That's what we call it.  Just like the moon is still the moon even if it doesn't happen to be made out of cheese. 

(May 27, 2016 at 8:17 am)Rhythm Wrote: That's what we call it.  Just like the moon is still the moon even if it doesn't happen to be made out of cheese. 

So would you disagree with this?:

If God knows that you-as-a-thing-that-chooses-its-actions WILL choose action A, then there is no way that you-as-a-thing-that-chooses-its-actions WILL NOT choose action A.

Also, if you could quote me where I defined free will as the freedom to freely will a choice between a and a, I'd like to see it.

(May 21, 2016 at 5:11 pm)Ignorant Wrote: IF God knows everything, yes, you will do X no matter what. <= X is determined 

In this example you exclude -all- alternatives to x.  The only choice I can make, such as it is, is x or x.  

(May 26, 2016 at 5:32 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ...  Can I choose b, if gods foreknowledge says a?  

No. Now, before you ignore everything I've written about this already, please reread: This, this and this. Then, think real hard about this

-and here you exclude the only alternative to a, in the set of a and b.  The only choice I can make, such as it is, is a or a.

That's what I'm choosing, that's what I'm free willing, because you left nothing else - it is all that remains. That I'm choosing or free willing anything at all is only by your insistence to call it such....despite my own reservations. I've already told you I don't think we're talking about free wills once we maintain the above. Hell, it erodes our traditional folklore regarding choice too. Oh well.

(May 27, 2016 at 9:43 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 5:11 pm)Ignorant Wrote: IF God knows everything, yes, you will do X no matter what. <= X is determined 

In this example you exclude -all- alternatives to x.  The only choice I can make, such as it is, is x or x.  

That's fine. Can you point to where I called that free will?

Quote:-and here you exclude the only alternative to a, in the set of a and b.  The only choice I can make, such as it is, is a or a.

Right. Can you point to where I call it free will?

Quote:That's what I'm choosing, that's what I'm free willing, because you left nothing else - it is all that remains.

I've seen you identify choice as free will (as you do above) many times. You are drawing a conclusion that I never have, and then you are projecting that conclusion as my own definition. It isn't.

Quote:That I'm choosing or free willing anything at all is only by your insistence to call it such....despite my own reservations.  I've already told you I don't think we're talking about free wills once we maintain the above.  Hell, it erodes our traditional folklore regarding choice too.  Oh well.

I am challenging you to provide a single quote of mine by which I "INSIST" to call choice free will, or free will choice. In the meantime, I will provide all of the times that I insist that we distinguish freedom from contingency, choice, necessity, coercion, etc., and whenever I mention choice, that I am quick to immediately remark that I do not also mean free choice:

"In short, contingency is a requisite for free action, but it is not equivalent." - pg. 11, 108 HERE

"If you don't think the manner in which an action obtains says anything about its freedom, then how exactly do you tell the difference between a free action and a non-free action?" - pg. 12, 117 HERE

"So what does this have to do with free-will? If you can't distinguish between necessity and contingency related to god's action, then you certainly can't distinguish between freedom (which requires contingency) and coercion/non-freedom." - pg. 13, 125 HERE

"This means that, if you did your homework (AND YOU SHOULD! ), your doing it was a contingent action. That doesn't mean you did it freely, but we have more information with which to make a judgment about it." - pg. 13, 128 HERE

"IF, however, you understand an all-knowing god's determination of creation as an imposition of contingency (which I think coincides with our experience), then free-will MAY exist. But until we get past that, there is no point in talking about free-will." - pg. 13, 128 HERE

"Does an all-knowing being allow for contingency? Contingency is not the same as freedom/free-will." -pg. 14, 133 HERE

"" - pg. 15, 142 HERE

"I haven't even begun to discuss choice yet. You can't speak intelligently about choice until you can accurately distinguish between necessity and contingency." - pg. 16, 153 HERE

