Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

quote:

---

I say Carl has an entirely new free choice to make. However, it's certainly possible for Carl to continue to choose choice #4. And, if he does, then the added information becomes irrelevent.

---

My question is and always has been whether he could choose differently given the extra information. And my point is that you should think about the consequences of your answer.
Accepting that Carl COULD choose differently means that either Odin was wrong all long or the future can change.

Carl's "real" future, Carls' timeline, is shaped by Carl's choices. Agreed?How does Odin see Carl's future? He observes Carl's timeline. Agreed?How can Odin see Carl's timeline, made of Carl's choices, if Carl is yet to make those choices?Because he can see the future? What is the future if not Carl's timeline?Which came first the timeline or the choice?What do you mean when you say "Odin sees the future" if you do not mean that Odin can see the future portion of Carl's timeline? A timeline yet be created by Carl's choices?If Carl's timeline is shaped by Carl's choices how is the future portion of Carl's timeline, the portion yet to be shaped by Carl, available to be viewed by Odin in such a scenario?Explain this step by step. I guarantee it will be (obviously) circular.(AbE - It might just be easier to skip to Message 185 and respond to that rather than answer these questions here. I think it amounts to the same thing.)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, Because Odin is seeing Carl's timeline as history not a future event.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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.

Hi, Stile. Paraphrase: If we don’t have alternatives, no one can interfere with our choices.Intrepretation: If we don’t have alternatives, we don’t have choices for anyone to interfere with!Inference: The principle of free will exists in a universe where everything is deterministic.Conclusion: Free will is just a matter of perspective.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

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.

Hi, Straggler. Yeah, that was kind of my point.Sorry: I was a bit vague about my intentions with that post.Edited by Bluejay, : Added "with that post"

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

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

Why would you say this? Odin's future-telling ability works the same way as before Odin told Carl the information.We are assuming an Odin who has the ability to see the future.
We are assuming that Odin's ability is never wrong, that he can actually see the future.Odin tells Carl the information.
Carl has an entirely new free choice to make.
It's quite possible for Carl to freely choose to stick to the prophecy of his own free decision in which no one interferes.
It's quite possible that Carl freely chooses any of the other options.
Odin can see the future.
Odin knows what choice Carl makes.
If Odin sees that Carl freely chooses to stick to the prophecy anyway... how is Carl's free decision removed?
If Odin sees that Carl freely chooses to stick to the prophecy anyway... how is Odin wrong all along?
If Odin sees that Carl freely chooses to stick to the prophecy anyway... how can the future change? If it does change... then Odin can't really see the future and we're not discussing the same scenario.

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?

I think you're taking this thought exercise too far into reality. We are not attempting to create a real, working mechanism for what we're talking about. We're talking about omnipotent beings who have whatever powers I abscribe to them. How can such a thing actually exist?For example:
It's likely impossible for my human-nose to ever smell things as distinctly as that of a dog's nose. However, we certainly can talk about the things I could detect IF I had the ability to smell things like a dog. We can talk about the logical conclusions that would come from me having the ability to smell things like a dog such as knowing if there is a jelly donut or not on the table 3 rooms down. It's a thought exercise.It's likely impossible for us to ever see things without having light photons reach our eyes, or sound waves reach our ears, or by using our sense of touch. However, we certainly can talk about the things I could detect IF I had the ability to form a picture in my mind that exactly represented the reality around me within a 100 mile radius while being perfectly blindfolded. We can talk about the logical conclusions that would come from me having the ability to "see" things like this without using any of my 5 senses, like knowing what card (from a regular deck) someone 4 buildings away is holding up, 100% of the time. It's a thought exercise.These things may very well be impossible. They very well may be impossible no matter what happens, or is ever discovered in the future. However, we certainly can still talk about them and have "what if" conversations. In the exact same realm of "thought exercise", we have the scenario I'm describing:It's likely impossible for any being to ever actually be able to see the real future. However, we certainly can talk about the things such a being could detect IF they actually did have the ability to see what's going to happen in the future. We can talk about the logical conclusions that would come from a being having such an ability, like how does it change our thoughts on free will if the being only sees but does not interfere. It's a thought exercise, and it's what I'm talking about.If you do not care to consider such a "what if" scenario... that's certainly up to you. However, this is all I'm discussing. If you refuse to discuss such a scenario, then that's perfectly fine. But it is not circular or unreasonable to simply think about a "what if" scenario, accepting a given assumption, and move on from there. Carl's choices shape his timeling, at no point does anyone interfere with any of Carl's choices, ever. That is exactly what I mean. I mean Odin can see the future portion of Carl's timeline that Carl creates by his own free decisions. As long as Odin does not interfere, who's timeline do you think Odin's viewing? It's just a thought exercise and this is simply the given assumption. I am not proposing that such a thing is physically possible. I am not proposing that such a think has a known mechanism to actually work. I am simply saying "what if this actually was possible, then what are the consequences?" If you are not going to accept the "what if" portion of the scenario, then, obviously, you have no comment on any following conclusions.It is not circular, it is simply an imaginary "what if" scenario. You are perfectly free to say such a thing is "absurd" and not participate. But I like thought exercises, and accepting assumptions and then seeing the following conclusions is an interesting and fun thing for me. I am not forcing you to participate, however, such a thing is not "circular." It may certainly well be "impossible" though.

