It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For you rationalists out there, how do you argue this point?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: pryingopen3rdeye
so your only posting this to ask for help in convincing others of your stance? has it occurred to you that it might actually be you who has a flimsy stance?

it is not sensible for you to say god simply knows what the future WILL hold, when more likely he instead simply knows what all POTENTIAL futures can hold, and your free will is the one rogue element in the mix which no matter your decision he knows the outcomes, this would allow you your free will while also allowing an omniscient being,


I would agree with you that free will would exist in your scenario, however, that is not what most people claim. The issue is apparent only when an individual claims that God is Infallible, and is truly omniscient, yet we also have free will. This concept is indeed impossible, and the only way that this scenario could work is if those who believe in it twist the concept until it is acceptable once again in their minds.

My stance isn't flimsy, it's simply rational. The reason for this topic is because I have exhausted every explanation I can fathom to describe how having both those specific traits in existence is impossible.


originally posted by: pryingopen3rdeye
also, i hadnt yet even included the concept of time to such a being, you perhaps can try and think of the position of one who exists outside of times constraints as one who is at the end of time, when in the future no one in the past has free will because of course by then their decisions have already been made, but that isnt to say they didnt have free will at the time of their decisions,

you cannot look back on your ancestors and say they had no free will simply because you can see now the decisions they made after the fact,
similarly a god could not say you do not have free will simply because he can already see the decisions you have made, him being in the future.


Again, this is not the issue. The only problem in the equation is when there is infallible knowledge. If there is a set future that cannot be changed in any way, then whatever the future holds must be exactly how is predicted. There is no escaping it. The same goes for choices. We would have the illusion of choice at the time the action was made, but in reality if our action was inevitably going to occur no matter what, there was no choice to begin with.



originally posted by: pryingopen3rdeye
the problem with you feeling this means you have no free will is basically you failing to realize that a god would not exist solely in your present moment, it is akin to your ancestors feeling they have no free will simply because they know that their lineage can look back and see what decisions they made in the past.

in the moment of a decision, think on how others will know what decision you make after wards. does the fact they are going to know your decision mean you have no free will before the decision? of course not.


This example is used time and time again, however a key trait is missing; absolute, infallible knowledge. You cannot compare a normal human being "knowing" what my decision will be because there is always a failure factor involved. With god, that is not the case, he really does know with absolute knowledge what will happen, thus, there is no escaping that knowledge.


originally posted by: pryingopen3rdeye
you see i think you are summing up the idea of an omniscient being in your OP as if it is some simple concept, i argue that the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient being who exists in all of time and space is not a simple concept to grasp or argue at all, it is rather a vague notion we can barely imagine.


But it is simple. Time is irrelevant when the claim states "omniscience to an infallible degree". It's the same issue as stating "that if god is all powerful, could he create a bolder so heavy that even he cannot move it?" it's simply paradoxical at it's core.




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

you are absolutely correct I hear you
it is non- sense
you know what you know is correct so ?? what can you do with the rest


what is sad is our schools are still involved
never mind sorry OP it is just an opinion



edit on 6-6-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I lough every time I picture biology at a catholic church school


or any subject for that matter lol
sorry if I offend someone
edit on 6-6-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The problem doesn't exist in if we have free will or not...the problem exists in people trying to assign attributes to a concept that is not comprehendible and also in your false confidence in your own beliefs.

I believe in god...more correctly, I believe in the concept of god. However, the concept is all I can believe in...the concept itself being a "thing" that is beyond my comprehension. I don't know if that "thing" is a physical being, spirit, entity, thought, or most likely something that we can't even comprehend.

What I won't do, and what I think the mistake most religions make, is to start to attribute human attributes to this "thing" we call god. The simple attempt of saying god is "good", as in "good" in the human sense, creates all sorts of issues. Going beyond that and claiming he is "all knowing", creates issues that create logical paradoxes.

