I don't know how many times I have to have this discussion...

Yes.

Capacity is Capacity is Capacity.

The statement "I know what you will choose" ergo "you don't have choice" is self-contradictory.

There is either a presumption that we have free will or we don't.  If you presume we do, the fact that God is omniscient doesn't change that.  If you presume we don't, the fact that God is omniscient doesn't change that either.

But to do the whole argument in reverse is ridiculous.

If God is omniscient then we don't have free will.  If God is not omniscient then we do have freewill.

Is it possible that free will is illusionary? Yes. But once again, is that in any way related to a determination of whether God is omniscient? No.

You presume in this fact that God can set up circumstances.

I already stated that a presumption that God has "power to set up circumstances" along with "perfect knowledge" is a pointless conversation.

Can a human ever go against perfect knowledge? NO! Knowledge is the acquaintance with fact, truths, or principles. 

Perfect knowledge would be the perfect acquaintance with fact, truths, or principles.

Nowhere in this definition is there an necessary conflict with "free will."  I can have perfect acquaintance with the truth that you will choose X instead of Y.  Infused into the sentence is a presumption of choice.

I can have perfect acquaintance with the truth that you will do X and is all that you can do, i.e., there is no "instead." Infused into this sentence is presumption of no choice. 

Neither sentence is self-contradictory because "knowledge" has no affect on "what you have knowledge of."

If God knows you're going to eat pizza tomorrow then how can you choose to eat a hot dog instead at the last minute? That would have made God wrong the day before, in which case he doesn't know everything ahead of time and is not omniscient. The only way he can know for sure that you're going to eat pizza tomorrow is if you are unable to change your mind tomorrow, which would mean you do not have free will after all. You can argue that he knows you're most likely to eat pizza tomorrow but may eat a hot dog. But then he doesn't absolutely know what you're going to eat. He's just making an educated guess based on knowing your preferences. To absolutely know what you're going to eat tomorrow it would have to be impossible for you to change your mind and not eat pizza and then free will could not exist. Free will and an omniscient god are incompatible.

It seems to me the evil question has still not been answered.

Why does evil need to exist in order to have free will? Why can't free will simply mean a choice between two or more non-evil things? Why would a choice including evil be necessary rather than just having a choice between "good" and "better" or between "neutral" and "good"? I was trying to decide this afternoon whether to take the dog to the park or go to Home Depot and work on the house. Neither choice is evil so obviously evil was not necessary for me to exercise my free will and choose one action over the other.

The definition of "not good" is not necessarily "evil". Just because something has an opposite doesn't mean it has to extend to evil. The opposite of "good" could mean simply "not good" without being bad, such as something that is neutral. If I wanted to get a lot of things done today but instead sat on my butt and watched TV all day that is "not good" but I don't think most people would call that "evil", so "not A" does not have to equal "evil". There's a whole range of "not good" that is not evil. Good and evil aren't distinct opposites like black or white anyway. "Good" is just part of a range of degrees of good. God could have made the range shorter, from "good" to "no-so-good" but he didn't have to extend it to the degree of evil that exists.  

And the idea that free will can't be restricted and still be free will has already been shown to be invalid with the example of flying. I can't flap my arms and fly. I can't breathe water like a fish. I can't climb a wall like a spider. There are thousands of things that restrict my choices every day. If I want to get from here to Australia my choices are pretty much limited to flying in a plane or taking a boat. I don't have the choice of not using a boat and just swimming or driving across the ocean. I don't think any choices you make don't have at least some restrictions. For any decision you make I'm sure you can think of unrealistic and impossible options, such driving your car from the US to Autralia, that show your choices are not infinite. All choices are limited and therefore restricted.

You like using the sophist method of picking and choosing dictionary definitions to fit your point don't you? Ever hear of equivocation?

 You know, left is the opposite of right so I guess that means left handed people are evil?