[/url]"If that is the case, then an all-knowing god is compatible with real choices. Are those choices free? That is a different question." - pg. 16, 155 [url=http://atheistforums.org/thread-42248-post-1284306.html#pid1284306]HERE

"I don't know how many times I can say this, but free-will is not the same as contingency/conditional events. You can't talk about freedom if you don't even accept contingency as compatible with foreknowledge." - pg. 17, 168 HERE

"If you must choose b, it MUST mean that you MUST choose b contingently. I don't see any other way choice is possible Is this the same thing as saying you MUST choose b freely? NO! . . .  Clearly, you are struggling to distinguish contingency from choice and freedom." - pg. 17, 170 HERE

And that is only up to page 17. I think you get the idea.

(May 27, 2016 at 11:47 am)Ignorant Wrote: That's fine. Can you point to where I called that free will?

You mean...other than this 20 some odd page long defense of the compatibility of free will and foreknowledge?  

Shall we begin afresh? What is free will, as you understand it?

(May 27, 2016 at 12:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You mean...other than this 20 some odd page long defense of the compatibility of free will and foreknowledge?  

No, I mean: Regarding the pages in which I have been active (beginning in page 11, #108), where do I define free-will as you claimed that I did? If I actually did, I want to recognize and correct my error. If I actually didn't, then it is something I would like to address before continuing.

Why would I continue discussing the topic with you if you assign meaning to my statements that I don't intend and explicitly intend otherwise? I get it if people, myself included, make mistakes and misinterpret language from time to time. I do it all of the time. If both of us hope to have a meaningful discussion, a mutual willingness to come to an understanding of the other is necessary. It requires a little patience. If you are not willing to do that, just let me know and I'll bow out, no hard feelings.

Quote:Shall we begin afresh?  What is free will, as you understand it?

Would you believe that I ALREADY defined it in my very first post in this thread... AND YOU REPLIED TO THAT POST ... but you didn't address the definition? =)

(May 27, 2016 at 2:15 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

(May 27, 2016 at 12:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You mean...other than this 20 some odd page long defense of the compatibility of free will and foreknowledge?  

No, I mean: Regarding the pages in which I have been active (beginning in page 11, #108), where do I define free-will as you claimed that I did? If I actually did, I want to recognize and correct my error. If I actually didn't, then it is something I would like to address before continuing.

Why would I continue discussing the topic with you if you assign meaning to my statements that I don't intend and explicitly intend otherwise? I get it if people, myself included, make mistakes and misinterpret language from time to time. I do it all of the time. If both of us hope to have a meaningful discussion, a mutual willingness to come to an understanding of the other is necessary. It requires a little patience. If you are not willing to do that, just let me know and I'll bow out, no hard feelings.

Quote:Shall we begin afresh?  What is free will, as you understand it?

Would you believe that I ALREADY defined it in my very first post in this thread... AND YOU REPLIED TO THAT POST ... but you didn't address the definition? =)

Restate it please because no one really feels like going back pages is all.

It's totally nuts to speculate at this level of detail about the degree to which a non-existent being may or may not grant humans the ability to choose what they do.

Personally I think there is no free will. However I don't think everything is predetermined because I at some level I think there is some natural randomness in three system, even if it's at a sub-atomic level.

(May 27, 2016 at 10:35 pm)dom.donald Wrote: It's totally nuts to speculate at this level of detail about the degree to which a non-existent being may or may not grant humans the ability to choose what they do.

Personally I think there is no free will. However I don't think everything is predetermined because I at some level I think there is some natural randomness in three system, even if it's at a sub-atomic level.  

Taking god out of the equation we have some form of free will but again parts of our body are simply out of our direct control for reasons 
so we have no free will to control certain parts of our self. Then there is the universe its in a state of entropy when entropy reaches is max lights out.
Other than that that the universe chaotic time itself well is predetermined that the universe is going to end.

* Edwardo Piet repeats his arguments