In the end, you either believe or you don't. In my case...I can't NOT believe...it is just in my to do so. Asking me not to believe would be like telling me to pretend I don't have feet. Trying to prove to me that what I believe in doesn't exist is meaningless because I fully accept and admit that it can't be proven to exist.

The problem you are having is that you are on one end of an extreme and illogical belief and you are arguing with others that are on the other end of the illogical belief.

And yes, I just said your position is just as illogical as those that claim god definitely exists. You believe you are right because you have "found no evidence in the universe" to prove god...but really shouldn't make that statement as definitive because you have only explored a extremely small fraction of the universe during a extremely small fraction of time the universe has existed...and you are claiming from that small experience in that small amount of time, that you have come to the conclusion that this concept is logically false. This would be like walking into our largest library, picking up one book, reading one sentence, putting the book down, and claiming that "X" doesn't exist because you have found no evidence for it.

So the biggest problem with your "argument" is your own stance, along with the stance of those you are choosing to argue with. So I guess really what your biggest problem with your argument is your choice to argue this topic.


edit on 6-6-2015 by kruphix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

Well, I'm not quite sure how I could have "Faith in atheism" considering it is a stance without belief. On the contrary to your claims, I am not a "modern Atheist", more so of a militant one; within reason of course. If an individual (religious or not) makes claims that state god is this or that, or the universe is driven by a deity, or that so and so scientific theory is [Misinformation here], then I will readily correct those falicies.

Do I think I'm better than everyone else? Of course not. However, there are a lot of individuals out there who make claims that are completely irrational or simply ignorant. Why should we condone the action of correcting those claims?




I guess that hilights my point.
I see wesboro as militant religious fundamentals, just the same way you describe yourself.

Of course you assume science is correct because the evidence suggests its valid to your opinion, just as they do.

And only you have the truth (do you keep it in your pocket?) so only you can correct those (just like wesboro think) who dont have your truth,

Believe what you want, I will believe what I want, its just the hypocrisy that baffles me when I read your posts

Militant atheist and you are proud of that?


edit on b2015Sat, 06 Jun 2015 11:10:14 -050063020156am302015-06-06T11:10:14-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch



Believe what you want, I will believe what I want, its just the hypocrisy that baffles me when I read your posts

Yet you don't see the militant attitude and hypocrisy in your own posts.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Ghost147

The problem doesn't exist in if we have free will or not...the problem exists in people trying to assign attributes to a concept that is not comprehendible and also in your false confidence in your own beliefs.


I completely agree. Once specific traits and values are attributed to an incomprehensible being, issues and conflicts arise within those very traits. That's why I directed the conflict to those specific traits, not gods in general.

As for my own confidence, I think you're forming a hyperbolic view of my situation a bit too much. The only reason I have a lack of belief in any form of creator or god is strictly due to evidence. We only see the natural process of things that give rise to what we have discovered in our universe today. That's why I am an Atheist.

Of course, if there were any definitive proof that a god exists, I would change my mind immediately.

There for your assertion that I am just as bad as the fundamentalist religious is incorrect. Despite mounds upon mounds of evidence that disproves a very small notion of their concepts, they will refuse to listen for the rest of their lives. Worse yet, they spread that mentality around.

I, on the other hand, say "believe what you wish, but take a rational look at it before you throw your entire life in that direction."


originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Ghost147
I believe in god...more correctly, I believe in the concept of god. However, the concept is all I can believe in...the concept itself being a "thing" that is beyond my comprehension. I don't know if that "thing" is a physical being, spirit, entity, thought, or most likely something that we can't even comprehend.

What I won't do, and what I think the mistake most religions make, is to start to attribute human attributes to this "thing" we call god. The simple attempt of saying god is "good", as in "good" in the human sense, creates all sorts of issues. Going beyond that and claiming he is "all knowing", creates issues that create logical paradoxes.


