Thomas Kelly252525 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:--So people suffer to feed the spiritual development of Christians?--

Mister Agenda,

It's that Christians benefit from people who choose to do evil but it doesn't mean Christians want them to do evil.

Did you benefit from the soldiers who got injured or murdered during World War 2 ?

Right, your claim is that God set up the situation so some people would choose to do evil for the edification of Christians.

I would presume, given a tri-Omni God, that WWII was also set up for the edification of Christians, if you are correct about that being the reason evil is necessary.

(June 16, 2016 at 11:39 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Thomas Kelly252525 Wrote:Mister Agenda,

It's that Christians benefit from people who choose to do evil but it doesn't mean Christians want them to do evil.

Did you benefit from the soldiers who got injured or murdered during World War 2 ?

--Right, your claim is that God set up the situation so some people would choose to do evil for the edification of Christians.--

We may agree that human beings should have the potential to choose what they want, good or evil.

--I would presume, given a tri-Omni God, that WWII was also set up for the edification of Christians, if you are correct about that being the reason evil is necessary.--

We may agree it was the Nazis who started WWII and part of the explanation may be thought of in what I put forward for you, which may be seen above.

Mister Agenda, you may look above for my answers.

(June 16, 2016 at 11:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I don't think a tri-Omni being can itself have free will. If it is omniscient, it can foresee everything it will ever do. If it is omnipotent, it can do otherwise. But if it does otherwise, it was not actually omniscient to begin with. So an omniscient being can only do what it foresees it will do and does not possess free will in any meaningful sense, it can't choose to do other than what it already knows it will do. In effect, all its choices were made instantaneously as soon as it came into existence and can never be changed.

There are a couple of views on what free will is.  My particular view leans more towards conscience responsibility in our choices (compatibilist) , and away from libertarian free will.  I don't think that knowledge of a choice violates free will.   For instance in such discussions; I am 99% sure, that someone is going to argue, that knowing the choice one is going to make, violates free will.  Does this mean, that they only had 1% free will to do so?  If because I am familiar with someone, and am fairly certain which choice they will make, does it mean that they are no longer making a conscience choice?

I also had a similar discussion a few years ago; on a Christian forum I propose the following scenario.   Let say that Jill is able to go into the future, and know what choice Jack will make in a given circumstance.  Now she knows what choice Jack will make, but does not tell him, or even come in contact with him, beforehand.   Nothing changed in regards to Jacks choice leading up to it, other than Jill's knowledge of it.  Does Jack's still have free will in this instance?  Did Jack have free will; if Jill had no knowledge of what he would do?

RoadRunner79 Wrote:[quote=For instance in such discussions; I am 99% sure,

b-mine
Let me stop you right here..because it's important. Is that an adequate description of your god's omniscience?

Quote:that someone is going to argue, that knowing the choice one is going to make, violates free will. 

Sure would.

Quote:Does this mean, that they only had 1% free will to do so?

Nope.

Quote: If because I am familiar with someone, and am fairly certain which choice they will make, does it mean that they are no longer making a conscience choice?

Nope.

(June 16, 2016 at 12:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 16, 2016 at 11:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I don't think a tri-Omni being can itself have free will. If it is omniscient, it can foresee everything it will ever do. If it is omnipotent, it can do otherwise. But if it does otherwise, it was not actually omniscient to begin with. So an omniscient being can only do what it foresees it will do and does not possess free will in any meaningful sense, it can't choose to do other than what it already knows it will do. In effect, all its choices were made instantaneously as soon as it came into existence and can never be changed.

There are a couple of views on what free will is.  My particular view leans more towards conscience responsibility in our choices (compatibilist) , and away from libertarian free will.  I don't think that knowledge of a choice violates free will.   For instance in such discussions; I am 99% sure, that someone is going to argue, that knowing the choice one is going to make, violates free will.  Does this mean, that they only had 1% free will to do so?  If because I am familiar with someone, and am fairly certain which choice they will make, does it mean that they are no longer making a conscience choice?

I presume you mean 'conscious' choice. You are conflating it being probable that someone will do something with it being necessary that they will do something, for one. For two, you are confusing making a conscious choice with freely making a conscious choice. A computer could be programmed to choose based on a weighing of various criteria. Given a specific set of values for those criteria, its choice will always be the same. Its choice is determined by the algorithms used to weigh the different criteria. That an entity makes a choice among alternatives says nothing about whether that choice was free or whether it was determined.

