Therein lies the point; If free will exists, what one ends up doing cannot be known until after he does it.
God knows the future as he is the past present and future. He already knows what happend and free will did/does exist. It can be known because the reality is, there is a decision that will be made. His omniscence or more specifically his foreknowledge, does not detract from free will.
Originally posted by clickclick
God knows the future as he is the past present and future. He already knows what happend and free will did/does exist. It can be known because the reality is, there is a decision that will be made. His omniscence or more specifically his foreknowledge, does not detract from free will.
The existence of free will provides that the future is changeable, and it is impossible to have definite knowledge of the future if it is not fixed.
Moreover, if the future is not set in stone, then any knowledge God posesses of the future must only be of a possible future, as the future can be changed. The implication of this is that God may posess foreknowledge but that it is limited, in which case, He still does not know everything and is therefore, not omniscient.
The existence of free will provides that the future is changeable, and it is impossible to have definite knowledge of the future if it is not fixed.Moreover, if the future is not set in stone, then any knowledge God posesses of the future must only be of a possible future, as the future can be changed. The implication of this is that God may posess foreknowledge but that it is limited, in which case, He still does not know everything and is therefore, not omniscient.
Provides that the future is changeable? That is not what free will is. Free will allows that one can/could choose freely between choices and the future is not a choice. The future is the result of those choices.
What you are stating is that these choices are forced but in order for them to be forced, they would have to be initially selected by force. Which if that were the case, you would be right.
However, it isnt.
Omniscence does not affect free will. Knowing all means knowing the results of free will.
Originally posted by clickclick
Provides that the future is changeable? That is not what free will is. Free will allows that one can/could choose freely between choices and the future is not a choice. The future is the result of those choices.What you are stating is that these choices are forced but in order for them to be forced, they would have to be initially selected by force. Which if that were the case, you would be right.
However, it isnt.
Omniscence does not affect free will. Knowing all means knowing the results of free will.
free will n. The ability or discretion to make free choices that are unconstrained by external circumnstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
If the future is not changeable, then it is fixed. If the future is fixed, then choices are predetermined. If choices are predetermined, then they are not free.
It is not my argument that if choices are not free, then they are forced. That is your assumption. It is my argument that omniscience is an external agent which constrains the ability to make free choices.
free will n. The ability or discretion to make free choices that are unconstrained by external circumnstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.If the future is not changeable, then it is fixed. If the future is fixed, then choices are predetermined. If choices are predetermined, then they are not free.
It is not my argument that if choices are not free, then they are forced. That is your assumption. It is my argument that omniscience is an external agent which constrains the ability to make free choices.
Yes, this is neither divine will or fate that his being discussed here. The future doesnt exist to us, so there is nothing to be fixed. Fixed by whom anyway? After you commit an action or make a choice, that point in time was the future to the past.
Again, nobody is saying that choices are predetermining by some force or power. The choices are of the people and in being omniscent, they are known.
Do you contend that one could not have free will and yet not be forced?
Originally posted by clickclick
Yes, this is neither divine will or fate that his being discussed here. The future doesnt exist to us, so there is nothing to be fixed. Fixed by whom anyway? After you commit an action or make a choice, that point in time was the future to the past.Again, nobody is saying that choices are predetermining by some force or power. The choices are of the people and in being omniscent, they are known.
Do you contend that one could not have free will and yet not be forced?
Nowhere in the definition of "free will" does it state that the agents that constrain free will are limited to fate and divine will:
free will n. The ability or discretion to make free choices that are unconstrained by external circumnstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
Tangental arguments such as, "who predetermines one's choices," are not particularly relevant to the discussion because they do not address the impossibilty of the co-existence omniscience and free will:
If the future is not changeable, then it is fixed. If the future is fixed, then choices are predetermined. If choices are predetermined, then they are not free.
Tangental arguments such as, "who predetermines one's choices," are not particularly relevant to the discussion because they do not address the impossibilty of the co-existence omniscience and free will:
Purporting that something is impossible does not make it so.
If the future is not changeable, then it is fixed. If the future is fixed, then choices are predetermined. If choices are predetermined, then they are not free.
Again. What future? Does it exist? Is a choice between something and the future or between things ?
The future is the result of the present, nothing was fixed. Nothing to change. Choices were not predetermined by one, they were made by people and known by God.