I have no problem with this at all. Believe in a god all you want, there's no evidence to disprove that notion; unless of course you start attributing attributes, as you've stated.

Again, the concept that a god exists is not the problem for me.


originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Ghost147
The problem you are having is that you are on one end of an extreme and illogical belief and you are arguing with others that are on the other end of the illogical belief.


Could you elaborate on how I'm at one end of the spectrum of extreme/illogical belief?


originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Ghost147
And yes, I just said your position is just as illogical as those that claim god definitely exists. You believe you are right because you have "found no evidence in the universe" to prove god...but really shouldn't make that statement as definitive because you have only explored a extremely small fraction of the universe during a extremely small fraction of time the universe has existed...and you are claiming from that small experience in that small amount of time, that you have come to the conclusion that this concept is logically false. This would be like walking into our largest library, picking up one book, reading one sentence, putting the book down, and claiming that "X" doesn't exist because you have found no evidence for it.


And again, If there were evidence to definitively show the existence of god, then I would instantly change my position. What I won't do is plug my ears and scream at the top of my lungs to the evidence before me.

To explain further, I don't "believe that I am right because we have found no evidence in the universe to prove god". It's not a matter of belief. It's just a matter of a lack of evidence. There is no emotional or egocentric value that I attach to this lack-of-belief. It is merely a logical conclusion, subject to change if any evidence were to arise.

Here's an old example that explains my position very well:


“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

― Bertrand Russell


The concept could be changed with an infinite number of objects or scenarios. The existence of Unicorns, Or Leprechauns, Or Xenomorphs from the 1979 movie Alien. There is no reason for me to believe these exist in the universe simply because there is no way to disprove or prove the concept.

It is then illogical to actually believe they do exist in the first place.


originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Ghost147
So the biggest problem with your "argument" is your own stance, along with the stance of those you are choosing to argue with. So I guess really what your biggest problem with your argument is your choice to argue this topic.


This is the key concept that is leading you to this false accusation. The argument isn't about if god does or doesn't exist. The argument is about rationality. Destiny/Choice cannot exist together. Omniscience/Freewill cannot exist together.

These are logical fallacies. Take god completely out of the equation if you must. But it's rational thinking that is at stake here, not deities.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Of course you assume science is correct because the evidence suggests its valid to your opinion, just as they do.


That's actually not true. I don't view "science as correct", I view science as our current best tool in defining the natural phenomenon's we see around us. Unlike "militant religious folk", my position is subject to fluidity. If there is evidence to suggest my position is false, then I would immediately change my position and accept the new evidence.


originally posted by: borntowatch
And only you have the truth (do you keep it in your pocket?) so only you can correct those (just like wesboro think) who dont have your truth,


Science isn't about truth, and I don't believe I have it. However, I can very well disprove something with logical reasoning if a claim is indeed false to begin with.


originally posted by: borntowatch
Believe what you want, I will believe what I want, its just the hypocrisy that baffles me when I read your posts

Militant atheist and you are proud of that?


To be a militant atheist is simply to actively discuss the false notions that the religions place upon virtually everything they touch. They will say "your theory is just a theory" or "the planet formed by a magical being", where I will respond not by saying "your belief system is ridiculous nonsense, but merely as a means to correct their misinformation.

Scientific theories are not the same as the standard definition of the English word "theory"

We have a lot of evidence that planets are formed by means other than by a magical being.

So on and so forth.

You're concept of a militant atheist is inaccurate
edit on 6/6/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
The argument, of course, is that free will cannot exist when there is something out there that knows every decision that you will ever make, even years before you were born (or the planet formed, for that matter). If something knows every decision you will make, and they are an infallible being, then there is no way for us to escape their absolute knowledge of the future. There for rendering free will an illusion.


My friend,

There is no reason to conclude that knowledge of one's decisions negates their free will.

