Existence of an omniscient or omnipotent God denies Humans free will

05:27 pm January 13th, 2002




			Vexen's Diary Entries Watching Calendar Vexen's LiveJournal Profile Vexen Crabtree's websites Next Previous

Links

What's New on Vexen Websites

www.Vexen.co.uk

Vexen's Page Index

www.HumanTruth.info

Vexen's Satanism Site

Vexen's A to Z of Satanism

Random page by Vexen

Vexen's online journals

What Causes Religion? By Vexen Crabtree.

Vexen Crabtree the Sociologist




			Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal - Existence of an omniscient or omnipotent God denies Humans free will Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

vexen


	Existence of an omniscient or omnipotent God denies Humans free will

30 Comments or Make Comment


	Comments

From: (Anonymous)	Date: December 4th, 2003 01:22 pm (UTC)		(Link)
my name is Chris

man does have free will, and i'm an agnostic that i feel has little bias in this area.

it's about the modal modifier (used in symbolic logic) that pertains to necessity, where you place the modal modifier makes the differance.

God knows i will do x and i do x,
i do x and god knows i will do x.

now on which of these statements do you place the necessity? on the first there is no free will, on the second there is. this solves the theistic problem of free will, also God can be everlasting and omniscient at the same time. meaning god doesnt necessarily "see the future" but all the choices humans make and their interactions, what choices we make is up to us and god does little to nothing to change them since it would be illogical, and god being god can do nothing illogical (such as make a rock to big for him to lift, or be anything other than god).

(Reply) (Thread)

From: (Anonymous)	Date: March 4th, 2005 07:28 am (UTC)		(Link)
Re: my name is Chris

There's a problem with your second example.

"i do x and god knows i will do x."

"i do x" means that you are currently doing x. You cannot follow this with "god knows i will do x." because it is being done. If it's being done, God can't know that you "will" do it because it's untrue.

For instance:

"I eat the apple and God knows I will eat the apple."

God cannot know that I will eat the apple if I've just done it, because the apple no longer exists in an edible state--it's in my body.

Since your example is fallacious, it may be discarded. That leaves your first.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: (Anonymous)	Date: May 29th, 2008 06:16 am (UTC)		(Link)
Re: my name is Chris

No, there really isn't a problem with the second example.

To say there is, is to (poorly) argue syntax.

We could simply say that the model goes thus (With the presupposition that I will have a future choice):

"I will do x, and God knows I will do x."

Now, certainly we could argue this statement on it's metaphysical/ philosophical merit, but please be intelligent enough to understand that it IS in proper logical form.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


	30 Comments or Make Comment