It is logically impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent god to ....

[thylacine]

It is logically impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent god to create a universe in which any other being has free-will.

Here is the argument. (I came up with this a while back, but it may well be some standard argument known to philosophers. If it is, could some philosopher post a reference.)

An omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) god has complete knowledge of everything that happens, everywhere, at all times (past present, future) in everything that exists, and moreover, fully comprehends instantly and permanently the entirety of all possible universes with comprehensive knowledge of every detail of everything in every possible universe. An omniscient (all-knowing) god, by definition, must know everything about everything, and in particular, they must know everything about anything they create and about any choice they make. When an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) god creates a universe they must know everything about it, and hence they exactly which of the posible universes it is. So for an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) god, creating a universe means simply choosing one from the list of all possible universes, which automatically means choosing every detail of that universe. Obviously that means for any other being that finds themselves living in such a universe, they never get to choose anything because the omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) god already chose absolutely every detail of everything that happens in that universe.

Therefore it is logically impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent god to create a universe in which any other being has free-will. QED

What are the consequences of this. Well, for anyone who believes in omniscient, omnipotent god, such as the christian god, or anything remotely similar, the existence of such a god must logically imply that there is no free will, so that morality becomes meaningless, consciousness becomes pointless, and that generally the universe is utterly without purpose or meaning.

By contrast, as an atheist, I can logically choose to believe in free will, I can meaningfully contemplate moral questions and can explore consciousness and can find purpose and meaning to the universe.

Let's do a survey. Here are the options.

[PLOlover]

There was a good scifi book, Neverness, that explored stuff like this.

One scene was about free will and how you could still want to do something that you have little choice about.

The sequels were written later and not as good by far imo.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore it is logically impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent god to create a universe in which any other being has free-will. QED

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on. It is my understanding that there is a reciprocal process taking place between God and man, where what we are is a process of realization to God. Through man God continually actualizes deeper aspects of His being.

What I interpret as the infinite good of God, is more or less, the infinite potential for good. Take love for example. Love must be volitional or it has no meaning at all, it would simply be a mechanism. So if God is to realize the reality of love, it can only be by relation to some being which has the power or free-will to withhold love.

In my mind it's a similiar process to the way we deal with the laws of nature. Within them is simply potential, until that potential becomes actualized through our understanding of their nature.

So in my mind the existence of a benevolent loving God wouldn't make a being with free-will illogical - it would make one a necessity.

[NotReady]

You forgot this in your poll:

I am an atheist/agnostic and any worldview I can even articulate is utterly, hopelessly, irredeemably unintelligible and indefensible.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore it is logically impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent god to create a universe in which any other being has free-will. QED

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on. It is my understanding that there is a reciprocal process taking place between God and man, where what we are is a process of realization to God. Through man God continually actualizes deeper aspects of His being.

What I interpret as the infinite good of God, is more or less, the infinite potential for good. Take love for example. Love must be volitional or it has no meaning at all, it would simply be a mechanism. So if God is to realize the reality of love, it can only be by relation to some being which has the power or free-will to withhold love.

In my mind it's a similiar process to the way we deal with the laws of nature. Within them is simply potential, until that potential becomes actualized through our understanding of their nature.

So in my mind the existence of a benevolent loving God wouldn't make a being with free-will illogical - it would make one a necessity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is some logic.

Consider the two statements:

(1) The existence of an entity with property A implies that C is false.

(2) The existence of an entity with property B implies that C is true.

These two statements together imply that an entity with both properties A and B does not exist.

My argument combined with your argument shows that the god you believe in does not exist.

[snowden719]

why would an omniscient god know what I'm going to do in the future? if you think he could know that, then your definition of free will is going to be one that isn't going to cause the problems you think it does. Specifically we can look at two concepts of freedom

Strong freedom ( X is strongly free if in situation A he can P or not P) if this is true, then God doesn't know about future situations because there's simply no fact of the matter about what X will do in the future, and God only knows all true propositions or all facts/

Weak freedom (had X chosen to not P in situation A, he would have: usually broadly defined as being the causal seat of one's actions.) if this is the conception that you have of freedom, there's no problem yet again as one can be free even though god knew in advance what they would choose.

