Holy spirit

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]1. We can foreknow how we will act, provided that no unforeseeable events happen. Such knowledge does not differ from God's knowledge except in degree of certainty. So how could God's foreknowledge impinge on free will and from our own foreknowledge? How could a higher degree of free will impact on free will?
That degree of uncertainty is critical...Yo ...[text shortened]... en is yet, X is the choice you must make in the future (else you will prove God wrong).[/b]

God knowing you will do X in the future without margin for error implies that circumstances and the mechanics of your brain/soul (whatever that is) will lead you towards doing X [b]without you having the opportunity to do otherwise (lest you prove God wrong). Your actions/choices may as well be scripted.[/b]

Good. I have no disagreement with this paragraph. It fully expresses why I believe that God can be omniscient and I have free will.

I and others are trying to show you that accepting as true the premise God knows everthing and we also have free will leads to contradiction.

What is the contradiction? Is it as obvious as "You will choose X; oh no, now I am forced to choose X because God knows I will choose X".

By recursion it can be demonstrated (I did so earlier and you ignored it) that there was a thing your God knew you would do that was [b]not contingent upon any choice you made. [/b]

God's knowledge is contingent upon the action I will make. So if I choose X at time t1, then God knows at t0. But if I choose not-X, then God knows that I that at t0. At no point am I being forced to choose X. I still script my actions - that is the first premise that you posited: that I will choose X.

exactly how do you define your God's temporal existence such thay he can be omnscient?

I don't. At the moment, I don't even believe in God.

I claim that your God knows you will choose X and from your perspective having not even considered the thought of what X even is yet, X is the choice you must make in the future (else you will prove God wrong).

Since God's knowledge is contingent, if I change in some way to choose not-X, that just means that God's knowledge changes. It is contingent upon.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No contradiction. I was referring to the source of the will (i.e. the character and desires of the person), not free will. Libertarians argue that choice comes exclusively from the character of the individual, undetermined by external things like genes and environment. Where that character comes from is something that KM has never explained.

Let me take the next paragraph from my previous source.

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

All libertarians subscribe to the philosophy of incompatibilism which states that an action cannot be both free and physically predetermined. Free actions are ones which could have been different.

(my emphasis)

The bolded sentence is the problem in a nutshell. There can be no 'different' actions when someone infallibly sees all actions in advance of their happening. Infallible means that there is zero chance of being wrong. This means there is zero chance of anyone doing anything 'different' than is known.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Let me take the next paragraph from my previous source.

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

All libertarians subscribe to the philosophy of incompatibilism which states that an action cannot be both free and physically predetermined. [b]Free actions are ones which could have been different.

(my emphasis) ...[text shortened]... g wrong. This means there is zero chance of anyone doing anything 'different' than is known.[/b]

There can be no 'different' actions when someone infallibly sees all actions in advance of their happening.
Assuming that we can see an action that occured in the past, was said action free?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]There can be no 'different' actions when someone infallibly sees all actions in advance of their happening.
Assuming that we can see an action that occured in the past, was said action free?[/b]

Perhaps.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Let me take the next paragraph from my previous source.

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

All libertarians subscribe to the philosophy of incompatibilism which states that an action cannot be both free and physically predetermined. [b]Free actions are ones which could have been different.

(my emphasis) ...[text shortened]... g wrong. This means there is zero chance of anyone doing anything 'different' than is known.[/b]

Whether one can foreseen act can be freely willed hass the point of contention for the majority of this thread. Simply stating one side does not convince me. I obviously disagree.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Perhaps.

Please be more specific.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Please be more specific.

There is not enough information in your question to make a determination.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Whether one can foresee an act and can still have free will has been the point of contention for the majority of this thread. Simply stating one side does not convince me. I obviously disagree.

I do not know what happened here. Read:

Whether one can foresee an act and still have free will has been the point of contention for the majority of this thread. Simply stating one side does not convince me. I obviously disagree.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Whether one can foreseen act can be freely willed hass the point of contention for the majority of this thread. Simply stating one side does not convince me. I obviously disagree.

Debates often end without anyone being convinced to change their opinion, so that does not worry me much.

I have done more than simply state positions, and I am content with how things stand; I have shown the logical contradiction in the opposing position.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not know what happened here. Read:

Whether one can foresee an act and still have free will has been the point of contention for the majority of this thread. Simply stating one side does not convince me. I obviously disagree.

Whether one can foresee an act and still have free will has been the point of contention for the majority of this thread. Simply stating one side does not convince me. I obviously disagree.

No, it is whether act A by person H can be considered a free choice if it has been forseen infallibly by person G. The forseer and the actor are not the same. In this debate, they cannot be. One is infallible and the other is not.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, it is whether act A by person H can be considered a free choice if it has been forseen infallibly by person G. The forseer and the actor are not the same. In this debate, they cannot be. One is infallible and the other is not.

Nope. As I see it, if it is a free choice, then it ought to be foreseen infallibly by an omniscient being. That affirms free will.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Nope. As I see it, if it is a free choice, then it ought to be foreseen infallibly by an omniscient being. That affirms free will.

But not free will of a Libertarian sort.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
But not free will of a Libertarian sort.

I have explained several times why I do not see why.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]How would you know anything about “God’s” knowledge?
The Word of God provides us with everything we need to know about God’s knowledge (and everything related to the spiritual life, for that matter).

How would you know all this?
Please see above response.

This would be especially odd when taking into account of the fact that the w ...[text shortened]... Or, in the obverse, a presumption that the Bible isn’t true… as you hold for no apparent reason.

….How would you know anything about “God’s” knowledge?
The Word of God provides us with everything we need to know about God’s knowledge ..…[/b]

How do you know what the word of “God” is?
-and before you answer “the Bible” -how do you know that the Bible is the word of “God”?
-I mean, doesn’t this make the irrational assumptions that there is a god and only one god and the Bible just happens to say what “he“ said?
And before you answer that you know that the Bible is the word of “God” because it says so in the Bible:
-that answer would be a circular argument. I could write on a sheet of paper:

“Everything that is written on this sheet of paper is the word of God. God did NOT create anything”

And say that is ‘evidence’ that “God” didn’t create anything! 😛
And if you say that what is written on that sheet of paper was not the word of “God” then I would say wrong! -because, just look! -it says on that sheet of paper that this is the word of “God” 😛

…P.S. I would regard any quote from the Bible as a none-answer to these questions since we have no rational premise to think that everything the Bible says must be true.
Or, in the obverse, a presumption that the Bible isn’t true… as you hold for no apparent reason.
..…

Nope -the total and complete absence of any premise (i.e. either evidence or logic) of the Bible’s most fundamental assumptions (such as there is a god) is the reason.
Would you deny this fact?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
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.

well, thats where you lose me, of course.

what do you mean by "interacting with us?"