Armand Jacks Destroys ID in One Sentence

_{Barry Arrington

April 16, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Armand Jacks says he has a knock down show stopping argument to rebut ID’s claim that intelligent agency is the only known cause of specified complexity.

Get ready.

Hold on to your hat.

Here it is:

Using the same argument, the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes.

Are blind unguided material forces capable of typing the post you just posted AJ? If you say “no” your argument is refuted. If you say “yes” you look like a fool or a liar or both. Talk about the Scylla and Charybdis.

AJ, you really should stop and think for 10 seconds before you write something like that down. I know, I know. Thinking is hard, and 10 seconds is a long time. But still.

As for the title of this post, on reflection maybe I overstated AJ’s accomplishment a little.

Comments

It is understandable, I suppose, that the notion of a God Almighty who "inhabits eternity" -- and who therefore knows every thought and action that every human being will ever think or do, while He also preserves every human being's free will and the rights and responsibilites that pertain thereto -- throws human logic into a state of cognitive dissonance. Conniption fits, even. But consider the statement, "Henry knew everything about the Ford, but the Ford never comprehended Henry." Hopefully this helps. Good luck!jstanley01_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

EA Hi Eric I think that not only do people conflate their terms they also often don't define their terms as well. Take the term "free will". What do we mean when we say we have "free will"? Free will gets bandied about as if it is obvious what it is and what we mean when we claim it for ourselves.I am not even sure the term itself is very helpful I think "free choice" is a much more accurate description. The best definition of free choice I have seen is the freedom to choose what one most wants to choose, given the options available at the time the choice is made. As to the objection that to know with certainty what choice one will make destroys that persons free choice in the matter just doesn't follow. For instance with enough knowledge about someone I can know with certainty what choice they will freely make. For instance I know with certainty that loving parents are going to jump into the pool to save their baby if I throw it into a swimming pool. My knowledge of their future action does not nullify their free choice to jump in and save it does it? Oops I just saw that Origines beat me to the punch by making the same point. Vividvividbleau_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

Many here assume that free will is akin to throwing a fair dice — that an act of free will is unpredictable. But is an act of free will of person A in circumstances X unpredictable even for an omniscient being with a complete knowledge of person A and circumstances X? Isn't it true that, if we know a person well enough, we are able to predict many of his/her (free) choices? Free will is not something like quantum randomness. In my opinion unpredictability is not the essence of freedom. In my book a free decision has to with awareness, control and self-causation.Origenes_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

All: Don't get confused by the temporality. If AJ orders eggs for breakfast and God makes either of the following statements: 1. AJ is ordering eggs (present tense); or 2. AJ ordered eggs (past tense), no-one would have the slightest discomfort with these statements. No-one in their right mind would suggest that God's knowledge of the event meant AJ didn't have free will. No-one would dig in their heels and argue that there was any other cause to the ordering of eggs than AJ's choice, his exercise of his own free will. The whole mental block some people seem to be having is that because there is a statement about a future event, then somehow (unexplained and unarticulated, as of now, I might add) this means AJ has no free will. So for anyone who thinks free will readily exists with a statement about the past or the present, but that it evaporates in the future, please explain the basis for such a claim. What is it that permits me to have free will if someone has absolute, incontrovertible knowledge about past or present events, but prevents me from having free will if they have knowledge of future events? Again, I apologize if this is getting repetitive, but this issue inevitably boils down to causation. Not some alleged indirect involvement; not some "allowance"; not some vague "intuition" that there must be a connection due to a perceived paradox about how we view time. We need to talk about real causation, as it is effected in the physical world in which we live. ------ juwilker @173: This is an interesting thought. If what you mean is that God has more ability to influence events than we do and that God can influence things in a certain direction, then, sure, I can agree. In those cases God is acting and can be said to be the legitimate, bona-fide cause of a particular action he took through his own free will (whatever specific thing He did to tweak your timeline). Again, however, this does not address the issue on the table. The claim on the table is that God's mere knowledge of what I will do means I have no free will. This is the claim that is subject to all the definitional, practical and logical problems I've outlined. ----- On a broader note, I should add that I haven't yet heard where Armand Jacks and Seversky are heading with such a claim. When I've heard this stuff before, it typically is focused on some attempt to indirectly prove that God doesn't exist. Something like: God has foreknowledge => foreknowledge means no free will => we have free will => therefore, no God. I sincerely hope this isn't where they are heading, but that hasn't been clarified yet. But it might help explain why someone would stick to such an argument constructed with basic definitional and logical errors -- sometimes the philosophy comes first, and then an argument is cobbled together to try to support the philosophy. Again, I hope that isn't the case here and am hoping for some clarification.Eric Anderson_{April 22, 2017
April
04
Apr
22
22
2017
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

