|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 1, 2011 20:06:58 GMT -5
Yes it does, & by the way it's ultra-classy that you ignored my explanation, not that I was expecting much in the first place.
By the way, since you're already hung up on semantics, a decision is defined as "a selection between multiple options." So if the options are "kill" & "not kill," & "kill" is always selected, then you don't get to make a decision.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 1, 2011 22:53:54 GMT -5
Yes it does, & by the way it's ultra-classy that you ignored my explanation, not that I was expecting much in the first place. I apologize, I did not see it so I will address it now. It doesn't do that. At all. Because free will isn't a binary system, some choices you can not make, and so your free will is limited. As a result, there is more than one choice being made in a given scenario. What this analogy does is assert, "See! She decided not to kill him, but yet she did, so it's free will!" but what actually happened was that she decided she didn't WANT to kill him and had the decision TO kill him made for her. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at in your first paragraph. Of course free will is limited, because your choices are limited. I can't go out and fly just because I wish to. The thing is she decided to kill Mr. White. If we remove the device she still kills Mr. White. She always kills him, because that is her decision. Every decision we make we make once. What ever you decided to have for breakfast two day will always be. At no point to you get to go back and make a different choice. So does that mean you lacked free will this morning? No. Many concepts of God are literally impossible, but Fundies try to twist the concept until it's so hard to compare that they can just go, "It's beyond our understanding." This is not true. I can point out that their analogy is flawed because it doesn't take an important concept into account & they will do nothing to fix it. It's not that I "don't understand," it's that they're trying to obscure the real problem. Okay there are two way to go with its. The first is that if God is omnipotent, then there is no impossibles. If we make omnipotence the first premise from that point on logic false. Literally at that point God could both make a rock so large he could not lift it, and yet lift it. The second is what you are talking about, that God is limited. John E. stated that he did not think free will was incompatible with omniscience, but incapable with omniscience and omnipotence. So the answer in that case is simple, since God has limited he can't be omnipotent. Problem solved. What we are doing is playing in between the two. By the way, since you're already hung up on semantics, a decision is defined as "a selection between multiple options." So if the options are "kill" & "not kill," & "kill" is always selected, then you don't get to make a decision. Again, you only make each choice once. You never get to go back and make a different choice. So it is not that one choice is always selected, only that you selected it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 1, 2011 23:08:04 GMT -5
But an omniscience being can say "Lithp will have a french toast for breakfast three days from now" and have no chance of being wrong. Lithp has not decided what he will eat yet, but it does not matter, he can't not make that choice. When you can't make a choice, you have no freedom. Therefore, he has no freedom of will.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 1, 2011 23:12:43 GMT -5
That is precisely my point. It's not "free will" or "no free will." Just because you show that some choices are limited & some are not necessarily, it does not prove either extreme. It only proves that some choices are limited & some are not necessarily.
To elaborate, these are all of the possible choices in this situation:
"I want to kill him." *Killing him.* "I don't want to kill him." *Not killing him.*
Asterisks denote action, quotes denote the thought or attitude. According to the analogy, she can decide her attitude & the action of killing him. She can NOT decide the action of NOT killing him, so she does not have that choice. In other words, her free will does not extend to choosing not to kill him. In fact, since she has no opposing choice, she can not actually choose to kill him (as per the definition of a decision), & so therefore she can only decide her attitude, not her actions.
Yes. Free Will means exactly what it says: Unrestrained will. If you cannot make a given choice, it means you do not have true Free Will, at best you have finite Free Will. The latter of which I think is more of what's in debate here, but the actual meaning of free will & what a choice actually consists of is kind of important.
Logic is an abstract, it just describes what does & does not make sense. Your idea of how omnipotence works is logically invalid. Therefore, it cannot be true.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 1, 2011 23:31:59 GMT -5
But an omniscience being can say "Lithp will have a french toast for breakfast three days from now" and have no chance of being wrong. Lithp has not decided what he will eat yet, but it does not matter, he can't not make that choice. When you can't make a choice, you have no freedom. Therefore, he has no freedom of will. Not true. If you remove the omniscience being he will still make that same choice. If we go back to the example with Jones and White and modify the device so that is functions never to go off we can see that. So not in realities where Jones decides to kill white the device in her head will only function if she is going to decided not to. Since we know she will kill White it will never function. In realities where she decides not to kill him the device will only function if she is about to decides to kill him. Since we know she will not decide to kill him the device will never function. If you wan to express the way foreknowledge can work with free will we can express it as: Gods foreknowledge of an event = F A person may choose A or B. If A then F=A If B then F=B
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 1, 2011 23:43:10 GMT -5
A lack of an omniscient being doesn't mean there is free will, so it could still be possible that he doesn't have it. But, free will is mutually exclusive with omniscience.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 1, 2011 23:59:57 GMT -5
