WLC free will and omniscience

[Upside Down Dog]

This is why most Arminians are weak in theology.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then there cannot be free will.

If there is free will, then God is subjugated to our choices and whims which takes away His omnipotence.

Even if He knows our choices that we are going to make and predestines based on those choices; this is still subjugating God to our choices and free will - even more so because we are forcing God to plan the future based on our future actions.

Free will simply cannot co-exist with a being that is omniscient and omnipotent.

That's nonsense. You're saying that if God knows all future events and had moulded them at his will, then because he already set those events he can't have free will.

You're another who conflates timeless with time bound. First God has to be timeless to set everything up, and then time bound to be confounded by his actions.

No I said humans cannot have free will.

[Angrboda]

Two things: free will and free agency

You have no free will. You are a machine that acts as it has to act. This isn't anything to do with religion.

You are a free agent to act as your will dictates.

This is semantic nonsense. The relevant standard is the counterfactual, that you "could have done otherwise" (that P or not-P). You've defined us as not having free will, that we could not have done otherwise (not (not-P or P), it is not the case that we could do P or not-P). Then, you simply change the label of the thing (could have done otherwise) to agency, and "magically" assert that it is free. It isn't; you've just changed the name. Changing the name doesn't change the properties of the thing.


Omniscience and Free Will

1. At time T, I could do P or not-P (free will / free agency)
2. God knows at T-1, P or not-P
3. It is necessary at T-1 that P or not-P
3a. Assume at T-1, God knows not-P
i) At T-1, it is necessarily the case that not-P
ii) if it is necessarily the case at T-1, it is necessarily the case at T {that not-P}
iii) if it is necessarily the case at T that not-P, then Premise 1 is false; contradiction.
3b. Assume at T-1, God knows P
i-iii) similarly to 3a, results in a contradiction with #1.
4. this entails not (#1 and #2) (both can't be simultaneously true)
5. Assume #2
5a. not (#1 and #2) -> not (#1 and true) -> not (false [#1] and true)
Conclusion: If God is omniscient, I am not free {could do (P or not-P)}

[fr0d0]

No I said humans cannot have free will.

Yes. BECAUSE God is omniscient. You see what you did there? You concluded that humans are lacking free will from the perspective of God. From the human perspective, our freedoms to act are not restricted.

[ShaMan]

I exercise freedom over my will

[Jackalope]

No I said humans cannot have free will.

Yes. BECAUSE God is omniscient. You see what you did there? You concluded that humans are lacking free will from the perspective of God. From the human perspective, our freedoms to act are not restricted.

From this human's perspective, you're conflating free will with the illusion of free will, fr0d0.

[tor]

I exercise freedom over my will

No. Your brain is telling you what to think and do. And your brain is a hostage of particle physics and universe around it.

[fr0d0]

Two things: free will and free agency

You have no free will. You are a machine that acts as it has to act. This isn't anything to do with religion.

You are a free agent to act as your will dictates.

This is semantic nonsense. The relevant standard is the counterfactual, that you "could have done otherwise" (that P or not-P). You've defined us as not having free will, that we could not have done otherwise (not (not-P or P), it is not the case that we could do P or not-P). Then, you simply change the label of the thing (could have done otherwise) to agency, and "magically" assert that it is free. It isn't; you've just changed the name. Changing the name doesn't change the properties of the thing.


Omniscience and Free Will

1. At time T, I could do P or not-P (free will / free agency)
2. God knows at T-1, P or not-P
3. It is necessary at T-1 that P or not-P
3a. Assume at T-1, God knows not-P
i) At T-1, it is necessarily the case that not-P
ii) if it is necessarily the case at T-1, it is necessarily the case at T {that not-P}
iii) if it is necessarily the case at T that not-P, then Premise 1 is false; contradiction.
3b. Assume at T-1, God knows P
i-iii) similarly to 3a, results in a contradiction with #1.
4. this entails not (#1 and #2) (both can't be simultaneously true)
5. Assume #2
5a. not (#1 and #2) -> not (#1 and true) -> not (false [#1] and true)
Conclusion: If God is omniscient, I am not free {could do (P or not-P)}

You're changing the label, I'm not. You possibly don't get what I'm saying. I'm sorry I don't know the source of the terminology. Suffice to say, it's neither personal nor theological in origin.

What I choose is determined by my will. What I will is determined by my character and desires. What my character and desires are is determined by my experiences and genetic makeup.

This is my will which is not 'free' to act outside of it's nature.

I am free to act as my will dictates, within reason. If I choose to do something by the process dictated by my genetics and experience, then I'm pretty much free to act without any outside influence restricting my actions. This is free agency.

I am a free agent but I don't have free will.

---

From this human's perspective, you're conflating free will with the illusion of free will, fr0d0.

How so? I hold that there is no free will, but there is free agency.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I thought I'd traveled back in time then

Isn't God also timeless Chad? "I am".

I AM is the present the tense, no? Things only exist in the now. The past is a current memory and the future is a current hope.

[fr0d0]

There seems to be no consensus either way Chad from my brief research

"I am the alpha and the omega" - could refer to the ends of everything constrained by time I guess.

Atemporal refers to time.

"Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations."

[Neo-Scholastic]

Fair enough, Bro. Fro. I don't think its an essential doctrine. Just one the overly scrupulous latch onto...