|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
I don't think you are fully reading my posts.
I think you are inserting your own preconceived notions into a superficial reading of my arguments and coming up with non-existant contradictions. If there is a contradiction then you need to point out exactly where this contradiction lies. I am sure that any perceived contradictions can be demonstrated to be errors in your understanding rather than actual contradictions in my argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 283 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: Carl's choices shape his timeline. His timeline does not shape his decisions. This is free-will. Yes.
Straggler writes: Odin knows what Carl "decided". Not what he "will decide". Yes.
Straggler writes: If an omnipotent being interferes in the form of prophecies Question. If Carl's choices shape his timeline. How can Odin interfere with Carl's choice if he announces Carl's choice before he is born? Odin does not make the choice for Carl, he just knows already what decision Carl made. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 283 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Brian,
Brian writes: Have you ever read the Book of Jonah? Sure I have. Don't you ever read the Bible.
I Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. I don't have any free will. Neither did Jonah. I am bought and paid for, I belong to God to do with as He see's fit. My only choice is to obey or suffer the consequences which is up to God. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 283 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Agobot,
Agobot writes: How do we know man has free will? This is cirucular reasoning - the Bible is true because the Bible says so. What if god lied in the Bible? Don't we already have enough clues that, if the assumption that the biblical God created the universe is true, he already has lied multiple times. Why should we trust a God that said no man or woman would live longer than 120 years, and then this same god would allow certain individuals to break his will? God says He will not always strive with man his days shall be 120 years. So according to Agobot that means man can only live 120 years.
Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. This just says man has gone too far and 120 years is all man has got left.
Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. God said He was going to destroy man. At the end of that 120 years all life ceased except what was on the ark that Noah had built. The 120 years had nothing to do with how long a man can live except those on the earth at that time. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
PaulK writes: Do you see why I say that your arguments are confused? Yes. I've told you that this is very confusing if we are not careful of the context we're using and because of the different definitions of free will here. That's why I've been asking you to propose an example so we can see things more clearly. However, I will use an example to clear up this confusion. First, there are two different definitions of free will: "General" definition: Free will is the ability to choose between available alternative futures. "In Principle" definition: Free will is the ability to get what you want from the presented situation given no interference from any external being.
So when you said that you were explaining the distinction you meant that there wasn't one. Originally, I meant that there is a distinction between the General definition of free will, and the In Principle definition. Taking point A in Carl's life where he makes a decision, he does so using some portion of randomness. He has 3 choices and picks 1. Here, free will exists if we use the General definition or the In Principle one, it doesn't matter. Here, there is no difference. Now, let's take the example of a string on the floor representing Carl's life as seen by an external being who can see the future but does not interfere in the universe (Odin). Taking point A in Carl's life... and some later point B where Carl makes another decision. This time the decision has 5 alternatives and Odin can see the future and knows that after Carl makes that decision, Carl freely chooses #4. But, Carl is still at point A. Carl doesn't know any of this. But... there are no alternatives... Carl is going to choose #4 at point B. If Carl does not choose #4, then Odin can't really see the future. Here, the General definition of free will says there are no alternatives and therefore no free will. However, the In Principle definition still says Carl has free will. That's the difference. Carl still makes the decision at point B, Carl still makes the decision at point B as freely as he makes the previous point A decision. No interference, and including some level of randomness.
