Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,251 Year: 5,508/9,624 Month: 533/323 Week: 30/143 Day: 3/17 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?
Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 76 of 227 (494928)
01-20-2009 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by felixmab
01-20-2009 4:19 AM


You are now restricted to the "Free For All" forum
For both the felixmab and davidmabus2006 ID's, posting is restricted to that one forum. I strongly suggest you take your opinions to your previously existing How Michel Nostradamus stopped the Randi-Dawkins-Myers Corp topic.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by felixmab, posted 01-20-2009 4:19 AM felixmab has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 77 of 227 (494945)
01-20-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
01-19-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Back to definitions
PaulK writes:
The fact of the prophecy is additional information. If we have free will of any sort at all it must be possible in principle for that additional information to change the decisions we will make. If that is utterly impossible then we cannot have free will.
I totally agree. That's why I insist that in order for Free Will to remain intact, the prophecy must exactly match the actual desires of the decision maker given no outside interference. This takes into consideration the "additional information" of the prophecy itself and ensures that the principle you speak of is included.
IF the information of the prophecy itself would change the decision-maker's true desires on the situation, then I totally agree that Free Will is removed.
However, there's the other side of this as well.
IF, AND ONLY IF, the information of the prophecy itself does not change the decision maker's true desires on the situation, then Free Will remains intact.
(perhaps this is only possible for certain people... perhaps an omnipotent being is capable of making allowances so that this works with anyone... I'm not worried about the actual mechanism, only that such a theoretical idea isn't strictly prohibited by logic or rationallity)
I would argue that, in principle, I already include the caveat you're talking about.
If we have free will of any sort at all it must be possible in principle for that additional information to change the decisions we will make.
I just want to quote this part again to point out the important section. I do not find "the possibility to change the decision we will make" to be the important part. I only find "the desire to change the decision we will make" to be important. Given no external interference or restrictions, of course.
I do not think that the inability to change one's mind is important if it is such a situation where the person doesn't want to change their mind anyway.
That's the only situation I'm talking about.
Edited by Stile, : (bracket stuff)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 01-19-2009 3:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2009 2:51 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 78 of 227 (494951)
01-20-2009 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
01-19-2009 4:25 PM


Re: No Alternatives, No Choice, No Free-Will
Straggler writes:
So you are saying that our eternal omnipotent being knows what a given individual would have done in the same situation IF the prophecy was not in effect.
Yes. I'm also saying that this omnipotent being is capable of knowing how the information of the prophecy itself will effect the individual's true desires, and will formulate the prophecy in such a way that it exactly matches the true desires (given no outside interference) of the individual, even taking into account the individual's reaction to the information... if such is required to be taken account of.
So interfering in the realtime decision making capabilities of the individual in question by making the prophecy and thus negating all other possibilities makes no difference?
Absolutely not. Any interference on our decision making capabilities would be the removal of Free Will. Which is why I strictly define such interference out of my description of Free Will.
Where is the interfering in what I am describing? If the omnipotent being is only mimicing the individual's true desires given no interference, how can it possibly be called "interfering"? Interference is strictly defined out of the scenario. If there is any interference... Free Will is removed. The whole point is for an omnipotent being to create a prophecy in which there is no interference at all... and this can be done by exactly matching the true desires of the individual.
You do not actually disagree that prophecy eliminates all alternatives, all other possibilities? You do not disagree that choice has actually been eliminated in the strict and absolute sense?
These statements are correct.
I am arguing that these alternatives and possibilities must be considered "in principle," however their practical existence is irrelevent if the prophecy exactly matches the true desires of the individual anyway.
Is that your version of free-will?
No, that is a special case scenario where Free Will still exists given my version of Free Will.
My version of Free Will is:
The ability to get what you want from the presented situation given no outside interference from any external being.
How can an agent of free-will demonstate their free-will regarding a choice that they never actually encounter or a question that they are never asked?
I never said it could be demonstrated, only that it is possible. I am claiming that such an impossible-sounding task for us humans is quite possible for an omnipotent being. And, if it is possible for such an omnipotent being, then Free Will can co-exist along with immutable prophecy (from that same omnipotent being) if all the stuff I'm talking about actually happens.
Your version of free-will suggests that we are pre-programmed with a response for any given situation and that whether we ever encounter that situation of not our response can be known and prophecised by an eternal being of some kind.
My version of Free Will most certainly does not suggest that we are pre-programmed with a response for any given situation.
My version of Free Will suggests that we are quite capable of getting exactly what we want from any situation that is presented to us without any external interference from any being. I would consider "pre-programming" (even before our birth) to be "external interference from a being." So, if my version of Free Will states that there is no pre-programming, how can you suggest that my version of Free Will suggests pre-programming?
That is about as un-free as it is possible to be surely?
I totally agree. Which is why I do not say such a thing, and is why I say the opposite.
However, this part:
...our response can be known and prophecised by an eternal being of some kind
I am claiming this can be done by an omnipotent being who can see the future. If this cannot be done, then the omnipotent being isn't actually able to see the future, but maybe only possible futures. And hey, even I can see possible futures, that certainly doesn't take omnipotence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 01-19-2009 4:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2009 1:46 PM Stile has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 79 of 227 (495016)
01-20-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Stile
01-20-2009 8:11 AM


