|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 12:41:33 GMT -5
No fucking shit, that's kind of the point. You're assuming a priori that there is free will, but in a circumstance where actions are able to be predicted with 100% accuracy, there can't be choice in the matter. Knowing something will happen with absolute accuracy puts it on the level of a physical law. Same with the falling object, it doesn't happen until it happens (wow, meaningless statement), but we know that it will and we know there is no choice in the matter.[/quote] It does not put it on the same level because you can't negate a persons consciousness. A ball has no choice but to fall when dropped. That ball can't try to prevent being dropped, nor does it care about being dropped. A person standing on a ledge can jump or not. That person can decide what they are going to do, and have some idea of what will happen with both choices. It is there choice. Now adding an agent that knows what that person is going to choose does not affect that persons choice, nor does it take choice away.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 30, 2011 12:44:11 GMT -5
God set up the initial conditions, knowing when he did so exactly what choices everyone would make. He had the ability to set up different initial conditions that would lead to people making different choices. Therefor he made all of our choices for us. Again knowing what choices and making the choices are to very different things. Not if the one with the knowledge is also all powerful and sets the initial conditions that lead to the choices. I already addressed that. You PROBABLY won't, but there is a non-zero chance that you will, so you don't actually know with absolute, 100% certainty what your final choice will be. And even if you did... Yes, you did. You just made the choice earlier. "I choose not to smash the TV later," as opposed to, "I choose not to smash the TV now." If you were omnipotent and omniscient, yes, you could. And if you did, I would not truly have free will. Emphasis added. There is still a non-zero chance that I will do something different than you predict I will, so it's not omniscience. That's exactly what I'm saying. If god is both all powerful and all knowing, then he DID set the initial conditions to get a certain outcome. God could have set the conditions any way he wanted. He knew exactly how each one would turn out, including all the decisions we would make. He chose this set of conditions. Thus, he chose this exact outcome, including all the decisions we make.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 30, 2011 12:49:24 GMT -5
You are a brick wall, the individual is going to commit the action no matter what, there is absolutely zero choice. It is the illusion of choice. The jumper thinks s/he is deciding, but if somebody's behavior is 100% predictable, it's not choice. You could try to say that the jumper could hypothetically do something different, but if that never ever happens, the jumper can't. When you get the same result every damn single time (in this case, the result being the prediction and the action lining up), then there cannot be choice. For it to be a choice instead of the result of x number of factors there has to be some margin of error in the prediction, otherwise you have a physical law.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 12:59:08 GMT -5
God could have set the conditions any way he wanted. He knew exactly how each one would turn out, including all the decisions we would make. He chose this set of conditions. Thus, he chose this exact outcome, including all the decisions we make. That begs the question, did he choose the conditions for this outcome? If he did, he must have known he would choose that outcome. Which precludes his free will, meaning he is not all powerful. If he did not know which outcome he would pick, then he is not all knowing. Either way, God knows what is going to happen. Which means free will or not, him allowing evil can't be excused.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 13:12:30 GMT -5
You are a brick wall, the individual is going to commit the action no matter what, there is absolutely zero choice. It is the illusion of choice. The jumper thinks s/he is deciding, but if somebody's behavior is 100% predictable, it's not choice. You could try to say that the jumper could hypothetically do something different, but if that never ever happens, the jumper can't. When you get the same result every damn single time (in this case, the result being the prediction and the action lining up), then there cannot be choice. For it to be a choice instead of the result of x number of factors there has to be some margin of error in the prediction, otherwise you have a physical law. If we could predict a single person's behavior 100% of the time, does that mean that person does not have free will, or no one has free will?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 30, 2011 13:21:00 GMT -5
You are a brick wall, the individual is going to commit the action no matter what, there is absolutely zero choice. It is the illusion of choice. The jumper thinks s/he is deciding, but if somebody's behavior is 100% predictable, it's not choice. You could try to say that the jumper could hypothetically do something different, but if that never ever happens, the jumper can't. When you get the same result every damn single time (in this case, the result being the prediction and the action lining up), then there cannot be choice. For it to be a choice instead of the result of x number of factors there has to be some margin of error in the prediction, otherwise you have a physical law. If we could predict a single person's behavior 100% of the time, does that mean that person does not have free will, or no one has free will? That one person, but with cause to examine other people's behaviors. Not that it matters for this since the case we're looking at has a being able to do it for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 13:35:18 GMT -5
That one person, but with cause to examine other people's behaviors. Not that it matters for this since the case we're looking at has a being able to do it for everybody. I think it might. If we could for that one person, or a number of people, but could not for others does that mean free will is merely contingent on foreknowledge? What if we could predict behavior, but made the choice not to? Would that still preclude free will? Is it the ability to predict outcomes, or the actual predicting that removes choice?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 30, 2011 13:38:05 GMT -5
The ability to, the lack of free will has fuck all to do with the prediction. The prediction is only possible because there is no free will. I think you're having problems seeing cause and effect.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 30, 2011 13:58:04 GMT -5
God could have set the conditions any way he wanted. He knew exactly how each one would turn out, including all the decisions we would make. He chose this set of conditions. Thus, he chose this exact outcome, including all the decisions we make. That begs the question, did he choose the conditions for this outcome? I would argue that he did, by definition. If you know what the outcome of each decision will be, then whatever decision you make, you are choosing the outcome. *facepalm* YOU knowing and controlling what decisions YOU are going to make doesn't take away your free will. SOMEONE ELSE knowing and controlling what decisions you are going to make does.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 14:39:19 GMT -5
The ability to, the lack of free will has fuck all to do with the prediction. The prediction is only possible because there is no free will. I think you're having problems seeing cause and effect. How so? We would have the ability to predict the event, because it is going to happen, that does not cause the event to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 30, 2011 14:43:08 GMT -5
The ability to, the lack of free will has fuck all to do with the prediction. The prediction is only possible because there is no free will. I think you're having problems seeing cause and effect. How so? We would have the ability to predict the event, because it is going to happen, that does not cause the event to happen. It doesn't have to cause the event to happen, it merely means that something other than the individual's choice is responsible. If we have free will, then we would have to be unpredictable to some degree. Being able to know what will happen before it does violates this, so there cannot be an omniscient being and free will in the same universe. They are mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 30, 2011 14:52:59 GMT -5
Okay, I'm annoyed enough to just skip to the end of page three...
Nickerson: Is it possible to make a choice contrary to what God knows you will do? This is nothing like gravity, either. Natural laws mean that gravity just is. However, free will means that you can choose to type the letter k on a keyboard. Unless something is physically preventing you from doing so you are going to press the letter k if you choose to press it. That's what choice is. But if God knows you will press the k it is impossible to not press k. You do not have any more choice in the matter than you have on whether or not gravity will affect you.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 14:55:45 GMT -5
*facepalm* YOU knowing and controlling what decisions YOU are going to make doesn't take away your free will. SOMEONE ELSE knowing and controlling what decisions you are going to make does. As you said, you could always change your mind, thus you can't know with certainty. Since God would know with certainty, he could not change his mind.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 30, 2011 15:06:47 GMT -5
Maybe so. I think that's getting into, "Could God make a rock so big even he couldn't lift it?" territory, and I think it's off topic to the question of whether we humans have free will, given an all-powerful and all-knowing god.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 30, 2011 15:10:22 GMT -5
Oh, and I do expect a proper response (or admitting you're not going to answer) to my question.
|
|