I just want to sin!!!

[Sheldon]

No. Sometimes people just want to hide behind philosophy, and create illogical arguments, imo.

 

[Sheldon]

That is my point, free will is grounded on common sense, intuition and the absurdity of a world without free will.

So unless someone provides conclusive evidence against free will, we have enough reasons to accept the truth of free will.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

As an analogy you can’t prove ether that we live in physical world (and not in the Matrix) all we have is common sense, intuition and the absurdity of living inside the Matrix…………….but until someone provides conclusive e evidence that we live in the matrix, I think it is rational to assume that we don’t

Then you don't know what rational means, as that is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy as well. It is however both rational and epistemologically sound, to disbelieve any claim, made without any, or even sufficient evidence, and one need not make a contrary claim, or hold a contrary belief to do so.

 

[Sheldon]

The question makes no sense, it seems you think scepticism is a barrier to open minded scrutiny of ideas and beliefs , I suspect that is where you are going wrong. Also as has been explained many times, religions and theism exert a lot of influence on the world, and not all of it is innocuous, since atheists and sceptics must share the planet with theists and religions, it behoves us to understand them and what they believe as much as we can.

It seems to me a public debate forum is the perfect place for this.

You don't debate, though. That is, you don't respond to questions or resolutions. You mainly use one-liners that sum as "You have no place in this discussion."

I seek debate with atheists but not your trite debate.

 

[Sheldon]

Christianly is grounded on the resurrection _(and the existence of an Abrahamic God) ……….omniscient and free will are Jesus secondary doctrines.


The claim that you are suppose to refute (assuming that you disagree) is that Christianity is grounded on the resurrection,

Nope, your claim is that a resurrection is evidence for a religion, and I am dubious about your claim for resurrection, it is therefore incumbent on you to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for your claim that any resurrection occurred, now can you?

Otherwise your religion by your own assertion is based on an unevidenced belief.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh no. That concept is internal to the universe.
I am not suggesting that "the agent" is observing from within the universe.
..perhaps the word "universal" is not the correct expression.
Nevertheless, it does throw some question as to the concept of "now".


A meaningless statement unless you explain to us what determines it.
You are implying that it is "that which is known about the future" that determines it.

No, I am saying that whatever makes it possible to be known is what determines it.

I strongly object. I say that you are making incorrect assumptions about the nature of time. You assume that if future events are known, then that is what determines them.

No, I am saying that if they can be known then they are determined. I am NOT saying that the knowledge itself is what determines it.

I, on the other hand, claim that they are determined by our choices.

Which cannot be the case if there is knowledge about the result prior to the choice.

..and why can't that be our choices?
..saying that if the future is known, then our choices don't determine the future is just an assertion.

If the future is known, then it is determined no later than the point at which it is known. if that is before the actual choice, then it was determined before the choice. That means the choice is not what determined it.

Light cones don't come into it. G-d is not part of the universe.
He is the owner of time & space.

Which means that it is determined by the structure of the universe. Which is questionable since causality only makes sense within the universe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, I am saying that whatever makes it possible to be known is what determines it.

Why?
Why is it that our choices can determine it, if it is not known?

Which cannot be the case if there is knowledge about the result prior to the choice.

..and therein lies your mistake.
You assume that something that "hasn't happened yet" cannot be known, unless it is determined by some mystical force.
The reason for this is your perception and belief that time is a property of the universe, and that "hasn't happened yet" is final.
You don't believe that there could exist an agent whose perception sees all i.e. omniscient

I believe that G-d is not within the universe. He is responsible for all that we see. He is the owner of time and space. He created the "illusion" in which we are trapped.
The future is hidden from us, as we perceive time passing differently.

 

[rational experiences]

Just humans. Just men. Born by a human status sex is the sin given to a baby by their choice sex.

Then science Satanists theory I want the sin of science.

Not the sin of sex. As we are not God the science earth body product owning sealed UFO metal bodies in Seams SEWN + NSEW. Their theoried body of God O and it's cross.

Not biological sin whatsoever metals in earth. UFO thesis.

