Critical Logic Failure

[BroomJockey]

Free will, to me, means I get to choose. It really is that simple.

To you, apparently, it means that you get to choose PLUS no one *could* interfere whether they actually do or not. I very much would like to understand why it isn't instead the actual existence of interference that matters,

Okay, you want to understand why it isn't the use of the interference, rather than just the existence of the ability to interfere.

Easy. I make a choice. If that is the choice God took issue with, he goes and changes it. We can agree this situation would be me not having free will, correct? Because I am doing what God wants me to do. God can change it so that I really really wanna do the other, so even wanting to do it doesn't change the fact that I'm doing it because God said so.

Now, I make a choice. God approves of this choice, and so doesn't interfere. I'm still only doing it because God wants me to do it. It doesn't matter that I want to do it, I wanted to do it when he changed my decision too. This is just less work for God. The only reason God doesn't change a decision is if it's something he'd have changed it TO. Thus God is still making the decision either way.

If God is making the decisions, then I don't have free will.




As for your tangent about biology having an impact on free will, this is the thread addressing religion, feel free to make a new one about biology, and then we'll have a really interesting situation on our hands.

[Pedersen]

Free will, to me, means I get to choose. It really is that simple.

Hey, we happen to agree! How about that? In fact, I think I said that somewhere... let me see...

[*]Free will requires that the possessor of free will be able to make a conscious choice.

Yep. Not exactly the same words, but definitely the same meaning.

To you, apparently, it means that you get to choose PLUS no one *could* interfere whether they actually do or not.

I'm sorry, but you failed to remember what else I've said:

[*]A given human, exercising his or her free will, has sole control over the choice coming from the decision making process. Others may influence the process by discussing consequences and benefits, but the final choice is the sole purview of the human making the choice.

If others may influence, then of course they may interfere, as the two are very closely related words and can, in some cases, be used interchangeably. The only major difference is connotation, in that influence is usually viewed positively, while interference is viewed negatively.

However, the possessor of said free will must be able to control the choice that gets made. If they are unable to control their choice, then they cannot be said to have free will, can they? If they can, then please provide an explanation for how they can be said to have free will but be unable to control the choice they make.

I very much would like to understand why it isn't instead the actual existence of interference that matters, but, so far as I can tell, that is precisely what you have only said that you've explained, rather than actually explaining it.

Broom explained it, but I'll try rephrasing, since I'm hoping that one of these explanations will get through to you.

For any given choice I make, if God doesn't like it, then he must make a choice: Will he force me to do something different, or will he allow my choice to stand? He must choose whether or not to intervene to coerce me into making the choice that he approves.

At that very instant, I lose control of the outcome of my decision making process. It is not me making the choice, it is God.

It doesn't even matter if he happens to be looking away at that moment, comes back 2 days later and says "Crap. I meant to make sure that Pedersen bought that hideous car the other day after what he said about me on that forum." He's omnipotent. He can go back in time and change my mind, giggling about it all the while.

Here's an analogy for you: At work, they likely use a proxy server to get you on the internet (assuming your work gives you internet access). Every web page you visit, the proxy server must evaluate whether or not to allow you to go there. Even if the proxy server is configured to allow all requests from all people in the company, the proxy server must still evaluate if you are allowed to go there.

In other words, even if it will always choose not to interfere, even if it will always do nothing, it still must choose what sites to allow you to visit. If life is the internet, God is the proxy server.

I really don't see any way to explain it more clearly.

Neither do I.

Okay, you want to understand why it isn't the use of the interference, rather than just the existence of the ability to interfere.

Good luck Broom. I sometimes think that HYBHYT is just messing with me here.

As for your tangent about biology having an impact on free will, this is the thread addressing religion, feel free to make a new one about biology, and then we'll have a really interesting situation on our hands.

Heh. We already did. It's over here.

[BroomJockey]

Heh. We already did. It's over here.

Why am I not surprised that YOU made it.

[HYHYBT]

Of course I'm not messing with you; there's no need to get insulting.

So long as a proxy server is set to always "decide" to let you see whatever you want, you really are free to do so. If it blocks certain sites, you are still free to pick from the remaining ones. If God does in fact allow us to choose only when he likes the choice, then we're not really free to do otherwise. If he decides to let us do whatever we want even if he'd rather we do otherwise, then we *are* free to do as we like.

Okay, you want to understand why it isn't the use of the interference, rather than just the existence of the ability to interfere.