I know you will disagree with me, but that doesn't remove your free will to do otherwise.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Yes, but it isn't just standard knowledge we're talking about. It's absolute infallible godly knowledge. Could you explain how knowing (in this sense) that you will choose an apple versus a banana allows free will when god knows for a fact that you will choose the apple? Do you have a choice to choose the banana? or is that choice just an illusion?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The illusion is time, and "choice" is simply what lies beyond the veil of future.

What you do you have always done, and shall forever do. But always and forever only really exist because of your frame of reference.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

If someone who knows you very well asked you a question, and you responded exactly as they thought, does that mean you don't have free-will?

Knowing the nature of something is not the same as all of it's actions already being determined. Things can change, miracles can happen.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

Again, this is not an example of God doing the same thing. In your example you have a very fallible individual who may just be wrong about their foresight.

This is not the same thing when omniscience is present because omniscience is infallible. It cannot be wrong

So in your example, if my friend who knows me so well says "I know you're going to pick the apple over the banana" I still have a choice to prove them wrong about their assumption. If God were to say the same thing, it is impossible for me to choose something God didn't know I was going to choose.

See the difference? Fallible, and infallible.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Yes, but it isn't just standard knowledge we're talking about. It's absolute infallible godly knowledge.


So you agree that knowledge of one's decisions doesn't negate their free will if said knowledge is of lesser degree. However, you disagree when that knowledge is of higher degree.

I say unto you that lesser or greater knowledge of one's decisions does not have any lesser or greater impact on one's free will. There is no point at which the degree of knowledge transitions from having no impact to having full impact on one's free will.


originally posted by: Ghost147
Could you explain how knowing (in this sense) that you will choose an apple versus a banana allows free will when god knows for a fact that you will choose the apple? Do you have a choice to choose the banana? or is that choice just an illusion?


Knowing what one decides is not equivalent to making the decisions for them.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: borntowatch



Believe what you want, I will believe what I want, its just the hypocrisy that baffles me when I read your posts

Yet you don't see the militant attitude and hypocrisy in your own posts.



Not to the degree I read in yours.

I accept you are an atheist evolutionist, I can accept why you believe in evolution and why you think its valid.
I just dont like the sheer hate you show to believers and their acceptance of creation.

It reminds me of those fundamentalists at Wesboro.

I don't believe in evolution and I have scientific reasons for that and even saying that will guarantee me a plethora of hate attacks

I dont see the difference between Wesboro sledging gays and you sledging christians. You are one in the same from different sides of the fence.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1

So you agree that knowledge of one's decisions doesn't negate their free will if said knowledge is of lesser degree. However, you disagree when that knowledge is of higher degree.

I say unto you that lesser or greater knowledge of one's decisions does not have any lesser or greater impact on one's free will. There is no point at which the degree of knowledge transitions from having no impact to having full impact on one's free will.


No, there is a severe difference. When someone has "knowledge" of someone else's choices it is not knowledge in the sense of actually knowing anything. It merely is an educated guess based off of previous experiences. There is no absolutes involved in the matter.

Infallible knowledge, on the other hand, is really and truly knowledge to the fullest extent. There is no possibility of being incorrect in any manner. It is not based off of anything else and thus leading to the conclusion, it is simply a matter of knowing.

Like it or not, there is more than just a difference, it is an entirely different concept all together. And if it exists, free will does not because we cannot escape those events that will inevitably happen.

Again, this is the circular arguments from both sides of the spectrum, and why I started this topic in the first place. You'll continue stating your side while I continue to state my without either of us being even relatively convinced.



originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Ghost147
Knowing what one decides is not equivalent to making the decisions for them.


You're correct. knowledge of a decision does not mean forcing someone to make it. However, if it's essentially destiny, then there is no escaping it. It's not that someone is forcing someone to do something, it's simply a matter of events that will inevitably occur and there is no way out of it.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Not to the degree I read in yours.

