Free will and omniscience

[edge]

Yes, you do that, and get back to us if you want to.

Though given God knows what you're going to do, you actually have no choice.

I am compelled by God to do so even if I don't want to and then listen to the results.
Only because it's his will that I do.

 

[GeeMack]

Then according to you, life is an illusion.

Well, no.

If life is an illusion then nothing we do here will matter, but that can't be true because we influence others through our thoughts opinions and emotions, plus what we feel physically.

If life is an illusion then those "others" and "what we feel physically" are parts of the illusion. Your rationale fails.

in Yellow: It doesn't if you don't believe in God and you continue the direction you have been going in but those that do are guided to make the right choices in their life.

Setting aside for a moment your dishonesty in using this forum as a pulpit for preaching, this thread is about some hypothetical omniscient being. Whether someone believes in magical beings has no bearing on the outcome of a perceived choice. The alleged guidance would be an illusion just as the alleged free will would be. There's no guiding if the omnipotent being is in fact omnipotent. It knows the choices you will make. It has always known them.

The result of asking makes God known to the person which is proof to those who have asked for a change in the direction their life is going in.

Ask for a change all you want. If the omnipotent being exists, leaving aside for a moment the fact that no objective evidence has ever been offered to support that notion, if that being exists it already knows everything. It always did. And part of everything is the direction everyone's life will go. So asking for a change would be a big waste of time.

You see, some believer in supernatural nonsense can ask for change or guidance, pray for it, plead for it. Another person with no belief in invisible magical entities can totally ignore the possibility of change. In either case, the outcome of any particular "choice" - or even absence of choice - will be what the all-knowing being knew it would be.

It is because you choose that known outcome. The unknown outcome is the one that you have asked God to fix. You can't see the change till you ask for it. At this point you are doing the will of God and not your own.

You must choose the outcome known to the omniscient being. You must if you postulate such a being.

He would also know that outcome and then so would you which is proof of God to that person.

Utter nonsense. I know the outcome, to some extent anyway, of the choices I make after I make them. No proof of any supernatural beings comes from it. When considering the issue objectively and rationally, no such proof comes to anyone. But you digress. You're being dishonest in using this forum to preach from your pulpit again. Proof of the existence of gods is irrelevant to this discussion.

It boils down to what you are willing to accept, good or evil.

Jesus' sacrifice has ended predestination, freewill starts there because you can fall back to your old habits or continue on, faith establishes freewill, because none of us are for sure 100%, Radifan is an example, Sam Kinison also.

Even with some proof not all prayers are answered faith has to be there to allow for freewill for us to choose. God may know the outcome but we don't and it would depend on whether he wants you to know now or later.

It doesn't matter if we are sure, 100% or otherwise. If there is an atemporal omniscient being, it knows everything, by definition. It always did. It knows what shirt you'll wear next Tuesday. Play pick-and-choose all you like. Believe to the depth of your being that you are applying free will in selecting a shirt. You will pick the one the omniscient being knew you would pick. Any other outcome means the omniscient being isn't omniscient.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

When you invoked the requirment of physically impossible things, you lost.

So you will debate omniscience until something that is physically impossible is introduced, because then it gets silly.
I think your comprehension of what we are debating defines silliness?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

So is your god all knowing and all powerful or not?

Again, does that mean your god is omnipotent but not omniscient?

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

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

It wouldn't matter if the outcome of the "choice" is known only to the magical omniscient being, it is still known. And since the outcome is known, with certainty, invariably, supposedly forever ahead of the alleged decision, all the "free will" you can muster can only result in that known outcome. It doesn't require any interference. It's known, so it just is. The fact that the result of the decision is already known, and will not change no matter how much you believe you're considering other options, makes it a mere illusion of free will.

What is the source of the knowledge of the choice?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

A conclusion, I said. It's not a priori.
Indeed, by definition.

It's a conclusion. It's a definition.
I think you can't make up your mind because you haven't got a clue about logic.

Pointing out the fallacies in your posts is not a dodge. Your comments are irrelevant or do not follow from their premises.

You didn't point out any fallacies; you pointed out the names of fallacies and hoped they were relevant. They aren't.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Here is the problem with your argument (ala Bill Thompson.) Look at all these "time" words you have used. Remember, the Omniscient Being doesn't follow rules of time, therefore anything you say that includes a time componant is disregarded. See? YOU LOSE! Ha ha ha ha.

If I explained the correctness of the argument to you without using time-related words (which work just fine in this specific context), you would understand it less than you do now.

 

[GeeMack]

What is the source of the knowledge of the choice?

How it obtains its knowledge is irrelevant to the discussion. It knows everything before it occurs.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If there is an atemporal omniscient being, it knows everything, by definition. It always did. It knows what shirt you'll wear next Tuesday. Play pick-and-choose all you like. Believe to the depth of your being that you are applying free will in selecting a shirt. You will pick the one the omniscient being knew you would pick. Any other outcome means the omniscient being isn't omniscient.

If the source of the omniscient being's knowledge is the act of the choice that is made, then that choice is the generator of the knowledge, not the result of the knowledge.
Present your analysis that the omniscient being's knowledge cannot come from the choice, without simply stating as an assumption or defensively dismissing it as irrelevant.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

How it obtains its knowledge is irrelevant to the discussion. It knows everything before it occurs.

It is 100% relevant because it is the complete refutation of the incompatibility of omniscience and free will.
I can understand why you want to avoid that point. There is no sound argument against it.

 

[GeeMack]

If the source of the omniscient being's knowledge is the act of the choice that is made, then that choice is the generator of the knowledge, not the result of the knowledge.
Present your analysis that the omniscient being's knowledge cannot come from the choice, without simply stating as an assumption or defensively dismissing it as irrelevant.

The results of the "choice" were known before the alleged choice was made.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The results of the "choice" were known before the alleged choice was made.

That's not really much analysis, but at least now you agree that the results of the choice can inform the knowledge of the omniscient being irregardless of the time sequence.
I hope you don't do some quick, oops-I-didn't-realize-what-I-was-sayng backpeddling.

 

[GeeMack]

That's not really much analysis, but at least now you agree that the results of the choice can inform the knowledge of the omniscient being irregardless of the time sequence.
I hope you don't do some quick, oops-I-didn't-realize-what-I-was-sayng backpeddling.

I realized exactly what I was saying. That's why I put the word "choice" in quotes once and referred to it as an alleged choice at another point. Since the outcome was known by the omniscient being prior to your illusion or sensation of making a decision, the result was a given. It wasn't really a choice. If the all-knowing thing doesn't know what shirt you'll wear next Tuesday, it isn't omniscient. If it does know, you'll wear that shirt.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I realized exactly what I was saying. That's why I put the word "choice" in quotes once and referred to it as an alleged choice at another point. Since the outcome was known by the omniscient being prior to your illusion or sensation of making a decision, the result was a given. It wasn't really a choice. If the all-knowing thing doesn't know what shirt you'll wear next Tuesday, it isn't omniscient. If it does know, you'll wear that shirt.

Omniscient knowledge does not occur in a temporal sequence with the things that are known
That's by definition: knowing all things; there is no constraint of "before", "prior", "after", "then", etc.
That is why the idea that an omniscient being knows something prior to its happening does not refute the argument that the knowledge can still be based on a future event.

So, your repeatedly offered analysis, by yourself and others, has no standing unless you can also provide analysis as to why the choice cannot be the source of the knowledge, thus leaving it unconstrained, or free.

 

[H'ethetheth]

How it obtains its knowledge is irrelevant to the discussion. It knows everything before it occurs.

I would amend that to "It knows everything that ever occurs" That way you lose the time dependence.

