know any one single thing, ever then he does not fit the definition I outlined above. At least you understand that it is a contradiction. If you want to keep believing it then that's fine.
Personally I would rather just trash the "future" part of the definition of Omniscience. That way he can know everthing that is presently happening and that has happened in the past.No actually that isn't quite true either. I would really much rather believe that he doesn't exist at all but the scientist in me won't let me take that final little step into active disbelief.

To sum up my position to date:Two assumptions:God exists
God is all knowing...renders the question "Does an all knowing God render free will an illusion" an illogical one. Such a question cannot be rationally answered in the affirmative. And a YES/NO style question which excludes a rational affirmative answer is not a valid queston (given the starting assumptions).Later Crevo

---

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

Whoa, I wasn't expecting that.That's what I do to omniscience too. Knowing everything should be limited to the things that are possible to know. The future doesn't exists so it can't be known, or something like that. I didn't want to argue about that so I didn't reply to your question about if I agreed with your definition of omniscience or not.But, to maintain his omnipotence, I think he as the ability to know the future, he just doesn't know it even though he could. THat way, we are allowed to have free will, he could take it away by knowing the future (and he might do it occasionally) but I think he wants us to have free will.Still though, you can't limit omnipotence from logical contradictions becasue then it becomes something really close to omnipotence but not. And just because it is a contradiction doesn't mean that GOD couldn't do it, especially if he is omnipotent.

My God.. You've got it! I am not asking you to accept that an 'all knowing god makes free will and illusion' and God is not all knowing.
I am saying that an all knowing god makes free will an illusion, therefore either god is not all knowing or we have no free will [abe:] a.k. god and free will cannot coexistthat is it, one of those statements must be correct(in the context of the argument) otherwise it is illogical. You have seen the light! we cannot have an all knowing God and free will.. that is illogical Iano, you really are making a meal of this.Answer me this:
Can you explain how an all knowing god, one who knows our every move, past present and future, can be compatible with our free will? Any choice we make only 'seems' like a [abe]'Free' choice to us. Because the outcome is foreknown. unchangable. The question is not illogical. You are brandishing that word like a shield to deflect the issue.
The illogic of the A.K. God = Free Will CAUSES the question to be asked.I feel that you see the illogic in the A.K. God = free will scenario, but rather than deal with it you are projecting that illogic onto the question?
The substance of the question is:
"how can A.K. God be compatible with free will"there is no illogic in that question. the illogic arises if you try to make the two compatible... they blatantly are not. the question show the illogic of your position.Edited by Creavolution, : spellingEdited by Creavolution, : clarity and spelling

So answer it in the negative... show me your position. show me why you hold that position.

Here is an interesting possibility then. Try this on for size.
(I am just exploring a bit here so it might not make much sense. Just bear with me)How about God has the ability to know what will happen in the future based on what is happening right now but that the present is in constant flux such that if he were to use that ability again in 10 minutes time, the outcome could be subtly different?
This could also be extended into the IF.. THEN kind of future knowledge such as IF I do THIS then the outcome will certainly be THAT.
It kind of opens up the possibility of there being alternate futures based on our free will and choices that we make, and that God has the ability to know them all, then as the choices are made, the future coalesces into a narrower field in which futures which would have happened IF a certain choice had been made are no longer viable.
The past would obviously be fixed in stone but the future would be in flux.Using this kind of definition of reality, it may be possible to reconcile Omniscience with Omnipotence.I still have a big problem with prophecy though, but then again maybe prophecy just looks into certain branches of the future and through the direct or indirect actions of God (and possibly other players) the threads of reality are carefully manipulated to bring about the correct circumstances for the prophecy to be fulfilled.How does that sound to you?I think I had better go and lie down now.
I could well have just given Iano a loophole to get out of his dilema about free will and Omniscience.Damn!
Why do I always do that.
I mean whose bloody side am I on anyway?

There is always the issue of having some ability but then not using it. The problem I have with that is how do you tell the difference between a God who has the ability of foreknowledge but doesn't use it and one who does not have the ability at all? If we add in an additional selective layer, God uses his ability of foreknowledge selectively, in some cases he uses it, in others he does not, it only makes God even more capricious.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes that is indeed a problem.
There is essentially no difference between a God who has the ability yet doesn't use it, because of possible contraditions, and one who has no such ability.But what if he can and does use it but sees many many possible outcomes with equal (and some not so equal) chances of becoming reality?It does take away the concept of God being outside of time because it would mean the the future is still in flux even to him. he may well see all of time but as probable paths rather than certainties. He would know that a certain event will certainly happen along a specific timeline but that timeline may be one of many that have equal probablity.I don't think this way of looking at it detracts from his Omniscience one little bit. It's just that he knows ALL the outcomes.I guess it could be argued that if he knows which timeline would become reality then we are back to square one but maybe it could be argued that since (at the time of knowing) all the timelines are equally real so it doesn't matter.Am I making any kind of sense here or am I just rambling?
I think I might be losing the ability to objective to some degree.