Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 17:37:29
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on September 15, 2005, at 5:37:25
> > If god knows what choices people will make, then they aren't free to act differently.
> I'm not sure that that the second idea follows from the first.Does what I said to Gabbi help there or not?
> Perhaps I understand free will as freedom from coercion,Okay. So god knows what is going to happen in the future. So those facts are already fixed. We cannot do otherwise than what god already knows we are going to do beforehand (because if we could then gods belief about what would happen would be false and a false belief cannot count as knowledge).
So... We cannot do otherwise from what god already knows we are going to do.
So... If we have free will then freedom to do otherwise cannot be necessary for free will.
So... I think you are okay with this? Free will doesn't mean being able to do otherwise, it just means there being an absence from coersion.If I am tied to a chair then I am not free to leave the room.
If I am not tied to a chair then I am free to leave the room (even though it is already fixed in advance whether I will leave the room or not).How about compulsions (like hand washing)?
Is someone in the grip of a compulsion free, or is there some coersion going on there?>or I imagine that God stands outside time and therefore doesn’t know things ‘in advance’,
Yeah. Thats a clever response :-)
But that will buy you a whole heap of problems if you want the super-natural being to be able to effect changes (ie cause things to happen) in the physical world.>or that God’s omniscience is a matter of ‘middle knowledge’ as Plantinga would have it.
So he isn't infinitely knowledgeable (because maybe infinite knowledge + free will leads to incoherance) maybe he is just the most knowledgable being that could possibly exist given the existence of free will...
>Or that God’s knowledge of people’s future actions is contingent.
??
I'm not so sure what that means or what that argument is.
> I think theologically I favour a qualified definition of God's omniscience over a qualified definition of free will.Okay. I guess I'm not so very attached to free will.
>However, others have tried to show that determinism is a modal fallacy. I don't have the philosophical skills to evaluate that claim. Have you come across it? If so, what do you make of it?
I'm not sure what is meant there...
I really haven't heard that one...What I have found is people trying to find a way around these problems by appealing to quantum indeterminacy. If the world is irreducibly probabilistic (on the middle sized objects level) then determinism is false... You can't use the state of the universe at one instant to predict the next instant... Maybe there is room for free will in quantum indeterminacy... Not sure what consequence this would have for gods knowledge.
What if god were to know...
Not what the state of the universe at the next instant in time would be...
But the probability of every possibility?This line is appealing to some...
I'm not that keen.
But there is math over there :-(
poster:alexandra_k
thread:553832
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050909/msgs/555343.html