Hi GUN @ 172 If anyone had or could preview a "tape of future events", then I agree that the event is predetermined. And I think that God might be reviewing many of these tapes and allows many of those tapes to "play as normal". But every once in a while, He overrides some of those tapes and creates one of his own. We don't know which of those tapes He interfered with. So from our point of view, freewill operates as envisioned/experienced. Does that make sense?juwilker_{April 22, 2017
April
04
Apr
22
22
2017
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

juwilker,
I also think that the materialists (GUN, AJ, and RVB8) are making some good points about foreknowledge and predestination. Their line of thinking is that if something is known in the future, then the knower has some implication, some affect in that future.
I haven’t followed every discussion going on here, so I’m not sure about AJ and RVB8, but in my case I’ve explicitly stated that foreknowledge does not imply causation. I’ve only argued that if there’s a future to know (for example, if God has foreknowledge, or if future time-travel is possible), then that means that the future is determined. The reason I can say this is because it only makes sense to say that the future can be known, if, in fact, it’s already determined. For example, would it make sense to say that God (or a time traveler) knows that I will do “X” tomorrow, and yet say that it’s yet to be determined whether I will do “X” tomorrow? Whether that means there’s no free will is a separate issue. Compatibilists, for example, would say that foreknowledge is compatible with free will as long as the foreknowledge is separate from the causation. But I think most people would also say that my having free will means that things aren’t determined until I make my choice. The example of a tape has been used to argue that knowledge is not a threat to free will. The (obvious) problem with the argument is that anything we’ve ever seen on tape has already occurred, and so, yes, what is on tape is determined and not a problem for free will – but it’s post-determined. No one has ever found post-determinism as a threat to free will – but if one had a tape of future events, then that’s not post-determinism, that’s pre-determinism. And that would beg the question: Are my choices determining/causing anything if everything was determined before I even existed?goodusername_{April 22, 2017
April
04
Apr
22
22
2017
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

EA, I’m agreeing with you that knowledge is not the “cause” of the event. And I do believe that most of the time the creature does have freewill and God will not override it (in my example, rarely would God override AJ’s decision to order eggs). But AJs freewill is “filtered” through God’s knowledge and allowance. Most of the time the freewill operates as we envision and experience. I also disagree with AJ’s claim that God caused AJ to order eggs because God knew that AJ would order eggs. What I am saying is that it is reasonable to consider that God is “instantly, inseparably, and imputably” tied to the outcome through His filtering or allowance of creature choice. And yes, my own life has analogous examples. If I allow my son to reject an offer from his grandmother to watch a movie with her because he wants to stay home and study for exams, then I am partly responsible for the better grade (hopefully) that he achieves on tomorrow’s final exam. Or a negative example, if I allow my son to partake in some ruinous activity where I had the ability to stop it, then I have in some measure affected the outcome of my son’s freewill choice. You say I’m conflating causation with knowledge. Maybe I am, but I’m trying to say that knowledge and allowance/filtering IS affecting the outcome. I’m not sure why you are not seeing this. It seems rational to me. I do not claim what I’m saying is “the truth” because I can’t be sure. I’m kind of groping in the dark on this one. You say, “The claim on the table is that God’s mere possession of knowledge about a current event completely and utterly eliminates my free will as to that event.” And, like you, I reject this strong claim. I still think that most of the time, the creature has freewill wrt to the event in question even when God has knowledge of that event. Sev @ 169 You make the strong claim that EA just mentioned. The mere knowledge of an event eliminates all freewill. You provide Peter as an example. How do you know that God didn’t override Peter’s freewill? You just assume that Peter (and all creatures) never did, never does, and never will have freewill. There’s no way to prove this assumption. I wouldn’t use this “one-off” example to explain how freewill works in all situations. You say that if God knows of an event (future), then the event exists and it will happen. Again, this is an assumption. God might see a choice that you are going to make and overrides it. And in that case, yes, you have no freewill. But if He does not override it, then your freewill stands unimpeded and you are none the wiser.juwilker_{April 22, 2017
April
04
Apr
22
22
2017
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Seversky:
Whether He caused it to be thus is irrelevant to the question of free will. If He knows of an event that means that it exists, even if it is in our future. That means that, as with Peter’s denials, it will happen and there is nothing we can do about it, so, to that extent, we have no free will.
No. Whether [God] caused it is precisely the issue in whether there is free will. You are just playing games with the definition of free will. You can't just define it away by saying, "well, if there is knowledge, then there isn't free will." Show the causal chain between the knowledge and the event. Show why the individual, who would have free will in every other situation suddenly doesn't just because someone knows what he will do. Otherwise you fall straight into the intellectual trap I previously described:
The only thing that is going on is that some people are tying themselves in philosophical knots over a simple perceived “paradox” because (1) they conflate terminology, (2) smuggle in the very thing they are trying to deny, and (3) don’t carefully think through the chain of causation.
Eric Anderson_{April 22, 2017
April
04
Apr
22
22
2017
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

