Argument from free will

[mashiaj]

according to this argument freewill cannot exist with omniscience.

1. The Christian god is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
2. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
3. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance.
4. A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will.
5. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
6. Therefore, the Christian god does not exist.

whats your opinion, view point of this?

[nameless]

Any 'quality' attributed to a 'god' is easily refutable and always leads to the paradox that is a sure sign of error.

The Xtian god can and does exist in the minds of the believers; where anything and everything is evidenced to exist, in our minds. 'Their' reality seems/feels as real to them as yours seems/feels to you. How and why would/could you attempt to alter their conception of their universe?
Does it not bother you when 'they' attempt to 'evangelize' you into 'their' Truth??
Why do you do the same?

[mashiaj]

Originally Posted by nameless

Any 'quality' attributed to a 'god' is easily refutable and always leads to the paradox that is a sure sign of error.

The Xtian god can and does exist in the minds of the believers; where anything and everything is evidenced to exist, in our minds. 'Their' reality seems/feels as real to them as yours seems/feels to you. How and why would/could you attempt to alter their conception of their universe?
Does it not bother you when 'they' attempt to 'evangelize' you into 'their' Truth??
Why do you do the same?

look nameless im not trying to evangelize someone into mi truth. just looking for some opinion about this, and i admire jesus.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by mashiaj

According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

According to what Christians? Calvinists? Christian Reformists? Be careful not to lump Christians together. They all hold different viewpoints.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable.

Not so. Free will implies that the choice is mine to make, and that no other being is coercing me into that decision. Just because there is only one choice, that does not mean I am not making that choice.

This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future.

What makes you think God chooses. An all knowing being is not restrained by having to make a decisions. He would know what to do, and just do it, he is all knowing.

[mashiaj]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

What makes you think God chooses. An all knowing being is not restrained by having to make a decisions. He would know what to do, and just do it, he is all knowing.

1. a god that cannot choose has no free will.

so you are saying that god has no free will because of his omniscience.

[iconoclast]

nameless,

Does it not bother you when 'they' attempt to 'evangelize' you into 'their' Truth??
Why do you do the same?

Speaking for myself, I think correct conceptualization important to correct decision making, and thus to the state of the world. Thus I oppose incorrect conceptualization where I find it. Religion is a systematic source of incorrect conceptualization, but there are other, individual intances that may have nothing to do with religion, faults of reason, logic, or just plain ignorance that I will seek to correct with equal enthusiasm. You perhaps may think this high-handed of me but the quid pro quo is that I will not defend an argument I know to be incorrect.

Nor, as in the case of mashiaj's argument, will I defend an argument just because I agree with the conclusion - if I believe the logic to be faulty. My fundamental objection here is that one cannot disprove the existence of God using religious concepts - and the proof of this will come when some slow witted religious nutter realizes you haven't accounted for omnipotence, which is certainly claimed by Christians of thier imaginary God. If it is accounted for your argument will run into contradiction - and this is why religious premises can't be employed. They are inherently contradictory. ...and that's the mystery! adds the Christian with smug condecension.
No, it's just wrong. As nameles says:

Any 'quality' attributed to a 'god' is easily refutable and always leads to the paradox that is a sure sign of error.

[nameless]

God Has No Free Will

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by mashiaj

1. a god that cannot choose has no free will.

so you are saying that god has no free will because of his omniscience.

The notion of choice does not apply to an all knowing being. So God can neither choose nor not choose.

Besides, I think your definition of Free Will is shaky. Please respond to the first portion of my post.

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by mashiaj

1. a god that cannot choose has no free will.

so you are saying that god has no free will because of his omniscience.

Unless such a "god" has choosen to give such freewill to the freewill of another, therefore making such a "god" have no free will of one's own.

[iconoclast]

The notion of choice does not apply to an all knowing being. So God can neither choose nor not choose.

How do you know? Did you ask him?

Did he choose to answer you? Or not choose to answer you? Or choose to not answer you? Or not choose to not answer you?