If we do not have the possibility of acting contrary to prophecy even in principle then we do not have free will at all. Depends on the context of how you're using the word "possibility" and which definition of "free will" you're using. You can't just use whatever you want at any time... of course you'll get confused. I'll lay it out: In the context that "possibility" is Carl's free will when viewed by his point A decision.... then it doesn't matter what definition of free will you use. They are both violated if some interference is preventing Carl from freely choosing any of the 3 alternatives. But now let's talk about the context of "possibilities" for Carl's future point B decision. Carl is still at point A. However, Odin can see the future and knows (after Carl has made the decision in the future) that Carl will freely choose #4 from the 5 alternatives.If we look at this from Carl's point A reference point, Carl is going to choose #4 (given no interference from Odin)... there are no other possibilities. Now it matters which definition of free will we're using. If you use the General definition, there is no free will because there are no alternatives. So, in this sense, whenever one has "no possibilities" they have no General free will. But Carl will make his point B decision as freely and unrestricted as he made his point A decision (given that Odin never interferes at all in any way)... so where has his free will gone? And, if we use the In Principle definition of free will... we see that it still works just fine. And, in this sense, one can have "no possibilities" (in the context that Odin can see the future choice of Carl) and still have free will In Principle, since there is no interference or restrictions placed on Carl's choice.
If we do not have the possibility of acting contrary to prophecy even in principle then we do not have free will at all. Yet you said that that was "not the important part". But then you insist that you "very much care" about whether we do in fact have free will. There's the contradiction. Here, when I was saying that "the possibility of acting contrary to prophecy" is not the important part... I was talking in the context that "possibility" is restricted on Carl's point B decision from the point of view of his point A decision. And, the important part I'm talking about is the In Principle defintion of free will.. which is also what I "very much care" about. If the In Principle part of free will is gone, then the General defintion is also gone and there is no free will... everyone agrees on this. However there are cases where the possibilities can be restricted (but not by Odin or anyone else... only restricted because Odin can see what Carl has freely decided in the future) and the In Principle defintion of free will is still valid. This is where we need to be careful of context and definitions. Or else the confusion you're talking about grows very quickly. Please remember the context you're discussing in and which defintion of free will you're talking about. They are not interchangeable. I've tried to follow your flow of thoughts... but I've obviously guessed wrong on which context and definition you were attempting to talk about when I've tried to clarify your comments. As you can see from this post, there is no confusion or reversal of position as long as you identify what the context is and which definition you're discussing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Back to your string example... you still have an inconsistency that you haven't cleared up yet. We can't move on until you stop saying that the same scenario has free will and does not have free will at the same time. Odin observes a timeline that is the end results of ALL carls' choices. The path of this timeline is shaped by Carl's choices in life. Carl's choices in life are not shaped by this timeline. It is YOU that is flicking between Carl slavishly following a predefined timeline and Carl freely shaping his own timeline. It is you that is being contradictory. Not I.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
STRAGGLER's POSITION I will try and explain this very slowly. Step by step. Then we can see where these supposed inconsistencies lie. 1) Carl's timeline is shaped by the choices he makes.2) The choices Carl makes are NOT derived from the shape of his timeline. 3) The distinction between 1) and 2) above is subtle but absolutely crucial to any notion of free-will. 4) The static shape of Carl's timeline as observed by Odin with his eternal out-of-time frame of reference represents ALL of Carl's choices, experiences, actions etc. 5) In the absence of any omnipotent interference of any kind Carl's timeline is static. Unchanging, whole and complete. 6) Odin passively observing can therefore know all of the choices Carl makes in his life simply by viewing this static timeline. 7) Odin receives this knowledge from the static shape of the timeline he observes. The timeline that is shaped by Carl's choices. 8) Carl's timeline is not shaped by Odin's knowledge in any way. This would be interference. Odin is a passive observer. Albeit an observer with a unique vantage point. 9) It needs to be noted that 8) above is entirely consistent with 1) and 2) above. All OK so far? All consistent? No, we need to clarify what you mean by "static" and what you mean by "seeing the future". This is what I get from your above: "Static" - In the absence of any omnipotent interference of any kind Carl's timeline is static. Unchanging, whole and complete.