Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

No. It was specifically stated in the example that this relates to that Odin was at point B in carl's lifeline looking into the future. As Stile has stipulated his position to be. Read the example this relates to.ICANT all you do is chip in with the same flawed thinking.If you have a detailed answer to Message 171 then let's hear it?If you do not have a detailed answer then let's agree that you are unable to resolve the conflict between prophecy and free-will.Either way please stop responding with repetetive and flawed generalisations.

Q: How can Odin see Carl's future choices?A: Because Odin can see the future portion of Carl's timeline.Q: What shapes the future portion of Carl's timeline?A: Carl's future choices.Q: How can Odin know Carl's future choices such that he can know the shape of the future portion of Carl's timeline?A: Odin see Carl's future choices.Q: How can Odin see Carl's future choices?A: Because Odin can see the future portion of Carl's timeline.Q: What shapes the future portion of Carl's timeline?A: Carl's future choices.Q: How can Odin know Carl's future choices such that he can know the shape of the future portion of Carl's timeline?A: Odin see Carl's future choices.And so we go on. Completely circular.(AbE - If you are going to try and refute this by using the more general statement "Odin can see the future" then ask yourself what the future is in this context if it is not the shape of the future portion of Carl's timeline) If something can see the immutable future from a point in time then it denies the ability of anything else to be shaping that future.Unless circular reasoning is applied...... Think about it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This involves no freedom and has nothing to do with will.I don't think any such definition can be legitimately claimed as valid in terms of either these individual terms or common usage of the phrase as a whole.

Yep. I realised that and was agreeing with you.Sorry if I was a bit vague about my intentions with that post.I hope Stile comes back or, less likely, ICANT can find a rebuttal to Message 171 otherwise this thread will boil down to you and myself agreeing with each other......And that would just be tedious

When Odin initially saw Carl make the choice in question was the prophecy in place?Now that Carl is aware of the prophecy is it fair to say that Carl's knowledge, and therefore Carl's timeline, has changed from the one that Odin was passively observing?

It makes all the difference in the world!!Carl makes his initially observed choice in one set of circumstances i.e. without the prophecy in place.Now, with the prophecy in place, Carl is faced with new information, a new situation and thus a different choice. Carl now has new knowledge. The situation in which he confronts h choice is most definitely not the same as that originally observed by Odin. In this new situation he may not wish to make the same choice he did in the absence of the prophecy.For example his desire to prove the prophecy wrong may override any previous basis on which he made the decision in question. If we do not base our choices on our knowledge then what on God's Earth do we base them on?A change of knowledge is fundamental to the circumstances under which the choice was made. Well given the existence of an immutable prophecy how can Carl do anything other than that prophecised? He obviously cannot.Thus his actions are observed in one circumstance.
Then the circumstance is changed by the mere existence of the prophecy where it did not exist before.
Then the existence of the prophecy denies him the opportunity to do anything but that originally observed even though the circumstances under which the choice is being made are now different.Thus prophecy indisputably denies free-will. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The flaw in your argument has nothing to do with it being real or otherwise. Your whole argument is theoretically and intrinsically flawed.Your whole argument is circular.See Message 185 for detail but in brief.....Odin sees the future.
The future is the future portion of Carl's timeline.
The future portion of Carl's timeline is shaped by Carl's choices.Straggler: "How can Odin know Carl's future choices?"
Stile: "Because he can see the future portion of Carl's timeline"But if the future portion of Carl's timeline IS made up of Carl's choices then you are in effect saying that Odin knows Carl's choices by means of knowing Carl's choices.Odin must know Carl's choices such that he can know Carl's choices.This is circular.I am having trouble expresiing this any more clearly but if we work through it step by step as per Message 185 I can absolutely guarantee that the circularity in your thinking will become self evident.

I am not concerned with reality any more than you are. I am not arguing as to whether anybody actually could see the future or not.I am arguing that if someone can see the future then this necessarily compromises free-will. Both in theory and in practise.In purely theoretical terms your arguments are flawed in the sense that prophecy provides actual contradictions with regard to any notions of free-will.The two are wholly incompatible.

Let's see:IF Carl's future is defined by Carl's future choices.
THEN Odin can know Carl's future choices by means of knowing Carl's future.To know the future we must know the choices. To know the choices we must know the future.Indisputably circular. I am afraid that it is. Whether you realise it or not. Calling it an axiom does not eliminate the inherent internal contradiction within your argument.If you say that the future is both knowable and the product of free-will then there is an inherent internal contradiction. The two are logically irreconcilable. Or because it is not a "regular human nose". Thus the circle is broken.There is no such qualifying statement available when it comes to the discrepancy between free-will and knowing the future. Very ridiculous. Which is why I would not say it and which is why it is not relevant.The qualifying statement breaks the circularity. Calling something an "axiom" does not excuse it from inherent and internal contradictory logic. There is no inherent internal contradiction in the "what if a human nose can smell as well as a dog's nose can".There is inherent internal circularity if you say that Carl's choices can be known by virtue of knowing a future which is itself defined by Carl's choices."What if Odin can know Carl's future choices by viewing the future portion of Carl's timeline that is defined by Carl's as yet un-made future choices"Call it a "what if" statement, call it an "axiom" - Either way it is internally and inherently circular.Odin can either prescribe Carl's future by narrowing the future section of the timeline to a single path or he can allow Carl free-will by allowing his choices to define that path.But the two cannot logically both occur together. It is logically impossible.Unless circular reasoning is employed. As you are unwittingly but rather forcefully and consistently doing here.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thus the situation under which a choice is made is completely different depending on the absence or existence of a prophecy because the knowledge in each case is different.Apparently you agree. So in the event of a prophecy there is no choice.Apparently we agree.So in the event of a prophecy we have both a unique and unobserved set of circumstances and no choices.So by either of our definitions there is no free-will.Carl can only make the choice that he was observed to make under very different (prophecy-free) circumstances. Emphasis added by me.See which future? The prophecy-free future that Carl never actually faced? Or the prophecy-laden future where Carl had no choice?Where is the free-will by any definition?You are contradicting yourself here. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I simply meant that even your "what if" contains internal contradictions regardless of the possibility or reality of the "what if" in question.Your argument is equivalent to saying - What if Santa Claus both exists and does not exist simultaneously.That kind of logical contradiction.Whether you yet see it or not this remains terminally true..........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

