(June 25, 2021 at 6:37 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:You’d have to make an argument for free will before you can make an argument for it being compatible with foreknowledge, otherwise, as @Angrboda already mentioned, you’re just begging the question.(June 25, 2021 at 6:32 pm)Angrboda Wrote: If P1 assumes free will, the argument is invalid. Let me put it another way. Let P1(b) be the proposition that the choice in P1 is fully determined and not free. Now one of two things is true: a) P1(b) is consistent with P1 and therefore P1 is not about free will and the argument fails, or b) P1(b) is inconsistent with P1 and therefore P1 assumes free will, thus begging the question, and making the argument invalid. You can't simply "assert" free will.
You don't seem to have the first clue about free will. Color me not surprised.
Yes I can assert free will. Because this is not an argument for free will, but for compatibility between foreknowledge and free will. Meanwhile, keep playing mind games with P1.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