I accept you are an atheist evolutionist, I can accept why you believe in evolution and why you think its valid.
I just dont like the sheer hate you show to believers and their acceptance of creation.


I think you're responding to the wrong person here. Nevertheless, It's not hatred I present due to someone's beliefs. It's simply a matter of correcting false notions. When someone states something is this and that, and is absolute truth, so on and so forth, yet we have clear evidence (and an abundance of it) that shows a more accurate possibility, then that first statement needs to be corrected.

What baffles me (and many other rational people) is when the evidence is presented, there isn't just a refusal to even acknowledge it, but a wave of slandering remarks towards those that discovered that evidence. Which, to me at least, is beyond irresponsible.

Furthermore, that same kind of close minded mentality is actively and largely pushed upon younger minds who otherwise do not know better. All these traits lead to a needed source of anti-misinformation.


originally posted by: borntowatch
I don't believe in evolution and I have scientific reasons for that and even saying that will guarantee me a plethora of hate attacks


I don't hate you for thinking that evolution isn't valid, although I would greatly like to hear why you think so in a PM. Feel free to message me, I'd love to have a conversation about it.


originally posted by: borntowatch
I dont see the difference between Wesboro sledging gays and you sledging christians. You are one in the same from different sides of the fence.


It seems that you only feel that way because you are in some way hurt by me saying that your ideology isn't accurate. You're being hyperbolic due to this emotional attachment to your belief system.

Despite what you believe my disposition is, I am merely correcting false accusations and illogical claims. Why is that such an offensive action to take?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
No, there is a severe difference. When someone has "knowledge" of someone else's choices it is not knowledge in the sense of actually knowing anything. It merely is an educated guess based off of previous experiences. There is no absolutes involved in the matter.

Infallible knowledge, on the other hand, is really and truly knowledge to the fullest extent. There is no possibility of being incorrect in any manner. It is not based off of anything else and thus leading to the conclusion, it is simply a matter of knowing.

Like it or not, there is more than just a difference, it is an entirely different concept all together. And if it exists, free will does not because we cannot escape those events that will inevitably happen.


Therein lies the fallacy. You are incorrect, there is no difference. Knowledge is still knowledge at any lesser or greater degree.

When one has "knowledge" of someone else's choices, you are right, it is an "educated" guess. The level of "education" used in that guess can be lesser or greater. If you only had knowledge obtained by previous experiences, you would not accurately know the person's choices. However, if you studied that person psychologically, studied them physically, knew their entire history, and knew everything about that person, and knew their way of thought, the accuracy of your 'educated' guess will increase. If you had knowledge of every atom, every bit of energy, every chemical reaction, and every interaction past and future (Theory of Everything), you could reach an accuracy of 100%, and infallibly know a person's choices.

None of the above would ever have any affect on that person's free will. That person can still make any choices they want. You would just happen to know what choice one would make when presented with certain choices. You would also know all choices said person will ever have to make. You are not taking those choices away from that person, nor their ability to chose.

Knowing the events that will inevitably happen in the future doesn't instantly manifest those events in reality. Those events still must take place, and the free will decisions and choices that you have knowledge of must still be made. This makes free will appear to be an illusion, but that in itself is an illusion created by knowing something that hasn't happened yet.



originally posted by: Ghost147
Again, this is the circular arguments from both sides of the spectrum, and why I started this topic in the first place. You'll continue stating your side while I continue to state my without either of us being even relatively convinced.


You could always break out of the circle by listening to and understanding what the other side has to say.

Instead of trying to convince everyone that free will and omniscience can not coexists, why don't you try to figure out how they can coexist, and don't stop until you figure it out logically.
edit on 7-6-2015 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

It's simply a matter of correcting false notions.

When someone states something is this and that, and is absolute truth, so on and so forth, yet we have clear evidence (and an abundance of it) that shows a more accurate possibility, then that first statement needs to be corrected.

