Forgiven for what, eactly?

[Aepervius]

Not by any of the premises currently in the system. If you believe it does, demonstrate it logically.

Easy. Once god knows P, then C(P)=1.0 and C(~P)=0. Effectively there is a C defined, but quite useless as C(~P) is null. So your premise 1 , make your premise 2 irrelevant and useless (rather than contradict it). Once god knows P, it is game over. P happenn. No free will.

 

[TimCallahan]

We seem to have got away from the original question, here, which I think is much more interesting than all this philosophical noodling about free will – in that it exposes more fruitful contradictions within religious thought.

Free will (much like the existence of deities) is unprovable either way and therefore not really worth spending energy arguing about. Provided you start from the assumption that your god exists is sufficiently ‘magic’ (which AVXQ has) you can ignore any logical barriers. I don’t understand why you would start from that assumption, personally, but it appears that people do.

So let’s accept, arguendo, that some sort of personal deity who cares about individual human actions not only exists, but has an omnipotence that still (somehow) allows for free will – so that I could do something that it didn’t want me to do, and subsequently forgive me for that act if I ask it nicely (or, somewhat more bizarrely, agree to make regular, ritualised public declarations about my beliefs in its existence and activities on Earth).

The question then becomes – why should I bother? If I’ve wronged a person tangibly it’s clear I should seek out forgiveness from them, but it’s hard to see how I could do this to an omnipotent being. If I haven’t wronged a person tangibly but god is still upset for some reason, why is that my problem and not god’s?

Good points. We have gotten off the original track, and why shouldn't asking forgiveness and making restitution to those we've wronged be enough? So, the question would be this: What offenses are specifically offenses against God and not fellow humans and other life forms?

 

[D'rok]

I didn't think this would happen, but I think I actually agree with the young earther on this one. The presence of an omniscient god does not necessarily violate free will. It depends on what definition of free will you use.

Allow me to explain:

If god knows that person X will do Y at time T and is infallible, then at time T it is impossible that person X will do anything BUT Y (let's say, run for president). BUT, this does not mean that it is not within the physical/mental/situational capacity for person X to not do Y. These are two very different things. So if with "free will" you mean to say that the same person COULD have chosen differently IF the situation had been different, that would be entirely correct.

The person could have chosen differently in the absence of external influence confounding that choice. Which is really to say, that that person could have free will in a universe where that person has free will. Which is a tautology.

It all depends on a false distinction between capacity for choice and the act of choosing. The evil neuroscientist thought experiment posted page or two back explores this distinction. Is it really meaningful to say that someone has the capacity for choice if the set of possible choices contains only one member?

 

[Sophronius]

Perhaps, but then that would be entirely deterministic as well. In other words, God apparently created us such that all of us will sin, and he must have done so in full knowledge of who would offend him and when.

Let's not forget that that is why we are discussing this.

True. The whole "God couldn't make the universe to be more friendly/couldn't prevent us from going to hell because that would harm free will" excuse still makes no sense. However, the argument from some people here that "Free will cannot exist if an all knowing god exists because he knows what you will choose before you do it" argument doesn't make much sense, either.

Wow, I don't get that at all. If it is impossible for the person to not do Y, how does the "physical/mental/situational capacity" exists to not do Y? If something is impossible, by definition the capacity to it does not exist. By "the same person COULD have chosen differently IF the situation had been different" do you mean "the person could do Y if it was not impossible for them to do so"?

Hm, that was worded rather poorly, I admit. But no, that's not what I meant. Take this example:

I walk across the street, and I find a 100 dollar bill. I pick it up and take it for myself, greedy bastard that I am. Repeat that exact same situation as many times as you like; I will still choose to pick up that 100 dollar bill every single time. There is no "uncertainty" there whatsoever. However, that does not make the conclusion that "therefore, I had no option other than to pick up that 100 dollar bill" reasonable. The fact that there is no uncertainty does not automatically eliminate all concepts of free will.

