Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

For both the felixmab and davidmabus2006 ID's, posting is restricted to that one forum. I strongly suggest you take your opinions to your previously existing How Michel Nostradamus stopped the Randi-Dawkins-Myers Corp topic.Adminnemooseus

I totally agree. That's why I insist that in order for Free Will to remain intact, the prophecy must exactly match the actual desires of the decision maker given no outside interference. This takes into consideration the "additional information" of the prophecy itself and ensures that the principle you speak of is included.IF the information of the prophecy itself would change the decision-maker's true desires on the situation, then I totally agree that Free Will is removed.However, there's the other side of this as well.IF, AND ONLY IF, the information of the prophecy itself does not change the decision maker's true desires on the situation, then Free Will remains intact.
(perhaps this is only possible for certain people... perhaps an omnipotent being is capable of making allowances so that this works with anyone... I'm not worried about the actual mechanism, only that such a theoretical idea isn't strictly prohibited by logic or rationallity)I would argue that, in principle, I already include the caveat you're talking about. I just want to quote this part again to point out the important section. I do not find "the possibility to change the decision we will make" to be the important part. I only find "the desire to change the decision we will make" to be important. Given no external interference or restrictions, of course.I do not think that the inability to change one's mind is important if it is such a situation where the person doesn't want to change their mind anyway.That's the only situation I'm talking about.Edited by Stile, : (bracket stuff)

Yes. I'm also saying that this omnipotent being is capable of knowing how the information of the prophecy itself will effect the individual's true desires, and will formulate the prophecy in such a way that it exactly matches the true desires (given no outside interference) of the individual, even taking into account the individual's reaction to the information... if such is required to be taken account of. Absolutely not. Any interference on our decision making capabilities would be the removal of Free Will. Which is why I strictly define such interference out of my description of Free Will.Where is the interfering in what I am describing? If the omnipotent being is only mimicing the individual's true desires given no interference, how can it possibly be called "interfering"? Interference is strictly defined out of the scenario. If there is any interference... Free Will is removed. The whole point is for an omnipotent being to create a prophecy in which there is no interference at all... and this can be done by exactly matching the true desires of the individual. These statements are correct.
I am arguing that these alternatives and possibilities must be considered "in principle," however their practical existence is irrelevent if the prophecy exactly matches the true desires of the individual anyway. No, that is a special case scenario where Free Will still exists given my version of Free Will.My version of Free Will is:The ability to get what you want from the presented situation given no outside interference from any external being. I never said it could be demonstrated, only that it is possible. I am claiming that such an impossible-sounding task for us humans is quite possible for an omnipotent being. And, if it is possible for such an omnipotent being, then Free Will can co-exist along with immutable prophecy (from that same omnipotent being) if all the stuff I'm talking about actually happens. My version of Free Will most certainly does not suggest that we are pre-programmed with a response for any given situation.My version of Free Will suggests that we are quite capable of getting exactly what we want from any situation that is presented to us without any external interference from any being. I would consider "pre-programming" (even before our birth) to be "external interference from a being." So, if my version of Free Will states that there is no pre-programming, how can you suggest that my version of Free Will suggests pre-programming? I totally agree. Which is why I do not say such a thing, and is why I say the opposite.However, this part: I am claiming this can be done by an omnipotent being who can see the future. If this cannot be done, then the omnipotent being isn't actually able to see the future, but maybe only possible futures. And hey, even I can see possible futures, that certainly doesn't take omnipotence.

