I just want to sin!!!

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
If a deity knows beforehand that I will choose A, then obviously I have only that choice, even if there were a limitless number of alternatives. Or I could choose differently, and then that deity would have been wrong, or a deity does not know what I will choose.

Your unevidenced assumptions about how you believe a deity can do this, are completely irrelevant to that fact.

No. If you had wanted to choose other than A, you would have done so.

That would have made your deity wrong, since you claimed it knows what we will do before we do it. If it knows I will choose A, and it cannot be wrong, then how can I choose other than A?

You're making a contradictory claim, as you have from the start of course.

 

[Sheldon]

Simply, whatever the future is .. known or unknown .. we will choose that because we want to.

Can that choice differ in any way, from what you believe a deity knows we will choose?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it knows I will choose A, and it cannot be wrong, then how can I choose other than A?

You tell me?
I can say "If it knows I will choose B, and it cannot be wrong, then how can I choose other than B?

I'm not sure what you think this means..
To me, it means you have the opportunity to choose A or B.

 

[Sheldon]

..and why has it taken so many posts for you to admit that that is why you claim that free-will is violated?

Obviously because that is not what I have claimed. You were the one who claimed a deity knows what we will do, before we do it. All I and others have done. is point out that your claim, would negate free will. I don't share your belief, when did you fail to realise that fact?

 

[Sheldon]

You tell me?
I can say "If it knows I will choose B, and it cannot be wrong, then how can I choose other than B?

I'm not sure what you think this means..
To me, it means you have the opportunity to choose A or B.

So your deity just knows I will choose A or B then, but not which one I will choose? That's not what you claimed. Goal posts are moving again.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can that choice differ in any way, from what you believe a deity knows we will choose?

How could it?
Logically, if G-d knows what you will choose, then that is what you will choose.
The only reason that you think you are compelled, is due to your perception that "it hasn't happened yet".

If we were talking about the past, you would say "but that's different".
..but it really isn't. "now" is a perception, and not a "reality" as we perceive.

 

[Sheldon]

Logically, if G-d knows what you will choose, then that is what you will choose.

You could say I cannot choose otherwise.

"now" is a perception, and not a "reality" as we perceive.

So our perception of choice isn't real, again I don't think you are understanding the inference.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So our perception of choice isn't real, again I don't think you are understanding the inference.

Not at all.
Our perception of choice is real. It is the inference of "now" that is not real.

It is the arrow of time, that we cannot violate in this universe. That leads to us feeling that it is not possible to know something before it happens.

There is no arrow of time for G-d.
G-d knowing something due to being "outside of time" does not imply that free-will is violated. I'm not sure why @Polymath257 and you think it does, considering I've gone to great lengths to explain it.

You both need to tell us what actually does determine the future, if it is not our choices. Stating that free-will is illusionary is not acceptable.
Either we are free to do what we like, or we are not.

You say that a known future implies we are not free, but this is not logically correct .. it is just intuitive, as I have shown.
You can choose whatever you like. The fact that you will choose what G-d knows is because G-d sees what is hidden from our perspective.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The word exist means exist in time. To exist means to occupy a series of consecutive instants during which time the existent can act. Does your god exist now? Did it yesterday? Will it tomorrow?

You know the answer to that question. He is eternal.

Was it able to interact with other existent things like you and me yesterday? Will it be able to interact with us tomorrow? If you answered yes, then you are saying that your god exists in time. To not exist in time is to be nonexistent.

He sees time, as we see space.
i.e. He perceives the whole of time in the universe simultaneously.

So you say. But as I've indicated, it may be otherwise. You have no way to determine if you are correct or not. Who is at risk of being taken in by a stubbornly persistent illusion now?

I don't subscribe to the airy-fairy notion of illusionary free-will.
I am in agreement with international law.
i.e. that whatever might be known about the future, we are responsible for our actions

 

[Sheldon]

Our perception of choice is real.

