But since I don't exist yet, I'm going to argue that it can't be because I chose to.
That doesn't make any sense. By that logic, you can't perform X since you don't exist yet.
So once again, why do you do X?
That's like asking the girl why she had sex with me isn't it.
Her answer would be the same as mine. "Because I was created to."
In my dream, but before I create her, she doesn't actually or temporally exist = In God's vision, but before he creates me, I don't actually or temporally exist.
Does she have free will in my dream? = Do I have free will in God's vision?
If I create reality exactly like my dream, and now she exists, does she have sex with me of her own free will? = If God creates a reality exactly like his vision, and now I exist, do I do X of my own free will?
I argue that no, the girl in my dream does not have free will, she is, after all, merely a fantasy (something you already agreed with).
So if I create a reality that is exactly like my dream, although the girl may now actually exist, she still lacks free will, she has sex with me because I created her to.
Now, if you want to argue that I had free will in God's vision, in spite of not actually existing, fine, lets debate that.
But then that logic also applies to the girl, seeing as in this scenario, what is true for God is also true for me. She must have had free will in my dream.
Does she have free will in my dream? = Do I have free will in God's vision?
No, she's a sex fantasy. She's like a stick figure, way more anatomically correct, but the same principle applies: She can't do anything outside of what you will her to do. She's an image in your own mind.
Now, were we in a universe without free will, the two might be considered analogous. However, you have not demonstrated that we are. And saying one equals the other is begging the question: you have to demonstrate that we don't have free will. Saying, "I can create images in my mind and they don't have free will," doesn't cut it. I can image human beings with gills. Doesn't mean all humans have gills.
So if I create a reality that is exactly like my dream, although the girl may now actually exist, she still lacks free will, she has sex with me because I created her to.
Yeah, exactly, because she's an image born out of your sexual desires. That's it. You haven't imbued her with an independent will and personality of her own.
If you did that, mind you, she would have free will.
But since I don't exist yet, I'm going to argue that it can't be because I chose to.
That doesn't make any sense. By that logic, you can't perform X since you don't exist yet.
So once again, why do you do X?
That's like asking the girl why she had sex with me isn't it.
Her answer would be the same as mine. "Because I was created to."
You haven't been created yet.
Why do you perform X?
If we are talking about the "me" that <at this point only exists in God's mind> (and hasnt actually been created yet) then I do X because that's God's fantasy.
Just like the dreamgirl has sex with me, inside the dream, because that's my fantasy. She isn't acting on free will in the dream.
Does she have free will in my dream? = Do I have free will in God's vision?
No, she's a sex fantasy. She's like a stick figure, way more anatomically correct, but the same principle applies: She can't do anything outside of what you will her to do. She's an image in your own mind.
Precisely, and I too would just be an image inside God's mind.
Now, were we in a universe without free will, the two might be considered analogous. However, you have not demonstrated that we are. And saying one equals the other is begging the question: you have to demonstrate that we don't have free will. Saying, "I can create images in my mind and they don't have free will," doesn't cut it. I can image human beings with gills. Doesn't mean all humans have gills.
You are right, I have not demonstrated that we are in a universe without free will. At no point have I even tried to demonstrate that.
For one, I believe we do have free will.
Second, I am only arguing that Free Will is incompatible with the premise of a creator God with infallible foreknowledge.
Furthermore, you're again dodging the point (and not even cleverly).
We WOULD be in a world where humans had gills if you (1) First imagined that they did, and then (2) Created the world to match your imagination.
So if I create a reality that is exactly like my dream, although the girl may now actually exist, she still lacks free will, she has sex with me because I created her to.
Yeah, exactly. Because you haven't imbued her with an independent will of her own.
If you did that, mind you, she would have free will.
You have yet to prove, or even support that God did imbue us with a will of our own.
You assert that he did, but you have not showed any actual support for that asserion.
The claim that God gave us Free Will is a positive claim, one in which for the sake of this argument, I disbelieve without good reason. Show me that good reason.
I am not asserting that he didn't, only that it's possible he didn't, and/or that given the premises a will of of our is incompatible. I am only arguing that Fatalism in a strict sense, might be right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
That's not what would happen. A capacity is just that: a capacity. As in, the amount that would stay alive. If there are thirteen billion people on the planet, but the capacity is only twelve billion, one billion people will die, not the entire species. Hell, most species are at the maximum capacity for their environments most of the time. Competition for scarce resources is a major selection pressure, and any trait that would limit population growth is strongly selected against - individuals with the trait find their offspring "crowded out" by the offspring of those that don't. So if God is interested in running the human race according to the same natural order by which other species operate, he shouldn't have any problem with letting people breed like rabbits until they hit capacity, and then letting the excess starve. Nature just sucks that way.
Except that in actuality there is currently enough resources on the planet to feed all the animals that currently are alive, as well as all of the humans that are currently alive on the planet, and to never have anyone wanting for anything. The fact of the matter is that the only reason scarcity exists is because there are people who want more than they actually need, and as such they are the limiting factor on the environment.
It's not that they misinterpret Satan's role, it's that Satan as a character changed over the history of Judaism. Satan was originally an angel of the Heavenly Host, who served as an accuser for humanity but was, nevertheless, an angel.
Overtime the tradition of Satan being a fallen angel and embodiment of evil came about as apocalyptic ideas developed.
It is purely human Dogma and Doctrine that says that Satan's role has changed. And you are wrong, Judaism still holds that Satan is part of God's Court. It is purely a Christian Construct that Satan has become something that represents Evil in this world, not a Judaic one.
Also, only God knows what Satan's role in all of this happens to be. I am not saying that Demons/Fallen Angels don't exist... I am just saying that I doubt that they exist in the way that we were led to believe that they exist by Christian Doctrine.
Are YOU God? Do YOU presume to tell me what is and is not a necessary condition of human life and the survival of the human species?
Since you just did. Additionally, I did not tell God, I told you. Unless your claim is that you are God? One would guess it is the way you're handing out edicts about how some people must be killed.
I do not condone Murder. I would never be in favor of killing another human being in cold blood. What I am arguing is that the natural process of dying, or dying because of disease, or other natural causes is acceptable because it keeps the population in check.
I do not support the premeditated murder of individuals in anyway.
If I dream of a girl that doesn't actually exist, and in my dream she has sex with me - then, AFTER I wake up, I create my dream exactly as a reality - does she have sex with me of her own free will?
My answer is NO.
We are God's dream made real. That is all. There is no free will there.
You are defining Omniscience too narrowly. In your definition there is only one possible path that our decisions can ever take. Thus there is only one Future. I personally however prefer to think of time as a "Timey Wimey Ball". Anyways, in my opinion God can see all possible futures and make informed guesses about what we are going to do based on that, but he doesn't necessarily know for certain what actions we are going to take until after we have taken those actions. Thus we can have free will despite his having Omniscience.
(by the way, that video makes a whole lot more sense when viewed with the other half of the conversation going along side it).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
IcecreamMan80, Highroller is saying what if instead of imagining a girl that what's to have sex with you because you want her too, you imagined a girl that wanted to have sex with you because SHE wanted too? What if you imagined that she thought about it long and hard and was really internally torn about the whole idea, but finally after long deliberation she decided it was the best course of action for her.
Maybe even threw in a coin toss you don't have control over, or some Quantum Fluctuations.
BTW, I don't believe in Free Will either, but I understand the definition that Highroller is working with and I'd like to make sure we're all on the same page.
I do not condone Murder. I would never be in favor of killing another human being in cold blood. What I am arguing is that the natural process of dying, or dying because of disease, or other natural causes is acceptable because it keeps the population in check.
I do not support the premeditated murder of individuals in anyway.
I did not say you did.
You have declared that God feels some kinds of human suffering is necessarily. You have declared on God's behalf that human deaths are necessary.
Why do you feel you understand the mind of God? What justification do you have for making declarations on His behalf?
More to the point,
Your kind of thinking leads to erroneous conclusions that it would be a waste of time and money to try and fix things like AIDS and hurricanes, since it leads to the conclusion they are necessary and part of 'God's plan.' Why feel bad about, or try to stop, human suffering if it's part of some greater good? Why build asteroid defenses when God will either kill us or not if He wills? Why bother doing anything, really? You might just stuck working on some problem that God does not want anyone to solve, while someone else might get lucky and work on a problem God wants him to solve. You'll end up wasting your life if you try.
The kind of thinking that some problems are 'unsolvable,' and some suffering is 'inevitable,' does nothing but stifle human achievement. The answer "because God likes it that way" does nothing but hold us back from figuring out the real reason.
IcecreamMan80, Highroller is saying what if instead of imagining a girl that what's to have sex with you because you want her too, you imagined a girl that wanted to have sex with you because SHE wanted too? What if you imagined that she thought about it long and hard and was really internally torn about the whole idea, but finally after long deliberation she decided it was the best course of action for her.
Maybe even threw in a coin toss you don't have control over, or some Quantum Fluctuations.
BTW, I don't believe in Free Will either, but I understand the definition that Highroller is working with and I'd like to make sure we're all on the same page.
Do any characters in my dream that don't actually exist have ANY agency at all? Can a figment of my imagination (not to be confused with schizophrenia) have a will of it's own?