Well I now understand your position. I am now convinced that your position is even more flawed. Free-will can exist regarding situations never encountered and questions never considered?How? At what point do these "true desires" manifest themselves?
Who or what determines what these "true desires" are?This is where your whole argument falls down flat.For your "true desires" or "what they would have done anyway" version of free-will to work there has to be a single desire, want or action for any given specific situation. This is the very antithesis of free-will.Let's consider your ice cream example:EXAMPLE
Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Erm, I'll have chocolate please
Stile: (laughs) You ALWAYS have chocolate......blurrrrppprrrrbbbrrreeeee (sound of time running backwards)Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Oh, I'll have chocolate please
Stile: (frowns) Tut. You ALWAYS have chocolate......blurrrrppprrrrbbbrrreeeee (sound of time running backwards)Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Erm, I'll have vanil...no. Oh I'll have chocolate please.
Stile: (laughs) You ALWAYS have chocolate......blurrrrppprrrrbbbrrreeeee (sound of time running backwards)Repeat the above as many times as you deem appropriate........Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Erm, oh get me strawberry for a change.
Stile: (laughs) What?!?! But you ALWAYS have chocolate!! You feeling OK?
Friend: Just fancied a change that's all.THE POINT
The point of this example is that genuine free-will requires that free-will be exerted at the point of the decision being made. At the point of the decision being made all possibilities exist. There is no single and immutable answer that will be given every single time. There is free-will at the point of making the decision.The "true desire" or "what they would have done anyway" is a variable not a certainty. A variable that cannot be known until the agent of free-will actually exerts their free-will and makes a decision.No matter how deeply and highly probable one particular answer may be, if we can repeat the decision making process (by reversing time for example) there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the same decision will be made each and every time. Such is the nature of genuine free-will.Your "true desires" or "what they would have done anyway" version of "free-will" denies these possibilities, removes any decision making capacity and limits any given scenario to a single want, desire or action. In short free-will to decide what your "true desires" actually are is removed.Essentially a pre-programmed response.PRE-PROGRAMMED RESPONSE
Please understand I do not mean that the omnipotent being "interfered" and pre-programmed - I simply mean that in your version of free-will a particular exact situation will immutably result in a single and exact specific response thus allowing it to be immutably known by our omnipotent being.A form of completely deterministic cause and effect. No free-will involved.Your version of free-will simply regresses the problem of immutable prophecy to one of immutable knowledge of what an individual would do in any given situation. Even if they never actually confront that situation. If anything this is an even more complete denial of free-will!!! Yes it does.
How can it be known, as an immutable fact no less, what we would do in a given situation that we will never actually face, or even consider, unless there is but a single response to that situation?How does your version of free-will cope with the fact that in the case of genuine free-will we might make a different choice each time we are confronted with the same specific situation? How does it cope with the fact that our "true desire" is itself an act of free-will unknown until the moment of decision. At what point in your version of free-will do we freely decide what we want?Please answer that question - Your whole argument rests on the notion of "true desires" or "what we want anyway" so it is imperitive that you explain how this can be immutably known with regard to every situation and every decision that might occur but is never actually faced. How? Because according to your version of free-will a specific situation can have but one response. Hence the term "pre-programmed". I did not literally mean the omnipotent being has to login to your brain......I just meant that (specific situation) = (specific response). Completely deterministic in terms of cause and effect.
The very antithesis of free-will. Your imperfect speculations regarding other people's future decisions are not comparable to an omnipotent being immutably knowing what a supposedly free-will-enabled agent will do in every conceivable situation.CONCLUSION
To immutably know what the response to a hypothetical future situation would be denies the possibility of decisions being made as situations are encounterd. It denies the possibility of more than one response to a given specific situation. It denies the freedom to decide what one wants and what ones "true desires" actually are in any given real-time scenario.In short your version of "free-will" denies any possibility of free-will as described by any meaningful definition of the term at all.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Let's assume that this prophecy is immutable.Let's assume that enough people believe that it will come true to try and stop it.Can those people take action (e.g. decide to wipe-out a large portion of the human population) such that the prophecy does not come true?Or is this possibility, unlikely as it may be but still allowable in purely free-will terms, eliminated by the mere existance of the prophecy? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I totally agree. That's why I insist that in order for Free Will to remain intact, the prophecy must exactly match the actual desires of the decision maker given no outside interference. This takes into consideration the "additional information" of the prophecy itself and ensures that the principle you speak of is included.

---

OK, but the question here is whether we have Free Will to violate. Carefully wording prophecies so that they could coexist with Free Will is not enough. This is why I keep saying that we must think about what is going on.If we accept the possibility of prophecy is it a genuine vision of the future or an extrapolation ? If the former what is the effect of intervention ? After all, all prophecy is intervention. If it does not somehow change the future foreseen, what good is it ?

quote:

---

I just want to quote this part again to point out the important section. I do not find "the possibility to change the decision we will make" to be the important part. I only find "the desire to change the decision we will make" to be important. Given no external interference or restrictions, of course.