That man is 7' tall so he is very tall. That building isn't tall - it's only 2 stories. So since that man is tall and the building isn't - the man is taller than the building.

It's very far to drive from New York to LA. In interstellar space, it's not that far from Earth to Alpha Centarui. Therefore Earth is closer to Alpha Centauri than New York is to LA.

The sumo champion is very heavy. That airliner was built using the latest technology and is very light. Therefore the sumo champion weighs more than that airliner. 

By that logic then watching TV all day is "evil" since it was a "not good" way to spend the day. You must think nearly everything that in't considered good then is evil right down to little things like forgetting to brush your teeth before bed. Brushing Teeth=Good, therefore Not Brushing Teeth=Evil.

That's a pretty harsh way of viewing life.

Seriously, just because A means B it does not necessarily follow that B also means A.

For example, the fact that yellow is a bright color does not mean that all bright colors are yellow.

Just as yellow is a subset of the group called of bright colors, evil things are a subset of the group of things "not good". But there are more things in the group of "not good" than only the subset of "evil".  Not all things "not good" are "evil" just as not all bright colors are yellow.

God's knowledge of future choices can never be wrong. It's because He has already seen it play out. Let me give a different example. Imagine you are watching a basketball game. The Lakers are down by 2 with only 10 seconds left. Kobe Bryant is at the top of the key with the ball and he has two choices: take a 2 pointer that would tie the game and take the chance in overtime, or take the 3 pointer to win the game right there. He decides to shoot the 3. Now let's say you recorded the game. Next time you watch it, you know what's going to happen. Does that mean that Kobe taking the 3 pointer over the 2 pointer was a result of you knowing? Kobe didn't have to take the 3 because you knew it. You knew it because you already saw his choice. Every time you watch the video, Kobe will always do what you know he was going to do. But also, from Kobe's point of view, free will existed throughout all his choices.

God says "you will eat pizza tomorrow". That is predetermined. But not by God, by me. It's not like when He says "you will eat pizza tomorrow" that I'm like "but I don't want pizza". He's not making me do something. I already made the choice, He's just telling you the choice you already made.

 Very well put.. I enjoy reading your posts.

I'll give it some thought.. i'm pretty tired at the moment.. about to get on a plane in 3 hours.. haven't finished packing.

Gday.

 I don't agree with you presumption that god "takes" things to that level.

As I have stated.  If the possibility of not good is a logical consequent of having a possibility of good, (whether in thought or action), then so be it.

All the things you listed off as part of the horrible act are movements/actions benign in itself.  I happen to believe that God could not (or for some reason did not) create a world in which you had total free will and yet your actions were restricted based upon the "evilness" of your intent.

Instead, "God" restricted man to certain generally applicable rules of physicality, e.g., I can move my hand this way and that, and it is merely a product of my "free will" that I can use that generally applicable to effectuate some ill intent, e.g., I move my hand this way in order to slap someone.

You say it is not necessary, I say that it is.  Until such a time that "man" can freely choose good, there will always be actions of "not good" that he chooses in stead to do.

This is inconsistent; your second like does not follow from the first.  Also, your definition of evil leads to some strange conclusions; namely anything not good is evil, such as mountains, gravity and comedy.

The existence of A does not necessarily entail the existence of its opposite, call it anti-A.  The lack of A-ness is not equal to the opposite of A-ness; the lack of the colour blue doesn't mean something is orange (its opposite); it just means it's not blue.

Good/evil is not a binary system.  Neutrality is the middle ground inhabited by everything for which the concept of good/evil make no sense.  Blue is not good does not imply that blue is evil.

Bravo You are a determinist you understand determinism however
”free will” is nothing else then a illusion peace learn to replace this nonsensical word with calculation or reactions.

NO this is fatalism a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism its nonsensical and you have denied it congratulations , you are a determinist acept it.

Maybe you are a closet determinist (get out of the closet ) however you nead to understand why determinism makes god (of the bible ) nonsensical lets demonstrate this.