What baffles me (and many other rational people) is when the evidence is presented, there isn't just a refusal to even acknowledge it, but a wave of slandering remarks towards those that discovered that evidence. Which, to me at least, is beyond irresponsible.


Furthermore, that same kind of close minded mentality is actively and largely pushed upon younger minds who otherwise do not know better. All these traits lead to a needed source of anti-misinformation.



I don't hate you for thinking that evolution isn't valid, although I would greatly like to hear why you think so in a PM. Feel free to message me, I'd love to have a conversation about it.


originally posted by: borntowatch

I dont see the difference between Wesboro sledging gays and you sledging christians. You are one in the same from different sides of the fence.


It seems that you only feel that way because you are in some way hurt by me saying that your ideology isn't accurate. You're being hyperbolic due to this emotional attachment to your belief system.

Despite what you believe my disposition is, I am merely correcting false accusations and illogical claims. Why is that such an offensive action to take?


Who are you to decide what is false and and illogical, seriously, who are you but another internet warrior.
A confessed atheist militant, like thats a badge

Listen to the hyperbole, clear evidence that shows a possibility, now really....

I dont see the difference between you and the fundamentalists from Wesboro

They would say exactly what you have said only from a Christian fundamental viewpoint, and I would ask them the same question I asked you at the beginning of this post.

Wesboro would say They are correcting your false notion

They would say as you have you dont have the clear evidence, if it was clear it wouldnt be questioned as it is, it wouldnt be as so hotly disputed ot studied.

You exaggerate the science to try and win, why do you have to win? Just let people believe, dont believe if you dont want.

As for anti misinformation, your scientific heroes have done their fair share of mis- information peddling at children and have made many errors that are still in dispute today

My Position on the issue is public record.

Interesting to note that you are asking questions on the mind of God and the only place we find information on the mind of God is the scriptures, but you wont accept scripture?

This question was never written to be answered, its just to cause contention and animosity, well done
edit on b2015Sun, 07 Jun 2015 08:46:36 -050063020150am302015-06-07T08:46:36-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
Therein lies the fallacy. You are incorrect, there is no difference. Knowledge is still knowledge at any lesser or greater degree.

When one has "knowledge" of someone else's choices, you are right, it is an "educated" guess. The level of "education" used in that guess can be lesser or greater. If you only had knowledge obtained by previous experiences, you would not accurately know the person's choices. However, if you studied that person psychologically, studied them physically, knew their entire history, and knew everything about that person, and knew their way of thought, the accuracy of your 'educated' guess will increase. If you had knowledge of every atom, every bit of energy, every chemical reaction, and every interaction past and future (Theory of Everything), you could reach an accuracy of 100%, and infallibly know a person's choices.


Are you suggesting that if we were theoretically able to studying everything a person could eventually gain infallible knowledge?


originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
None of the above would ever have any affect on that person's free will. That person can still make any choices they want. You would just happen to know what choice one would make when presented with certain choices. You would also know all choices said person will ever have to make. You are not taking those choices away from that person, nor their ability to chose.


I know, you keep saying the same thing over and over again, but you aren't explaining your reasoning. The question is, If a person has absolute, infallible knowledge of someone's choices, can that person dither from the predestined choice?


originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
You could always break out of the circle by listening to and understanding what the other side has to say.


I am listening, you're just not explaining your reason. You're simply restating your initial claim without elaboration.


originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
Instead of trying to convince everyone that free will and omniscience can not coexists, why don't you try to figure out how they can coexist, and don't stop until you figure it out logically.


Because you can't prove a negative. You can think all you want that the earth is flat, and state to me "Why not stop and figure out on your own that the earth is flat?" when it is impossible to do so because you can't prove a negative.

Let's look at it from a different angle. Instead, we'll use a different terminological word then; "Destiny". Essentially destiny is defined as the predetermined, inevitable course of events.

In your mind, would it ever be possible to escape your destiny? Supposedly it is also infallible.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join