(I agree) "Seeing the future" - Odin passively observing can therefore know all of the choices Carl makes in his life simply by viewing this static timeline.(I agree... and Odin is able to do this relative to any point in Carl's life) Would this be fair? I'll continue. Please show below where I stop being "fair": Carl is at point A in his life.Odin can see point A on Carl's timeline. Odin can also see point B at some time later then point A on Carl's timeline. Odin can also see point C which is later than point B on Carl's timeline. At point C, Odin can see that point B is where Carl makes a decision between 5 alternatives. At point C, Odin can see that Carl has freely chosen, with absolutely no interference or restriction, to shape his own timeline in such a way that results when he chooses #4 at point B. -All this is done by Odin in his passively observing way. Odin does not interfere with the entire universe in any form. But Carl is still at point A in his life.Relative to Carl at point A, Odin knows that Carl is going to shape his own timeline and freely choose #4 at point B (because at point C, Odin can view how Carl freely shaped his point B decision). If Odin does not know this, then Odin is not able to actually "see the future". If Odin does not know this, then Odin cannot actually see a "static" life line of Carl's future. If Odin does not know this, then Carl's life line is actually only forming itself as Carl's present moves forward in time... and therefore "seeing the future" is an impossibility since the timeline's future is not static until it becomes the present and past. If Odin does not know this, and has to "wait" until Carl's present reaches Carl's death... then Odin cannot actually "see the future," he would only be able to see a web of all possible futures. That is not "seeing the future." If Odin does not know this for any reason whatsover, then my arguement is done because I included at the very beginning of my arguement that Odin is capable of knowing this. And, if Odin does know this... then relative to Carl's position at point A, Odin knows he is going to choose #4 at point B.There are no alternatives, there is no free will (according to you). How can there be "no free will" if Carl "freely chose," with absolutely no interference or restriction, to "shape his own timeline?" That's the inconsistency. And it is solved by defining free will to be "the ability to get what you want from the situation presented given no outside interference from any being"... which is the important, fundamental principle of free will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
If Carl's choices shape his timeline. How can Odin interfere with Carl's choice if he announces Carl's choice before he is born? Odin does not make the choice for Carl, he just knows already what decision Carl made. The timeline created purely by Carl that Odin passively observed included no prophecy. If Odin now wishes to include prophecy he has effectively erased that timeline and created one in which the prophecy is included. This is not the same timeline shaped purely by Carl. It is one partly shaped by Odin's prophecy. Odin has interfered. There can only be one timeline. One with no prophecy has been created purely by Carl.Or one with prophecy that has not been created purely by Carl. Prophecy removes free-wil. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
This is what I get from your above: "Static" - In the absence of any omnipotent interference of any kind Carl's timeline is static. Unchanging, whole and complete.(I agree) "Seeing the future" - Odin passively observing can therefore know all of the choices Carl makes in his life simply by viewing this static timeline.(I agree... and Odin is able to do this relative to any point in Carl's life) Would this be fair? I'll continue. Please show below where I stop being "fair": You stop being fair whenever you are switch Odin's perspectives from eternal out-of-time to some specific point on Carl's timeline.
Carl is at point A in his life. Odin can see point A on Carl's timeline. Odin can also see point B at some time later then point A on Carl's timeline. Odin can also see point C which is later than point B on Carl's timeline. At point C, Odin can see that point B is where Carl makes a decision between 5 alternatives. At point C, Odin can see that Carl has freely chosen, with absolutely no interference or restriction, to shape his own timeline in such a way that results when he chooses #4 at point B. -All this is done by Odin in his passively observing way. Odin does not interfere with the entire universe in any form OK. Fine. Etrenal all-time perspective viewing the static whole that is Carl's non-interfered timeline. So far so good.
But Carl is still at point A in his life. Relative to Carl at point A, Odin knows that Carl is going to shape his own timeline and freely choose #4 at point B (because at point C, Odin can view how Carl freely shaped his point B decision). If Odin does not know this, then Odin is not able to actually "see the future". Odin does not "see the future". Odin sees the sum total of all of Carl's choices as one whole line. A line shaped by Carl.