Easy. I make a choice. If that is the choice God took issue with, he goes and changes it. We can agree this situation would be me not having free will, correct? Because I am doing what God wants me to do. God can change it so that I really really wanna do the other, so even wanting to do it doesn't change the fact that I'm doing it because God said so.

Here's precisely the trouble I have with this argument: it hinges on the sentence "If that is the choice God took issue with, he goes and changes it." If this sentence is false (he does not change choices he takes issue with), then none of what follows is true either. Again, you've reworded and rephrased without really even touching on how God's deciding to let you do whatever you want regardless of what he'd prefer stops you from doing so.

[Gravekeeper]

Why am I not surprised that YOU made it.

Me neither. Though I'll give him points for the term "moist robot".

[BroomJockey]

Here's precisely the trouble I have with this argument: it hinges on the sentence "If that is the choice God took issue with, he goes and changes it." If this sentence is false (he does not change choices he takes issue with), then none of what follows is true either.

God created everything, right? And before he created people? That means he knows how everything up to that point for certain. He then created people, and placed them in a system where he knew how everything would react.

No, I'm getting too complicated. This is really quite simple. Lack of exercising the ability to do something doesn't mean you don't have the ability, correct? As the admin on CS, Raps has the ability to ban people at any time. Just because he doesn't ban someone for something doesn't mean he's lost the ability to do so. Thus, it can reasonably be assumed that if someone is continually allowed to post on CS, it's at Raps's sufferance. If they did something egregious enough, that power would be exercised.

God has the ability to change a decision so thoroughly that it is indistinguishable from natural desire. Just because he doesn't do so doesn't mean he doesn't have the power. Thus, any choice you made can reasonably be assumed to be at his sufferance. If someone did something egregious enough, that power would be exercised. The only thing is, the world would never know.

[HYHYBT]

The thing is, we *agree* on everything you just said. Except for "If someone did something egregious enough, that power would be excercised," anyway, and that's purely a matter of opinion. I still see this as coming down to whether it still qualifies as "free will" if there are any possible limits to how far that freedom goes; I think it does, if the phrase has any meaning at all, since freedom of any kind has always had limits; you all seem to see it the opposite way. Not much point in continuing to talk past each other, so I'm bailing out.

[Pedersen]

Me neither. Though I'll give him points for the term "moist robot".

Nah, take the points back. Read that term some where else.

No, I'm getting too complicated. This is really quite simple. Lack of exercising the ability to do something doesn't mean you don't have the ability, correct? As the admin on CS, Raps has the ability to ban people at any time. Just because he doesn't ban someone for something doesn't mean he's lost the ability to do so. Thus, it can reasonably be assumed that if someone is continually allowed to post on CS, it's at Raps's sufferance. If they did something egregious enough, that power would be exercised.

Excellent example. Now, since HYBHYT has rejected plain English versions before, allow me to put it into something closer to a logical proof (sorry, as it turns out, the proof deviates a bit from what you said, but I think it makes the example stronger, not weaker).

• In forum software, the power exists to edit posts made by other users. Forum administrators and moderators are the sole possessors of that power. For the rest of this proof, administrators and moderators will be called "the mod team".
• Failure to exercise that power does not reduce or remove that power.
• When you make a post, that post will be read by other users of the forum, including the mod team.
• If you make a post which violates the rules of the forum, that post may be edited by the mod team to bring it into compliance.
• If they do not edit the post, this does not indicate that you have not broken the rules. It only indicates that they have not edited the post. They retain the ability to do so at any time (including years down the road).
• When editing the post, nothing stops them from editing it to be something you object to.
• Therefore, it is possible for your words to be altered in a way you would not approve of at any time, even years down the line. You do not have the ability to be sure your words will remain as you wrote them. They have the power, you do not.

The same proof is even more true for omnipotence. Here, check it out:

• God is omnipotent. He can do anything at any time.
• Failure to exercise that power does not reduce or remove that power.
• When you make a choice, God can see what that choice was.
• If you make a choice that God does not approve of, he may choose to intervene (he has promised not to do so, but he could change his mind).
• If he does not intervene, this does not indicate that he approves of the choice. it only indicates that he has not intervened. He retains the ability to do so at any time (including millenia down the road).
• When changing your choice, nothing stops him from changing it to be something you object to.
• Therefore, it is possible for your choice to be altered in a way you would not approve of at any time, even millenia down the line. You do not have the ability to be sure your choice will remain as you made it. He has the power, you do not.