[snowden719]

oh also, please read a minimum of one essay on the topic of freedom by a decent philosopher (two would be even better) before you start spouting off nonsense.

[madnak]

This is false for many reasons. Determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive. Specific knowledge of the future only invalidates free will if it has effects that are universally "random" (and there's no reason to make such an assumption at a cosmological level). An omniscient God might not have specific knowledge of the future anyhow.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
You forgot this in your poll:

I am an atheist/agnostic and any worldview I can even articulate is utterly, hopelessly, irredeemably unintelligible and indefensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooh, I'm sure that would have got a lot of takers.

Can we have one for Christians too?

[Piers]

"omniscient, omnipotent" is a title not a discription.

[FortunaMaximus]

OP,

Omniscience and omnipotence is not grounds to rule out free will. It is possible for such an entity to set conditions in which the variables can choose their own paths. The choices you make shape your worldview. Free will is having the ability to shape worldviews.

It would seem there is a blur in many thinkers about the distinctions between predestination and free will.

[ QUOTE ]
So in my mind the existence of a benevolent loving God wouldn't make a being with free-will illogical - it would make one a necessity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He can only be benevolent if he allows you to make your own choices.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
You forgot this in your poll:

I am an atheist/agnostic and any worldview I can even articulate is utterly, hopelessly, irredeemably unintelligible and indefensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Btw, why have you not ticked "I am a christian/jew/muslim and I am incapable of rational thought."?

Because that is precisely what you keep insisting on in your posts.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Btw, why have you not ticked "I am a christian/jew/muslim and I am incapable of rational thought."?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm waiting for the new poll including my suggestion with your vote.

[thylacine]

Thread summary so far:

No-one has raised any serious objections to my argument.

No-one has raised any serious objections to my poll.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Thread summary so far:

No-one has raised any serious objections to my argument.

No-one has raised any serious objections to my poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good read there. Got 'em blinkers on, huh?

[thylacine]

FortunaMaximus says:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thread summary so far:

No-one has raised any serious objections to my argument.

No-one has raised any serious objections to my poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good read there. Got 'em blinkers on, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

One problem you have "FortunaMaximus" is that you seem unable to distinguish between `If A Then B' and `If B Then A'.

[DougShrapnel]

Please add the option "All hail the mighty collapser of wave functions!"

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Please add the option "All hail the mighty collapser of wave functions!"

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[carlo]

Your attributes of "G" only refer to power. Power and some say "evil" is the forcing one's personality on another. You posit "evil" and say this is "good". Love, virtue,grace, and even intelligence is left out of your equation. I deny your premise.

Yes, there are Christians in philosophy and theology and in everyday life who have no problem with "free will"(read Catholic Church and others).

Your one-sided behemoth needs a little love.

[madnak]

You are wrong. Even the atheists are saying so. Pick up a clue, stop insulting everyone, and approach the points.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a christian/jew/muslim and I am incapable of rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

rofl..

although this is funny and I agree..

why would you put this in a post that is meant to be serious...if you wanted actual argument in this thread, you shouldn't have put this in there.

[snowden719]

[ QUOTE ]
Thread summary so far:

No-one has raised any serious objections to my argument.

No-one has raised any serious objections to my poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for your answer to me.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
FortunaMaximus says:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thread summary so far:

No-one has raised any serious objections to my argument.

No-one has raised any serious objections to my poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good read there. Got 'em blinkers on, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

One problem you have "FortunaMaximus" is that you seem unable to distinguish between `If A Then B' and `If B Then A'.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're an ordinary numbers cruncher who cannot appreciate that neither the theists or atheists here who are capable of thought and rational discourse have bothered to contest your weakly self-biased poll on emotional grounds and they have provided reasonable, good arguments why your argument has flaws.

And when faced with such, what have you countered with? Hmm. Not a lot, really. Kind like a toddler's tantrum, "I'm right and you're wrong, nyaaaah..."

Laughable.

[soon2bepro]

What you say is correct, but just because there is no evidence for this God, doesn't mean the universe isn't deterministic or partially deterministic.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they are.

Anyway, free will is a mystical belief. "Choice not influenced by external factors"? Please.