Refuted?
Straggler writes:
You do not actually disagree that prophecy eliminates all alternatives, all other possibilities? You do not disagree that choice has actually been eliminated in the strict and absolute sense?
These statements are correct.
I am arguing that these alternatives and possibilities must be considered "in principle," however their practical existence is irrelevent if the prophecy exactly matches the true desires of the individual anyway.
Well I now understand your position. I am now convinced that your position is even more flawed.
Stragler writes:
How can an agent of free-will demonstate their free-will regarding a choice that they never actually encounter or a question that they are never asked?
I never said it could be demonstrated, only that it is possible.
Free-will can exist regarding situations never encountered and questions never considered?
How?
The whole point is for an omnipotent being to create a prophecy in which there is no interference at all... and this can be done by exactly matching the true desires of the individual.
At what point do these "true desires" manifest themselves?
Who or what determines what these "true desires" are?
This is where your whole argument falls down flat.
For your "true desires" or "what they would have done anyway" version of free-will to work there has to be a single desire, want or action for any given specific situation. This is the very antithesis of free-will.
Let's consider your ice cream example:
EXAMPLE
Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Erm, I'll have chocolate please
Stile: (laughs) You ALWAYS have chocolate......
blurrrrppprrrrbbbrrreeeee (sound of time running backwards)
Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Oh, I'll have chocolate please
Stile: (frowns) Tut. You ALWAYS have chocolate......
blurrrrppprrrrbbbrrreeeee (sound of time running backwards)
Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Erm, I'll have vanil...no. Oh I'll have chocolate please.
Stile: (laughs) You ALWAYS have chocolate......
blurrrrppprrrrbbbrrreeeee (sound of time running backwards)
Repeat the above as many times as you deem appropriate........
Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Erm, oh get me strawberry for a change.
Stile: (laughs) What?!?! But you ALWAYS have chocolate!! You feeling OK?
Friend: Just fancied a change that's all.
THE POINT
The point of this example is that genuine free-will requires that free-will be exerted at the point of the decision being made. At the point of the decision being made all possibilities exist. There is no single and immutable answer that will be given every single time. There is free-will at the point of making the decision.
The "true desire" or "what they would have done anyway" is a variable not a certainty. A variable that cannot be known until the agent of free-will actually exerts their free-will and makes a decision.
No matter how deeply and highly probable one particular answer may be, if we can repeat the decision making process (by reversing time for example) there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the same decision will be made each and every time. Such is the nature of genuine free-will.
Your "true desires" or "what they would have done anyway" version of "free-will" denies these possibilities, removes any decision making capacity and limits any given scenario to a single want, desire or action. In short free-will to decide what your "true desires" actually are is removed.
Essentially a pre-programmed response.
PRE-PROGRAMMED RESPONSE
Please understand I do not mean that the omnipotent being "interfered" and pre-programmed - I simply mean that in your version of free-will a particular exact situation will immutably result in a single and exact specific response thus allowing it to be immutably known by our omnipotent being.
A form of completely deterministic cause and effect. No free-will involved.
Your version of free-will simply regresses the problem of immutable prophecy to one of immutable knowledge of what an individual would do in any given situation. Even if they never actually confront that situation. If anything this is an even more complete denial of free-will!!!
My version of Free Will most certainly does not suggest that we are pre-programmed with a response for any given situation.
Yes it does.
How can it be known, as an immutable fact no less, what we would do in a given situation that we will never actually face, or even consider, unless there is but a single response to that situation?
How does your version of free-will cope with the fact that in the case of genuine free-will we might make a different choice each time we are confronted with the same specific situation? How does it cope with the fact that our "true desire" is itself an act of free-will unknown until the moment of decision.
My version of Free Will suggests that we are quite capable of getting exactly what we want from any situation that is presented to us without any external interference from any being.
At what point in your version of free-will do we freely decide what we want?
Please answer that question - Your whole argument rests on the notion of "true desires" or "what we want anyway" so it is imperitive that you explain how this can be immutably known with regard to every situation and every decision that might occur but is never actually faced. How?
So, if my version of Free Will states that there is no pre-programming, how can you suggest that my version of Free Will suggests pre-programming?
Because according to your version of free-will a specific situation can have but one response. Hence the term "pre-programmed". I did not literally mean the omnipotent being has to login to your brain......
I just meant that (specific situation) = (specific response). Completely deterministic in terms of cause and effect.
The very antithesis of free-will.
I am claiming this can be done by an omnipotent being who can see the future. If this cannot be done, then the omnipotent being isn't actually able to see the future, but maybe only possible futures. And hey, even I can see possible futures, that certainly doesn't take omnipotence.
Your imperfect speculations regarding other people's future decisions are not comparable to an omnipotent being immutably knowing what a supposedly free-will-enabled agent will do in every conceivable situation.
CONCLUSION
To immutably know what the response to a hypothetical future situation would be denies the possibility of decisions being made as situations are encounterd. It denies the possibility of more than one response to a given specific situation. It denies the freedom to decide what one wants and what ones "true desires" actually are in any given real-time scenario.
In short your version of "free-will" denies any possibility of free-will as described by any meaningful definition of the term at all.
Enjoy.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Stile, posted 01-20-2009 8:11 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 01-21-2009 10:29 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 80 of 227 (495035)
01-20-2009 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Blue Jay
01-19-2009 2:04 PM