I'd answer no, but you are welcome to argue for "yes" if you want to.
Also,
I do believe in free will, so I'm not sure what you mean by "either".
I believe we have free will because I believe we act on our own discretion, and not constrained by fate, or divine will, in accordance with the definition I posted earlier.
Free Will:
Noun - The power of acting without the constraint of necessity, fate, or divine will; the ability to act at one's own discretion. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Do any characters in my dream that don't actually exist have ANY agency at all? Can a figment of my imagination (not to be confused with schizophrenia) have a will of it's own?
I'd answer no, but you are welcome to argue for "yes" you want to.
Well, I've talked ot a bunch of people about how they believe in free will, and it seems to boiled down to "complexity."
I explained that I was no more in control of my actions than a car was. My internal workings were dictated by my DNA, which I did not pick, and my thoughts and choices all originated from outside of me. My knowledge comes from outside, my inner workings come from my DNA, and thus my output is a combination of those things. So, I said, how is that different from a car? It is the internal parts of the car that make it go, just like me, but it is the external forces that really dictate its movements, just like me.
They told me that a car is less complex. That a car can't mull things over and can't have internal conflicts.
So, what if this imaginary girl was VERY complex? What if she had a large IQ and had internal conflicts about what she should or should not do with regards to you? What if I imagined her with all of the intricacies I--myself--have? More even? If she is exactly like(or better than) me in this "thinking" regard, why would I have free will and her not?
Do any characters in my dream that don't actually exist have ANY agency at all? Can a figment of my imagination (not to be confused with schizophrenia) have a will of it's own?
I'd answer no, but you are welcome to argue for "yes" you want to.
Well, I've talked ot a bunch of people about how they believe in free will, and it seems to boiled down to "complexity."
That's not the definition of Free Will I would hang my hat on.
I explained that I was no more in control of my actions than a car was. My internal workings were dictated by my DNA, which I did not pick, and my thoughts and choices all originated from outside of me. My knowledge comes from outside, my inner workings come from my DNA, and thus my output is a combination of those things. So, I said, how is that different from a car? It is the internal parts of the car that make it go, just like me, but it is the external forces that really dictate its movements, just like me.
They told me that a car is less complex. That a car can't mull things over and can't have internal conflicts.
Depends on if you consider the driver an external or internal part.
After all, a car without a driver stays still.
(a remote controlled car has a "driver" too)
So, what if this imaginary girl was VERY complex? What if she had a large IQ and had internal conflicts about what she should or should not do with regards to you? What if I imagined her with all of the intricacies I--myself--have? More even? If she is exactly like(or better than) me in this "thinking" regard, why would I have free will and her not?
She'd be complex because I dreamed her to be.
She'd be intelligent because I dreamed her to be.
She'd be intricate because I dreamed her to be.
...and when I later create her exactly as I dreamed, the reason she is those things change not.
And it isn't just her. In my dream we meet at the bar in the Hilton, she asks me to her room, and we share a bottle of Riesling before we romp furiously.
There is a Hilton because I dream there to be one.
She's at the bar in the Hilton because I dream her to be there.
She invites me to her room because I dream her to.
There is Riesling because I dream there is Riesling.
We share that bottle because I dream we share it.
We furiously romp because I dream we do.
...and when I later create The Hilton, the bar, the Riesling, the bed, the sheets, the GIRL, the reason for those things changes not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Depends on if you consider the driver an external or internal part.
After all, a car without a driver stays still.
The car's inner working drive it forward. The engine causes it to move, and the engine is a part of it.
But, both I and the car need external input to move. Without food I stay still.
And it isn't just her. In my dream we meet at the bar in the Hilton, she asks me to her room, and we share a bottle of Riesling before we romp furiously.
There is a Hilton because I dream there to be one.
She's at the bar in the Hilton because I dream her to be there.
She invites me to her room because I dream her to.
There is Riesling because I dream there is Riesling.
We share that bottle because I dream we share it.
We furiously romp because I dream we do.
...and when I later create The Hilton, the bar, the Riesling, the bed, the sheets, the GIRL, the reason for those things changes not.
Yeah, but in my example you are dreaming HER to make those choices, you are not dreaming yourself making those choices.
I assure you, IcecreamMan80, all of what I am today can be traced back to something outside of me; from the food I eat, to the schooling I got, to my DNA, to gravity holding the man down. Nature and Nurture made me the man I am today and I had no control over either.
Yet, you say I have free will and this complex imaginary person who I've imagined with their own hopes and dreams does not?
Depends on if you consider the driver an external or internal part.
After all, a car without a driver stays still.
The car's inner working drive it forward. The engine causes it to move, and the engine is a part of it.
But, both I and the car need external input to move. Without food I stay still.
And it isn't just her. In my dream we meet at the bar in the Hilton, she asks me to her room, and we share a bottle of Riesling before we romp furiously.
There is a Hilton because I dream there to be one.
She's at the bar in the Hilton because I dream her to be there.
She invites me to her room because I dream her to.
There is Riesling because I dream there is Riesling.
We share that bottle because I dream we share it.
We furiously romp because I dream we do.
...and when I later create The Hilton, the bar, the Riesling, the bed, the sheets, the GIRL, the reason for those things changes not.
Yeah, but in my example you are dreaming HER to make those choices, you are not dreaming yourself making those choices.
I assure you, IcecreamMan80, all of what I am today can be traced back to something outside of me; from the food I eat, to the schooling I got, to my DNA, to gravity holding the man down. Nature and Nurture made me the man I am today and I had no control over either.
Yet, you say I have free will and this complex imaginary person who I've imagined with their own hopes and dreams does not?
Did you NOT read the definition of Free Will I am using?
Noun - The power of acting without the constraint of necessity, fate, or divine will; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
None of the things you describe (dna, parents had sex, etc.) are equivalent to necessity, fate, or divine will.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Did you NOT read the definition of Free Will I am using?
Noun - The power of acting without the constraint of necessity, fate, or divine will; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
None of the things you describe (dna, parents had sex, etc.) are equivalent to necessity, fate, or divine will.
Really? How do you define "fate" then? Seems to me everything I described would fall under the "fate" category. Luck, fate, random chance, destiny, whatever you want to call it it certainly wasn't my 'will' doing it, free or otherwise.
Your wrong. 100%. This is facts. Its not a time bar. I didn't state that time moved in any direction. Time is a measurment of an already existing universe. Either the universe exists and time measures it OR the universe is being created as we speak along the line of time.
See, the problem is those two things mean exactly the same thing.
See, the problem is those two things mean exactly opposite.
They do not. The universe is "moving along the line of time," as it were, because that is what time measures. These two ideas are not incompatible. In fact, that's precisely what time is.
Let me put it this way. If god made the universe then the future is just as set in stone as the past. Reason being "If god made the universe...." then that HAS to mean "he made the begining and the end of the universe". It doesn't say that he made "part of the universe" as thats impossible. I am not saying that free will can't exist. I"m saying that free will cannot exist in a situation where an omnipotent being created the universe.
If god made the universe. Then he has the vantage point of being "outside" time. Time has no meaning for him.
No, time would still have meaning for him just as height, width, and depth would. They simply don't measure him. That doesn't mean they wouldn't apply to anything in creation, which is what you're trying to argue.
Saying time would not be relevant to us is incorrect. God being able to see all of space at once does not mean we are not bound to a specific position in space at any given time, just as we exist in a specific point in time at any given time.
Let me say this differently. He created every specific moment in time from the begining to the end of the universe. Thats what it means to have created the universe. He created/creates/will create EVERY second of my life. In what way would that mean I have any control?
Though I guess again I should note this only applies to an omnipotent creator rather than an atheist explanation.
Choose a number between 1 and 10. I'll continue to the next part when you respond.
Alright. Am I supposed to tell you what it is?
Essentially. I'm not giong to predict your choice or anything. But for the sake of the experiment it doesn't matter so long as you chose a number.
Now was it your free will that you chose that number? Was it chance? Well if god created the universe then he crafted that moment in time. If he created you choosing that number is that still your free will? Is it still your free will that it was pre-destined to be chosen? If you say that is still free will then you and I do not agree at ALL what free will is and there is little piont to continue. Free will is only there if I can truely choose whatever outcome I want. If god made the universe then he created the universe, myself and every situation I'll ever be in. If there isn't an omnipotent being then free will opens itself up.
Do we have a choice if there is only one destiny?
Of course. Just because only one outcome results does not mean only one outcome could have resulted. That's part-and-parcel with free will. It doesn't matter if only one thing comes about, it matters whether or not choice was involved when that one thing came about.
And I don't agree at all. I do not agree that it was my choice if its already pre-determined. You and I shall have to simply dissagree on the definition and range of what free will is. You seem to think that it doesn't matter if god created the universe because this "choice" that you made is still free will. However my view of the exact same situation that I think we agree on the specifics of, is not free will if there is a higher crafter involved.
If there is only one true destination and every choice you think "you" will make is actually already pre-determined?
It remains irrelevant whether God sees my actions "before" I do them.
Not if he crafted them. Either god crafts your actions or he doesn't. If he does then no free will. If he doesn't then we have free will. However I'm arguing form the premis that god created the universe. We are the universe. Ergo god created us and everything we did.
