How can omniscience and free will co-exist?

[Chris72]

You obviously have no clue what you're even talking about, and I'll make that even more obvious. The definition I gave of free will is called compatibilism and actually is compatible with determinism, hence the title. Now if it were so easy of a position to refute you wouldn't be wasting time just saying so, you would actually be backing up what you've said. Yet seeing as how you just want to sit there and say something is so easy to refute without actually refuting it, how do you think that makes yourself look? I'll tell you, unprepared and clueless.

Compatibilism is not free will. It's a weak attempt at reconciling determinism with free will by focusing the determinism on one's motives and underlying desires/wills behind a decision rather than the decision itself. But it IS easy to refute, just I have been doing for 5 pages now. Namely, it is still not free will since the decision has already been determined and what you are describing is essentially just an illusion of free will.

What you are describing essentially is similar to programming a computer to execute command "B" when confronted with input "A". Sure, after that, the computer isnt being coerced into "deciding" to execute command "B" when confronted with input "A", but it certainly doesnt represent free will on the part of the computer since the decision that it would execute B in this situation was already determined by the programmer.

As far as the "clueless" remarks, ad hom all you want. I am sure alot of people you interact with among your religious friends hear your use of terms such as "libertarianism" and "compatibilism" and think "wow this guy really knows his stuff, this must make sense somehow", but it doesnt work on someone like me who can see through your BS. Your beliefs are logically bankrupt.

The only mistake being made is by you. I'll point it out one last time as I've been pointing it out and you want to ignore it and think it will go away by being redundant with your argument.

The desicion was not made for them. That really just makes no sense. Again it's not like God made the decision for my parents, and nor did by God foreknowing about my parents did it cause them to form a relationship. Who then, other than my parents is responsible for them getting together? Them! It was their desicion based on their wants. Foreknowledge does not cause things to happen, it only means God is consciously aware of what will happen.

Now, I don't expect you to refute any of this because if you could you would have by now, but instead you'll just repeat what you've been saying which only means you have been arguing in one big circle. The only reason I'm repeating what I've said is because you have yet to refute any of it.

Foreknowledge of the results of decisions means that such choices are already made. It means there is no other options. There's no getting around that. You seem to take the approach that repeating BS enough times eventually makes it true. It doesnt.

Your argument is still lacking as you have not supported any notion of free will you've been espousing. You need to connect the concept of PAP to free will to show that free will is actually the libertarian view you're arguing for.

I know you don't believe in God. That much is obvious. Let me try to make it as clear for you as possible, though. God foreknowing something is not Him controlling the future or our behavior. Knowing something doesn't make that something happen. If you think that is contradicting please show that, but instead of simply saying it is without any support really does nothing in your favor.

I have already shown for 5 pages now how your argument contradicts itself. Without alternate possibilities, there is no free will. That's like riding a roller-coaster and treating the restraint bar as if it were a steering wheel. Yeah, sure maybe when you pull it to the left as the coaster is banking a left it might coincide with your "desire" to turn left, but you sure as hell aint steering it, it's just following the tracks whether you like it or not.

If such a god or gods existed and he or they had "foreknowledge" then the course has already been set. If he or they didnt have foreknowledge, then the course isnt set.

Tell me, what game are you speaking of? Because I assure there is no game here, but if you're having trouble understanding a word or definition of a word just let me know and I'll clarify it for you.

The game you are playing is logical twister. Your logic doesnt make sense so you redefine the words to make them fit somehow. It's like trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole by trimming the corners into a circle so you can jam it in. I dont have any trouble understanding your words, they're not really very profound. You have a delusion that you are desperately clinging to and hoping that if you keep repeating phrases enough times, and keep redefining words enough, you can make the logic fit. It doesnt.

This is what you need to be providing support for. How is it that more than one viable option means I am free? You have already agreed and said my definition of free will as "great," remember? According to my definition so long as one makes a choice based on their desires without any external or internal factor preventing or forcing them to act, they have free will. It doesn't require that we had more than one option to choose from or if we could have chosen differently. Therefore as God's foreknowledge is not an external factor coercing my parents into a relationship or preventing them, and they choose to be in a relationship because they want to, they have free will.

Well, if that really is your definition of free will then it's not so great. It's actually completely false. Because without alternate possibilities, it's not free will.

You say you're not trying to 'spin' this but I don't believe you, or at least you make it very hard to believe that. I mean, here you are saying that you are not saying we don't have free will, yet in our above post when you said, "If you don't have more than one possibility, you don't have a free will decision to make." So if that is not you arguing we don't have free will, then what is it? Sounds to me like you can't even get your own argument straight...

I am saying that such an omniscient being doesnt exist, not that we dont have free will. And yes, if you dont have more than one possibility you dont have free will.

I am not saying the decision could be changed. It wouldn't need to be subject to change in order to be considered a free choice. That is what I'm saying.

Then you're not describing free will. You're describing determinism in terms that make you feel better about yourself.

No, it wouldn't, as it is my parents personal choice to have a relationship with each other even being that God knows it will happen. It is no one else's choice but theirs. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand at all. It's pretty obvious you really really want your imaginary friend to exist and you will go to extraordinary lengths to convince yourself as such when faced with the many obvious logical quandaries you face.

You sound like my three year old nephew, "no no no no!" lol

You think there is some fallacy but there isn't. You think that because you yourself are biased of your own distorted argument and must cut out all rational discourse and continue down your path of redundancy.

Look, whatever. Your arguments are intellectually bankrupt. Again, anyone who actually looks at your arguments with any kind of open mind can easily see through this BS. Free will and omniscience cannot co-exist. Your imaginary overlord/friend in the sky doesnt exist. The emperor has no clothes.

 

[Chris72]

Dear Chris72. Think of God knowing the Beginnung and the End of our earthly lives. God will see what we have chosen, after we have chosen and the end of our days on Earth. God being omniscient, will have our whole life in Front of Him, and being omniscient, He will know All. To us it seems impossible but God is the Great I AM. I say this with love. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

In that case, you agree there is no free will in such a scenario since such a god already knows it all. I dont agree that such a being exists, and I dont see what you have to back up your claims of his existence aside from it just being what you were told to believe by those in the culture you happened to have been born into.

From Chris, Brother in rational thought.

 

[Chris72]

No they are not logically incompatible. You use flawed examples to reach a flawed conclusion.

I dont know if you are directing this at her or me. But what "flawed examples" do you speak of?

