Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 211 of 227 (496847)
01-31-2009 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Stile
01-30-2009 1:35 PM


Definitely Circular. Definitely Nonsense.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Stile, posted 01-30-2009 1:35 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Stile, posted 02-02-2009 11:57 AM Straggler has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 212 of 227 (496855)
01-31-2009 5:50 AM


Forget about gods and prophecies...
General Relativity (GR) is a phenomenally successful model of reality at the large-scale. GR shows us that circular paths in time (closed-timelike curves, or CTCs) are not only theoretically possible but, in some space-times, endemic. Sadly, in practice, they are likely to be highly unstable. But even so, theoretically we can have arbitrarily accurate foreknowledge of anything you care to consider by careful use of time-travellers. We do not need any concept of omniscient beings or prophecies. How's your free-will holding up?

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2009 11:43 AM cavediver has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 213 of 227 (496901)
01-31-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by cavediver
01-31-2009 5:50 AM


Re: Forget about gods and prophecies...
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.
But even so, theoretically we can have arbitrarily accurate foreknowledge of anything you care to consider by careful use of time-travellers. We do not need any concept of omniscient beings or prophecies.
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.
How's your free-will holding up?
God knows......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2009 5:50 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Agobot, posted 01-31-2009 1:25 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 215 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2009 6:21 PM Straggler has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 214 of 227 (496911)
01-31-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Straggler
01-31-2009 11:43 AM


Re: Forget about gods and prophecies...
cavediver writes:
But even so, theoretically we can have arbitrarily accurate foreknowledge of anything you care to consider by careful use of time-travellers. We do not need any concept of omniscient beings or prophecies.
Straggler writes:
According to these theories if we gain knowledge of the future does that future incorporate the fact that we had that foreknowledge?
It looks so, but if these theories are true, you should occassionally be running across flocks of time-travellers from the future holding 7900Mp cameras. They should have the answer to your question.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2009 11:43 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2009 6:28 PM Agobot has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 215 of 227 (496972)
01-31-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Straggler
01-31-2009 11:43 AM


Re: Forget about gods and prophecies...
According to these theories if we gain knowledge of the future does that future incorporate the fact that we had that foreknowledge?
Space-time is a four-dimensional solid. Past, now, and future all equally exist, and are just a matter of perspective. At least, that is the picture we gain from GR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2009 11:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Straggler, posted 02-01-2009 6:19 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 216 of 227 (496975)
01-31-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Agobot
01-31-2009 1:25 PM


Re: Forget about gods and prophecies...
if these theories are true, you should occassionally be running across flocks of time-travellers from the future
Backwards time-travel is very likely to be impossible in practice: time-machines are inherently highly unstable. Also, a time-machine cannot take you further back in time than the time the machine first becomes operational, so if you want to see dinosaurs, you'll need to find either a naturally occuring time-machine, or a friendly alien who will lend you his.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Agobot, posted 01-31-2009 1:25 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 217 of 227 (497027)
02-01-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by cavediver
01-31-2009 6:21 PM


Re: Forget about gods and prophecies...
Space-time is a four-dimensional solid. Past, now, and future all equally exist, and are just a matter of perspective. At least, that is the picture we gain from GR.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2009 6:21 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 218 of 227 (497189)
02-02-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Straggler
01-31-2009 4:46 AM


Re: Definitely Circular. Definitely Nonsense.
Straggler writes:
Either Carl is able to define his future OR Odin can know Carl's future before he has defined it. They contradict one-another. No amount of "what if" or declarations of your assumptions as being axiomatic change this inherent contradiction.
This isn't what I'm talking about.
Carl defines his future.
Odin cannot know Carl's future before Carl has defined it.
Odin can, however, know the future that Carl eventually defines. That is, as long as we imagine an Odin who can see the future.
In a sort of "Carl speeds ahead in time, makes all his decisions, but doesn't even know about it yet" sort of way. Just like how you described the string analogy as Perspective 2.
If you do not care to accept this axiom, this "what if" statement, then you cannot talk about the following conclusions.
Perhaps the imagination required to think of such a scenario is too... against the cause-and-effect reality we're used to for me to explain such a thing. I fully admit I very well may have failed at such a task. It most absolutely is not, however, circular.
It doesn't really matter, though. You can continue to misrepresent the things I'm saying and call it circular if you'd like.
It is obvious that you do not want to accept my definitions. Since it was my idea, I make the definitions. If you don't want to accept my definitions... then I will take this as meaning that you do not want to discuss my idea. Feel free to continue discussing whatever idea it is you keep ascribing to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2009 4:46 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Straggler, posted 02-02-2009 12:48 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 223 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2009 11:10 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 219 of 227 (497190)
02-02-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by PaulK
01-30-2009 1:56 PM


