Free will and omniscience

[Tricky]

Atemporality is not a premise.
It is a characteristic of omniscience based on the analysis of the meaning of omniscience.
That's been one of my points all along.
It been extremely difficult for some debaters to follow that and so they invent some illogical problem with it.

That is not correct. That is a characteristic that YOU have assigned to it. It is not in any way based on the "meaning" of omniscience, or else that "meaning" would be included in definitions. It is not.

Omniscience cannot be a consistent concept without atemporality.
Otherwise, an OB would know one thing while simultaneously not know something else.
This would be inconsistent with the commonly understood idea of omniscience.

That is also incorrect. Many who claim the existence of an omniscient being simply suggest that this being has had (since it's origin, if any) such complete knowledge of the workings of the universe that it will be able to perfectly predict anything that will happen. Indeed, in my experience, that is the most common concept of omniscient beings. However this concept is not compatible with free will. To your credit, you have recognized this, but instead of simply accepting that logic, you've thrown in atemporality to try to put a band-aid on this obvious and irresolvable conflict. But it's not working. You cannot even hypothetically defend atemporality because you cannot resolve the problem with causality. All you can do is attempt to whisk us away to another universe where the laws of physics don't apply.

If someone argues that a being would qualify as omniscient, all-knowing, if it knows all things but only one at a time throughout the span of time, this would not be a worthwhile argument.

Most folks, as I've mentioned before, conceive of the OB as having perfect predictive ability, but not that it moves back and forth in time. But no, your argument is not really worthwhile, since it invokes magic and the elimination of physical laws. One wonders why you persist in it.

 

[Belz...]

What causality are you arguing for that allows knowledge to precede a future decision but does not allow a future decision to inform knowledge?

Time travel, for instance. Unfortunately it means the OB is not omniscient because he has to go into the future to get the information. Your version is as of yet unexplained.

What laws of logic are you arguing for that are not related to physical causality?

I don't understand your question or why you're asking it. Could you clarify ?

If you accept that there is a framework which can support a debate on omniscience and that an OB can have knowledge of a thing before the thing exists, then what is the barrier to the OB having knowledge of a thing because the thing exists.?

Causality, the source of all logic, itself the source of all arguments, themselves the source of all debates.

 

[Belz...]

That is also incorrect. Many who claim the existence of an omniscient being simply suggest that this being has had (since it's origin, if any) such complete knowledge of the workings of the universe that it will be able to perfectly predict anything that will happen. Indeed, in my experience, that is the most common concept of omniscient beings. However this concept is not compatible with free will.

Personally, I would be willing to entertain an OB outside of time, which has all knowledge of everything because time is meaningless to it. Unfortunately it STILL means free will doesn't exist.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

That is not correct. That is a characteristic that YOU have assigned to it. It is not in any way based on the "meaning" of omniscience, or else that "meaning" would be included in definitions. It is not.

If you think analysis to extend an idea cannot be done based on a definition, then you have no business engaging in debate. Analysis of ideas is the foundation of debate. Your post directly implies that anything not included in a definition is excluded from consideration. This is ridiculous and categorically wrong.

That is also incorrect. Many who claim the existence of an omniscient being simply suggest that this being has had (since it's origin, if any) such complete knowledge of the workings of the universe that it will be able to perfectly predict anything that will happen. Indeed, in my experience, that is the most common concept of omniscient beings.

So now you want to change the definition to suit your new argument.
Presenting this new argument, the equivalence of omniscience and perfect prediction, is the tactic of a loser.
(Note that perfect prediction is a power, which is not under consideration.)
You explicitly state that you want to change the direction of the debate to suit your own personal experience. That experience must be dishearteningly insufficient.
As I mentioned before this is called moving the goalposts.

I actually used the phrase "common definition", numerous times in this thread, when identifying my definition, "all-knowing", without refutation. Now you claim that my definition does not represent the "common concept". Too little, too late. The goalposts stay where they are; you go home scoreless.

Stay with discussion or concede obvious defeat of your argument.

However this concept is not compatible with free will. To your credit, you have recognized this, but instead of simply accepting that logic, you've thrown in atemporality to try to put a band-aid on this obvious and irresolvable conflict. But it's not working. You cannot even hypothetically defend atemporality because you cannot resolve the problem with causality. All you can do is attempt to whisk us away to another universe where the laws of physics don't apply.

The laws of physics are compatible with omniscience, but not atemporality. Right.

And if you think that describing the knowledge of an OB as atemporal is wrong then you do not understand fundamentally what atemporal or omniscience means.

Most folks, as I've mentioned before, conceive of the OB as having perfect predictive ability, but not that it moves back and forth in time. But no, your argument is not really worthwhile, since it invokes magic and the elimination of physical laws. One wonders why you persist in it.

Most folks conceive of the possibility of rational debate. All wonder why you don't try it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Time travel, for instance. Unfortunately it means the OB is not omniscient because he has to go into the future to get the information. Your version is as of yet unexplained.