 

[D'rok]

Wow, I don't get that at all. If it is impossible for the person to not do Y, how does the "physical/mental/situational capacity" exists to not do Y? If something is impossible, by definition the capacity to it does not exist. By "the same person COULD have chosen differently IF the situation had been different" do you mean "the person could do Y if it was not impossible for them to do so"?

The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is to think of an engine with a governor (say max 100kph). The engine has the capacity to go faster than 100kph, but cannot while the governor is in place. Truman has the capacity to choose not to run, but cannot because of God's foreknowledge. Not a great analogy, but there it is.

 

[H'ethetheth]

True. The whole "God couldn't make the universe to be more friendly/couldn't prevent us from going to hell because that would harm free will" excuse still makes no sense. However, the argument from some people here that "Free will cannot exist if an all knowing god exists because he knows what you will choose before you do it" argument doesn't make much sense, either.

And the reason for that is that free will, as naively defined, does not make sense.
As Paul Anagnostopoulos puts it (IIRC): It requires a process that is neither deterministic nor random.

 

[I Ratant]

Good points. We have gotten off the original track, and why shouldn't asking forgiveness and making restitution to those we've wronged be enough? So, the question would be this: What offenses are specifically offenses against God and not fellow humans and other life forms?

.
We had to install a "Mecca pointer" in the Tristars we sold to Saudi Arabia, so the defecatee's emission orifice wouldn't be pointing at Mecca while defecating.
And there's the "name in vain" crap.
And the mixing of the fabrics... boiling in mom's milk...
All trivial stuff which has diddly to do with living, and offends only the faithful who resent the actions on the behalf of their inactive diety.


.

 

[Sophronius]

And the reason for that is that free will, as naively defined, does not make sense.

Oh, I agree. I don't "believe in free will", as they say. I was merely pointing out why I didn't find the argument that omniscience removes any possibility of choice very convincing.

 

[D'rok]

Oh, I agree. I don't "believe in free will", as they say. I was merely pointing out why I didn't find the argument that omniscience removes any possibility of choice very convincing.

Your example removed omniscience from the equation.

 

[I Ratant]

...
Hm, that was worded rather poorly, I admit. But no, that's not what I meant. Take this example:

I walk across the street, and I find a 100 dollar bill. I pick it up and take it for myself, greedy bastard that I am. Repeat that exact same situation as many times as you like; I will still choose to pick up that 100 dollar bill every single time. There is no "uncertainty" there whatsoever. However, that does not make the conclusion that "therefore, I had no option other than to pick up that 100 dollar bill" reasonable. The fact that there is no uncertainty does not automatically eliminate all concepts of free will.

.
I do variations on this all the time at the Mall. Probably picked $30 all told over the years that people have dropped. Pennies, many won't bend over to pick up a penny. (The 10 spot and the dollar on the same day...!!! )
I'll pick one up, and if it's in front of the McDonald's, drop it in their charity bin. Otherwise, it offsets my meager pension.
Watched a kid think he was putting 3 dollars in his back pocket, but it fell to the ground. I picked it and returned it to him.
Situationally variable.
I'd hate to think that these actions were set in stone at 4004 BCE.

 

[SumDood]

No, it doesn't. Knowledge doesn't constrain choice. Foreknowledge doesn't eliminate the possibility of other counterfactual choices; the possibility is not the same as the realization of it.

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, but let me bang my head against the wall a little more to see if I can better understand your point of view.

I agree, that god's knowledge of future events does not constrain choices. Nothing actually constrains the choices, but it is still impossible for certain outcomes to occur.

Premise 1: At t0<t1, God knows P at t1. (God knows Truman will choose to run for President before Truman makes that decision. No dispute.)
Premise 2: For all x, if God knows x, then x. (God's knowledge is infallible. No dispute.)
Premise 3: For all x at t, if God knows x before t, then ~C(~x). (If God knows something to be true before it happens, then it does not have the capacity to not happen. THIS PREMISE IS UNTRUE, and without it, I don't know of any way to get the contradiction you want. I would love to see you do so.)

