Free will and omniscience

[Bill Thompson 75]

Your steadfast and apparently willful ignorance of the existence of the other critical component, the temporal being making the alleged free will decision, seems to have something to do with your failure to understand.

Dodging by inventing a non-supportable, non-existent issue isn't a rebuttal. It's basically an admission that there is no rebuttal to be made.

Try this fillin:
The action of making a choice cannot be considered the source of knowledge for the action because __________________________________

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Simple, unrefuted conclusion.

Why do people call their own arguments irrefutable? Clearly if you could refute it, you wouldn't be arguing it in the first place.

The action of making a choice cannot be considered the source of knowledge for the action because ___you're begging the question___

I help.

 

[GeeMack]

Dodging by inventing a non-supportable, non-existent issue isn't a rebuttal. It's basically an admission that there is no rebuttal to be made.

Yes, when desperation and dishonety mix and result in a silly reply like the one above, that's when it's appropriate to haul out the laughing dog...

​

So the temporal being making the allegedly free will decision is a non-supportable non-existent issue, eh? Well why didn't someone spell it out earlier, you know, something like: "An omniscient being existing with no understanding of time is compatible with the concept of free will as long as the the beings that might be making those allegedly free will choices are non-existent."

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Why do people call their own arguments irrefutable? Clearly if you could refute it, you wouldn't be arguing it in the first place.

Get a dictionary, look up the word you used, "irrefutable", and the word I used, "unrefuted".
You have less than adequate reading comprehension.

I help.

I have made a claim and now I am asking for the rebuttal. That hardly constitutes begging the question.

 

[Tricky]

Dodging the simple request for analysis is a clear indication that none will be forthcoming.

What's the point when you will simply ignore it, as you have all the other analyses that have been posted here. Instead, you put your fingers in your ears and, "LA LA LA", presto, it's "unrefuted". I guess that is some more of the magic you invoke every time you are getting your ass handed to you in a debate.

 

[jond]

Bill: you said that the omniscient being gets its knowledge from the decision made. But so far every example offered to explain how it might work involves time. (i.e. In the car before a turn, etc.) Can you please give us an example of how this atemporal concept might work that doesn't involve time? If not, why should we consider atemporality (is that the right word?) to be a component of omniscience?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Yes, when desperation and dishonety mix and result in a silly reply like the one above, that's when it's appropriate to haul out the laughing dog...
So the temporal being making the allegedly free will decision is a non-supportable non-existent issue, eh?

You completely misunderstood a very straight forward contention.
You said was that I was ignoring the temporal being, which of course is ridiculous since it has been at the center of the debate since the beginning.
The idea that I was ignoring the temporal being in my arguments IS a non-supportable non-existent issue, as I noted and you woefully misconstrued.

Well why didn't someone spell it out earlier, you know, something like: "An omniscient being existing with no understanding of time is compatible with the concept of free will as long as the the beings that might be making those allegedly free will choices are non-existent."

As noted, a alarming lack of comprehension.

Dodging the debate with cartoons: fail.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

What's the point when you will simply ignore it, as you have all the other analyses that have been posted here. Instead, you put your fingers in your ears and, "LA LA LA", presto, it's "unrefuted". I guess that is some more of the magic you invoke every time you are getting your ass handed to you in a debate.

Try this fillin:
The action of making a choice cannot be considered the source of knowledge for the action because __________________________________

 

[GeeMack]

[* Gibberish and babbling snipped. *]

In 1743 the omniscient being knows you will buy a new DVD player next November. In 1743 it knew that. You are not atemporal and you didn't exist in 1743.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill: you said that the omniscient being gets its knowledge from the decision made. But so far every example offered to explain how it might work involves time. (i.e. In the car before a turn, etc.) Can you please give us an example of how this atemporal concept might work that doesn't involve time? If not, why should we consider atemporality (is that the right word?) to be a component of omniscience?

The following is an example of the atemporality of omniscient knowledge.