If there isn't a god then yes free will can exist within certain limitations.
You are either confused or an idiot. Your trying to tell me I'm an idiot for something you are confused about. You've done this tactic several times already in this thread. You don't understand the topic or how its relevant because of your narrowed(incorrect) view.
Everything happens and thus an infinite number of universes are created. Why are you in this particular universe at this particular time? ITs because your current "self" chose this path.
No it's not. It cannot be said that I chose this path because there exists every other scenario somewhere else in the multiverse. A choice is as much defined by what one does not do as what one does. I cannot be said to choose not to eat french toast if I have, by virtue of the multiverse, chosen to eat french toast.
Like your number argument. I cannot be said to have chosen a number if I split into ten different Highrollers choosing ten different numbers. That's the opposite of choice. It means I am powerless to choose anything because when presented with a set of potential actions, I must do all of them. Whatever current state I'm in is not based on my input, but merely randomness. This is not free will.
As I have stated. It is not free will. Also I think your somewhat confused about the multiverse theory. Prior to the event in which different possible outcomes exist there is only one universe. When the choice is presented then simultaniously you choose all of them and new universes are "created". But not in the sense that a big bang happened but that now there are more than one universe as each possiblity is explored.
Because I'm arunig from a point that "if god exists" it is an impossibility.
As Blinking said earlier, if you can argue the existence of a system in which God does not exist and there is free will, then it is possible for God to exist and that free will to remain intact.
The existence of God does not invalidate free will.
Yes it does. If there is no "crafter" of the universe then there is no omnipotent making decisions for me. If I make my own decisions that are based on chance and the accumulation of the factors at hand + statistics + chance = free will. If god exists then there are no "chances" and if there are no chances then statistics have no meaning. From there all you have are factors. Factors created and controled universally by a single omnipotent being.
IF you definition of free will is "being able to choose but always choosing what will be reguardless"
Ok, at least read this part and hear me out. Then we can decide to walk away or keep going:
I want to scrutinize your ideas of "what will be regardless."
All events of the past have been set. From our current vantage point, we can see the past, or at least the parts we were there for.
So does that mean we have no choice in the past? At t= 2:30 PM EST, March 30, 2012 did Highroller have no free will? No, at that time Highroller did. He had was making choices at that time. He's made choices every second since then.
We are, however, occupying a different position in time, and therefore we cannot make choices in the past, but we can make choices in the now, and when we get to the future, we can make choices then. At t= 2:30 PM EST, March 30, 2014, Highroller will be able to make choices then.
Similarly, we can apply this concept to position. I am no longer in my front yard. I was making choices earlier in my front yard, but I cannot do so now, because I am indoors.
As you say, time is coordinate, just like the three spatial dimensions are coordinates.
With this in mind, the fact can perceive all points in time at once and all points in space at once doesn't influence whether or not I can make a choice.
For instance, Highroller of 2014 can see what I'm going to do today. He does not violate the idea of free will because Highroller of 2014 occupies a different point in time wherein he has already done these events. But that doesn't mean I don't have free will in my current time.
Yes, obviously God can see what choices I'm going to make today. That because God occupies a point outside of time and can see everything. But that doesn't mean that God's existence means I don't have choice.
I was with you through the first parts. And I agree with them. But what you didn't mention was that god crafted the universe. You are part of the universe, not apart from it. God created you. God created you in that moment yesterday, today and tomorrow. He see's time all at once. He created the universe with this in mind. He knows now (as he can see) what you will do and not only does he KNOW what you will do, he created that moment.
Throw out the idea that each moment was created by higher intelectual power then I conceede that free will can exist. Throw in the fact that you have an all powerful being that created everything then I do not agree we have free will. If no one created us then no one has say over us. Does that make sense?
and It still doesn't run counter to them if you look at the model. Causality only works from our perspective. If were able to see time in reverse then causality also is reversed.
No, that does not follow. The glass does not fall because it is broken. It is broken because it falls. Time is not symmetrical.
On what grounds do you say time isn't symetrical? And the idea of causality only exist from our current viewpiont of time. In fact it hangs entierly on it. If you chance the perception of time then causality itself also changes.
The glass broke because it hit the floor. However if the force was reversed (something impossible to do if you consider time in a single direction) then the reversed action would be...reverse. The glass became unbroken as the energy retreated into a potential state.
If you reverse the flow of time or the perception of time as time doesnt' actually move, then almost all the laws of physics will have to be reversed. This includes rules of causality.
A question to ask I suppose it reponse is why is causality work? Why do things happen the way they do?
Its observation and eventually understanding. Then follows prediction. If things happen according to this "law" then "x" will happen. However if you change the oberservation then everything else changes.
It does work and I can prove it. If you track yourself backwards in time. Imagine you are hitting reverse in a video. Causality seems to be reversed as well. If you looked at your life in reverse what would you see? What if you never saw it otherwise?
Its not up for debate as its fact.
It is not.
Your right. I concede that its not "fact". Though its not **** i'm making up. These are real theories and real laws of physics. Thats the piont I"m getting at.
I'm trying my best not to read the pseudo-science arguments because they hurt me, but this I can't let slide:
Lol. You make me laugh.
[QUOTE=Yorutenchi;/comments/11137622]
Its not up for debate as its fact.
NOTHING--absolutely unequivocally--NOTHING in science is an unquestionable fact. The very idea is an anathema to all that science IS.
I already recanted this. You are right for fact. But there are sets of laws and reasonings that must be adhered to for the sake of arguments. The piont I was making thoug not gracefully worded was that this is in fact not "pseudo science" as you put it but legitimate science that has backing. I'm not arguing from my own person opinion and random thoughts of the world.
The piont I was making thoug not gracefully worded was that this is in fact not "pseudo science" as you put it but legitimate science that has backing. I'm not arguing from my own person opinion and random thoughts of the world.
Can you direct me to the legitimate scientific backing your time interpretation has? (and please realize that "Stephen Hawking talked about liking the idea once" is a far cry from "legitimate scientific backing.")
The piont I was making thoug not gracefully worded was that this is in fact not "pseudo science" as you put it but legitimate science that has backing. I'm not arguing from my own person opinion and random thoughts of the world.
Can you direct me to the legitimate scientific backing your time interpretation has? (and please realize that "Stephen Hawking talked about liking the idea once" is a far cry from "legitimate scientific backing.")
Whcih parts do you want? The idea that time is a measurment of the Universe? Thats knida...physics 101.
The talk of how Stephen Hawkings made the bold claim that god is impossible? I can link you to that. It really isn't important to my points other than the idea that the universe can be measured via time just as any other measurement.
Or are you talking about my mentoinings of Retrocausality? And yes it was a mention. Highroller seemed very adament about taking on this particular point so I've continued in that part of the debate though it isn't really important to my main argument of the thread.
Other parts of my argument You'd like me to site that I"ve missed?
And there are FACTS in science. If you start saying there are no facts in science then there is the door.
I would like you to direct me to the legitimate scientific backing of Retrocausality, yes. What experimental findings do you have to back up the scientific statements you've been making on this thread?
Additionally,
However it is still an eternal truth that for the most part it is true. If you were take yourself sitting right now and re-trace your steps or peer backwards through time you would view yourself in a world in which causality is reversed. You ate a cracker because you were thirsty to quench your thirst sort of deal.
Its not up for debate as its fact.
Where is the data to back up this time-reversal statement of yours? How do we know reversing the arrow of time is possible and would have the effect you describe?
However:
Explained above. It is physics. and it doesn't mean that the future causes the past but our current state (an infinitly small measurement of time or flashframe of the universe) is determined by both the past and the future. The theory was theorized under the understanding that if you play something in reverse it behaves as such and does not change.
This really has me interested. Can you direct me to the legitimate scientific backing for the idea that the present is caused by both the past and the future?
It seemed to me as if you were attempting to pass-off theoretical hypothesizes and speculative interpretations as tried and true facts of reality. However, if you have the experimental data to contact one to the other, then I guess I was wrong in my assumptions.
I don't have a problem with being wrong. I have a problem with your manners. I want to make that clear.
Anyway,
Yes, there are such things as 'Scientific facts.'
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments."[1]
However, they are quite different from 'undebatable facts,' which were the kind you were discussing.
I would like you to direct me to the legitimate scientific backing of Retrocausality, yes. What experimental findings do you have to back up the scientific statements you've been making on this thread?
Additionally,
Do you want a paper? Its also covered in qantum physics as well. Its a quick google search if you just want the basis of it.
Here is a scientific paper though its rather heavy and if you don't have a strong physics background you might struggle with it. But there is your "legitimate research". This particular paper works specifically with tiny tiny tiny particals smaller than atoms specifally.
Here is Another and this one specifically talks about Time symetry. Obviously they both are theoretical physics but real legitimate physics none the less. You'll have to download the version if you wanna see it. It may be for just my computor but I can't view the PDF without downloading it.
This one was done as a Thesis for a Ph.D student and it works with advanced waves. It is to be noted that its a Ph.D in Cognitive Psychology but he seems to ahve a good grasp of the physics as well. This one may intrest you most due to it being directly related to our "perception" rather than just Micro particals and time symmetry.
Though again all of them are fairly heavy but the last one seems to be the lightest if your not reall adept in your physics.
