Do you believe in predestination ?

[Arthur Brain]

Of course.

A simple thought experiment exposes the mutual exclusivity. God tells me exactly what I will post. Can I do otherwise?

Your "thought experiment" included God telling a guy which flavour he was going to choose. Why did you add that if God already knowing what flavour the guy was going to pick was enough to negate choice/free will in itself? You conflate foreknowledge with predetermination and it's ridiculous.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Darwinists will do anything to avoid the question.

Fine, don't ask your question then, your choice. I've offered to answer it.

 

[Stripe]

Why did you add that?

Darwinists will do anything to avoid answering the question.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Darwinists will do anything to avoid answering the question.

Like continually offering to answer one if you'd only get around to it or repeat the thing?

Regardless, your "question" revolved around some lame scenario involving ice cream and you've been answered already Stripe. I'm as much a "determinist" as I am a "Darwinist" and your already weak hypothetical had the unnecessary addition of God stepping in and telling a guy which flavour of ice cream he was going to choose. Foreknowledge is not determinism, they're entirely different things. If God had set things up so the guy had an uncontrollable desire for chocolate or programmed events to be a set way then that's an entirely separate issue to knowing events in advance. How is this not obvious? Heck, there's no such thing as absolute free will anyway but why bother getting deeper into a subject when you don't seem to be able to grasp the basics?

 

[Stripe]

There's no such thing as absolute free will

We'll take that as a "no."

 

[Arthur Brain]

We'll take that as a "no."

You and the other voices in your bonce can take it how you want. You've been answered clearly and your scenario was lacking all ends up. You wanna conflate foreknowledge with determinism? Knock yourself out. Silly as anything but hey ho.

 

[Stripe]

You've been answered clearly.

The question was: Do I have a choice?

Your answer is no.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The question was: Do I have a choice?

Your answer is no.

No it wasn't. You've chosen to respond to me whether God knew in advance or not. You weren't predetermined to do so either way. Pointless going deeper into the subject until you get that basic stuff through your head.

 

[Stripe]

No it wasn't. You've chosen to respond to me whether God knew in advance or not. You weren't predetermined to do so either way. Pointless going deeper into the subject until you get that basic stuff through your head.

Oh. So your answer is "yes"?

My bad.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh. So your answer is "yes"?

My bad.

It generally is your bad with this stuff Stripe as you make a silly argument and after its flaws have been pointed out you revert back to inane soundbites because you lack any defence for it . Pretty much your 'MO'...

Of course you have a choice whether God knows in advance or not. Heck, I'll even delve into the deeper side of things for a laugh. You have a limited will like everyone else. You don't have a choice in all manner of things such as when you're hungry, thirsty or tired. Your body is telling you that it needs sustenance, water or rest. You do (for the most part) have a say in what you're going to do about that. Often you'll eat, drink or go to bed but depending on circumstance you may put all of those off until convenient. You don't have a say in feeling any of the above but you do have an amount of volitional choice in how you react.

Conflating foreknowledge with determinism however is just not very bright at all.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course you have a choice whether God knows in advance or not. Heck, I'll even delve into the deeper side of things for a laugh. You have a limited will like everyone else. You don't have a choice in all manner of things such as when you're hungry, thirsty or tired. Your body is telling you that it needs sustenance, water or rest. You do (for the most part) have a say in what you're going to do about that. Often you'll eat, drink or go to bed but depending on circumstance you may put all of those off until convenient. You don't have a say in feeling any of the above but you do have an amount of volitional choice in how you react.

Conflating foreknowledge with determinism however is just not very bright at all.

So let's be clear here:

God puts vanilla and chocolate ice cream in front of a man and tells him that he will choose chocolate. Can the man choose vanilla?

Your answer is?

 

[Arthur Brain]

So let's be clear here:

God puts vanilla and chocolate ice cream in front of a man and tells him that he will choose chocolate. Can the man choose vanilla?

Your answer is?

You mean apart from what a stupid scenario?

Sure, the man can choose vanilla unless God forces him to eat the chocolate. Now, if you want a more nuanced answer in regards to foreknowledge/determinism then you've had plenty already.

 

[JudgeRightly]

God puts vanilla and chocolate ice cream in front of a man and tells him that he will choose chocolate. Can the man choose vanilla?

Your answer is?

Sure, the man can choose vanilla

Good answer.

unless God forces him to eat the chocolate.

Well that's the entire crux of the matter, isn't it? If God infallibly knows that the man will choose chocolate, but the man chooses vanilla, then that either means that God's knowledge ISN'T infallible, or it means that God lied to the man about him choosing chocolate while knowing that he would instead choose vanilla.

On the other hand, if God's knowledge IS infallible, and God wasn't lying to the man, then the man will have no choice BUT to choose chocolate.

The formal argument goes something like this:

T= the man will choose chocolate ice cream

(1) When God presented the ice cream to the man, God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if at the moment God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then the man cannot do otherwise than choose the chocolate ice cream. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, the man cannot do otherwise than choose the chocolate ice cream. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when the man chooses the chocolate ice cream, he will not do it freely. [8, 9]

In addition, he will not be able to choose the vanilla, because that is contrary to T.

 

[Arthur Brain]

God puts vanilla and chocolate ice cream in front of a man and tells him that he will choose chocolate. Can the man choose vanilla?

Your answer is?



Good answer.



Well that's the entire crux of the matter, isn't it? If God infallibly knows that the man will choose chocolate, but the man chooses vanilla, then that either means that God's knowledge ISN'T infallible, or it means that God lied to the man about him choosing chocolate while knowing that he would instead choose vanilla.

On the other hand, if God's knowledge IS infallible, and God wasn't lying to the man, then the man will have no choice BUT to choose chocolate.

The formal argument goes something like this:

T= the man will choose chocolate ice cream

(1) When God presented the ice cream to the man, God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if at the moment God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then the man cannot do otherwise than choose the chocolate ice cream. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, the man cannot do otherwise than choose the chocolate ice cream. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when the man chooses the chocolate ice cream, he will not do it freely. [8, 9]

In addition, he will not be able to choose the vanilla, because that is contrary to T.

If God knows what a man will choose at any given point in life then there's no interference with will unless God tampers with proceedings to ensure that said outcome comes about. Foreknowledge doesn't do anything such in itself. It's simply knowing what is going to happen. That's it. Your needless convolution is typical of those who complicate something that's actually pretty simple.

 

[Stripe]

If God knows what a man will choose ... then there's no interference with will.

If God knows what a man will choose, then there is no will to interfere with.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If God knows what a man will choose at any given point in life then there's no interference with will unless God tampers with proceedings to ensure that said outcome comes about. Foreknowledge doesn't do anything such in itself. It's simply knowing what is going to happen.

It means that there was never any possibility that the man could choose vanilla, because God infallibly knew that he would choose chocolate. Thus, there is no choice at all.

That's it. Your needless convolution is typical of those who complicate something that's actually pretty simple.

There's no convolution.

That's a purely logical argument.

Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Arthur Brain]

It means that there was never any possibility that the man could choose vanilla, because God infallibly knew that he would choose chocolate. Thus, there is no choice at all.



There's no convolution.

That's a purely logical argument.

Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The only way the man wouldn't have a choice is if God predetermined him to eat the chocolate. Otherwise, if God knows that the man is going to choose chocolate then that hasn't tampered with his will or choice in the matter at all. What difference does it make if God knew all of the choices/decisions you've made/going to make today? Have you been programmed or forced into any of them? Of course not. It's really not that complicated.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The only way the man wouldn't have a choice is if God predetermined him to eat the chocolate.

If God infallibly knew that the man would choose chocolate, but the man chose vanilla instead, it means that God's knowledge is not infallible (which means, in case you forgot, "incapable of being wrong"). It's a contradiction, and since God is not contradictory, something has to give.

Either:

God's infallible knowledge of the future

Or:

God's goodness (in that He lied about the man choosing chocolate when in fact he would choose vanilla).

Otherwise, if God knows that the man is going to choose chocolate then that hasn't tampered with his will or choice in the matter at all.

If God knew that the man would choose chocolate, then there was never any choice to begin with, and the man never had the capability of acting freely.

It's not a matter of "tampering with his will or choice," which begs that he HAS those things to begin with.

It's that there never was any will or choice at all.

What difference does it make if God knew all of the choices/decisions you've made/going to make today?

All the difference in the world.

If everything that has ever happened never could have happened any differently, then that means that there's no point to any of it, because it's all just a play being acted out, following a script written in God's mind. Which means that every wicked thing that ever happens also comes from God's mind.

Have you been programmed or forced into any of them? Of course not. It's really not that complicated.

If determinism is true, no person is capable of doing other than what God knows they will do. The man literally is incapable of choosing vanilla, simply because God infallibly knows that he will choose chocolate.

The question @Stripe asked exposes this very quickly, simply by stating that God tells the man he will choose chocolate.

I don't know about you, but when someone presents me two options, and tells me that "You WILL choose this option, and not the other," I have a desire to choose the opposite, simply to prove him wrong. (This has to do with how "reverse psychology works".) THAT is the essence of a will, the "ability to choose otherwise." If one cannot choose otherwise, then he does not act freely.

 

[Stripe]

What difference does it make if God knew all of the choices/decisions you've made/going to make?

Because then you wouldn't/have/a/choice.

 

[beloved57]

Because then you wouldn't/have/a/choice.

Men have a choice, yet their/our choice is guided and determined by Gods predestination.