Free will: an illusion

IF.... IF the Xian Doctrine is to be believed...
my summary stated that IF God is All knowing (as per the christian doctrine) then free will is an illusion... so what are we left with?Either... free will is an illusion
or
god is not all knowing.make your choice.Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

You have to feel sorry for member "disbelief". His pending suspension has been announced many times. Fortunately there is no such member.However the subtitle "suspending disbelief" is not a very good description of what is currently being discussed. How about trying a different subtitle?

---

quote:

---

capricious: Characterized by or subject to whim; impulsive and unpredictable. See Synonyms at arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

​

Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

​

Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute.

​

Not limited by law; despotic.

---

What about capricious but not arbitrary? I see they are synonomous but arbitrary seems to have an additional condition of not by neccessity , reason or principle.God could be ”selectively omniscient’ based on necessity and reason and not be arbitrary about it. Why do you think that if god has the ability but chooses to or not to use it, then she is capricious? I don't really see why but if you don't feel like typing it out, no problem.

God is not all knowing (according to your definition).By another definition, God is all knowing and we have free will.yeah?

can you explain how you arrive at this definfition, and how the contradiction is overcome?rather than just asserting it.

Context is all... "If"...an assumption...."therefore"....a conclusionWe have assumed the assumption and are discussing the conclusion that is drawn. What is being sought is a basis for the conclusion which solves the problem it creates itself. Namely that a 'yes' answer doesn't even get off the ground.Please proceed...

And I said 'IF' God is all knowing 'Therefore' free will is illusory.the only alternative is:God is not all knowing.please respond.Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

If/therefore is an if/then statement. If A then B follows. We have assumed A. Show B.My argument has been to offer: If A then not B .... as the only possible solution.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

last time iano... last time...
be honest or move on to the other points I don't know how many times I have to say it for you to read it... can you back this up? why does free will require a creator? or it is reacting to stimuli and deciding, for itself, how to best respond. Free will.

I can't see a way that GOD could be capricious and not arbutrary. That may just be some limitation of mine but it is one I don't see a logical way around. Well, that would mean that any given moment, any given act, might or might not be subject to freewill. Freewill then becomes more or less a crapshoot, dependent on whether GOD has used Her ability of foreknowledge regarding that particular incident. to which Catholic Scientist replied

quote:

---

I don't really see why but if you don't feel like typing it out, no problem.

---

Because you have absolutely no idea of what GOD's perspective or reaction will be under any given set of circumstances or whether you are making choices or GOD has stepped in and removed freewill in this particular instance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Your first paragraph above was taken from the OP. This is what I was invited to deal with.Your second para reasserts the if/then of the OP. Fair enough - but I am looking for the argument not a repeat of the assertion.Your third para sidesteps the assumption we have assumed for the sake of discussion - diversion.Your fourth para re-asserts the if/then of the OP and diverts by pointing to an alternative if/then. Still not dealing with the original if/thenYour answer to the fifth para deals with an me responding to a diversion by yourself which has nothing to do with the OP. If no creator God is not an assumption of the OPYour answer to the sixth para supposes something of machines: decision (free will)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : Edit analysis of 5th Para

I'm done with this point Iano.
You have contributed nothing to support your position as far as I can see...if you'd like to consider the other points feel free

Fair enough. I decline to respond to either points 2 or 3.Nice discussing with you Crevo. See ya around

wow.. even less impressive than 'goddidit'kudos.

I know I know, sounds like an oxymoron.Bur C S Lewis, from whom I'm cribbing my theology for this exercise, because he's a fair fight rather than this rib-kicking thing you guys are engaging in with the non-specialists, really suggests something like this in answer to some of the harder paradoxes in this question.Specifically, if I'm understanding him correctly, he asserts that omnipotence does not include nonsense. It is all perfectly well in debate to suggest that a truly omnipotent being could create pure black horses that were also perfectly white, or manufacture loads too heavy for them to lift and then lift them anyway, or to set up a world where we all still have free will but none of us ever choose to disobey, or tell the truth all the time, even when they say they are lying, or whatever lame paradox we care to verbally construct; but really, these things aren't even consistent in themselves, they are nonsense. Theyt aren't just infinitely hard, they are mere tricks of language which don't truly represent anything at all. If we eliminate all of those intrinsic non-possibilities from our conception of omnipotence, is there enough left to make a decent deity out of, or not?