CARX puppet theater with association of the internet presents “Why determinism makes god idiotic ? ”

>Lets make a creature and name it god .

god> O hi I’m god .

>Lets give this creature the will to create every thing

god> O I wont to create the universe now however I don’t have the power to do it.

>Lets make god all powerful.

god > O I’m all powerful now I’m going to create the sun , humans , the snacke and place tha forbidden tree in the middle of the garden and stuff however I have no idea what will happen.

>Lets make god all knowing so he can know/see the future

god> O I’m all knowing now HMM let me use this power to see what will happen after I create every thing ? O ON the humans will eat the apples ? Maybe I don’t create the tree or build a barrier around it or don’t create the snake ?

End of story if god is all knowing and he created the universe he set up the circumstances for this future so this world is exactly like he wonted it to be and all of us are blameless. The funny part it that the foreknowledge of the future is possible for a ultra computer that simulates his surroundings or a machine that can send drons in the future and see how things are going to end up. This my friend makes god the concept of evil , good nonsensical since wee all are a perfect firework made exactly like god wonted it too.

Have you enough balls to answer me or are you going to run like the coward you are ?

Who says that mountains, gravity, and comedy, aren't good? I would certainly argue that they are--I certainly don't think that they are "not good."

Anything which cannot be "morally not good" is good.  Mountains, gravity, and all such things that you might consider "inherently neutral" I would consider good.

I know.. your equating "not good" meaning = opposite.  That's not the proposition I am making.   You use particular colors as if it is an appropriate analogy, but in the construct I am proposing, it is not.

If you want to use colors, fine.

The existence of orange necessitates that there is a concept of "not orange."  "Not orange" would entail all those things of which do not fall under what would be defined as orange.  This would include blue, black, birds, babies, the internet.

None of these things are necessarily "the opposite."

"Evil" is not necessarily "the opposite" of good. 

I think this is the sticking point that we are disagreeing on.

Heh.. now your just being snide.

Yes.  That is exactly what I am doing.  I am making a semantical argument, using definitive descriptions and prescriptive language to suggest that could be used to understood the story of "sin" and "the fall of man."

You say "analysis" as if it requires "practical application."

As someone else already pointed out.. any practical application of "good and evil" necessarily entails loaded terms upon which we can all disagree.  You might like to say that X is evil, certainly doesn't mean in another time and place another person wouldn't.

And what exactly is the standard by which you judge what is right and wrong?

Common consensus? Ridiculous.

Consequentialism? Ridiculous.

If you want to have a discussion about how to apply "good and evil" to actual actions.. that's fine and dandy.. but a waste of time in my opinion.  It would take to long, have to many tangents, and in the end, will just come down to personal preference.  Some a priori assumption your make about what constitutes good and what constitutes bad.

This would be, exactly, what I am doing.  Except, instead of actually applying my standard of good and evil to actions, I am merely presenting its technical underpinnings.

If you agree with the technical underpinnings (which it seems some people do not) then great... if not, then we discuss why.  But seeing as my exposition of the concept was merely to explain one possible understanding of the "sin before sin"-- I don't really see why it is important to discuss "why" you disagree that the particular construct is the right one.  It might be important to discuss "why" it is internally inconsistent (as shik tries to do).. but that is a completely different issue then what you are suggesting.

The same as if you had said "what is good is what I feel is good, and what is evil is what I feel is evil."

I can argue why this shouldn't be the standard, but I will not argue that it is someone internally inconsistent.

I love atheistic thinking--the more they lack the ability to understand complexity, the more childish they become.

Now that we are done making unjustified, brash, generalizations meant to poke fun at... perhaps we can move on.

I punch someone -> his nose breaks -> he misses his appointment -> boss gets home early -> spends time with family -> that day influences child -> child grows up and saves a million lives

Now.. if we judge the morality of an action based upon its objective consequence.. then, how is the original punch judged? at what point do the consequences stop have relevance on the morality of the punch?