Re: I'll show the example, then
So if Carl exercised that free choice to reject the prophecy, then either Odin would have been wrong or the future changes?
In a way... yes.
More like this:
If Odin turns out to be wrong... then Odin can't really "see the future", and it's not the scenario I'm attempting to discuss at all. Since I am quite explicitly talking about a scenario where Odin can see the actual future.
If the future changes... then Odin can "see the future" and therefore see the changes... again, Odin knows exactly what Carl ends up choosing via Carl's own power.
In an overall, general sense, I am attempting to go with 3 stages:
1 - A non-interfering being who can see the future does not destroy free will.
-I say free will exists In Principle, even though General free will no longer exists.
2 - An interfering being who can see the future may tell the future to an individual and it's possible that the individual freely doesn't change their minds anyway.
-I say free will exists In Principle
3 - Exact same scenario as 2, but add the label "immutable prophecy" to what has happened.
-I say free will exists In Principle
Basically, I'm saying that if a being would freely choose something... and then someone "restricts" them to sticking with that choice... even though they'ed stick with that choice with the knowledge of the restriction anyway... then the still have free will.
Strictly definition-wise, I can see how "immutable prophecy" is diametrically opposed to "free will." However, given such a unique situation above, I can see how it is possible for an "immutable prophecy" to not (in a practical sense) alter the free-will decision... in which case you could say that free will still exists with the immutable prophecy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2009 1:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2009 1:13 PM Stile has replied
 Message 222 by Straggler, posted 02-02-2009 3:30 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 220 of 227 (497196)
02-02-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Stile
02-02-2009 11:57 AM


Re: Definitely Circular. Definitely Nonsense.
Straggler writes:
Either Carl is able to define his future OR Odin can know Carl's future before he has defined it. They contradict one-another. No amount of "what if" or declarations of your assumptions as being axiomatic change this inherent contradiction.
This isn't what I'm talking about.
Carl defines his future.
Odin cannot know Carl's future before Carl has defined it.
Odin can, however, know the future that Carl eventually defines. That is, as long as we imagine an Odin who can see the future.
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.
In a sort of "Carl speeds ahead in time, makes all his decisions, but doesn't even know about it yet" sort of way.
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?
If you do not care to accept this axiom, this "what if" statement, then you cannot talk about the following conclusions.
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.
Perhaps the imagination required to think of such a scenario is too... against the cause-and-effect reality we're used to for me to explain such a thing.
If you can imagine two opposite and contradictory statements both being true then hurrah for you. But most people consider this a logical impossibility.
I fully admit I very well may have failed at such a task. It most absolutely is not, however, circular.
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?
It doesn't really matter, though. You can continue to misrepresent the things I'm saying and call it circular if you'd like.
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.
It is obvious that you do not want to accept my definitions.Since it was my idea, I make the definitions
Your definitions are circular/contradictory. This has been demonstrated.
If you don't want to accept my definitions... then I will take this as meaning that you do not want to discuss my idea
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?
Feel free to continue discussing whatever idea it is you keep ascribing to me.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Stile, posted 02-02-2009 11:57 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 221 of 227 (497200)
02-02-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Stile
02-02-2009 12:08 PM


Re: I'll show the example, then
quote:
If Odin turns out to be wrong... then Odin can't really "see the future", and it's not the scenario I'm attempting to discuss at all. Since I am quite explicitly talking about a scenario where Odin can see the actual future.
OK.
quote:
If the future changes... then Odin can "see the future" and therefore see the changes... again, Odin knows exactly what Carl ends up choosing via Carl's own power.
Odin can see that future - but it has changed from his original vision. And not until he had already intervened (because it was not the future until then !).
Now the theological point of assuming free will is to have a way to blame anything "bad" entirely on human action, without God being responsible. Now we've established that Odin can change the future by intervening in what happens.
Now I don't know about Odin, but the Christian God ought to be able to work out the consequences of His interventions in advance. In that case whenever He intervenes and changes the future, doesn't He bear some of the responsibility for the changes ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Stile, posted 02-02-2009 12:08 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Stile, posted 02-04-2009 12:45 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 222 of 227 (497215)
02-02-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Stile
02-02-2009 12:08 PM


