Critical Logic Failure

[Bright Star]

Kind of makes you wonder why God threw out Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit if he already knew it was going to have happened. Why punish them for doing something you didn't want them to do if you knew ages before that they were going to do it?

[BroomJockey]

Why punish them for doing something you didn't want them to do if you knew ages before that they were going to do it?

Here's what'll really bake your noodle later: God created the snake, too.

[Gravekeeper]

Kind of makes you wonder why God threw out Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit if he already knew it was going to have happened. Why punish them for doing something you didn't want them to do if you knew ages before that they were going to do it?

Easy! None of that actually happened and its just another creation myth. ^^

[Flyndaran]

Free will itself is a rather religious concept. Scientifically, we are products of our environments, biology, and random interactions between them. Saying that there is something outside of those that can affect them but is not part of them is not very rational.

[Kalli]

Easy! None of that actually happened and its just another creation myth. ^^

This.

It's horrible when these debates come up, because they're fantastic for argument, but my my own admission, I'm simply incapable of seeing any point of view other than "It's all bullshit, for fucks sake" as valid.

Regarding the subjectivity, GK, I beg to differ. Does free will mean that nobody COULD change your mind, or that nobody WILL change your mind?

[BroomJockey]

Does free will mean that nobody COULD change your mind, or that nobody WILL change your mind?

That's back to "appearance" vs. "actual" free will. If someone can but doesn't, you've the appearance, if no one CAN, that's actual.

[Kalli]

That's back to "appearance" vs. "actual" free will. If someone can but doesn't, you've the appearance, if no one CAN, that's actual.

Is it?

If only an omnipotent being has the ability to change your mind, and that same being (being omnipotent) has the ability to never use that power no matter what, does that not amount to the same thing?

If we're talking about omnipotence, you can't just discount the fact that such a being would have the ability to say with 100% unmitigated certainty that every person's will is free.

This is what I mean by subjectivity, when an omnipotent being is thrown into the equation, everything becomes subjective.

I have mentioned my rotten inability to articulate my meaning before, I hope you're following what I'm saying :S



Cliffnotes: It's just as valid to say that "if an omnipotent being says there is free will, there is" as it is to say "If there is an omnipotent being, free will can't exist".



Having said that of course, I don't even slightly believe in the possibility (let alone existence) of an omnipotent being. This point is academic to me.

[Kimmik]

I see it like this...

God is the author of a create your own adventure world... god knows every out come of every decision. He knows what is what can be and what will be.

How ever for his own amusement he has decided to give us free will. He can see every path that our choices or lack of choices go down.

heck if he wanted to he could just have a bunch of mindless worshiping robots. But instead he gave man free will because he wanted man to be able to make their own calls. Right or wrong...

I see the future as an limitless unknown... there are many paths that exist at the moment a decision has to be made. God can see all of them... he knows all of them but he waits till our choice is made to set a path in stone.

[Pedersen]

If only an omnipotent being has the ability to change your mind, and that same being (being omnipotent) has the ability to never use that power no matter what, does that not amount to the same thing?

Most emphatically it is not the same thing. Let's try a different tactic to explain why omnipotence is the only thing that matters, and even outright refusal to use the power of omnipotence still blocks free will.

I actually am, in real life, a computer programmer. One of the tasks we engage in is writing something called pseudo-code. This is used to describe the steps taken to perform an action. If I were to write the way that omnipotence works and removes free will, it would look something like this:

set going_to_interfere to false # god has promised never to interfere with our choices

function omnipotent_interference(): # The god factor
  if going_to_interfere:
    return true
  else:
    return false

function gods_will():
  return whatever_god_wants

function evaluate_options():
  if not omnipotent_interference():
    for each option:
      if option_is_best:
        return option
  else:
    return gods_will()

function make_a_choice():
  if not omnipotent_interference():
    best_choice = evaluate_options()
    return best_choice
  else:
    return gods_will()

Note that, at every single juncture, we have to stop and ask for whether or not omnipotent_interference() is true. This happens even though we have set going_to_interfere to false. The fact that God has chosen never to interfere does not remove the fact that he can change his mind. If going_to_interfere is ever changed for any reason, then the mask of free will is completely shredded.

