I just want to sin!!!

[Sheldon]

It is invalid to claim that you MUST choose something

I agree ostensibly, but that of course is contradicted by your claim that a deity knows exactly what we will do, before we will do it, and it cannot be wrong. Albeit you have reneged or backtracked on those claims of late, then reiterated them immediately.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I agree ostensibly, but that of course is contradicted by your claim that a deity knows exactly what we will do, before we will do it..

..is that before 'now', or after 'now'?
..makes no difference.

You perceive that you haven't made the choice yet.
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.

 

[Sheldon]

..is that before 'now', or after 'now'?
..makes no difference.

You perceive that you haven't made the choice yet.
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.

So you're done pretending that your point has any rational argument to support it, I'm not that surprised.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you're done pretending that your point has any rational argument to support it, I'm not that surprised.

Don't you know when to quit?
Of course I don't.

I'm just becoming bored with the same old arguments.
You can't see how G-d can know your choice before you've made it, unless you have no choice.

There ..see? I understand your argument and point of view.
You think it is irrational to think that everything can have "already happened", but we perceive that it hasn't.

That's the difference between you and I. I believe in G-d.
I believe that he is testing us in this space-time continuum, and that he sees all.
It is quite obvious that if we have no free-will then there can be no test. That is why you love to prove faith to be irrational.

You won't get me to change my mind .. I guarantee you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most of those are about Israel, not the Messiah. And how easy for NT "prophecy" to be fulfilled and accurate when it was written decades after the fact.

Your claim is both testaments are astoundingly accurate about modern Israel--including prophecies given 2,500 years beforehand--but that they may be inaccurate about Jesus?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your claim is both testaments are astoundingly accurate about modern Israel--including prophecies given 2,500 years beforehand--but that they may be inaccurate about Jesus?

It is a fact the Hebrews wrote such passages about Israel and after it all happened. They cannot refer to Jesus because there was no Jesus and the Messiah was not in mind when writing them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

The idea of something existing outside of time has already been rebutted, convincingly I'd say. You, too, judging by your failure to address that rebuttal. The claim is rejected. Nothing exists outside of time. It's an incoherent concept. The passage of time is implicit in the meaning of the word existence. The difference between a thing that exists and the nonexistent is just that - the quality of occupying some place in time and space and being able to interact with other existents. Non-existents cannot do that. They exist nowhere and occupy no time interval. That's how you are describing your God.

Does you God think? That requires time - a before and after as the thinking evolves. Does your God create? That requires time - a before state and an after one that are distinguishable.

You both need to tell us what actually does determine the future, if it is not our choices.

Not relevant to the discussion. The claim is that omniscience and free will are not compatible. It doesn't matter what determines the future, just whether if the future can be determined, free will exists.

Stating that free-will is illusionary is not acceptable.

Not the claim. It has never been claimed that free will is illusory, just that it is logically possible that it is, that there is no test to decide if will is free or only feels free, and I added that I am leaning toward us being automatons, but that the issue is not resolved.

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

Obviously. You're only interested in YOUR airy-fairy suggestions.

Incidentally, mine are sound. If they weren't you could rebut them. You didn't. You merely dismissed them without demonstrating why you think you know they're wrong. And I know why. Because they're not.

I'm convinced that free-will is real.

Airy-fairy thinking. And predicted.

You have no choice as an Abrahamic theist. You're constrained by dogma, another point made that you evaded. I asked you to explain how the secular humanists come to all agree that free will and omniscience are incompatible, while the Abrahamic theists all agree to the opposite. I explained to you that only two things cause people to hold the same belief - critical thought and dogma. You didn't disagree. I pointed out that both sides could not be using reason, or they would agree be of the same mind on this issue. You still didn't disagree. And then I pointed out that the secular humanists were the ones using reason, not the theists. You didn't disagree.

So what you're convinced of is irrelevant to the critical thinker, because you don't use his methods. If someone's beliefs came from a Magic8-Ball or a Ouija Board, you wouldn't be very interested in them, would you? Yours come out of a holy book. That's not a valid means of deciding what is true to a critical thinker.

It is invalid to claim that you MUST choose something, and aren't able to choose anything else if you want to.

Once again, I don't recall anybody claiming that. That is a description of what the world is like if there is no free will, just the illusion of free will.

I'm just becoming bored with the same old arguments.

Of course you're bored. You don't make progress. You don't address rebuttals. Instead, you repeat the rebutted claim. No progress is possible if both parties aren't addressing one another's argument directly. At this point, your entire argument has been successfully rebutted. You can't see that for reasons already given. By faith, you assume that you are correct, and that therefore, anybody disagreeing with you is wrong. But if you visit the heads of those making those compelling but unanswered arguments, you'll see exactly the opposite. They're just as sure that you are wrong, and they come to their position not by faith, which is guessing, but through reason, which is not.

