Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Tassmoron View Postin any world then it is inevitable you will choose it, otherwise God is not omniscient.
P1: God foreknows that I will choose X.
P2: If there are no possible worlds where I could choose not-X then it is inevitable that I choose X.
P3: If it is inevitable that I choose X then I have no freewill.
P4: There are possible worlds where I could choose not-X.
C1: Therefore, God can foreknow that I will choose X without it being inevitable that I choose X.
C2: Therefore, I have freewill.
Your response to this is to basically say, "Nuh-uh!" which is hardly a convincing rebuttal. We could even add a third conclusion if you like:
C3: Therefore, my choosing X logically precedes God's knowledge that I will choose X.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAs a molinist I think God has middle knowledge so he can see what would have happened if things were done differently. He can see how things would have happened if he didn't step in so he steps in and thing happen the way that they "did"Last edited by Roy; 01-15-2019, 06:56 AM.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAlready addressed:
P1: God foreknows that I will choose X.
P2: If there are no possible worlds where I could choose not-X then it is necessary that I choose X.
P3: If it is necessary that I choose X then I have no freewill.
P4: There are no possible worlds where God foreknows that I will choose X and I could choose not-X.
C1: Therefore, if God foreknows that I will choose X, I will choose X.
C2: If God foreknows that I will choose X, I cannot choose not-X.
C2: Therefore, I have no freewill.
Or the shorter simpler version without the unnecessary introduction of possible worlds that contradict earlier premises:
P1: God foreknows I will choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will choose X.
C2: Therefore, I have no freewill.
I'm not sure why you think there is a difference between the words "inevitable" and "necessary".
Then:
P1: God foreknows I will choose X.
C1: Therefore, it is inevitable that I will choose X.
C2: Therefore it is necessary that I choose X.
C3: Therefore, I have no freewill.Last edited by Roy; 01-15-2019, 07:12 AM.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIt most certainly does refute what you said. What you said is bald, unsubstantiated, assertion.
And unlike your assertion, what I said is a simple fact.
Look, you can't even prove one way or the other if God even exists, and yet you will assert you know exactly how many ways there are for Him to know the future if He does? Please!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ignorant Roy View PostSo your logic should proceed:
P1: God foreknows that I will choose X.
P2: If there are no possible worlds where I could choose not-X then it is necessary that I choose X.
P3: If it is necessary that I choose X then I have no freewill.
P4: There are no possible worlds where God foreknows that I will choose X and I could choose not-X.
C1: Therefore, if God foreknows that I will choose X, I will choose X.
C2: If God foreknows that I will choose X, I cannot choose not-X.
C2: Therefore, I have no freewill.
Or the shorter simpler version without the unnecessary introduction of possible worlds that contradict earlier premises:
P1: God foreknows I will choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will choose X.
C2: Therefore, I have no freewill.
Excellent.
Then:
P1: God foreknows I will choose X.
C1: Therefore, it is inevitable that I will choose X.
C2: Therefore it is necessary that I choose X.
C3: Therefore, I have no freewill.
It works better in this arrangement where one argument leads into the next:
P1: There is no possible world in which God foreknows I will freely choose X, but in which I choose not-X instead.
P2: God foreknows I will freely choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will freely choose X.
P3: If there are no possible worlds where I could choose not-X then it is necessary/inevitable that I choose X.
P4: If it is necessary/inevitable that I choose X then I have no freewill.
P5: There are possible worlds where I could choose not-X.
C2: Therefore, God can foreknow that I will choose X without it being necessary/inevitable that I choose X.
C3: Therefore, I have freewill.
C4: Therefore, my choosing X logically precedes God's knowledge that I will choose X.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSparko, you're confused. If there is a you that exists in the future, then that means the future already exists, it means, as you began your thought experiment, that all of time exist. There is a you in the past "now" a you in the present "now" and the you in the future "now." The present you would not be doing any travelling through time. What you are describing is the B-theory of time in which you already exist at every instant along the timeline of your history. But again, if there is a you already in 2025, or an external observer who can observe you in 2025, then 2025 already exists and the you of the present isn't going to change that future.
JimL, I think Oxmix is right, you either don't want to understand the opposing views to your's, or you are incapable of it. Nobody is asking you to accept their view, just understand it and acknowledge it, instead of acting like a moron and burning straw man arguments and making idiotic objections.
Comment
-
Your past choices were inevitable from your current point of view. Because if they were different you would remember them being different and then those choices would be the "inevitable" ones. Yet your past inevitable choices were done freely.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostHas God an option to step in, given that God can see what happened?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostSo your logic should proceed:
P1: God foreknows that I will choose X.
P2: If there are no possible worlds where I could choose not-X then it is necessary that I choose X.
P3: If it is necessary that I choose X then I have no freewill.
P4: There are no possible worlds where God foreknows that I will choose X and I could choose not-X.
C1: Therefore, if God foreknows that I will choose X, I will choose X.
C2: If God foreknows that I will choose X, I cannot choose not-X.
