Does Omniscience Limit Free Will?

[kx000]

Ho hum... we CANNOT.

We cannot what?

 

[Dywyddyr]

We cannot what?

I think the clue is in the post I quoted:

Originally Posted by Knowledge91
There is nothing constraining us from choosing option B... we just WILL NOT.

Read that. Ask yourself "will not what?" And then apply that answer to the question you just asked.

 

[kx000]

I think the clue is in the post I quoted:


Read that. Ask yourself "will not what?" And then apply that answer to the question you just asked.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You have never seen the light, I keep the light in my back pocket.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Wrong again.
Please try to address the points made.

I keep the light in my back pocket.

Does it have "Zippo" engraved on it?

 

[kx000]

Wrong again.
Please try to address the points made.


Does it have "Zippo" engraved on it?

The only point you have made that is you have no idea what your talking about, and you do not intend to learn.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The only point you have made that is you have no idea what your talking about

Wrong again. The point that comes across most clearly is that you avoid answering when it becomes obvious you can't give an honest answer and still maintain your position.

and you do not intend to learn.

Also incorrect. But, since all you do is make unfounded declarations it may be an excuse for you to see things that way.

 

[kx000]

Wrong again. The point that comes across most clearly is that you avoid answering when it becomes obvious you can't give an honest answer and still maintain your position.


Also incorrect. But, since all you do is make unfounded declarations it may be an excuse for you to see things that way.

If I don't answer something it does not deserve an answer. I have no position, I am the field.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Too funny.
Tell me, how did you get be so arrogant, ignorant and mistaken at the same time?

 

[kx000]

Too funny.
Tell me, how did you get be so arrogant, ignorant and mistaken at the same time?

You deserve no answers. I am not arrogant. I am not ignorant. And if I am mistaken then that is my fault, but mistaken I am not.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You deserve no answers.

That would be why you (falsely) said you would give me answers in the other thread then?

I am not arrogant. I am not ignorant. And if I am mistaken then that is my fault, but mistaken I am not.

False, false and... false.

 

[NMSquirrel]

You have no idea what you are talking about. You have never seen the light, I keep the light in my back pocket.

you have no idea what you are talking about..
you only think you have seen the light..
and it doesn't belong in your back pocket.

 

[wynn]

that doesn't invalidate my point that it is the non-believer that has problems with it..

Like I said earlier:

What I find more interesting is why theists focus on the free will issue and why they are in favor of arguing for free will.
The only relevant reason I can see for that is that if free will exists, the theists can blame the non-theists for being at fault for not being believers, and the theists themselves get to take credit for their own faith in God.

i think it is just another excuse not to believe.

Please, go ahead and believe yourself into having a job, a well-paying one at that!

 

[NMSquirrel]

Please, go ahead and believe yourself into having a job, a well-paying one at that!

i wish..

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Does it not?
Why so?


Still wrong.
Either god knows or he doesn't. If he does we can have no choice.

But 2 removes the if.
Or am I missing something?

1) IF the cake is chocolate then I will eat it.
2) The cake is chocolate.
3) No other conclusion possible - I will eat the cake.

I don't see the relevance of the three line argument you present. But if I were to guess: really, if you want to assume that determinism is true from the get-go, that just begs the question.

The main question pertinent to the original post is what is the ground of truth. Logically (atemporarily), does knowledge cause fact or does fact cause knowledge? Once you figure out which one is true, then you should be able to see that divine omniscience doesn't limit free-will.

Of course you could say there isn't any free-will to begin with, but as I said, that is begging the question and not what the OP against Cris' argument was asking. We could go down that road if you like...

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't see the relevance of the three line argument you present.

Yet they were YOUR argument. :shrug:

But if I were to guess: really, if you want to assume that determinism is true from the get-go, that just begs the question.

Ah, maybe you should read the thread. No such assumption was made.

The main question pertinent to the original post is what is the ground of truth. Logically (atemporarily), does knowledge cause fact or does fact cause knowledge? Once you figure out which one is true, then you should be able to see that divine omniscience doesn't limit free-will.

Another empty claim.

Of course you could say there isn't any free-will to begin with, but as I said, that is begging the question and not what the OP against Cris' argument was asking. We could go down that road if you like...

It appears you don't actually know what Cris was arguing. Never mind.