Freewill, again!

[DeadDogsEye]

Sorry for reviving the old debate, but I thought I could throw a new spin on it. Rust, you said that

quote:

If god knows I will choose 'A', then I cannot choose 'B' because that would refute his omniscience. This shows a lack of free will to change my mind, therefore I lack free will. Either justify that or admit that you cannot.

Your argument fails, because you have failed to understand god. This is kind-of hard to explain, but I'll try anyway. You see, god exists outside of time. Time has no meaning to him. Picture a 2-dimentional plane. Let's say there's a circle located at (0, 0). Let's say this circle moves to (1, 1) over a period of 5 seconds. A square locaed in the plane sees a circle moving. But you, however, are 3-dimentional. You exist outside the plane. You don't see a circle moving at all. Time to the 2-dimentional beings is just a 3rd spacial dimention to you. So what you see is a cylinder. A lopsided cylinder, with one base located at (0, 0, 0) and one base at (1, 1, 5). You don't see anything moving at all. You could look at one end of the cylinder, and say, "A circle is going to move to (1, 1)" and you could look at the other end of the cylinder at say "A circle has already moved to (1, 1)" and you'd be right in both cases, because their time means nothing to you.

So god is a 4-dimentional being. He doesn't see people moving at all, our concept of time means nothing to him. The entire history of our universe is just one big shape to him that he can look at.

[Rust]

I already covered that in the thread, so please don't say that my argument fails if you haven't read my reply to that "problem" of yours.

As I say in the thread, that "problem" isn't a problem at all.

So long as he has knowledge of actions before they happen (which is a necessary requirement of his omnipotence) then my point stands. Whether he is exists outside of time is irrelevant.

So he can reside wherever the hell he wants, in whatever number of dimensions he wants, for whatever reasons he wants, and the argument would still stand. So long as he has foreknowledge (which, again, is an absolute requirement of omniscience - it follows that he must have foreknowledge in order to be have knowledge of everything [omniscience]) then the point still stands.

This, without even delving into the problem of you allegedly knowing where a god resides in respect to time. You have absolutely no way of knowing if he exists outside of time, so even if we take your argument as valid (which it isn't) it would still amount to nothing but conjecture.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-06-2006).]

[bonkers]

Game. Set. Match.

[Aseren]

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

Game. Set. Match.

[DeadDogsEye]

Let me try to explain it a little more clearly.

quote:So long as he has knowledge of actions before they happen (which is a necessary requirement of his omnipotence) then my point stands. Whether he is exists outside of time is irrelevant.

Like I said, our time is just a 4th spacial dimention to him. The word before makes no sense in this context. Would you say left is before right? Or up is before down?

When you look at the cylinder, do you see any events happening? Do you see a circle moving from one point to another? Or do you just see a cylinder? That is what god sees when he looks down at the universe.

I'm sorry if I have failed to explain it clearly enough. And obviously, there's no way to prove any of this. But you're saying an omniscient god and free will can not exist at the same time. I'm saying they can.

[Aseren]

It's a shame your pathetic excuse for a brain can't comprehend this.

[Adrenochrome]

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

It's a shame your pathetic excuse for a brain can't comprehend this.

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

Game. Set. Match.

Seriously, DeadDogsEye. Game. Set. Match.

[Rust]

quote:Originally posted by DeadDogsEye:



Like I said, our time is just a 4th spacial dimention to him. The word before makes no sense in this context. Would you say left is before right? Or up is before down?

When you look at the cylinder, do you see any events happening? Do you see a circle moving from one point to another? Or do you just see a cylinder? That is what god sees when he looks down at the universe.

I'm sorry if I have failed to explain it clearly enough. And obviously, there's no way to prove any of this. But you're saying an omniscient god and free will can not exist at the same time. I'm saying they can.

The problem is, again, that you're ignoring the definition of omniscience. Foreknowledge is knowledge of the future. Omniscience means possessing all knowledge. An omniscient being therefore, necessarrily possesses foreknowledge (as it is knowledge). Foreknowledge refutes free will by the argument already made.

Again, whether he exists "outside of time" has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed, since I only need to say that he possesses foreknowledge for the argument to be true, and I can say that without a shadow of a doubt because it directly follows from the definition of omniscience.

Your argument fails, because it is unnecessary, and ultimately a red-herring. We need only establish that he possesses foreknowledge, and that follows from the definition of omniscience - hence it is already established when the initial premise is given.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-06-2006).]

[bonkers]

There's really not much else to say about the problem of a perfect being existing and free will.

DeadDogsEye, here's some links that may provide you with some insight:

Newcomb's paradox

Problem of evil

[Interest]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The problem is, again, that you're ignoring the definition of omniscience. Foreknowledge is knowledge of the future. Omniscience means possessing all knowledge. An omniscient being therefore, necessarrily possesses foreknowledge (as it is knowledge). Foreknowledge refutes free will by the argument already made.

Again, whether he exists "outside of time" has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed, since I only need to say that he possesses foreknowledge for the argument to be true, and I can say that without a shadow of a doubt because it directly follows from the definition of omniscience.

Your argument fails, because it is unnecessary, and ultimately a red-herring. We need only establish that he possesses foreknowledge, and that follows from the definition of omniscience - hence it is already established when the initial premise is given.

I'll try one more time but, I doubt this will change anything.

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that one doesn't have a free will to determine the next step they take in life. There is nothing about foreknowledge that determines the outcome or controls the outcome of events. It is only knowledge of the outcome.



Foreknowledge is just that. Knowing before hand prior to it occuring. It is not saying that foreknowledge controls the destiny and direction of anything. In fact knowledge is nothing without action, which is presented in this case.

What you are saying is if someone had knowledge of your future that means they control your very actions and your very will. This could only be true if someone had prior knowledge of your future and then intervined in your life with the idea they can change your predestined future. I would accept then you would have no free will at that point.

This is where your argument fails because we know, by reality, that nothing is defining or shaping our future but the decisions we freely make (vice influences of laws and conscience.)

Reality says; we freely choose our future void of influence or intervention of an all knowing God. God has not determined anything of your life or does he determine anything of your life. He just knows how it plays out in the end.

This of course hinges on believing that a God exists at all. If you don't believe then your answer stands well to comfort you in your own views of the world and all it's workings.