Jesus' Mission....

[EgoDeath]

If you cant explain how without referring me to wikipedia, ill take that as you conceding.

The citation of Wiki, is not a concession, but the deployment of the modal fallacy most definitely is.

What, in effect, Grandiser is claiming is that although some being has already "actualised" your choice of x, you do not necessarily have to make the choice of x.

This is self contradictory on it's face and can be dismissed.

ETA: Or alternatively, said being has evidently not "actualised" anything at all, since you still have the option to choose NOT x.

OR, "actualising" anything means something else to Grandiser.

I take it as a concession given how incredibly lazy it is. E.g. i dont feel like explaining my position so heres a wikipedia link. Lame.

And yes, ive heard this argument from christian apologists time and time again. It makes absolutely no sense.

[GrandizerII]

The citation of Wiki, is not a concession, but the deployment of the modal fallacy most definitely is.

What, in effect, Grandiser is claiming is that although some being has already "actualised" your choice of x, you do not necessarily have to make the choice of x.

This is self contradictory on it's face and can be dismissed.

ETA: Or alternatively, said being has evidently not "actualised" anything at all, since you still have the option to choose NOT x.

OR, "actualising" anything means something else to Grandiser.

I take it as a concession given how incredibly lazy it is. E.g. i dont feel like explaining my position so heres a wikipedia link. Lame.

And yes, ive heard this argument from christian apologists time and time again. It makes absolutely no sense.

I had already been explaining to others.

And what argument exactly did you hear from Christian apologists? The one I'm making specifically is a bit original, and not something they would themselves use (since it makes free will really sound like nonsense).

If you meant Modal fallacy, well, that's not exactly a Christian apologist argument anyway. That's a general argument which some do apply specifically against the incompatibility between free will and omniscience argument, but that's not all what it's applied to.

Anyway, as long as you understand what modal fallacy really means (for some reason, I have my doubts), all good.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not actually novel, nor does christianity as a whole have any issue with a sinful creature lacking free will. Calvinism is the easy example, but it's bleeding into "biblical christianity" as well.

---

-It might help to remember that rejections of free will as a heretical prop denying gods potency and primacy as the ultimate source of all act and circumstance in reality have been with christianity for centuries. Defining schismatic arguments between the respective cults who hold to one side or the other.

[GrandizerII]

It's not actually novel, nor does christianity as a whole have any issue with a sinful creature lacking free will. Calvinism is the easy example, but it's bleeding into "biblical christianity" as well.

---

-It might help to remember that rejections of free will as a heretical prop denying gods potency and primacy as the ultimate source of all act and circumstance in reality have been with christianity for centuries. Defining schismatic arguments between the respective cults who hold to one side or the other.

My understanding is that Calvinists generally believe people are free to sin but not free to do good. But I'm sure there are extremes among them who say there's no free will at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

The religious say many things, especially in their rush to make sense of things that don't. The "freedom" to do just one thing, as we've been discussing, is no freedom at all. It doesn't take any sort of extremist to say simply, and without prevarication, that they don't believe in free will. Just a person comfortable in the content of their beliefs.

Trying to make sense of free will and omniscience is only an issue for people who are already, to whatever extent, uncomfortable with the lack of either thing. A god who punishes the "innocent", for example. Or a god that doesn't actually know how everything will turn out. However, for every possible objection there is a nutter with an answer. Salvation has nothing to do with a persons specific innocence or guilt. All are born into the grave, all must be redeemed, or die.

[EgoDeath]

I take it as a concession given how incredibly lazy it is. E.g. i dont feel like explaining my position so heres a wikipedia link. Lame.

And yes, ive heard this argument from christian apologists time and time again. It makes absolutely no sense.

I had already been explaining to others.

And what argument exactly did you hear from Christian apologists? The one I'm making specifically is a bit original, and not something they would themselves use (since it makes free will really sound like nonsense).

If you meant Modal fallacy, well, that's not exactly a Christian apologist argument anyway. That's a general argument which some do apply specifically against the incompatibility between free will and omniscience argument, but that's not all what it's applied to.

Anyway, as long as you understand what modal fallacy really means (for some reason, I have my doubts), all good.

Nah. Ive heard the whole 'other worlds' bit from christians plenty of times. Your argument is nonsense. Free will and fate cannot coexist.

Although i get the gist of what a modal fallacy is, its honestly irrelevant as your argument is total nonsense. in other words one doesnt need to get modal fallacy to get youre making zero sense.

That you have to create hypothetical 'other worlds' to try and explain away the contradiction between free will and fate is the first and last sign that your argument hasnt a leg to stand on, and everyone else in the thread seems to get it but you.

You and bel seem to be getting along lately. Interesting.

Ive also heard the whole "god is outside of time" bit. You gona spark that debate up next? Lmao.

[GrandizerII]

I had already been explaining to others.

And what argument exactly did you hear from Christian apologists? The one I'm making specifically is a bit original, and not something they would themselves use (since it makes free will really sound like nonsense).

If you meant Modal fallacy, well, that's not exactly a Christian apologist argument anyway. That's a general argument which some do apply specifically against the incompatibility between free will and omniscience argument, but that's not all what it's applied to.

Anyway, as long as you understand what modal fallacy really means (for some reason, I have my doubts), all good.

Nah. Ive heard the whole 'other worlds' bit from christians plenty of times. Your argument is nonsense. Free will and fate cannot coexist.

Although i get the gist of what a modal fallacy is, its honestly irrelevant as your argument is total nonsense. in other words one doesnt need to get modal fallacy to get youre making zero sense.

That you have to create hypothetical 'other worlds' to try and explain away the contradiction between free will and fate is the first and last sign that your argument hasnt a leg to stand on, and everyone else in the thread seems to get it but you.

You and bel seem to be getting along lately. Interesting.

Ive also heard the whole "god is outside of time" bit. You gona spark that debate up next? Lmao.

So very general statements parroting what others have already said, and nothing to show me you really understood my argument.

[EgoDeath]

Nah. Ive heard the whole 'other worlds' bit from christians plenty of times. Your argument is nonsense. Free will and fate cannot coexist.

Although i get the gist of what a modal fallacy is, its honestly irrelevant as your argument is total nonsense. in other words one doesnt need to get modal fallacy to get youre making zero sense.

That you have to create hypothetical 'other worlds' to try and explain away the contradiction between free will and fate is the first and last sign that your argument hasnt a leg to stand on, and everyone else in the thread seems to get it but you.

You and bel seem to be getting along lately. Interesting.

Ive also heard the whole "god is outside of time" bit. You gona spark that debate up next? Lmao.

So very general statements parroting what others have already said, and nothing to show me you really understood my argument.

No surprise because theres not much to say. Everyone sees your argument is nonsense.