and that arguement you gave me "I Shot JFK" is soo old and boring and useless that I can't even argue with it. It's truely not "that" worthy to argue about it. God is iller than the human mind of an ignorant can comprehend
-Tamacracker

HOnestly there was no ownage... just ignorance, not tryin to use a personal attack... just explaining that anyone that cannot understand that logic and keeps using the same arguement to refute my reasoning of why freewill exists is simply ignorant. You guys can't even refute my ideology... instead attack something else "off topic"

You're talkin about freewill... and so am I. But then you argue with knowing even the future of just 1 specific object (human, plant, rock who cares) is taking away the freewill of that object because some how having knowledge of the future automatically takes away the freedom of that object to make a choice... that ideology is so stupid and very laughable.

Now I'm not claiming YOU GUYS are stupid.. but that theory is stupid, and using it against my ideology which is very clear to understand to refute it... actually made me laugh. Because that's the only arguement I've seen on this thread. And I'm not callin you guys atheist but most of the time atheist who choose to read up philosophy... don't read enough, those who don't read enough question GOd on every little thing of God's existence... and that arguement you gave me "I Shot JFK" is soo old and boring and useless that I can't even argue with it. It's truely not "that" worthy to argue about it. God is iller than the human mind of an ignorant can comprehend
-Tamacracker

get over yourself.
Now please, unless you can do better in the future, go away.

You're talkin about freewill... and so am I. But then you argue with knowing even the future of just 1 specific object (human, plant, rock who cares) is taking away the freewill of that object because some how having knowledge of the future automatically takes away the freedom of that object to make a choice... that ideology is so stupid and very laughable.

THe first thought to that riddle is... the missile would just hit the building and destruct, since the building cannot explode but the missile can.

Well then you'd have to look into the science and mathematics of it all.. you're comparing physical objects to a being of infinite energy.. well infinite everything in general, am I supposed to laugh or feel offended?

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing your logic. Freewill has to do with making your own choices whether it be good or bad... how does someone else having knowledge of all your possible choices take away your freewill? Taking away freewill or freewill not existing because the existence of God, is basically saying you have no freedom in a sense... you don't have the freewill/freedom to choose what to think and do. God doesn't control us... we have the freewill to control ourselves. Thus is why we have a conscience and a subconscience...Thus is why we do good and we do bad.

But yes I see what you're saying... a fictional example that's some how supposed to prove God doesn't exist, right.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing your logic. Freewill has to do with making your own choices whether it be good or bad... how does someone else having knowledge of all your possible choices take away your freewill? Taking away freewill or freewill not existing because the existence of God, is basically saying you have no freedom in a sense... you don't have the freewill/freedom to choose what to think and do. God doesn't control us... we have the freewill to control ourselves. Thus is why we have a conscience and a subconscience...Thus is why we do good and we do bad.

But yes I see what you're saying... a fictional example that's some how supposed to prove God doesn't exist, right.

Once you have read it, please note specifically what you disagree with. Show me where the problem is, exactly. The argument is outlined, so all you have to do is tell me that you disagree with "Premise 1" or "Conclusion 2" and tell me exactly why you don't agree. From there, we could have a meaningful discussion. But, right now, you're just fighting an ad nauseam, like everywhere else!

A1:
1 (p1). Free will is the ability to voluntarily choose.
2 (p2). Choice is the ability to decide among a varitety of options.
3 (p3). There must be at least two options for a choice to be present.
4 (p4). There must be a choice for there to be free will.
5 (c1). Therefor, there must be more than two possible options to choose from for there to be free will.

A2:
1 (p1). God is a perfectly omniscient being.
2 (p2). Men exist.
3 (p3). Men are active.
4 (c2). Because of God's omnisience, God has perfect foreknowledge of the activity of men.

A3:
1 (p1). A man does X.
2 (c2). Because of God's omniscience, God knows that the man will do X.
3 (c1). Free will requires that the man could have done otherwise.
4 (p2). If the man would have done otherwise, it would have made God wrong (imperfect).
5 (p3). It is impossible to make God imperfect or wrong.
6 (c3). Therefor, it would have been impossible for the man to have done otherwise.

A4:
1 (c1). There must be more than two options to choose from for there to be free will.
2 (c2). God knows that man will always do X.
3 (c3). Since God knows man will always do X, he has no other option aside from X.
4 (c4). Since man has no other option aside from X, he fails to have free will.

By definition of the terms we are dealing with, men can not have free will given that God is omniscient. Free will requires that we have a choice. Choice requires that we have options. If God has perfect foreknowledge of the activity of men, we can not do anything other than what God knows, because it would be impossible to make God wrong. This creates the illusion of choice. Imagine two "options." Imagine two doors.

