Free will

[Ignorant]

Oh, I now see the problem.

Omniscience alone is not a deterrent to free will.

Is that the problem?...

I mean, a psychic, if one was to ever truly exist, could know something about someone's future, but in the end does the psychic actually have any control over ensuring that future happens?

Omniscience is not the same as being a puppet master.

However, since theists are fond of stating that god is omnipotent, therein lies the problem.  

Ah, there we go, that's better.

In the end, I understand that religion has no claim to free will whatsoever.  In the end, the one important claim for which religion needs to answer is omnipotence of its supposed god.

If that is what you understand... fair enough. How about reason and contingency? Does reason have any claim to contingency whatsoever?

In the end, the important distinctions which need to be made are between determination and necessity and contingency.

If you care about understanding a different point-of-view, then those distinctions must be understood.

[dyresand]

So, God rolls the dice knowing which way they will fall ... but the dice have a choice ??

Who said anything about choice?

This is what we have been debating on for awhile now seriously lol.
Free will = Choice

[Ignorant]

This is what we have been debating on for awhile now seriously lol.
Free will = Choice

I haven't even begun to discuss choice yet. You can't speak intelligently about choice until you can accurately distinguish between necessity and contingency. Here is a definition. Compare it with yours:

CONTINGENT

[dyresand]

This is what we have been debating on for awhile now seriously lol.
Free will = Choice

I haven't even begun to discuss choice yet. You can't speak intelligently about choice until you can accurately distinguish between necessity and contingency. Here is a definition. Compare it with yours:

CONTINGENT

I will say this 

God has foreknowledge he knows what i will do there is 2 choices i could possibly make he knows of only one choice i will do.

Choice A. continue this conversation

Choice B. End this conversation. 

He simply knows i will pick B because he has foreknowledge what will pick. And that choice is already contingent with what he knows...

[Ignorant]

I will say this 

God has foreknowledge he knows what i will do there is 2 choices i could possibly make he knows of only one choice will do.

Choice A. continue this conversation

Choice B. End this conversation. 

Good. If you actually pick B, you will end the conversation just at the point we might be making progress.

He simply knows i will pick B because he has foreknowledge what will pick. And that choice is already contingent with what he knows...

Yes, so he has knowledge of both the possible choices (i.e. possible outcomes) AND the actual choice. 

This means that his knowledge of the ACTUAL outcome DOES NOT conflict with the reality of the possible choices. 

In other words, it can't be an actual choice if there are no truly possible choices. 

If god knows both, then he knows that your "ending this conversation" IS a choice, one real contingency along with one possible contingency.

If that is the case, then an all-knowing god is compatible with real choices.

Are those choices free? That is a different question.

[Angrboda]

Are necessity and contingency real properties that a thing has? I think not. They are merely descriptors. You can't mount free will on a non-real property.

[Ignorant]

Are necessity and contingency real properties that a thing has?  I think not.  They are merely descriptors.

Well of course they are descriptors. What are they describing? Whether an event obtains differently according to different possible sets of conditions (contingent) - OR - a particular event obtains in the same way without any relation to any possible set of conditions (necessary). [Edit - addition: So I agree, they aren't properties "had" by a thing]

You can't mount free will on a non-real property.

I'm not sure I've mounted free will on anything (even though I'm not sure what you mean by "mount" exactly). If it exists at all, free-will would be part of a set of conditions which determine a particular action AND the freedom therein would, itself, depend on certain conditions being met.

In short, contingency describes an event, an occurence, etc., considered in itself, as one that obtains according to certain conditions being met (e.g. a tree making fruit). 

Freedom describes specific conditions in an acting subject which, when present, allow for that subject to act freely. [Edit - addition: When absent, the acting subject can act, but it cannot act freely. (e.g. a fruit tree cannot make fruit freely)]

Obviously, if that act is not contingent (i.e. if it does not depend on conditions) then the act cannot be free (which describes a specific set of conditions). No conditions no freedom. If conditions, then maybe freedom, depending on whether or not specific conditions are met.

If contingency is not real, then neither is freedom. If contingency is real, then freedom may or may not be real, and would require different sorts of questions. That is why I care about distinguishing necessity and contingency.

[Edwardo Piet]

Arguing against free will gets futile once done ad nauseam as effectively as I can.

[IATIA]

Yes, so he has knowledge of both the possible choices (i.e. possible outcomes) AND the actual choice. 

This means that his knowledge of the ACTUAL outcome DOES NOT conflict with the reality of the possible choices. 

In other words, it can't be an actual choice if there are no truly possible choices. 

If god knows both, then he knows that your "ending this conversation" IS a choice, one real contingency along with one possible contingency.

If that is the case, then an all-knowing god is compatible with real choices.

Are those choices free? That is a different question.

If god knows the outcome, then there are no choices or possibilities.

There are 36 possible combinations in a single roll of the dice.  If god already knows how the dice will land, the other 35 possibilities are completely irrelevant as they could never display on that roll or that would disprove god's infallibility.

The same goes for anything.  You have a choice, the red pill or the blue pill.  If god knows that you will pick the blue pill (even I know you would pick the blue pill) then it is impossible for you to choose the red pill, ergo, no choice.

[Ignorant]

If god knows the outcome, then there are no choices or possibilities.

The conclusion doesn't seem to follow. In fact, it is inconsistent with you next sentence. It also demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between determination, necessity and contingency. 

There are 36 possible combinations in a single roll of the dice. 

-emphasis mine

We agree that there are 36 possible outcomes of rolling two 6-sided dice. Somehow, you think that because God knows which of the 36 outcomes will happen, the other 35 weren't actually possible? How does that follow? We'll see below.

If god already knows how the dice will land, the other 35 possibilities are completely irrelevant as they could never display on that roll or that would disprove god's infallibility.

And an all-knowing god would know this. He knows HOW they land. This means he knows that they will land contingently in a single particular way which is one of 36 possible ways they could have landed. He knows because he determines, out of the 36 possible known outcomes, which will actually occur.

If god already knows how the dice will land, the other 35 possibilities are completely irrelevant as they could never display on that roll or that would disprove god's infallibility.

This is true, but this is simply the infallible determination of a single outcome out of several possible ones. You seem to be drawing a conclusion that because it is determined, it happens by necessity. That is a non sequitur, and it is the conflation of determination and necessity (which rests on an equivocation of necessity) which I keep inviting you to reconsider.



If god knows that a single roll of the dice is 1 possibility out of 36 (and he does), then that means that the outcome is determined by god AS occurring among actual possibilities (i.e. as occurring contingently). He might have determined a different outcome (it is a real possibility). His knowledge of the actual outcome does not contradict or cancel out his knowledge of the possibilities and his ability to determine among them.

If god already knows how the dice will land, the other 35 possibilities are completely irrelevant as they could never display on that roll or that would disprove god's infallibility.

Yes, if some other outcome occurred which differed from the outcome determined and known by god, then it would in fact disprove god's infallibility. Determination does not equal necessity