Re: I'll show the example, then
The observed future on which the prophecy is made is not THE future because it does not actually occur. Because no prophecy is present in that observed future........
THE future, in the event of a prophecy, involves a future where the prophecy and it's effects are necessarily present.
Thus in the event of a prophecy a unique previously un-observed situation occurs and free-will is denied.
EXAMPLE
Tomorrow morning I eat bacon for breakfast.
Odin/God/whoever observes this.
An immutable prophecy is made that I will eat bacon for breakfast tomorrow.
Tomorrow comes but as much as I love bacon my desire to piss on the fire of immutable prophecy is the overriding factor in my decision.
Do I eat bacon because an immutable prophecy allows nothing else (i.e. is my free-will denied)?
Or do I defy the prophecy because it was not actually immutable (in which case any idiot could make prophecies on the basis that they might come true)?
At the end of the day the question is - Does Odin/God/whoever see possible futures or THE future?
Which is it?
And how is this compatible with free-will/prophecy?
Basically, I'm saying that if a being would freely choose something... and then someone "restricts" them to sticking with that choice... even though they'ed stick with that choice with the knowledge of the restriction anyway... then the still have free will.
Strictly definition-wise, I can see how "immutable prophecy" is diametrically opposed to "free will." However, given such a unique situation above, I can see how it is possible for an "immutable prophecy" to not (in a practical sense) alter the free-will decision... in which case you could say that free will still exists with the immutable prophecy.
Either Odin sees the future situation where the prophecy does not exist in which case the situation is different to that actually faced by Carl.
OR
Odin observes the future whcih includes the prophecy which itself restricts Carl's actions.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT THIS CAN BE PHRASED OR CONCEIVED SUCH THAT ODIN CAN KNOW WHAT CARL FREELY WANTS TO DO IN THE EXACT SITUATION THAT CARL WILL ENCOUNTER.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Stile, posted 02-02-2009 12:08 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 223 of 227 (497491)
02-04-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Stile
02-02-2009 11:57 AM


Final Refutation of Stile's Position
Myself and Stile have been getting frustrated with each other. As such I have decided to summarise my position and leave it at that.
INTRODUCTION
Stile has taken an interesting angle on the notion of free-will in the face of prophecy by attempting to re-define free-will as “The ability to get what you want from the situation presented” regardless of any restriction in choice. He fully accepts that prophecy defies conventional definitions of free-will (involving choice) but argues that by redefining free-will in this way it is possible for free-will and prophecy to co-exist peacefully.
Ultimately this attempt is flawed as Stile's arguments have been found to contain various inconsistencies and contradictions. Here is a final summary of the problems:
PROBLEM 1 - "THE" FUTURE
Throughout this discussion Stile has consistently stipulated that Odin (our omniscient being) bases his immutable prophecies on THE future. Not a possible future. Only THE future. Even this simple criteria falls at the first hurdle in the event of a prophecy.
Odin views “THE” future such that he can make his prophecy. In this observed future no prophecy exists.
Odin now makes his prophecy.
Thus the observed future, the prophecy-free, future never actually exists and is never actually experienced or encountered by Carl (our hapless agent of free-will).
Carl will only ever experience the future that contains the prophecy.
Thus "THE" future originally observed by Odin and "THE" future actually experienced by Carl are not the same future.
It cannot therefore meaningfully be claimed that Odin makes his prophecies based on observing THE future.
Thus we see the first inconsistency in Stile’s argument
PROBLEM 2 - WHAT WE WANT
We have already seen above that the mere existence of a prophecy itself results in an inconsistency in Stile’s argument. But what effect does this have on free-will as defined by Stile himself?
Stile writes:
Free Will: The ability to get what you want from the situation presented when there is absolutely no control on your decision from any external being.
Wants and desires uniquely arise from situations and knowledge. If the situation and knowledge contained within the future observed by Odin are not the same as those actually encountered by Carl then free-will is indisputably compromised by not allowing Carl to make a choice in the unique circumstance that he actually faces. Consider the following example to demonstrate this
EXAMPLE
Odin wishes to make a prophecy regarding that which Carl will eat for breakfast tomorrow.
Odin views the future and sees that Carl eats bacon.
Odin makes this immutable prophecy and reveals it to Carl.
On the morning in question Carl must choose what to eat for breakfast. His overwhelming desire, above and beyond that for his love of bacon, is his desire to prove the prophecy wrong. Carl wants to choose sausage.
But the prophecy is immutable so Carl has no ability to “choose” anything other than bacon.
Thus in terms of Stile’s own definition of free-will i.e. “what Carl wants to do” the discrepancy between the initially observed future and the future in which the prophecy exists as actually experienced by Carl, gives rise to a denial of free-will.
In the above example this is made obvious but the point applies more generally. The fact that the situation under which the choice was observed and the eventual “choice” is made are different gives rise to a denial of free-will by Stile's own definition.
Stile writes:
Free Will: The ability to get what you want from the situation presented when there is absolutely no control on your decision from any external being.
It can never be known what Carl would freely choose to do in the precise situation he actually experiences.
Thus we see that Stile’s argument fails even in terms of his own definition of free-will.
PROBLEM 3 - INDEFINITE DEFINITES
Finally Stile's whole concept is founded a self contradicting set of statements.
  • Carl’s future is freely shaped by Carl’s choices.
  • Odin can look forward from a point in time and see Carl’s future.
    At first glance these two statements do not appear to be contradictory. But they are.
    Is Carl’s future defined such that Odin can know it from a prior point in time? Or is Carl’s future not yet defined thus allowing Carl to freely define it as time progresses?
    Carl’s future cannot be both defined and undefined simultaneously. That is just illogical contradictory nonsense.
    So which is it?
    Well Stile has bee unable to say. There has been talk of the statements being axiomatic and accusations of me misrepresenting his position. There has also been attempted justification in the form of indisputably circular reasoning applied along the way (see Message 185 for details. But ultimately this innate contradiction remains exposed and unchallenged by any counter-argument.
    Thus we see that the founding principles of Stile’s argument contain an innate and inherent contradiction.
    CONCLUSION
    Stile’s argument is interesting but flawed. Analysis has shown it to contain inconsistencies, contradictions and circular reasoning.
    Some of these inconsistencies can be overcome by changing Odin’s perspective from within time looking into the future to instead “outside” of time where the terms “past”, “present”, “future” or “now” are meaningless. This perspective resolves the issue of Odin passively knowing Carl’s “future” but still does not allow prophecy and free-will (by any definition) to logically to co-exist. I have been unable to adequately explain this perspective to Stile (and quite possibly anyone else). That remains my failing rather than his.
    Regardless - Using the terms and perspective stipulated by Stile himself his argument has been shown to be innately flawed and his attempted redefinition of free-will must therefore be considered a contradictory failure lacking in either freedom or will.
    Edited by Straggler, : Minor spelling and tidying up.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 218 by Stile, posted 02-02-2009 11:57 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 225 by Stile, posted 02-04-2009 12:53 PM Straggler has not replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 224 of 227 (497506)
    02-04-2009 12:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 221 by PaulK
    02-02-2009 1:13 PM