Re: Good Hunting
Actually, I think a certain person's specific actions at some specific point (such as prophesying the flavor of ice cream Person A was going to choose) would be much more plagued by the randomness of free will than a general, broad prophecy like, "There will be a big war in the Middle East."
Basically, I think God could make an immutable prophecy about people with free will so long as He is capable of seeing all possible alternatives of all possible decisions, and show how some things are bound to happen no matter how events play out. For instance, we are going to experience a major agricultural crisis due to overpopulation in the fairly near future (I don't know if this is actually an "immutable" fact, but let's pretend it is for the sake of this example).
This way, God does not have to actually know the outcomes of every specific, future event, but can simply tell that some general condition is going to prevail, because there are so many independent actors that nobody can actually control it or stop it from happening. So, even in my "world of spontaneity," some prophecy would be possible.
Let's assume that this prophecy is immutable.
Let's assume that enough people believe that it will come true to try and stop it.
Can those people take action (e.g. decide to wipe-out a large portion of the human population) such that the prophecy does not come true?
Or is this possibility, unlikely as it may be but still allowable in purely free-will terms, eliminated by the mere existance of the prophecy?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 01-19-2009 2:04 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 81 of 227 (495051)
01-20-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Stile
01-20-2009 7:38 AM


Re: Back to definitions
quote:
I totally agree. That's why I insist that in order for Free Will to remain intact, the prophecy must exactly match the actual desires of the decision maker given no outside interference. This takes into consideration the "additional information" of the prophecy itself and ensures that the principle you speak of is included.
OK, but the question here is whether we have Free Will to violate. Carefully wording prophecies so that they could coexist with Free Will is not enough. This is why I keep saying that we must think about what is going on.
If we accept the possibility of prophecy is it a genuine vision of the future or an extrapolation ? If the former what is the effect of intervention ? After all, all prophecy is intervention. If it does not somehow change the future foreseen, what good is it ?
quote:
I just want to quote this part again to point out the important section. I do not find "the possibility to change the decision we will make" to be the important part. I only find "the desire to change the decision we will make" to be important. Given no external interference or restrictions, of course.
You're pretty much saying that you don't care if we HAVE Free WIll so long as prophecies are worded so that we can't tell that we don't have it. I'm much more interested in the first question, and consider the second relatively unimportant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Stile, posted 01-20-2009 7:38 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Stile, posted 01-21-2009 1:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 82 of 227 (495074)
01-20-2009 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
01-18-2009 10:37 PM