If Odin does not know this, then Odin cannot actually see a "static" life line of Carl's future. There is no "Carl's future" from Odin's eternal perspective. If you are looking at the whole of Carl's life as a single static line. There is only the whole static line in it's entirety. There is only a "Carl's future" from the perspective of existing on Carl's timeline. You have switched Odin's perspective from seeing the end result of All Carl's choices in eternal all-time to seeing Carl's future from a point on Carl's timeline. This is unfair. Introducing Odin onto Carl's timeline, even as a passive observer, is interference. Knowledge now exists on this timeline that was not on the line previously. This is unfair.
If Odin does not know this, then Carl's life line is actually only forming itself as Carl's present moves forward in time... and therefore "seeing the future" is an impossibility since the timeline's future is not static until it becomes the present and past. None of this past, present or future makes sense unless Odin is sitting on Carl's timeline looking forwards and backwards. This is a change from eternal perspective. This is unfair. Odin's eternal perspective is to see the whole line fully formed and static. The END result of all carl's choices. You are being completely inconsistent with regard to Odin's perspective. Is Odin on Carl's timeline looking backwards and forwards in time? Or is Odin external to time looking at the sum total of Carl's life as a whole static line? Which is it? The difference is absolutely fundamental.
If Odin does not know this, and has to "wait" until Carl's present reaches Carl's death... then Odin cannot actually "see the future," he would only be able to see a web of all possible futures. That is not "seeing the future." Odin does not "see the future". To see the future requires that there be a now point from which you are looking.Odin sees the whole of time from outside. Not the future from inside Carl's timeline. If Odin does not know this for any reason whatsover, then my arguement is done because I included at the very beginning of my arguement that Odin is capable of knowing this. Your inconsistent perspective switching is leading you to be wholly inconsistent as to whether free-will shapes Carl's timeline or Odin's knowledge shapes Carl's timeline. Which is it?
And, if Odin does know this... then relative to Carl's position at point A, Odin knows he is going to choose #4 at point B. There are no alternatives, there is no free will (according to you). How can there be "no free will" if Carl "freely chose," with absolutely no interference or restriction, to "shape his own timeline?" That's the inconsistency. As has been shown the inconsistency is yours. Not mine.
And it is solved by defining free will to be "the ability to get what you want from the situation presented given no outside interference from any being"... which is the important, fundamental principle of free will. As has been previously demonstrated you cannot immutably know what an agent of free-will would do in a situation that they have never considered or encountered without denying them the free-will to actualy choose what they would do. This componet of your position is so intrinsically flawed that I am surprised that you are even bringing it up again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Straggler writes: Odin does not "see the future". What are you talking about? I thought we were discussing my arguement? In my arguement I've made it extremely clear that Odin most certainly can "see the future." My whole arguement rests on the fact of an omnipotent being having the ability to see the future. If we're going to say that the omnipotent being cannot do this... then I totally agree that my arguement doesn't hold. I've said that from the very beginning.
You have switched Odin's perspective from seeing the end result of All Carl's choices in eternal all-time to seeing Carl's future from a point on Carl's timeline. This is unfair. Switched? From the very beginning of my arguement I've always said that Odin can see the future. If Odin cannot see Carl's future from the point of view of Carl's timeline, then Odin cannot see the future in any meaningful sense of the term.
Odin's eternal perspective is to see the whole line fully formed and static. The END result of all carl's choices. You are being completely inconsistent with regard to Odin's perspective. If Odin can only see the END of Carl's timeline, then he cannot "see Carl's future" in any sense, he can only "see Carl's past." And, of course, this is not what I was talking about since the beginning of the arguement. I'm not being inconsistent at all, I've said all along that my arguement rests on a being who is capable of "seeing the future." If you're talking about an eternal being who can only see Carl's past, then you are most certainly not talking about my arguement where an eternal being can see the future.