 

[lesliedellow]

And of course, by extension of this, there really wouldnt be any morality, since everything is just following a pre-destined path.

It isn't quite as simple as that; suppose philosophical determinism turned out to be correct. Would you then say that morality was meaningless and, in the light of that, that no murderer could ever rightly be sent to prison? I doubt it.

Theological determinism, in the form of divine preordination, may be different to that, or it may be an perspective on the same thing, but, either way, both forms of determinism pose the same conundrum.

 

[Chris72]

It isn't quite as simple as that; suppose philosophical determinism turned out to be correct. Would you then say that morality was meaningless and, in the light of that, that no murderer could ever rightly be sent to prison? I doubt it.

Theological determinism, in the form of divine preordination, may be different to that, or it may be an perspective on the same thing, but, either way, both forms of determinism pose the same conundrum.

I dont believe that we are all following some pre-determined path, so I dont face this conundrum. But yes, if everything was predetermined then morality would be meaningless. Why would a domino be faulted for tipping over the way it is supposed to tip over as it was set up to do?

But again, I dont believe in such determinism, so yes I believe that murderers should be sent to prison.

 

[rturner76]

I think you are see the idea of "God's plan" being the same as "omnipotence"

If you are saying as some believe that we are all a part of "God's plan" which consists of A, B, and C until Jesus comes back, rapture, and the story is told. That would indeed negate free will. Things would need to be set in motion for A to affect B to get C result.

I separate the two. I believe that God's plan for us or his will as it were is for us to have free will. The things you are saying about all these decisions that have to go just right throughout time for you or me to be born don't need to be pre ordained in order to take place. Having foreknowledge of events in and of itself does not indicate taking personal control of those events. It only indicates that there in knowledge of all the events that will and have taken place.

Knowing an outcome and controlling an outcome are two completely different things.

There are some Christians that believe God ordained all things before the creation of the universe. They believe he already knew who would accept and reject him etc. They are called Calvinists. You are making their argument for them but I am no Calvinist. I believe in free will. You can change your circumstances and it will affect future generations. God knows about the changes as well, but it doesn't mean he took away my ability to make the decisions (unless he did and I don't know about it then, well I have a lot to think about don't I)

 

[lesliedellow]

There are some Christians that believe God ordained all things before the creation of the universe. They believe he already knew who would accept and reject him etc. They are called Calvinists.

And Thomists - although that is less well known.

 

[Chris72]

I think you are see the idea of "God's plan" being the same as "omnipotence"

If you are saying as some believe that we are all a part of "God's plan" which consists of A, B, and C until Jesus comes back, rapture, and the story is told. That would indeed negate free will. Things would need to be set in motion for A to affect B to get C result.

I separate the two. I believe that God's plan for us or his will as it were is for us to have free will. The things you are saying about all these decisions that have to go just right throughout time for you or me to be born don't need to be pre ordained in order to take place. Having foreknowledge of events in and of itself does not indicate taking personal control of those events. It only indicates that there in knowledge of all the events that will and have taken place.

Knowing an outcome and controlling an outcome are two completely different things.

Knowing the outcome of all events means that such events have already been pre-ordained. Again, there's really no way around that. If you want to say such a being is just a casual observer to such events, and not taking personal control, then you would have to explain who IS determining such events.

But just saying two opposite things one after another isn't an argument. There can be no foreknowledge of events unless such events are following a pre-ordained path. And if everything is following a pre-ordained path, then there really isnt free will to change it.

There are some Christians that believe God ordained all things before the creation of the universe. They believe he already knew who would accept and reject him etc. They are called Calvinists. You are making their argument for them but I am no Calvinist. I believe in free will. You can change your circumstances and it will affect future generations. God knows about the changes as well, but it doesn't mean he took away my ability to make the decisions (unless he did and I don't know about it then, well I have a lot to think about don't I)

If he exists, and knows the decisions you will make, then you dont have any power to change them. On the flip side, if you have the power to make your decisions, then no being can be omniscient as to what you will choose.

 

[elopez]

Compatibilism is not free will. It's a weak attempt at reconciling determinism with free will by focusing the determinism on one's motives and underlying desires/wills behind a decision rather than the decision itself. But it IS easy to refute, just I have been doing for 5 pages now. Namely, it is still not free will since the decision has already been determined and what you are describing is essentially just an illusion of free will.

Wait, so let's get this straight. First you said the definition I gave of free will, which, mind you, is the definition of free will according to compatibilism is "great," yet now you are saying that it is not free will? You actually haven't refuted any such notion of free will, all you have been doing is simply saying it is easy to refute. If you think that is refutation you have a long way to come.

What you are describing essentially is similar to programming a computer to execute command "B" when confronted with input "A". Sure, after that, the computer isnt being coerced into "deciding" to execute command "B" when confronted with input "A", but it certainly doesnt represent free will on the part of the computer since the decision that it would execute B in this situation was already determined by the programmer.

I'll point out your mistake through your own analogy, which only means your analogy is weak and incomparable to compatibilism and thus foreknowledge. First, computers are inanimate objects and could possibly not obtain such a thing as free will no matter how they were designed. Second, our choices are not 'programmed' in us so that we make only those decisions 'programmed.' Foreknowledge does not mean our choices are made for us, it simply means God is aware of the choices we are going to make. By foreknowing me choosing A, God does not make me choose A just because He knows it. Again, knowledge =/= causality.

As far as the "clueless" remarks, ad hom all you want. I am sure alot of people you interact with among your religious friends hear your use of terms such as "libertarianism" and "compatibilism" and think "wow this guy really knows his stuff, this must make sense somehow", but it doesnt work on someone like me who can see through your BS. Your beliefs are logically bankrupt.

If it was an ad hom I would be saying your argument is wrong because you are clueless. I'm just saying your clueless, not specifically because your argument is wrong but more so because you haven't provided an ounce of support for your claim that compatibilism is easy to refute.

I don't care what other people think when I post. That said, there is no BS from my end. You think my view is not logically there, just begin to imagine what I make of your view!? Sorry, but to me it is you who is trying to BS as noted in my first post above. You agree with a definition then say it isn't free will. Yeah, talk about BS....

Foreknowledge of the results of decisions means that such choices are already made.

