i can see a paradox.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by ArmsMerchant

Ditto. OPs statement is a classic non sequitor.

Let's say I know you so well, that I can accurately predict what choices you will make--that in no way robs you of the freedom to make those choices.

You merely restated the claim and proved absolutely nothing... In fact, you contradict yourself in making the statement. You said "the choices you will make". "Will happen" implies inevitability, and thus predetermination.

[truckfixr]

Originally Posted by ArmsMerchant

Ditto. OPs statement is a classic non sequitor.

Let's say I know you so well, that I can accurately predict what choices you will make--that in no way robs you of the freedom to make those choices.

We're not talking about predictions when talking about omniscience. We're talking about knowing with infallible certainty in advance, what you will do.

[Roxberry]

Originally Posted by Rust

He knows that will happen before we are even born. That you want to label him as timeless doesn't change this. To us, the beings whose freewill is being questioned, the event is already set in stone before we are even born.

God being timeless is irrelevant so long as it can be said that future events in our timeline are known.

I don't want to get in a debate about this (so this may be my only post in this thread), but there is a pretty good Wikipedia article pointing out the problem of the conclusion that free will and omniscient beings are incompatible.

One criticism of the Argument from Free Will is that in point 4 of the proof it simply assumes that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. It uses circular logic to "prove" this, by simply stating that "a being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices". Point 4 is therefore saying, in essence, "A being that knows its choices in advance has no free will, and therefore has no free will". By assuming what it is trying to prove, that point undermines the entire argument.

Specifically, point 4 commits the modal fallacy of assuming that because some choice is known to be true, it must be necessarily true (i.e. there is no way it could possibly be false).[11] Logically, the truth value of some proposition can not be used to infer that the same proposition is necessarily true.

Using logical terminology and applying it to AFFW, there is a marked distinction between the statement “It is impossible (for God to know a future action to be true and for that action to not occur)” and the statement “If God knows that a future action is true, then it is impossible for that action to not occur.” While the two statements may seem to say the same thing, they are not logically equivalent. The second sentence is false because it commits the modal fallacy of saying that a certain action is impossible, instead of saying that the two propositions (God knows a future action to be true, and that action does not occur) are jointly impossible. Simply asserting that God knows a future action does not make it impossible for that action not to occur. The confusion comes in mistaking a semantic relation between two events for a causal relation between two events.

With these assumptions more explicitly stated, the proof becomes:

1. Assume that person X has free will (assumption).
2. By the definition of free will, at any point in time, X can choose to do any action A, where A belongs to A(T), the set of all actions that X is physically capable of at time T (definition of free will).
3. At time T, person X will choose to do action A (i.e. a person can not logically choose to do both A and not A) (Law of the Excluded Middle).
4. Assume that an omniscient God exists (assumption).
5. By the definition of omniscience, God knows everything that will happen at any point in time (definition of omniscience).
6. From 3. and 5., God knows that at time T, person X will choose to do action A (logical conclusion).
7. Therefore, person X must do action A at time T.

This claims to prove that at time T, person X is unable to do any action other than A. However, you could also remove steps 4–6, and arrive at the same conclusion. This is called logical determinism, and it suffers from the same modal fallacy as AFFW. If a certain proposition is true, that does not imply that the proposition is logically necessary. Once you remove the invalid assertion, then the argument for logical determinism is shown to be false. Similarly, when that same invalid assertion is removed from AFFW (“by the definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘choice’, if one knows for certain what choice one will make in the future, one will not be able to make the opposite choice”), the proof is shown to be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

[Rust]

Except:

1. The article deals mainly with a specific form of the argument. Not all arguments have the same form, and thus not all of the have the same flaws.

2. They attack logical determinism by saying "If a certain proposition is true, that does not imply that the proposition is logically necessary". Arguably, however, infallible omniscience does just that: An event known by an infallible omniscient being must happen... it could not have not happened or the being would be fallible.

[Roxberry]

Originally Posted by Rust

An event known by an infallible omniscient being must happen... it could not have not happened or the being would be fallible.