[Morrek]

[ QUOTE ]
So for an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) god, creating a universe means simply choosing one from the list of all possible universes, which automatically means choosing every detail of that universe. Obviously that means for any other being that finds themselves living in such a universe, they never get to choose anything because the omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) god already chose absolutely every detail of everything that happens in that universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read anything but the OP, but this is where you're wrong IMO. God(or whatever you want to call it) created all possible universes, and we are the one's choosing which one of those to experience, not the other way around(God choosing which one we are experiencing). Not sure if this makes sense to you but it does to me.

[FortunaMaximus]

I'll give a try at redefining that, Morrek. In a multiverse built on quantum probabilistic functions, in theory, all significant Universes exist concurrently in a steady state, and your choices through this determine which of the Universes you reside in until the next if-then fork.

There are an infinite set of choices that lead up to your current state, and an infinite set of choices leading away from this state.

As for determining which specific Universe you're in, I think a comparable analogy to grayscale used in photography might be applicable here. Gray is gray and there are many different shades of gray, but it's still the same fundamental color using both black and white. Only for Universes, there are an infinite number of scales, and in an infinite number, the finite set distinguishing similar but not identical Universes may as well be perceptually infinite anyway to h. sap.

And in such a worldview, even God is reduced to another factor in the process, or he/she is the glue holding all those processes together. He or She may not have a clue how to stop the internal processes either, and maybe that's the point. Might be as curious as we are to see what results out of such an experiment.

Have the Chicken Caesar instead and a few galaxies aren't present in this Universe. How're we to tell the difference?

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]

And in such a worldview, even God is reduced to another factor in the process, or he/she is the glue holding all those processes together. He or She may not have a clue how to stop the internal processes either, and maybe that's the point. Might be as curious as we are to see what results out of such an experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would not be an omniscient omnipotent god, and so this could not provide a counterexample to my argument. So what exactly is your objection to my original argument?

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thread summary so far:

No-one has raised any serious objections to my argument.

No-one has raised any serious objections to my poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for your answer to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you need to realize "snowden719" is that `If A Then B' is logically equivalent to `If not B Then not A'.

[snowden719]

what on earth are you talking about??? First off, that's obvious. Second, none of my arguments nor yours require it.

[FortunaMaximus]

I didn't say he was omniscient or omnipotent. At the outset, the entity may have been, and the experiment has evolved to the point that those two factors now have an element of uncertainity. He may still be omniscient, but I think there is reason to doubt his omnipotence.

And my problem lies with your approach and your efforts to counter the arguments of theists and atheists alike. In this thread, you've done little more than rabblerousing, and that shows an inherent lack of both class and willingness to explore the arguments of others.

Whatever your reasoning for creating the poll, you cannot help but introduce a bias favoring atheists, and in doing so, you have created a reaction where both theists and atheists have found reason to devalue your original poll and in turn, arguments as insufficient for the scope of a rational discussion on pure merits.

[jstnrgrs]

For an omniscient, omnipotent god, nothing is impossible, so therefore without reading your post, I can say that the answer is no.

[jstnrgrs]

The very idea of applying logic to an omniscient, omnipotent god seems silly to me. Logically, any such god must transcend logic.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This is false for many reasons. Determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
The very idea of applying logic to an omniscient, omnipotent god seems silly to me. Logically, any such god must transcend logic.

[/ QUOTE ]]

And WHY would a God say 'I'm gonna make something that can't rationally determine I exist'? Wait... I know... I'm gonna make something, that BY DEFINITION means they can't logically determine I exist, and yet make that one of the mot important attributes of the species (besides the opposable thumb).

[madnak]

You're right. Hume was just a donkey.

[She]

OP, I was going to bring up the point that free will is the ability to choose how to react to external circumstances, and not relevant to the circumstances themselves... but perhaps I am misunderstanding your post. Are you saying that because a omniscient, omnipotent creator would know what characteristics that they were giving a person, then they would also be choosing how that person would respond to circumstances in the future? If so, then that is a good point and one that I had not previously considered.

Oh, and I am a christian/jew/muslim attempting rational thought, and occasionally failing miserably. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[quinn]

God being omniscient just means he already knows how he's going to exert his omnipotence. It's true that it's impossible to see the future and then be able to change it. Demanding that God be able to do so would be similar to demanding that he be able to make a square circle.

