John A. Broussard

No need.

You've agreed that an omniscient god makes free will irrelevant. That's all I wanted to establish.

Thank you for the clarification of your viewpoint.

John A. Broussard

But rhutchin insists that his god is omniscient. If so, then his god can't be irrelevant.

It's a peculiar situation, I must admit. Rhutchin's god may not exist, but that god can't be irrelevant.

If you want to figure that out, good luck!

Wayne Delia

Good for you! Take it slowly, and you reduce your chances of making a mistake.

"What I desire is to do something your God knows I won't do.� You already cited that. Taking it slow is one thing; repeating yourself is not necessary.

No, I never said that, nor did I intend to say that. You are misrepresenting my position. I stated that I desire to do something, so it would be dishonest to claim that I actually have no desire to do it. In fact, the way you modified my position, you are assuming your own conclusion as a premise, instead of demonstrating it as a conclusion. One can prove pretty much anything if the conclusion is assumed.

That's because it's not my position. It's your strawman argument that sounds goofy to you. Do you understand why strawman arguments don't work? I said "I desire to do something." You paraphrased that into "I desire to do something that I don't desire to do." Then you attacked your dishonest version instead of my actual position.

I never claimed I had no desire to do that. YOU made that claim. So you're on the hook for explaining not only why you misrepresented my claim, but how in any way your modified claim makes sense.

No. "I desire to do that which I have no desire to do" is a result of YOUR weird thinking, not mine. You made that strawman argument up, but tackling that strawman argument leaves the actual argument untouched: I desire to choose something which God knows I will not choose. I really, really do desire that, no matter how much you would prefer I didn't.

Again, you need to supply your operating definitions of the various forms of "free will" you're throwing around. I'm not sure you mean what you think you mean. My operating definition of free will is the unconstrained ability to choose among two or more logically available alternatives. If the ability to choose is constrained, or if there is only one logically available alternative, then free will is refuted.

Oh, sure, when it refutes your position, all of a sudden it becomes irrelevant.

If God is assumed to be omniscient, then no alternatives other than what God knows will be chosen can possibly be selected.

If God is not assumed to be omniscient, then any among logically available alternatives can be selected, with no constraint on what must be chosen.

There's a difference between "You must choose this single option" and "You can choose any among these two or more options." That difference depends on God's omniscience. So, whether God is omniscient turns out to be relevant, after all.

WMD

rhutchin

I think what I agreed to was that an omniscient god is irrelevant to a discussion of free will. [Libertarian] Free will is made irrelevant by a deterministic system based on people's desires.

rhutchin

Your original statement--

“What I desire is to do something your God knows I won't do.�

I reduced this to--

“What I desire is to do something...I won’t do (or have no desire to do).� I deleted the language irrelevant to the argument.

Maybe you don’t understand your own position.

Wayne Delia

What you deleted is in bold: “What I desire is to do something your God knows I won't do.� It's relevant, because it distinguishes what God knows I will do, from that what I desire to do. For example, suppose I need to choose among the first five letters of the alphabet. I want to choose either B, C, D, or E, given that God knows I will choose A. Since I cannot choose among B, C, D, or E, I have no free will. If your God doesn't exist, I could possibly select B through E, but if your God does exist and is omniscient, I cannot possibly select B through E. That's what makes "your God knows" - the phrase you deleted - very much relevant.

I understand it fine. It refutes your position. You have demonstrated in previous threads that you'd risk (and reject) your own eternal salvation rather than admit you're wrong, and that's what you're doing here. You added a phrase, in bold, which I never expressed, when you paraphrased my position: “What I desire is to do something ... I won't do (or have no desire to do).� I never said that as part of my position at all; in fact, I said explicitly exactly the opposite. So... (here's where your own words jump up to bite you in the butt)

...maybe you don't understand my own position.

WMD

John A. Broussard

Is there any way we can just talk about the relation of an omniscient god to free will without getting off into Libertarian Free Will or Non-Libertarian free will?

Let me phrase the question again. "Does it matter whether or not human beings have free will (of any variety) if god is omniscient?"

Since that is the whole point to my argument--that an omniscient god makes free will irrelevant--if you don't agree, please point out what part of my argument is in error and why.

Thank you for your reponse.

rhutchin

Your question seems to be, “Does an omniscient god make free will irrelevant?� The answer is that an omniscient god has nothing to do with free will. The only thing relevant to free will is whether you have a deterministic or non-deterministic system.

So the answer to your question, "Does it matter whether or not human beings have free will (of any variety) if god is omniscient?" depends on whether it matters to you that you have a deterministic or non-deterministic system. If you want a deterministic system, then it only matters that people have the “free will� to do as they desire. If you want a non- deterministic system, then it only matters that people have the “free will� to do as they desire or do not desire. Either case, it is immaterial whether a god is omniscient because the system is deterministic or non-deterministic first and then God knows what the system produces. Once you specify whether the system is deterministic or not, then you have resolved your free will issue and then a god can know what the system produces.

In the context of the Bible, God created a deterministic system in which all man's choices are derived from, and caused by, his desires. Having created such a system, God then knows how the system will play out becuase He is omniscient and knows the desires of men and that which they will choose in a given situation.

John A. Broussard

It's a hard struggle, but we're getting there.

Yes, yes, yes!!!! As you say above, "Your question seems to be, 'Does an omniscient god make free will irrelevant?'

I've said that over and over again. I'll say it again. An omniscient god makes free will irrelevant. Is that part clear, concise and understandable?

If not, let me know and I'll explain some more.

Now, the next point. You want to talk about "a deterministic system."

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this. All I'm specifying is that an omniscient god knows everything that we've done, are doing, and will do. If you want to call that a deterministic system. Fine. If you don't want to call it a deterministic system, that's fine too.

Do you disagree with the fact that god, being omniscient, knows everyting. If you disagree, I'll explain some more.

You say then that your omniscient god, "knows the desires of men and that which they will choose in a given situation."

I agree.

Does it then make one iota of difference whether or not men have free will?

If you feel it does, please explain how someone with free will will behave differently, given an omniscient god, then someone without free will.

I appreciate your reading of my posts. Please don't hesitate to ask for further clarification.

In the meantime, I look forward to your response.

Thank you.

Ubercat

So you admit that your god is unjust, but you still love him. Fascinating. How do you manage the trick of loving an evil being? If I could manage it, I might STILL be a christian.

-Ubercat