[Pants-of-dog]

Free will involves the possibility that a person randomly chooses to do something against their own nature.

If god knows you will do something because it is in your nature, and god is always right, and god knows you will act according to your nature, if you randomly choose to go against your nature, then god would be wrong.

If god cannot be wrong, then you cannot randomly go against your nature, which means you do not have free will.

[Rich]

@Pants-of-dog You're assuming that God is bound by the laws of logic. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't.

[Potemkin]

Free will involves the possibility that a person randomly chooses to do something against their own nature.

If god knows you will do something because it is in your nature, and god is always right, and god knows you will act according to your nature, if you randomly choose to go against your nature, then god would be wrong.

If god cannot be wrong, then you cannot randomly go against your nature, which means you do not have free will.

Even if we possessed it, this sort of "free will" would hardly be worth having. It would be the equivalent of simply flipping a coin to decide what to do. Not exactly what most people cherish as their "free will". Lol.

[annatar1914]

Even if we possessed it, this sort of "free will" would hardly be worth having. It would be the equivalent of simply flipping a coin to decide what to do. Not exactly what most people cherish as their "free will". Lol.

Indeed, ''random'' chance over time statistically speaking achieves exactly... Nothing. How is that ''freedom''? POD wants the freedom that a Theist would only ascribe to God, and those such as he seem to resent that somewhat.

Again, a sterile debate.

[Pants-of-dog]

I believe that the freedom to do other than what god expects us to do is one of the gifts that god has given us. We are not part of god’s plan, we have no divine destiny. We simply are, free, in the universe.

[Sivad]

If God does not exist, then there's no problem trying to reconcile human free will with divine omniscience, is there?

That never seemed like much of a problem to me. Omniscience just means knowing everything that can be known, if it's not logically possible for free choices to be known before they're made, then omniscience doesn't extend to perfect knowledge of the future. The problem is just a variant of the omnipotence paradox, and the solution is the same for both: because they are inconceivable, logical absurdities aren't real propositions, they're just contradictory words strung together that have no actual meaning.

[One Degree]

If God is part of us instead of viewed as separate from us then it is not inconceivable to have freewill and not have freewill simultaneously. It depends upon what God is and how we are connected to him.

[Besoeker]

No, they're not ... God, the predetermined pattern of the universe, world without end ... knew you would say this, and he knows what you'll say next. You, consider these things your free will. The universe is down with that ... you're welcome to utter any foolishness you wish. It won't coerce you. You, me, and everyone else, can make all the stupid mistakes we want, it's expected.

Zam

Utter foolishness eh?
I don't believe that god or any other supernatural entity exists. I can't prove their non-existence. No more than you can prove the existence of your god. But I, and many others, can and do look at the probabilities and ask questions that cast serious doubt on the existence of the omnipotent, supernatural entity you may choose to call god.

[Zamuel]

Utter foolishness eh?
I don't believe that god or any other supernatural entity exists. I can't prove their non-existence. No more than you can prove the existence of your god. But I, and many others, can and do look at the probabilities and ask questions that cast serious doubt on the existence of the omnipotent, supernatural entity you may choose to call god.

Error, Error Will Robinson.

Supernatural entity? Not... Nothing at all supernatural about a pattern of events or cause and effect. Your own consciousness is just a pattern of energy imposed on an organic platform. Intelligence is just patterns of experiences associated coherently, (or incoherently in some cases.) Nothing supernatural about the existence of other forms of life, this tiny planet has billions of them just to itself.

Human objections to the divine are really just our own limitations, an inadequacy of experience and perception. Primal fears and survival instincts (more patterns in your brain) prevent the expansion of consciousness to include non essential reality.

Aggression, racism, war, are attempts to protect our established patterns and limit their growth. Fear of the unknown.

Zam

[Potemkin]

Utter foolishness eh?
I don't believe that god or any other supernatural entity exists. I can't prove their non-existence. No more than you can prove the existence of your god. But I, and many others, can and do look at the probabilities and ask questions that cast serious doubt on the existence of the omnipotent, supernatural entity you may choose to call god.