Omnipotence doesn't mean you're able to do anything that can be written in a sentence (i.e. make a square circle). Just because you can put nonsense into a sentence doesn't mean that omnipotence isn't possible for God.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It's true that it's impossible to see the future and then be able to change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Or rather, only in a relatively limited sense. In that sense I'd use terms like "It's impossible to see what the future will necessarily be and influence the future in such a way as to prevent it from becoming what it will necessarily be." Taken to this level, it's tautological.

Every time one of these threads crop up, I explain that determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive. I also explain that omniscience doesn't preclude influencing the future (even on the part of the omniscient being, and certainly not on the part of other beings).

In some cases I've even linked to or paraphrased demonstrations of the truth of these statements.

Every time one of these threads crops up, somebody comes out and says I'm wrong. They never actually refute my demonstrations (probably wise of them, given that both of my positions have been demonstrated rigorously), and they never actually support their own claims (in fact, such claims have never been logically supported rigorously or otherwise, except in tautological or circular ways).

These people are wrong, and that's critical. The entire OP is based on a fallacious premise. But because, for some reason I can't fathom, the fallacious premise makes intuitive sense to many people, they continue to accept it as fact despite never having considered it in depth. So, hmk, quinn, all you others who think this is obvious: Here's a challenge. If it's so clearly, undeniably true, then it should be very simple to establish such syllogistically. All you have to do is construct such a syllogism, in which neither the definition of your terms nor the statement of your premises assumes the proposition to be proved. Then I'll walk away with my tail between my legs, and I'll change my location to "owned by hmk (or whoever)," and I'll always agree with you whenever you post from here to eternity.

I'm waiting...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's true that it's impossible to see the future and then be able to change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Or rather, only in a relatively limited sense. In that sense I'd use terms like "It's impossible to see what the future will necessarily be and influence the future in such a way as to prevent it from becoming what it will necessarily be." Taken to this level, it's tautological.

Every time one of these threads crop up, I explain that determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive. I also explain that omniscience doesn't preclude influencing the future (even on the part of the omniscient being, and certainly not on the part of other beings).

In some cases I've even linked to or paraphrased demonstrations of the truth of these statements.

Every time one of these threads crops up, somebody comes out and says I'm wrong. They never actually refute my demonstrations (probably wise of them, given that both of my positions have been demonstrated rigorously), and they never actually support their own claims (in fact, such claims have never been logically supported rigorously or otherwise, except in tautological or circular ways).

These people are wrong, and that's critical. The entire OP is based on a fallacious premise. But because, for some reason I can't fathom, the fallacious premise makes intuitive sense to many people, they continue to accept it as fact despite never having considered it in depth. So, hmk, quinn, all you others who think this is obvious: Here's a challenge. If it's so clearly, undeniably true, then it should be very simple to establish such syllogistically. All you have to do is construct such a syllogism, in which neither the definition of your terms nor the statement of your premises assumes the proposition to be proved. Then I'll walk away with my tail between my legs, and I'll change my location to "owned by hmk (or whoever)," and I'll always agree with you whenever you post from here to eternity.

I'm waiting...

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you didn't say I had to have even remotely reasonable or agreed upon premises:

If free will and determinism are compatible, all apples will be red.

Not all apples are red.

Therefore, free will and determinism aren't compatible.

I prefer 'pwned' to 'owned,' thx.

[madnak]

Oh [censored]. I can't believe I didn't cover my ass on that. Okay, I guess you guys win.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh [censored]. I can't believe I didn't cover my ass on that. Okay, I guess you guys win.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Heh, nah, I'm on your(Hume's) side on this, I'm a compatibilist. Just giving you a hard time. You can change your location back, I've enjoyed my glory thoroughly already.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's true that it's impossible to see the future and then be able to change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Or rather, only in a relatively limited sense. In that sense I'd use terms like "It's impossible to see what the future will necessarily be and influence the future in such a way as to prevent it from becoming what it will necessarily be." Taken to this level, it's tautological.

Every time one of these threads crop up, I explain that determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive. I also explain that omniscience doesn't preclude influencing the future (even on the part of the omniscient being, and certainly not on the part of other beings).