So they study and experiment and calculate study the sun asteroid metals. Gained fallen burnt out landed on earth. UFO thesis. A God star landed on earth.

If I learn the sun metal direct ejected into space and not earths changes by body causes earth.... then I will know how to unseal all of earth seams fused as metals as lesser metal.

The UFO theists artificial God machine plus machine reactive thesis. I want it all...all the powers. Of earth plus the sun. Infinite space energy thesis in nature's holding if power. Physical mass first.

Then energy mass released second as science of humans second law. Nature natural as God is first.

As he says I know I can make earth mass disappear by a machine reaction as I caused it before. Old science destruction of earth. Imbalanced contorted change.

Where human artefact found snap frozen in coal mass old earth nature life. So he says artefact earth metal taken by human put back where it belongs in fusion.... coal no life biology. Cannot invent electricity himself answer already given by evidence.

Using satanic psyche AI science caused memories.

Is his brothers like Stephen Hawking aware known warnings to humanity.

I Inherited bio life sin of life's sacrifice a holy innocent baby. Why I knew acute science in biology aware harm.

Ignored as science is correct says science.

So then we ask why does just men of science argue against science?

As natural man is first who argues on natural man's behalf.

 

[lukethethird]

Maybe, but that is irrelevant for the comments that you replied

My answer, that "The resurrection is just an unsupported belief held onto by faith, is a direct response to your claim that "Christianity is grounded on the resurrection."

Christianity is grounded on an unsupported belief held onto by faith. What is to cling to besides nothing and why for? Promises?

 

[leroy]

My answer, that "The resurrection is just an unsupported belief held onto by faith, is a direct response to your claim that "Christianity is grounded on the resurrection."

Christianity is grounded on an unsupported belief held onto by faith. What is to cling to besides nothing and why for? Promises?

Again, "maybe" but that is irrelevant for the point that I made.

My point was that even if you show that free will and "all knowing" are logically incompatible, that wouldn't be a big problem for Christianity because these are secondary doctrines. (Unlike the resurrection which is the corner strone of Christianity)

 

[Polymath257]

Why?
Why is it that our choices can determine it, if it is not known?

Our choices can determine it, potentially, if it is not *already determined*. That it is known ahead of time shows that it is already determined.

..and therein lies your mistake.
You assume that something that "hasn't happened yet" cannot be known, unless it is determined by some mystical force.
The reason for this is your perception and belief that time is a property of the universe, and that "hasn't happened yet" is final.
You don't believe that there could exist an agent whose perception sees all i.e. omniscient

No, that is not what I am saying.

I am saying that if something is already known, then it is determined. And that means there is no freedom to choose otherwise.

I believe that G-d is not within the universe. He is responsible for all that we see. He is the owner of time and space. He created the "illusion" in which we are trapped.
The future is hidden from us, as we perceive time passing differently.

OK, but that simply means that the future is determined. And that means our choice cannot be free. If the future is fixed, we cannot choose otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, that is not what I am saying.

I am saying that if something is already known, then it is determined. And that means there is no freedom to choose otherwise..

..but why would you think that?
why would you think that something being "already known" takes away freedom of choice?
You are implying that knowledge of the future can't be determined by our choices.
Don't you see? The reeson why you think that is due to your perception of time?
What else COULD it be?

..just repeating something that appears to be obvious, does not explain why.
If time was definitive and it was impossible to know what choices a person could make, then you would obviously be correct.
..but I say that time is NOT definitive, in the way that you portray.

Look at it like this, for example.
Life on this planet from beginning to end is known by G-d.
That is because G-d has created this space-time continuum, and while we perceive time flowing from past through present to future, He can see all simultaneously.

Now, you might say that there is no proof of that.
That is hardly the point. You are the one that makes claims about what G-d can do and what He can't do.

It is a given that we have free-will .. what you call illusionary or otherwise.
..so your argument is that G-d could not know our futures if we have free-will.
I say that He can.
..and that is because He is the owner of time.
We are effectively trapped in an environment where the future is hidden from us. It is not hidden from G-d.
That is not irrational if you believe in G-d.

