Free will: an illusion

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

He didn't have to face it in the movie.
The movie was made from the first book in a trilogy. The other two were never movie-ized.

And therein lies the entire problem.You say you cannot ask the question since to do so would mean that you are not having a discussion in the sense described above.Why can't you ask the question?because the obvious answer is that if every action we ever make is foreknown then we have no free will and this (in your view) makes discussion meaningless.
However if you look at it dispassionately you will see that if that is the logical outcome of the premises then either.

1. That's just the way it is regardless of your feelings about the matter.
2. Your premises are wrong.

Refusing to ask the question is no way out. Quite possibly but don't make the common mistake of equating predeterminism with fatalism.
In the former we have no choice but have absolutely no idea what is going to happen.
In the latter we make some arbitrary decision that "This is the way God wants it" and refuse to do anything about a situation. (a bit like the way that some people will refuse medical attention for a child claiming that "God wants them to die" when in fact God might have actually wanted the child to be treated)
That way is to claim knowledge of God's mind. That is an invalid position and we don't want to go there. Doesn't sound silly to me. It sounds perfectly in line with what I have been saying. Neither you nor I have any choice in what we do, say or write. In some places I have agreed that what little evidence we have points towards us having free will. I have also stated that whether we do have it or not, to us it appears that we have and that it makes absolutely no difference to our actions either way.
The fact is that whether we actually have free will or whether we don't have it, The logical conclusion of the agreed upon premises can only be that we DON'T.I never claimed we didn't.
I actually claimed that the premise was wrong.
Remove omnipotence and the logical conundrum goes away.BTW you never once answered my question at the bottom of Message 127
here it is again.

More to the point you have refused to start the discussion.
This seems to be the way it always goes with us.
You just lay out a premise that precludes any answer you don't like then just avoid the issue.You are right. We are at an end of this discussion. As I said before, this is a pointless waste of time.You quote my question. How about answering it?

No I'm only referring to the film (the one with Sting)
I haven't seen any other dune movie or series.
I got the rest of the story from the books and that was a long time ago.

I won't even waste my fingers on typing a response.
Let's see if Crevo has any more luck.

Not in the least.
All I was doing was pointing out that there can be no valid assumption that this ISN'T the case. Assuming either it is possible or it isn't possible are both erronious and since your entire refusal to move onto the question itself is based on your assumption then....... Please stop telling me that I said things that I didn't.
I never once claimed that we could think in the context of the "agreed upon" assumptions. I, in fact, stated that the assumptions imply that we cannot think at all. That we are NOT thinking. That we are mindless automatons who go through our existence following a carved-in-stone program.
All free will is in fact illusion because we can never choose to do something that God knows we WON'T do. His knowing forbids it.
That is the inference that your premises logically come out with. And even then I don't claim that we are able to actually THINK for ourselves. We are here. That much is obvious. The nature of our reality is what is under discussion.If I unquestioningly accept the premises as laid down then I reach the conclusion that we DO NOT think for ourselves.
To reach a different conclusion requires a different premise and you won't let us go there.Our discussion has 2 premises. Not 3. Not 4. just 2.1 God exists
2 God is A.K.
Then we ask the question. Do these 2 premises logically imply a lack of free will.
You refuse to addres the question because you want to bring a third premise into the fray.
3 Free will and true thought can only exist for a created creature.The question only becomes meaningless when you add this premise.I do not and will not accept this premise. It wasn't part of the original question and as such has no part in this discussion. You cannot arbitrarily exclude a possible outcome of the question based on a premise that does not exist in the context of the discussion.