Re: God's Smart
Straggler writes:
Can man exert his freewill so as to avoid these prophecies coming true?
Sure he could.
Then the immutably true prophecy could be wrong. Which is a contradiction in terms.
The proper question to ask is, "will man change the prophecy?
Given that an immutable prophecy cannot be wrong how could he do this? It is impossible without creating a contradiction in terms.
He told Ahab he would die and the people would be scattered upon the hills and go home.
Ahab went into a rant telling Jehoshaphat see I told you he would prophecy against me then he said a lot of other things.
So they went up to battle but Ahab disguised himself not using his Kingly Apparel.
Could Ahab have changed the prophecy? Yes.
No he could not. That is the point.
Ahab has been given an immutable prophecy.
He could not have done anything that would have contradicted that prophecy without making God a liar. Which is not possible.
Did he change the prophecy? No.
Because he could not. He had no free-will regarding this matter.
God knows the decision man is going to make before the prophecy is made.
OK. But at what point after the prophecy had been made could Ahab have used his free-will to change the outcome without making God a liar?
Do you see the problem here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2009 10:37 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 01-20-2009 7:34 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 83 of 227 (495084)
01-20-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
01-18-2009 9:53 PM


Re: Free Will
Straggler writes:
So whilst incontinent, unable to walk and unable to talk (presumably just like every other human infant?) the baby Jesus apparently posessed omniscience and an eternal frame of reference regarding timeless knowledge...........??
Are you serious?
Does the bible actually support this view? Or are you making it up?
John 10:10 Jesus said:.......etc. etc.
Yes but WHEN did Jesus say this? Not when he was two months old I suspect.
Straggler writes:
So he was born in a human body fully cognisant of his fate and posessing all other knowledge derived from his eternal omniscience?
Unless He limited Himself. But we are not told that He did.
So Jesus was born omniscient and fully functioning as an eternity aware being, seeing all of time laid before him. He was like this from birth according to your analysis.
So he was as mentally developed at 2 months as he was at age 30 years according to your analysis.
Can you imagine Jesus as a toddler? Still pooping his pants and talking in baby gaga language but fully omniscient of all eternity and possessing all knowledge.
But this was not thought worth any mention.......?
Do you think God took on flesh and came to walk on earth as one of us?
He came to die for the sins of the world.
And apparently decided to do this "before the universe and the earth was created" (as you put it)
So presumably all Jesus's decisions were made in this way? He did not make decisions in realtime non-eternity as we do. All his free-will decisions were made "before the universe and the earth was created". Everything from which robe to don that day and what to eat for breakfast to what words to use in the sermon on the mount?
So Jesus said HIs purpose for comming was to die.
So did those who killed him or contributed to his death in any way also have free-will? Could they have chosen not to kill him?
How?
Do you see the problem here?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2009 9:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 01-20-2009 8:16 PM Straggler has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 84 of 227 (495093)
01-20-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Straggler
01-20-2009 6:26 PM


Re: God's Smart
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
He could not have done anything that would have contradicted that prophecy without making God a liar. Which is not possible.
Ahab could have made any decision he wanted to make.
But since God knew in advance what decision he was going to make He gave Micaiah the prophecy.
God knowing something in advance that you are going to do does not make you do anything. You do whatever you want to do He just knows what that is.
Straggler writes:
OK. But at what point after the prophecy had been made could Ahab have used his free-will to change the outcome without making God a liar?
Ahab used his free will and made the decision he wanted to make. Nobody forced him to do anything.
He had 400 prophets telling him God was with him.
One guy didn't even get invited to the party but Jehoshaphat requested Micaiah be sent for.
So yea Ahab was going to listen to this guy that he said didn't like him and would prophecy against him.
Ahab chose to do what he wanted without interference from anyone.
Straggler writes:
Do you see the problem here?
The only problem I see is your thinker.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2009 6:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Straggler, posted 01-24-2009 1:49 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 85 of 227 (495097)
01-20-2009 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Straggler
01-20-2009 6:59 PM