Originally posted by clickclick
Purporting that something is impossible does not make it so.
The contrapositive of this statement is also true. I have illustrated that omniscience and free will can not both exist as the existence of one negates the existence of the other. All you have done is regurgitated, "It does not."
Originally posted by clickclick
Again. What future? Does it exist? Is a choice between something and the future or between things ?The future is the result of the present, nothing was fixed. Nothing to change. Choices were not predetermined by one, they were made by people and known by God.
There can be no result of a choice until a choice has been made. Likewise, if the future is the result of choices that have not been made, then the future does not exist until those choices have been made. This reinforces that foreknowledge is impossible and that omniscience does not exist.
The contrapositive of this statement is also true. I have illustrated that omniscience and free will can not both exist as the existence of one negates the existence of the other. All you have done is regurgitated, "It does not."
OF course you think you "illustrated" that but clearly your arguing tactic was faulty.
There can be no result of a choice until a choice has been made. Likewise, if the future is the result of choices that have not been made, then the future does not exist until those choices have been made. This reinforces that foreknowledge is impossible and that omniscience does not exist.
Theoretically there can be. Secondly, as past, present and future God is in more than one time and place. He has always been. The future is the result of choices that WERE made, not choices that have yet to be made. You cant have a future without progression in time.
Foreknowledge is clearly not logically impossible, likewise with omniscence. As much as you would like it to be, you havent demonstrated it.
The fact remains that choices ARE made and this present is the future to the past. God being in the past present and future knows all things. He knows the future even before you do. God isnt constrained to only being in the present. Choices made now create the future.
As much as you want to say that a decision should remain unpredictable so long as there is free will, that isnt actually correct. Unpredictable to other people they are but not to one who has already seen you make them.
Originally posted by clickclick
OF course you think you "illustrated" that but clearly your arguing tactic was faulty.
And yet you have not been able to disprove the argument:
If the future is not changeable, then it is fixed. If the future is fixed, then choices are predetermined. If choices are predetermined, then they are not free.
Originally posted by clickclick
Theoretically there can be. Secondly, as past, present and future God is in more than one time and place. He has always been. The future is the result of choices that WERE made, not choices that have yet to be made. You cant have a future without progression in time.
Foreknowledge is clearly not logically impossible, likewise with omniscence. As much as you would like it to be, you havent demonstrated it.
The present is the result of choices that WERE made, not the future.
Originally posted by clickclick
The fact remains that choices ARE made and this present is the future to the past. God being in the past present and future knows all things. He knows the future even before you do. God isnt constrained to only being in the present. Choices made now create the future.
I thought the future is the result of choices that WERE made, past tense? Now you are saying that the future is the result of choices that are made now, present tense. You seem to be unable to make up your mind.
Originally posted by clickclick
As much as you want to say that a decision should remain unpredictable so long as there is free will, that isnt actually correct. Unpredictable to other people they are but not to one who has already seen you make them.
If one has free will, his choices are not fixed. If choices are not fixed, then they are unpredictable. If God can foresee one's choices, they are not unpredictable. If choices are not unpredictable, then they are fixed. If choices are fixed, then they are not free.
I thought the future is the result of choices that WERE made, past tense? Now you are saying that the future is the result of choices that are made now, present tense.
Were made, from the perspective of the future. Are made, from our perspective looking to the future. Cant make up my mind? Sure.....
Disprove your argument? There was never any validity to it. The future does not exist to us, its not about changing anything. Its about the choices that are made now, that impact that future. A future that most certainly will exist and one that God has already seen as he already exists in it. This concept isnt difficult and I grow tired of hearing your same argument repeated. You are wrong but for the sake of everyone, I will just agree to disagree.
Originally posted by clickclick
Were made, from the perspective of the future. Are made, from our perspective looking to the future. Cant make up my mind? Sure.....
Once one is in the future, it becomes the present. Therefore, one cannot look "from the perspective of the future".
Originally posted by clickclick
Disprove your argument? There was never any validity to it. The future does not exist to us, its not about changing anything. Its about the choices that are made now, that impact that future. A future that most certainly will exist and one that God has already seen as he already exists in it. This concept isnt difficult and I grow tired of hearing your same argument repeated. You are wrong but for the sake of everyone, I will just agree to disagree.
"A > B; B > C; C > D" not valid? The principles logic do not seem to agree with you.
