Free will and omniscience

[Bill Thompson 75]

Okay, thanks for clarifying your argument. I've focused on the point of divergence that you've identified.

But by the same reasoning, you must hold that it is possible today that I could draw a square triangle tomorrow, because the possibility itself is not an action that creates a logical contradiction.

In other words, the possibility of the impossible is possible.

I can accept that the existence of the OB would allow the possibility of free will, where that possibility is equivalent in nature to the possibility of drawing a square triangle. To me that's the same as no free will at all, but that's where you might differ.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Your first logical impossibility was based on performing contradictory actions.
I showed that free will is based on possible options, not the action that may follow from selecting one of those options.

Your argument here is the logical impossibility of combining incompatible definitions.
The definitions of free will and omniscience, without analysis, do not present an incompatibility.
That analysis has been attempted but I have shown that there is an exception to that analysis.

Your logical impossibility argument was an attempt to to defeat my exception, but it failed, as I demonstrated in a prior post, where I noted that:
"Your argument confuses two ideas.
1) The logical impossibility of a choice other than the one that is made
2) The logical impossibility of multiple options before choice is made"

Your argument is that 1) is true, but my argument is that 2) is false.
My argument has not been successfully refuted in this thread.

 

[Navigator]

Which meaning of "free" and then which meaning of "will" do you find that are in opposition?

The ones I already checked out. Not in opposition - simply unable to dovetail due to the nature of life on earth in regards to the concept of 'Free'
There are a few that I left for you if you wanted to check them out.

Which meaning of "free" and then which meaning of "will" do you find that are together, a true descriptive of the concept 'free will'?

I think even without the concept of an all knowing being (is there any such thing?) it first needs to be established if on this planet, is there really any such thing as "Free Will"

I don't think so.

If this is true, then free will doesn't matter in relation to an all knowing being, because free will does't even exist regardless of whether an all knowing being exists or not.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The ones I already checked out. Not in opposition - simply unable to dovetail due to the nature of life on earth in regards to the concept of 'Free'
There are a few that I left for you if you wanted to check them out.

Which meaning of "free" and then which meaning of "will" do you find that are together, a true descriptive of the concept 'free will'?

These two would be a fair description of free will:
free = ""not controlled, restricted, or regulated by any external thing"
will = "the part of the mind which consciously decides things"

I think even without the concept of an all knowing being (is there any such thing?) it first needs to be established if on this planet, is there really any such thing as "Free Will"

I don't think so.

If this is true, then free will doesn't matter in relation to an all knowing being, because free will does't even exist regardless of whether an all knowing being exists or not.

I think that free will does exist.
Will is certainly not restricted deterministically (determinism defined as "any physical state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior physical states"), but that analysis would be better suited for a new thread.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Apparently debate means 'agree with me'.

Remember your last post prior to this one? You asked,

You don't know what free will is yet you are arguing in a thread called free will and omniscience?

My answer and your lack of rebuttal clearly demonstrated that you did not have a grasp of this topic.
Debate means "agree with me...that if you are going to take part at least get familiar with component ideas of the debate".

 

[Belz...]

Your first logical impossibility was based on performing contradictory actions.

Your argument here is the logical impossibility of combining incompatible definitions.

Which is funny coming from someone trying to support the compatibility of two mutually exclusive concepts by the use of a logical and causal impossibility.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Which is funny coming from someone trying to support the compatibility of two mutually exclusive concepts by the use of a logical and causal impossibility.

In a debate about the incompatibility of two concepts, when you assume from the outset that they are incompatible, and as a response to a counter argument you simply restate the assumption, then you have implicitly declared that you are not willing to debate.

In a debate about a topic which requires causal and logical impossibility as a prerequisite to the discussion (and generally granted by affirmative fiat), when you claim causal and logical impossibility as a rebuttal, then you have implicitly declared that you are not willing to debate.

These were the primary responses by my opponents to my claim in this attempted debate.

 

[tsig]

You don't know what free will is yet you are arguing in a thread called free will and omniscience?

From Wikipedia: Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.

Note that my comment referred to the lack of a mechanism for free will, and that a common definition of free will does not refer to a mechanism.
Free will and the mechanism of free will are two ideas that can be addressed separately.
I do not need to know the mechanism of free will in order to productively discuss free will.

So your comment that implied that I have to know the mechanism of free will in order to engage in debate about free will is a non sequitur.
The non sequitur is that you drew a conclusion not based on the information at hand.

Remember your last post prior to this one? You asked,


My answer and your lack of rebuttal clearly demonstrated that you did not have a grasp of this topic.
Debate means "agree with me...that if you are going to take part at least get familiar with component ideas of the debate".

