Holy spirit

Originally posted by SwissGambit

Not so. It is possible for people to change their minds, even on short notice. Perhaps you suddenly remember that you have something more important to do and thus do not post as you originally intended.

Again, I do not see how that additional knowledge, that I would remember that I have something more important, could possibly affect my free will. If God knows that, awesome; I do not see how that could possibly diminish my free will.

And anyway, it is conceivable that you could be in possession of all the facts and know that you are in possession of all the facts.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, I do not see how that additional knowledge, that I would remember that I have something more important, could possibly affect my free will. If God knows that, awesome; I do not see how that could possibly diminish my free will.

And anyway, it is conceivable that you could be in possession of all the facts and know that you are in possession of all the facts.

Again, I do not see how that additional knowledge, that I would remember that I have something more important, could possibly affect my free will.

However, it does show that your knowledge of what you will do is not infallible. That's the point.

And anyway, it is conceivable that you could be in possession of all the facts and know that you are in possession of all the facts.

Yes, you could possibly know this, but not infallibly.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]Again, I do not see how that additional knowledge, that I would remember that I have something more important, could possibly affect my free will.

However, it does show that your knowledge of what you will do is not infallible. That's the point.

And anyway, it is conceivable that you could be in possession of all the facts and know ...[text shortened]... e in possession of all the facts.

Yes, you could possibly know this, but not infallibly.[/b]

Ok, infallible might be an exaggeration. But I can at least say, "All things the same, this is how I will act. Should there be no stroke, no computer malfunction or no spontaneous change in my personality, I know I will act this way and that I must act in this way because it is what I want." Does that impinge on free will?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok, infallible might be an exaggeration. But I can at least say, "All things the same, this is how I will act. Should there be no stroke, no computer malfunction or no spontaneous change in my personality, I know I will act this way and that I must act in this way because it is what I want." Does that impinge on free will?

If you don't know in advance, infallibly, what you will do in the future then in the absence of any other entity that knows such things, you may have free-will (if such a thing can exist) or you may have the happy illusion of free-will.
If it is known what you will do in the future (by yourself, God, etc...) before the thought of doing it even crossed your mind however, then your actions are fixed, and it is beyond your ability to truly exercise free-will and change them.

Originally posted by Agerg
If you don't know in advance, infallibly, what you will do in the future then in the absense of any other entity that knows such things, you may have free-will (if such a thing an exist) or you may have the happy [b]illusion of free-will.
If it is known what you will do in the future (by yourself, God, etc...) before the thought of doing it even crossed your mind however, then your actions are fixed and determined outside of your control.[/b]

But I only know what I will do because I am in control. I really do not understand why you have this problem. Knowledge is not forcing me to act a certain way; my knowledge of how I will act is contingent upon me. I do not see how I could be a free-willing agent and not know what I would do tomorrow. Only crazy people could be like that.

Your vision of free will is nonsensical.

Originally posted by Conrau K
But I only know what I will do because I am in control. I really do not understand why you have this problem. Knowledge is not forcing me to act a certain way; my knowledge of how I will act is contingent upon me. I do not see how I could be a free-willing agent and not know what I would do tomorrow. Only crazy people could be like that.

Your vision of free will is nonsensical.

dude...the fact that your future is known implies it is already fixed. Your inability to see this bewilders me!

What do you think freewill is?...making scripted choices??? Does my computer have free-will???

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The year has nothing to do with it. Once you admit that God can enter our time at any point, and still retain all of his knowledge, then he must have knowledge of the future. If he enters at year 1900, he necessarily knows all of the future from that point on. If he enters at the year 6000 BC, he necessarily knows all of the future from that point on. Th ...[text shortened]... e can tell us directly of things we will do in our future, and we are powerless to do otherwise.

b y sheer chance I picked up a short story collection I had hidden away all these many years by John Wyndham, a British Sci-Fi author who was born in 1903 and died in 1969.

the book, "consider her ways, and others," may still be available.

the first 2 stories are variations on the same theme: main character either by taking an experimental drug or by being hit by a tram, project their minds into the future and wake up for a temporary visit there. On returning to their original time with knowledge of what Wyndham says is one of many possible futures, each character tries act to alter the course of the events that follow from their starting point.