(June 16, 2016 at 12:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I also had a similar discussion a few years ago; on a Christian forum I propose the following scenario.   Let say that Jill is able to go into the future, and know what choice Jack will make in a given circumstance.  Now she knows what choice Jack will make, but does not tell him, or even come in contact with him, beforehand.   Nothing changed in regards to Jacks choice leading up to it, other than Jill's knowledge of it.  Does Jack's still have free will in this instance?  Did Jack have free will; if Jill had no knowledge of what he would do?

This depends more on the state of the actual world rather than on your hypothetical. If Jack is determined to act a certain way, then regardless of his process of choice, he will act that certain way regardless of someone else's foreknowledge of the event. The question is whether his act being pre-determined by knowledge of what will necessarily happen is compatible with an absolute freedom to do otherwise. If we truly have free will, it's hard to see how any being could have infallible knowledge of the future. But if Jack truly has free will, supposedly he could act in a way which violates her foreknowledge. I don't see how that's possible, but people make the argument. Again though, that depends on whether Jack has free will to begin with or not.

(June 16, 2016 at 12:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:[quote=For instance in such discussions; I am 99% sure,

b-mine
Let me stop you right here..because it's important.  Is that an adequate description of your god's omniscience?

No

Quote:

Quote:that someone is going to argue, that knowing the choice one is going to make, violates free will. 

Sure would.  

The full quote is "For instance in such discussions; I am 99% sure, that someone is going to argue, that knowing the choice one is going to make, violates free will."
Are you saying I should be 100% certain?

Quote:

Quote:Does this mean, that they only had 1% free will to do so?

Nope.

Why not... if I can relatively accurately predict the choice you are going to make, then did you really have a choice?

What about the scenario I asked about (care to answer those questions)?
Are our choices based on something from within ourselves? Is it based on reason and experience? Are we responsible for our choices? It seems to me, that in being over zealous on the "free" part of the equation, that you are eliminating the "will" part of it.

(June 16, 2016 at 12:40 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 16, 2016 at 12:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: b-mine
Let me stop you right here..because it's important.  Is that an adequate description of your god's omniscience?

No

Then why is it that you feel your comments on this...would be informative as to the nature of -that- ?

Quote:The full quote is "For instance in such discussions; I am 99% sure, that someone is going to argue, that knowing the choice one is going to make, violates free will."
Are you saying I should be 100% certain?

No....?

Quote:Why not... if I can relatively accurately predict the choice you are going to make, then did you really have a choice?

Why does it matter, if none of this is an adequate description of the situation or particulars to which you have fielded it as a deflection?  Do I seem to be disputing the existence of choices...or that humans make them...because I'm not.

Quote:Are our choices based on something from within ourselves?

Seems so.

Quote:Is it based on reason and experience?

Sometimes, sure.

Quote:  Are we responsible for our choices?

I don't know.   There's utility in that as an assumption regardless of it's truth...but it's not actually required even for the utility we support with it. I suppose it would mean alot more to me if I had a concept of moral dessert such as your own and it was intractable from my religious beliefs. But since I don't and it isn't, it doesn't.

Quote:It seems to me, that in being over zealous on the "free" part of the equation, that you are eliminating the "will" part of it.

Your objection..is that you don't like the perceived consequences.....well no shit...but really?

(June 16, 2016 at 11:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I don't think a tri-Omni being can itself have free will. If it is omniscient, it can foresee everything it will ever do. If it is omnipotent, it can do otherwise. But if it does otherwise, it was not actually omniscient to begin with. So an omniscient being can only do what it foresees it will do and does not possess free will in any meaningful sense, it can't choose to do other than what it already knows it will do. In effect, all its choices were made instantaneously as soon as it came into existence and can never be changed.

I don't think God has free will. A few things:

1) He would be bound by his nature. For example, Christians believe he is essentially good (could not have lacked that quality) so therefore he could not lie. 
2) As you correctly pointed out, he would have knowledge of his perfectly informed future actions so there would be no way to change his mind 
3) Changing one's mind is rooted in ignorance of something (a reason, a fact, etc.). Since ignorance is not possible (omniscience) there is no catalyst for God to change his mind.

How are we defining "evil"? Is it limited to pain and suffering, or does it contain a deeper meaning?

(June 16, 2016 at 1:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2) As you correctly pointed out, he would have knowledge of his perfectly informed future actions so there would be no way to change his mind 

Wait....what? Why would -he- lack free will but we have it..........for that same reason, under precisely the same situation.....?