However it is still an eternal truth that for the most part it is true. If you were take yourself sitting right now and re-trace your steps or peer backwards through time you would view yourself in a world in which causality is reversed. You ate a cracker because you were thirsty to quench your thirst sort of deal.
Its not up for debate as its fact.
Where is the data to back up this time-reversal statement of yours? How do we know reversing the arrow of time is possible and would have the effect you describe?
The second paper specifically that I linked to you talks about time symetry which is where the idea that the future is just as important as the past. But this idea that we can go backwards in time doesn't require it to be possible as the regression of time for all practical purposes IS impossible for us.
However you seem to be under the notion that we "move" through time. We don't "move" through time in the same way that we move across the room. We to a degree can control the way we move however we cannot control or accurately "sense" our movement through time. The basic reality and assumption I have been arguing from has been that we exist. Reguardless of when we exist. And the idea that we "move" through time at all seems to be wrong. But rather we can only precieve the past. It has something to do with causality and how information travels (if it travels at all). Information doesn't necessarily follow the laws of physics at all. Information is very unknown to physicists and our understanding of it is miniscule.
But for example we know that it isn't bound by the speed of light. It cares not for distance and for whatever reason it may care for the direction of time. The idea of seeing into the future is all about reciving information from the future. Either way the perception is what causes us to "view" ourselves moving through time. But if the universe simply "exists" then we don't move through time. Your experience of moving through time is smiply the transmition of information and its state at any given point.
All of it rather moot actually is not my main point of why in a god crafted universe we don't have free will.
Explained above. It is physics. and it doesn't mean that the future causes the past but our current state (an infinitly small measurement of time or flashframe of the universe) is determined by both the past and the future. The theory was theorized under the understanding that if you play something in reverse it behaves as such and does not change.
This really has me interested. Can you direct me to the legitimate scientific backing for the idea that the present is caused by both the past and the future?
[/quote]
Here is a paper on it. Its not a terribly new idea. Well I suppose it is but not within the past decade or anything. The Higgs Boson experiments are newer.
But the general gist of it is that the observation of the present affected the past. Or the future observation in the future affects the present. It has to do with "reality" and how our reality is formed. To get to "now" we have to have gone through the "past" or at least have had causality bring us to the present state but not only that the future has to be observed.
This paper also touches in some things I haven't brought up which is that the future and the past DON'T exist. Only the present exists and the past only exists by what information or recorded observations that are kept in the present. Its also possible that the future is what locks our reality into place as it follows the same line. Or that we are at a single spot in time could be an illusion and in reality we are in several spots in time at once.
Again all of this last paragraph is moot in terms of the debate and is on the even trippier side of quantum mechanics.
Specifically, entropy, which is why your reversal of force with regards to a glass shattering is bogus.
Not necessarily true. though I concede your point on time not being Symetrical for us on this level. Though it still doesn't appy to coutner anything I said. If causality was EQUALLY reversable then yes it would be countered. But the idea that the past and the future cause now doesn't mean that its countered. It simply adds on to causality rather than changing it. I don't think you understood that part. If I didn't explain it clearly then that was my mistake.
Also note when he postulated this. This was before Enstien as well as being before Quantum Mechanics. His best knowledge was still from Newton. for practical usages his modle still works. However quantum mechanics still sides with my piont.
EDIT: So again to make myself clear your point doesn't counter mine. His arrow of time simply states our perception of time moves forward rather than backwards. It doesn't mean god can't look backwards or touch at all on what it would be like for us to have a reverse perception of time.
I don't think I've ever said that we don't expereince time moving forward.
and lastly I still don't see what this tangent we have gotten onto has anything to do with my reasoning for why god doesn't allow free will if he is omnipotent and everything is his creation.
Not necessarily true. though I concede your point on time not being Symetrical for us on this level.
So which is it? Is it not necessarily true, or is it asymmetrical?
Though it still doesn't appy to coutner anything I said. If causality was EQUALLY reversable then yes it would be countered.
You have said it is.
But the idea that the past and the future cause now doesn't mean that its countered.
The idea of the future causing the past violates causality. Furthermore, you cannot reverse time. We just got through saying that time is not reversible.
It simply adds on to causality rather than changing it. I don't think you understood that part. If I didn't explain it clearly then that was my mistake.
The problem is it's outright wrong. You cannot say that the future causes the past. That makes no sense.
Let me say this differently. He created every specific moment in time from the begining to the end of the universe. Thats what it means to have created the universe. He created/creates/will create EVERY second of my life. In what way would that mean I have any control?
Why does the fact that he created every single moment have any bearing on free will at all?
Answer: It doesn't. I am either a free-thinking, free-willed, decision-making entity or I am not. If I am, then I have free will. How I got that free will, whether God gave it to me, or whether I got it randomly doesn't make a difference with regards to the question of whether or not I have free will.
Second, I am only arguing that Free Will is incompatible with the premise of a creator God with infallible foreknowledge.
No it isn't. You just said we have free will. Where we got it from doesn't matter, the point is we have it.
You have yet to prove, or even support that God did imbue us with a will of our own.
I don't, actually. All I need is the possibility of God imbuing us with free will to refute your entire argument. You can't say it's impossible for God and free will to exist simultaneously if we can imagine God and free will existing simultaneously.
Funny story: that sentence above indicates that you can imagine it happening. You have defeated yourself.
I am not asserting that he didn't, only that it's possible he didn't,
Except that would mean you acknowledge the possibility that he did.
This goes against, "God and free will cannot exist simultaneously."
and/or that given the premises a will of of our is incompatible. I am only arguing that Fatalism in a strict sense, might be right.
Which has changed from "God and free will MUST be incompatible." You have moved the goalposts.
Out of curiosity, why the change from adamant statements about incompatibility to mere statements about potential incompatibility?
Not necessarily true. though I concede your point on time not being Symetrical for us on this level.
So which is it? Is it not necessarily true, or is it asymmetrical?
this is why quantum mechanics is hard to explain to someone who mainly knows Relativity and newtonian physics.
Can we reverse time? No. Does that mean that causality is 100% on the past. I have not said that time is REVERSABLE in the idea that the future causes the present ALONE. I stated a theory and then defended the theory. The theory states that the future AND THE PAST both work together for causality. If time WERE to be reversed then BOTH the past and the future would still work together for causality.
Not that one or the other but both. Always. So it doesn't matter which direction time would be flowing they both hold equal amounts of weight.
There is another theory that states that it may be lopsided but still requiring both.
Though it still doesn't appy to coutner anything I said. If causality was EQUALLY reversable then yes it would be countered.
You have said it is.
No. You have misread what I have said. Or you simply don't understand. I have NEVER said that the future ALONE causes the present. But that the theory works that BOTH are responsible.
But the idea that the past and the future cause now doesn't mean that its countered.
The idea of the future causing the past violates causality. Furthermore, you cannot reverse time. We just got through saying that time is not reversible.
Wrong again. It violates traditional causality. However read ANY of the links I've provided. Our idea of traditional causality may be inherently flawed. Time wave collapse is why time is not reversable in the quantum universe. what this means is that something has to be observed for it to exist. Without being observed its in a state of limbo where it both exists and doesnt' exist at the same time.
The only reason our current past and present exist would be because of our futures "observing" our outcome. Does this make sense to you?
It simply adds on to causality rather than changing it. I don't think you understood that part. If I didn't explain it clearly then that was my mistake.
The problem is it's outright wrong. You cannot say that the future causes the past. That makes no sense.
There is a lot that doesn't make sense in the quantum universe and physics in general. Get over it. Just because it doesnt' fit conventional logic doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It doesn't make sense at all to state that time moves slowly for someone moving at a high rate. Or that our mass isn't set and its determined by our speed. A beam of light shot from a moving vehicle still moves at the same speed of a beam shot from a stationary position. Light can be a wave, particle and a beam at the same time. Our mass only exists due to the interaction with the higgs boson partical. Dark mater and anti matter are both doosies. The fact we have 7 more dimentions past the 4th dimention of time. If you have gravity hit a certain point it actually repells rather than attracks. The weak force, color force ect ect ect.
I mean I can go on and on and on and on but do not EVER dismis something simply because it doesn' make sense in the vaccume of everyday layman logic.
Let me say this differently. He created every specific moment in time from the begining to the end of the universe. Thats what it means to have created the universe. He created/creates/will create EVERY second of my life. In what way would that mean I have any control?
Why does the fact that he created every single moment have any bearing on free will at all?
Answer: It doesn't. I am either a free-thinking, free-willed, decision-making entity or I am not. If I am, then I have free will. How I got that free will, whether God gave it to me, or whether I got it randomly doesn't make a difference with regards to the question of whether or not I have free will.
I think you vastly undderate the meaning of "everything" when I use that word.
But put simply I do not believe in free will if things are pre-determined via an intellegent creator. I am by extention no different than rocks in the end by that logic.
Though If I were to play the devils advocate on your part you should have come at it with such statemens as
"If he is omnipotent why couldn't he only create a partial universe"
or
"If we made us in his own image as well as stating in genisis that we are now as gods because we both know good and evil? And this could be interpreted as god giving us free will and we are now as powerful as god in that we create our own futures as concious beings that don't just follow simply physics but instead can make our own informed decisions?"
