(October 30, 2015 at 9:20 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: As for responsibility, that depends entirely on the specifiic "Christian worldview" in question. Most sects assert that Gaud is completely and perfectly omniscient, which precludes the possibility of free will because the only one with any agency in that scenario is Gaud. If Gaud already knows everything that will happen, then history is written and all choices are already irrevocably made. By creating us with full advance knowledge of our actions, Gaud sets us on a path that we are powerless to change or control, making him responsible for everything we do and everything that happens to us.

That does not follow. Just because I know what you are going to do, does not affect your free will. You can change your mind and choose differently, but you will not as there is no reason to. Nothing that has lead up to your decision has changed, so why would your decision change?

An interesting scenario is the evil neuroscientist. He hates Bob, so he enlists Fred (who also hates Bob) to kill Bob, and Fred agrees. But to be sure, the scientist drugs Fred and implants a chip in his brain. If Fred changes his mind at the last minute, the neuroscientist presses a button causing Fred to kill Bob.

So, the neuroscientist has definitie foreknowledge that Fred will kill Bob. However, most people think that Fred is guilty if he "chooses" to kill (even though he really had no choice), but not guilty if the button was pressed.

(October 30, 2015 at 3:25 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(October 30, 2015 at 9:20 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: As for responsibility, that depends entirely on the specifiic "Christian worldview" in question. Most sects assert that Gaud is completely and perfectly omniscient, which precludes the possibility of free will because the only one with any agency in that scenario is Gaud. If Gaud already knows everything that will happen, then history is written and all choices are already irrevocably made. By creating us with full advance knowledge of our actions, Gaud sets us on a path that we are powerless to change or control, making him responsible for everything we do and everything that happens to us.

That does not follow. Just because I know what you are going to do, does not affect your free will. You can change your mind and choose differently, but you will not as there is no reason to. Nothing that has lead up to your decision has changed, so why would your decision change?

Yep my response to the knowledge vs free will argument is always I knew you where going to say that. And then ask them if they had a choice to say it anyway.

(October 30, 2015 at 3:25 pm)IATIA Wrote: That does not follow.  Just because I know what you are going to do, does not affect your free will.  You can change your mind and choose differently, but you will not as there is no reason to.  Nothing that has lead up to your decision has changed, so why would your decision change?

Right, but you didn't create me. If you had created me with full knowledge of everything I would do, it would make you personally responsible for all of my actions because you carried out the act of creating me with full knowledge of the results.

Honestly, though, is less a contention against free will and more a contention against the idea that Gaud has any right to punish anyone for anything since he is knowingly responsible for everything that happens in the Universe.

(October 30, 2015 at 3:33 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yep my response to the knowledge vs free will argument is always I knew you where going to say that.  And then ask them if they had a choice to say it anyway.

Again, this ignores the fact that Gaud doesn't just know what will happen, he's also responsible for the existence of all the agents that execute those happenings and is therefore the only being with the power to prevent or change anything those agents might do (by choosing not to create something, for example).


Again, I go to the robot example. If I create a robot and it glitches out and kills a bunch of people, but there was no way for me to know it would do that, then I wouldn't necessarily be responsible for anything the robot does.


If, however, I know the robot can or will eventually glitch out and do this (even if it wasn't expressly programmed to), and I still build the robot and change nothing about its programming, I become directly and personally responsible if that glitch activates and people die.


So either Gaud created the Universe with free will and can therefore be surprised by it and is therefore not omniscient, or all of space-time is the inevitable result of Gaud's singular action of creating the Universe with exact knowledge of how it would unfold, meaning that at best he is personally responsible for all actions, and at worst all actions are really only one action (Gaud's), and we are mere results of that action with no agency of our own.

Right. He could make the rules any way he wants, and the initial conditions as he chooses, to achieve exactly the outcome he desires. So he chooses everything.

Or he is not omniscient and is just screwing around like the rest of us. It's a ridiculous notion that theology would be wise to can in my opinion.

I don't see why it requires the omniscient being to be a creator of the universe, or of anything, to preclude free will.

(I mean contra-causal free will is already an incoherent concept but that's beside my point).

I mean if Professor Xavier from the X-men had his powers boosted so he could hear all my future thoughts and decisions too, and he could know everything I was going to do before I did it... that would mean I wasn't free to do otherwise if he was truly correct in what I would do next on every occasion.

Any 100% reliable and infallible prediction of a future action precludes contra-causal free will.

There have been neurological scientific experiments that show every action we make is already decided by us unconsciously before we are aware of it... sometimes as much as 7 seconds beforehand. That totally precludes contra-causal free will.

Not that it needs to be precluded.... even without evidence against it contra-causal free will is completely impossible and logically incoherent and nonsensical anyhow.

(October 29, 2015 at 10:47 am)alpha male Wrote: According to the definition you had me look up, power is sufficient, and god has that.

Prove it.

(October 30, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Evie Wrote: I don't see why it requires the omniscient being be a creator to preclude free will.

(I mean contra-causal free will is already an incoherent concept but that's beside my point).

I mean if Professor Xavier from the X-men had his powers boosted so he could hear all my future thoughts and decisions too, and he could know everything I was going to do before I did it... that would mean I wasn't free to do otherwise if he was truly correct in what I would do next on very occasion.

No, it's a good point. Either it's possible to know the future before it has happened (from our perspective) or it isn't. If it's possible, then we have no actual choices to make. So it doesn't even require any omniscient being. But insisting there is one forces this condition.

Yes but insisting that there is any fully omniscient being would also force that condition... even if they were not a creator but in fact created by another being that was a powerful creative force but very ignorant, almost mindless and far from omniscient it would still apply (and because of the omniscient created being, not because of the non-omniscient creator being).

Basically it's the omniscience that binds the deterministic factor to the matter, it's nothing to do with being a creator or anything like that.

The factor of 100% omniscience effectively (for all intents and purposes) creates full determinism even in an otherwise physically indeterministic universe... and although indeterminism gives no better chance for contra-causal free will (randomness is not freedom) - determinism obviously completely undermines all but compatabilist versions of free will: and it does so by definition.