Well Bill since I didn't ask you for a mechanism for free will but what free will is your whole post was a dodge and rather than pointing it out for the 7*7 time it seemed better to let it alone.

Dodges hilited.

 

[Belz...]

In a debate about a topic which requires causal and logical impossibility as a prerequisite to the discussion

See, this is where you go wrong (well, this is one of the places where you go wrong.) We simply point out that YOUR scenario is a causal and logical impossibility, in a thread where we are trying to determine if there is a way to make the two concepts compatible. The fact that you can't come up with a means to save your faith is not my problem.

Also, sour grapes.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

A completely satisfactory explanation of how free will may work has never been put forth, so most assume that none exists. It's not a very scientific approach.

You don't know what free will is yet you are arguing in a thread called free will and omniscience?

Well Bill since I didn't ask you for a mechanism for free will but what free will is your whole post was a dodge and rather than pointing it out for the 7*7 time it seemed better to let it alone.

Your hilite referred directly to my hilite and so the mechanism of free will is exactly what you were asking for, unless you were just making a post in response to some random other post.

I'm sure you wish I had left it alone.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

In a debate about a topic which requires causal and logical impossibility as a prerequisite to the discussion

Where's the rest of this line?

See, this is where you go wrong (well, this is one of the places where you go wrong.) We simply point out that YOUR scenario is a causal and logical impossibility, in a thread where we are trying to determine if there is a way to make the two concepts compatible. The fact that you can't come up with a means to save your faith is not my problem.

Also, sour grapes.

It's very easy to sound valid when you quote half a line.

The point was that omniscience is a causal and logical impossibility, and yet you argue that that is not a problem, the problem only occurs when I make an argument about omniscience.

Also, non sequitur.

 

[Navigator]

These two would be a fair description of free will:
free = ""not controlled, restricted, or regulated by any external thing"
will = "the part of the mind which consciously decides things"

The problem I have with this is that the will is part of the individual, and the individual IS controlled, restricted and regulated by the external.
Even if the individual was on a deserted island where society and its governing principles don't exist, the external still controls that individual and with that, that individuals will...the part of the mind which consciously decides things.

I think that free will does exist.
Will is certainly not restricted deterministically (determinism defined as "any physical state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior physical states"), but that analysis would be better suited for a new thread.

Yep. I Agree.

 

[Belz...]

It's very easy to sound valid when you quote half a line.

It's easy to dodge an issue when you claim that quoting the rest would have changed anything.

The point was that omniscience is a causal and logical impossibility, and yet you argue that that is not a problem, the problem only occurs when I make an argument about omniscience.

When did I argue that it wasn't a problem ? I said that your argument was a causal impossibility. When did I say that omniscience wasn't an impossibility ? Do I have to remind you of everything in every post lest you think I've dropped that argument ?

Also, non sequitur.

Oh, this should be good. The last time I asked you to point out a fallacy you ran like a scared lamb. Please, humour me again.

 

[tsig]

From Wikipedia: Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.

Note that my comment referred to the lack of a mechanism for free will, and that a common definition of free will does not refer to a mechanism.
Free will and the mechanism of free will are two ideas that can be addressed separately.
I do not need to know the mechanism of free will in order to productively discuss free will.

So your comment that implied that I have to know the mechanism of free will in order to engage in debate about free will is a non sequitur.The non sequitur is that you drew a conclusion not based on the information at hand.

It's easy to dodge an issue when you claim that quoting the rest would have changed anything.



When did I argue that it wasn't a problem ? I said that your argument was a causal impossibility. When did I say that omniscience wasn't an impossibility ? Do I have to remind you of everything in every post lest you think I've dropped that argument ?



Oh, this should be good. The last time I asked you to point out a fallacy you ran like a scared lamb. Please, humour me again.

He does seem to use the term rather loosely.

 

[Belz...]

He does seem to use the term rather loosely.

He must've read somewhere that when one is losing an argument, one should use non sequiturs liberally, and misunderstood.

 

[dafydd]

Free, the number after four.

 

[Belz...]

You mean, be four four.

 

[mutile]

Does God have free will if he is aware of every choice before it is made?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

11 months? You couldn't wait a couple of weeks to make it a full year necro?

 

[mutile]

Were you waiting patiently to revive after 12 months?

 

[Lowpro]

Were you waiting patiently to revive after 12 months?

We all were!!! Didn't you get the memo? Out of spite I say we all refrain from answering mutile's question until the 23rd (or June 27th but really those aren't related to the topic anyways >.>)! His previous question, not the one about patiently waiting; we can all chime in on that now if we want.