The Problem of Free Will, A Theological Problem. Options

[illriginal]

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

[AngelinaTaylor]

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

It's not that you don't want to argue. You can't argue.

[*I Shot JFK*]

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.

we understnad you perfectly, because we are not incredibly stupid. However, there is no NEED to refute your indvidual arguments, because they are defeated by very, very simple logic. you cannot escape it if you understand what the word omniscience means.

OF COURSE my argument is old and boring. That is because it is simple, and irrefutable. There is no NEED for another argument, because it is utterly insurmountable by anything you have presented, and any simpliar point of view that you could present.

what you have said thus far is worthless. You have shown no skill for debating, and a stunning inability to accept when you have an inferior argument. Please, unless you can grow up, and get over this ludicrous idea that by saying that my argument is not 'worthy' of being refuted your are some how letting me off eas, you will continue to be informed that it is pathetic, and only serves to make you look foolish.

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

[Nymphetamine]

It's not that you don't want to argue. You can't argue.

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

Hahahahaha. *Sigh* I just had to laugh, I'm going to read EVERYTHING now.

Here's my 0.0001 cent. God knows EVERY single shit we / will do but we choose to do it. It's not planned.
Example: My mom knows I will never steal but I have the power to steal.

Bleh, I'm blabbering.

Posts merged

This post has been edited by Zatanna: Sep 13 2006, 12:46 PM

[NoSex]

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.

Alright, you seriously just don't understand the argument. But, let's try a new approach.
I'm going to give you a riddle, try to answer it for me.

There exists an indestructable building. This building can never be destoryed. There also exists an all-destructive missile . Whatever the missile hits, it always destroys. The building will never fall, no matter what hits it. The missile will never miss and always destory its target, no matter what. Now, what happens if the all-destructive missile hits the indestructable building?

What do you think happens?

[illriginal]

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.

[NoSex]

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.

But the missile is all-destructive! It destroys everything it hits!
If it hits the building, the building has to be destroyed!

[illriginal]

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?

Plus you're comparing fiction to non-fiction...

[NoSex]

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?

Augh. Don't think too hard, your head might explode.
It's a demonstration of incompatible properties. It's a trick question.

It's an impossible hypothetical. It's an impossible situation. Because, the two objects can not exist at the same time. They negate each other. If there is a building which can never be destroyed, there can not also exist, at the same time, a missile which will destroy anything it hits. Vice versa.

Don't you get it, the logic doesn't make sense because were dealing with a nonsensical situation. You can't make logical sense of it because it doesn't make sense in the first place. You're assuming that the two are compatible with each other, when in reality, they are an impossibility together.

The same is true in the situation of perfect foreknowledge (omniscience) and a free choice (freewill). Perfect foreknowledge eliminates the possibility of options, while free choice requires the existence of options. Free will and omniscience are incompatible properties much like the all-destructive missile and the indestructable building.

Go back, read my argument. The formal one, the one with the outline. Find exactly what in it you disagree with. Give me the title of that proposition/conclusion/premise. Then, tell me exactly why you disagree with that specific point. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

(Note: The law of noncontradiction applies to both fiction and non-fiction. It doesn't make a difference either way.)

[illriginal]

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.

[*disco infiltrator*]

You're really not getting it. Omniscience isn't just having knowledge of all possible scenarios, it's knowing the outcome of whatever scenario occurs. Supposedly, God knows what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. If he knows what will happen, there is no way for anything other than that exact case to happen because that would contradict his omniscience.

There is really no other way to explain it and I'm not sure why you're not comprehending that.

[*I Shot JFK*]

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.

It doesnt, you dimwit. You clearly are not reading. It is painful. Either that, or you are doing a dreadfully transparent job of misquoting.

Knowing the POSSIBLE outcomes doesnt negate freewill. Knowing WHICH OUTCOME WILL PREVAIL does. And omniscience, by definition, garuntees that God DOES know which outcome will prevail.

[Spirited Away]

Ah, haha, this is really hilarious. Remember Sikdragon, Sammi? Well, accept Sik turned out to be okay in the end.

Yes sirs, I realized I am contributing nothing, but considering that Nate, Sammi, and James already said what I would have said or wanted to say, there is nothing left for me to contribute. So, sue me if you got a problem .

[NoSex]

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.

That's not an argument! You're just saying it and assuming it is true!
It's begging the question ad nauseam!
You aren't even recognizing our side of the argument. You're just pretending it doesn't exist. I have asked you serveral times to tell me, exactly, what is wrong with my outlined argument. Please, by all means, tell me exactly which points [(p1),(p2)?] you disagree with, and exactly why you disagree with them!
Find the fundemental conflict! Learn how to debate!

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!

Watch, I'll quote it for you!

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.

Now, form an actual rebuttle. Come on, I know you can do it.

[Nymphetamine]

Fae, I'm having the greatest time ever. I'm laughing my ass out. This is so fun.

[/spam]

[*kryogenix*]

Haven't been here in a long time again.

Flaw:

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

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.

[NoSex]

Haven't been here in a long time again.

Flaw:

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

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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?

[NoSex]

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?

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.

[PandaKnight14]

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?

[mzislandpinay]

God knoes ur destiny. & you choose ur path.

i think of it as.. God is the scientist who can see "ontop(overview)" of the maze. By looking at it that way he knoes whats at the end of the maze. But "we(ppl)" are like the "lab mouse" that`s at the beginning of the maze and trying to figure out which way to go. HE knoes what we are gonna end up going to. bhu WE choose which path to take.

[NoSex]

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.

[sweetangel2128]

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

False analogy.

I agree. I didn't agree with the analogy that the other person put, it just really didn't make any sense because God is all knowing and all powerful and the definition of a Scientist is totally different from that of God.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

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.

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?

Suffering is the result of evil, not because of God. For the free will part, see my arguments in this thread.

And for omnipotence:

For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.

-Augustine of Hippo

God will not do something that will make himself nonomnipotent.

[NoSex]

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.

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 could have done otherwise, it would give man the ability to make 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.

Better? Your grasping at semantical straws.

Men make temporal choices. If before their choice, God knows "what they will do," then man has no true choice, because their actions must conform to the knowledge of God. The knowledge of God predates the actions of men. Because of this, men are bound to the qualities that follow.

We do not choose before God knows. And after God knows, we have no choice.