Free will: an illusion

The problem faced by Paul Atreides. But he at least acknowledged his own cruelity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Any reference to Dune is OK in my book.It's a tough one alright.

Me an Arminian! A curse on their house! Na sis. it's a bit more convoluted than that. Someone asked me once whether I was a Calvinist and I said NO! so as to dispel the the response that awaited such an admission ("your a hyper-Calvinist then..")Calvinism (without pigeonholing myself - it pays not to, for the miscomprehension that can occur) is the best description of my own position. But I would only say as much to someone as yourslf who understands.You know how difficult it is to get even the tiniest point across around here. Crevo/PY are talking no free will. Whilst trying to bring the discussion onto free will within the boundaries of enslavement to sin/God the merest acknowledgement that free doesn't mean free will quickly snowball to "my sin ain't mine - how can God punish me?!"One has to thread carefully and very circumspectively. As you well know.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : typo

ianoHave you read up on tests done that reveal that free will is not so cut and dried?

Who said free will was cut and dried?

ianoI mentioned a study by Benjamin Libet earlier in the thread and I wonder if you may have had a chance to view this. If not the article available at wikipedia is here.Benjamin Libet - WikipediaLet me know what you think of the study

Sidelined,I never mind discussing with yourself and my signature should not be taken implying that I do. But that's the way it is for this threadIan Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

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

There are various reasons why I hold the position I do but the one I chose to present to you is the one I think will be most effective in convincing you that the assumption of an all knowing God does not render free will an illusion.And the way I chose to do it is to show you that one cannot rationally answer 'yes' to the question "Does an all knowing God render free will an illusion" I think I've shown that a 'yes' answer is an impossible one.One might feel the need to understand precisely how it is that a 'no' answer is rationalised but I doubt there is much point in discussing it with a person holding your viewpoint. No offence, but experience tells me that the attempt would not result in as concrete an argument. What you are forced into accepting is that a no answer is the only possible one due to the exclusion of alternative answers such a "yes", "perhaps", "maybe" and even "we cannot know".This is a 'negative' way at arriving at a conclusion. Although perhaps more difficult to accept than a 'positive' way of arriving, arrival it is.The answer to the question "Does an all knowing God render free will an illusion" is no - for want of any other possible answer. I say its the most effective way I can think of for presenting my position. For you can refuse to accept the conclusion only by ignoring the only answer possible.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

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

There are two assumptions which Crevo agrees to in order for the discussion to be enabledGod exists
God is all knowingI'll ignore the bits of your post that deny these assumptions - its not a general thread about God.The illogic in which you are currently trapped (w.r.t. Crevos question 1) is that as a machine (I have no free will) you are in no position to discuss. You assert that thinking machines exist - namely us, but any argument for that notion orbits in a circle. All you are saying is that the machines are very complex - but any machine only produces that which it must. A machine arguing that it is indeterminate argues in a circle too. All notions we have of machines tell us that. That a machine could be otherwise is a groundless assertion/assumption. The groundless assumptions on which this thread is operating are those which have been accepted for the purposes of discussion. (above)Our dicussion must terminate PY on the issue in Crevos question 1. See the message above to Crevo which summarises the position regarding that question alone. The issue of free will and the boundaries and influences it is subject to are potentials for discussion but the next assumption we must make before doing so is that Gods all knowing doesn't render free will illusionary Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

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

They never met God. For once you have met a person and communed with them even briefly, you never will go so far as to deny that they were real.AQt the risk of sticking my foot in my mouth, I'll assert that most of the Christians who are now ex-christians had faith in faith and ritual...an idea or a belief of a group, maybe...but I would challenge that any of them had ever met God and then denied that the experience was real.

This is not illogic.
It is in fact perfect logic.
The only illogical point is the one you are making that this discussion would be impossible. You have no grounds to make that argument since it is NOT the logical conclusion of the premisesIn fact my entire point is that not only ARE we in a position to discuss this but that the fact that we are machines and that the future is pre-determined (as a result of perfect foreknowledge), means that we are FORCED to do it.Your two assumptions make this inevitable.
It is the only possible logical conclusion that can be reached when the two premises that you list are accepted at face value.
That the outcome is ridiculous is the very reason that the premises have to be challenged.Still I am wasting my time here since you seem to be stuck on insisting that just because something seems ridiculous to you then it is impossible.The fact is that IF the outcome is impossible then it can only follow that the premise is incorrect. THAT is logic.But you are unwilling to even consider that either so what is the point? More groundless assertions. This is pointless.
Machines DO exist and think. I don't just assert that we are them. I think it's pretty obvious that we are.
The only way this can NOT be true is if we don't actually think at all due to guess what... God's Perfect Fore-knowledge. Your argument defeats itself.I agreed to examine the question within the confines of the premises.
I did not agree that the premises were a given truth since ALL premises must be open to question at all times. otherwise knowledge cannot advance.
Again. if you are unbending in your insistence that the premises are set in stone then you will just have to carry on deluding yourself that your argument makes sense.
The fact is that you are not really arguing against me anyway. You are actually just refusing to even ask the question since to do so screws everything up.Seems to me that you have your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears and are chanting LALALALALA at the top of your voice.I said it before and I'll say it one more time.
This is going nowhere.
You are unwilling to bend on tiny bit and you are unwilling to pursue the question to its ultimate conclusion.Wasting my time.

That sounds pretty good to me. We just can't limit what god is capable of knowing in the sense that he loses any omnipotence. Thats about how I look at it. Think of the horn model for the big bang, or just think of a horn. Way out in the mouth of the horn is all the possibilities of the future and as we get close to the present the number of possibilities decreases until the present happens and there is only one possibility. Then it happens and is forever locked as a part of the past while the present continue to move forward and limit the possibilities of the future.The present is a point on the horn and can be quantified down to the smallest increment of time so that it is constantly happening and never stops moving forward. Actually, to me it seems like the present is fixed and the future moves through it in to the past but I can also see it as the past and future being fixed and the present moving through them. I dunno. And like my first reply, it seems to make them mutually inclusive.Of course, its all in how you look at it. Well, if god wanted some prophecy to be fulfilled, he could just use his omnipotence to completely control however many aspects of the future that he needed to make the prophecy unfold. For me, its not really about what he is capable of knowing or not. It sounds a lot like I look at omniscience and omnipotence. I usually just wave my hand though...

You can't. Well then you'll just have to have faith in her master plan, if you think she has one.Why would you have a problem with her being capricious anyways? I saw the Dune movie one time. How did Paul face this problem? Do you think god would be cruel if she was capricious?

Yes he could couldn't he?
However what does this say for the free will of the people involved in the prohecy?
Do they really have a choice to NOT fulfil it if God is using his omnipotence to force them to? That's probably the best way. What say we just stick with it eh?

You are pointing out the difference we have regarding the word 'discussion'. For me (and I'd warrant all around here) discussion is something that is assumed not to involve pre-determination. It all is pre-determined there are no "thoughts" or "ideas" or "opinions" in the sense that everyone bar you use those words.We may be able to discuss but you singing LA LA LA and getting annoyed at me is as predetermined as that which I say which annoys you is - according to you. I am predetermined not to see the point in the discussion. Forced not to discuss in fact. No doubt you will agree with this. "Predetermined not to consider" would be more accurate going by your argument. (if we are sounding silly in saying such things then that is alas, unavoidable) Not at all. If you look back at what you have written you will see that you have assumed free will of yourself and myself all the way through - except for the statement that you and I have none.