If we judge morality based upon the perceived consequences of the person at the time he punched? then this just makes morality a completely subjective matter again.

When I said "ridiculous" is was not meaning to say that people may not judge morality based upon perceived consequence.. only that such a standard is nor more helpful at creating an "objective standard of good and evil," that can be practically applied to an action, then any of the other standards.

If this “god” is not the standard god of theologians a all powerful , all loving ,all knowing being why then name him god or worship him ? Is your version of “god” just a all knowing and loving psychics with no powers ? O and the insult its well J_day inset responding I you don’t kick him in the balls.

Standard theologians have no control on what I believe.  They may have introduced a concept.. but once it is there.. I can change it so that it agrees with who I am.  It's not their faith anymore, it's mine.

That's how I think it should be as well.

And.. I didn't say God wasn't all-powerful, I said if he was then all our conversations about the matter would be pointless.  "Godidit" is the logical answer for all of it.

So.. therefore, I argue from the premise that God is not all powerful, just for the sake of argument.

No.... perhaps he a lot of power.

Okay.. I see.. I think.

I consider evil to be malicious intent to cause harm to others. I would think most people would find agreement in this statement. Christians consider actions people do against their perceived commands of God to be evil as well therefore it must be concluded these actions must in some way harm God. The harm to God in this context is actually disrespecting him and his perceived commands. That this may be imaginary or not part of reality doesn't change that in the perception of the believer evil has been done. This is in a large part thanks to John Calvin and Martin Luther as well as St. Augustine. This is part of what I previously mentioned in that good/evil are based on the morals and beliefs of the person in question. As an atheist I will not agree with certain actions being evil when the person harmed is in my view an imaginary construct. This is where theists especially Christians and atheists part in discussing evil versus good. If we simply consider evil is malicious intent to cause harm to another we can end the discussion on good/evil. Good or neutral actions do not harm another. Harm to others that is not intended may be tragic but it is not per se evil.

Free will clearly exists in my atheistic view of life. As I don't consider your imaginary construct to have relevance I see no point in arguing over the details. Humans are free to do any action at all without constraint or foreknowledge of any entity. To argue that an entity has such knowledge perverts time/space as we know it. For an omniscient entity to exist proof of time/space incontinuance would be required meaning the ability to move through time and observe future actions. As I have not seen evidence of such a possibility at his time, I will maintain that no such entity exists that can transcend time and either alter or know my choices or decisions.

I am saying that, if I claim God is an omnimax god AND is still all-loving, then the belief is one necessarily based upon nothing but itself.  It is possible, because being "omnipotent" makes anything possible (even making the world as is and still be all loving), but there is no argument that can be made for or against it farther than what I have just stated (IMO).

Some might call this "faith."

Now.. I am proposing a God who is not all powerful, he is limited by what can be done "logically."  This allows me to discuss things about the idea, and for understanding to progress.

For instance, If HELL, then God not all loving.  

This is something I feel to be a self evident presumption.  And therefore, I can either give up one or the other.  Or, in the alternative, discuss the applicability of the premise to begin with.

However, if we said God is omnipotent, then the discussion would be this.

A: That premise isn't correct!

B: Of course it is.

A: No it's not.

B: Explain to me how those two things can be consistently held?

A: God made that way, he's omnipotent (aka. "he can do anything&quot.

The belief in God doesn't necessarily entail the belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., etc.

It seems that Christians have no concept of events and beliefs that stem from the Hebrew Bible. Why is it that they don't accept Judaism's version  where the Garden of Eden story is seen as a parable. In fact Judaism does not see these events as The Fall of Man at all. Jews believe that man was created as a mortal and Eve was not the cause of death entering the world. Judaism does not have the concept of original sin as does the offshoot Christianity. Instead Judaism advocates the rise of man and Original Virtue. They teach each soul is pure upon entering the world and each man can return to his creator in a pure condition. Judaism sees that humanity has not reached its Golden Age as of yet but that it is in the future when the Kingdom of God is established on Earth.