OK, but that simply means that the future is determined. And that means our choice cannot be free. If the future is fixed, we cannot choose otherwise.

That is nonsense.
If the future is not known, does that mean that it could be anything?
No .. it does not. You just THINK that it does, because you don't know what it is.

Really, this whole thing is about perception.
Either you believe that it is possible to know the future by some means, or you don't.
You cannot show that our choices don't determine the future, you only assume it due to your perception of the nature of time.
i.e. it is not possible to know what somebody freely chooses, because as far as you're concerned it "hasn't happened yet"

 

[ppp]

You are implying that knowledge of the future can't be determined by our choices.

In a universe created by an omnigod, none of your actions or thoughts could ever be your choice.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In a universe created by an omnigod, none of your actions or thoughts could ever be your choice.

Meaningless assertion.
What's the point of your post?
It is too vague .. you need to explain why.

 

[Polymath257]

..but why would you think that?
why would you think that something being "already known" takes away freedom of choice?
You are implying that knowledge of the future can't be determined by our choices.
Don't you see? The reeson why you think that is due to your perception of time?
What else COULD it be?

No. In fact, the problem is even worse if there is a being outside of time that knows the future.

..just repeating something that appears to be obvious, does not explain why.
If time was definitive and it was impossible to know what choices a person could make, then you would obviously be correct.
..but I say that time is NOT definitive, in the way that you portray.

Look at it like this, for example.
Life on this planet from beginning to end is known by G-d.
That is because G-d has created this space-time continuum, and while we perceive time flowing from past through present to future, He can see all simultaneously.

Which means that the future is determined. Which means the choices cannot be other than they are. Which means they are not free.

Now, you might say that there is no proof of that.
That is hardly the point. You are the one that makes claims about what G-d can do and what He can't do.

The problem as I see it is independent of whether a deity exists or not.

The problem is that if there is knowledge of the future, then the future *has* to be one way and no other. And that means there is no real choice: the result of the choice is already determined.

And this is even more true if the knowledge is by a being outside of time because that means that all of time is fixed. And that means that no choice has ever been free.

illusionary or otherwise.
..so your argument is that G-d could not know our futures if we have free-will.
I say that He can.
..and that is because He is the owner of time.

And how does that counter that knowledge of the future means that the future is determined and hence choices are not free?

If anything, it makes the problem worse, not better.

We are effectively trapped in an environment where the future is hidden from us. It is not hidden from G-d.
That is not irrational if you believe in G-d.

Even accepting your scenario, that means there are NO free choices, because ALL choices are already known. That violates the freedom of those choices, which requires that there be more than one possible future.

That is nonsense.
If the future is not known, does that mean that it could be anything?
No .. it does not. You just THINK that it does, because you don't know what it is.

You are correct. Simply not knowing the future is not enough to guarantee that free will could exist. For free will to exist, the choices have to be *undetermined* by anything except those choices. In particular, it would h
ave to be *impossible* to know what the choices were.

Really, this whole thing is about perception.
Either you believe that it is possible to know the future by some means, or you don't.

No, I am granting that it is possible to know the future. But if knowledge of the future is possible, then the future is set. And that means that future choices cannot be free.

You cannot show that our choices don't determine the future, you only assume it due to your perception of the nature of time.
i.e. it is not possible to know what somebody freely chooses, because as far as you're concerned it "hasn't happened yet"

And that is NOT my argument. I am saying that if knowledge of the future is possible, then only one future is possible, which means that choices are not free: they are determined by that known future.

 

[Polymath257]

The basic contradiction is between free will and knowledge of the future.

To know something means that it must be true. So, to know a future event means that future event *has* to be the way that is known. So, if the result of a future choice is known, then there is no way the choice could have gone any other way. In other words, it is not free.

This is a problem whether the knower is inside or outside of time. If the choice is known, then it could be no other way, so it is not a free choice.

 

[ppp]

Meaningless assertion.
What's the point of your post?
It is too vague .. you need to explain why.

