Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

[carpedm9587]

I'm not a mod. And as long as I'm clearly not breaking any rules I think I'll post as I see fit. Why don't you worry about yourself carpe? Or if you have a major issue with how I post, or TWeb's rules take it to the Padded Room.

My bad. My comments were based on the assumption that you were a mod, and the inconsistency of treatment I was seeing. If you are not a mod, the issue is between you and the mods and, as you point out, none of my business.

Now I find myself wondering if the person who called me on MY post was or was not a mod. I assumed they were as well. Maybe I should have asked them to MYOB too...

[Adrift]

My bad. My comments were based on the assumption that you were a mod, and the inconsistency of treatment I was seeing. If you are not a mod, the issue is between you and the mods and, as you point out, none of my business.

Now I find myself wondering if the person who called me on MY post was or was not a mod. I assumed they were as well. Maybe I should have asked them to MYOB too...

Mods have colored names. That too hasn't changed since last you were here.

[carpedm9587]

Mods have colored names. That too hasn't changed since last you were here.

I had no clue. I have not been here for well over a decade, Adrift. I'm going to make a few mistakes as I get back into it.

I apologized. I acknowledged you were right and I was wrong. Maybe a little slack?

[Adrift]

I had no clue. I have not been here for well over a decade, Adrift. I'm going to make a few mistakes as I get back into it.

I apologized. I acknowledged you were right and I was wrong. Maybe a little slack?

Nitpicking, but I don't think it's been quite over a decade. Waybackmachine shows you posting as late as 2009 (unless there was both a carpedm and a CarpeDeum), and you rejoined in Nov last year. And before asking for slack, you might want to take some of your own advice before jumping on someone else's case.

[carpedm9587]

Nitpicking, but I don't think it's been quite over a decade. Waybackmachine shows you posting as late as 2009 (unless there was both a carpedm and a CarpeDeum), and you rejoined in Nov last year. And before asking for slack, you might want to take some of your own advice before jumping on someone else's case.

I have never been "CarpeDeum." My "decade" was based on my memory of not posting since before I started my company, which was 10 years ago this year. I bow to the wisdom of the way-back machine and the frailty of my memory.

For the rest, I have no idea what your issue with me is, Adrift, or what I could do to resolve it, so I will leave you to it.

For myself, I enjoy (and enjoyed) the discussions I've had with you.

[Adrift]

I have never been "CarpeDeum." My "decade" was based on my memory of not posting since before I started my company, which was 10 years ago this year. I bow to the wisdom of the way-back machine and the frailty of my memory.

For the rest, I have no idea what your issue with me is, Adrift, or what I could do to resolve it, so I will leave you to it.

For myself, I enjoy (and enjoyed) the discussions I've had with you.

My issue with you? Weren't you the one interjecting your opinion about how I ought to post? And I told you how to resolve any issues you might have, or if I'm breaking any rules...Take it to the Padded Room.

Wish I could say I'm enjoying my discussions with you, but lately, not so much.

[carpedm9587]

My issue with you? Weren't you the one interjecting your opinion about how I ought to post? And I told you how to resolve any issues you might have, or if I'm breaking any rules...Take it to the Padded Room.

Wish I could say I'm enjoying my discussions with you, but lately, not so much.

And I acknowledged that my response was inappropriate - it was based on my incorrect belief that you were a mod - and I apologized for it. I do not cling to a position when I am clearly in the wrong.

I'm sorry you are not enjoying the discussions. Perhaps it would be better for you if we simply did not engage. I would regret that, as you are usually an articulate debater. But there is a fairly clear anger at me in your posts (unless I am imagining it?), and you do not even appear to be willing to accept apologies graciously.

I'll leave it to you. I plan to continue to respond if you address me, with hopes that these issues will resolve.

[Adrift]

And I acknowledged that my response was inappropriate - it was based on my incorrect belief that you were a mod - and I apologized for it. I do not cling to a position when I am clearly in the wrong.

I'm sorry you are not enjoying the discussions. Perhaps it would be better for you if we simply did not engage. I would regret that, as you are usually an articulate debater. But there is a fairly clear anger at me in your posts (unless I am imagining it?), and you do not even appear to be willing to accept apologies graciously.

I'll leave it to you. I plan to continue to respond if you address me, with hopes that these issues will resolve.

I'm not angry, I just call it as I see it, and I don't feel the need to talk around an issue with a lot of fluff.

Also, I think this is probably the third or fourth time you've encouraged me not to engage with you, and/or vice versa. To preempt any future suggestions in this vein, I just want you to know that I'm fully in touch with my own feelings and mental states, and will reply to whomever I want, whenever I want, unless informed by a mod not to do so.

If you find discussion with me uncomfortable, or irritating, or undesirable , or whatever, then you're free to put me on ignore, and I'm clearly aware that that option is also available to me (though I never put people on ignore). Sound good?

[carpedm9587]

I'm not angry, I just call it as I see it, and I don't feel the need to talk around an issue with a lot of fluff.