(bolding mine)
God has always known that Harry Truman would run for president. God knew this before Truman was born. It would have been impossible for Harry Truman to have ended his life without running for president. The 'capacity' for Harry Truman to not run for president never existed. I'll admit that it wasn't God's foreknowledge that prevented Truman from NOT running for president, but it is still just as impossible.

What am I missing?

 

[Sophronius]

Your example removed omniscience from the equation.

Doesn't matter. I presented an example where there is a 100% chance that person X will do Y. I showed that you can still talk of "free will" under these circumstances. This defeats the whole "omiscience removes the possibility of free will argument" as that argument relies on the idea that a 100% chance that a person X will do Y (due to omniscience, in this case) removes any possibility of free will.

I do variations on this all the time at the Mall. Probably picked $30 all told over the years that people have dropped. Pennies, many won't bend over to pick up a penny. (The 10 spot and the dollar on the same day...!!! )
I'll pick one up, and if it's in front of the McDonald's, drop it in their charity bin. Otherwise, it offsets my meager pension.
Watched a kid think he was putting 3 dollars in his back pocket, but it fell to the ground. I picked it and returned it to him.
Situationally variable.

I said "Exact same situation". If you were to run the exact same simulation 100 times, where a clone of you is faced with any one of those situations you presented, would any one of those simulations show a different outcome from the others? Of course not. To argue this would be to argue against cause and effect.

Of course, it is entirely possible that you were simply relating a story rather than trying to argue against my point <_<

 

[D'rok]

Doesn't matter. I presented an example where there is a 100% chance that person X will do Y. I showed that you can still talk of "free will" under these circumstances. This defeats the whole "omiscience removes the possibility of free will argument" as that argument relies on the idea that a 100% chance that a person X will do Y (due to omniscience, in this case) removes any possibility of free will.

Yes it does matter. You have made a case based on inductive certainty. It's the same reason we can be sure that the sun will come up tomorrow. It's always done so and we have no reason to believe that it won't. But that isn't the same thing as possessing the absolute certainty of omniscience. There is always the miniscule but non-zero possibility that the sun will not come up tomorrow. Same thing with picking up the money. Only omniscience can fully eliminate that possibility.

 

[SOdhner]

do you mean "the person could do Y if it was not impossible for them to do so"?

I can't speak to that person's logic, but for myself I define Free Will a lot like I define responsibility. You can get into an argument about who is responsible for what (yes, he killed that guy but he did it because he was tortured by his father, so...) so it's rarely a black and white thing but in essence if the primary things that contributed to my choice were natural laws and my own internal rules and non-agent influences then it was free will.

If the primary thing was someone ELSE's free will, it takes away from my free will proportional to their control over the situation. If they just gave me a gentle nudge it's still mostly my free will, but if they used a detailed knowledge of my psychological state and strong control over the external influences on me to get me to do something specific, I would say that it is THEIR will being done, and only slightly mine. Still slightly in most cases because people have limited control over others.

In a situation where god created the universe and was powerful enough and knowledgeable enough to fully predict ahead of time how all the beings in it would act, that god takes full responsibility for everything because it is his will being done, not the will of anything in his creation. Saying otherwise would be like me very carefully and deliberately shooting someone and then saying "I just set the bullet in motion; I had no responsibility for what it did after that."

 

[Sophronius]

There is always the miniscule but non-zero possibility that the sun will not come up tomorrow. Same thing with picking up the money. Only omniscience can fully eliminate that possibility.

Incorrect. Cause and effect does that just fine.

If A --> B, and A takes place, then there is no possibility of any other outcome than B. Whether there is some old guy in the sky going "I told you so!" or not is completely irrelevant.


@SOdhner: Agreed. The only reasonable way of talking about free will is in terms of responsibility. When I say that a person X was free to make another decision, I don't mean that B could magically not have followed from A, but rather that person X is accountable for decision he made.

 

[tsig]

Your example removed omniscience from the equation.

I get the feeling that Christians don't understand the word "omniscience" because every example they give leaves it out.

