Free will and omniscience

[Myriad]

As I just explained, no counter argument to your counter argument is required, because your counter argument does not pertain to my argument at all.

Nonetheless, here is where, in a single paragraph, you have contradicted yourself on the nature of your counter argument.

My claim on this is that the OB has knowledge prior to an event, by whatever means I don't need to address, because whatever that means is, it allows knowledge from an event to be known to the OB at a prior time, and consequently, the knowledge does not limit the event, because the event is the source of the knowledge to the OB

The text in red states by logical implication that the specific means the OB acquires the prior knowledge is utterly unimportant to your argument. If it were an important part of your argument, then obviously, you would need to address it.

The text in blue states by logical implication that the specific means the OB acquires the prior knowledge is critical to your argument, as it is (you claim) the explanation of your key claim, that the OB's knowledge does not limit the event.

This direct contradiction renders your counter argument incoherent, which is sufficient rationale to dismiss it in its entirety.

Do you have a different counter argument to offer, or does my argument stand?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[I Ratant]

As I just explained, no counter argument to your counter argument is required, because your counter argument does not pertain to my argument at all.

Nonetheless, here is where, in a single paragraph, you have contradicted yourself on the nature of your counter argument.




The text in red states by logical implication that the specific means the OB acquires the prior knowledge is utterly unimportant to your argument. If it were an important part of your argument, then obviously, you would need to address it.

The text in blue states by logical implication that the specific means the OB acquires the prior knowledge is critical to your argument, as it is (you claim) the explanation of your key claim, that the OB's knowledge does not limit the event.

This direct contradiction renders your counter argument incoherent, which is sufficient rationale to dismiss it in its entirety.

Do you have a different counter argument to offer, or does my argument stand?

Respectfully,
Myriad

.
I bet you run out of font colors before coherence makes its appearance.

 

[Belz...]

Salad dressing...gone sour.

I know you are but what am I ?

 

[Belz...]

Am I to assume that you think ignoring 90% of my post makes your response less irrelevant?

Unfortunately, 100% of your posts are irrelevant. You have failed entirely to present a logical argument, and you are the only person to fail to see that. Your proposal is ill-defined and contradictory, and fails to address the OP's question. In short, you are wasting your and our time.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Your counter argument does not provide any rationale for altering or contradicting a single point in my argument. Therefore there is nothing to address.
Specifically:
My argument says that the OB possesses infallible knowledge of my choice, before I make the choice. Your counter argument... agrees with that, as it must for "omniscience" to have anything like its conventional meaning.

Agreed.

My argument says that my acting contrary to the OB's knowledge would create a logical contradiction. Your counter argument does not address that claim.

I do not disagree with this.

My argument claims that more than a single choice of action being possible, at a time prior to the choice, is a necessary condition for free will. Your counter argument does not address that claim.

I agree with this.

My argument claims that, because actions that create a logical contradiction are not possible, more than a single choice is not possible at any time prior to the choice. Your counter argument doesn't address that claim, other than to contradict it without any applicable rationale.

This is where you are wrong.
Having more than a single choice is possible because that is not an action that creates a logical contradiction,
The existence of possibilities does not constitute an action.
That is very applicable rationale.

My argument claims that the premise of an OB therefore renders impossible something that must be possible for free will to exist. Therefore it necessarily rules out free will. Your counter argument doesn't address that claim, other than to contradict it without any applicable rationale.

This line of analysis was rendered invalid by my prior response.

You do not get to declare your counter argument conclusive, without a rationale for how it applies to or affects my argument. Anyone can say, "the earth revolves around the sun, therefore your argument is false; to defeat my counter argument, you must prove the earth doesn't revolve around the sun." But unless you can explain what specific part of the chain of reasoning of the original argument is contradicted by the earth revolving around the sun, such a counter argument can be dismissed without further rationale as irrelevant.
Respectfully,
Myriad

You explained your argument above.
There is a clear break in the reasoning.
Your argument fails.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Reminding you that you've been caught in lies and that the support for your position is built on a foundation of dishonesty has substance. Since you haven't been honest and obviously aren't able to support your position without changing the criteria at your whim, it appears to be unsupportable, or at the very least, supporting it is beyond your capabilities.

My beat up claim? It's your claim, unless you're going to change the criteria again. The omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event, the alleged free-will choice. The list of options available to the chooser at the time of the event consists of a single item, that which was known to the omniscient being prior to the event. The omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event. You said it yourself.

Good argument (I'm not wrong, you're wrong!) when you are in 3rd grade.

Offering you the only out you possibly have to escape your cycle of failure isn't trolling. It's an attempt to help you since you are clearly unable to succeed at this on your own. You're welcome.

No, still trolling.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

As I just explained, no counter argument to your counter argument is required, because your counter argument does not pertain to my argument at all.

Nonetheless, here is where, in a single paragraph, you have contradicted yourself on the nature of your counter argument.

The text in red states by logical implication that the specific means the OB acquires the prior knowledge is utterly unimportant to your argument. If it were an important part of your argument, then obviously, you would need to address it.

