[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.
- Accept it’s a paradox and move on.
- Take time out of the equation. Which makes sense to a point because choice is a metaphysical construct and metaphysical constructs do not exist in time, but we do. However, if you take time and stand it on it’s end, everything happens simultaneously. Perhaps God looks at it this way.
- Or God could simply choose not to know. He decided to give us freewill, he can decide against having foreknowledge.
The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.
The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.
P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]
Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]
If I had said foreknowledge, could you choose to do otherwise? If so, explain how?[/quote]
If you had foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
If you lacked foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
Hence, foreknowledge is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Not correct, foreknowledge constricts freewill. If I knew everything you would ever do in life before you did it or knew about it, you could not break the bonds.
If you had foreknowledge, you could not choose otherwise. If I lacked it, you could…Whether you would is not relevant, it’s could that matters.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
[/quote]
Your foreknowledge, or the lack of it, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I could or couldn’t do. Knowing that I’m going to make a certain choice doesn’t mean I wasn’t free to make that choice. I was perfectly free to make it, you just knew me so well that you understood what choice I would make. Step back for a second and think about it logically. How in the world could your foreknowledge impact my choice? It’s impossible.
If I’m omniscient, and I know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, does my knowledge influence the rising of the sun? Obviously not. I simply know the sun is going to rise. Whether I know it or not, it is a fact that the sun will rise.
Don’t confuse omniscience with predestination. Knowing all things doesn’t imply responsibility for all things.
[/quote]
Look it up, it is a paradox, you cannot foreknow and have choice to do otherwise. It’s simply impossible.[/quote]
It’s not a paradox. It’s only a paradox in a human’s perception of time.