C2: Therefore, I have no freewill.
Or the shorter simpler version without the unnecessary introduction of possible worlds that contradict earlier premises:
P1: God foreknows I will choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will choose X.
C2: Therefore, I have no freewill.
Excellent.
Then:
P1: God foreknows I will choose X.
C1: Therefore, it is inevitable that I will choose X.
C2: Therefore it is necessary that I choose X.
C3: Therefore, I have no freewill.
If I went back in time to April 13, 1865, I would "foreknow" that Booth would choose to shoot President Lincoln the next day. Me knowing it doesn't make Booth do it. But he will do it because if he doesn't, then that would be the memory I would have brought back with me from the future. My knowledge is based on what Booth will do. It doesn't mean he has no free will.
C1 Therefore I will freely choose X
C3 Therefore I have freewill.
Comment
-
"inevitable": Our choices are our choices. If I know you will eat chocolate if it is given to you, I'm not making you eat chocolate, you are. I just happen to know you like chocolate and will eat it if someone gives it to you. Free will is not compromised if I or anyone else knows what you will do. Again, you have this 'random number generator' philosophy around what free-will is. That is NOT what it is. free-will just means I get to choose. That choice will be based on what I value and who I am. It doesn't mean I'm going to randomly decide something that goes against everything I believe in.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, actually what I said is based on logic, in other words knowledge of the future means that the future is fixed, and so you, from the time before you even existed, can not change what your future will be, and if you can not change what your future will be, then you don't have free will. No, you haven't refuted that at all.
Name one fact that you have argued.
I know what omniscience means and, apparently, it would seem, you do not understand what you mean by omniscience. If your belief is true, that an omniscient god exists, then your lifes entire history is dependent on that omniscience. Understand what omniscience of the future means, then maybe you'll catch on.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostUm... no... you can't just arbitrarily jam the two arguments together and mix up the premises like that because they're arguing completely different things. This is why you ended up with nonsense that basically reads, "I have no freewill; therefore, I have no freewill."
It works better in this arrangement where one argument leads into the next:
P1: There is no possible world in which God foreknows I will freely choose X, but in which I choose not-X instead.
P2: God foreknows I will freely choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will freely choose X.
Nor have you realised that your retreat into considering possible worlds only changes the conclusion to
Cx: There are possible worlds in which I have free will, but this isn't one of them.
Here's a sunset of your premises/conclusions with the only change being the removal of the presumptive "freely". The final conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.
P1: There is no possible world in which God foreknows I will choose X, but in which I choose not-X instead.
P2: God foreknows I will choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will choose X.
P3: If it is necessary/inevitable that I choose X then I have no freewill.
C2: ...?
QEDJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou haven't shown that just because God knows you will choose X that you aren't choosing X freely without coercion.
P3: If it is inevitable that I choose X then I have no freewill.
If I went back in time to April 13, 1865, I would "foreknow" that Booth would choose to shoot President Lincoln the next day. Me knowing it doesn't make Booth do it. But he will do it because if he doesn't, then that would be the memory I would have brought back with me from the future. My knowledge is based on what Booth will do. It doesn't mean he has no free will.
I'm glad you chose Booth/Lincoln not Oswald/KennedyJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ignorant Roy View PostYou're calling me ignorant, but you haven't realised that including the unnecessary word "freely" in your 'logic' is assuming your conclusion.
Nor have you realised that your retreat into considering possible worlds only changes the conclusion to
Cx: There are possible worlds in which I have free will, but this isn't one of them.
Here's a sunset of your premises/conclusions with the only change being the removal of the presumptive "freely". The final conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.
P1: There is no possible world in which God foreknows I will choose X, but in which I choose not-X instead.
P2: God foreknows I will choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will choose X.
P3: If it is necessary/inevitable that I choose X then I have no freewill.
C2: ...?
QED
P1: There is no possible world in which God foreknows I will freely choose X, but in which I choose not-X instead.
P2: God foreknows I will freely choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will freely choose X.
does not assume the conclusion. But, sure, we can leave off the word "freely" if it makes your little heart happy.
P1: There is no possible world in which God foreknows I will choose X, but in which I choose not-X instead.
P2: God foreknows I will choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will choose X.
P3: If there are no possible worlds where I could choose not-X then it is necessary/inevitable that I choose X.
P4: If it is necessary/inevitable that I choose X then I have no freewill.
P5: There are possible worlds where I could choose not-X.
C2: Therefore, God can foreknow that I will choose X without it being necessary/inevitable that I choose X.
C3: Therefore, I have freewill.
C4: Therefore, my choosing X logically precedes God's knowledge that I will choose X.
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 07:59 AM
|
6 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 10:02 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:05 AM
|
13 responses
93 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:03 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 05:24 AM
|
37 responses
182 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 03:27 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-18-2024, 11:06 AM
|
49 responses
306 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 04:14 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 05-18-2024, 07:03 AM
|
19 responses
146 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 09:58 AM
|
Comment