(September 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 7:06 am)spockrates Wrote: Do you really still believe I'm trying to trick you into believing omniscience means to know less than all? You are smarter than that, my friend! There is no parlor trick here. If I actually had tried to tricked you, I'm sure you would have revealed by now how the trick was done.

The truth is, I've used no magician's secret and no slight of hand, but simply asked simple questions. All you have to do is answer truthfully what reason tells you: Is the fictional God in whom Christans believe really experienced?

There you go again, unable to continue arguing for the issue of contention you instead decide to fly off to some other garbage claims which will ultimately boil down to jack shit - just like everything about any god whatsoever-.

If the incompatibility of omniscience and free will were enough to prevent you from entertaining christianity you would not be a christian. End of. The two are incompatible.. even in in principle. You have excuses for this (that don't actually excuse it, but hey, whatevs), I'm not exactly surprised.

Has it ever occurred to you that you may not actually be looking to "rule out the impossible" at all...or even engage in any sort of productive logical discussion?

This is extremely simple - If the future can be known, the events of the future are predestined.

If your god -could- know the future and yet chooses not to (or does not, for whatever reason) this doesn't alter whether or not events are predetermined. If it is even possible to know future events, they are.
If it cannot, it is not omniscient, because there is at least one thing that it does not know (future events).

What part of this is giving you so much trouble?

Thanks for making another attempt to help me understand. I guess I simply lack the intelligence to comprehend how what you are saying is true, or I'm completely misunderstanding you, or you are confused.

It sounds like you are saying that if it is possible for God to know the future, but he chooses not to know the future, then what he does not know predetermines what the future will be. This seems to be the exact opposite of what you were saying a few days ago, which was that only God's knowing what the future will be would predetermine what the future is.

---

(September 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm)idunno Wrote: Spockrates, I don't dogmatically hold to much doctrine. I'm studying the different perspectives right now. I'll mention that open theists generally hold that God doesn't know what will happen in the future because there's nothing there to be known (I think this is the A theory of time their forwarding).

Also, I think I've adequately shown that omniscience and free will can coexist in my thread entitled, "How Free Will and Omniscience Works". Perhaps you'll give it a look.


It should be no surprise Spock here is asking so many questions, he's using the spockratic method.

LOL! Yes, I suppose my method is too lacking in logic to seriously be called Spock's and too lacking in wisdom to truly be called Socrates'. Spockratic is perhaps the best method I can manage!

So will you give me an abbreviated version of the point you make in your discussion thread? I'm extremely interested in what you think about it.

---

(September 1, 2012 at 7:42 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Answering the original question...
Just one stupid reason of the top of my head: imagine the world, the universe, with no god. Imagine your life with no god, but you pretending that there is, just like now. How different would that world be?

I suppose it would be a world where the local Amish would have to give up on the whole non-violence thing. How else could they protect the sexy beasts of buden who pull their buggies?

Sure, the underlying premise of the dilemma is that free will necessitates multiple options. I've cited Harry Frankfurt's work to show that this is not true:

(September 1, 2012 at 10:13 pm)idunno Wrote: Sure, the underlying premise of the dilemma is that free will necessitates multiple options. I've cited Harry Frankfurt's work to show that this is not true:

I don't understand. Why is the fact that freewill necessitates multiple options necessarily a dilemma? How is it a problem for the free, or for the one who is capable of knowing them all?

(September 1, 2012 at 10:23 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 10:13 pm)idunno Wrote: Sure, the underlying premise of the dilemma is that free will necessitates multiple options. I've cited Harry Frankfurt's work to show that this is not true:

I don't understand. Why is the fact that freewill necessitates multiple options necessarily a dilemma?

If He knows what you will do in advance, you can't do anything but what He knows. In other words, you can't really choose the apple instead of the orange if He knows you'll choose the orange. But, as is normally thought, free will demands that we be able to choose the apple. However, this is not true in light of Frankfurt's work.

(September 1, 2012 at 10:30 pm)idunno Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 10:23 pm)spockrates Wrote: I don't understand. Why is the fact that freewill necessitates multiple options necessarily a dilemma?

If He knows what you will do in advance, you can't do anything but what He knows. In other words, you can't really choose the apple instead of the orange if He knows you'll choose the orange. But, as is normally thought, free will demands that we be able to choose the apple. However, this is not true in light of Frankfurt's work.

Well, I don't see a dilemma if the one capable of knowing chooses not to know. You know? For example, God could decide that he will know what choices you will have, but he could also decide that he will not know what choices you will actually make. But please tell me what Mr. Frankfurt had to say.

The capable, but chooses not to know, reasoning isn't really met with much acceptance. I'd avoid it around here if I were you.

That voting analogy I posted is an example of Frankfurt's work.

(September 1, 2012 at 10:43 pm)idunno Wrote: The capable, but chooses not to know, reasoning isn't really met with much acceptance. I'd avoid it around here if I were you.

That voting analogy I posted is an example of Frankfurt's work.

But it is the accepted understanding of omniscience to say it is the capacity to know.

Omniscience ( /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/[1]), mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscient

Why avoid the most reasonable definition of the word? Isn't it better to ask what others think of the definition rather than not discuss it at all? I mean, how can people come to any agreement about how omniscience affects freewill (or affects anything) if they don't even agree on what the word means?

Theological discussions are fine by me.

However I don't think one needs to go that route to refute Theological Fatalism. All that is required is to show that the principle of alternative possibilities isn't necessary for free will.

But regarding the voting illustration, please explain how it is analogous to omniscience and freewill. I'm not sure I see the connection, yet.

---

(September 1, 2012 at 11:01 pm)idunno Wrote: Theological discussions are fine by me.

However I don't think one needs to go that route to refute Theological Fatalism. All that is required is to show that the principle of alternative possibilities isn't necessary for free will.

Well, I'm not trying to refute anyone, except perhaps myself! I am trying to understand why others believe and question why they believe to see if why they believe is why I should question why I believe so that I might believe why they believe, too.



But please elaborate on why alternative possibilities are unnecessary for one to be free. Or perhaps it will help if I give a simple example and you explain how the one making the free choice had no alternative.

Sure my pointy eared Christian friend but I need a break from the computer so I'm logging off after this post. If you're still hazy I encourage you to take a look at the thread I started which may clear up other questions you have before asking another here. I'm glad to answer them.

If God infallibly knows that I will vote democrat, then I can't actually vote republican. If I were to vote republican, than God would've known I voted republican rather than democrat. To the point, whatever I vote, He knows. Therefore I can't vote otherwise. It's being suggested that if I can't vote otherwise it's not really a choice because there is only one option.

Similarly, Mr. Whites device removes the possibility of voting republican. Should Donald want to vote republican the device is activated forcing him to vote democrat. However in the analogy, Donald freely chooses to vote democrat without the coercion of the device. Thus showing that even though there may be one thing you can actually do in light of God's foreknowledge, it doesn't follow that you didn't freely make that choice.

live long, and prosper.