Free will: an illusion

Hi AsgaraSeeing as you birthed me here, I will break with the message in the signature of my last couple of posts (pre-arranged with Crevo and PY)The dilema goes like this.If an all knowing God means free will is an illusion then we are simply created biological machines. We don't have "thoughts" because machines don't think - they just follow the programee of their designer. They can't 'discuss' anymore that they can 'think' Discussion can't occur if Crevos first OP point is the case. It must ceaseIn order to a have any chance to deal with his second and third points, this first, like the assumption that God exists (for the purposes of discussion) must be...well..assumed.That's all I'll write to you in this thread Asgara. Back to Crevo and PY who face the same dilema. But if you want to write something that will help them out then they are free to use your ideas

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

I'll come back to this tomorrow Crevo. Its late here. But there will be a way to progress I think. Nice post on first reading

There are two ways to look at this discussion. You can stand on the outside and look at me and what I say from the stance of an outside, disinterested observer. Or you can stand inside with me and have a look for yourself. Lets take the first one first.Crevo the observeriano believes/thinks that God exists
iano believes/thinks that God is all knowingYou don't believe/think these things yourself but you accept, for the purposes of discussion, that what I say I believe is what I believe. None of these belief are logical fallacies. But it is a logical fallacy for me to then say "I believe (or think that) free will is made illusionary by Gods all knowing". For that would mean I am a machine which means that 'I' don't exist at all. In saying such a thing I am slitting the throat of the very basis on which I say anything. A machine cannot believe things nor say that it thinks "free will is made illusionary..."You can accept my beliefs for the purposes of discussion but not at the same time as saying my saying free will is illusionary on account of an a.k. God. You must choose: me as free willed (within boundaries) individual or a machine with whom you speak (which is a waste of your time)Crevo the young believerThe second way to look at it is for you to join me and believe (for the purposes of discussion) rather than accept (for the purposes of discussion)iano and crevo believe/think that God exists
iano and crevo believe/think that God is all knowingYou would in fact be assuming (for the sake of discussion) the same position of a young-in-his-faith-believer. A person who had gotten thus far and who now had some questions in mind. In this case you must examine what the consequences for you would be where you to ask the question, "believing/thinking what I already do, can I be free willed before an a.k. God"You face the same problems as above. You can only conlude you have a free will. Conluding otherwise means you render youself a machine and are in no position to comment on anything. No position to say that you believe or think. No position to wonder whether you have free will. Machines cannot wonder if they have free will.This is all I can say on this matter Crevo. The statement in point #1 in your OP is a logical fallacy given the couple of beliefs which are accepted/believed for the sake of discussion.In answering the next of your questions, I will assume the postion of us having free will but that that free will is subject to boundaries and limitations and influences.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : change he to God is all knowingEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

Have a read of msg 122 to Crevo and come back on which of the two positions you want to take and what is your rationale for contining a discussion in the case of the observer or your rationale for supposing illusionary free will should you choose to look at things from the inside perspective.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

Depends on what the definition of a Christian is. The faith alone definition doesn't provide any mechanism for ceasing to be a Christian. Like the IRA motto, it's "Once in, Never Out.Other definitons of what constitutes a Christian might allow for an such an escape.There is nothing to stop yourself calling yourself a Christtian either Crevo. Just pick a definition that fits and you can be one. Its easier and quicker than registering at EvC

There are any number of things going on with respect to my free will which mean that it is not free in the sense you mean free. To fast forward a little to a point in the discussion which we may get to.The biblical position is that we have "free will", but either have that will enslaved to Sin or have it become enslaved to God. Enslaved to Sin means we are addicted to sin. An addict can choose not to insert the needle (free will) but his will is so heavily influenced by his addiction, that insert it he more often than not will. (free will within boundaries and open to influence (or lobbying) by that which is external to it.I am not pushing aside anything however. I have pointed out a logical fallacy. The question "is free will illusionary due to Gods all knowing" cannot be answered in the affirmative by me without turning myself into a machine (which cannot ask that question: which only set things cruising in circles). The question is by definition impossible to answer. It is an illogical question. Now I could in theory, rid myself of the assumptions "God exists" and "is all knowing" but I cannot hold them and at one and the same time as asking this question.Logical fallacies cannot be resolved. Discussions attempting to so are irrational. It has nothing to do with being challenged or fear of consequences. I simply have nothing to report with regard to how one should square a circle to you, the observer. As the above hopefully makes clear it has nothing to do with right and wrong. Logical fallacies don't make it that far. This belongs to the realm of another discussion with another person about another God. I'm giving you my position w.r.t. the assumptions we both agree are reasonable to make (for the purposes of discussion). WE are at a boundary. There is a logical fallacy present and its effect is to place a barrier in front of me (for I cannot resolve it). And a barrier on front of you - for you cannot discuss with a machine - for that is what I become as soon as it is possible that the answer is in the affirmative. There is no point in asking a question the logical answer to which must be 'no'.The thread is not about the existance of God or whether he is all knowing. They are assumptions which might eventually allow for the issue of free will to be discussed by two people. That we have hit a barrier in a logical fallacy doesn't mean we are aided by throwing out the assumptions. Remember, the question 1 in your OP is yours. I didn't introduce the logical fallacy. I'm just pointing it outEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : "change cannot" ask to "cannot answer in the affirmative"

