Oh no not another free will thread.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

What I have come to realize, is that in these discussions, you have to be aware that others may be meaning something different than what we may be thinking. For instance, in the voting machine analogy. If the person goes into the voting booth machine, and makes their choice, we would say that they had a free will choice to do so. If however you found that in actuality, the machine was tampered with, and the voter could not have chose otherwise, then it is not free will. I would say that he still made a free decision, and that the completely external information, that there really wasn’t a choice, does not change a thing as far as free will.

[Silver]

Well you've been shown it repeatedly, it's a pity you don't see it.

How many times have theist said the same thing to atheists? Just saying. It doesn't mean I'm wrong in my viewpoint regarding your free will scenario. It might just mean that you're the illogical one.

[The Grand Nudger]

People have called me alot of things...but I don't think I've ever been accused of that, lol. 

What I'm pointing out, is that -if- that conjecture is true, it's a problem for classical free will.  That's the position you've been attempting to argue against, as somehow not making sense.  It makes sense, even if neither of us buys into that god story or thinks that the universe works that way.

I understand your "if" scenario.  I was just joshing up above.

However, even under the "if" scenario, I don't see the logic you're attempting to apply.

 It's pretty straightforward.  You will choose A - it's a certain inevitability.  If that statement is true.  Can you choose B?

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

What I have come to realize, is that in these discussions, you have to be aware that others may be meaning something different than what we may be thinking.  For instance, in the voting machine analogy.  If the person goes into the voting booth machine, and makes their choice, we would say that they had a free will choice to do so. If however you found that in actuality, the machine was tampered with, and the voter could not have chose otherwise, then it is not free will. I would say that he still made a free  decision, and that the completely external information, that there really wasn’t a choice, does not change a thing as far as free will.

Despite the fact that even his own motives were ultimately predetermined by prior causes that he had no control over lol.

[Silver]

 It's pretty straightforward.  You will choose A - it's a certain inevitability.  If that statement is true.  Can you choose B?

The term "inevitability" is incorrect, from my perspective. There is no such thing. Wouldn't you agree?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well you've been shown it repeatedly, it's a pity you don't see it.

How many times have theist said the same thing to atheists? Just saying. It doesn't mean I'm wrong in my viewpoint regarding your free will scenario.  It might just mean that you're the illogical one.

I can see all your logical mistakes though.

---

 It's pretty straightforward.  You will choose A - it's a certain inevitability.  If that statement is true.  Can you choose B?

The term "inevitability" is incorrect, from my perspective.  There is no such thing.  Wouldn't you agree?

We're already saying 'if'.

[Silver]

I can see all your logical mistakes though.

You wish you were that Omni.

[RoadRunner79]

What I have come to realize, is that in these discussions, you have to be aware that others may be meaning something different than what we may be thinking.  For instance, in the voting machine analogy.  If the person goes into the voting booth machine, and makes their choice, we would say that they had a free will choice to do so. If however you found that in actuality, the machine was tampered with, and the voter could not have chose otherwise, then it is not free will. I would say that he still made a free  decision, and that the completely external information, that there really wasn’t a choice, does not change a thing as far as free will.

Despite the fact that even his own motives were ultimately predetermined by prior causes that he had no control over lol.

Then you are getting rid of “will” all together; free or otherwise. Likely also getting rid of conscienceness and reason. In which case, you didn’t come to this conclusion through reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

 It's pretty straightforward.  You will choose A - it's a certain inevitability.  If that statement is true.  Can you choose B?

The term "inevitability" is incorrect, from my perspective.  There is no such thing.  Wouldn't you agree?

Again, that would address our personal positions on whether or not the universe works that way, whether or not there's such a thing as an inevitability.  Whether or not the criticism of omniscience as it relates to future knowledge is a logical one, that follows from it's assumptions..is something else entirely.

The sort of future knowledge being alleged in the case of cassandra and omni gods..opposed to random hedge witches (I don't believe in any of this shit, lol), is a certain inevitability.  If there was such knowledge, or if such knowledge were possessed...this has a deleterious effect on classical free will.  You can;t choose b at all.  You will choose a.  It's a certain inevitability.  Known (or, at least knowable) to be so, in advance of you haviong ever been aware that you would even be making any choice.  

In the case of omni god...all of the future spreads out as an inevitable tapestry of certainty, all the way to the end, from before the beginning, lol. 

[henryp]

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

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

The implication is that the all-knowing being dictates our choices through Its knowledge.  But why isn't it us dictating the All-knowing being's knowledge with our choices?  


If there were free will, and I chose an apple, the all-knowing being couldn't 'know' me into choosing a banana instead.  Its knowledge is a solely a reaction to my future choice.  

I think you can view knowing the future in a world with free will as a form of time travel.  Whether that's existing outside of time, and viewing it as a totality, or somehow being magical inside it, the explanation is time being non-linear.  Which is silly.  But all-knowing beings and free will are already silly.  Once you open the silly door, silly is on the table.