This is simply not true and I've responded to why it isn't. You, on the other hand, have failed at any attempt to rebut this. Just one last time so you can either now rebut it or continue to ignore it. The choice that is foreknown is not yet 'made' as if the event foreknown would exist as reality. The event foreknown does not exist as reality as reality is the state of things as they actually exist as opposed to how things will or are going to exist. If God foreknows of an event, it is going to happen; it didn't already happen when it was foreknown. So, what God foreknows is ultimately what I am going to choose, not what I have already chosen as I don't even exist yet!

It means there is no other options. There's no getting around that. You seem to take the approach that repeating BS enough times eventually makes it true. It doesnt.

I've never denied that but in fact have only affirmed that one does not poses the ability to do otherwise. I'm not trying to get around that fact. You are taking the approach of not even getting my argument straight and thinking that arguing against some made up position is going to work, when it won't.

I have already shown for 5 pages now how your argument contradicts itself. Without alternate possibilities, there is no free will. That's like riding a roller-coaster and treating the restraint bar as if it were a steering wheel. Yeah, sure maybe when you pull it to the left as the coaster is banking a left it might coincide with your "desire" to turn left, but you sure as hell aint steering it, it's just following the tracks whether you like it or not.

If such a god or gods existed and he or they had "foreknowledge" then the course has already been set. If he or they didnt have foreknowledge, then the course isnt set.

No, you are merely living in some type of dream world where you are the only one convinced you have done any such thing. The last five pages has been nothing but nonsense and redundancy with no refutation from you.

You see how I bolded that part? That is the part of your argument that is seriously lacking. You haven't even begun to show that's what free will means, and the fact that you think free will is so simply defined is bewildering as that only indicates your ignorance of the on going debate over the issue. You honestly think you are the one to settle all of this, out all of the various philosophers who actually know what they're talking about? Your position is laughable at best.

And again, your analogy falls short of anything comparable. Why would one how is on a roller coaster desire to turn any which way? Whenever I've been on one I don't remember saying, "Hey, I want this thing to turn right." I just let it take me how it was set up. Also, you are still committing the fallacy that knowledge = causality, when it assuredly does not.

In other words, foreknowledge does not make things happen. We make things happen and that is what is foreknown.

The game you are playing is logical twister. Your logic doesnt make sense so you redefine the words to make them fit somehow. It's like trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole by trimming the corners into a circle so you can jam it in. I dont have any trouble understanding your words, they're not really very profound. You have a delusion that you are desperately clinging to and hoping that if you keep repeating phrases enough times, and keep redefining words enough, you can make the logic fit. It doesnt.

First, explicitly show what words I have redefined and how I've redefined them. Without that, your claims are again baseless. Not surprised there, however, as that is favorable with you.

Well, if that really is your definition of free will then it's not so great. It's actually completely false. Because without alternate possibilities, it's not free will.

LOL! First it's "great," and now when it's explained in relation to omniscience it's "not so great." And you say I am playing logical twister? Heed your own words there bro.

I am saying that such an omniscient being doesnt exist, not that we dont have free will. And yes, if you dont have more than one possibility you dont have free will.

I'll point out your confusion again. You say you're claiming an omniscient being doesn't exist and not that free will doesn't exist, yet you are saying that free will doesn't exist in the very last sentence. At this point you're just trying to fool yourself, you know that right?

Then you're not describing free will. You're describing determinism in terms that make you feel better about yourself.

And you're not describing how I am not describing free will. I don't need to feel better about myself, so no, your conclusion here is just completely wandering.

It's not hard to understand at all. It's pretty obvious you really really want your imaginary friend to exist and you will go to extraordinary lengths to convince yourself as such when faced with the many obvious logical quandaries you face.

The 'quandary' you present is not logical at all. It is anything but that. What's fairly obvious is your sarcasm in an act of desperation to ignore what I've said.

Look, whatever. Your arguments are intellectually bankrupt. Again, anyone who actually looks at your arguments with any kind of open mind can easily see through this BS. Free will and omniscience cannot co-exist. Your imaginary overlord/friend in the sky doesnt exist. The emperor has no clothes.

Oh, and so anyone who looks at my arguments and find them compelling must be 'stupid,' right? Please, get over yourself. Ask anyone for yourself what they think of my argument and see what they tell you without automatically assuming what they will think just because it is what you think.

 

[GrayAngel]

I've said this a million times before, but free will is not a Biblical concept. It's nowhere to be found in the Bible. People will try to tell you different, but as many times as they've promised proof, they've never been able to supply anything.

Predestination, on the other hand, is all over the Bible. To save myself the trouble, I'll just quote a post a made elsewhere on the subject:

One verse alone should be enough to end this debate, though I know it won't, because some will interpret the Bible by their own ideas.

Ephesians 2:1-9 - As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.

Here we see many major proofs for the Predestination, the one I would emphasize the most is verse 8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."

We've all heard this verse before, but I've highlighted the part Free Will proponents frequently gloss over. Faith is a gift from God. We do not choose faith out of our free will: God gives it to us.

But why would God have to give faith to us? It's because we are unable to obtain it ourselves.

"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient." (1-2)

We were dead in our transgressions. Dead people cannot do anything for themselves. How many dead men have given life to their own dead bodies? What's more, according to scripture, everyone who is not ruled by God is ruled by Satan, AKA the "ruler of the air." We are never free, but we are slaves to one or the other, and believe me, Satan is not going to let anyone come to faith in Christ.

It's only by God coming in and rescuing us from that power that we can be saved.

"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." (4-5)

God gave us life, when we were helpless to find it ourselves. It is by grace--which by definition is a free gift which has nothing to do with anything we can do to earn it--that we are saved. We couldn't choose faith ourselves, which is why scripture says "no one can boast."

 

[Chris72]

Wait, so let's get this straight. First you said the definition I gave of free will, which, mind you, is the definition of free will according to compatibilism is "great," yet now you are saying that it is not free will? You actually haven't refuted any such notion of free will, all you have been doing is simply saying it is easy to refute. If you think that is refutation you have a long way to come.

The definition I said was "great" was the following:

I believe free will is the ability to act how we desire apart from external and internal factors that would otherwise prevent or force one to act.

Now, for pretty much anyone with an open mind and an IQ in the triple digits, such a definition would implicitly assume that one would have more than one option in any such action or decision. Otherwise, it's not free will, it just means that you are acting out someone's plan like a computer step by step but being given the "desire" to do so. The idea that you are free to act as you desire as long as you do so in strict accordance with a predetermined plan and that this represents "free will" is, at best, desperate and at worst just plain moronic. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just desperate.