Right- but this being can give free will and also know what will happen. Must it happen? Yes. Can this being give free will and foretell future events with 100% accuracy? I see no reason why not. The argument, "because it must happen and therefore you can't change your mind, and if you can't change your mind you don't have free will" doesn't work. Why? Because you can "change your mind" all you want; it's just that an infallible, omniscient being knows what changes (if any) you will freely choose to make.

"But once God says this will happen, it must happen. If it must happen, you have no free will."

Poppycock! It must happen because he's always right. You can have free will and he can be clairvoyant.

I've debated this with others and it usually just goes around in circles, so I'll just bow out of this debate now.

[Sploosh™]

Originally Posted by AnotherN00b

HatterMaxwell started this thread which got closed by ArmsMerchant because there was no serious reply.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2184432

i got one that i would like to share.the paradox is this-

if god is omnipotent/omniscient and infallible, then that means everything is predetermined and therefore we were programed from the moment of creation to follow one path. therefore we have no free will.

am i right or wrong.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAR, CONGRATULATIONS HERE'S YOUR PRIZE: ENLIGHTENMENT.

No, no one has ever thought of that before. Also, just because you know something is going to fall doesn't mean the fall is predetermined. For example, if you see a loose berry on a tree and know the wind will knock it down, does that mean you predetermined to make it fall? No.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Roxberry

The argument, "because it must happen and therefore you can't change your mind, and if you can't change your mind you don't have free will" doesn't work. Why? Because you can "change your mind" all you want; it's just that an infallible, omniscient being knows what changes (if any) you will freely choose to make.

No, the argument works just fine precisely because you cannot change your mind all you want. If the number of times I will change my mind is set in stone before hand (by his omniscience) then I cannot change my mind more than that!

If he sees 2 changes, I cannot then at the day of the choice/event do 3!

[truckfixr]

Originally Posted by Roxberry

Right- but this being can give free will and also know what will happen. Must it happen? Yes. Can this being give free will and foretell future events with 100% accuracy? I see no reason why not. The argument, "because it must happen and therefore you can't change your mind, and if you can't change your mind you don't have free will" doesn't work. Why? Because you can "change your mind" all you want; it's just that an infallible, omniscient being knows what changes (if any) you will freely choose to make.

Imagine your entire lifetime recorded as a movie. An omniscient god knows your life frame by frame. There's not a single frame of the movie that is your life, that he did not know of with certainty even before he said "let there be light". He knows every thought you will think before you even exist. Every breath you will breathe. What you will have for breakfast next Tuesday.

The future cannot be known in advance unless it is predetermined.

"But once God says this will happen, it must happen. If it must happen, you have no free will."

Poppycock! It must happen because he's always right. You can have free will and he can be clairvoyant.

He's always right because he knows what the future holds. He's not predicting or guessing. He knows with certainty.

You cannot have free will. Merely the illusion of such.

I've debated this with others and it usually just goes around in circles, so I'll just bow out of this debate now.

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

[Obbe]

Your lifetime isn't a movie being recorded frame by frame. There is no future or past. God knows all because it is happening as it happens. I can change my mind and God has not predetermined this. He knows whats gonna happen before I make up my own mind, because to God "right now" and "when I make up my mind" are not on some linear time-scale but are in the same process of happening as any other moment or "frame".

We are not experiencing some previously created, already recorded moment of time. There is no linear scale, there is only now.

[AnotherN00b]

Originally Posted by Sploosh™

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAR, CONGRATULATIONS HERE'S YOUR PRIZE: ENLIGHTENMENT.

No, no one has ever thought of that before. Also, just because you know something is going to fall doesn't mean the fall is predetermined. For example, if you see a loose berry on a tree and know the wind will knock it down, does that mean you predetermined to make it fall? No.

DING DING DING DING DING DING. WE HAVE A RETARD.
CONGRATULATIONS HERE'S YOUR PRIZE:
FUCK ALL

your example sucks. because:
1. i am not the subject of this paradox
2. if i KNOW something is going to happen then it IS predetermined.
3. your retarded

pre⋅de⋅ter⋅mine:
–verb (used with object), -mined, -min⋅ing.
1. to settle or decide in advance
2. to ordain in advance; predestine
3. to direct or impel; influence strongly