I ask "What causality are you arguing for that allows knowledge to precede a future decision?" and you answer "time travel" and also answer that it won't work.
You don't have a clue do you?

I don't understand your question or why you're asking it. Could you clarify ?

You said the "laws of logic which allow such a discussion (on my omniscience argument) break down", but it "doesn't have anything to do with it being physically possible".
What laws of logic are you referring to?

Causality, the source of all logic, itself the source of all arguments, themselves the source of all debates.

This response is so irrelevant I assume the question zipped right over your head.
Too bad, an answer was critical to keep you from looking completely baffled.

 

[tsig]

"Omniscience means knowing everything without respect to time."
Clearly, atemporality is a matter of the analysis based on the definition of omniscience, not the definition itself. It's not a difficult distinction to understand.

"What I am doing is defining omniscience without a time relationship because that is what it means."
You came close on this one. Here I was speaking to the nature of omniscience and since I used a form of the word "define" (define: to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of) you took that to literally mean that this was my "official" definition. If you paid attention otherwise you would see that my "official" definition is "all-knowing".

"The omniscient being knows all without respect to time."
This is clearly not a definition.

"Omniscience is a property which is atemporal, which is say, an omniscient being knows everything at all times."
This is clearly not a definition.

"Omniscience is defined as knowing everything."
A clear statement of my definition, which matches, as far as I can find, all authoritative definitions.

"So, if the OB exists at any time, say even today, it knows everything, not just things from the past or future, but from all time. Therefore, the knowledge that the OB has is not constrained by time, and therefore, the knowledge is accurately described as atemporal."
Unequivocally, an analysis based on the definition.

"I am saying that the very nature of omniscience, noted by its definition, is atemporal, which means that all knowledge is known at all times without any ordering of that knowledge by time."
This clearly qualifies a remark on the nature (the particular combination of qualities belonging to a thing) rather than on the definition of omniscience.

Instead of trying to nit-pick through the word usage to establish of an argument and embarass yourself, go back through the last several pages and see where I explicitly said that my definition of omniscience is: all-knowing.

If it doesn't know the temporal ordering it isn't omniscient.

 

[tsig]

That does not counter my statement that:

"The OB can only know what the chooser chooses.",

unless you are arguing that the OB can know something other than what the chooser chooses, which would be knowing something that did not occur.

Those three words limit omniscience thus making in not omniscience.

 

[tsig]

I ask "What causality are you arguing for that allows knowledge to precede a future decision?" and you answer "time travel" and also answer that it won't work.
You don't have a clue do you?

You said the "laws of logic which allow such a discussion (on my omniscience argument) break down", but it "doesn't have anything to do with it being physically possible".
What laws of logic are you referring to?
This response is so irrelevant I assume the question zipped right over your head. Too bad, an answer was critical to keep you from looking completely baffled.

This post was foreordained before the foundation of the world. -The OB.

 

[Belz...]

I ask "What causality are you arguing for that allows knowledge to precede a future decision?" and you answer "time travel" and also answer that it won't work.
You don't have a clue do you?

And you keep trying to personalise the argument. I wonder why that is.

So I misread your question. Your arguments are so imprecise and confusing, it's no wonder.

Omniscience's definition is clear. ALL knowledge. But you're right. It violates causality to start with. I guess early Christians weren't particularily bright.

You said the "laws of logic which allow such a discussion (on my omniscience argument) break down", but it "doesn't have anything to do with it being physically possible".
What laws of logic are you referring to?

Boolean. Are there any other ones I'm not aware of ? Come on, stop stalling.

This response is so irrelevant I assume the question zipped right over your head.
Too bad, an answer was critical to keep you from looking completely baffled.

You know, acting all condescending may make you look smart on Youtube, but you aren't fooling anyone here.

You asked me a question and I answered. Instead of pointing out why I'm wrong, you just throw rhetoric at me, and an insult. What does that say about the strength of your argument ?

 

[SumDood]

..."The omniscient being knows all without respect to time." ...
..."I am saying that the very nature of omniscience, noted by its definition, is atemporal, which means that all knowledge is known at all times without any ordering of that knowledge by time." ...

If it doesn't know the temporal ordering it isn't omniscient.

The ordering of the knowledge does not reflect on the completeness of the knowledge itself. If I rearrange my encyclopedias on my bookshelf, the knowledge is not affected. Nowhere does he say the Omniscience Being does not know at what point in time an event occurs. "Without respect to time" is just the 'nature' of the knowledge.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

"The omniscient being knows all without respect to time."

"I am saying that the very nature of omniscience, noted by its definition, is atemporal, which means that all knowledge is known at all times without any ordering of that knowledge by time."

If it doesn't know the temporal ordering it isn't omniscient.

The OB does know the temporal order, it just doesn't use it. That is why it is omniscient.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Line 1: That does not counter my statement that:
Line 2: "The OB can only know what the chooser chooses.",
Line 3: unless you are arguing that the OB can know something other than what the chooser chooses, which would be knowing something that did not occur.