On Wednesday the 6th I choose to drink a root beer.
On Monday the 4th the omniscient being knows I choose to drink a root beer on the 6th because, in fact, I do choose to drink a root beer on the 6th.
On Friday the 8th the omniscient being knows I choose to drink a root beer on the 6th because, in fact, I do choose to drink a root beer on the 6th.

This example shows a choice and knowledge of that choice in an atemporal sequence.
Nothing in this example is contrary to the common definition of omniscience.
Nothing in this example indicates that free will is precluded by omniscience.
Therefore, there is no incompatibility between omniscience and free will.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

In 1743 the omniscient being knows you will buy a new DVD player next November. In 1743 it knew that. You are not atemporal and you didn't exist in 1743.

Very good. Now show me an example of the atemporality of omniscient knowledge since that is all that I have referred to as atemporal.

 

[jond]

The following is an example of the atemporality of omniscient knowledge.

On Wednesday the 6th I choose to drink a root beer.
On Monday the 4th the omniscient being knows I choose to drink a root beer on the 6th because, in fact, I do choose to drink a root beer on the 6th.
On Friday the 8th the omniscient being knows I choose to drink a root beer on the 6th because, in fact, I do choose to drink a root beer on the 6th.

This example shows a choice and knowledge of that choice in an atemporal sequence.
Nothing in this example is contrary to the common definition of omniscience.
Nothing in this example indicates that free will is precluded by omniscience.
Therefore, there is no incompatibility between omniscience and free will.

Except that on the 4th, you hadn't yet drank the root beer. How does the being know when you haven't yet made that choice? Why does the omniscient being not have to obey the same time constraints as the rest of the universe?

Further, even if the OB does know on the 4th and you don't, how are you free to choose otherwise? It might feel to you as though you are, but the decision has, from the OB's perspective, already been made.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Except that on the 4th, you hadn't yet drank the root beer. How does the being know when you haven't yet made that choice? Why does the omniscient being not have to obey the same time constraints as the rest of the universe?

You're kidding, right?

Further, even if the OB does know on the 4th and you don't, how are you free to choose otherwise? It might feel to you as though you are, but the decision has, from the OB's perspective, already been made.

No, the decision has not been made yet, the omniscient being merely has knowledge of it.

 

[Tricky]

Try this fillin:
The action of making a choice cannot be considered the source of knowledge for the action because __________________________________

It is already known by the omniscient being. The knowledge already exists.

What is it about this concept that is so difficult for you?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

It is already known by the omniscient being. The knowledge already exists.
What is it about this concept that is so difficult for you?

What you are saying is that it is not possible to acquire knowledge from that which is the basis of the knowledge, and that doesn't make sense.
Not making sense is very difficult for me. It seems to come to you quite effortlessly.

 

[jond]

You're kidding, right?

No, the decision has not been made yet, the omniscient being merely has knowledge of it.

Yes, I'm kidding. I'm well aware that when people make stuff up, reality doesn't need to apply.

 

[Tricky]

What you are saying is that it is not possible to acquire knowledge from that which is the basis of the knowledge, and that doesn't make sense.
Not making sense is very difficult for me. It seems to come to you quite effortlessly.

Yet atemporality, which makes no sense in any scenario, seems perfectly reasonable to you. You have a very odd conception of what "makes sense".

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Yes, I'm kidding. I'm well aware that when people make stuff up, reality doesn't need to apply.

I didn't make up the definition of omniscience. Pretend we are not talking about reality.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Yet atemporality, which makes no sense in any scenario, seems perfectly reasonable to you. You have a very odd conception of what "makes sense".

I think atemporality makes sense in the scenario where an omniscient being knows things outside of their chronological order.
Are you still having trouble with that?

 

[not_so_new]

All that it means is that you want to derail a thread about omniscience and free will.

Hardly... it goes hand in hand... but nice try on the deflection there Bill.

The god who created the human already knows what the human is going to do which is the point I am making. The god made the human knowing full well that the human was going to take the left at the crossing (and knowing every other action this and all other humans will take throughout history).

The human may feel that he has free will but this is just an illusion. There is no free will if the all knowing god knows the destiny of the creature that the same all powerful god creates. This god's creation is the realization of the future action the same god has already foreseen.