Your paraphrase is incorrect. In what I'm talking about we most certainly DO have alternatives, just as we all do each and every day.I suggest reading the post I made for Straggler talking about this just being a thought exercise:
Message 192I certainly do agree with you that what I'm talking about likely doesn't exist, and doesn't really make much sense if it actually did exist. However, this does not stop us from using our imagination to say "what if...", accept a few listed assumptions as truth, and then see what following conclusions would result.If you do not care to think about the specific "what if..." scenario I am describing... that's certainly you're choice. I'm not going to make you use your imagination to think of something you do not care to discuss. It may certainly well be impossible. It may certainly well be confusing to suggest an actual mechanism for the idea. However, that does not make my thoughts circular, or illogical, especially since I am quite plainly listing my given assumptions. You are simply refusing to go along with my given assumptions. That's perfectly fine... if you don't want to participate in the thought exercise that's up to you. But just because you don't want to accept the given assumptions and think about what conclusions would follow does not prevent me or anyone else from using our imaginations to do so.Edited by Stile, : Added message link

Sorry, some unlucky timing with urgent work-stuffs. Didn't mean to give the impression I was ignoring any of this.Now, are we ready to discuss the scenario I'm talking about?Or are you going to continue to deny the very assumptions I'm simply taking as axioms?I do agree with you, and Bluejay, that the assumptions I'm making are likely impossible. In the exact same way I'd agree with you if you said my nose doesn't have the features required to detect smells like a dog. Or if you said that human minds just can't create exact replicas of our physical reality without some sort of input from our senses. I certainly do agree with all you're saying. However, none of it prevents us from saying "what if it did happen..." and looking at the following consequences that would then result. That's all I'm doing.What I mean by "If Odin can see the future..." is to have such an ability granted for the sake of the discussion so that we can use our imaginations to talk about what kind of things such a scenario would result in.I certainly agree that "seeing the actual, real future" most likely is impossible, and most certainly is not very intuitive. However, this does not prevent us from using our imaginations to think of the "what if..." scenario and moving on from there.

No. But, in thinking about this, I don't see what difference it would make... especially if Carl's decisions are not restricted by the prophecy (or Odin) in any way. No, this is not fair.I would agree that Carl's knowledge certainly has changed. And I would agree that Carl's timeline may change, given that he has different information then he had before. However, if Carl still makes the same decision any, and still makes every future decision the same as he would have without this different information... I would say that Carl's timeline doesn't change, even though the information he uses to shape that timeline has changed.So, I would say Carl's knowledge has definitely changed. But Carl's timeline doesn't necessarily change. And I am talking of the scenario where Carl's timeline doesn't change... because he decides to choose the same things anyway.