Does Omniscience Limit Free Will?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
In
2 has not been established as fact, while in your example, 2 has been established as fact.
Sorry I still don't get it.
It reads to me as:
1) If A then B
2) A
3) Must be B
:shrug:
It reads to me as:
1) If A then B
2) A
3) Must be B
:shrug:
But it states necessarily (I agree that it's not necessarily true - but the claim is there). Accepting that claim leads to the conclusion being true.
I call this theistic hocus-pocus.
Logical reasoning shouldn't be burdened with leaps of faith.
All animals have blood.
My teddy bear is an animal.
Therefore, my teddy bear has blood.
(And I now have to be careful not to throw it around or hug it too much, because blood may come out of it and then everything will be dirty.)
Yes, we can grit our teeth and accept accept accept accept this reasoning as valid!!!!!
I sort of see it now.
But to me it comes down refusing to accept the consequences of their own argument. Theistic hocus-pocus indeed.
"I'll prove god's capabilities to you but please don't use my own reasoning as a way of refuting my point".
But to me it comes down refusing to accept the consequences of their own argument. Theistic hocus-pocus indeed.
"I'll prove god's capabilities to you but please don't use my own reasoning as a way of refuting my point".
Stephen Law recently published a book on such topics - Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole.
I don't have it myself, but I might get it. It looks promising.
I don't have it myself, but I might get it. It looks promising.
It does all seem to come down to acceptance, on both parts.
Blunt-force acceptance, even. Not a natural, gradual, organic progression toward seeing a premise as true, but as grit-your-teeth-and-bear-it kind of acceptance.
Being expected to accept things wouldn't be a problem - as long as one is clearly told so, told to "make a leap of faith."
But it is fraud when the theists intend a leap of faith, but present it as a mere logical sequence that cannot but be accepted.
Someone said "Your conscience is the psychopath's weapon of choice" - I think similar applies to theists. The weapons they can and do use against non-theists are the non-theists' conscientiousness and respect for all people.
Frankly, I think the theists may be the last people with whom one could have a meaningful conversation on the topic "God."
Last edited:
not if you drop it..
um..in this case it is the non-believers that are focusing on the free will issue..they keep bringing up the question and arguing against it..
Obsession is the only limit to free will...
Double liar you are.
gee..the two who have been talking the most are you and dyw..and look at who brings the issue up..it is usually the non-believer..
the theist usually doesn't have an issue with God being omniscience and we have free will.
Who started the thread? I.e. raised the issue? :shrug:
to which MoM replied and started the thread..
so Cris raised the issue in this thread..
Er, MoM posted a quote from a thread that was started 11 years ago, and was last posted in also 11 years ago.
that doesn't invalidate my point that it is the non-believer that has problems with it..i think it is just another excuse not to believe.
<edit BTW..aren't you supposed to be working..
>
Because the believer doesn't even question it? And thereby doesn't realise the inherent contradiction.
Non-belief comes without excuses.
Work? What's that? (And it's 9 PM anyway).<edit BTW..aren't you supposed to be working..
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Then it's not free will.
Please try to think.
There is nothing constraining us from choosing option B... we just WILL NOT. Do you hear me? God knows what you will do before you do.
Ho hum... we CANNOT.