I'll point out your mistake through your own analogy, which only means your analogy is weak and incomparable to compatibilism and thus foreknowledge. First, computers are inanimate objects and could possibly not obtain such a thing as free will no matter how they were designed. Second, our choices are not 'programmed' in us so that we make only those decisions 'programmed.' Foreknowledge does not mean our choices are made for us, it simply means God is aware of the choices we are going to make. By foreknowing me choosing A, God does not make me choose A just because He knows it. Again, knowledge =/= causality.

I didnt say computers have free will. I was saying the exact opposite. I was saying that the situation you are describing was analogous to a computer being programmed to act in a certain manner when confronted with a specific input, and thus your description did NOT represent free will.

Again, I'm not the one claiming there is some invisible omniscient overlord in the sky, YOU are. I dont think we are at all like computers. It's only when you try to squeeze in deities from ancient mesopotamian mythology into your thinking that you run into such logical contradictions. But that's YOUR problem, not mine.

If it was an ad hom I would be saying your argument is wrong because you are clueless. I'm just saying your clueless, not specifically because your argument is wrong but more so because you haven't provided an ounce of support for your claim that compatibilism is easy to refute.

I have been refuting it now for 7 pages. It is very easy to refute and I have done so repeatedly now. Again, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just desperate in your attempts to maintain your god beliefs, rather than just being a little slow. But your position is inherently untenable. Omniscience and free will cant co-exist. Your attempts to redefine the term free will into something that is unequivocally NOT free will, in the hopes that it can make sense, might work with your friends who are as desperate as you are to maintain this delusion. But anyone with an open mind and who is not mentally challenged can see through this BS.

I don't care what other people think when I post. That said, there is no BS from my end. You think my view is not logically there, just begin to imagine what I make of your view!? Sorry, but to me it is you who is trying to BS as noted in my first post above. You agree with a definition then say it isn't free will. Yeah, talk about BS....

Sure seems to me like you care. Especially now that you are getting desperate to the point where you are trying to twist my words around hoping that the mere hint of flip-flopping on my part represents uncertainty.

This is simply not true and I've responded to why it isn't. You, on the other hand, have failed at any attempt to rebut this. Just one last time so you can either now rebut it or continue to ignore it. The choice that is foreknown is not yet 'made' as if the event foreknown would exist as reality. The event foreknown does not exist as reality as reality is the state of things as they actually exist as opposed to how things will or are going to exist. If God foreknows of an event, it is going to happen; it didn't already happen when it was foreknown. So, what God foreknows is ultimately what I am going to choose, not what I have already chosen as I don't even exist yet!

Foreknowledge absolutely implies a decision has already been made. Otherwise it's not foreknowledge. You're repeating the same logical fallacy over and over and over in the hopes that eventually it will start to make sense. Is this how you brainwashed yourself into this in the first place?

Again, what you are saying is akin to a computer carrying out it's program as instructed, but since the action didn't happen until after the programmer put the program together, and wasn't coerced into running the line of source code, that it represents free will on the computer's part. It doesnt.

It's similar to an actor reading lines from a script (and not being given the option to improv), but since he hasn't read the whole script yet and because (as a method actor) he is instilling his own "desire" into his lines, that somehow he is acting through free will and that the lines are coming from his creativity, not the writer's. If the script was already written and he doesnt have the option to change it, he would just be carrying out the part.

You are attempting to re-define free will into something it is not.

I've never denied that but in fact have only affirmed that one does not poses the ability to do otherwise. I'm not trying to get around that fact. You are taking the approach of not even getting my argument straight and thinking that arguing against some made up position is going to work, when it won't.

I'm refuting the point you are making exactly as you are presenting it. What you are describing is determinism, not free will. You are just shifting the determinism to one's desires and motives, but they are still just following the path that they have been pre-ordained to follow. You are just describing a situation where they "desire" to do this, where they go through the mental process of making such a decision on their own, but their desires and motives and decision-making process are predetermined so that the end result is that the decision they make has been predetermined also. This isnt free will no matter how you slice it. If you dont possess the ability to do otherwise, it isnt free will.

Again, I feel I have to keep pointing this out, I do not believe in such a situation at at all. It is the omniscient being I dont believe exists, not free will.

No, you are merely living in some type of dream world where you are the only one convinced you have done any such thing. The last five pages has been nothing but nonsense and redundancy with no refutation from you.

You see how I bolded that part? That is the part of your argument that is seriously lacking. You haven't even begun to show that's what free will means, and the fact that you think free will is so simply defined is bewildering as that only indicates your ignorance of the on going debate over the issue. You honestly think you are the one to settle all of this, out all of the various philosophers who actually know what they're talking about? Your position is laughable at best.

And again, your analogy falls short of anything comparable. Why would one how is on a roller coaster desire to turn any which way? Whenever I've been on one I don't remember saying, "Hey, I want this thing to turn right." I just let it take me how it was set up. Also, you are still committing the fallacy that knowledge = causality, when it assuredly does not.


In other words, foreknowledge does not make things happen. We make things happen and that is what is foreknown.

The bolded part is essential to free will. Without alternate possibilities, you are just following a predetermined path. What is "bewildering" is the lengths you go to maintain this delusion of yours.

You really want to play the "various philosophers" appeal to authority? Really? Do you want me to point you to philosophers who agree with what I am saying? Would that mean something to you? If you have an argument to make, make it on your own. Don't go with the "well, there are smart guys out there who believe in my invisible friend too. See, they use big words and stuff so that must mean they are right" approach. Yes, there are those who have done as you are doing and gone to extraordinary lengths to try to make this logical impossibility work. The power that this cult has over people like you is unbelievable. I would probably find it interesting from a scientific perspective if I didnt know the dangers it represents.

As far as the roller-coaster analogy goes, I am just putting what YOU are describing into a real world example. You seem to believe that we are just heading down some pre-ordained track (otherwise there wouldnt be foreknowledge), but since we feel like we are making the decisions along the way, because it is what we "desire" to do, that we are somehow exhibiting free will. I am pointing out that this is like someone thinking they are steering a roller-coaster because the "turns" they make are the turns they want to make. What you are describing doesn't represent free will.

First, explicitly show what words I have redefined and how I've redefined them. Without that, your claims are again baseless. Not surprised there, however, as that is favorable with you.

You have re-defined the term free will into something that is not free will.

LOL! First it's "great," and now when it's explained in relation to omniscience it's "not so great." And you say I am playing logical twister? Heed your own words there bro.

I've already addressed this. See the beginning of this post.

I'll point out your confusion again. You say you're claiming an omniscient being doesn't exist and not that free will doesn't exist, yet you are saying that free will doesn't exist in the very last sentence. At this point you're just trying to fool yourself, you know that right?

I did NOT say that free will doesnt exist. I didnt say that at all. Let's look at my quote again:

I am saying that such an omniscient being doesnt exist, not that we dont have free will. And yes, if you dont have more than one possibility you dont have free will.

I said if you dont have more than one possibility you dont have free will. Since I do believe that we are confronted with alternative options, and are free to make such decisions (since I dont believe in invisible overlords in the sky), we do have free will.

And you're not describing how I am not describing free will. I don't need to feel better about myself, so no, your conclusion here is just completely wandering.

That is absolutely what you are doing. You encounter a logical impossibility when you try to reconcile free will and omniscience, so you just redefine free will in a manner that makes it work. Except that your new definition doesnt describe free will at all. It describes determinism in a way that makes it more palatable to you. But you are still describing determinism.

The 'quandary' you present is not logical at all. It is anything but that. What's fairly obvious is your sarcasm in an act of desperation to ignore what I've said.

I'm not being sarcastic in the least bit. I am saying that your god is imaginary, just as imaginary as any other gods from ancient mythology. And since you consider this imaginary being your friend, he is your imaginary friend. Nothing sarcastic about it all.

Oh, and so anyone who looks at my arguments and find them compelling must be 'stupid,' right? Please, get over yourself. Ask anyone for yourself what they think of my argument and see what they tell you without automatically assuming what they will think just because it is what you think.

Not stupid. Brainwashed, yes. Deluded, yes. But one can be of otherwise normal or even above average intelligence and still compartmentalize their thinking in such a way as to convince themselves of such absurdities.

You compartmentalize in the respect that you apply logic and reason and critical thought to all areas of your thinking except those dealing with your god beliefs. Every time you run into a logical wall in that area you either ignore it with the logic that "his ways are beyond me" or you do as you are doing in this thread and find some flawed argument to make that, as long as you have thought about it enough and repeated enough times, it will eventually register as "true" in your mind.

You do this because you those around you have convinced you to associate "god" with "good", "christianity" with "ethics", "church" with "community, smiling faces, and sunny days", and you have trained yourself over and over to squelch out any doubt on the matter. You have been taught that, with regards to "god" beliefs, not questioning, i.e. taking it on faith, is virtuous somehow.

No, I didnt say anything about stupid or smart. The 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult that killed themselves because there was an alien ship behind Halle-Bopp weren't all morons. Nor were the 900+ at Jonestown. Brainwashing oneself doesn't require one to lack intelligence, just the willingness to compartmentalize one's thinking.

This whole "compatibilism" nonsense is just that, nonsense. That is not free will at all, just an attempt to redefine it so that you can hopefully work out this logical impossibility and keep your beliefs in your imaginary friend alive. It only works on those who are desperately to maintain such delusions. If you would open up your eyes, you would realize this.

 

[Chris72]

I've said this a million times before, but free will is not a Biblical concept. It's nowhere to be found in the Bible. People will try to tell you different, but as many times as they've promised proof, they've never been able to supply anything.

Predestination, on the other hand, is all over the Bible. To save myself the trouble, I'll just quote a post a made elsewhere on the subject:

Well, if you don't believe in free will, what does that mean for you in terms of morality? How could someone be responsible for making an "immoral" decision if they don't have a choice whether or not to make such a decision?

Again, that is not MY position. I absolutely believe we have free will and are thus responsible for our decisions. I am just pointing out what you would have to conclude if you believe in the existence of such an omniscient being. I do not believe in such a being and therefore dont have this problem.

But if you believe in such a being and dont believe in free will, how could any actions be moral or immoral? That's like a computer programmer upset at his computer for doing EXACTLY as he programmed it to do.

 

[razeontherock]

Except to follow the analogy of Calvinism, said programmer has to also devise a way to eternally torture every computer he builds, and do so to some 70% of them, at least. I can't make it mesh with reality.

 

[GrayAngel]

Well, if you don't believe in free will, what does that mean for you in terms of morality? How could someone be responsible for making an "immoral" decision if they don't have a choice whether or not to make such a decision?

Again, that is not MY position. I absolutely believe we have free will and are thus responsible for our decisions. I am just pointing out what you would have to conclude if you believe in the existence of such an omniscient being. I do not believe in such a being and therefore dont have this problem.

But if you believe in such a being and dont believe in free will, how could any actions be moral or immoral? That's like a computer programmer upset at his computer for doing EXACTLY as he programmed it to do.

I'll start from a logical standpoint, then move on to scriptural evidence.

We know that God is infinite, and He lives outside of time, knowing all of history from the very start. We also know that God created us, and He designed us with very intricate detail. When you put these things together, the only logical conclusion is that God's foreknowledge means that free will is impossible.

It's not that He chose predestination over free will, but that there was no other option. God is the only one who always existed. No one designed Him, or knew His decisions before He would make them. He is the only one with free will.

Furthermore, even if free will were possible, I would argue that predestination would be the better option. With free will, we have a God who is either too weak or incompetent to carry out His will. He may have a million good plans for us, but all it would take is one of all the world's sinners to mess it up. A God of free will would be directionless and chaotic.

Now, you asked how God could punish evil if He was the one who designed them. In Romans 9, starting at verse 6, Paul spoke on this very subject. I'll highlight verses 16-21:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

All things, good or evil, were created with a purpose. Evil was made for "common use," like paper plates. Because God is perfect, He cannot exist among evil, so it is disposed of once it has served it's purpose. But the chosen are like fine china, which God very much adores and will preserve.

 

[elopez]

The definition I said was "great" was the following:

I believe free will is the ability to act how we desire apart from external and internal factors that would otherwise prevent or force one to act.

Now, for pretty much anyone with an open mind and an IQ in the triple digits, such a definition would implicitly assume that one would have more than one option in any such action or decision. Otherwise, it's not free will, it just means that you are acting out someone's plan like a computer step by step but being given the "desire" to do so. The idea that you are free to act as you desire as long as you do so in strict accordance with a predetermined plan and that this represents "free will" is, at best, desperate and at worst just plain moronic. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just desperate.

First of all, you're pretty close to the no true Scotsman fallacy. This is because if one says free will does not consist of being able to do otherwise, yet holds to the definition I gave to which you just quoted, their IQ is not in the triple digits and they have a closed mind. Basically anyone who disagrees with your definition of free will is closed minded. Honestly though, I couldn't think of a much more closed minded position than that! What you display is nothing but close mindedness.

I've addressed why your computer analogy is incomparable to foreknowledge. You said at the very last part of your post here that you said nothing about being "stupid," yet here you use the word "moronic" to describe the position that does not square with yours. Really dude, it is obvious that you are the one on the BS and it is clear as day.

I didnt say computers have free will. I was saying the exact opposite. I was saying that the situation you are describing was analogous to a computer being programmed to act in a certain manner when confronted with a specific input, and thus your description did NOT represent free will.

Again, I'm not the one claiming there is some invisible omniscient overlord in the sky, YOU are. I dont think we are at all like computers. It's only when you try to squeeze in deities from ancient mesopotamian mythology into your thinking that you run into such logical contradictions. But that's YOUR problem, not mine.

So you've decided to neglect my argument once again and not even rebut it. Honestly none of this post rebuts my argument as to why your analogy is false and thus incomparable to foreknowledge. Try again, without the sarcasm, as the Christian understanding of God did not come from Mesopotamia. Surely you are at least aware of that, but apparently not.

I have been refuting it now for 7 pages. It is very easy to refute and I have done so repeatedly now. Again, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just desperate in your attempts to maintain your god beliefs, rather than just being a little slow. But your position is inherently untenable. Omniscience and free will cant co-exist. Your attempts to redefine the term free will into something that is unequivocally NOT free will, in the hopes that it can make sense, might work with your friends who are as desperate as you are to maintain this delusion. But anyone with an open mind and who is not mentally challenged can see through this BS.

No, you just are dreaming you have refuted anything. Here you are again speaking hypocritically about 'delusion,' and 'closed minded.' You are the epitome of a closed minded person, and anyone who has been reading this can easily pick up on it. I wish debates like this would get moderated for this reason, but as that is not the case I just let the posts speak for themselves, which is why I'm done with you after this post as it is too apparent your flaws in rational discourse.

Sure seems to me like you care. Especially now that you are getting desperate to the point where you are trying to twist my words around hoping that the mere hint of flip-flopping on my part represents uncertainty.

So what words am I twisting of yours? Why do you say I'm twisting words without even showing what words you are talking about. Seriously dude, what is so unsettling to you about initially backing up your claim?

Foreknowledge absolutely implies a decision has already been made. Otherwise it's not foreknowledge. You're repeating the same logical fallacy over and over and over in the hopes that eventually it will start to make sense. Is this how you brainwashed yourself into this in the first place?

Yup, no true Scotsman right here. You say I am committing a fallacy when it is you. I am repeating this because you fail over and over to rebut any of it and continue to just say you did. It is you who must be brainwashed.

Foreknowledge means to have knowledge of an event before the event has happened. The knowledge precedes the actuality of the event. Thus, as I would not exist actually when it is foreknown I will choose A, the desicion has not actually been made yet. The desicion is known to be made or that it is going to be made, which is vastly different from saying that it has been made. This is why foreknowledge does not mean what you say it means. But of course all you're going to do is say this is what foreknowledge means, which only suggests that you are the one attempting to redefine any word while you tautologically exclude the relevant definition.

The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing as it is a mere waste of time. I have the time, but I'm not wasting it on someone who isn't worth conversing with as they have no actual conversing or debating skills.

 

[Chris72]

Except to follow the analogy of Calvinism, said programmer has to also devise a way to eternally torture every computer he builds, and do so to some 70% of them, at least. I can't make it mesh with reality.

All the more reason to dismiss the idea of some invisible puppet-master in the sky.

Again, I feel I have to keep repeating this. I DONT believe in such a being. I am just pointing out the irrationality in such beliefs.

 

[Chris72]

I'll start from a logical standpoint, then move on to scriptural evidence.

Scriptural "evidence"??? How does anything in ancient hebrew writings represent evidence of anything other than what the local cultural superstitions were at that time and place in mankind's history?

We know that God is infinite, and He lives outside of time, knowing all of history from the very start. We also know that God created us, and He designed us with very intricate detail.

We don't "know" any such thing. The only thing we "know" is that in certain cultures, the predominant superstition was a form of monotheism/polytheism hybrid in which a creator being created the components of the known universe over a period of 7 days then supposedly communicated the story to a handful of people in a local region of the mid-east a few thousand years ago and then just kind of stayed hidden since then expecting the word to just gradually ripple out from them by word of mouth. Or at least that's what the belief is. I dont know how you come to the conclusion that such stories represent something we "know" to be truth.

My question was how you could believe in such a being and still believe in free will. But looks like you have gone with the option of there not being free will. To which the natural next question is how could we have morality. To which you respond:

Now, you asked how God could punish evil if He was the one who designed them. In Romans 9, starting at verse 6, Paul spoke on this very subject. I'll highlight verses 16-21:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

All things, good or evil, were created with a purpose. Evil was made for "common use," like paper plates. Because God is perfect, He cannot exist among evil, so it is disposed of once it has served it's purpose. But the chosen are like fine china, which God very much adores and will preserve.

You are still describing a situation where such a being is blaming the objects of his creation for behaving exactly as he planned for them to behave. The potter analogy is a cop-out. When you don't find an answer, you just throw up your hands and say "well, I guess his ways are just beyond me" and leave it at that. It doesnt represent an answer, it just means you have stopped asking the question.

"Lumps of clay" don't generally "praise" their potters, either. They just sit there. They don't "sin", they dont have emotions, they don't make decisions, they don't have "free will". I don't believe we as humans are like such jars of clay at all. I think that we are thinking, rational beings, but that we sometimes put aside such rational thought in the name of conformity with the society around us, and thus you get cultural superstitions of which the tales of Yahweh are just a few of many many many such gods throughout mankind's history.

Make a case that he exists before you start making statements of what we "know".

 

[Chris72]

First of all, you're pretty close to the no true Scotsman fallacy. This is because if one says free will does not consist of being able to do otherwise, yet holds to the definition I gave to which you just quoted, their IQ is not in the triple digits and they have a closed mind. Basically anyone who disagrees with your definition of free will is closed minded. Honestly though, I couldn't think of a much more closed minded position than that! What you display is nothing but close mindedness.

That is not even REMOTELY a "no true scotsman" fallacy!!! A "no true scotsman" fallacy involves modifying your assertion to make an exception of the specific counterexample you are presented with. For example:

Fox news reporter: "That gunman opening fire in Norway killing 91, was clearly a muslim terrorist because christians never act that way"

"Well, actually he was christian, even wrote an extensive manifesto detailing his views as such, including his hatred of islam."

Fox news reporter: "Well, no TRUE christian would do such a thing."

THAT is a "no true scotsman" fallacy. My point did not any shape or form represent such a thing. What I did was point out that it is completely absurd to suggest that free will could be defined without having alternative options implicit in the definition. There is nothing "close minded" about my viewpoint whatsoever.

I've addressed why your computer analogy is incomparable to foreknowledge. You said at the very last part of your post here that you said nothing about being "stupid," yet here you use the word "moronic" to describe the position that does not square with yours. Really dude, it is obvious that

you are the one on the BS and it is clear as day.

You did NOT address why my computer analogy is incomparable to foreknowledge, other than essentially just saying "it's just not and that's just that." Specifically, you said:

First, computers are inanimate objects and could possibly not obtain such a thing as free will no matter how they were designed. Second, our choices are not 'programmed' in us so that we make only those decisions 'programmed.' Foreknowledge does not mean our choices are made for us, it simply means God is aware of the choices we are going to make.

In your description of human beings and this omniscient creator being, humans are every bit as inanimate as computers. Again, this is YOUR theory, not mine. You describe a scenario where a divine being creates humans with desires and motivations such that they make decisions exactly as he knows they will. This is pretty much EXACTLY the same situation you have when a computer programmer creates a computer in such a way that he knows what it will do in every situation, e.g. it gets input A it does B, it gets input C it does D. Just because the computer is "acting without coercion", if you will, when it makes such responses, doesn't give it free will and it certainly doesn't make it responsible for its actions.

Just saying "well, humans arent computers and computers don't have free will" isn't refuting the analogy. It just demonstrates you don't have a response. Your theory, and your attempts to redefine free will into something it is not, make humans like us out to be essentially computer programs developed by an invisible Bill Gates in the sky. Just because you finish with "well, we're human and computers aren't" doesn't refute the analogy.

Again (and I don't know how many times I have to keep saying this), I DONT believe we are like computers, because I dont believe such an omniscient being exists. I am just pointing out the irrationality in your thinking.

So you've decided to neglect my argument once again and not even rebut it. Honestly none of this post rebuts my argument as to why your analogy is false and thus incomparable to foreknowledge. Try again, without the sarcasm, as the Christian understanding of God did not come from Mesopotamia. Surely you are at least aware of that, but apparently not.

It very much rebuts your point. If you want to keep telling yourself that just saying, essentially, "computers just aren't human, that's the difference", is an example of a refutal, have at it. Eventually you'll convince yourself, just keep at it!

As far as your thoughts on the christian "understanding" of gods, I think you need to do some studying of world history and how judaism originated and eventually gave off christianity as a branch which would evolve over the next 4 or 5 hundred years into something resembling what we have today.

No, you just are dreaming you have refuted anything. Here you are again speaking hypocritically about 'delusion,' and 'closed minded.' You are the epitome of a closed minded person, and anyone who has been reading this can easily pick up on it. I wish debates like this would get moderated for this reason, but as that is not the case I just let the posts speak for themselves, which is why I'm done with you after this post as it is too apparent your flaws in rational discourse.

Again, my position is not based on closed-mindedness in the least bit. "Closed-mindedness" is beginning with an assumption that the local cultural superstitions you were raised to believe are true, then going to extraordinary lengths of contorting your logic and facts, combined with heavy heavy denial, in order to come to some kind of palatable resolution. THAT is closed-mindedness. Open-mindedness would stopping yourself when things don't make sense and saying "why did I believe this in the first place? What are the other options?" Open-mindedness would opening yourself to the possibility that just maybe that invisible overlord you were told again and again must exist, might actually be just a myth.

So what words am I twisting of yours? Why do you say I'm twisting words without even showing what words you are talking about. Seriously dude, what is so unsettling to you about initially backing up your claim?

I've already pointed it out. Alot of times now. I said I agreed with your definition that free will is making decisions on your own without coercion, because implicit in that (i.e. in order for it to be "making decisions") was that you had to have alternate possibilities. You have kept harping on the fact that I said "great definition" in the hopes that you by saying "a-HA! I got you now, you said my definition of free will as compatibilism was 'great', so I win!", and I am pointing that this represents twisting my words around because I absolutely do NOT agree that compatibilism represents free will. I can say this and still agree with your definition, because it is not "making a decision" if the result of the decision has already been predetermined.

Yup, no true Scotsman right here. You say I am committing a fallacy when it is you. I am repeating this because you fail over and over to rebut any of it and continue to just say you did. It is you who must be brainwashed.

Foreknowledge means to have knowledge of an event before the event has happened. The knowledge precedes the actuality of the event. Thus, as I would not exist actually when it is foreknown I will choose A, the desicion has not actually been made yet. The desicion is known to be made or that it is going to be made, which is vastly different from saying that it has been made. This is why foreknowledge does not mean what you say it means. But of course all you're going to do is say this is what foreknowledge means, which only suggests that you are the one attempting to redefine any word while you tautologically exclude the relevant definition.

That is absolutely NOT an example of a "no true scotsman" fallacy!!! Holy [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] you're off base! Did you start off taking a course on basic logic one time, picking a few terms here and there, but then drop out before learning what any of the terms actually mean??? I don't know where to begin this is so far off.

Saying a decision is "known to be made" is not "vastly different" at all from saying it has been made! It HAS been made, you are just carrying out the decision like a robot. Or at least in your belief system that's the case. Those of us who actually uncover our eyes and ears and stop worrying about this invisible boogey-man in the sky our parents told us about dont have this problem! But if you want to put forth a theory that an omniscient being exists, you are forced to think of yourself as some kind of computer program carrying out a "plan" exactly how it was determined to happen.

The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing as it is a mere waste of time. I have the time, but I'm not wasting it on someone who isn't worth conversing with as they have no actual conversing or debating skills.

Likewise. And I am also through responding to these ever-lengthening posts. It’s blatantly obvious that you don’t have anything more than a fundamentally flawed premise and your only recourse when confronted with this fact is to make some desperation attempts at ad homs and rather weak attempts at word traps. this is just getting painful to watch. But a few final points:

First off, YOU are the one who is repeating the same nonsense over and over hoping that it eventually makes sense. Not me. I am just repeatedly pointing out that your reasoning is flawed. What you are doing is similar to someone repeating over and over that 2+3=7, that you just have to redefine “2” as really meaning “4” and that makes it work somehow. What I am doing is pointing out, every time you do it, that this is not how it works. Just because you have stated what you have repeatedly, does not make it begin to make sense. It just makes you look more and more desperate.

I get the impression that you are accustomed to surrounding yourself with those who, like you, desperately want to maintain their cultural beliefs in invisible beings in the sky as an explanation for what they don’t understand. You are used to being around people who just say, “hallelujah! Praise the lord” when you say something that seems to re-affirm their beliefs, no matter how absurd, and when someone like me raises the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] flag you really don’t know what to do.

This whole idea of “compatibilism” being just another definition of free will is bat [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] insanity. It is determinism, pure and simple. Just because you shift the determinism one step earlier, so that one’s desires and motivations are pre-determined, doesnt change the fact that it is determinism.

I was thinking that it didn’t so much represent a lack of intellect on your part, but simply a product of your being thoroughly brainwashed into this cult you belong to, combined with a sense of fear of “what if there isn’t really an invisible god in the sky?” and an inability to admit that you are wrong. But then when you took my analogy of a computer program responding to inputs in the manner it was programmed, and thought that I was somehow implying that computers had free will, I had to second-guess my assumptions about you. Maybe you aren’t that particularly bright.

But whatever the case, the bottom line is your reasoning is empty. Omniscience and free will can’t co-exist. Instead of making logical spaghetti to try and come up with something that makes you feel better about your beliefs, you should be asking yourself why you thought what you did in the first place. We’re in the 21st century now and it’s time to put aside silly superstitions about invisible beings in the sky.

The emperor has no clothes.

 

[elopez]

That is not even REMOTELY a "no true scotsman" fallacy!!! A "no true scotsman" fallacy involves modifying your assertion to make an exception of the specific counterexample you are presented with. For example:

You have only shown your complete lack of understanding informal logic, which is the only thing I'm interested in pointing out here as again I'm not wasting my time with someone like you. The no true Scotsman occurs when there is a counter example to a universal claim, and instead of simply denying the counter example or rejecting the original universal claim one modifies the subject of the claim to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it.

THAT is a "no true scotsman" fallacy. My point did not any shape or form represent such a thing. What I did was point out that it is completely absurd to suggest that free will could be defined without having alternative options implicit in the definition. There is nothing "close minded" about my viewpoint whatsoever.

Your example of what you thought is the representation of the fallacy is actually invalid. First, a Christian would not commit mass murder. Second, just because one claims to be Christian and even writes to imply a Christian view does not necessarily mean one is even Christian! So it's not just about accepting the beliefs of Christianity but actually acting in accordance to those Christian beliefs, and as the example you gave has the one acting contrary to everything Christianity stands for, it wouldn't be incorrect of us to say that he is indeed not Christian.

See, the no true Scotsman does not apply to circumstances in which there are prerequisites of a group or organization to be adhered to. For example, when we see one who claims to be vegetarian yet is eating steak, it wouldn't be fallacious of us to say that he is not a true vegetarian. So it is with Christianity. The religion has certain perquisites such as accepting the existence of God, the incarnation, and so on. One of those tenets is the practice of loving our fellow man, not murdering them off, so when one is murdering and claims to be Christian, you honestly believe him? Yes, you must be that gullible.

Now, obviously you were not paying much attention to what I said, as I didn't say you committed the fallacy here but were very, very close to it. For some reason you think there is only one acceptable definition of free will, and want to exclude any other definition as it does not follow yours. That is why I said you are the epitome of a closed minded person rather than saying you actually committed the fallacy, as your mind is closed to any other definition of the concept. You think you are the one person that has settled the on going debate on the definition of free will. The fact that you believe this, again, only shows your ignorance of the on going debate on the nature of free will.

 

[GrayAngel]

Scriptural "evidence"??? How does anything in ancient hebrew writings represent evidence of anything other than what the local cultural superstitions were at that time and place in mankind's history?

Missing the point, as usual. Are you here to learn about what we believe as Christians, or do you just like to argue?

We don't "know" any such thing. The only thing we "know" is that in certain cultures, the predominant superstition was a form of monotheism/polytheism hybrid in which a creator being created the components of the known universe over a period of 7 days then supposedly communicated the story to a handful of people in a local region of the mid-east a few thousand years ago and then just kind of stayed hidden since then expecting the word to just gradually ripple out from them by word of mouth. Or at least that's what the belief is. I dont know how you come to the conclusion that such stories represent something we "know" to be truth.

I meant "know" in the context of the Bible, and you know it. The Bible describes God as being the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of everything, who lives outside of time. My logical argument is presented as a defense to this understanding of God, and why I take the position that there cannot be any free will.

Free will is not logical. And more importantly, it's not Biblical. So the answer to your topic is: They can't co-exist, because they don't, and they were never assumed to co-exist until Christians stopped believing in the Bible.

You are still describing a situation where such a being is blaming the objects of his creation for behaving exactly as he planned for them to behave. The potter analogy is a cop-out. When you don't find an answer, you just throw up your hands and say "well, I guess his ways are just beyond me" and leave it at that. It doesnt represent an answer, it just means you have stopped asking the question.

"Lumps of clay" don't generally "praise" their potters, either. They just sit there. They don't "sin", they dont have emotions, they don't make decisions, they don't have "free will". I don't believe we as humans are like such jars of clay at all. I think that we are thinking, rational beings, but that we sometimes put aside such rational thought in the name of conformity with the society around us, and thus you get cultural superstitions of which the tales of Yahweh are just a few of many many many such gods throughout mankind's history.

Make a case that he exists before you start making statements of what we "know".

Do you know what qualifies as a false analogy? I'll tell you: Whatever analogy is presented in an argument in which the audience doesn't agree. That's it. There's no such thing as a perfect analogy. Otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy.

Paul most certainly did answer the question. He said that God created us, and He has the right to make us for whatever purpose He desires. That means if He wants to create an evil being, He has the right to do so. And if He wants to dispose of that evil being once He is done with it, He has the right to do so.

And no. I will not prove that God exists first, because that is not what you asked for.