Odin does not "see the future". To see the future requires that there be a now point from which you are looking. Odin sees the whole of time from outside. Not the future from inside Carl's timeline. Then you are not discussing my arguement. My arguement includes, from the very beginning, an Odin who can "see the future." If you think that such a thing is impossible, then we have nothing to discuss. My whole arguement starts with "IF we have a being who can see the future..." Since you do not agree with that IF, then you do not think my arguement is possible. Which may very well be. I admitted a long time ago that my arguement may only exist within the realm of imagination, the realm of "IF's." However, within the framework of my arguement, you still have not shown any of it to be inconsistent or wrong.
As has been shown the inconsistency is yours. Not mine. The inconsistency is that I have, since the very beginning of my arguement, stated that I'm talking about a being who can "see the future." You have repeatedly now noted that you're talking about a being who cannot, actually, "see the future." This whole time you haven't even been talking about my arguement. If you have shown an inconcsistency... it has nothing to do with my arguement since you are not even discussing it.
As has been previously demonstrated you cannot immutably know what an agent of free-will would do in a situation that they have never considered or encountered without denying them the free-will to actualy choose what they would do. This componet of your position is so intrinsically flawed that I am surprised that you are even bringing it up again. It's not flawed at all, or at least you have yet to show how, IF we have a being who can see the future. Which is what I've said all along. You can now choose to tackle my actual arguement... but if you do you have to use MY ACTUAL ARGUEMENT where I use a being who can see the future. Or, you can stop discussing whatever it is you're discussing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: You stop being fair whenever you are switch Odin's perspectives from eternal out-of-time to some specific point on Carl's timeline. Stile writes:
Carl is at point A in his life.Odin can see point A on Carl's timeline. Odin can also see point B at some time later then point A on Carl's timeline. Odin can also see point C which is later than point B on Carl's timeline. At point C, Odin can see that point B is where Carl makes a decision between 5 alternatives. At point C, Odin can see that Carl has freely chosen, with absolutely no interference or restriction, to shape his own timeline in such a way that results when he chooses #4 at point B. -All this is done by Odin in his passively observing way. Odin does not interfere with the entire universe in any form Stile froma previous message writes: "Static" - In the absence of any omnipotent interference of any kind Carl's timeline is static. Unchanging, whole and complete.(I agree) "Seeing the future" - Odin passively observing can therefore know all of the choices Carl makes in his life simply by viewing this static timeline.(I agree... and Odin is able to do this relative to any point in Carl's life) Straggler writes: OK. Fine. Etrenal all-time perspective viewing the static whole that is Carl's non-interfered timeline. So far so good. Stile writes: But Carl is still at point A in his life.Relative to Carl at point A, Odin knows that Carl is going to shape his own timeline and freely choose #4 at point B (because at point C, Odin can view how Carl freely shaped his point B decision). If Odin does not know this, then Odin is not able to actually "see the future". Straggler writes: Odin does not "see the future". Odin sees the sum total of all of Carl's choices as one whole line. A line shaped by Carl. Stile writes: What are you talking about? I thought we were discussing my arguement? In my arguement I've made it extremely clear that Odin most certainly can "see the future." Is Odin passively observing the whole static lifeline of Carl from an eternal timeless perspective (as you described above). Or is Odin at a point in Carl's lifeline looking forwards into the future? As you are now claiming. Which is it? They are not the same thing. One allows free-will. The other does not. My view is consistent. Yours is not. So which view does your argument rely upon? Be consistent. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Straggler writes: Is Odin passively observing the whole static lifeline of Carl (as you described above). Or is Odin at a point in Carl's lifeline looking forwards into the future? As you are now claiming. Which is it? They are not the same thing. One allows free-will. The other does not. My view is consistent. Yours is not. So which view does your argument rely upon? Be consistent. You are going about this the wrong way. You don't get to describe my arguement, I do, that's what makes it my arguement.