---

You're pretty much saying that you don't care if we HAVE Free WIll so long as prophecies are worded so that we can't tell that we don't have it. I'm much more interested in the first question, and consider the second relatively unimportant.

Then the immutably true prophecy could be wrong. Which is a contradiction in terms. Given that an immutable prophecy cannot be wrong how could he do this? It is impossible without creating a contradiction in terms. No he could not. That is the point.Ahab has been given an immutable prophecy.He could not have done anything that would have contradicted that prophecy without making God a liar. Which is not possible. Because he could not. He had no free-will regarding this matter. OK. But at what point after the prophecy had been made could Ahab have used his free-will to change the outcome without making God a liar?Do you see the problem here?

Yes but WHEN did Jesus say this? Not when he was two months old I suspect. So Jesus was born omniscient and fully functioning as an eternity aware being, seeing all of time laid before him. He was like this from birth according to your analysis.So he was as mentally developed at 2 months as he was at age 30 years according to your analysis.Can you imagine Jesus as a toddler? Still pooping his pants and talking in baby gaga language but fully omniscient of all eternity and possessing all knowledge.But this was not thought worth any mention.......? And apparently decided to do this "before the universe and the earth was created" (as you put it)So presumably all Jesus's decisions were made in this way? He did not make decisions in realtime non-eternity as we do. All his free-will decisions were made "before the universe and the earth was created". Everything from which robe to don that day and what to eat for breakfast to what words to use in the sermon on the mount? So did those who killed him or contributed to his death in any way also have free-will? Could they have chosen not to kill him?How?Do you see the problem here?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, Ahab could have made any decision he wanted to make.But since God knew in advance what decision he was going to make He gave Micaiah the prophecy.God knowing something in advance that you are going to do does not make you do anything. You do whatever you want to do He just knows what that is. Ahab used his free will and made the decision he wanted to make. Nobody forced him to do anything.He had 400 prophets telling him God was with him.One guy didn't even get invited to the party but Jehoshaphat requested Micaiah be sent for.So yea Ahab was going to listen to this guy that he said didn't like him and would prophecy against him.Ahab chose to do what he wanted without interference from anyone. The only problem I see is your thinker.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."

Hi Straggler, Jesus never ceased to be God.As I said He could have limited himself but I don't see where He did.When He was 12 years old He spent 3 days confounding the Religious elite of that day with His knowledge. Sure they could have but they didn't.Pilate let the death penalty be carried out to keep from making the Pharisees mad.The Pharisees had been planning this moment for 3 years.What do you think it would have taken to change their minds. Not with the Pharisees doing what they wanted to do.But I have located a problem.You keep saying "immutable prophecy".In an earlier message Message 44 I gave you three "immutable prophecies" concerning myself. The first 2 I had no control over as the first man made that choice for me when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The third one became an immutable prophecy when I accepted the full free pardon God offered to all mankind.I can't change it if I wanted too. But why would I want to change it?I am not sure that there is any other immutable prophecy that exists.As I was thinking about this situation I remembered the story about Hezekiah. He was told by Isaiah to set his house in order for he was going to die.Hezekiah petitioned God and God gave him 15 more years.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : spelling