In one story, Consider Her Ways, a woman tries to prevent what she sees as a horrible future by actually killing a scientist she's never met whom she was told invented and accidentally released a virus that wiped out every last man on Earth, leaving only women. Her effort was futile, for unknown to her, the man she killed had a son with the same name who was qualified and determined to finish the research his father had begun. So this story signifies the idea common in the 20th century that no matter what you did to alter a predetermined future, you'd fail -- can't save Lincoln, Kennedy, etc.

In the 2nd story, the time traveler returns to his younger self after having the concept of the plastics industry explained to him in rather clear terms. So he quits his job as an accountant, takes a degree in chemistry and discovers how to make plastics, starts a company and becomes wealthy, knighted, etc. This story signifies the other idea, that if one got a glimmer of the future and came back here to the present, one could profit hugely by changing your behavior now.

Only one story concerned physicians, however, thus avoiding the most common conceit of time travel Sci Fi -- which was to write about the pair of docs of time travel.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]How is it you have knowledge of this? Where are these facts for us to examine?
Revelation of Scripture is our source for knowing the specifics of God's power.

I only ask so I can look ahead and see when this @#!%$% market is going to bottom out.
A proper orientation to the truths of God will always lead to profit.

If I had tomorro ...[text shortened]... count if, in gaining the entire world, your soul was cast into Hell at the end of your life?

well, since everything you say is based on premises no one can prove true, and some of what you say -- about the scriptures, for example -- is simple minded rubbish, you are no help at all.

As for Hell -- got news, I'm in it now and doing what I can to put up with it. Why? You really don't want to know.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The reason I concentrated on knowledge of the future was to debunk knightmeister's claim that god only knows thing 'after' they happen.

If we could agree on what is meant by the use of the word "God," we might understand one or two things about who, what, where, and why we are.

What usually is the case in discussion like these is that everyone has a slightly different slant on what that word means when you use it rather than when you simply mention it, as I did in my first line above.

Gotta sing from the same sheet of music if we're going to sound like we're coming in at the same time and staying in tune.

Originally posted by Agerg
dude...the fact that your future is known implies it is already fixed. Your inability to see this bewilders me!

What do you think freewill is?...making scripted choices??? Does my computer have free-will???

Wise man say: Mac has free will - smart computer for dumb user; PC has no free will -- dumb computer for smart user.

I say all computers are like brocoli -- and I say the hell with them.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok, infallible might be an exaggeration. But I can at least say, "All things the same, this is how I will act. Should there be no stroke, no computer malfunction or no spontaneous change in my personality, I know I will act this way and that I must act in this way because it is what I want." Does that impinge on free will?

No. There is no issue with [libertarian] free will unless someone has infallible knowledge of what will happen.

Originally posted by Agerg
dude...the fact that your future is known implies it is already fixed. Your inability to see this bewilders me!

What do you think freewill is?...making scripted choices??? Does my computer have free-will???

I see it; I just do not see it as a problem. Of course that means the future is fixed -- it is fixed by me. How is that not an affirmation of free will? If I am a free-willing agent I should know what I will do: I know myself very well and as a free-willing agent, it should be I who makes a free-willing decision. You add up the syllogism.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No. There is no issue with [libertarian] free will unless someone has infallible knowledge of what will happen.

Again, I do not see why. You and Agerg simply keep repeating this statement. Yet this is useless if you will not explain how mere knowledge can impact on free will. Because as I see it, even libertarian free will requires that future actions be predictable from an individual's character. I think this is really obvious. A person acting out of character is not a person of free will.

Originally posted by Scriabin
If we could agree on what is meant by the use of the word "God," we might understand one or two things about who, what, where, and why we are.

What usually is the case in discussion like these is that everyone has a slightly different slant on what that word means when you use it rather than when you simply mention it, as I did in my first line above.
...[text shortened]... of music if we're going to sound like we're coming in at the same time and staying in tune.

I have been abiding by knightmeister's concept of God, for the sake of argument [which has spanned more than just this one thread]. In particular, he believes God is both omniscient and capable of interacting with us.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, I do not see why. You and Agerg simply keep repeating this statement. Yet this is useless if you will not explain how mere knowledge can impact on free will. Because as I see it, even libertarian free will requires that future actions be predictable from an individual's character. I think this is really obvious. A person acting out of character is not a person of free will.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Libertarian-free-will

libertarianism is generally held to be the combination of the following beliefs:
1. that free will is incompatible with determinism
2. that determinism is false, and
3. that human beings do possess free will.

Because as I see it, even libertarian free will requires that future actions be predictable from an individual's character.

This sounds very close to determinism. "Predictable" certainly seems like the wrong word to use.