So what I don't understand is how Christianity threw out the teaching of Judaism for a religion of a blood sacrifice and original sin. Christians have taken Judaism the original religion off on a complete tangent. This gets even more confusing when you look at the predicted Messiah or Moshiach. He was to be a great political leader who will be a descendant of David. In some of the same scriptures Christians have misinterpreted he is described as a great military leader, a judge and a righteous man. Man is key here. No where in Jewish tradition is he a god or part of God.

I am not Jewish this knowledge is from courses at a Jesuit University where I received a graduate degree. I have never understood how Christianity took this religion and swapped out its principles and successfully implemented the perversion now known as Christianity. I would say most Christians today do not realize the complete difference between Judaism and Christianity. A Jew believes man is born into the world pure and can leave it in the same state. A Christian believes man is born into sin and will perish forever unless he is saved by belief in Jesus.

As an atheist now and an outsider from both religions I see the arguments of Judaism in a different way then when I was a Christian. First off I would have to have proof God was real and not an imaginary offshoot of the ancient volcano God El. If I accepted God as real I would become a Jewish believer as they have far better claims to what their scriptures said then the pagans who created Christianity.

See: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/jews-jesus/jews-jesus-index.html

See this on the Jewish belief on the Garden of Eden and the fall http://www.mrrena.com/misc/judaism2.php

See this on the Messiah: http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

I personally would rather see Jews proselytize Christians and convert them back to a purer form of worship in mythology. If you must believe in God, please become a Jew or at least a God fearing believer obeying the 7 laws of Noah. Here I agree with the Jews, if Jesus existed he was a man and was not the Moshiach or Messiah.

I usually argue that the Garden of Eden and the fall of man is a story of mythology. The Jews say it is a parable. If Christians choose to accept this story as real they must first provide proof why Judaism the basis for their religion is in error.

I have not the impute if I hade then I can predict it. However there are 4 possible options so based on your behavior I can try to make a prediction and project it with the targeted consumer thus I predict you like Pepsi diet.

The question whose not If I can predict your likes based on incomplete data ! The question was how can you have this magic “Free will” if I have the complete model of every neuron in your brain.

Besides what is the test for free will how to test it ? What is it ? If it’s a synonym for a calculation how can you say its different from lets say a computer calculating the best option ?
Let me simply explain your brain has “valiums” of citron events , colors , object , abstractions every one of thus concepts has a negative or positive value and your choice is nothing else then the measurement of thus options and “choosing” the best (from the brain value) option.

So tale me sir how can you believe in this concept despite the evidence to the contrary ? AI , chat bots , evolution , physics , engineering point to the nonexistence of super magic and free will we can model every future behavior of animals and humans with mental deficiencies . Howe can “free will” be different then the explanation “god did it ” or “ fairs are responsible” a simple statement to explain the unknown. How can “free will” explain AI ? What can “free will” predict ? Howe is the statement “free will” different from a ignorant perspective like “Its heresy don’t unfold the mystery ” or “Its unknown mr.scientist go away we love to live in the dark ages ” ?

My favorite is that most people are not aware that its impossible for this word to not be deterministic let me demonstrate coffin is a drug with means that it over stimulates the brain therefore making a addict , similar to other pleasurable experiences or thoughts its this mechanism that determines you and me so how can “ free will “ exist if we have addictive hard drugs ? O and the best evidence for determinism is the fact that people refuse to accept it since they are determined to be addicted to “free will” however there are possibilities for me to make you recalculate your determination on free will. There is a 80% chance of you still claming to the free will superstition after this post.

Thank you for answering.  Therefore, we have no free will.

