Free will: an illusion

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

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.

Side step? Not at all. You seem happy to accept that without free will you are a machine which assumes it can arrive at conclusions which reflect the way things actually are (given the assumptions) - as opposed to conclusions which a machine must arrive at - conclusions which have no particular reason to reflect that which is actually going on. How you manage to break out of this circle has not been made manifest. Okay. Shall we drop question 1 then?

I'm afraid I've come to the end of this discussion on this point with you PY. You continually insert words like thinking and feeling and choice and opinion as if they meant anything. But you accept (for the sake of discussion) that you are a predetermined machine without even showing how it is that a machine would 'accept' such a thing. No argument other than "machinedidit"If you can't see that that premise slits its own throat then I cannot help it anymoreWhilst we wait for our thread originator to respond on moving onto questions 2 and 3 you might figure out how to reword this after removing the words 'make a choice'. You obviously cannot use phrase that has no meaning. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Stalemate?

You are forgetting that your position in the OP says that the assumption of an all knowing God renders free will an illusion. You haven't actually said how that case is made yet. At least not in a way which takes account of the consequences that immediately follow.In taking on the assumption yourself and supposing a 'yes' you agree that that renders you a machine. But you haven't yet said how it is that a machine could provide a yes answer to the question. You seem to accept that you have free will for the purposes of deciding 'yes' whilst all the while accepting the no free will means you can't answer questions. You would not exist.Granted you haven't begged the question as PY has done in supposing that thinking machines exist (us). But do you not see the horns of the dilemma on which you are caught?The offer of stalemate was not proffered because I saw the arguments as equal. It was offered in order that we could move on. You are in an impossible position. The answer to the question must be no in order for the question to be asked.

But in pointing to us as examples of thinking, considering, machines you were begging the question. Taking on board the assumption in question 1 of the OP and supposing yes you render yourself a machine and then state that machines can think and consider and answer questions. The only exhibit you offer is us - whose status (free willed vs machines) is the very thing under discussion.

If you accept the premise that Crevo put up then you do not think - therefore you do not ask questions. What you must conclude is that because you do think God cannot be all knowingBut that is not the question asked by Crevo. This is not about whether God is all knowing or not - that is assumed in the OP. Regarding the question: assuming an all knowing God and the fact that you think means that an all knowing God does NOT render free will illusionaryIt is not a question of me "not letting you go there". I am dealing with the question asked given the assumptions he posedIf you hold to the assumptions and conclude that you do not in fact think then you are in no position, as a mere machine to ask questions - unless you can suggest a way whereby machines can ask questions (whilst not begging the question in assuming we are machines - for that assumes an answer to the question asked)

It is the crux of your problem - for the assumption in Q1 are yours. Questions cannot be answered by machines - unless you can argue machines answering questions. Avoid following PY in begging the question. It is not my dilemma to back up. This is not the issue we are dealing with in Q1. We have assumed God all knowing and work to the conclusions that arise from that. No is the only answer to that I suggest. I know you have - but you are brushing aside the problem you face as soon as you answer yes to Q1. You have to answer 'no' to be able to argue anything at all - which instantly demolishes your subsequent argument. You must first answer 'no' to be able to argue at all

Okay Then a little later... Your summary of the important points Crevo. Your position: God knows what will happen = free will an illusion Er... it should be clear by now that Q1 is not my positon but yours. This is about you showing that the position you hold is logical.I'll offer you a stalemate still - but only because I like you. There is no shame in accepting 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...

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.

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

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

Hi IblisI would agree with what you say. Another way of saying it is to state that God can do anything which is consistant with himself. I often hear here that omnipotence means God can do simply anything at all. Which is not the caseBut I don't see what that has to do with him being all knowing rendering our free will an illusion. Do you?