Those three words limit omniscience thus making in not omniscience.

I'll assume you read the entire 3 line post (you don't have to be an OB to know what 3 lines of a post say).
The only logical conclusion is that you agree with line 3, that an OB can know things that are not true.
Is that your new definition?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

This post was foreordained before the foundation of the world. -The OB.

You couldn't even understand what was being said, could you?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Omniscience's definition is clear. ALL knowledge. But you're right. It violates causality to start with. I guess early Christians weren't particularily bright.

Then you either have to be consistent and disregard the causality that is violated or you need to disregard the discussion altogether. Otherwise you are only trying to disrupt the debate without providing any worthwhile input to it.

Boolean. Are there any other ones I'm not aware of ? Come on, stop stalling.

Make the argument then using Boolean logic without any references to the laws of physics.

You know, acting all condescending may make you look smart on Youtube, but you aren't fooling anyone here.
You asked me a question and I answered. Instead of pointing out why I'm wrong, you just throw rhetoric at me, and an insult. What does that say about the strength of your argument ?

I have consistently pointed out where you wrong. But when you repeat the same issue without modifying it or making it any stronger, then a little invective (very little) draws attention to it.

 

[GeeMack]

I'll assume you read the entire 3 line post (you don't have to be an OB to know what 3 lines of a post say).
The only logical conclusion is that you agree with line 3, that an OB can know things that are not true.
Is that your new definition?

Of course your continued assertion only works if the chooser is also atemporal. I've suggested several times now that you might modify your criteria to take that into account. Interesting that you are offered a method which allows you to succeed, and you still choose to maintain your ignorance and failure.

 

[Belz...]

Then you either have to be consistent and disregard the causality that is violated or you need to disregard the discussion altogether. Otherwise you are only trying to disrupt the debate without providing any worthwhile input to it.

The part you're failing to understand is that there CAN be no debate if causality is violated.

Make the argument then using Boolean logic without any references to the laws of physics.

I don't answer to you. I'll use logic AND physics if I feel like it. Hell, I'll use the recipe for cranberry muffins if I want, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

I have consistently pointed out where you wrong.

No you haven't. Show me where.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Of course your continued assertion only works if the chooser is also atemporal. I've suggested several times now that you might modify your criteria to take that into account. Interesting that you are offered a method which allows you to succeed, and you still choose to maintain your ignorance and failure.

Here you go again, caught in an indefensible position. so you return to a tired, retired argument (I assumed you had retired that argument when you moved on to arguing definitions.)
The time-frame of the chooser is irrelevant so it adds nothing to the argument except complexity and diversion.

The chooser, at any time, makes a choice and because a choice is made the OB, at any time, knows the choice.
However it is that the OB knows things, this scenario is consistent with the definition of omniscience and so there is no restraint upon the choice that is made.

 

[GeeMack]

Here you go again, caught in an indefensible position. so you return to a tired, retired argument (I assumed you had retired that argument when you moved on to arguing definitions.)
The time-frame of the chooser is irrelevant so it adds nothing to the argument except complexity and diversion.

The chooser, at any time, makes a choice and because a choice is made the OB, at any time, knows the choice.
However it is that the OB knows things, this scenario is consistent with the definition of omniscience and so there is no restraint upon the choice that is made.

The chooser is constrained by time. The omniscient being knows which choice will be made before it is made. Of course you may dishonestly change the criteria so the chooser is atemporal, too. Your arguments are pretty much built on a foundation of dishonesty anyway, and you've achieved absolutely no success with your current approach, so what's another lie on the pile, eh?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The part you're failing to understand is that there CAN be no debate if causality is violated.

Well then, either this apparent forum discussion does not constitute a debate or
You are proposing a new type of causality, which is:

A type that allows knowledge from one moment in time to be known at a prior moment in time (omniscience) but does not allow knowledge from one moment in time to be the source of the knowledge known at a prior moment in time.
Do expound on that type of causality and your justification for applying it to this debate.

I don't answer to you. I'll use logic AND physics if I feel like it. Hell, I'll use the recipe for cranberry muffins if I want, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

You do answer to the common sense of rational debate, if you wish to remain in a rational debate. You can certainly go with another kind of debate--that is your prerogative.

You made the claim that the "laws of logic which allow such a discussion break down" (referring to my omniscience argument), but it "doesn't have anything to do with it being physically possible".

Then you said you were referring to Boolean logic.
Specify which laws of Boolean logic break down because of my argument

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The chooser is constrained by time. The omniscient being knows which choice will be made before it is made.

I think you don't even realize that your point in no way counters my argument or constrains the choice.

Of course you may dishonestly change the criteria so the chooser is atemporal, too.

I note that you don't disagree that your point here is just an attempt to add complexity and diversion to the debate.

You've made this point quite a few times and I have rejected it every time.
You supposedly offer me a way to succeed like you're dangling a carrot.
I assume you imagine that if you can get me to bite then you will have your opportunity to pounce with some amazing counter argument.
Unfortunately, that is just more faulty analysis.