Is Odin passively observing the whole static lifeline of Carl (as you described above). Or is Odin at a point in Carl's lifeline looking forwards into the future? As you are now claiming. Which is it? They are not the same thing. I don't care if they're the same thing or not. The question itself ("which is it?") is irrelevent. My arguement is that Odin can see the future. Now, can Odin "passively observe the whole static lifeline of Carl (as I described above)" if Odin can see the future?-Sounds like a very fair statement to me, and I would say yes. Also, can Odin be "at a point in Carl's lifeline looking forwards into the future", if Odin can see the future?-Sounds like another very fair statment to me, and I would say yes again. They may or may not be the same thing, but an omnipotent being "who can see the future" as we have been discussing it could certainly be capable of both. What is it about being "at a point in Carl's lifeline looking forwards into the future" that is not "seeing the future?" This is what my arguement is discussing. If you're talking about anything else... you're likely not talking about my arguement. It's quite possible that I attempted to clarify an area of my arguement and lead you into a confusing area since I cannot actually read your mind and know exactly what it is you're thinking. ...but that doesn't change my arguement at all. And it also doesn't allow you to begin defining my arguement.
One allows free-will. The other does not. The "other" only does not allow free will if we use your definition of free will. Simply by using the definition I provided, we still have free will. Especially since the mechanism Carl uses to make decisions is still exactly the same. If Carl makes his decisions in exactly the same way... with no interference... how is free will removed?
My view is consistent. Yours is not. Your view is consistent. My view is consistent.Your view of my view is not consistent because you are not understanding (probably my fault) what my view is. I'm not trying to "win" or "lose" or anything. I just have this idea and would like to know if it has merit or not. That's all. I really am perfectly fine with the idea not having merit. However, I am not going to find out if the idea has merit or not unless we discuss the actual idea. Perhaps we need to clarify exactly what the idea is still (perhaps we just did?). Here is what I'm thinking, again: General definition of free will - the ability to choose between available alternative futures. In Principle definition of free will - the ability to get what you want from the situation presented given no interference from any external being. The question: If we have a being who can see the future but never interferes in the decision making process at all, can we still have free will In Principle? Next question: If the above can be true, can we have an "immutable prophecy" that does not remove free will In Principle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
At the end of that 120 years all life ceased except what was on the ark that Noah had built. Again this depends on which Bible you read. The 'closer to the time therefore more accurate' Septuagint has Methuselah living for 14 years after the Flood. I wonder how he managed to do that, maybe floating around on some vegetation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Your view is consistent. Thank-you. You seem to agree that the perspective that you attribute to Odin is not consistent. You just do not think that this swapping of perspectives matters to your argument. Is that a fair summary? Perspective 1Odin passively observing an entire static life-line from an external timeles point of view allows Carl to shape his own lifeline and make all his own choices. Free-will is thus met by either your definition of free-will or mine. Do you agree with this? Perspective 2The bone of contention now rests with the second perspective. The one where Odin is at a point on Carl's timeline looking forwards into Carl's future. Do you agree with this? I do not dispute that Odin can view Carl's timeline from this second perspective. However I do believe that I can show that the first and second views are not equivalent in terms of the timeline that each view necessarily results in. I believe I can show that the second view results in Odin shaping Carl's timeline rather than Carl freely shaping Carl's timeline. I believe that I can show that any concept of predicting "what Carl would have done anyway" is inherently flawed. I am confident that this is demonstrably true. Are you willing to continue this conversation on that basis? If you are willing to continue I have one more question: In your argument is Carl's timeline shaped by Carl's decisions or are Carl's decisions shaped by Carl's timeline? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Stile.
Here's my view on the issue at hand. If free will exists in the universe, the future contains at least a tiny amount of uncertainty. That uncertainty is an innate characteristic of a volitional universe, not an issue of perspective on it. If a different perspective experiences different uncertainty, doesn't that mean that the uncertainty is just an artifact of limited perspective? Doesn't this also mean that the appearance of free will is just an artifact of perspective? Edited by Mantis, : Better phraseology I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024