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

This is not an unfounded assertion. There is no basis for supposing a machine can think. All the evidence it to the contrary. The only thing you could hold to is that an omnipotent God could make a machine think, decide, consider....whilst having all the free will of your average machine, to whit: none.We might as well suppose that he can make free willed, thinking being whilst being all knowing.But it kind of short circuits the discussion to point to one illogic (God creates a machine that can think it is an 'I') in order to escape another illogic (God creates a machine that can think it is an 'I') There is no shame in conceding an illogical argument. There are other fish to fry contained within Crevos OP. Free will within boundaries and under influence. Its not my bubble you have to burst PY. You have to break out of illogic. You have to suppose a machine that thinks. That is illogical no matter which way you look at it. The reason they call it artificial intelligence is that no matter how intelligent it gets it will always be artificial. If you want to suppose that you are a biological machine whose thinking is predestined by either God or naturalistic causes then you may."I think, but I am not"The founding assumption for all of us, irrespective of God is that "I am" Kick that out and discussion becomes pointless. For without "I am" you argue in a circle. The machine deciding it is a maching argues in a circleEdited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

A machine doesn't ask the question. That which designed it does. The machine is just an extension of that which designed it (God in this discussion)God asking himself whether his being all knowing makes our free will an illusionThis is getting more and more illogical by the minuteEdited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

I just noticed that in the list of members above, Crevo was right next to you and PY was right under me. A divine appointment made manifest?Gods humor?Or even better a horizontal connection between you and crevo and a vertical one between me and PY. Kind of the element one would use in the manufacture of a cross Oops now poor old Crevo has it tough: you and me right next to himOops now all four of us in direct connection. FreakyNow jar comes between us. Typical and as simple as thatPY shifts right: jar accomplishing his mission. But Crevo, faith and iano still connected. Rivetting stuff. Spritual battle at EvC!PYs back. God on the offensive. Jar still hovering thoughYahoo! direct contact re establishedEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This is the nub of your post and I'll have to head soon so will just deal with this. You answer yourself what sort of illogic arises where I to answer this question in the affirmativeI cannot answer "God being all knowing makes free will an illusion" in the affirmative and at the same time accept (as you suggest I must above) that he is not all knowing. That is more illogic CrevoNor can I answer "God being all knowing makes free will an illusion" in the affirmative if it makes God not exist. For then there is no God to be all knowing or otherwiseAll you are asking me to do is to discard the two assumptions we started out with. That is your perogative. But you asked me to partake so we could find out what my position has to say about free will. The starting assumptions threw up an illogic in your first question. The solution to the illogic is not to dump the assumptions that cause it to be. At least not if one want to discuss my view on free-will based as it is on the starting assumptions I thought we had agreed on.To discuss, the illogic has be resolved or question dumped as illogical given the starting assumptions. Otherwise you are seeking the view of the wrong person. You must find a person whose starting assumptions better accomodate your first question. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

To sum up my position to date:Two assumptions:God exists
God is all knowing...renders the question "Does an all knowing God render free will an illusion" an illogical one. Such a question cannot be rationally answered in the affirmative. And a YES/NO style question which excludes a rational affirmative answer is not a valid queston (given the starting assumptions).Later Crevo

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

Me an Arminian! A curse on their house! Na sis. it's a bit more convoluted than that. Someone asked me once whether I was a Calvinist and I said NO! so as to dispel the the response that awaited such an admission ("your a hyper-Calvinist then..")Calvinism (without pigeonholing myself - it pays not to, for the miscomprehension that can occur) is the best description of my own position. But I would only say as much to someone as yourslf who understands.You know how difficult it is to get even the tiniest point across around here. Crevo/PY are talking no free will. Whilst trying to bring the discussion onto free will within the boundaries of enslavement to sin/God the merest acknowledgement that free doesn't mean free will quickly snowball to "my sin ain't mine - how can God punish me?!"One has to thread carefully and very circumspectively. As you well know.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : typo

Who said free will was cut and dried?

Sidelined,I never mind discussing with yourself and my signature should not be taken implying that I do. But that's the way it is for this threadIan Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

There are various reasons why I hold the position I do but the one I chose to present to you is the one I think will be most effective in convincing you that the assumption of an all knowing God does not render free will an illusion.And the way I chose to do it is to show you that one cannot rationally answer 'yes' to the question "Does an all knowing God render free will an illusion" I think I've shown that a 'yes' answer is an impossible one.One might feel the need to understand precisely how it is that a 'no' answer is rationalised but I doubt there is much point in discussing it with a person holding your viewpoint. No offence, but experience tells me that the attempt would not result in as concrete an argument. What you are forced into accepting is that a no answer is the only possible one due to the exclusion of alternative answers such a "yes", "perhaps", "maybe" and even "we cannot know".This is a 'negative' way at arriving at a conclusion. Although perhaps more difficult to accept than a 'positive' way of arriving, arrival it is.The answer to the question "Does an all knowing God render free will an illusion" is no - for want of any other possible answer. I say its the most effective way I can think of for presenting my position. For you can refuse to accept the conclusion only by ignoring the only answer possible.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD