Creation VS Evolution

F

Freedom for All

The argument that omniscience contradicts free will, which ffa is shouting all over this forum, is a LOGICAL FALLACY.
What's the fallacy again?

Oh, yeah, that God isn't "totally omniscient".

Don't deny it. You not only posted exactly that argument, link, but you referred back to it a few posts ago P654 :jawdrop:

So now you're claiming that God is "totally omniscient" out of one side of your mouth, and claiming that She isn't "totally omniscient" out of the other.

:therethere:

So just give your mouth a rest, pick either one or the other, and try to construct your arguments from a stable platform. We won't respect you any more than we do now, but at least you won't be getting kicked out the door anymore.:beatenup:
 
S

splansing

As much as I have little use for emoticons, that is easily the best usage I've seen thus far. (But I don't get around much.)
 
A

Ausinus

The argument that omniscience contradicts free will, which ffa is shouting all over this forum, is a LOGICAL FALLACY.
No it isnt. Logically, if you can see the outcome of every course of action then you will obviously choose the most desirable course of action - which eliminates free will.
 
L

lakeman

In a larger sense, sure...but in the epic PH fight between FFA and kingrat, I declare kingrat the villian. He displays much more arrogance and nastiness in his posts...and is a bit of a :dramaqueen:
You make some good points. Both of the characters of this play demonstrate qualities which are typically only ascribed to the villain and both characters possess qualities typically reserved for the hero. I may have to wait for he cliffnotes version to come out.
 
K

kingrat

Yes, please post it again.
From wikipedia:

"The argument is roughly stated as follows:
  1. God is omniscient.
  2. Since God is omniscient, God has infallible foreknowledge.
  3. If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X, then you must invariably engage in event X.
  4. You must invariably engage in event X.
Therefore, free-will is not possible since you have no alternative except to engage in event X. In the event that you do not fulfil event X, then God is not omniscient. Alternatively, if you engage in event X, then you don't have free-will on account of the inability to choose another alternative.

However, the premises contain some logical flaws and circular logic. First, premise 4 does not logically follow from the earlier premises, since no premise states that God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X. Premise 3 states what will occur if that were true, but no premise actually asserts that knowledge.

Secondly, premise 3 assumes what is trying to be proven. In an argument trying to prove that foreknowledge of X logically leads to having to do X, premise 3 simply states this outright. If you accept premise 3, then technically you don’t even need the other premises, because premise 3 states the conclusion that it is attempting to prove. Thus, the argument is a case of circular logic, and is therefore invalid."
 
K

kmiller1610

Kingrat, FFA

You guys should watch more science fiction to help you with these problems.

1) Character A takes some risk or makes some judgement call based on what he thinks Alien A is like.

2) To his demise or surprise (either will do), he discovers that Alien A operates in a dimension or time continumn or by rules that are incomprehensible to him, thereby invalidating his assumptions and resulting in him being eaten, zapped or granted a free pass because he didin't really know what he was talking about.

Now if I was going to explore the universe or try to approach the idea of God, I would first assume that known physics or theology (either will do), are inventions of man and probably insufficient for the journey ahead.

To me that is the most logical set of assumptions. Neither one of you has a clue and neither do I. It makes sense for science to probe both Space and the Metaphysical realm and to assume, that we haven't got it all figured out just yet.
 
S

sid2112

No it isnt. Logically, if you can see the outcome of every course of action then you will obviously choose the most desirable course of action - which eliminates free will.
Humans do that too. We make desisions based on the what we think will be the logical outcome. Having the knowledge of all things does not nessesarily mean you act on them. The Free Will vs. Pre-Determination debate is an old one. Last I checked it was in overtime and still the score is 0 - 0!
 
S

splansing

  1. God is omniscient
  2. Since God is omniscient, God has infallible foreknowledge.
  3. If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X, then you must invariably engage in event X.
  4. You must invariably engage in event X.
However, the premises contain some logical flaws and circular logic. First, premise 4 does not logically follow from the earlier premises, since no premise states that God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X. Premise 3 states what will occur if that were true, but no premise actually asserts that knowledge.

Secondly, premise 3 assumes what is trying to be proven. In an argument trying to prove that foreknowledge of X logically leads to having to do X, premise 3 simply states this outright. If you accept premise 3, then technically you don’t even need the other premises, because premise 3 states the conclusion that it is attempting to prove. Thus, the argument is a case of circular logic, and is therefore invalid."
Actually, premise 2 states that omniscience = infallible foreknowledge of all things, which would obviously include that tomorrow you will do x. Your argument also doesn't mention the premises that god is omnipotent and that he created everything.