NetSlave, Omnipotent means all powerful and Omniscient means all knowing. God's omnicience can't give us anything. I would argue that that which is omnipotent is also omniscient. You keep offering your perception of Free Will as evidence of it. If the universe is governed by predetermanism, then your free will is an illusion. The fact that you have something called "perception" is utterly inconsequential. Every situation you encounter, every thought that rolls through your head, every nueron which fires in your brain are all predetermined to happen in only one exact way. That which is predetemined can not be redetermined.
Following this is maddening. Netslave - I could choose to jump out my window right now and kill myself. You'd see that as me exercising my free will. However, if God already knows that I'm going to do it, I'm not really "free" to choose NOT to jump out my window. Because, if I do "choose" not to jump out the window, God already knew that I was not going to jump out the window, and thus it's not really a CHOICE I made, but rather me acting out God's plan. Sure it FEELS like a choice, but if it has already been determined, it's not a choice in the true sense of the word. If God already knows that I'm going to eat a turkey sandwich for lunch, I'm not free to choose ham. I may make the decision to eat turkey over ham, but I was never actually in any danger of eating ham since God already knew I was going to eat turkey. You could choose to quit the ministry today...but if you did so, God would have already known that, and thus it wasn't really your choice but simply you acting out God's plan. If God knows you're going to quit the ministry today, you do NOT have the choice not to, if I'm understanding your beliefs correctly.
Person A didn't MAKE person B do anything. But the result was already known, so the "choice" that person B has is not a choice since the outcome IS KNOWN. If Person A knows that Person B is going to eat turkey for lunch, it doesn't matter what goes on in Person B's brain all day because no matter what, HE'S GONNA EAT TURKEY.
Quantum indeterminacy makes no difference in the free will argument. Try and model how a random event can impact an otherwise determined thought. If it does, the thinker is not responsible for the change There is no improvement in the situation for the thinker, as they aren't any more responsible for the determined thought nor the randomly altered thought. This approach to free will is a dead end.
This thread is interesting. I have never seen someone unable to understand the paradox, or even why it's a paradox, before. The only possible explanation, netslave, utilizes the argument that God exists outside of time as we understand it. To Him, knowing your choice is not knowing the future, it's like knowing the past. He is outside of time. The explanation is still lacking to me, though. No matter where God exists, even if it's outside of time, the fact is that we exist in time as we understand it. Therefore as I happen on a choice to be made, if God knows what the choice will be, whether it exists in His past or future, then the choice is already made. I am not able to choose the different option. As stated above, if I have option A and B and God knows that I will choose A, then there are two possibilities: 1.) I choose A and never had a chance to choose B. Free will is an illusion. 2.) I truly have a choice and may choose B. God could be wrong and is therefore not omniscient.
NBMisha, that is claim you can not know with certainty. If there is indeterminancy at any level there is conceivably indeteminancy at every level. A model is a simplification of a thing, not a proof of a thing. Which is to say, models which lack all possible input are by definition incomplete. Models which possess all possible input are by definition... not models. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying there is more than sufficient wiggle room for me to make myself comfortable in free will. If you want to call that "faith", I'm comfortable with that. In any event, as I stated above, a deterministic philosphy derived from any argument is a non-productive philosophy. You can't "do" anything with it. In fact, its very nature denies your perception of reality. I mean, say what you want about national socialism, but at least it's an ethos... right?
netslave - And I proposed your argument regarding the issue from God's perspective. The argument breaks down, however, when we view it from the individual's perspective. I am going to make the choice that God knows I am going to make. I do not truly have free will to make any other choice. You are the only person I've ever heard of that attempts to argue that free will really means that you perceive you have free will even if you truly don't. That is not free will. That is an illusion. There aren't many other ways of saying it. But I'm sure we'll keep trying.