If nothing you can do can ever go against what god "knows" you will do, you have no choices to make, only the illusion of choices.  Try it this way:

You have three envelopes in front of you. Each one has a slip of paper with a city written on it.  The city is where you will go on vacation.  I tell you to open one envelope.  You pick the one in the middle, and inside is a slip that says "Honolulu".  I immediately hand you a folder with the right plane tickets, hotel reservations, etc., that you'll need for your trip, as well as your suitcase packed with sun hats and bathing suits.

How did I do this?

This entire paragraph is an illustration of my point.  If you cannot help but make this choice, you didn't really have a choice to make in the first place, because nothing you can ever say or do can either countermand god's will or contravene god's foreknowledge of the outcome of the choice.  You are a puppet.  If god tells you the choice you already made and can't be wrong about that, he is in effect removing your ability to make a free choice about it.

You are thinking about this from a human perspective only. Imagine for a moment that a movie, such as Die Hard, is real (as in no writers). Imagine a part where Bruce Willis has a choice between going left and right. Bruce Willis goes left instead of right. You knew he was going to do that because you have already seen it happen. That doesn't mean that the decision made was a result of you knowing where he was going to go. He didn't go left because you knew he was going to go left. He wasn't restricted by your knowledge. Your knowledge is based on what you have already seen. When you quote a movie or a song, you don't say "Jamie Foxx was forced to say that because I knew the words". Michael Jackson chose the words to his song, you know them, that doesn't mean he is forced to sing what you know as opposed to you know what he's going to say because you have already heard him say it.

GOD FUCKEN DAMIT J_DAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would you please don’t behave like a retard OK ?

I will explain J_day and if you are to retarded to read my posts or address them I’m going to lose any respect for you and assume you are playing a retard (or are one).

If god has for knowledge then you have no free will do to “causality” contained in the lows of physic and other action reaction principals. In your example well it’s a little silly lets make it a simulation program that do to compression simulates the displayed image in a simulation containing only the rules of the simulation and the starting positions of the objects. If I start the simulation and see the result and end it and start it again I know before what is going to happen however my knowledge of this fact doesn’t force the result the rules or “causality” is doing the job. Therefore “causality” eliminates free will.

On the other hand if god knows in advance the future I’m blameless , every body is blameless there is no sin since every one of us is doing exactly what god won’t since he created this universe with the knowledge what the future will be.

To make it small and simple for your mind , imagine god when he created eve knowing in advance her “choices” therefore god created sin for his amusement since he could NOT create Eve. He set up the circumstances knowing the results we are just a fire following the oil path we are blameless god wonted for us to sin , he wonted the holocaust , Stalin , atheism , RRS , and me its exactly like he wants , it and its perfect , I’m going to destroy Christianity and the believe in god and god wants it its perfect !

If god is all knowing and the creator of this world there is no sin !

I will seek your forgiveness, then, seeing as I am human.

I really don't know what to say to this anymore.

I know you believe what you're saying is true, and good, and that's my sticking point.  Your ability to believe this is so alien to me that I cannot comprehend how you can believe it.

You illustrate your beliefs with references to fiction.  Other than the obvious ironies, there is not a lot I can say to your blind devotion to a stupid idea that Dijkstra didn't say: "that's not even wrong."

Hamby, you're probably not reading this thread any more, but I think I see where you're coming from now when you posted a while ago about how the more you study the more difficult it becomes to put yourself in a believer's shoes.  I used to think I was pretty good at that, but I have found a case where it's just not possible for me.  I've gotten to the point where I simply cannot think of a more clear way to explain a point, and I've come to the conclusion that it's no longer my fault that I can't get my point across, which is what I usually feel when this happens.

J_day, I want to feel something akin to hope in this instance, but I don't.  Your ability to reason has been hamstrung so masterfully and completely by what you have been instructed to believe that you think this crutched hobbling is the best you can do.  I am truly sorry for the cage in which you find yourself, thinking that instead of being locked in, you have locked things out.  I wish it weren't so.