Also, I think this is probably the third or fourth time you've encouraged me not to engage with you, and/or vice versa. To preempt any future suggestions in this vein, I just want you to know that I'm fully in touch with my own feelings and mental states, and will reply to whomever I want, whenever I want, unless informed by a mod not to do so.

If you find discussion with me uncomfortable, or irritating, or undesirable , or whatever, then you're free to put me on ignore, and I'm clearly aware that that option is also available to me (though I never put people on ignore). Sound good?

I don't put people on ignore. The rest of your message has been heard and understood. I'm not uncomfortable or angry or irritated. If anything, I'm a bit perplexed. I'll get over it.

[JimL]

I'm not arguing by weblink. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't engaged with opponents of Molinism at all in this thread. I brought the articles to Sparko's attention because I figured it'd be helpful for him to both understand the arguments I'm assuming some people here are attempting to formulate (but in my opinion, are not getting across very well), as well as Craig's solution to them. The rules on TWeb haven't changed in this regard since you were last here. In fact, very few of TWeb's rules have changed at all.

Yes you are. By presenting 2 articles, which you admit to being over your head, and which you say answer to the arguments of the opponents of molinism, it is argument by weblink no matter how you spin in it.

[Adrift]

Yes you are. By presenting 2 articles, which you admit to being over your head, and which you say answer to the arguments of the opponents of molinism, it is argument by weblink no matter how you spin in it.

If I were offering you those links, then you might have a case. I wasn't. I was offering them to Sparko, a person who shares my view on the subject, for his own understanding of both the argument and the solutions presented to the argument. Last I checked, you're not a mod. If you have an issue with my post, then click on the little icon on the bottom left of my post, and report me. If the mods decide that I've broken a rule, I'm sure they'll let me know.

[Sparko]

Sparko - what people are trying to convey (I think) is this: When an action is in the past, and you are traveling back to it, the person has already made the choice, it was freely made, and now that it is in the past, the fact that it cannot be changed does not violate free will, because the free will is temporally prior to the action (or at least concurrent), it was exerted to MAKE the choice. In a sense, will precedes action, and the choice of action is "cemented" at the time of the action, so looking at it from the future we have no problem acknowledging the freedom of choice AND the inability to change that choice now that it is made.

But when you attempt to apply the same logic to FUTURE tasks, you create a conundrum. In a sense, you are trying to look at tasks that have NOT YET occurred, and imbue them with the same characteristics as those past tasks. Like the past task, the future task cannot be changed without compromising the knowledge of the perfect knower (even though it has not actually happened), yet you want to preserve the concept of free will (actually, freedom of choice). You simply cannot have both. If will is truly free, then a different choice should be possible. But it is NOT truly possible without compromising the knowledge of the "time traveler," (who is claimed to be omniscient and without error). If a future task MUST be X, then free will becomes an illusion and we are simply playing out our parts of a pre-written script, blind to our own inability to choose. One thing I am constantly told is that atheism provides no framework for purpose. If anything robs the individual of purpose, this sure must be it.

This is all framed in the language of "knowledge of A cannot constrain action of B," which sounds rational, but is merely dancing away from the conundrum. It is easier to see in the other discussion, that brings to focus the real problem (phrased in terms of creative power, not knowledge).

Not sure if that helps, but there it is.

I understand what they (and you) are thinking, but you are not understanding me. What we call "now" is no different from yesterday or tomorrow. every single moment of your life from the time you could think about such concepts till today, you have considered every moment of your life as "now" - in 5 minutes you will be thinking of that time as "now" - the future is as real as the present. If you could travel back in time to before Booth shot Lincoln, the even would be in the "future" for you and Booth, but you know what he is going to do because it is in your personal "past" knowledge. That doesn't mean he doesn't do it of his own free will. Because if he decided NOT to shoot Lincoln that would be what you know from your personal "past" knowledge of 2017. His actions determines your knowledge. Whatever he does is what you will remember. And since you remember him shooting Lincoln you know he will do so, and it will be of his own free will.

What the future you knows about what you are going to do later today is in the past to him and you will do exactly what he remembers you doing. And it will be your own free will and you can't do anything that your future self doesn't 'already' know.

[Sparko]

He knows because that is what I chose to do. His knowing didn't cause me to do it, my doing it caused him to know it.

[Sparko]

It's a bit over my head, and perhaps yours as well, but I believe articles like this one, and this one actually answer the type of arguments the opponents of Molinism in this thread are attempting to construct. I'd cite them in whole, but they're quite long, and I'm not sure there's an easy way to reduce them down to post-length soundbites.

Yeah those are good articles. I encourage Carpe and the others to read them.

[Zymologist]

If I were offering you those links, then you might have a case. I wasn't. I was offering them to Sparko, a person who shares my view on the subject, for his own understanding of both the argument and the solutions presented to the argument. Last I checked, you're not a mod. If you have an issue with my post, then click on the little icon on the bottom left of my post, and report me. If the mods decide that I've broken a rule, I'm sure they'll let me know.

Looking again at the context, I don't think it was an argument by weblink. Not every link is an argument, and in this case it seemed to me something of a FYI, not an argument. Your post was clearly directed at Sparko, so I don't see the problem.