That is another shifting of the goal posts, and now you see to be suggesting we don't have any choice, but we perceive one. Which is not what you originally claimed, So which is it, do we actually have free will, or is it just a delusional perception?

 

[Sheldon]

You say that a known future implies we are not free, but this is not logically correct ..

Yes it is, as the claim violates the law of non contradiction.

 

[Sheldon]

You can choose whatever you like.

Not according to the belief you have expressed.

 

[Sheldon]

You can choose whatever you like.

Logically, if G-d knows what you will choose, then that is what you will choose.

So which is it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You can choose whatever you like.

Not according to the belief you have expressed.

Well, you are choosing to be pedantic, and not G-d.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, you are choosing to be pedantic, and not G-d.

Not according to your claims.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, the choice is unknown to us, as we perceive time as in past, present and future. However, Einstein showed that it is only a perception, or illusion if you will.

You already mentioned that. You have been told by at least two of us that the statement doesn't support your position or invalidate its rebuttal. Perhaps you can explain why you think this comment matters to this discussion, and why you keep repeating it.

And I can't emphasize enough that that is only done by showing how it invalidates the rebuttal you have been given. You have been told that free will - distinct from the mere illusion of free will - means a will determined only by the self, not one determined by deterministic or even indeterministic physical processes arising outside of the mind and shaping that desire, and that the result of such a process would be unpredictable.

How does your comment make that untrue? It doesn't, which is why it's not a rebuttal to the claim that free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive possibilities. It seems like you're just throwing things out there to see if anybody will be swayed by them, to see if anybody will notice that they are not rebuttals, just unjustified, unsupported dissent.

That is an entirely different argument. One that I don't wish to discuss right now.

My comment was, "Discussions like these have caused me to realize that we probably are automatons." You don't see the relevance of that to a discussion on free will? OK. Maybe you're correct. The discussion hasn't reached whether free will exists yet, just whether if it does, is omniscience also possible.

I don't subscribe to the airy-fairy notion of illusionary free-will.

Do you consider that a rebuttal to what has been said about it - that it is possibly the case that free will is an illusion, that there is evidence to support the notion that free will is not free just because one feels no impediment to its expression, and that there appears to be no way to discern if one is correct and the other incorrect.

I am in agreement with international law. i.e. that whatever might be known about the future, we are responsible for our actions

The opinion of the law is irrelevant here. You still have no way to determine if what you call free will is not an illusion. Perhaps you can discuss why you reject that logical possibility. You know my hypothesis - you can't and remain consistent with your faith. So you merely dismiss the possibility out of hand. There is no evidence that it is otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The opinion of the law is irrelevant here. You still have no way to determine if what you call free will is not an illusion. Perhaps you can discuss why you reject that logical possibility. You know my hypothesis - you can't and remain consistent with your faith. So you merely dismiss the possibility out of hand. There is no evidence that it is otherwise.

I'm not interested in discussing your airy-fairy suggestions.
I'm convinced that free-will is real.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not interested in discussing your airy-fairy suggestions.

Ironically nor are we in yours, and yours are the ones that are not remotely objectively evidenced.

I'm convinced that free-will is real.

Who cares what convinces you? Your claim is that a deity knows what we will do before we do it, is ample evidence that your beliefs violate a basic principle of logic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your claim is that a deity knows what we will do before we do it, is ample evidence that your beliefs violate a basic principle of logic.

No .. not logic .. defies common-sense, perhaps.
..but then the subject of time and relativity is not straightforward.

It is invalid to claim that you MUST choose something, and aren't able to choose anything else if you want to.
cart before the horse .. horse before the cart ..
now happens now, and not yesterday or tommorow .. there is no such thing as now .. it is always now

 

[Sheldon]

Your claim is that a deity knows what we will do before we do it, is ample evidence that your beliefs violate a basic principle of logic.

No .. not logic

Yes logic, since it violates the law of non contradiction.