Now, why does omnipotent_interference() have to be checked at every step along the way? Because, if it's not, then we have a step where God cannot interfere. If he cannot interfere, then he is no longer omnipotent. As such, he must be able to interfere (since, by definition, God is omnipotent). Which means that we can only make the choices that God lets us make.

I hope this example makes it somewhat more clear.

If we're talking about omnipotence, you can't just discount the fact that such a being would have the ability to say with 100% unmitigated certainty that every person's will is free.

Yep, he sure could. And in so doing, he would cease to be omnipotent, since he could no longer do anything. Really, it's not as complex as you make it out to be.

If God is omnipotent, he can do anything. Free will is gone. If God guarantees free will, then he is no longer omnipotent.

Claiming that the words are subjective when they are actually very well defined, though? I'll say this: This is the last post which makes such outrageous claims that I will dignify with a response.

People are now trying to change the meaning of the words, or change what is being debated (cf: "actual free will" vs "apparent free will"), and I'm tired of debating that. If someone wishes to show how an omnipotent being can exist and humans can still have actual free will, go for it. Outside of that, don't expect much from me.

[Gravekeeper]

As I said already, I don't believe the terms are objective at all. They're pretty clear. So I'm with Pederson on this. I don't think I've seen someone logically tackle his argument yet. I've only seen attempts at redefining the factors of the argument to undermine it. Resulting in Pederson having to come up with yet another example to try and get through to them. >.>

[Kalli]

OK, your explanation and programming comparison have me convinced about the definition of omnipotence, Pederson, very well said. You're quite right; I was taking the debate way past where the point was already proven, and complicating it until a hole appeared.

GK, you should know I'm not here to undermine P's argument at all, I genuinely wanted him to argue my points and that he has done. Unnecessarily insinuating that I'm either a jerk or an idiot simply for being on the losing side of a debate is kind of disappointing, coming from you.

[Gravekeeper]

GK, you should know I'm not here to undermine P's argument at all, I genuinely wanted him to argue my points and that he has done. Unnecessarily insinuating that I'm either a jerk or an idiot simply for being on the losing side of a debate is kind of disappointing, coming from you.

Excuse me? I made no such insituations whatsoever and I was speaking about the entire thread in general. If I was referring to you, I would say so.

[Kalli]

If that's the case, then I apologise. It just seemed to me that from

As I said already, I don't believe the terms are subjective at all. They're pretty clear.

As I was the one suggesting the terms were subjective, and

I've only seen attempts at redefining the factors of the argument to undermine it. Resulting in Pederson having to come up with yet another example to try and get through to them. >.>

As this was right below Pederson's post making an example to get his point through to me, pretty much pointed to you talking to me.

[Pedersen]

Sorry, Kimmik, I didn't see your post until now.

God is the author of a create your own adventure world... god knows every out come of every decision. He knows what is what can be and what will be.

You're discussing omniscience, which has already been shown to be irrelevant. See this post, this post, and this post.

Free will itself is a rather religious concept. Scientifically, we are products of our environments, biology, and random interactions between them. Saying that there is something outside of those that can affect them but is not part of them is not very rational.

Flyn, we've got the non-monotheistic version of the debate over here. Go for it.

[Gravekeeper]

If that's the case, then I apologise. It just seemed to me that from

As I was the one suggesting the terms were subjective, and

As this was right below Pederson's post making an example to get his point through to me, pretty much pointed to you talking to me.

Everyone is basically arguing them subjectively and Pederson is on what, page 9 of his examples? heh. I wasn't insinuating anything, just summing up the thread.

Believe me if I think someone's an idiot, I have a variety of creative terms prepared to elaborate my point <cough>