Forgiven for what, eactly?

[AvalonXQ]

And I say, yet again, NO ONE HERE IS MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.

Robin's logical syllogism relies on that argument; so do the less-formal assertions of several posters.
You, on the other hand, are basing your argument on refusing to accept the possibility of free will, at all. But just because your own argument isn't about counterfactual probability, doesn't mean that argument has not been used by many posters here.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Robin's logical syllogism relies on that argument; so do the less-formal assertions of several posters.
You, on the other hand, are basing your argument on refusing to accept the possibility of free will, at all. But just because your own argument isn't about counterfactual probability, doesn't mean that argument has not been used by many posters here.

I don't think it has.

You put this in our mouths:

The existence of foreknowledge, then, reduces counterfactual capacities to zero, hence why you erroneously conclude that knowledge somehow has some constraint on action.

Whereas I understand the argument like this:

The obtainability of foreknowledge necessitates that counterfactual capacities be zero, hence we are forced to conclude that there is a constraint on action.

I hope that helps, and if any posters of this argument disagree with my understanding of it, they may say so.

 

[iknownothing]

Just to make it really simple: Pretend I am God and want to create a world with 2 creatures. And I know, without a doubt, that if I create it one way then creature A will eat creature B. Whether or not A has free will is irrelevent; I am creating a creature that I know, with his free will, is going to decide to eat creature B.

But if I create A a little differently, he would make different choices.

And if I create a different world altogether, it could be populated by creatures C and D who would live peacefully together.

Knowing all this, I choose to create it the first way, and A predictably eats B. How am I not responsible for that? How do I get away with pretending it had nothing to do with me, and put all of the responsibility for it on A? And then announce that A has been very, very bad -- for being exactly what I created him to be -- and should be punished for all eternity?

I do not understand this mentality of holding every individual except God responsible for their choices.

 

[SumDood]

Robin's logical syllogism relies on that argument; so do the less-formal assertions of several posters.
You, on the other hand, are basing your argument on refusing to accept the possibility of free will, at all. But just because your own argument isn't about counterfactual probability, doesn't mean that argument has not been used by many posters here.

So who all here believes that the knowledge itself constrains actions? If a non-omnipotent being knows the future with 100% accuracy, does that knowledge cause the future to unfold a certain way?

 

[SOdhner]

How am I not responsible for that?

Avalon's answer to that has been "souls". More specifically, "because they have souls, and souls are magical."

I tried to point out (many times) that that changes nothing about the question since god presumably made the souls as well, and either he hasn't understood or he doesn't have an answer or... something.

 

[iknownothing]

Avalon's answer to that has been "souls". More specifically, "because they have souls, and souls are magical."

Yes. And since God also created the souls, I don't see how that changes the matter.

Either people are made up of our physical bodies, and do or do not have free will, or we are made up of physical bodies + souls, and do or do not have free will.

 

[westprog]

I've always found it odd that religious people who believe in the concept and value of free will given by God, don't find natural selection to fall in line more with such a God than a design. Natural selection is the ultimate expression of free will. Making everything be as it is, forever, is the opposite of free will.

A very high proportion of religious people do believe in natural selection. Why do you believe they don't?

 

[Malerin]

Bearing in mind that I don't think that there is a god, and don't think that omniscience is actually possible in the first place, and that free will is also probably an illusion, though a rather convincing one, nevertheless....

We describe God as omnipotent, which means he could do anything. It does not mean he has done everything. Does omniscience mean that God always knows everything, or simply that he could if he chose? Does an omniscient god who prefers to leave questions unanswered still preclude free will?

You might find this interesting.

 

[westprog]

I've always found it odd that religious people who believe in the concept and value of free will given by God, don't find natural selection to fall in line more with such a God than a design. Natural selection is the ultimate expression of free will. Making everything be as it is, forever, is the opposite of free will.

A very high proportion of religious people do believe in natural selection. Why do you believe they don't?

 

[Halfcentaur]

A very high proportion of religious people do believe in natural selection. Why do you believe they don't?

I've stated many times in this thread that I was born into a religious family that does indeed accept science and it's findings, myself a religious child who accepted the theory of evolution and an ancient earth of millions of years. I was obviously not referring to those religious people who do not. This was made clear in Avalon's reply to my statement you've quoted.

And where I live, a great number of religious people do not accept this, but for the more academic and educated.