In some cases I've even linked to or paraphrased demonstrations of the truth of these statements.

Every time one of these threads crops up, somebody comes out and says I'm wrong. They never actually refute my demonstrations (probably wise of them, given that both of my positions have been demonstrated rigorously), and they never actually support their own claims (in fact, such claims have never been logically supported rigorously or otherwise, except in tautological or circular ways).

These people are wrong, and that's critical. The entire OP is based on a fallacious premise. But because, for some reason I can't fathom, the fallacious premise makes intuitive sense to many people, they continue to accept it as fact despite never having considered it in depth. So, hmk, quinn, all you others who think this is obvious: Here's a challenge. If it's so clearly, undeniably true, then it should be very simple to establish such syllogistically. All you have to do is construct such a syllogism, in which neither the definition of your terms nor the statement of your premises assumes the proposition to be proved. Then I'll walk away with my tail between my legs, and I'll change my location to "owned by hmk (or whoever)," and I'll always agree with you whenever you post from here to eternity.

I'm waiting...

[/ QUOTE ]

If only I had had the pleasure of your prior explanations /images/graemlins/frown.gif. I did some googling on compatibilism, but didn't find anything very believable.
Seems to me that any statement of the terms assumes what is to be proven. And I think most people have an intuitive understanding of free will that does conflict with determinism.

Let's say I believe that all our actions are deterministic. If i lift my right arm, it is because the history of every particle and field in my body conspired to make it so. All effects are preceded by classically deterministic causes. Is this not what you define as determinism? And if it is, what would you define as free will?

Maybe I should just ask it thusly...what are your definitions for free will and determinism?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If only I had had the pleasure of your prior explanations /images/graemlins/frown.gif. I did some googling on compatibilism, but didn't find anything very believable.
Seems to me that any statement of the terms assumes what is to be proven. And I think most people have an intuitive understanding of free will that does conflict with determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you there, though I don't understand it. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." An intuitive impression of something doesn't indicate the validity of that something.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I believe that all our actions are deterministic. If i lift my right arm, it is because the history of every particle and field in my body conspired to make it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also because you chose to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
All effects are preceded by classically deterministic causes. Is this not what you define as determinism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I include probabilistic determinism in my definition. That's more important than it sounds, see below.

[ QUOTE ]
And if it is, what would you define as free will?

Maybe I should just ask it thusly...what are your definitions for free will and determinism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Free will is the ability to make meaningful choices that influence future outcomes. Determinism is when every event is either the causal result of other events or is random.

The random part is important, and it's a valid source of disagreement. Pure determinists would say randomness "doesn't count."

Part of the strength of compatibilism among scientists is that if an event has no theoretically identifiable cause, then that event is empirically random. Therefore, if events attributable to free will can't be reconciled with causal factors, an empiricist must approach them as being inherently random.

Of course, in spite of the OP here and his claims, most of the people who support free will as being incompatible with determinism have a moral or spiritual rather than empirical basis for doing so. Hume used some powerful arguments to demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe a person can only be considered responsible for his actions, and that those actions can only be considered meaningful, if they have a causal orientation. Obviously such arguments depend on certain premises, but Hume makes them very intuitive to counter the common-sense views of free will and determinism as being mutually exclusive. That's why his arguments were so wonderful - they work on the "gut" level as well as the rational level.

But of course, it can never be proved that free will and determinism are always compatible according to any given context. If I'm allowed to frame a context, then it's easy to make them compatible with premises that are reasonable (from an empirical standpoint, and with some implicit caveats).

For example: Human choices are the result of brain activity in the prefrontal cortex. Brain activity in the prefrontal cortex exists. Therefore human choices exist. The effects of human choices have a significant and meaningful impact according to many different standards - the path of an individual is determined by his choices, and the choices of many individuals collectively result in changes to the entire biosphere and everything in it. Therefore, since human choice exists and is meaningful, free will is valid. Activity in the prefrontal cortex is the result of chemical and biophysical interactions that function according to deterministic laws. Therefore choices are made deterministically. Therefore free will is deterministic.