Under your hypothetical that an omniscient omnipotent made this universe:

• Such a being can make whatever universe it chooses to make.
• Such a being made this universe.
• Therefore, it chose this specific universe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The problem is that if there is knowledge of the future, then the future *has* to be one way and no other. And that means there is no real choice: the result of the choice is already determined.

No, it doesn't. It is only determined when the choice is made.
It is just that G-d knows what we will choose.
You just can't accept that it is possible to know, and that free-will isn't affected.

And this is even more true if the knowledge is by a being outside of time because that means that all of time is fixed. And that means that no choice has ever been free.

More and more absurd.

"The pen has been lifted, the ink is dry"
..but you do not perceive / believe.
..it's not my fault.

And how does that counter that knowledge of the future means that the future is determined and hence choices are not free?

Of course it's determined. It's determined by our choices, but you refute it. You say it is not possible. You say that a choice that we haven't yet made cannot be known.
If it is known, then we are automatons.

In particular, it would have to be *impossible* to know what the choices were.

Yes, as I say .. you think it is impossible to know, because of your perception that "it hasn't happened yet".
I believe that it is possible that our perception is just an illusion.
We already know that there is more to time than "meets the eye"

No, I am granting that it is possible to know the future. But if knowledge of the future is possible, then the future is set.

Set by what?

And that is NOT my argument. I am saying that if knowledge of the future is possible, then only one future is possible..

That's right .. only one future is possible. I believe that.
You can keep your "many worlds" interpretations, and put it where the sun don't shine.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it doesn't. It is only determined when the choice is made.
It is just that G-d knows what we will choose.
You just can't accept that it is possible to know, and that free-will isn't affected.

Because the two are contradictory. if there is knowledge, the choice cannot be free: it *has* to be the way that the knowledge says it is.

More and more absurd.

"The pen has been lifted, the ink is dry"
..but you do not perceive / believe.
..it's not my fault.


Of course it's determined. It's determined by our choices, but you refute it. You say it is not possible. You say that a choice that we haven't yet made cannot be known.

A *free* choice that we haven't made yet cannot be known.

If it is known, then we are automatons.

If it is know, then how we will choose is already determined. That means it isn't determined by us.

Yes, as I say .. you think it is impossible to know, because of your perception that "it hasn't happened yet".

No, I am saying it is impossible to know *and* have free choices.

I believe that it is possible that our perception is just an illusion.
We already know that there is more to time than "meets the eye"

Set by what?

That's right .. only one future is possible. I believe that.
You can keep your "many worlds" interpretations, and put it where the sun don't shine.

If only one future is possible, then all of our choices are determined. And that means that none of them are free. We could not choose other than how they are in the future.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The basic contradiction is between free will and knowledge of the future.

To know something means that it must be true. So, to know a future event means that future event *has* to be the way that is known. So, if the result of a future choice is known, then there is no way the choice could have gone any other way. In other words, it is not free.

I remember when you were talking about infinity and intuition, and I learned a lot from our discussion.
I agree with you that infinity is not what it intuitively appears to be.

However, I think that you are the one whose intuition is failing them here.

Your argument above is seriously flawed. You are confused by your intuition of time. You are confusing causality with knowledge.
You intuitively think that it is not possible to know what you will choose to do tomorrow, and so conclude that foreknowledge implies coercion.

You say "that future event *has* to be the way that is known".
Of course it does. That is because we have already said that G-d can't be wrong about what you will choose.

This is a problem whether the knower is inside or outside of time. If the choice is known, then it could be no other way, so it is not a free choice.

An exceedingly bad chain of logic, I'm afraid. See above.

 

[muhammad_isa]

A *free* choice that we haven't made yet cannot be known.

I say that it can. We perceive that we haven't made the choice yet, but as far as G-d is concerned, we HAVE made the choice.
Think of G-d travelling at an infinite, alternating positive/negative 'warp speed' relative to us, or what have you

If it is know, then how we will choose is already determined. That means it isn't determined by us.

You really mirror what Einstein said "People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion"

..and you stubbornly stick to the illusion, do you not?