Free will and omniscience

[GeeMack]

I* asked is life an illusion? GeeMAck states!

Actually that's not what you asked, but your dishonest misinterpretation of my response is noted.

Everything else you stated after this fails if it is not an illusion. So is it or not? If not why not?

Who cares? It's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

What does Scripture tell us?

Again, it's irrelevant to this discussion, so who cares?

 

[edge]

Actually that's not what you asked, but your dishonest misinterpretation of my response is noted.




Who cares? It's completely irrelevant to this discussion.




Again, it's irrelevant to this discussion, so who cares?

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 0.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

No. The omniscient being under discussion is atemporal. The phrase, "Then a choice which occurs in the future," cannot apply.

Change the sentences to read:
"An omniscient being knows everything from the first moment anything can be known by the omniscient being. Then a choice which occurs at any time may be the source of some of that knowledge."
Would you prefer I use "at any time" in every occurrence of every word that indicates tense?

I have explained before the use of tenses for convenience. Let's not demonstrate such a basic lack of comprehension again.

There is no "then". It always was/is/will be. So to suggest something happens/happened "then" is a stupid argument.

Since, it is a fact that "then" has multiple meanings, one of which is to be a logical connective, and since it is obvious, at an elementary level, that that is the meaning in this sentence, your point is less than trivial.

Oh, and it's dishonest to define a hypothetical being having certain characteristics, then to argue one way or another about that being by changing those characteristics. Didn't you learn anything by watching how badly AvalonXQ failed using dishonesty as a strategy?

The only characteristic I have given is all-knowing. I have provided additional analysis, which has not been addressed (I presume out of fear of failure).

Maybe you can offer a reasonable analysis to refute this:

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 a non-chronological order.
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.

This simple scenario demonstrates an exception to the frequent argument that if god knows it before it happens, then it must happen that way in the future.
So, don't trot out that waste of a reason again.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Oh, you mean, aside from the counter I've already offered ? Dodge noted.

Your counter has been refuted each time, so you ask for another reiteration of my argument, as if that itself is a counter.

What ? Are you even reading my posts ? I said the mere fact that someone can know what you will do, which is implied by omniscience.

That's part of what you said.
You must think that a half-truth is as good as the whole truth. I guess it is if you are a half-w..hatever.

I have no idea what you're talking about but I suspect you're having trouble following the discussion again.

When you changed your argument from not being about having knowledge to being about the capability of having knowledge, well that's called moving the goalposts, and it's considered an admission of failure.
When you changed your argument to create a distinction between knowledge and omniscience, well that was part of your attempt to move the goalposts, but it really seems more like you were saying "my argument is not nonsense, it's a lot of nonsense".

How do you figure, unless causality can be violated ?
Your speculation flies in the face of science, logic, common sense and even religion. It takes a special kind of effort to pull off what you're doing, here.
Oh, you mean fiction ?

I see that phrases like "let's speculate", "thought experiment", "what if", "just imagine" must confound and terrify you.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I see nothing in any standard definition of omniscience that mantions anything about being "outside of time". That's your own personal add-on.

Omniscience means knowing everything, without other limitations, so that the universal understanding of that definition is that the all-knowing occurs whenever the omniscient being exists, not just at one moment in time, and not in any chronological order.

 

[tsig]

Change the sentences to read:
"An omniscient being knows everything from the first moment anything can be known by the omniscient being. Then a choice which occurs at any time may be the source of some of that knowledge."
Would you prefer I use "at any time" in every occurrence of every word that indicates tense?

I have explained before the use of tenses for convenience. Let's not demonstrate such a basic lack of comprehension again.


Since, it is a fact that "then" has multiple meanings, one of which is to be a logical connective, and since it is obvious, at an elementary level, that that is the meaning in this sentence, your point is less than trivial.



The only characteristic I have given is all-knowing. I have provided additional analysis, which has not been addressed (I presume out of fear of failure).

Maybe you can offer a reasonable analysis to refute this:

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 a non-chronological order.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.

This simple scenario demonstrates an exception to the frequent argument that if god knows it before it happens, then it must happen that way in the future.
So, don't trot out that waste of a reason again.

You're invoking magic.

 

[tsig]

Omniscience means knowing everything, without other limitations, so that the universal understanding of that definition is that the all-knowing occurs whenever the omniscient being exists, not just at one moment in time, and not in any chronological order.

If the OB doesn't know the chronological order then that's something it doesn't know so it's not omniscient.

 

[GeeMack]

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

Fixed that for you. Although your magical omniscient being may be unconstrained by time, you don't have that luxury. When you woke up on the morning of the 6th, you hadn't applied any consideration at all to what would be a choice in your future, the choice of root beer. But that magical omniscient being knew it. You were going to choose root beer whether you like it or not.

You may now amend the criteria to make the chooser atemporal, too. That would resolve your dilemma. But really, the honest way to do that would have been to start your discussion that way. You know, something like, "Let's imagine a way where an omniscient being and free will can exist as compatible concepts. Making the all-knowing being and the being making a choice both atemporal would do that. Nobody can argue that. I win!" But since you didn't start that way, I'm sure you'd agree that turning that direction now would be dishonest.

If the OB doesn't know the chronological order then that's something it doesn't know so it's not omniscient.

Exactly.

 

[Tricky]

Omniscience means knowing everything, without other limitations, so that the universal understanding of that definition is that the all-knowing occurs whenever the omniscient being exists, not just at one moment in time, and not in any chronological order.

Yep. That's your own definition, and you can use it if you want to, but nobody who uses standard definitions will agree with you.