NONSENSE
Either Carl is able to define his future OR Odin can know Carl's future before he has defined it. But both statements cannot be true. They contradict one-another. No amount of "what if" or declarations of your assumptions as being axiomatic change this inherent contradiction.You are essentially saying that Carl's future is both undefined and defined simultaneously.This is nonsense.You are convincing yourself of this by means of circular reasoning.CIRCULAR
IF Carl's future is defined by Carl's future choices.
THEN Odin can know Carl's future choices by means of knowing Carl's future.To know the future we must know the choices. To know the choices we must know the future.Indisputably circular.Which part of the above is not contained within your argument?
Which part of the above is not circular?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Whether or not we actually do have free-will or not is possibly another discussion.What is absolutely certain is that prophecies or future-seeing beings (omnipotent or otherwise) present now or at any point in the past, with immutable knowledge of the future, severely compromise free-will. Probably to the point of extinction. According to these theories if we gain knowledge of the future does that future incorporate the fact that we had that foreknowledge?Will our future travelling timetraveller see a future that is itself a result of the knowledge he transmits back to now? Or does the future he sees not incorporate the fact that he has rendered this knowledge back to the past. God knows......

Hmmmmm. Yes. In which case free-will is in reality just an illusion?Does QM offer a way out? Or is free-will essentially fucked as far as modern physics is concerned?This thread is primarily concerned with the incompatibility of biblical style prophecy and free-will.An incompatibility which none of our resident theists have been able to reconcile.It is not a science thread. The question is not whether free-will actually exists or not based on current scientific knowledge.But having said I don't think that a brief tangent while we have your attention will hurt if you are willing? I am certainly interested to know what modern physics implies regarding this matter.Aqobot - If you want to discuss the physics of this at length and above all else (as I suspect) then I would prefer if you did not do it here. Start a new thread or something. Despite any related tangents the main thrust of this topic remains the incompatibility of biblical prophecy and free-will as per the example in Message 171.

However you phrase it, however you conceive it the two things are inherently contradictory.Is Carl's future defined such that Odin can know it before Carl has defined it?
Or does Carl define his own future such that it cannot be known until he has done so?You are claiming that Carl's future is both defined and undefined simultaneously.This is contradictory nonsense. However you phrase it. However you conceive it. I first discussed time reversal (which is effectively what you are talking about here - Odin fast forwards time then returns back to a point in Carl's timeline that we can call "now") back in post 151 Message 151.You told me this was not relevant to your argument. Apparently now your argument relies upon this concept.The question remains - Why would now-Carl have to follow the same path that fastforwad-Carl followed? Does now-Carl have free-will? Unless you can explain how your "what if axiom" is not inherently contradictory and illogical what leads you to conclude that it is not?You might as well be asking me why I cannot just accept that Carl's future is both undefined and not defined simultaneously.In that case I might as well accept that black is white and true is false. If internal contradiction is to be accepted then all debate is futile. We are both wrong and both right and everything in-between simultaneously. Pointless and stupid. If you can imagine two opposite and contradictory statements both being true then hurrah for you. But most people consider this a logical impossibility. Yes. It. Is.It has nothing to do with cause and effect. The reason you cannot articulate it is because it is inherently contradictory. Unless you apply circular reasoning. In which case it is circular.Which came first? The choice that defines Carl's future or the future that Odin knows such that he can know Carl's choices? Misrepresent...........? WTF?Explain to me how it is not circular? Step by step. When I asked for this in Message 185 you claimed that it was not necessary to do this step by step because it was "axiomatic".But your "axiom" is itself inherently circular.No matter how you phrase it, no matter how you conceive it Carl's future cannot both be undefined such that Carl can define it and defined such that Odin can know it simultaneously.This is illogical contradictory nonsense. Your definitions are circular/contradictory. This has been demonstrated. I want to discuss your idea but will not accept arguments that equate to the idea that true is false and black is white. This is what you are asking!!!Is that really so draconian and unreasonable on my part? Is Carl's future defined such that Odin can know it?
Or is Carl's future undefined such that Carl can define it?Do you at least agree that it cannot be both defined and undefined simultaneously?At the moment your position is akin to that of a man running around the equator of a globe insisting that he cannot be going in circles because he is most definitely running in a straight line. He confidently declares this conclusion as he passes the same landmark for the nth time............It is not my intention to be antagonistic but you are just so wrong it is difficult to contain my frustration at this point.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.