The problem is that such simple statements rarely convince anyone. It's similar, IMO, to the problem of convincing fundamentalists of various things. Look at how quick they are to suggest that if humans are "just" collections of atoms, then life must be meaningless. Personally I find that this is the strongest barrier - reductionism doesn't destroy synthetic meaning, it only puts it aside momentarily. A whole can be much more than the sum of its parts - there's no reason to suggest that things like emotion, belief, consciousness, and yes, choice, can arise from basic physical mechanics.

[arahant]

Well, it was a good explanation!
I think we probably have different definitions of free will, which is not to say one is valid. In fact, philosophically yours is probably more sensical. Just for clarity, is the crux of your position that 'random' events (quantum indeterminism, e.g.) that lead one to act in a certain way 'count' toward free will? If the outcome is unknowable, this is what we call 'choice'?

[madnak]

Yes, I think random events that determine conscious action qualify as free will. And of course, I think that supernatural or indeterministic free will, if it were to exist, would have to exist in just such a form.

I don't see many incompatibilist definitions about free will that don't inherently include incompatibilism. That's fine and all if you want to outright define free will as incompatible with determinism (and of course, in that case it only takes one step to verify that you're right given your assumptions). But to me it doesn't seem useful - here you're using definitions of free will and determinism that include mutually exclusivity as a requirement. And then you're saying that free will and determinism aren't compatible. That's tautological, so no meaningful conclusions can be inferred from it.

Given such definitions, then, the idea that the universe is "meaningless" without free will can't be justified. Unless the definition of "meaning" also includes such a stipulation, in which case you're only expanding the tautology!

[arahant]

Yeah, i agree that my definitions make free will and determinism incompatible tautologically. I don't really see a problem with that, though. Theism and Atheism are tautologically incompatible, but they are both words that convey meaning.

At any rate, when people argue that they are incompatible, it's something to bear in mind about where they are coming from, if you don't already. I think the definition these people use would be similar to mine...something along the lines of 'the ability to make choices not dictated by the physical laws of the universe ' (That's not rigorous...just throwing it out there).

[toybux]

Your flawed assumption is a linearly defined God. Free will is not incompatible with a nonlinearly aware God that exists outside the normal flow of time and is in fact equally aware of all moments in time at once.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Your flawed assumption is a linearly defined God. Free will is not incompatible with a nonlinearly aware God that exists outside the normal flow of time and is in fact equally aware of all moments in time at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but there is no "normal flow of time." It's merely human perception that it flows forward. It's just an expanding sample size.

That hardly constitutes proof of a God. Gonna have to try much harder than that.

[toybux]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but there is no "normal flow of time." It's merely human perception that it flows forward. It's just an expanding sample size.

That hardly constitutes proof of a God. Gonna have to try much harder than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "normal" I meant as humans perceive time. The argument assumes for God to know everything he would have to know it "before" the events occurred. I'm just trying to point out that for a all-powerful being completely different than us, such a before and after concept may be meaningless.

I'm not trying to prove there is a God, I just don't think this particular argument is a very good disproof.

[FortunaMaximus]

Agreed. And like I said, it's going to take much more than temporal semantics to offer a disprovable thesis.

Causality is violated in the natural Universe.

[thylacine]

Some of you got n^th-levelled on the poll. It was on the Steven Colbert level, not the Bill O'Reilly level.

... except the first two options. They were just on the level. And they give an interesting result. Knowing merely that a person is an atheist statistically tells you very little about where they stand on questions of free will. Makes it hard to legitimately stereotype and pidgeonhole atheists.

[FortunaMaximus]

Uh, okay...

Except... you may have chosen the wrong sample set to nth level here. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif This ain't exactly BBV.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you got n^th-levelled on the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's happening to me a lot recently.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, i agree that my definitions make free will and determinism incompatible tautologically. I don't really see a problem with that, though. Theism and Atheism are tautologically incompatible, but they are both words that convey meaning.

At any rate, when people argue that they are incompatible, it's something to bear in mind about where they are coming from, if you don't already. I think the definition these people use would be similar to mine...something along the lines of 'the ability to make choices not dictated by the physical laws of the universe ' (That's not rigorous...just throwing it out there).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, those words are still meaningful, but any discussion of whether you can be an atheist and a theist at the same time isnt. Since thats not an argument anyone cares about, you get away with your definitions. In the case free will, you aren't objectionless.