Those two would have thrown me for a loop and I would have had to think on it for a while. But instead you attacked the physics.
[URL="http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/articles/Understanding-Retrocausality.pdf"]Here is a scientific paper[/URL] though its rather heavy and if you don't have a strong physics background you might struggle with it. But there is your "legitimate research". This particular paper works specifically with tiny tiny tiny particals smaller than atoms specifally.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shoup_(programmer)"]Richard Shoup[/URL], the author of that paper, isn't a physicist. He is a programmer obsessed with parapsychology, and he also founded the organization that published that paper
You're not doing a good job convincing me you're not talking about pseudoscience by linking me a paper published by an institute working on psychic abilities founded by a programmer.
[URL="http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0906"]Here is Another[/URL] and this one specifically talks about Time symetry. Obviously they both are theoretical physics but real legitimate physics none the less. You'll have to download the version if you wanna see it. It may be for just my computor but I can't view the PDF without downloading it.
Ok, we are getting better since this one was published by an accredited journal. However, the title itself does not help your "these are facts" argument.
"[URL="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219811000736"]Does time-symmetry imply retrocausality? How the quantum world says “Maybe”?"[/URL]
You'll note the author of this paper was quite a bit less authoritative in his statements about retrocausality than you were on this thread. That should tell you something.
More importantly, you'll also note that this isn't a physics paper. It's a philosophy paper, written by philosopher [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huw_Price"]Huw_Price[/URL].
[URL="http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Antonella.pdf"]This one was done as a Thesis for a Ph.D student[/URL] and it works with advanced waves. It is to be noted that its a Ph.D in Cognitive Psychology but he seems to ahve a good grasp of the physics as well. This one may intrest you most due to it being directly related to our "perception" rather than just Micro particals and time symmetry.
We're talking about Physics, not Cognitive Psychology.
Nice try, however.
The second paper specifically that I linked to you talks about time symetry which is where the idea that the future is just as important as the past. But this idea that we can go backwards in time doesn't require it to be possible as the regression of time for all practical purposes IS impossible for us.
However you seem to be under the notion that we "move" through time. We don't "move" through time in the same way that we move across the room...
I'm going to stop you right there. You took a paper called "Does time-symmetry imply retrocausality? How the quantum world says “Maybe”?"" written by a philosopher for a philosophical journal to justify telling me how we do DO something, in real reality, and are playing it off as a given scientific fact?
Yeah, no, it doesn't work that way. You can't go from a philosophical theory to reality like that. You can't then start talking about that same thing as if it's an accepted scientific fact.
It's not that they misinterpret Satan's role, it's that Satan as a character changed over the history of Judaism. Satan was originally an angel of the Heavenly Host, who served as an accuser for humanity but was, nevertheless, an angel.
Overtime the tradition of Satan being a fallen angel and embodiment of evil came about as apocalyptic ideas developed.
It is purely human Dogma and Doctrine that says that Satan's role has changed.
Erm, no. Dogma and Doctrine would state that Satan's role, whether interpreted to be an angel who is part of the Heavenly host or a fallen angel, is what it has always been.
Understanding of the evolution of Judaic theology and customs over the course of time is what causes one to realize that the traditions about Satan changed over time, causing this idea of the fallen, evil angel to develop.
And you are wrong, Judaism still holds that Satan is part of God's Court.
Inaccurate. There are numerous different views on this topic, and we can find in a particularly notable tradition of Judaic thought dealing in apocalyptic eschatology the tradition of Satan. It is from Jewish apocalyptic eschatology that Christianity was born.
It is purely a Christian Construct that Satan has become something that represents Evil in this world, not a Judaic one.
Very false, especially since the line you seek to draw between Judaism and Christianity was not a line that anyone conceived in the early Christian movement.
Also, only God knows what Satan's role in all of this happens to be. I am not saying that Demons/Fallen Angels don't exist... I am just saying that I doubt that they exist in the way that we were led to believe that they exist by Christian Doctrine.
I mean, I don't believe they exist at all. I think they're myths. I'm just not sure where you're coming from with this.
Quote from Yorutenchi »
Can we reverse time? No. Does that mean that causality is 100% on the past. I have not said that time is REVERSABLE in the idea that the future causes the present ALONE. I stated a theory and then defended the theory. The theory states that the future AND THE PAST both work together for causality. If time WERE to be reversed then BOTH the past and the future would still work together for causality.
You really don't seem to understand the difference between "I am arguing this" and "I am successfully arguing this." We all know what you're arguing. The problem is you have not adequately defended it.
Put simply, there's nothing you're saying that's grounded in actual science.
Second, I am only arguing that Free Will is incompatible with the premise of a creator God with infallible foreknowledge.
No it isn't. You just said we have free will. Where we got it from doesn't matter, the point is we have it.
Wrong.
It is possible that I am correct on both accounts, we have Free Will and a creator God with infallible foreknowledge IS incompatible with Free Will, therefore there isn't a god like that.
You have yet to prove, or even support that God did imbue us with a will of our own.
I don't, actually. All I need is the possibility of God imbuing us with free will to refute your entire argument. You can't say it's impossible for God and free will to exist simultaneously if we can imagine God and free will existing simultaneously.
Wrong.
Of course God and Free Will are compatible, I never said otherwise.
However, if Free Will and infallible foreknowledge + God are incompatible, and it's possible that they are incompatible, then the God that created the Universe with Free Will, doesn't have infallible foreknowledge.
Please try to keep up. Your inability to seperate god qualities from other god qualities gives me a headache.
God(s) could have created the Universe, but he doesn't know what will happen.
and/or that given the premises a will of of our is incompatible. I am only arguing that Fatalism in a strict sense, might be right.
Which has changed from "God and free will MUST be incompatible." You have moved the goalposts.
I haven't moved them AT ALL. Not even sense my first post in this thread.
YOU cannot seem to grasp that I am arguing against A CERTAIN TYPE OF GOD(s) (one with infallible foreknowledge) and NOT against the <Supertype> GOD(s).
Out of curiosity, why the change from adamant statements about incompatibility to mere statements about potential incompatibility?
Oh, I am adamant, but I am not arguing for certainty, never have been.
I am a very bitter anti-theist, but I don't go around claiming there IS NO God.
I just strongly disbelieve, and I could be wrong.
I strongly believe that I am right about my argument, but I could be wrong. I am not all knowing
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I don't know what more can actually be accomplished here, so I'll just repeat this one more time:
The only thing that matters in this thread is whether or not human beings have free will, whether or not they have a conscious, independent will that allows them to make choices.
If they have this, it is the only relevant detail with regards to whether or not they have free will. All else is extraneous information. It is irrelevant.
You keep saying an omnipotent, omniscient God invalidates free will. It does nothing of the sort. Free will would exist regardless, because once again, human beings would still have independent wills that would allow them to make decisions of their own accord. And because of this, they would have free will.
Whether or not God sees everything before it happens does not change the fact that you still have free will. Whether or not God created you does not change the fact that you still have free will. Whether or not God saw everything before he created you does not change the fact that you still have free will. Why? Because you are a conscious, decision-making entity with a will of your own. Therefore, you have free will. There are no other details or variables to consider because none are relevant. The only thing that matters is exactly what we know you have, the ability to consciously make your own decisions of your own choosing, because therein lies free will. That, and only that, is the only thing that matters.
All else is as relevant as the snow falling in Bolivia, which is to say, not at all.
However, if Free Will and infallible foreknowledge + God are incompatible, and it's possible that they are incompatible,
"Possible they are incompatible" meaning that they are not, as a rule, incompatible? See the problem?
Only in your failed attempt to understand the argument.
The only thing that matters in this thread is whether or not human beings have free will, whether or not they have a conscious, independent will that allows them to make choices.
Correct.
If they have this, it is the only relevant detail with regards to whether or not they have free will. All else is extraneous information. It is irrelevant.
Tautological.
If we have Free Will, then we have Free Will.
You have to first successfully argue that we have it. You have not done this.
You keep saying an omnipotent, omniscient God invalidates free will. It does nothing of the sort. Free will would exist regardless, because once again, human beings would still have independent wills that would allow them to make decisions of their own accord. And because of this, they would have free will.
Wrong, I keep saying that a creator God with infallible foreknowledge is not compatible with Free Will.
I'm arguing that a God like that god would create a Strict Fatalist Universe, and no free will exists there.
Whether or not God sees everything before it happens does not change the fact that you still have free will. Whether or not God created you does not change the fact that you still have free will. Whether or not God saw everything before he created you does not change the fact that you still have free will. Why? Because you are a conscious, decision-making entity with a will of your own. Therefore, you have free will. There are no other details or variables to consider because none are relevant. The only thing that matters is exactly what we know you have, the ability to consciously make your own decisions of your own choosing, because therein lies free will. That, and only that, is the only thing that matters.
You are making a positive claim to the nature of things, then not backing it up at all.
I disagree with your assessment, can you please make an actual argument as to why what you say is true.
If my argument is true, then all that "you have a conscious will of your own" stuff is false. So you have to do better than just asserting it. Argue for it.
However, if Free Will and infallible foreknowledge + God are incompatible, and it's possible that they are incompatible,
"Possible they are incompatible" meaning that they are not, as a rule, incompatible? See the problem?