Meanwhile, I've decided that The llama is a quadruped which lives in the big rivers like the Amazon. It has two ears, a heart, a forehead, and a beak for eating honey. But it is provided with fins for swimming.

Do you think I'm going to impress anyone who seriously wants to discuss llamas?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You're invoking magic.

You seem to be saying that omniscience involves magic. This is not an argument against the compatibility of omniscience and free will.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If the OB doesn't know the chronological order then that's something it doesn't know so it's not omniscient.

Nowhere was it even implied that the OB does not know the chronology of knowledge.

 

[Itztli]

But that magical omniscient being knew it. You were going to choose root beer whether you like it or not.

It would be more like the omniscient being knew you we're going to like root beer.

 

[Tricky]

You seem to be saying that omniscience involves magic. This is not an argument against the compatibility of omniscience and free will.

Only in this universe. Which one are you talking about.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Fixed that for you. Although your magical omniscient being may be unconstrained by time, you don't have that luxury. When you woke up on the morning of the 6th, you hadn't applied any consideration at all to what would be a choice in your future, the choice of root beer. But that magical omniscient being knew it. You were going to choose root beer whether you like it or not.

You may now amend the criteria to make the chooser atemporal, too. That would resolve your dilemma. But really, the honest way to do that would have been to start your discussion that way. You know, something like, "Let's imagine a way where an omniscient being and free will can exist as compatible concepts. Making the all-knowing being and the being making a choice both atemporal would do that. Nobody can argue that. I win!" But since you didn't start that way, I'm sure you'd agree that turning that direction now would be dishonest.

You have repeatedly and completely demonstrated that you cannot understand the difference between a choice and the knowledge of a choice. Your argument consistently avoids any direct refutation of my argument because you haven't figured one out. What you have figured out is away to restate my argument to suit your lone inadequate rebuttal, and then to argue against yourself.
This disqualifies from having any intellectual input into the debate.

Exactly.

You just agreed with a complete absence of comprehension.

 

[Belz...]

Your counter has been refuted each time, so you ask for another reiteration of my argument, as if that itself is a counter.

It seems you're having a conversation with yourself. Where has my counter been refuted, other than by assertion ?

That's part of what you said.
You must think that a half-truth is as good as the whole truth. I guess it is if you are a half-w..hatever.

What does this have to do with my post ?

When you changed your argument from not being about having knowledge to being about the capability of having knowledge, well that's called moving the goalposts, and it's considered an admission of failure.

I did no such thing, so the admission is only in your mind.

When you changed your argument to create a distinction between knowledge and omniscience, well that was part of your attempt to move the goalposts, but it really seems more like you were saying "my argument is not nonsense, it's a lot of nonsense".

Are you even capable of following the discussion ? Instead of trying to make this about me, why don't you answer my simple request.

I see that phrases like "let's speculate", "thought experiment", "what if", "just imagine" must confound and terrify you.

Please answer my question and my point. Your inability to do so is called a dodge, and is an admission of failure.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Yep. That's your own definition, and you can use it if you want to, but nobody who uses standard definitions will agree with you.

Meanwhile, I've decided that The llama is a quadruped which lives in the big rivers like the Amazon. It has two ears, a heart, a forehead, and a beak for eating honey. But it is provided with fins for swimming.

Do you think I'm going to impress anyone who seriously wants to discuss llamas?

Instead of doing the same thing over and over, which in your case means denying without analysis, why don't you present your definition.
It will surely be significantly different from mine.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Only in this universe. Which one are you talking about.

The one where it is possible to talk about ideas.
Which one do you live in where that is not possible?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

It seems you're having a conversation with yourself. Where has my counter been refuted, other than by assertion ?
What does this have to do with my post ?
I did no such thing, so the admission is only in your mind.
Are you even capable of following the discussion ? Instead of trying to make this about me, why don't you answer my simple request.
Please answer my question and my point. Your inability to do so is called a dodge, and is an admission of failure.

When you make a post, then 100% deny that you made it, knowing that I and everyone else can read it, well, then you have no point.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Yep. That's your own definition, and you can use it if you want to, but nobody who uses standard definitions will agree with you.

Meanwhile, I've decided that The llama is a quadruped which lives in the big rivers like the Amazon. It has two ears, a heart, a forehead, and a beak for eating honey. But it is provided with fins for swimming.

Do you think I'm going to impress anyone who seriously wants to discuss llamas?

Just to revisit this post:

My definition,with understandings is

knowing everything,
all-knowing occurs whenever the omniscient being exists,
all-knowing is not just at one moment in time,
all-knowing is not in any chronological order.

Your point is that nobody agrees with this. therefore

Everybody thinks that an OB doesn't know everything
and/or
Everybody thinks that sometimes an OB doesn't know everything
and/or
Everybody thinks that an OB knows everything only at one moment in time
and/or
Everybody thinks that an OB only knows things in chronological order.

Specifically, which of these were you claiming?

 

[GeeMack]

You have repeatedly and completely demonstrated that you cannot understand the difference between a choice and the knowledge of a choice.

The knowledge of the choice occurs before the choice is made, at least until you pull the dishonest ploy of changing the chooser into an atemporal being, too.

Your argument consistently avoids any direct refutation of my argument because you haven't figured one out. What you have figured out is away to restate my argument to suit your lone inadequate rebuttal, and then to argue against yourself.

All your whining about about people not agreeing with you or not understanding what you're trying to say isn't helping you advance your point. But changing the chooser into an atemporal being might. I've suggested it several times now. So far you've failed to present a cogent argument to anyone but yourself. Consider how modifying the criteria might change that.