The text in blue states by logical implication that the specific means the OB acquires the prior knowledge is critical to your argument, as it is (you claim) the explanation of your key claim, that the OB's knowledge does not limit the event.

This direct contradiction renders your counter argument incoherent, which is sufficient rationale to dismiss it in its entirety.

Do you have a different counter argument to offer, or does my argument stand?

Respectfully,
Myriad

If I ask someone, "Do you know the results of the election? and
he says "Yes", then I have the knowledge I sought.
I do not need to know if he learned of the results through television, radio, newspaper, or a friend.

I do not need to know the means by which he knows the results of the election in order for me to know that in fact he does know the results of the election,
The source of that knowledge is the election.
The means is the medium through which he gets that knowledge.
The source and the means are two completely different things.

Your argument here is 100% wrong.
There is no contradiction whatsoever.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I know you are but what am I ?

2nd grade.

 

[GeeMack]

Good argument (I'm not wrong, you're wrong!) when you are in 3rd grade.

Your persistent ignorance of what I'm actually saying is noted.

No, still trolling.

You continue to mistakenly equate trolling with being shown your lack of logic, lack of honesty, and inability to understandably communicate your position. You are apparently unwilling or unable to engage in this discussion in the kind of sane intelligent manner as the other participants in this thread. Perhaps that's why you don't understand anyone else here either, and why you continue to fail in your effort to develop an argument to support your position.

The omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event, the alleged free-will choice. You said it yourself. The list of options available to the chooser at the time of the event consists of a single item because the omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event.

You may ignore what you've said. You may deny that you've said it. Your continued irrationality, dishonesty, and willful ignorance of everyone else's comments is fully expected.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

...I'm actually saying...

You continue to...communicate your position. You...engage in this discussion in the kind of sane intelligent manner...to develop an argument to support your position.

The omniscient being has knowledge...of options available to the chooser...prior to the event.

You may ignore...deny...everyone else's comments...

Thank you.
I hope you don't mind that I edited out the extraneous embellishments that you so like to indulge in.

 

[GeeMack]

Thank you.
I hope you don't mind that I edited out the extraneous embellishments that you so like to indulge in.

You're a liar, of course. But you just keep plugging away. If you ever do manage to assemble an argument that is logical, consistent, sane, intelligent, or honest, someone will let you know.

 

[Belz...]

2nd grade.

Good argument (I'm not wrong, you're wrong!) when you are in 3rd grade.

No, still trolling.

Still waiting for that argument !

 

[jhunter1163]

Consider this post an official moderator warning. Further incivility from this point forward will be infracted. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Navigator]

I suspect the expression 'free will' is oxymoron...

 

[GeeMack]

I suspect the expression 'free will' is oxymoron...

As we've demonstrated time and again in this thread, the concept of free will is not compatible with the concept of an omniscient being unless one or both of those concepts is redefined into a nearly unrecognizable distortion of its common meaning.

 

[Navigator]

As we've demonstrated time and again in this thread, the concept of free will is not compatible with the concept of an omniscient being unless one or both of those concepts is redefined into a nearly unrecognizable distortion of its common meaning.

Ah 'common meaning' yes.

Another possible oxymoron.



If you take away the concept of 'an omniscient being' and replace it with the reality on Earth as it is in the moment...then what is the concept free will in relation to Life on Earth?

I guess I am just asking because the thread topic seems like a pointless distraction which is of questionable value.

 

[kungfuhobbit]

Im still confounded by conceptualising how a free-will (non)mechanism works?!

 

[GeeMack]

Ah 'common meaning' yes.

Another possible oxymoron.

With an especially glaring exception, most of the participants in this thread have a pretty consistent understanding of the terms being used. So sure, common meaning applies.

If you take away the concept of 'an omniscient being' and replace it with the reality on Earth as it is in the moment...then what is the concept free will in relation to Life on Earth?

When considering reality and not the thought experiment entertained in this thread, the idea of an omniscient being can be rejected on the sheer lack of evidence to support such a ridiculous notion. The concept of free will in relation to life on Earth seems nearly as meaningless. We don't have a time machine or a pair of matching universes, so there's no way to test how different choices might affect otherwise identical realities.

I guess I am just asking because the thread topic seems like a pointless distraction which is of questionable value.

That might be a fair assessment. It started as a defense of the Christian notion that an all knowing being could exist without precluding free will among its subjects. The bizarre mental gyrations required to make such contradicting concepts mesh is well evidenced throughout this thread.

 

[Navigator]

GeeMack: The concept of free will in relation to life on Earth seems nearly as meaningless. We don't have a time machine or a pair of matching universes, so there's no way to test how different choices might affect otherwise identical realities.

Yes but we do have math. We do have imagination... It cant be that hard.

Anyway, you can test your own free will in relation to your own life on earth.

Are you saying you have and it (your concept of) free will is proved to be meaningless?

 

[Navigator]

GeeMack:That might be a fair assessment. It started as a defense of the Christian notion that an all knowing being could exist without precluding free will among its subjects. The bizarre mental gyrations required to make such contradicting concepts mesh is well evidenced throughout this thread.

So what the heck are you doing wasting your energy on it? Go and have a beer and maybe take a walk! Smile at a person!