FREE WILL....... or is it.

Pardon my interjecting myself in your ongoing debate, but something doesn't smell right in all this.While at UT-Austin working on a BA in psychology, many years ago, I took a course within the philosophy department entitled "Logic: Classic Syllogism."This very topic was one of our discussion pieces and, as I recall, the Prof.'s conclussion was that it was all pointless because one of the major points was unproovable in the first place, i.e. inerrant foreknowledge, and the second was overly clouded by external influences to really be established, i.e. free will.I don't remember all of the presentation, but his conclusion I do: Just because I know my wife will select the BMW, given the option between that and CapitalMetro, does not mean she hasn't chosen for herself.(BTW, the study of Logic is often one of showing the invalidating error in an otherwise sound looking arguement. I'm not quite sure of the error in the cited refutation, but something seems faulty. I wonder if I have the old text lying around...)Thanks,
-Shiloh

Hey folks,Logic is simply the mathematics of thought. It is an effort to quantify concepts so as to allow measurement of validity. I have now read over the cited piece several times, and it still fails for me. I am not sure where the failing is, but the fact that is appears well constructed is not compelling. I see no real relationship between knowing and influencing or requiring.Furthermore, we all know how to play with figures and concepts. I for one can provide any number of "impossible" proofs. See the following:a=b
a*a=ab
(a*a)-(b*b)=ab-(b*b)
(a+b)(a-b)=b*(a-b)
a+b=b
2a=a
2=1We all ought to know that this is pure nonsense, in spite of how legitimate it looks. Same with this so-called proof for the impossibility of correct foreknowledge and free will. I simply miss how knowing what will happen causes that thing to happen.Okay, on to post 1's other major question. I don't think God creates anyone knowing that they will be a murderer or athiest or whatever, because I don't think God creates people. All living things reproduce. It's no big deal.Imagine a God who stands back and watches it all go down. Knowing how it will all turn out but staying out of it nonetheless. A lot like a dad watching his 132 lb. freshman son go out for the varsity football team, dreaming of playing offensive tackle. Oh well, you don't stop him, but you do keep the medical insurance current.(Please note that I am not your standard, orthodox Christian creationist. In fact the only of these that I am is a Christian. In this case, however, I do not see the problem with the normal position of the Christian faith.)-Shiloh

quote:

---

Chavalon states:
Neither mathematics nor logic are invalidated by tricks like this.

---

I agree, and there were several other obvious problems in the "proof" I provided, incl. line 4 where 0=0 if you solve it out.My point is simply this, there are many proofs and rebuttals out there for any position, and logicians make a living refuting one another. It's like someone saying, "Well, my lawyer told me so." The other side has a lawyer, too. So no singular proof does much for me. I mentioned erlier that I could not put my finger on the problem with Delphi's proof, and I am not suggesting otherwise now, but it may have to do with trying to prove an abstract in the same way you would have to prove a concrete. He begins to lose me around 1.6.4.1 and 1.6.4.4. It has been a while since I've worked with this material, so I am admittedly rusty. But something doesn't seem right. (You obviously don't need to accept my input on this.)In the normal/physical world there is only one way for there to be infalible foreknowledge: there can only be one outcome, hence no free will. So I'm not suprised that a basic position like his would work out; I just feel that something is missing.

quote:

---

If the dad were an omniscient God he would know perfectly well wether that insurance was going to turn out to be necessary or not. Rather than influencing the outcone, it would constrain it.

---

The question is not whether the dad-god figure is constrained by the knowledge, it's whether the son would be. The son is the one with free will (maybe) that says he should try-out. The dad-god's infallible foreknowledge (maybe/maybe not) leads him to have the insurance.BTW I will try to forward this proof of Delphi's to a prof I know to see what he has to say. He may confirm my suspicians that there's a fault; he may confirm your suggestion that infalibility w/foreknowledge means freewill is illogical.Wouldn't suprise me, really, a lot of what we believe and feel doesn't make a lot of sense. It seems very real though. Try generating a solid proof for thw preference for chocolate ice cream.Thanks,
-Shiloh