    Powerful... but not too powerful
    PaulK writes:
    Now I don't know about Odin, but the Christian God ought to be able to work out the consequences of His interventions in advance. In that case whenever He intervenes and changes the future, doesn't He bear some of the responsibility for the changes?
    I see what you're saying here.
    And I must agree.
    That is... let's make Odin similar to the Christian God now and give him the ability to also "view possible futures due to intervention by Odin."
    Now, Odin can see the non-interference future.
    Odin can also see all the possible Odin-interference futures that could be created by interfering in whatever sense he decides on.
    In a sense, you could say that such an Odin interfering in any way removes everyone's free will since now Odin has "chosen" the precise future that gives the outcomes he is looking for.
    Carl's decisions are still up to Carl as far as Carl is concerned, but this "overview shift" implemented by this newly-empowered Odin would remove free will, even In Principle... according to me, anyway.
    Given this, it means that the only way for immutable prophecy and free will (In Principle) to co-exist would be for Odin to never have this new-ability to forsee the possible Odin-interference futures.
    Therefore, Odin wouldn't be able to know if his prophecy is going to result in Carl choosing the exact same thing again.
    Therefore... it is still possible for Immutable Prophecy to co-exist with Free Will (In Principle).
    -Odin must not be able to forsee the future due to his own interference
    -Carl's personal decision must be to stay in line with the prophecy, even once given the new information of the prophecy
    So this means that it would have to happen "by chance" and there would be no way to know if it actually happened or not.
    So... the situation may theoretically exist, but pretty much uselessly so.
    I agree that if Odin gains the abilities such as the Christian God, then there is no way for Immutable Prophecy, regular prophecy, or even any other sort of interference (non-prophetic perhaps) to exist along with free will. With such abilities, the god must absoutely refrain from any and all interference in order to allow free will to exist.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 221 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2009 1:13 PM PaulK has not replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 225 of 227 (497507)
    02-04-2009 12:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 223 by Straggler
    02-04-2009 11:10 AM


    Re: Final Refutation of Stile's Position
    Myself and Stile have been getting frusttrated with each other. As such I have decided to summarise my position and leave it at that.
    I think this is best at this point, I'll do the same.
    CONCLUSION
    Stile’s argument is interesting but flawed. Analysis has shown it to contain inconsistencies, contradictions and circular reasoning.
    My argument is a simple "if this, then that" scenario.
    The "if this" part certainly does contain imaginary talk of seeing the future.
    I fully admit that such a thing cannot exist along with the basic assumptions of cause-and-effect logic. The entire point of the "if this" section of my arguement is to grant these unrealistic ideas so that they can then be used to see what sort of conclusions could follow.
    If anyone is unwilling to accept the "if this" part of my scenario, then I entirely understand why they would also not accept the "then this" part as well.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 223 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2009 11:10 AM Straggler has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024