Free will and omniscience

[Tricky]

I have found no "classical " definition that differs from mine. Could you point one out to me (I am assuming you don't consider your peronal definition to be the only classical one.)

Using the default dictionary linked by the JREF:
omniscience^dict

Note that there is no mention of atemporality.

 

[tsig]

Yes, that issue has been discussed and resolved many times.

When pressed, claim you've already answered the question.

Woo debate tactic #3

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Using the default dictionary linked by the JREF:
omniscience^dict

Note that there is no mention of atemporality.

Note that the definition matches mine and that I have never said atemporality is a matter of the definition of omniscience.

A strawman argument is one where you change the argument to suit your own needs and then argue against the change. Just FYI, in case you are interested in quality debate.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

When pressed, claim you've already answered the question.

Woo debate tactic #3

Try to derail the debate by repeatedly asking the same question over and over.
Woo debate tactic #1.

 

[GeeMack]

Note that the definition matches mine and that I have never said atemporality is a matter of the definition of omniscience.

The evidence substantially and unequivocally bears out the fact that the above comment is a lie.

Omniscience means knowing everything without respect to time.

What I am doing is defining omniscience without a time relationship because that is what it means.

The omniscient being knows all without respect to time.

Omniscience is a property which is atemporal, which is say, an omniscient being knows everything at all times.

Omniscience is defined as knowing everything. 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.

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.

You said, "[...] the very nature of omniscience, noted by its definition, is atemporal [...]". And you said, "[...] I have never said atemporality is a matter of the definition of omniscience." You see Bill? You are a liar.

 

[Belz...]

So, basically you want to us some new arguments or say that I made up a definition of omniscience.

What in the blue hell is your problem ? THOSE ARE NOT NEW ARGUMENTS. Learn to read.

Let's forget the new arguments (There not worth addressing anyway).

"Let's hand-wave everything I don't like away !"

What is your definition of omniscience?

Done to death. Learn to read.

Mine, as always, is all-knowing, without any additional restrictions on it.

No. Your definition specifically assume that there is something the OB doesn't know.

 

[Belz...]

The OB can only know what the chooser chooses.

The OB exists before the chooser is born.

 

[Tricky]

Note that the definition matches mine and that I have never said atemporality is a matter of the definition of omniscience.

You have agreed earlier that omniscience (as you would use it in this discussion) requires atemporality. So it does not match the definition you use in this thread. GeeMack, while a bit more brusque than I would be, has suggested that you are being dishonest. In this case, I am forced to agree with him. You redefine, then try to deny that you redefined. Careful observers will note your fancy footwork, and not be fooled by it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The evidence substantially and unequivocally bears out the fact that the above comment is a lie.

You said, "[...] the very nature of omniscience, noted by its definition, is atemporal [...]". And you said, "[...] I have never said atemporality is a matter of the definition of omniscience." You see Bill? You are a liar.

"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.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

What in the blue hell is your problem ? THOSE ARE NOT NEW ARGUMENTS. Learn to read.

I say that because whenever I ask questions that go to the heart of the matter you find a trivial issue to pounce on, usually some new angle you hadn't thought of before.

"Let's hand-wave everything I don't like away !"

Or stay focused.

Done to death. Learn to read.

You definition, I guess:
"Omniscience means the being in question knows everything that has, is, or will happen. In other words, an omniscient being existing at the creation of the universe knows every event that will happen until its end."
I agree. And this means that, given any single item of knowledge, the OB will know it before, during, and after the event that is the source of the item of knowledge.

No. Your definition specifically assume that there is something the OB doesn't know.

Again, what is this "something" that is not known to the OB, based on my definition?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The OB exists before the chooser is born.

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.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

I see many of your definitions, some of them diametrically contradictory to others. It's clear you'll change them whenever you please. I've shown, and others have noted above, all your blustering is a pack of lies. Don't make the mistake of believing everyone will fall for that sort of dishonest manure just because Christians are gullible enough to lick it up. No nit-picking about it. I've shown that you are, inarguably and transparently, a liar.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You have agreed earlier that omniscience (as you would use it in this discussion) requires atemporality. So it does not match the definition you use in this thread. GeeMack, while a bit more brusque than I would be, has suggested that you are being dishonest. In this case, I am forced to agree with him. You redefine, then try to deny that you redefined. Careful observers will note your fancy footwork, and not be fooled by it.

GeeMack is unable to distinguish definition from analysis and bases trivial arguments upon that inability.
My definition is: all-knowing.
Everything else is analysis using that definition.
Atemporality and compatibility with free will are results of analysis.

 

[Tricky]

Note that the definition matches mine and that I have never said atemporality is a matter of the definition of omniscience.

You have said that atemporality is one of the premises you make in order to have an omniscient being. That's not a straw man. That's what you said. Are you withdrawing that now? Do you think omniscience can exist, even hypothetically, without atemporality?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I see many of your definitions, some of them diametrically contradictory to others.

You haven't seen that and you haven't presented examples to show that.

I note that you do not disagree with my earlier post that distinguishes definition from analysis.

That's your track now: argue definitions instead of analysis.

It's clear you'll change them whenever you please. I've shown, and others have noted above, all your blustering is a pack of lies. Don't make the mistake of believing everyone will fall for that sort of dishonest manure just because Christians are gullible enough to lick it up. No nit-picking about it. I've shown that you are, inarguably and transparently, a liar.

If you can't establish an argument to counter someone else's argument, just admit that their claim is sound and forget all the nit-picking about definitions.
That's where you've taken the debate after many pages: nit-picking clearly stated definitions.

 

[Belz...]

"Omniscience means the being in question knows everything that has, is, or will happen. In other words, an omniscient being existing at the creation of the universe knows every event that will happen until its end."

Which circles right back to "knows everything". We seem to agree on this definition, so far.

Again, what is this "something" that is not known to the OB, based on my definition?

You said that the knowledge is _due_ to the decision, implying that the decision precedes the knowledge. Your only way out is to ignore causality, which is what you did. Unfortunately since logic cannot exist without causality, there is nothing to discuss if you go down that road, unless you can somehow explain how logic is maintained. This is why I said it cannot be taken seriously. It doesn't have anything to do with it being physically possible. It's just futile to even talk about it if the very laws of logic which allow such a discussion break down under the context you posit.

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

And the chooser can only choose what the knower knows. We can do this all year, but the crux of the matter is unless you ignore causality, the OB exists before the decision is made, and already knows what it will be. So far you have not explained _how_ that works.

 

[GeeMack]

If you can't establish an argument to counter someone else's argument, just admit that their claim is sound and forget all the nit-picking about definitions.

You have no argument. You're making it up as you go along and changing it at your whim whenever someone points out your contradictions and your dishonesty.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You have said that atemporality is one of the premises you make in order to have an omniscient being. That's not a straw man. That's what you said. Are you withdrawing that now? Do you think omniscience can exist, even hypothetically, without atemporality?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Which circles right back to "knows everything". We seem to agree on this definition, so far.

You said that the knowledge is _due_ to the decision, implying that the decision precedes the knowledge. Your only way out is to ignore causality, which is what you did.

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

Unfortunately since logic cannot exist without causality, there is nothing to discuss if you go down that road, unless you can somehow explain how logic is maintained. This is why I said it cannot be taken seriously. It doesn't have anything to do with it being physically possible. It's just futile to even talk about it if the very laws of logic which allow such a discussion break down under the context you posit.

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

And the chooser can only choose what the knower knows. We can do this all year, but the crux of the matter is unless you ignore causality, the OB exists before the decision is made, and already knows what it will be. So far you have not explained _how_ that works.

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.?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You have no argument. You're making it up as you go along and changing it at your whim whenever someone points out your contradictions and your dishonesty.

You could have said that and dropped out of the debate as soon as you reached that conclusion instead of hanging around and nit-picking definitions.
Are you battling some obsession?