The proper name for this dilemma is Theological Fatalism.

To borrow the hypothetical from GodlessGirl's thread,

You have to choose between an apple an an orange. So if this all-knowing God knows you are going to pick the apple but you choose the orange you have just negated Gods omniscience. If you are unable to pick the orange then you have negated free will.

The underlying premise to this argument is that the 'Principle for Alternative Possibilities' (PAP) is a necessary requirement for free will. That is, in order for my decision to be truly free I have to be able to pick the orange.

However, Harry Frankfurt has argued that this is false, the PAP isn't necessary for free will. Here is an example of some of his work,

Donald is a Democrat and is likely to vote for the Democrats; in fact, only in one particular circumstance will he not: that is, if he thinks about the prospects of immediate American defeat in Iraq just prior to voting. Ms White, a representative of the Democratic Party, wants to ensure that Donald votes Democratic, so she secretly plants a device in Donald's head that, if activated, will force him to vote Democratic. Not wishing to reveal her presence unnecessarily, Ms White plans to activate the device only if Donald thinks about the Iraq War prior to voting. As things happen, Donald does not think about Iraq prior to voting, so Ms White thus sees no reason to activate the device, and Donald votes Democratic of his own accord. Apparently, Donald is responsible for voting Democratic although, owing to Ms. White's device, he lacks freedom to do otherwise. link

God's omniscience, like Mr. White's device, removes the ability to do otherwise but that doesn't necessarily negate free will.

Ms. White's device does not allow for free will. If the bloke decided to vote Republican, the machine would be turned on and violate free will.

That's true, but in that case you're switching from theological fatalism to theological determinism. Though God's omniscience may remove the possibility to vote republican, it doesn't cause him to vote democrat.

(August 30, 2012 at 3:53 am)idunno Wrote: That's true, but in that case you're switching from theological fatalism to theological determinism. Though God's omniscience may remove the possibility to vote republican, it doesn't cause him to vote democrat.

Did he have a choice anymore though? No. So why call it free will?

(August 30, 2012 at 3:53 am)idunno Wrote: That's true, but in that case you're switching from theological fatalism to theological determinism. Though God's omniscience may remove the possibility to vote republican, it doesn't cause him to vote democrat.

It is still removing possibilities (even though your analogy states he lacks freedom to do otherwise, i.e no free will) so it is free will within a set of parameters, which really isn't free will at all.

the point of the analogy is to show that alternative possibilities aren't necessary to freely choose something. Though he can't actually can't vote republican, it doesn't matter since he chooses democrat without the device forcing him to do so.

But the choice is no longer there! What if he did want to vote republican? No, he can't even begin to think about voting republican because the choice isn't there anymore...

(August 30, 2012 at 4:05 am)idunno Wrote: the point of the analogy is to show that alternative possibilities aren't necessary to freely choose something. Though he can't actually can't vote republican, it doesn't matter since he chooses democrat without the device forcing him to do so.

You don't get it, do you? Yes, he chooses to vote democrat, but if he decided not to, or a process started that would lead him not to, the machine kicks in and FORCES him to vote democrat. By who's definition is that free will?

Fallen, you're simply defining choice in a way that requires "choices", but you're not stating how the analogy fails.

Tobie, I get a picture of the guy from The Office when I address you. What you're missing is that foreknowledge of an event doesn't invoke any causal power. You're thinking of a Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty.

The OP makes no sense. The voter has 4 choices. Vote for Republicans, Vote for Democrats, Vote but deliberately file an invalid vote, or abstain from voting altogether. You machine restricts the voter to only one choice. How is this "free" ?

I believe this "freewill" is actually a misnomer. The definition of freewill, according to xtians is very simple - you are "free" to do anything within a confined set of Christian principles. Its not "free"will, rather "restricted" freedom.

---

(August 30, 2012 at 4:15 am)idunno Wrote: Fallen, you're simply defining choice in a way that requires "choices"

Choice requires choices. Do you ever see multiple choice questions with only one choice?