dyresand,
No.
I observe that I have free will. I observe that under circumstances with identical pertinent conditions I am able to make, and have made, different choices at different times, in accordance with my own thoughts in the moment, and that everybody has this same ability. I observe that knowledge of my choice does not change its free nature.
I observe that the nature of rolling dice is that the outcome is random. I observe that my knowledge of the outcome of the roll does not change the random nature of the roll.
I demonstrate that foreknowledge does not contradict free will.
No. I am saying you have set up a false dichotomy, and all you have provided to back it up is that to you it seems like an "obvious paradox." Well, I assure you that to me what is quite obvious is that it is not a paradox. The difference between you and I is that you have made a claim without justifying it, while I have demonstrated that your claim is false. Knowledge of an outcome has no effect on the nature of the process that produced the outcome, thus free will and foreknowledge are entirely compatible.
I am determined to continue to point out that you must do better than make the assertion that foreknowledge precludes free will; you must justify or demonstrate that claim. Repeating the claim in different ways is not enough. Calling it obvious is not enough.
Regards,
Shadow_Man
dyresand Wrote:you keep asserting you have free will like everyone else does.
No.
I observe that I have free will. I observe that under circumstances with identical pertinent conditions I am able to make, and have made, different choices at different times, in accordance with my own thoughts in the moment, and that everybody has this same ability. I observe that knowledge of my choice does not change its free nature.
I observe that the nature of rolling dice is that the outcome is random. I observe that my knowledge of the outcome of the roll does not change the random nature of the roll.
I demonstrate that foreknowledge does not contradict free will.
dyresand Wrote:Given the scenario a god exists and he is all knowing he would have programmed you to disagree with us even if god the creator is all knowing we still have free will despite the obvious paradox it creates. Simply put god would be lying through proxy saying we have free will when we don't. You do understand the whole you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You are saying you can have your cake and eat it too.
No. I am saying you have set up a false dichotomy, and all you have provided to back it up is that to you it seems like an "obvious paradox." Well, I assure you that to me what is quite obvious is that it is not a paradox. The difference between you and I is that you have made a claim without justifying it, while I have demonstrated that your claim is false. Knowledge of an outcome has no effect on the nature of the process that produced the outcome, thus free will and foreknowledge are entirely compatible.
dyresand Wrote:You are looking for a middle way with the alternatives to where there is simply NULL. So the case would be either god is lying through proxy if god does exist or you are determined to disagree on the notion of free will and all loving god so what is it.
I am determined to continue to point out that you must do better than make the assertion that foreknowledge precludes free will; you must justify or demonstrate that claim. Repeating the claim in different ways is not enough. Calling it obvious is not enough.
Regards,
Shadow_Man