So why aren't I bored, too? Because I've switched my focus from the substance of this argument, which has stalled with the failure to respond to rebuttals with more than "airy-fairy," to consideration of the argument itself and the methods employed by the Abrahamic theists and secular humanists. It's become about the difference between critical thought and faith, what they yield, and why. It's about believers not being able to paraphrase what others are telling them, and continually making statements that get a "that's not what was claimed" response. What does that mean? Why continually transform what was said into what wasn't said? Is it a comprehension and focus issue, or is it a deliberate and dishonest tactic? I suspect the former. If so, why does this happen so often? How hard is it to repeat what is written accurately? Does this happen in other areas in the lives of people who do this in discussions like these? If somebody invites such a person to dinner at 6PM, do they get that wrong and show up at the wrong time and place because they didn't comprehend what was said? That doesn't seem to happen very often in life, so I'd guess no, people usually do understand simple declarative sentences and can reproduce them accurately if asked to do so. But not in these discussions. Why does this happen, I wonder.

That kind of thing apparently never gets old for me, and why I'm not bored even with circular discussions that make no progress for lack of critical engagement by one party. The free will discussion ended pages ago. It's these other issues that merit consideration and discussion.

 

[Sheldon]

Don't you know when to quit?

I'm not the one making irrational claims, and besides you have already stated more than once that I cannot do other than what a deity knows I will do, so if that were true it would be irrational to imagine I was remotely culpable. It seems you are destined at least, not to understand that.

You can't see how G-d can know your choice before you've made it, unless you have no choice.

It doesn't have to be a deity.

I believe in G-d. I believe that he is testing us in this space-time continuum, and that he sees all. It is quite obvious that if we have no free-will then there can be no test. That is why you love to prove faith to be irrational.

I didn't create the principles of logic, if it bothers you to have your claims or beliefs exposed as irrational, then I can only advise you try not to make claims that violate any logical principles. Blaming others for pointing it out speaks for itself.

You won't get me to change my mind .. I guarantee you.

Making irrational claims and holding illogical beliefs seems not to bother a great many theists, at most all I feel is ambivalent bemusement. Especially when they then try to assert their beliefs are rational, as they so often do of course.

You might want to bear in mind, that you have claimed I have to do exactly what a deity knows beforehand that I will do, and you have stated I cannot do otherwise. So why you would care what anybody does or posts is unclear.

 

[ppp]

You might want to bear in mind, that you have claimed I have to do exactly what a deity knows beforehand that I will do, and you have stated I cannot do otherwise. So why you would care what anybody does or posts is unclear.

Ambivalent bemusement is appropriate.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The idea of something existing outside of time has already been rebutted, convincingly I'd say..

You can say what you like..
It's all words at the end of the day, to try to communicate concept.
When I say "outside of time", I mean not within the confines of this universe.

Not relevant to the discussion. The claim is that omniscience and free will are not compatible. It doesn't matter what determines the future, just whether if the future can be determined, free will exists.

How convenient. You claim that you don't need to explain your "illusionary free-will"

Not the claim. It has never been claimed that free will is illusory..

@Polymath257 said that wanting to choose something was also determined by other than us, which boils down to the same thing.

You have no choice as an Abrahamic theist..

I have plenty of choice, thankyou. I choose a creed which I find coherent.
If I didn't find it coherent, then I would not believe.

I asked you to explain how the secular humanists come to all agree that free will and omniscience are incompatible, while the Abrahamic theists all agree to the opposite..

Well if you bothered to read my posts in this thread, you would know the answer.

You think it is irrational to think that everything can have "already happened", but we perceive that it hasn't.

It is fundamental .. you don't believe in G-d .. you don't believe that the statement above is coherent. I do.

Once again, I don't recall anybody claiming that. That is a description of what the world is like if there is no free will, just the illusion of free will.

..and there you go contradict what you said a couple of paragraphs ago. "illusionary free-will"

You don't address rebuttals.

Nonsense.
My posts contain explanations, while you just waffle on about illusionary free-will and how irrational theists are.

At this point, your entire argument has been successfully rebutted..

Funny that, because all I see in this post of yours is more of the same ..

You can't see that for reasons already given. By faith, you assume that you are correct, and that therefore, anybody disagreeing with you is wrong..

You are wrong. The reason why you think you are right is due to your intuition about time and future events.
..you would know this if you bothered to read my posts, and aren't just supporting your fellow atheists.

They're just as sure that you are wrong, and they come to their position not by faith, which is guessing, but through reason, which is not.

That is what you perceive, because you agree with them
Tell me, if it were true that the reality is that all future events have already happened, but we are living this life without realsing that,
because our perception is purposely limited to this universe,
then do you still consider free-will not to be compatible?

If you think that you could be a robot without free-will then I don't really know why I discuss with you. If you have no free-will or brain of your own, who/what exactly am I speaking to?

So why aren't I bored, too?

Don't know .. perhaps robots don't get bored.
I've said enough for now.

 

[muhammad_isa]

you have claimed I have to do exactly what a deity knows beforehand that I will do, and you have stated I cannot do otherwise..