Re: Free Will
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
So Jesus was born omniscient and fully functioning as an eternity aware being, seeing all of time laid before him. He was like this from birth according to your analysis.
Jesus never ceased to be God.
As I said He could have limited himself but I don't see where He did.
When He was 12 years old He spent 3 days confounding the Religious elite of that day with His knowledge.
Straggler writes:
So did those who killed him or contributed to his death in any way also have free-will? Could they have chosen not to kill him?
Sure they could have but they didn't.
Pilate let the death penalty be carried out to keep from making the Pharisees mad.
The Pharisees had been planning this moment for 3 years.
What do you think it would have taken to change their minds.
Straggler writes:
Do you see the problem here?
Not with the Pharisees doing what they wanted to do.
But I have located a problem.
You keep saying "immutable prophecy".
In an earlier message Message 44 I gave you three "immutable prophecies" concerning myself.
The only things I know that I can't change are:
I will die.
I will face judgment.
I will spend eternity in the new heaven and new earth with God.
The first 2 I had no control over as the first man made that choice for me when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The third one became an immutable prophecy when I accepted the full free pardon God offered to all mankind.
I can't change it if I wanted too. But why would I want to change it?
I am not sure that there is any other immutable prophecy that exists.
As I was thinking about this situation I remembered the story about Hezekiah. He was told by Isaiah to set his house in order for he was going to die.
Hezekiah petitioned God and God gave him 15 more years.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : spelling

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2009 6:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2009 12:16 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 156 by Straggler, posted 01-24-2009 1:51 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 86 of 227 (495157)
01-21-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Straggler
01-20-2009 1:46 PM


Refuted... if we use your definition of Free Will
Okay, I went through your response and had this whole big rebuttle. But I find I'm simply repeating myself while you put the opposite of what I'm actually saying into my mouth. Perhaps I am unable to properly articulate my thoughts to you. I will try one more method before giving up, however. I'm going to take your Conclusion and provide an example. Please critique my example and let me know where you no longer accept that Free Will exists.
For ease of context, here's your conclusion again:
Straggler writes:
CONCLUSION
To immutably know what the response to a hypothetical future situation would be denies the possibility of decisions being made as situations are encounterd. It denies the possibility of more than one response to a given specific situation. It denies the freedom to decide what one wants and what ones "true desires" actually are in any given real-time scenario.
In short your version of "free-will" denies any possibility of free-will as described by any meaningful definition of the term at all.
This is incorrect and I'll show you how:
Scenario:
Carl lives his life choosing what he wants from all available situations presented to him. His decisions have some component of randomness included in them. No other person has the ability to "predict" what Carl will do in any way because of the inherent randomness in his decisions.
I say Carl has free will.
I assume you also say Carl has free will.
Additional Requirements:
The universe exists such that an external omnipotent being exists that can see the future and can influence the universe. I will call this being Odin because I think that's a cool name for a god.
Carl exists in a universe which Odin oversees.
Odin makes no prophecies whatsoever and even decides not to interfere in Carl's universe at all.
I say Carl has free will.
I assume you also say Carl has free will.
Scenario continued (now with Odin interference):
Carl was born, went to school, and became a water treatment engineer. At some point in time Carl has the choice to manage the incoming water section, the purification water section, or the outgoing water section of the plant.
Carl knows this and Odin knows this.
Odin can see the future. At some point, Carl will die. At this point, even we could look back on Carl's life and see all the decisions he made (including their randomness) as a single, static line through time.
Odin can see the future, Odin can see this even before it has happened in our present (that's the definition of "seeing the future"). As long as Odin does not interfere at all, Carl will continue to make his decisions exactly as he'd like, including the same randomness they've always had until he dies, following the static line that only Odin knows about.
I say Carl has free will.
I assume you also say Carl has free will?
Odin knows that if he changes Carl's life (like, say... explodes the water treament plant where Carl works) then Carl will find a new job and Carl's previous "non-interference" static line becomes a different static line.
Therefore, the only one who can change this "non-interference" static line of Carl's life is Odin, by interfering.
Odin can see the future decision in Carl's "non-interference" static life that Carl decides to manage the boiling section of the plant.
Odin can see the future decisions in Carl's static life-line if Odin tells Carl about managing the boiling section of the plant. And it turns out that Carl still decides to manage the boiling section of the plant.
Odin can see the future decisions in Carl's static life-line if Odin exactly mimics an "immutable prophecy" even though it really isn't. Things like telling Carl that there is an "immutable prophecy" and being all adamant about it and stuff. It turns out that Carl still decides to manage the boiling section of the plant.
Odin can see the future decisions in Carl's static life-line if Odin makes an actual, true "immutable prophecy" that Carl will manage the boiling section of the plant. There is no differnce to Carl's static life-line in this scenario and the previous one since Odin exactly mimiced the scenario above without actually having the prophecy be "immutable". And it turns out that Carl still decides to manage the boiling section of the plant (obviously, since this time Carl really couldn't choose anything else on this one decision).
So one day before the decision Odin comes to Carl and explains the immutable prophecy to him.
And Carl ends up managing the boiling section of the plant. His friends soon see how much Carl is enthralled by the chaotic bubbles it makes. They dub him "Hot Carl".
My guess is that you have a problem with Odin being able to see the future. Of course, this is something I've placed as a requirement since the very beginning of my arguement.
Omnipotently being able to see the future logically displays the static life-line of every intelligent creature in existence.
I do not understand how having a being existing but not interfering with our universe in any way vs. not having the being existing at all is somehow different.
Do you agree that at the end of our lives anyone can look back and see all the decisions of the past, including their randomness, as a static life-line?
If so, then I do not understand how you think it is impossible for an omnipotent being who can see the future to have the ability to view this same static life-line from the past. Such an ability is the basic, fundamental definition of "seeing the future".
If you say that the mere presence of a non-interfering, omnipotent being who can see the future actually removes free will. Even though Odin never interferes in the slightest... I say your definition of free will is inadequate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2009 1:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2009 7:32 PM Stile has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 87 of 227 (495169)
01-21-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
01-20-2009 8:16 PM


Re: Free Will
Sure they could have but they didn't.
Pilate let the death penalty be carried out to keep from making the Pharisees mad.
The Pharisees had been planning this moment for 3 years.
What do you think it would have taken to change their minds.
God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. Might he have softened their hearts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 01-20-2009 8:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 1:26 PM Modulous has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 88 of 227 (495185)
01-21-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Modulous
01-21-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Free Will
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. Might he have softened their hearts?
For 3 and 1/2 years Jesus tried to soften their hearts. They saw the lame made able to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the dead to live again.
What more could He do to soften their hearts?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2009 12:16 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2009 1:44 PM ICANT has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 89 of 227 (495191)
01-21-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
01-21-2009 1:26 PM


Re: Free Will
For 3 and 1/2 years Jesus tried to soften their hearts. They saw the lame made able to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the dead to live again.
What more could He do to soften their hearts?
Are you suggesting that God was incapable of softening their hearts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 1:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 3:05 PM Modulous has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 90 of 227 (495193)
01-21-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
01-20-2009 2:51 PM


Re: Back to definitions
PaulK writes:
OK, but the question here is whether we have Free Will to violate.
Why is the question now whether we have Free Will to violate? I thought you said the questino was whether we have the Free Will to violate in principle? If the principle is present, why do we actually require the physical possibility? That is... if the principle is not present, and we agree that Free Will is removed. When the principle is returned.. why is it only me that thinks Free Will still exists?
If we accept the possibility of prophecy is it a genuine vision of the future or an extrapolation ? If the former what is the effect of intervention ? After all, all prophecy is intervention. If it does not somehow change the future foreseen, what good is it?
No good to me, I just said it was possible to have immutable prophecy and Free Will at the same time. I never said it was useful.
You're pretty much saying that you don't care if we HAVE Free WIll so long as prophecies are worded so that we can't tell that we don't have it. I'm much more interested in the first question, and consider the second relatively unimportant.
No. I very much care if we HAVE Free Will. I just think that the principle of Free Will is much more important then the actual 'going through the motions' of it. And, if the principle is present, then however the motions are made is irrelevent.
See my example to Straggler for (hopefully) a bit more clarification. Perhaps you can spot a flaw in what I'm saying there as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2009 2:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2009 2:08 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024