Oh no not another free will thread.

[Edwardo Piet]

I like thinking about this stuff with time travel.

In a world with free will, I'm presented with an Apple, a Banana, and a Cucumber.  Larry video tapes me choosing the Banana.  Larry then sends the video tape back through time to himself 3 hours ago and watches it. 

So when the event occurs again, Larry secretly bets George 10 dollars I'll choose the Banana.  But this time I choose the Cucumber.  

Because Larry knowing the outcome of the reality that occurred doesn't negate the possibilities of other realities occurring.

Of course, you're assuming indeterminism is true there. If all the causes were the same, the same thing would happen again for exactly the same reasons.

If an omniscient being truly knew what would happen, then it would know.

You could go back in time, but then the question is, does the being know that the same thing will happen again? if not, then it knows that something else will happen instead.

In any case, in every reality an omniscient being would know what would happen, no matter how much you time travel, it it truly knows everything in all realities.

An all knowing being knowing the outcome of the choices we will make doesn't negate our ability to have made other choices. 
We just didn't happen to make them. 

They're not choices if there are no options. A choice between A and A is not a choice. A choice between A and B is a choice.

We determined the all-knowing beings knowledge, rather than the all-knowing beings knowledge determining us.

The all-knowing being knows exactly what we will do, which means we can't do other than what it knows we will do.

I don't believe in free will, but that's how I'd deal with this if I did.

So surely you can see the flaws in your own argument like I can then

---

God knowing what choices we will freely make, does not mean we didn't freely choose to make those choices lol.

Calling it a free choice doesn't make it a free choice if you can literally only do the thing he knows you will do and nothing else.

Lutriane explained it well. Unfortunately it seems many people can't grasp it, as I've talked about this many times.

Tsk! Oh dear I really feel alone sometimes lol.

---

That may be true, but you can't deny the conclusion to prove the argument false, you have to deal with the argument. Also, I believe God innovates in real time,  future doesn't exist, he is not bound by time, but neither is time something that exists from beginning to end with him, the present exists, the past once existed, and the future is going to come about and is not determined.

I agree with the bold parts.

---

I remember one of my first major debates on this forum centered around the free will debate where others here couldn't seem to grasp my conception of it.  Nothing has changed. That's the beauty of it, though.  I don't expect every atheist to agree with me on everything, just as I wouldn't agree with them on everything.

Aw stop, you're making me chuckle to myself knowingly lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

does it now make sense to you?

I cannot even see how it makes sense to you.  

As I just told CL, my first major debate here was with you guys on the discussion of free will.  Things haven't changed for me anymore than they have for you.  And that's fine.

Okay, I'll give it another crack now that we've had some insight.  Do you think that the availability of knowledge about what will be, not what could be, but what will be..leaves any freedom for you to exert in whatever choice that -will be- x, rather than y?

I'm not looking to change your pov. I'm gathering that you don't think that's the way the universe works, that the future is a bunch of could bes, not so much a bunch of will be's (known or unknown). The omni god, however, purports a universe that -does- work like that. That the future is a known will be. Now..again, that may not be how it works...but if it -is-...then can you see why that would be a problem for classical free will?

[Edwardo Piet]

I like thinking about this stuff with time travel.

In a world with free will, I'm presented with an Apple, a Banana, and a Cucumber.  Larry video tapes me choosing the Banana.  Larry then sends the video tape back through time to himself 3 hours ago and watches it. 

So when the event occurs again, Larry secretly bets George 10 dollars I'll choose the Banana.  But this time I choose the Cucumber.  

Because Larry knowing the outcome of the reality that occurred doesn't negate the possibilities of other realities occurring.

An all knowing being knowing the outcome of the choices we will make doesn't negate our ability to have made other choices.  We just didn't happen to make them.  We determined the all-knowing beings knowledge, rather than the all-knowing beings knowledge determining us.

I don't believe in free will, but that's how I'd deal with this if I did.

The thing is "back through time" would mean, past, present, future is some sort of stream that all exists at once. If this is true, then indeed free-will is impossible per the argument shown. He would have the illusion of free-will, but if the future is discovered, he can't choose otherwise, if it's truly a determined inescapable future.

I don't think time travel is logically possible.

But yeah, even if it was, his argument doesn't work because an omniscient being would know all timelines and all outcomes and all possible worlds.

[Silver]

Okay, I'll give it another crack now that we've had some insight.  Do you think that the availability of knowledge about what will be, not what could be, but what will be..leaves any freedom for you to exert in whatever choice that -will be- x, rather than y?

I'm not looking to change your pov. I'm gathering that you don't think that's the way the universe works, that the future is a bunch of could bes, not so much a bunch of will be's (known or unknown). The omni god, however, purports a universe that -does- work like that. That the future is a known will be.

Despite the available knowledge of what I will choose does not execute free will. That's what I am trying to explain. The choice is still there, correct? Do you not agree with that? If the choice is there, free will is as well. Knowledge of what will be chosen does not execute that free will. Knowledge of what will be chosen merely means knowledge of what will happen; in no way does it execute free will.

[Edwardo Piet]

Not everyone is getting it so it's time to invoke Galen I guess:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do

Q.E.D.

Although I know many people still won't see it. It's clear as day to me.

[henryp]

I like thinking about this stuff with time travel.

In a world with free will, I'm presented with an Apple, a Banana, and a Cucumber.  Larry video tapes me choosing the Banana.  Larry then sends the video tape back through time to himself 3 hours ago and watches it. 

So when the event occurs again, Larry secretly bets George 10 dollars I'll choose the Banana.  But this time I choose the Cucumber.  

Because Larry knowing the outcome of the reality that occurred doesn't negate the possibilities of other realities occurring.

An all knowing being knowing the outcome of the choices we will make doesn't negate our ability to have made other choices.  We just didn't happen to make them.  We determined the all-knowing beings knowledge, rather than the all-knowing beings knowledge determining us.

I don't believe in free will, but that's how I'd deal with this if I did.

The thing is "back through time" would mean, past, present, future is some sort of stream that all exists at once. If this is true, then indeed free-will is impossible per the argument shown. He would have the illusion of free-will, but if the future is discovered, he can't choose otherwise, if it's truly a determined inescapable future.

Past present and future is a stream that all exists at once, but think of it as a branching stream rather than a single path.

You're in a canoe going down a river and come to a fork.  You go right.  You get out of the water.  Walk back a mile or so and get back in.  You come to the fork in the river again.  This time you go left.

[The Grand Nudger]

Despite the available knowledge of what I will choose does not execute free will.  That's what I am trying to explain.  The choice is still there, correct?

Is it free, in some sense?  What sense?

If the outcome of that choice is knowable (a will-be), one way it certainly isn't free, is free to be the other outcome.

[Mystic]

3 is the premise, I dispute. The state and how we are, is the free-will determination and test of will, and we can override habits.

[brewer]

Not everyone is getting it so it's time to invoke Galen I guess:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do

Q.E.D.

Although I know many people still won't see it. It's clear as day to me.

Is this a valid explanation for malingering?

Oh, oh, and blaming parents?

[Edwardo Piet]

Past present and future is a stream that all exists at once

That is a contradiction in terms. You're basically saying that the past and future are present, despite the fact that the past is what is no longer present and the future is what will be present.

---

Not everyone is getting it so it's time to invoke Galen I guess:


Q.E.D.

Although I know many people still won't see it. It's clear as day to me.

Is this a valid explanation for malingering?

Oh, oh, and blaming parents?

Irrelevant.