Once one is in the future, it becomes the present. Therefore, one cannot look "from the perspective of the future".
Wrong. I would not identify the future to the present, as the present. This was never a matter of what constitutes the present. Therefore nothing.
"A > B; B > C; C > D" not valid? The principles logic do not seem to agree with you.
The principles of logic? 🙄
Originally posted by clickclick
Wrong. I would not identify the future to the present, as the present. This was never a matter of what constitutes the present. Therefore nothing.The principles of logic? 🙄
The argument I presented is composed of simple conditional statements. If you had a basic understanding of logic, you would know that "A > B; B > C; C > D" is a valid argument. 🙄
If A, then B; If B, then C; If C, then D. If it is erroneous then prove it.
Your argument is that if one has free will, it is impossible to know what they will choose. But, simply stating that doesnt make it right. Logically it is incorrect.
Ive given you numerous oppurtunities to explain how knowing deters from somebodies ability to have a choice. You of course incorrectly argued that the person could not do the opposite of what is known. But what is the basis for what is known? Obviously the choice so, clearly your argument is errenous. Beyond the fact that it is flat out misleading because a choice doesnt occur between foreknowledge and something else. The choice or selections is between selections.
Foreknowledge does not make anyone doing anything.
Ill give you another chance to explain how knowing ahead of time means that one did not have a choice.
Originally posted by clickclick
Your argument is that if one has free will, it is impossible to know what they will choose. But, simply stating that doesnt make it right. Logically it is incorrect.Ive given you numerous oppurtunities to explain how knowing deters from somebodies ability to have a choice. You of course incorrectly argued that the person could not do the opposite of what is known. But what is the basis for what is known? Obviously the choice so, clearly your argument is errenous. Beyond the fact that it is flat out misleading because a choice doesnt occur between foreknowledge and something else. The choice or selections is between selections.
Foreknowledge does not make anyone doing anything.
Ill give you another chance to explain how knowing ahead of time means that one did not have a choice.
In other words, you cannot prove that "If A, then B; If B, then C; If C, then D" is an invalid argument.
If the choice is the basis for what is known, and it has not been made yet, then the choice cannot be known.
If choice occurs between selections, and a specific selection must be made for foreknowledge to be accurate, then no real choice is being made.
In other words, you cannot prove that "If A, then B; If B, then C; If C, then D" is an invalid argument.
From what I recall, you stated that foreknowledge with free will in existence would be logically impossible. But as I said, that argument is not a logical one.
If the choice is the basis for what is known, and it has not been made yet, then the choice cannot be known.
Thats not true. You are saying what you think foreknowledge is capable of. Yet the concept of foreknowledge is simply knowledge of something before hand. You can not conclude from that that in order for foreknowledge to be possible, one must be forced.
If choice occurs between selections, and a specific selection must be made for foreknowledge to be accurate, then no real choice is being made.
What is it that makes there a possibility of foreknowledge being inaccurate? Foreknowledge is seperate from the ability to choose and therefore they do not conflict. It is not that one had to follow what is known by foreknowledge. You are saying that if one has free will, then it can not be known what they will choose. But as ive stated before, your argument is incorrect. That is percisely what foreknowledge IS ABLE TO DO. The supposed conflict was contrived.
Originally posted by clickclick
From what I recall, you stated that foreknowledge with free will in existence would be logically impossible. But as I said, that argument is not a logical one.
Perhaps you should study Philosophy 101 because "A > B; B > C; C > D" is not only a valid argument, it is also sound.
Originally posted by clickclick
Thats not true. You are saying what you think foreknowledge is capable of. Yet the concept of foreknowledge is simply knowledge of something before hand. You can not conclude from that that in order for foreknowledge to be possible, one must be forced.
You can only have knowledge of something before hand if there is something to have knowledge of. The result of a choice does not exist until after the choice has been made, therefore there is nothing to have knowledge of before hand.
Originally posted by clickclick
What is it that makes there a possibility of foreknowledge being inaccurate? Foreknowledge is seperate from the ability to choose and therefore they do not conflict. It is not that one had to follow what is known by foreknowledge. You are saying that if one has free will, then it can not be known what they will choose. But as ive stated before, your argument is incorrect. That is percisely what foreknowledge IS ABLE TO DO. The supposed conflict was contrived.