They want their god to be O³* but refuse to face up to the ramifications of such a god.

*omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

 

[SumDood]

...Hm, that was worded rather poorly, I admit. But no, that's not what I meant. Take this example:

I walk across the street, and I find a 100 dollar bill. I pick it up and take it for myself, greedy bastard that I am. Repeat that exact same situation as many times as you like; I will still choose to pick up that 100 dollar bill every single time. There is no "uncertainty" there whatsoever. However, that does not make the conclusion that "therefore, I had no option other than to pick up that 100 dollar bill" reasonable. The fact that there is no uncertainty does not automatically eliminate all concepts of free will.

I see your point, but I don't see how it fits. If a fortune teller who is 100% accurate predicted that you would keep the money, it would be impossible for you to return it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

First of all, I'll ignore your contention that AXQ uses logic because it's ridiculous on its face. He's a Christian, he believes in an invisible tyrant who lives in the sky, created the universe and performs magic for those who sufficiently kiss its ass. In a decent society he'd be dragged in to be lobotomized, sterilized, stuffed into a straight jacket, and locked into a rubber room to drool his life away!

You'd have to find it before you could ignore it. I chose my words carefully: AXQ attempts to use logic. I could have been clearer and said AXQ attempts to use the language of logic, but my point was clear enough. These attmepts at logic are more fruitful at teasing out exactly why religion is illogical than the wall of text we typically get from believers.

Secondly, it's not about civility or making the other side "feel good", it's about the truth. Lies are still lies no matter how nicely a Christard like AXQ parses them. The truth is the truth whether it comes from the mouth of one of the "dicks" that St. Phil the Pussy babbles about.

Civility/= "feel good"

Truth and civility can coexist.

I don't think we all need to be civil, but I also don't think we all need to be dicks. A mix of approaches will likely work best in the end. My point was simply that this poster was more often civil and slow to overreacting. I appreciate that.

Many have tried using logic and civility on AXQ, DOC, Radrook, 1inChrist (remember him?), and other Christians who have oozed their way onto this forum. How that working for you?

If you can't convince them, you have to contain them. You need to ridicule them, marginalize them, denigrate them, and not let up until they crawl back under their rocks where they can't spread their lies.

I am confused by what you think my purpose here is. I am not here to convince the believer that he is wrong. That would be impossible. I'm here to understand where the believer bends logic so that he can believe. It is a personal curiosity, nothing more.

In that process, I think that believers like AXQ have to expose their logic for public scrutiny and then we get threads like this where the illogical is laid bare and the bottom line is "because I believe." While that may not be useful to you, I think it provides a nice template for those questioning their belief to follow. When I started to question my belief I found these discussions helpful as they showed how twisted one had to be to maintain that belief.

Without AXQ the thread is far less informative. Think of a Bishadi thread if you have trouble with that last sentence.

 

[Sophronius]

I see your point, but I don't see how it fits. If a fortune teller who is 100% accurate predicted that you would keep the money, it would be impossible for you to return it.

Or rather, it is impossible for the event of you returning it to occur. There is a simple but distinct difference here. Let me show you:

Premise A: You always make the same decision given a specific situation
Conclusion A: The outcome is 100% certain
Conclusion B: Because of conclusion A, the fortune teller is able to predict the outcome with 100% certainty

The argument that you and others here are using is "If we assume conclusion B to be true, Conclusion A must be true, therefore premise A, therefore no free will". You're looking at it backwards. A --> B therefore B --> A does not follow.

 

[tsig]

Or rather, it is impossible for the event of you returning it to occur. There is a simple but distinct difference here. Let me show you:

Premise A: You always make the same decision given a specific situation
Conclusion A: The outcome is 100% certain
Conclusion B: Because of conclusion A, the fortune teller is able to predict the outcome with 100% certainty

The argument that you and others here are using is "If we assume conclusion B to be true, Conclusion A must be true, therefore premise A, therefore no free will". You're looking at it backwards. A --> B therefore B --> A does not follow.

Fortune teller =/= god.