There is no problem. Only a fool would claim they know the absolute truth about the creation of the universe by an unproven deity and could not possibly be wrong.
I am not that fool.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I completely agree.
That's like asking the girl why she had sex with me isn't it.
Her answer would be the same as mine.
"Because I was created to."
In my dream, but before I create her, she doesn't actually or temporally exist = In God's vision, but before he creates me, I don't actually or temporally exist.
Does she have free will in my dream? = Do I have free will in God's vision?
If I create reality exactly like my dream, and now she exists, does she have sex with me of her own free will? = If God creates a reality exactly like his vision, and now I exist, do I do X of my own free will?
I argue that no, the girl in my dream does not have free will, she is, after all, merely a fantasy (something you already agreed with).
So if I create a reality that is exactly like my dream, although the girl may now actually exist, she still lacks free will, she has sex with me because I created her to.
Now, if you want to argue that I had free will in God's vision, in spite of not actually existing, fine, lets debate that.
But then that logic also applies to the girl, seeing as in this scenario, what is true for God is also true for me. She must have had free will in my dream.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Why do you perform X?
No, she's a sex fantasy. She's like a stick figure, way more anatomically correct, but the same principle applies: She can't do anything outside of what you will her to do. She's an image in your own mind.
Now, were we in a universe without free will, the two might be considered analogous. However, you have not demonstrated that we are. And saying one equals the other is begging the question: you have to demonstrate that we don't have free will. Saying, "I can create images in my mind and they don't have free will," doesn't cut it. I can image human beings with gills. Doesn't mean all humans have gills.
Yeah, exactly, because she's an image born out of your sexual desires. That's it. You haven't imbued her with an independent will and personality of her own.
If you did that, mind you, she would have free will.
If we are talking about the "me" that <at this point only exists in God's mind> (and hasnt actually been created yet) then I do X because that's God's fantasy.
Just like the dreamgirl has sex with me, inside the dream, because that's my fantasy. She isn't acting on free will in the dream.
Precisely, and I too would just be an image inside God's mind.
You are right, I have not demonstrated that we are in a universe without free will. At no point have I even tried to demonstrate that.
For one, I believe we do have free will.
Second, I am only arguing that Free Will is incompatible with the premise of a creator God with infallible foreknowledge.
Furthermore, you're again dodging the point (and not even cleverly).
We WOULD be in a world where humans had gills if you (1) First imagined that they did, and then (2) Created the world to match your imagination.
You have yet to prove, or even support that God did imbue us with a will of our own.
You assert that he did, but you have not showed any actual support for that asserion.
The claim that God gave us Free Will is a positive claim, one in which for the sake of this argument, I disbelieve without good reason. Show me that good reason.
I am not asserting that he didn't, only that it's possible he didn't, and/or that given the premises a will of of our is incompatible. I am only arguing that Fatalism in a strict sense, might be right.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Except that in actuality there is currently enough resources on the planet to feed all the animals that currently are alive, as well as all of the humans that are currently alive on the planet, and to never have anyone wanting for anything. The fact of the matter is that the only reason scarcity exists is because there are people who want more than they actually need, and as such they are the limiting factor on the environment.
It is purely human Dogma and Doctrine that says that Satan's role has changed. And you are wrong, Judaism still holds that Satan is part of God's Court. It is purely a Christian Construct that Satan has become something that represents Evil in this world, not a Judaic one.
Also, only God knows what Satan's role in all of this happens to be. I am not saying that Demons/Fallen Angels don't exist... I am just saying that I doubt that they exist in the way that we were led to believe that they exist by Christian Doctrine.
I do not condone Murder. I would never be in favor of killing another human being in cold blood. What I am arguing is that the natural process of dying, or dying because of disease, or other natural causes is acceptable because it keeps the population in check.
I do not support the premeditated murder of individuals in anyway.
You are defining Omniscience too narrowly. In your definition there is only one possible path that our decisions can ever take. Thus there is only one Future. I personally however prefer to think of time as a "Timey Wimey Ball". Anyways, in my opinion God can see all possible futures and make informed guesses about what we are going to do based on that, but he doesn't necessarily know for certain what actions we are going to take until after we have taken those actions. Thus we can have free will despite his having Omniscience.
(by the way, that video makes a whole lot more sense when viewed with the other half of the conversation going along side it).
Maybe even threw in a coin toss you don't have control over, or some Quantum Fluctuations.
BTW, I don't believe in Free Will either, but I understand the definition that Highroller is working with and I'd like to make sure we're all on the same page.
Yet, there are clearly other ways to have that happen without "necessary painful deaths" as I have already pointed out to Highroller.
I did not say you did.
You have declared that God feels some kinds of human suffering is necessarily. You have declared on God's behalf that human deaths are necessary.
Why do you feel you understand the mind of God? What justification do you have for making declarations on His behalf?
More to the point,
Your kind of thinking leads to erroneous conclusions that it would be a waste of time and money to try and fix things like AIDS and hurricanes, since it leads to the conclusion they are necessary and part of 'God's plan.' Why feel bad about, or try to stop, human suffering if it's part of some greater good? Why build asteroid defenses when God will either kill us or not if He wills? Why bother doing anything, really? You might just stuck working on some problem that God does not want anyone to solve, while someone else might get lucky and work on a problem God wants him to solve. You'll end up wasting your life if you try.
The kind of thinking that some problems are 'unsolvable,' and some suffering is 'inevitable,' does nothing but stifle human achievement. The answer "because God likes it that way" does nothing but hold us back from figuring out the real reason.
Do any characters in my dream that don't actually exist have ANY agency at all? Can a figment of my imagination (not to be confused with schizophrenia) have a will of it's own?
I'd answer no, but you are welcome to argue for "yes" if you want to.
Also,
I do believe in free will, so I'm not sure what you mean by "either".
I believe we have free will because I believe we act on our own discretion, and not constrained by fate, or divine will, in accordance with the definition I posted earlier.
Free Will:
Noun - The power of acting without the constraint of necessity, fate, or divine will; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I explained that I was no more in control of my actions than a car was. My internal workings were dictated by my DNA, which I did not pick, and my thoughts and choices all originated from outside of me. My knowledge comes from outside, my inner workings come from my DNA, and thus my output is a combination of those things. So, I said, how is that different from a car? It is the internal parts of the car that make it go, just like me, but it is the external forces that really dictate its movements, just like me.
They told me that a car is less complex. That a car can't mull things over and can't have internal conflicts.
So, what if this imaginary girl was VERY complex? What if she had a large IQ and had internal conflicts about what she should or should not do with regards to you? What if I imagined her with all of the intricacies I--myself--have? More even? If she is exactly like(or better than) me in this "thinking" regard, why would I have free will and her not?
That's not the definition of Free Will I would hang my hat on.
Depends on if you consider the driver an external or internal part.
After all, a car without a driver stays still.
(a remote controlled car has a "driver" too)
She'd be complex because I dreamed her to be.
She'd be intelligent because I dreamed her to be.
She'd be intricate because I dreamed her to be.
...and when I later create her exactly as I dreamed, the reason she is those things change not.
And it isn't just her. In my dream we meet at the bar in the Hilton, she asks me to her room, and we share a bottle of Riesling before we romp furiously.
There is a Hilton because I dream there to be one.
She's at the bar in the Hilton because I dream her to be there.
She invites me to her room because I dream her to.
There is Riesling because I dream there is Riesling.
We share that bottle because I dream we share it.
We furiously romp because I dream we do.
...and when I later create The Hilton, the bar, the Riesling, the bed, the sheets, the GIRL, the reason for those things changes not.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But, both I and the car need external input to move. Without food I stay still.
I am complex because of my DNA, which I had no control over and did not pick.
I am intelligent because of my schooling and my experiences, all of which are external inputs.
And if I get hit by lightening I will change too, and I have no control over that change.
Yeah, but in my example you are dreaming HER to make those choices, you are not dreaming yourself making those choices.
I assure you, IcecreamMan80, all of what I am today can be traced back to something outside of me; from the food I eat, to the schooling I got, to my DNA, to gravity holding the man down. Nature and Nurture made me the man I am today and I had no control over either.
Yet, you say I have free will and this complex imaginary person who I've imagined with their own hopes and dreams does not?
Did you NOT read the definition of Free Will I am using?
Noun - The power of acting without the constraint of necessity, fate, or divine will; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
None of the things you describe (dna, parents had sex, etc.) are equivalent to necessity, fate, or divine will.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Really? How do you define "fate" then? Seems to me everything I described would fall under the "fate" category. Luck, fate, random chance, destiny, whatever you want to call it it certainly wasn't my 'will' doing it, free or otherwise.
Let me put it this way. If god made the universe then the future is just as set in stone as the past. Reason being "If god made the universe...." then that HAS to mean "he made the begining and the end of the universe". It doesn't say that he made "part of the universe" as thats impossible. I am not saying that free will can't exist. I"m saying that free will cannot exist in a situation where an omnipotent being created the universe.
Let me say this differently. He created every specific moment in time from the begining to the end of the universe. Thats what it means to have created the universe. He created/creates/will create EVERY second of my life. In what way would that mean I have any control?