I'm an atheist, but I have to say that there is no necessary contradiction between divine omniscience and a putative human "free will" (which, in its metaphysical form of causeless personal agency, is just as much of a metaphysical flight of fancy as a supernatural deity), for the reasons that I have outlined. We all believe in all sorts of myths and fantasies and delusions, such as God, free will, personal immortality, or the edibility of Pot Noodles. Why defend your own personal delusions by attacking somebody else's personal delusions?

[Besoeker]

I'm an atheist, but I have to say that there is no necessary contradiction between divine omniscience and a putative human "free will" (which, in its metaphysical form of causeless personal agency, is just as much of a metaphysical flight of fancy as a supernatural deity), for the reasons that I have outlined. We all believe in all sorts of myths and fantasies and delusions, such as God, free will, personal immortality, or the edibility of Pot Noodles. Why defend your own personal delusions by attacking somebody else's personal delusions?

So you defined my absence of a belief in any supernatural entity as delusional?
You have zero proof for that assertion.

[Potemkin]

So you defined my absence of a belief in any supernatural entity as delusional?
You have zero proof for that assertion.

No, I defined your belief in metaphysical free will as delusional.

[Besoeker]

No, I defined your belief in metaphysical free will as delusional.

You still don't get it.
Exactly WHAT belief of mine are you defining?

[Potemkin]

You still don't get it.
Exactly WHAT belief of mine are you defining?

Your belief in metaphysical free will, of course. It's the only definition of free will which would be incompatible with divine omniscience. You seem to think that this somehow proves the non-existence of God.

[Besoeker]

Your belief in metaphysical free will, of course.

Where exactly did I express that belief that you accuse me of?

[Potemkin]

Where exactly did I express that belief that you accuse me of?

You said, and I quote:

I don't believe that god or any other supernatural entity exists. I can't prove their non-existence. No more than you can prove the existence of your god. But I, and many others, can and do look at the probabilities and ask questions that cast serious doubt on the existence of the omnipotent, supernatural entity you may choose to call god.

And this statement was in the context of a discussion concerning metaphysical free will and its compatibility (or lack thereof) with the omniscience of a divinity (assuming that one exists). Unless your post was completely off-topic, you were implying that the existence of human metaphysical free will casts "serious doubt on the existence of the omnipotent, supernatural entity you may choose to call god." I was merely pointing out that the existence of human free will does no such thing, since metaphysical free will is non-existent and normal free will (i.e., acting in accordance with our own inner natures) is not incompatible with an omniscient divinity.

[Besoeker]

You said, and I quote:

And this statement was in the context of a discussion concerning metaphysical free will and its compatibility (or lack thereof) with the omniscience of a divinity (assuming that one exists). Unless your post was completely off-topic, you were implying that the existence of human metaphysical free will casts "serious doubt on the existence of the omnipotent, supernatural entity you may choose to call god." I was merely pointing out that the existence of human free will does no such thing, since metaphysical free will is non-existent and normal free will (i.e., acting in accordance with our own inner natures) is not incompatible with an omniscient divinity.

What you infer from my post is simply incorrect.
There is simply no proof.

[Verv]

Everything else has been very eloquently handled by Potemkin.

I could theoretically then fill in all the blanks for Pants of Dog and literally begin arguing against that position, lol, but that would almost be like asking to be accused of strawmanning him because hasn't bothered to outline his position in the very least.

He simply has said "Yes" in regards to something I copied from the Wiki.

So, IDK, Pants, if that is the direction you want things to go, please come and indicate that in more than one word and perhaps expand on your ideas for us?

This wasn't covered:

Picking a lottery card?

The act of picking is free will. One's will does not control the result.

And... I guess you could say that God allows these to be random and foresees them, or He even interferes in the proverbial RNG (random number generator) of absolutely everything.

Occasionalism is not an indefensible position by any means... Perhaps God does animate everythign not animated by human will...

It's just not popular at all.

[Besoeker]

The act of picking is free will. One's will does not control the result.

Does your god know what you will pick?

[One Degree]

Does your god know what you will pick?

There are simple tricks that can get your primitive brain to select a particular color or other seemingly random choices. Your mind was made up long before you knew it was. I don’t see how God would have much of a problem in determining which numbers you selected.
Your subconscious can shut down or alter your conscious whenever it chooses. What does that say about your freewill?