 

[GeeMack]

Omniscient knowledge does not occur in a temporal sequence with the things that are known
That's by definition: knowing all things; there is no constraint of "before", "prior", "after", "then", etc.
That is why the idea that an omniscient being knows something prior to its happening does not refute the argument that the knowledge can still be based on a future event.

So, your repeatedly offered analysis, by yourself and others, has no standing unless you can also provide analysis as to why the choice cannot be the source of the knowledge, thus leaving it unconstrained, or free.

Your magical omniscient being may be atemporal, but you aren't.

Now you may change the definition of terms once more so the people making the alleged choices are also not constrained by time. But you or AvalonXQ could have approached this with some honesty in the first place by just saying something like: "How about we postulate a magical situation where a magical omniscient being exists, and because the magic allows for anything including polar contradictions, that omniscience doesn't preclude free will among the inhabitants of its domain." Then you can have those contradictions, and you don't have to make up new crap along the way to maintain your position.

I would amend that to "It knows everything that ever occurs" That way you lose the time dependence.

The hypothetical scenario was initially created to consider whether the existence of an omniscient being is compatible with the concept of free will among the dwellers in its domain. The ability to understand time was revoked from the omniscient being early in the discussion. So far it hasn't been revoked from the denizens of its domain.

 

[Tricky]

Omniscient knowledge does not occur in a temporal sequence with the things that are known
That's by definition: knowing all things; there is no constraint of "before", "prior", "after", "then", etc.
That is why the idea that an omniscient being knows something prior to its happening does not refute the argument that the knowledge can still be based on a future event.

So, your repeatedly offered analysis, by yourself and others, has no standing unless you can also provide analysis as to why the choice cannot be the source of the knowledge, thus leaving it unconstrained, or free.

Can you write that in a way that does not use any time-dependent terms, such as tenses? It's hard to understand this atemporality when you explain it using temporal terms.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Your magical omniscient being may be atemporal, but you aren't.

Now you may change the definition of terms once more so the people making the alleged choices are also not constrained by time. But you or AvalonXQ could have approached this with some honesty in the first place by just saying something like: "How about we postulate a magical situation where a magical omniscient being exists, and because the magic allows for anything including polar contradictions, that omniscience doesn't preclude free will among the inhabitants of its domain." Then you can have those contradictions, and you don't have to make up new crap along the way to maintain your position.

The hypothetical scenario was initially created to consider whether the existence of an omniscient being is compatible with the concept of free will among the dwellers in its domain. The ability to understand time was revoked from the omniscient being early in the discussion. So far it hasn't been revoked from the denizens of its domain.

You can dodge the debate all you want. If you want to remain relevant just stick to the issue at hand.

Omniscient knowledge does not occur in a temporal sequence with the things that are known.
Simple, not rationally refutable.

That's by definition: knowing all things; there is no constraint of "before", "prior", "after", "then", etc.
Simple, the common definition.

That is why the idea that an omniscient being knows something prior to its happening does not refute the argument that the knowledge can still be based on a future event.
Clear, cogent analysis.

So, your repeatedly offered analysis, by yourself and others, has no standing unless you can also provide analysis as to why the choice cannot be the source of the knowledge, thus leaving it unconstrained, or free.
Simple, unrefuted conclusion.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Can you write that in a way that does not use any time-dependent terms, such as tenses? It's hard to understand this atemporality when you explain it using temporal terms.

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

 

[GeeMack]

You can dodge the debate all you want. If you want to remain relevant just stick to the issue at hand.

Omniscient knowledge does not occur in a temporal sequence with the things that are known.
Simple, not rationally refutable.

That's by definition: knowing all things; there is no constraint of "before", "prior", "after", "then", etc.
Simple, the common definition.

That is why the idea that an omniscient being knows something prior to its happening does not refute the argument that the knowledge can still be based on a future event.
Clear, cogent analysis.

So, your repeatedly offered analysis, by yourself and others, has no standing unless you can also provide analysis as to why the choice cannot be the source of the knowledge, thus leaving it unconstrained, or free.
Simple, unrefuted conclusion.

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.