That is precisely my point. It's not "free will" or "no free will." Just because you show that some choices are limited & some are not necessarily, it does not prove either extreme. It only proves that some choices are limited & some are not necessarily. Okay, total or true free will does not exist. That is not what we are really debating. We are debating if free will (limited by our abilities and situation) exists at all. To elaborate, these are all of the possible choices in this situation: "I want to kill him." *Killing him.* "I don't want to kill him." *Not killing him.* Asterisks denote action, quotes denote the thought or attitude. According to the analogy, she can decide her attitude & the action of killing him. She can NOT decide the action of NOT killing him, so she does not have that choice. In other words, her free will does not extend to choosing not to kill him. In fact, since she has no opposing choice, she can not actually choose to kill him (as per the definition of a decision), & so therefore she can only decide her attitude, not her actions. According to the analogy "If the activity in Jones's brain suggests that she is on the verge of deciding not to kill White when the opportunity arises, Black's mechanism will intervene and cause Jones to decide to commit the murder." So she will always decide to kill White. Yet the device did not function, it was unneeded. It would never had been needed, because she will always choose to kill White in this reality. Yes. Free Will means exactly what it says: Unrestrained will. If you cannot make a given choice, it means you do not have true Free Will, at best you have finite Free Will. The latter of which I think is more of what's in debate here, but the actual meaning of free will & what a choice actually consists of is kind of important. I could argue that just because you can't preform that action does not mean you don't have free will. No, I can't go out and fly, but nothing prevents me from making that decision and trying. If I could fly would that not be free action? Logic is an abstract, it just describes what does & does not make sense. Your idea of how omnipotence works is logically invalid. Therefore, it cannot be true. Yes it can. Logic is not perfect. Logic would tell us that something can't exist in two places at once. Yet in quantum physics they do. Logic will tell us that something can't come from nothing. Yet, again in quantum physics, we see particle spring into existence from nowhere. Logic would also tell us that an effect can't come before a cause, yet in a recent experiment with photons scientist made that happen.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 2, 2011 0:08:30 GMT -5
Yes it can. Logic is not perfect. Logic would tell us that something can't exist in two places at once. Yet in quantum physics they do. Logic will tell us that something can't come from nothing. Yet, again in quantum physics, we see particle spring into existence from nowhere. Logic would also tell us that an effect can't come before a cause, yet in a recent experiment with photons scientist made that happen. That's not logic, that's common sense.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 2, 2011 0:23:25 GMT -5
A lack of an omniscient being doesn't mean there is free will, so it could still be possible that he doesn't have it. But, free will is mutually exclusive with omniscience. Then does knowledge of past event eliminate free will? It must, because at some point all events will be in the past, which means the outcomes of those event can be known. So if we argue that free will exists or could exist at all it can't be contingent on if an alternative choice or event could have happened since all future events will become past events.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 2, 2011 0:24:59 GMT -5
That's not logic, that's common sense. Really, explain to me that logic that say something can exist in two places at once.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Oct 2, 2011 0:53:38 GMT -5
Probability has absolutely nothing to do with an event that has already come to its conclusion. Please use words correctly. Probability is about what might happen. There's a difference. If there is no free will because God has perfect foreknowledge it also means that every events probability becomes 1 or 0. They will either happen or they won't. The same type of thing happens as event occur. So using probability to illustrate that point is perfectly fine, ad has been done before. I'm sorry that does not suit you. And? If God knows the every outcome of everything that will ever occur that means probability does not truly exist. It would only be an illusion to us. Which is what free will would have to be if there were an omniscient being. If God knows you will voluntarily eat a slice of pineapple at 10:43 this upcoming Sunday is it possible to choose to not eat a slice of pineapple at the specified time and date? If yes, God is not omniscient. If no, you had no choice in the matter. You cannot make a choice that God knew you would not make. That's what omniscience means. As to quantum mechanics: Shit be crazy.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Oct 2, 2011 0:57:25 GMT -5
Suppose God exists at the end of our linear timeline, and so knows everything that will happen to us because has already happened from god's perspective. If I take a coin and flip it, is it a random event or not? While God made the universe and the rules of probability that it follows he/she/it has not actually done anything that will determine what the result of the coin toss will be. It would take a literal act of god to force a specific result. Omnipotence certainly would allow god to choose a specific result but it by no means forces god to choose a specific result. If our free will is handled in the same way, then an 'all powerful' god can actually exist along side it.
Of course, if this is the case, then all the pleading and the prayers don't mean shit because all god did was set the rules for an elaborate sims game, press the enter key and walk away.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 2, 2011 0:58:12 GMT -5
Intangibility.
I don't know if it's how it works in quantum physics, but it's a logical solution to the problem. Logic doesn't "tell" you anything, logic is a framework, & if you put in the correct premises & follow them validly, then you should come out with the sound result.
It means you don't have free will to perform that action. But, as you so brilliantly point out, if you can't select an action, then you don't have the freedom of performing an action. So take that to its logical conclusion with omniscience, which limits your very thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 2, 2011 1:27:30 GMT -5
And? If God knows the every outcome of everything that will ever occur that means probability does not truly exist. It would only be an illusion to us. Which is what free will would have to be if there were an omniscient being. If God knows you will voluntarily eat a slice of pineapple at 10:43 this upcoming Sunday is it possible to choose to not eat a slice of pineapple at the specified time and date? If yes, God is not omniscient. If no, you had no choice in the matter. You cannot make a choice that God knew you would not make. That's what omniscience means. As to quantum mechanics: Shit be crazy. Possibility does not matter. All that matters for God omniscience is that you eat the piece of pie. To think otherwise means that Gods foreknowledge is because the event will happen. This is incorrect because to God the event has happened and has always happened. There is never a moment before the event.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 2, 2011 1:35:23 GMT -5
Intangibility. I don't know if it's how it works in quantum physics, but it's a logical solution to the problem. Logic doesn't "tell" you anything, logic is a framework, & if you put in the correct premises & follow them validly, then you should come out with the sound result. Since logic does not tell us any us anything, and is merely a frame work, then if we start with the Premise that God is all powerful then it follows that anything is possible. It means you don't have free will to perform that action. But, as you so brilliantly point out, if you can't select an action, then you don't have the freedom of performing an action. So take that to its logical conclusion with omniscience, which limits your very thoughts.[/quote] The reason I did not argue that is because thoughts are actions. Your very thoughts are events.
|
|