Sorry, but I don't see how you're doing anything more than defining free will in a way that requires multiple options. That may be a common understanding of free will, but in philosophy the concept of free will isn't so cut and dry.

(August 30, 2012 at 4:23 am)idunno Wrote: Sorry, but I don't see how you're doing anything more than defining free will on a way that requires multiple options. That may be a common understanding of free will, but in philosophy the concept of free will isn't so cut and dry.

FREE WILL? Freedom to do anything, as your will desires. I don't see how simpler it can get?

That's exactly my point. Free will is not a simple concept in philosophy . To my knowledge Frankfurt wasn't a Christian trying to reconcile omniscience with free will, he was trying to better understand free will.

"...we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. It is the coward and the fool who says this is his fate. But it is the strong man who stands up and says I will make my own fate." ~Swami Vivekananda

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

Definition of CHOICE (from Merriam-Webster

1 the act of choosing : selection <finding it hard to make a choice>
2 power of choosing : option <you have no choice>
3 a : the best part : cream
b : a person or thing chosen <she was their first choice>
4 a number and variety to choose among <a plan with a wide choice of options>

Of course I'm defining it that way, because that's what choice is!!

(August 30, 2012 at 2:57 am)idunno Wrote: 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.

That is a horrible imposition on Donalds free-will. He may seem to of made the choice by himself but Ms. White is perfectly aware she is forcing him to do something he would not do if he were not confined to her device. She has negated his free-will in that regard.
I should also point out that Mr. Frankfurt should probably refrain from ripping off the Manchurian Candidate for his points.

Haha, OK guys I gotta be in class in five hours so I have to go to bed. I shall return to this but I'll leave with this. Free will is much much more complex than the layman realizes. If anyone reads that link to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I put in post 13 they'll realize this.

Night all.

(August 30, 2012 at 4:29 am)idunno Wrote: That's exactly my point. Free will is not a simple concept in philosophy . To my knowledge Frankfurt wasn't a Christian trying to reconcile omniscience with free will, he was trying to better understand free will.

(August 30, 2012 at 4:37 am)idunno Wrote: Haha, OK guys I gotta be in class in five hours so I have to go to bed. I shall return to this but I'll leave with this. Free will is much much more complex than the layman realizes. If anyone reads that link to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I put in post 13 they'll realize this.

Night all.

The Wikipedia article about freewill is also very descriptive.

With the situation in which he doesn't choose otherwise, how is that different from the situation in which he cannot choose otherwise?

I think you may be right in suggesting that it is not as simple as declaring omniscience and free will incompatible, but that's of little help for the real task.


“A man’s character is his fate.”
— Heraclitus

“We don’t see things the way they are. We see things the way we are.”
— Anais Nin

Just vote independent, solves all the issues.