Jar writes:
It really is simple. If I create a machine that I know will always turn left, then even if that thing "Thinks it will decide which way to turn" it will always turn left.
You have to prove that we "think" we're making a choice rather than actually making a genuine choice of our own. All of the evidence, in reality, seems to show we are making our own choices. Your analogy assumes that God is creating a machine to turn left.
In actual fact - he is creating a self-thinking biological entity - that can choose left from right. I can prove this completely.
Humans aren't machines - the disjunction is only present if God voices the choice you will make - then if he says you will turn left, if you try to turn right you will turn left - hence the paradox. So your logic only works if God tells you the choice -
an essential qualifier people can't seem to grasp.
The paradox is incumbent upon God divulging the information, which is why this trial would be thrown out, as there is no disjunction except for a false one we call a "false dillemma".
It's not false-freewill
UNLESS you can prove logically that we would have NOT made a choice that we HAVE chosen, if God does not exist, because logically the claim is "
that God causes the choice by knowing it beforehand."
But if God tells us what choice - are we then changing our minds because of him telling us? Yes - therefore, the paradox only works if God tells us.
You can't just assume our choices were not real. If I put you in a room and you can have chocolate or a burger, and God exists in that room - and you choose a burger, then if God did not exist in an alternate room, you would still choose a burger. For it is irrational to assume you would like chocolate if God existed but not if he didn't exist. Such irrational thoughts also justify the argument; "if you are atheist you become an evil immoral person."
Yous see - if God makes my choices - prove it. yet I can prove otherwise;
Examples;
CASE 1. REALITY. You're in a room. You have a choice - apple or orange. You like apples, so you take the apple. That's REALITY.
CASE 2. You're in the room - but this time God says, "Jar, you will choose an apple" - so you choose an orange because you want freewill. Therefore God is not omniscient. PARADOX.
CASE 3. Would you have chosen an orange or apple if God didn't divulge your choice or didn't exist? The only rational inference is that you would have chosen an apple because you don't like oranges. Therefore the only reason to choose otherwise,
is infact if God tells you.
This proves through logical deduction, that choosing an apple didn't depend on God foreknowing it. So it begs the question - if the only reason we would change our mind is because of God's foreknowledge, then isn't it true that our REAL choice was the apple?
If afterall, God came down and told us every decision we make in life, isn't it irrational to then choose something contrary to your original choice? Would I eat oranges, puking and gagging at their taste? Would I become straight because God said I'd be straight?
It seems that the proposition of God divulging OUR choices doesn't prove that they're God's choices at all. It is therefore ASSUMED illogically that if God knows them, they're his choices. If they're God's choices, why are we who we are?
We have a JTB (justified true belief) that our choices are based on our personalities and causality. (google epistemology). We can KNOW our choices are real because the two rooms are indistinguishable. Apples become no less tastey if God doesn't exist.
The proposition that God's omniscience and freewill are mutually exclusive, is a proposition which would go against reality. In reality, IF there is God and IF he is omniscient, THEN it seems that causality and reality itself is reason enough to see that we are making genuine choices, WITH God being omniscient, as the paradox is DEPENDENT upon God divulging our future choices - which would then be paradoxical.
The impossible as a means of argument, only works because it appeals to the impossible. In reality - we can deduce, not induce, that choice is not influenced by God.
I used hypothetics, but the nature of this argument IS SPECULATIVE HYPOTHETICS. SO if we're going to play football - don't say I can't kick but the other side can.