---

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

Okay, I went through your response and had this whole big rebuttle. But I find I'm simply repeating myself while you put the opposite of what I'm actually saying into my mouth. Perhaps I am unable to properly articulate my thoughts to you. I will try one more method before giving up, however. I'm going to take your Conclusion and provide an example. Please critique my example and let me know where you no longer accept that Free Will exists.For ease of context, here's your conclusion again: This is incorrect and I'll show you how:Scenario:
Carl lives his life choosing what he wants from all available situations presented to him. His decisions have some component of randomness included in them. No other person has the ability to "predict" what Carl will do in any way because of the inherent randomness in his decisions.I say Carl has free will.
I assume you also say Carl has free will.Additional Requirements:
The universe exists such that an external omnipotent being exists that can see the future and can influence the universe. I will call this being Odin because I think that's a cool name for a god.Carl exists in a universe which Odin oversees.Odin makes no prophecies whatsoever and even decides not to interfere in Carl's universe at all.I say Carl has free will.
I assume you also say Carl has free will.Scenario continued (now with Odin interference):
Carl was born, went to school, and became a water treatment engineer. At some point in time Carl has the choice to manage the incoming water section, the purification water section, or the outgoing water section of the plant.Carl knows this and Odin knows this.Odin can see the future. At some point, Carl will die. At this point, even we could look back on Carl's life and see all the decisions he made (including their randomness) as a single, static line through time.
Odin can see the future, Odin can see this even before it has happened in our present (that's the definition of "seeing the future"). As long as Odin does not interfere at all, Carl will continue to make his decisions exactly as he'd like, including the same randomness they've always had until he dies, following the static line that only Odin knows about.I say Carl has free will.
I assume you also say Carl has free will?Odin knows that if he changes Carl's life (like, say... explodes the water treament plant where Carl works) then Carl will find a new job and Carl's previous "non-interference" static line becomes a different static line.Therefore, the only one who can change this "non-interference" static line of Carl's life is Odin, by interfering.Odin can see the future decision in Carl's "non-interference" static life that Carl decides to manage the boiling section of the plant.Odin can see the future decisions in Carl's static life-line if Odin tells Carl about managing the boiling section of the plant. And it turns out that Carl still decides to manage the boiling section of the plant.Odin can see the future decisions in Carl's static life-line if Odin exactly mimics an "immutable prophecy" even though it really isn't. Things like telling Carl that there is an "immutable prophecy" and being all adamant about it and stuff. It turns out that Carl still decides to manage the boiling section of the plant.Odin can see the future decisions in Carl's static life-line if Odin makes an actual, true "immutable prophecy" that Carl will manage the boiling section of the plant. There is no differnce to Carl's static life-line in this scenario and the previous one since Odin exactly mimiced the scenario above without actually having the prophecy be "immutable". And it turns out that Carl still decides to manage the boiling section of the plant (obviously, since this time Carl really couldn't choose anything else on this one decision).So one day before the decision Odin comes to Carl and explains the immutable prophecy to him.And Carl ends up managing the boiling section of the plant. His friends soon see how much Carl is enthralled by the chaotic bubbles it makes. They dub him "Hot Carl".My guess is that you have a problem with Odin being able to see the future. Of course, this is something I've placed as a requirement since the very beginning of my arguement.Omnipotently being able to see the future logically displays the static life-line of every intelligent creature in existence.I do not understand how having a being existing but not interfering with our universe in any way vs. not having the being existing at all is somehow different.Do you agree that at the end of our lives anyone can look back and see all the decisions of the past, including their randomness, as a static life-line?If so, then I do not understand how you think it is impossible for an omnipotent being who can see the future to have the ability to view this same static life-line from the past. Such an ability is the basic, fundamental definition of "seeing the future".If you say that the mere presence of a non-interfering, omnipotent being who can see the future actually removes free will. Even though Odin never interferes in the slightest... I say your definition of free will is inadequate.

God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. Might he have softened their hearts?

Hi Mod, For 3 and 1/2 years Jesus tried to soften their hearts. They saw the lame made able to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the dead to live again.What more could He do to soften their hearts?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."

Are you suggesting that God was incapable of softening their hearts?

Why is the question now whether we have Free Will to violate? I thought you said the questino was whether we have the Free Will to violate in principle? If the principle is present, why do we actually require the physical possibility? That is... if the principle is not present, and we agree that Free Will is removed. When the principle is returned.. why is it only me that thinks Free Will still exists? No good to me, I just said it was possible to have immutable prophecy and Free Will at the same time. I never said it was useful. No. I very much care if we HAVE Free Will. I just think that the principle of Free Will is much more important then the actual 'going through the motions' of it. And, if the principle is present, then however the motions are made is irrelevent.See my example to Straggler for (hopefully) a bit more clarification. Perhaps you can spot a flaw in what I'm saying there as well?