As for the argument about limits on free will: Since all we are talking about is the ability to make up your own mind, if there are limits on your ability to do so, we don't really have free will, do we?

[Kalli]

No, it doesn't beg that question at all. So long as no one ever actually prevents you from being able to decide for yourself, it's irrelevant that it *could* be done. You almost might as well say that my freedom to choose whether to get lunch from Zaxby's or Captain D's tomorrow is "false" because you could, though you never would, look up my address and shoot me during the night.

You know, I was 100% with Pedersen in this debate until this point was raised and wasn't addressed.

I would really like to see you address this point, P?

[Pedersen]

I would really like to see you address this point, P?

I'll be happy to, as soon as you can explain to me two things:

1. What is this point? I simply don't see one having been made.
2. How is this point not answered by the proofs I've provided since it was made?

[BroomJockey]

I still see this as coming down to whether it still qualifies as "free will" if there are any possible limits to how far that freedom goes; I think it does

Ah, I see, we're talking actual free will. You're merely talking the appearance of free will. Free will with limits is not free. It's different than freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of movement, since it's supposedly divinely granted, whereas the others are given by mortals. Of course anything given by mortals has limits, since mortals are ourselves limited. No wonder you don't agree, you're arguing something else. You're arguing whether the appearance of free will is the same as actual free will.

[Kalli]

I'll be happy to, as soon as you can explain to me two things:

Sure thing, bear in mind that the reason I'm keen for your answer is because I wholeheartedly agree with your argument, so please don't think I'm being nitpicky.

1. What is this point? I simply don't see one having been made.

The point, as I understand it, is that if you submit that free will is undermined by God's ability to change any willful decision by a person, does that not then mean that since anyone can come along and shoot you/steal your car/blow up the local restaurant you were going to go to etc, then free will as you describe it can't even actually exist at all?

(Interestingly, even if what I said there is true, it still points to a critical logic failure in Christianity, doesn't it :P)

2. How is this point not answered by the proofs I've provided since it was made?

Because subsequent proofs provided don't address the question of whether or not just about anything can undermine free will.

[Pedersen]

The point, as I understand it, is that if you submit that free will is undermined by God's ability to change any willful decision by a person, does that not then mean that since anyone can come along and shoot you/steal your car/blow up the local restaurant you were going to go to etc, then free will as you describe it can't even actually exist at all?

Actually, no, it doesn't mean that in the least. If humans have free will (and we've gone through the proofs above that show they do not), then two people can make contradictory choices. The fact that the actions of one person remove the ability of another to follow through on that choice does not negate the ability of the second person to have made a choice.

In other words, to use the original example: If I make a choice as to where I will eat lunch tomorrow, and you kill me before I either (a) complete my choice or (b) manage to eat lunch, that does not remove my ability to have made a choice. It only removes my ability to act on it.

Since God is omnipotent, he actually removes my ability to make a choice.

[Kalli]

Actually, no, it doesn't mean that in the least. <snip>

Since God is omnipotent, he actually removes my ability to make a choice.

Ah I see what you're saying.

To offer my opinion on the subject, I'm with the camp that say omnipotence, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist as we define them.

However, having said this, my opinion and anyone else's for that matter on this subject are more likely than most to be totally incorrect, seeing as omnipotence and omniscience are things that we cannot fathom as humans. Debating the original point of this thread is entirely dependent on the definition of those 3 terms, which are very subjective. How can we universally define something we can't even wrap our heads around?

It's important to also remember that God didn't write the bible. People wrote the bible. It's words should not be taken with as high a regard as they are, and people should stop being so surprised that it contains contradictory rules and some good old-fashioned bullshit.

[Gravekeeper]

Seeing as omnipotence and omniscience are things that we cannot fathom as humans.

They're pretty easy to fathom. It's quantum physics that's hard. -.-

Debating the original point of this thread is entirely dependent on the definition of those 3 terms, which are very subjective.

I don't see them as subjective at all to be honest. Both terms are extremely clear in their meaning. Its people in the thread that are trying to debate the terms to undermine Pederson's argument.

It's important to also remember that God didn't write the bible. People wrote the bible.

Yep, and man has that thing been rewritten, edited and translated to death to fit people's agendas over the centuries.

Fun fact: many Muslims believe the Bible to be a flawed or tainted book because its been altered so much by people.



I <3 this thread but I don't believe in God(tm) or true free will so I feel left out. -.-