timmah said:
I've also made the point of active (influencing a decision) vs. passive (knowing the decision), and how this does not negate free will. Along with the time and perspective examples, I've alse said that knowing is not the same as influencing, so your conclusion is overly simplistic in my opinion. I'll post an argument along those lines (I'm about to leave the office and don't have time to write an essay right now)... Your argument is as follows...
"Premises 1 and 2 in your outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows "the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)." For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted. However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option. Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don't even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be. In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#2.1 There are many different philosophical discussions and arguments on this on both sides. You seem to think yours is the only one with any points. The depth of the material in the above link will go to show you that, like I said, this topic as a whole is a lot deeper than your simplistic conclusion. |
Nope, I have not once said an omniscient being influences your decisions.
From 1-4 we can logically deduce 5 from your example. You have proven it, then attempted to call the logic faulty. The only way for faulty logic to occur is with false premises. None of those premises are false (or at least you did not address them, even admitted 1,2, and 4.) So it 3 false? Because 1, 2, and 4 are not false.
Slight Modifications:
1. Let W represent a human with free will.
2. Let G represent an omniscient being.
3. Let C represent a function of choice.
4. W implies C(A,B).
5. G implies C(A,B) = B.
6. W implies B by (5).
I have shown that given 1-5, 6 is true.
You choice is not influenced by an omniscient being, but it is known by him - determinism. Can determinism and free will coexist? Absolutely not.
Simply: God sees a deterministic path which is unalterable. He sees outcome, direction, predetermination.
You see a choice.
Free Will from the perspective of Omniscience is violated. Free Will from the perspective of a human is not violated.