Though I guess again I should note this only applies to an omnipotent creator rather than an atheist explanation.
Essentially. I'm not giong to predict your choice or anything. But for the sake of the experiment it doesn't matter so long as you chose a number.
Now was it your free will that you chose that number? Was it chance? Well if god created the universe then he crafted that moment in time. If he created you choosing that number is that still your free will? Is it still your free will that it was pre-destined to be chosen? If you say that is still free will then you and I do not agree at ALL what free will is and there is little piont to continue. Free will is only there if I can truely choose whatever outcome I want. If god made the universe then he created the universe, myself and every situation I'll ever be in. If there isn't an omnipotent being then free will opens itself up.
And I don't agree at all. I do not agree that it was my choice if its already pre-determined. You and I shall have to simply dissagree on the definition and range of what free will is. You seem to think that it doesn't matter if god created the universe because this "choice" that you made is still free will. However my view of the exact same situation that I think we agree on the specifics of, is not free will if there is a higher crafter involved.
Not if he crafted them. Either god crafts your actions or he doesn't. If he does then no free will. If he doesn't then we have free will. However I'm arguing form the premis that god created the universe. We are the universe. Ergo god created us and everything we did.
If there isn't a god then yes free will can exist within certain limitations.
As I have stated. It is not free will. Also I think your somewhat confused about the multiverse theory. Prior to the event in which different possible outcomes exist there is only one universe. When the choice is presented then simultaniously you choose all of them and new universes are "created". But not in the sense that a big bang happened but that now there are more than one universe as each possiblity is explored.
Yes it does. If there is no "crafter" of the universe then there is no omnipotent making decisions for me. If I make my own decisions that are based on chance and the accumulation of the factors at hand + statistics + chance = free will. If god exists then there are no "chances" and if there are no chances then statistics have no meaning. From there all you have are factors. Factors created and controled universally by a single omnipotent being.
I was with you through the first parts. And I agree with them. But what you didn't mention was that god crafted the universe. You are part of the universe, not apart from it. God created you. God created you in that moment yesterday, today and tomorrow. He see's time all at once. He created the universe with this in mind. He knows now (as he can see) what you will do and not only does he KNOW what you will do, he created that moment.
Throw out the idea that each moment was created by higher intelectual power then I conceede that free will can exist. Throw in the fact that you have an all powerful being that created everything then I do not agree we have free will. If no one created us then no one has say over us. Does that make sense?
On what grounds do you say time isn't symetrical? And the idea of causality only exist from our current viewpiont of time. In fact it hangs entierly on it. If you chance the perception of time then causality itself also changes.
The glass broke because it hit the floor. However if the force was reversed (something impossible to do if you consider time in a single direction) then the reversed action would be...reverse. The glass became unbroken as the energy retreated into a potential state.
If you reverse the flow of time or the perception of time as time doesnt' actually move, then almost all the laws of physics will have to be reversed. This includes rules of causality.
A question to ask I suppose it reponse is why is causality work? Why do things happen the way they do?
Its observation and eventually understanding. Then follows prediction. If things happen according to this "law" then "x" will happen. However if you change the oberservation then everything else changes.
It does work and I can prove it. If you track yourself backwards in time. Imagine you are hitting reverse in a video. Causality seems to be reversed as well. If you looked at your life in reverse what would you see? What if you never saw it otherwise?
Your right. I concede that its not "fact". Though its not **** i'm making up. These are real theories and real laws of physics. Thats the piont I"m getting at.
I already recanted this. You are right for fact. But there are sets of laws and reasonings that must be adhered to for the sake of arguments. The piont I was making thoug not gracefully worded was that this is in fact not "pseudo science" as you put it but legitimate science that has backing. I'm not arguing from my own person opinion and random thoughts of the world.
(and please realize that "Stephen Hawking talked about liking the idea once" is a far cry from "legitimate scientific backing.")
Whcih parts do you want? The idea that time is a measurment of the Universe? Thats knida...physics 101.
The talk of how Stephen Hawkings made the bold claim that god is impossible? I can link you to that. It really isn't important to my points other than the idea that the universe can be measured via time just as any other measurement.
Multiverse theory here a part of M-theroy.
Or are you talking about my mentoinings of Retrocausality? And yes it was a mention. Highroller seemed very adament about taking on this particular point so I've continued in that part of the debate though it isn't really important to my main argument of the thread.
Other parts of my argument You'd like me to site that I"ve missed?
And there are FACTS in science. If you start saying there are no facts in science then there is the door.
Additionally,
Where is the data to back up this time-reversal statement of yours? How do we know reversing the arrow of time is possible and would have the effect you describe?
However:
This really has me interested. Can you direct me to the legitimate scientific backing for the idea that the present is caused by both the past and the future?
It seemed to me as if you were attempting to pass-off theoretical hypothesizes and speculative interpretations as tried and true facts of reality. However, if you have the experimental data to contact one to the other, then I guess I was wrong in my assumptions.
Hmmm.... About this statement I share this sentiment with you:
Anyway,
Yes, there are such things as 'Scientific facts.'
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments."[1]
However, they are quite different from 'undebatable facts,' which were the kind you were discussing.
Do you want a paper? Its also covered in qantum physics as well. Its a quick google search if you just want the basis of it.
Here is a scientific paper though its rather heavy and if you don't have a strong physics background you might struggle with it. But there is your "legitimate research". This particular paper works specifically with tiny tiny tiny particals smaller than atoms specifally.
Here is Another and this one specifically talks about Time symetry. Obviously they both are theoretical physics but real legitimate physics none the less. You'll have to download the version if you wanna see it. It may be for just my computor but I can't view the PDF without downloading it.
This one was done as a Thesis for a Ph.D student and it works with advanced waves. It is to be noted that its a Ph.D in Cognitive Psychology but he seems to ahve a good grasp of the physics as well. This one may intrest you most due to it being directly related to our "perception" rather than just Micro particals and time symmetry.
Though again all of them are fairly heavy but the last one seems to be the lightest if your not reall adept in your physics.
The second paper specifically that I linked to you talks about time symetry which is where the idea that the future is just as important as the past. But this idea that we can go backwards in time doesn't require it to be possible as the regression of time for all practical purposes IS impossible for us.
However you seem to be under the notion that we "move" through time. We don't "move" through time in the same way that we move across the room. We to a degree can control the way we move however we cannot control or accurately "sense" our movement through time. The basic reality and assumption I have been arguing from has been that we exist. Reguardless of when we exist. And the idea that we "move" through time at all seems to be wrong. But rather we can only precieve the past. It has something to do with causality and how information travels (if it travels at all). Information doesn't necessarily follow the laws of physics at all. Information is very unknown to physicists and our understanding of it is miniscule.
But for example we know that it isn't bound by the speed of light. It cares not for distance and for whatever reason it may care for the direction of time. The idea of seeing into the future is all about reciving information from the future. Either way the perception is what causes us to "view" ourselves moving through time. But if the universe simply "exists" then we don't move through time. Your experience of moving through time is smiply the transmition of information and its state at any given point.
All of it rather moot actually is not my main point of why in a god crafted universe we don't have free will.
[/quote]
Here is a paper on it. Its not a terribly new idea. Well I suppose it is but not within the past decade or anything. The Higgs Boson experiments are newer.
But the general gist of it is that the observation of the present affected the past. Or the future observation in the future affects the present. It has to do with "reality" and how our reality is formed. To get to "now" we have to have gone through the "past" or at least have had causality bring us to the present state but not only that the future has to be observed.
This paper also touches in some things I haven't brought up which is that the future and the past DON'T exist. Only the present exists and the past only exists by what information or recorded observations that are kept in the present. Its also possible that the future is what locks our reality into place as it follows the same line. Or that we are at a single spot in time could be an illusion and in reality we are in several spots in time at once.
Again all of this last paragraph is moot in terms of the debate and is on the even trippier side of quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
Specifically, entropy, which is why your reversal of force with regards to a glass shattering is bogus.
Not necessarily true. though I concede your point on time not being Symetrical for us on this level. Though it still doesn't appy to coutner anything I said. If causality was EQUALLY reversable then yes it would be countered. But the idea that the past and the future cause now doesn't mean that its countered. It simply adds on to causality rather than changing it. I don't think you understood that part. If I didn't explain it clearly then that was my mistake.
Also note when he postulated this. This was before Enstien as well as being before Quantum Mechanics. His best knowledge was still from Newton. for practical usages his modle still works. However quantum mechanics still sides with my piont.
EDIT: So again to make myself clear your point doesn't counter mine. His arrow of time simply states our perception of time moves forward rather than backwards. It doesn't mean god can't look backwards or touch at all on what it would be like for us to have a reverse perception of time.
I don't think I've ever said that we don't expereince time moving forward.
and lastly I still don't see what this tangent we have gotten onto has anything to do with my reasoning for why god doesn't allow free will if he is omnipotent and everything is his creation.
So which is it? Is it not necessarily true, or is it asymmetrical?
You have said it is.
The idea of the future causing the past violates causality. Furthermore, you cannot reverse time. We just got through saying that time is not reversible.
The problem is it's outright wrong. You cannot say that the future causes the past. That makes no sense.
Why does the fact that he created every single moment have any bearing on free will at all?