(D1) (D2)

Before us we appear to have two options and a free choice between them. If God did not know before hand that we would move into D1 then that would be true. However, God does know that we are going to into D1, so D2 fails to remain an option, because it would be impossible to take D2. To take D2 would mean to make God false, and this is a power we do not have. Because of this, it is an impossibility. And, since it is an impossibility, it can not be an option.

Now, this is what the model looks like:

(D1)

The only "option" is D1. Since there is not a variety of options, there is no choice, and since there is no choice there is no Free Will. It is an entirely analytical argument and can not be refuted unless, of course, someone could demonstrate how it would be possible to take D2 or why there is more than one option.

This doesn't have anything to do with predestination. This has nothing to do with Calvinism. This has nothing to do with Heaven or Hell or even omnipotence. In the end, it's just about the definitions of God, and the meaning behind free will and choice. This is about the implications of God's perfect foreknowledge on the analytical framework of a logical sentence. Because to say, under all of these definitions and concepts, that we can still have fee will under an omniscient God makes no sense.

So, is it physically and humanly possible to make God wrong? If God is all-knowing (omniscient) and perfect, he knows exactly what "we are going to do." He doesn't just know all possible outcomes; he knows the absolute outcome. He knows exactly what will happen.

Imagine that God knows human X will do B .
As a human being, could X freely choose to do A over B?
Could human X freely choose to do anything non-B?
Does human X have an option as to whether or not "he will do" B?
If X does have an option, then he has the alternative power to do something other than B; say perhaps A.
If human X does A, when God knew he must do B, does this not negate God's perfect foreknowledge and omniscience?
In this case, God is not omniscient.
In the other case, that human X must always conform - involuntarily - to God's perfect foreknowledge and has no choice in the matter. He can not choose anything non-B, and thus has no options.

So, does man have the power to make God wrong in negating God's perfect foreknowledge?

The problem is that a true perfect foreknowledge conforms and imposes the future. If the foreknowledge is true, how can there be an option to do otherwise in the future? It must happen, there is no freedom invloved, there are no options, it must be. The causality of the situation seems absurd because of the reality that this situation is an impossibility. They are two incompatible notions. Freewill and perfect complete and true foreknowledge can not exist at the same time. Not possible. They are inherently contradictory.

4 (p2). If the man would have done otherwise, it would have made God wrong (imperfect).

Haven't been here in a long time again.

Flaw:

Change the would to could. You use could in the previous point, why are you changing it all of a sudden? If a man could have done otherwise, it doesn't make God imperfect, it just means there are other options available, though not necessarily the one the man wants to choose.

Anyway, I'll start a rebuttal thread, though I don't have the time to organize my points as you have, nor nearly as much time to argue them for long.

How are there options available if the man can't do it?
If the man could do it, it would have been an option.
But, the man can not, so it is not an option.

Have you proven that he can't do it at that point in the argument? Only at the end of the argument you prove that he can't do it. Wouldn't that be circular logic then?

i think of it as.. God is the scientist who can see "ontop(overview)" of the maze.

Scientists aren't omniscient. God is.
Scientists don't know everything. God does.
Scientists' foresight is not infallible. God's is.

False analogy.

No, not at all. It doesn't exactly matter where you prove it within in argument, but how. It's a premise, not a conclusion, so all it truly does is support a conclusion. However, that particular premise is supported and enfored by the two previous conclusions (1&2).

What exactly is the problem you have with that particular premise? Are you saying that the man could do otherwise? Are you saying that the man does indeed have the power to make God wrong? Because, unless you are saying that, the man can not do otherwise, and has no option in the matter.

Free will is completely incompatible with the idea of an omniscient, all-powerful God.

Add in human suffering and that God is supposed to be all loving, and you've got a hell of a hole to get out of.

1: An all-loving God would not allow suffering, because he is all-loving.
--If he allows suffering to people, he is instead selectively loving, or partially loving.

2. An all-powerful, all-knowing God is the cause of all actions, human, natural, etc. Basically, anything that happens is directly due to his decisions.

3. Inconsistency: This world... has... suffering. Duh. An all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God would not allow humans to suffer, and therefore cannot exist. All suffering, on Earth and in Hell, would be a direct result of our "all-loving" deity.

As for free will... with an omniscient omnipotent being, anything and everything that happens is his fault. If he doesn't do anything, he knows the result in advance, and brings it about by inaction. If he changes it, he knows the result in advance, and brings it about by his action. It's like asking one and one to make five without changing the meanings of the terms "one" or "five."

Speaking of that, if we have an omnipotent god here:

a: Can he make one and one add up to five while maintaining the meanings of those terms?
b: Can he makes left be right, right be left, etc.?
c. Can he make a square circle? Square triangle?

No, you haven't proven that he couldn't at that point. You're changing the condition in the previous step by changing the word "could" to "would." Yes, man has the capacity to do otherwise. But he didn't.