No that is your patter, not mine.
It seems that you think it is clever, to suggest that "you have to do what a deity knows" ..

It sounds as if you don't have a choice. It is a mere play on words.
You DO have a choice. You can choose whatever you like.

It is as if G-d has already filmed it all, but we haven't caught up yet.
..so He knows our choices because, in THE BIG REALITY, we have already made them.

It just doesn't seem like that to us, does it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have no choice as an Abrahamic theist.

Many Abrahamics have and do reject free will because their god is all knowing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is as if G-d has already filmed it all, but we haven't caught up yet.
..so He knows our choices because, in THE BIG REALITY, we have already made them.

If it's like a movie we cannot choice. The characters in any story are presented with choices, but it's never actually a choice because the story is written, the ending set, and the choice always the same even after a million viewings. And that's because the choice never existed.

 

[Sheldon]

You can say what you like..
It's all words at the end of the day, to try to communicate concept.
When I say "outside of time", I mean not within the confines of this universe.

I'm guessing you're not seeing the irony there, again.

So where is this "outside" the universe you are imagining, and what objective evidence demonstrates its existence? Please don't waste everyone's time, by pretending Einstein's work supports your claim, as we know that neither he nor the rest of the scientific world draws any such conclusion from his work.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it's like a movie we cannot choice. The characters in any story are presented with choices, but it's never actually a choice because the story is written, the ending set, and the choice always the same even after a million viewings. And that's because the choice never existed.

Not at all.
It is not a Hollywood movie.

G-d did not write a story, and then film a load of puppets.
We are biological machines, that must die.

Our souls are immortal, as is G-d.
They are not part of the created universe, but our perceptions have been limited while we are here .. effectively trapped until we die.
We are being tested. There is no test without free-will.
G-d already has the results of the test, but we don't perceive it.
As far as we are concerned, we are here .. at this moment .. drawing towards death.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are being tested. There is no test without free-will.
G-d already has the results of the test, but we don't perceive it.

Then there cannot possibly be free will if god already knows the results. Just because the fans of pro-wrestling don't know the outcome when a match starts doesn't mean the wrestlers get to choose who wins.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So where is this "outside" the universe you are imagining, and what objective evidence demonstrates its existence?.

Not so much where, but more a state of being.

When we are born, it is all new. Then we grow, and can stand, walk & talk. We learn new things at school etc.
It is not about where, it is about a growing awareness.

I don't know how you expect me to tell you about something "out of this world", while I am trapped in it with you.

I expect to know more when I die.
..even then, I expect to have to continue learning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then there cannot possibly be free will if god already knows the results. Just because the fans of pro-wrestling don't know the outcome when a match starts doesn't mean the wrestlers get to choose who wins.

It is a time problem
Your intuition tells you that if something is known before you choose, then it can't really be your choice at all.

It is due to your perception of time. We find it very hard to understand how something that hasn't happened yet, COULD HAVE INDEED HAPPENED.

In a similar fashion, it is not at all straightforward when we consider the speed of light being a constant.
It throws up paradoxes in time.
eg. Andromeda paradox

..anyway .. I don't know why you should be so concerned with what I believe. I'm happy with it.

If you can't understand what I'm talking about, it's not that I haven't tried to explain.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

..anyway .. I don't know why you should be so concerned with what I believe. I'm happy with it.

I'm not. This is a debate thread.

It is a time problem
Your intuition tells you that if something is known before you choose, then it can't really be your choice at all.

It is due to your perception of time. We find it very hard to understand how something that hasn't happened yet, COULD HAVE INDEED HAPPENED.

In a similar fashion, it is not at all straightforward when we consider the speed of light being a constant.
It throws up paradoxes in time.
eg. Andromeda paradox

But if it has already happened then it cannot happen any other way. This would create an endless loop of time and space where everything happens at once. Free will cannot possibly exist because everything you will ever do is already done and you cannot actually act different. It would distort everything that is, because your past, present and future all happen now. Your birth, your death, and everything between now and forever.
It has nothing to do with a perception of time, expect free will does necessarily require that time travel and knowledge of the future are impossible. And to our best knowledge it is because time and space are the same. Theyre just different dimensions of the universe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But if it has already happened then it cannot happen any other way.

All I have to say about that, is that you are describing a reality that we are all familiar with .. namely our perception .. including mine.

This would create an endless loop of time and space where everything happens at once. Free will cannot possibly exist because everything you will ever do is already done and you cannot actually act different.

Illogical.. You are thinking in terms of finite time and space.
What G-d sees is not a finite concept. Not explainable in linear terms.

It would distort everything that is, because your past, present and future all happen now. Your birth, your death, and everything between now and forever.

Yes. It isn't easy to visualise. Our minds think in a certain way.
It is simple really. Either you believe that time is not what it appears to be .. or you don't.

I believe that time is an illusion that comes about due to perception.
Specifically, that "not happened yet" is merely a perception.

You haven't told us what determines the future. You just say that it can't be us if the future can be known.
That is illogical, despite being intuitive.