Answer: It doesn't. I am either a free-thinking, free-willed, decision-making entity or I am not. If I am, then I have free will. How I got that free will, whether God gave it to me, or whether I got it randomly doesn't make a difference with regards to the question of whether or not I have free will.
Ok, then we have free will. [/thread]
No it isn't. You just said we have free will. Where we got it from doesn't matter, the point is we have it.
I don't, actually. All I need is the possibility of God imbuing us with free will to refute your entire argument. You can't say it's impossible for God and free will to exist simultaneously if we can imagine God and free will existing simultaneously.
Funny story: that sentence above indicates that you can imagine it happening. You have defeated yourself.
Except that would mean you acknowledge the possibility that he did.
This goes against, "God and free will cannot exist simultaneously."
Which has changed from "God and free will MUST be incompatible." You have moved the goalposts.
Out of curiosity, why the change from adamant statements about incompatibility to mere statements about potential incompatibility?
this is why quantum mechanics is hard to explain to someone who mainly knows Relativity and newtonian physics.
Can we reverse time? No. Does that mean that causality is 100% on the past. I have not said that time is REVERSABLE in the idea that the future causes the present ALONE. I stated a theory and then defended the theory. The theory states that the future AND THE PAST both work together for causality. If time WERE to be reversed then BOTH the past and the future would still work together for causality.
Not that one or the other but both. Always. So it doesn't matter which direction time would be flowing they both hold equal amounts of weight.
There is another theory that states that it may be lopsided but still requiring both.
No. You have misread what I have said. Or you simply don't understand. I have NEVER said that the future ALONE causes the present. But that the theory works that BOTH are responsible.
Wrong again. It violates traditional causality. However read ANY of the links I've provided. Our idea of traditional causality may be inherently flawed. Time wave collapse is why time is not reversable in the quantum universe. what this means is that something has to be observed for it to exist. Without being observed its in a state of limbo where it both exists and doesnt' exist at the same time.
The only reason our current past and present exist would be because of our futures "observing" our outcome. Does this make sense to you?
There is a lot that doesn't make sense in the quantum universe and physics in general. Get over it. Just because it doesnt' fit conventional logic doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It doesn't make sense at all to state that time moves slowly for someone moving at a high rate. Or that our mass isn't set and its determined by our speed. A beam of light shot from a moving vehicle still moves at the same speed of a beam shot from a stationary position. Light can be a wave, particle and a beam at the same time. Our mass only exists due to the interaction with the higgs boson partical. Dark mater and anti matter are both doosies. The fact we have 7 more dimentions past the 4th dimention of time. If you have gravity hit a certain point it actually repells rather than attracks. The weak force, color force ect ect ect.
I mean I can go on and on and on and on but do not EVER dismis something simply because it doesn' make sense in the vaccume of everyday layman logic.
I think you vastly undderate the meaning of "everything" when I use that word.
But put simply I do not believe in free will if things are pre-determined via an intellegent creator. I am by extention no different than rocks in the end by that logic.
Though If I were to play the devils advocate on your part you should have come at it with such statemens as
"If he is omnipotent why couldn't he only create a partial universe"
or
"If we made us in his own image as well as stating in genisis that we are now as gods because we both know good and evil? And this could be interpreted as god giving us free will and we are now as powerful as god in that we create our own futures as concious beings that don't just follow simply physics but instead can make our own informed decisions?"
Those two would have thrown me for a loop and I would have had to think on it for a while. But instead you attacked the physics.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shoup_(programmer)"]Richard Shoup[/URL], the author of that paper, isn't a physicist. He is a programmer obsessed with parapsychology, and he also founded the organization that published that paper
You're not doing a good job convincing me you're not talking about pseudoscience by linking me a paper published by an institute working on psychic abilities founded by a programmer.
Ok, we are getting better since this one was published by an accredited journal. However, the title itself does not help your "these are facts" argument.
"[URL="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219811000736"]Does time-symmetry imply retrocausality? How the quantum world says “Maybe”?"[/URL]
You'll note the author of this paper was quite a bit less authoritative in his statements about retrocausality than you were on this thread. That should tell you something.
More importantly, you'll also note that this isn't a physics paper. It's a philosophy paper, written by philosopher [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huw_Price"]Huw_Price[/URL]. We're talking about Physics, not Cognitive Psychology.
Nice try, however. I find this statement rather amusing since none of the papers you linked were written by a physicist, or published in an accredited physics journal.
If they were I'd likely have an easier time reading them.
I'm going to stop you right there. You took a paper called "Does time-symmetry imply retrocausality? How the quantum world says “Maybe”?"" written by a philosopher for a philosophical journal to justify telling me how we do DO something, in real reality, and are playing it off as a given scientific fact?
Yeah, no, it doesn't work that way. You can't go from a philosophical theory to reality like that. You can't then start talking about that same thing as if it's an accepted scientific fact.
That's not a paper. It's an article written by Paul Levy who is a self-proclaimed--and I quote--"spiritually informed political activist."
So... Tell me again how we're not talking about pseudoscience...
Erm, no. Dogma and Doctrine would state that Satan's role, whether interpreted to be an angel who is part of the Heavenly host or a fallen angel, is what it has always been.
Understanding of the evolution of Judaic theology and customs over the course of time is what causes one to realize that the traditions about Satan changed over time, causing this idea of the fallen, evil angel to develop.
Inaccurate. There are numerous different views on this topic, and we can find in a particularly notable tradition of Judaic thought dealing in apocalyptic eschatology the tradition of Satan. It is from Jewish apocalyptic eschatology that Christianity was born.
Very false, especially since the line you seek to draw between Judaism and Christianity was not a line that anyone conceived in the early Christian movement.
I mean, I don't believe they exist at all. I think they're myths. I'm just not sure where you're coming from with this.
You really don't seem to understand the difference between "I am arguing this" and "I am successfully arguing this." We all know what you're arguing. The problem is you have not adequately defended it.
Put simply, there's nothing you're saying that's grounded in actual science.
No, because the thread isn't a poll taking opinions on whether or not we believe we have free will.
If it was, then yes, /thread - but it's not.
Wrong.
It is possible that I am correct on both accounts, we have Free Will and a creator God with infallible foreknowledge IS incompatible with Free Will, therefore there isn't a god like that.
Wrong.
Of course God and Free Will are compatible, I never said otherwise.
However, if Free Will and infallible foreknowledge + God are incompatible, and it's possible that they are incompatible, then the God that created the Universe with Free Will, doesn't have infallible foreknowledge.
Please try to keep up. Your inability to seperate god qualities from other god qualities gives me a headache.
God(s) could have created the Universe, but he doesn't know what will happen.
lol, really HR?
Of COURSE I have to acknowledge posibilities. This is a philosophical debate, and I cannot PROVE anything to be fact.
Read above where I explain why <God without infallible foreknowledge> and <God with infallible foreknowledge> are two different things.
I haven't moved them AT ALL. Not even sense my first post in this thread.
YOU cannot seem to grasp that I am arguing against A CERTAIN TYPE OF GOD(s) (one with infallible foreknowledge) and NOT against the <Supertype> GOD(s).
Oh, I am adamant, but I am not arguing for certainty, never have been.
I am a very bitter anti-theist, but I don't go around claiming there IS NO God.
I just strongly disbelieve, and I could be wrong.
I strongly believe that I am right about my argument, but I could be wrong. I am not all knowing
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I don't know what more can actually be accomplished here, so I'll just repeat this one more time:
The only thing that matters in this thread is whether or not human beings have free will, whether or not they have a conscious, independent will that allows them to make choices.
If they have this, it is the only relevant detail with regards to whether or not they have free will. All else is extraneous information. It is irrelevant.
You keep saying an omnipotent, omniscient God invalidates free will. It does nothing of the sort. Free will would exist regardless, because once again, human beings would still have independent wills that would allow them to make decisions of their own accord. And because of this, they would have free will.
Whether or not God sees everything before it happens does not change the fact that you still have free will. Whether or not God created you does not change the fact that you still have free will. Whether or not God saw everything before he created you does not change the fact that you still have free will. Why? Because you are a conscious, decision-making entity with a will of your own. Therefore, you have free will. There are no other details or variables to consider because none are relevant. The only thing that matters is exactly what we know you have, the ability to consciously make your own decisions of your own choosing, because therein lies free will. That, and only that, is the only thing that matters.
All else is as relevant as the snow falling in Bolivia, which is to say, not at all.
"Possible they are incompatible" meaning that they are not, as a rule, incompatible? See the problem?
Only in your failed attempt to understand the argument.
Correct.
Tautological.
If we have Free Will, then we have Free Will.
You have to first successfully argue that we have it. You have not done this.
Wrong, I keep saying that a creator God with infallible foreknowledge is not compatible with Free Will.
I'm arguing that a God like that god would create a Strict Fatalist Universe, and no free will exists there.
You are making a positive claim to the nature of things, then not backing it up at all.
I disagree with your assessment, can you please make an actual argument as to why what you say is true.
If my argument is true, then all that "you have a conscious will of your own" stuff is false. So you have to do better than just asserting it. Argue for it.
There is no problem. Only a fool would claim they know the absolute truth about the creation of the universe by an unproven deity and could not possibly be wrong.
I am not that fool.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein