Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not adding anything. You claimed that "mathematically white will win at some indeterminate point" is a good example for predestination; I have demonstrated that using the parameters you gave for your scenario white is not guaranteed to win, victory can come at multiple possible points and it's actually not an example of predestination in any way at all.
That's not true, a claim without evidence is just...well...a claim. I could say I think an all powerful, eternal K9 called Fido was that cause with equal evidence behind the claim. Actually not quite equal because we know that K9s exist.
It was presented as an analogy for predestination. I have shown that it is no such thing.You're suggesting it's a real game scenario instead of a tablebase abstraction, which it was presented as.
He believes cause-and-effect necessarily depends on time, as (apparently, then) does sequence. I think logical sequence does not, except as we experience it, and so, therefore, neither does cause-and-effect. A being who is independent of time should be able to cause without reference to time.How would you present a logical argument to prove this?
God is not like me. I can influence and even leave options. But when God does it, it is no experiment. What he plans will indeed come to pass.But that's not the same thing.
Influencing and leaving options is NOT predeterminism.
Does not the direction of travel play into the question? As reality would have it, the fact he answered your question before you asked is irrelevant, since you would not get the answer until it arrived, nor would the question get to him until after you asked it.If he is travelling faster than c he would answer your question before you even asked it.
I have no doubt it seems plain to you. Yet you only restate your view, not the facts.If I am just being influenced, other possible paths are still open to me.
If my choice is arranged for me, the other paths are no longer open to me.
I have explained this countless times now. It is not a difficult idea to grasp. I can only conclude that you are intentionally misunderstanding my arguments.
I assume you are accusing me of misinterpreting things. Here's your original post:By misinterpreting it and adding factors that weren't originally part of the analogy.
Please show how I have misinterpreted or added anything to the scenario.This is a chess position that has been mathematically proven to be a forced win for white, in at most 549 moves.
There are millions, billions, probably even more different ways it could play out, but they all end the same with perfect play by white - black is checkmated.
Just because the ending is already known doesn't mean that black couldn't choose to do any number of different things in order to get there.
Well, at least kudos on leaving the conversation much quicker than Kylie et al, when you can't clarify your vague statement. I wanted to know "which" you were referring to by "In which case..." Your statement is useless without knowing quite what you are referring to.I can find no coherent logic in that. Why don't you pretend it makes sense and I'll pretend it doesn't matter.
Simple yes/no question: if God makes a choice for you, can you make a different choice for yourself?God is not like me. I can influence and even leave options. But when God does it, it is no experiment. What he plans will indeed come to pass.
Rejecting the accepted definitions of "free will" and "predestination" without providing alternative definitions does not win you any points. Continual assertion of illogical claims does not win you any points, either.The fact that the "free" in the term, "free will", is severely limited in scope within predestination, (among other things which demonstrate its limitations), it does not mean there is no real choice --even responsible choice.
I'm not talking about changing, either, it's just a problem with language that there is no word for what I'm trying to convey. What I'm driving at is: please explain how it is possible for God to make a choice for me but at the same time leave me the possibility of making a different choice. Put extremely simply - can I choose something other than what God has already chosen?
But your claim is that God makes the choice, not that he influences it. Are you changing your position now?
It strikes me that you change argument repeatedly when backed into a corner, and then circle back to the same refuted claim that, if God makes a choice for you, you can still make a choice yourself even though that choice has already been made for you.
The really revealing part is that you never explain how it is possible for God to make a choice that leaves you with any other option than to do what he has already chosen. You simply assert it and refuse to even try to explain how it is possible. The part in bold above is the part you just handwave away and pretend that it is not a problem.
Again, you like the word "for" in "makes the choice for you". Define please.Simple yes/no question: if God makes a choice for you, can you make a different choice for yourself?
I could do like some Calvinists and say that only God has Free Will. It is true, according to one definition (or use) of the word, "free".Rejecting the accepted definitions of "free will" and "predestination" without providing alternative definitions does not win you any points. Continual assertion of illogical claims does not win you any points, either.
The point here is that this position usually indicates that only certain things are predestined. It allows some choices to remain subject to free will. That is not the position you have adopted whereby God makes all choices, therefore every action is predestined and free will is non-existent.You start off with the notion that God made your choice for you. Well, I don't say that. I say God made HIS choice concerning the same thing that you will also choose (for example, in the Predestination / Free Will debate, usually the subject revolves around salvation-- i.e. if God chose you and determined to save you, you will also choose to be saved).
Where have I ever said all choices must be equally probable? That's a nonsensical strawman.You seem to think it logical that "choice" necessarily implies the possibility of making a different choice. The fact that options present themselves to you before choosing does not imply that they could all equally likely be chosen. The fact is, you will chose the one you want to choose most, (if only for that moment) --that is, you will make the choice that influences you the most.
You keep saying this, but NEVER explain how God can make a choice for you while still leaving you a choice to make - it is a logical impossibility. You just assert it again and again but cannot support the claim. It's nonsense, it's illogical, it's impossible.In fact, the level of CHOICE we humans make is hardly useful on the same level as what God chooses. I could have taken a completely different tack and shown a mathematical set called "God's plan", and put "Your choice" as a tiny subset within it. Since God, to my mind at least, is First Cause, it makes sense to me that Deism (where God only started things rolling) is bunk, and instead that he is intrinsically involved in all existence and fact, not only upholding but causing.
You contradict yourself. If there are options available, then God has not made my choice for me. The choice is still mine to make, no matter what the likelihood of me choosing one option over another.I do not say that God left you the possibility of making a different choice. Where do you get that? Kylie uses the phrase, "up to you", which pretty well defines what I mean by "choice", though she thinks it necessarily implies all options are indeed available rather than merely appearing to be available. I tell her that the choice is "up to you" regardless of the inequality of options, only in that they appear to be equally possible, and so you choose only the most apparently favorable. To me, that is entirely logical, though perhaps someone can show me how the options are actually available-- so far it has only been asserted, not demonstrated to me.
If it's different choices, then God has not made the same choice. You just can't keep a straight argument, can you? And it still avoids your impossible claim that, if God chooses something and I must do it, I have free will in not being able to choose any other option.Maybe it would help to say it is two different choices, God makes his choice, you make yours. Yours is dependent on his. Does that help?
It appears to me you aren't very well reading what I wrote, or that what seem to you to be logical implications from the terminology do not work logically.The point here is that this position usually indicates that only certain things are predestined. It allows some choices to remain subject to free will. That is not the position you have adopted whereby God makes all choices, therefore every action is predestined and free will is non-existent.
Where have I ever said all choices must be equally probable? That's a nonsensical strawman.
You keep saying this, but NEVER explain how God can make a choice for you while still leaving you a choice to make - it is a logical impossibility. You just assert it again and again but cannot support the claim. It's nonsense, it's illogical, it's impossible.
You contradict yourself. If there are options available, then God has not made my choice for me. The choice is still mine to make, no matter what the likelihood of me choosing one option over another.
Lol, ok, I can't keep the argument in the terms with which I began. Happy? But the reason I can't is pretty simple --I can't seem to get my terms to fit your terms.If it's different choices, then God has not made the same choice. You just can't keep a straight argument, can you? And it still avoids your impossible claim that, if God chooses something and I must do it, I have free will in not being able to choose any other option.
Do you think Henry Ford was giving punters a choice with his line "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black"?
The point here is that this position usually indicates that only certain things are predestined. It allows some choices to remain subject to free will. That is not the position you have adopted whereby God makes all choices, therefore every action is predestined and free will is non-existent.
Where have I ever said all choices must be equally probable? That's a nonsensical strawman.
You keep saying this, but NEVER explain how God can make a choice for you while still leaving you a choice to make - it is a logical impossibility. You just assert it again and again but cannot support the claim. It's nonsense, it's illogical, it's impossible.
You contradict yourself. If there are options available, then God has not made my choice for me. The choice is still mine to make, no matter what the likelihood of me choosing one option over another.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?