juwilker @ 167
I also think that the materialists (GUN, AJ, and RVB8) are making some good points about foreknowledge and predestination. Their line of thinking is that if something is known in the future, then the knower has some implication, some affect in that future
Not quite. An omniscient knower might be able to affect the future but it is the knowledge alone that undermines the possibility of free will. Remember Matthew 26: 33-34
Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
Jesus didn't say "There is a good chance you will disown me three times..." or "I estimate there is a 95.9% probability you will disown me...". He said to Peter, "You will..." and Peter did. Even more significantly Peter disowned Jesus three times even though he had been warned that's what would happen. Peter's supposed free will made no difference. An omniscient God is one who knows, at the least, all that exists to be known. Whether He caused it to be thus is irrelevant to the question of free will. If He knows of an event that means that it exists, even if it is in our future. That means that, as with Peter's denials, it will happen and there is nothing we can do about it, so, to that extent, we have no free will.Seversky_{April 22, 2017
April
04
Apr
22
22
2017
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Justin @167: Thank you for your kind thoughts. This is indeed an interesting topic and I’m glad you recall the prior conversation. I’ve been meaning to go back and look at that thread, but it was really focused on non-free-will situations for the most part. Hence my repeated question to Armand Jacks as to whether he thinks his concern about knowledge and free will also extends to inanimate objects.
I also think that the materialists (GUN, AJ, and RVB8) are making some good points about foreknowledge and predestination. Their line of thinking is that if something is known in the future, then the knower has some implication, some affect in that future.
Yes, it appears to be the line of thinking in part, although usually stated much more strongly than “some implication.” In Armand Jack’s mind, it completely voids the concept of free will, rendering it completely absent as to the particular event in question. In any case, this claimed “affect in that future” of the knowledge is precisely the point I am trying to pin down. That is why have directly focused on causation. Unfortunately, without hearing any response. It is one thing to claim that knowledge – in and of itself – must cause some future state. It is quite another to show that this claim is the case. Which no-one has been able to do thus far. Thus, unfortunately all we are dealing with so far is a bald-faced claim without support.
I do take issue with that statement. I think people over the centuries with much more time and smarts than you and I to expend on this subject have not resolved it.
I’m certainly willing to grant that people with more time and more smarts than I have thought about this. And what aspect, specifically, do you think they have focused on and have not been able to resolve?
As Mugwump3 (post 124) said, “Freewill” is difficult to define. “Free” is not has free as we think for various reasons and “will” might not be always attributed to ourselves.
I’m not sure why you quoted this. We can certainly wring our hands over whether we are as "free" as we would like to think or whether life is all an illusion and we don’t really have free will. But free will as a concept is pretty basic. Fundamentally, it has to do with an ability to choose. Either you have an ability to choose in a particular case or you don’t. (As mentioned previously, this is also intimately tied to the concept of intelligence, which means “to choose between” contingent possibilities.)
I would agree with you that the knower has no involvement of the outcome of the future IF he had no ability to interfere with that future.
It doesn’t have anything to do with whether the knower had an ability to interfere. The question is whether the knower actually, in real space and time used that ability and did interfere. The very concept of ability to do something includes the ability to not do something. There is no other rational or logical meaning of the concept of "ability". Ironically, this also highlights another problem. Namely, anyone who conflates having an ability with exercising that ability is saying that not only did the poor human not have free will in a particular case, but God didn’t have any free will either. God had an ability, thus God was forced to use that ability. So now no-one has free will! If this strikes us as strange – as it most assuredly should – then we need to get back to a rational definition of terms. Having an ability means being able to do something. It inherently includes choice. It doesn’t mean had to do something, or was forced to, or couldn’t act otherwise.
But when you free God from this spaceship and allow any intervention, then I would claim that the knower is instantly, inseparably, and imputably tied with the outcome of the event.
I know we’ve discussed this before, but why on Earth would you think that allowing involvement means being instantly, inseparably, and imputably tied with the outcome of something? Why would you conflate allowing something to happen with causing something to happen. You’ve seen a thousand examples in your own life where this isn’t true. The only thing I can figure out, after various discussions across various threads is that people must have some unusual perception of God that makes them think God is “instantly, inseparably, and imputably tied with the outcome” of everything that happens. Again, probably because they also conflate having an ability with exercising it. That is strange theology and even stranger logic.
. . . you might retort that allowance is not the same as causation. Agreed, they are not technically the same.
Thank you.
But allowance does impute affect on the event in question. And I think this is what our materialist interlocutors are saying.
If we are talking about affecting an event, then we are talking about causation. And if no-one can point to any chain of causation, then there is no reason to think there is causation. Also, you are being too kind to the claim being made (whether by materialists or others). The claim on the table is not that God, by allowing us to exercise our free will, is following some long-term master plan and exercising indirect “influence” over the ultimate outcome of future events. The claim on the table is that God’s mere possession of knowledge about a current event completely and utterly eliminates my free will as to that event. The former might be a reasonable position to take. At least one that is rational and merits consideration. The latter is complete nonsense.
But you won’t help resolve the intuitive sense that knowledge (in some way) is linked with causation.
What is intuitive about it? It completely contradicts our own experience in the real world. It denies the plain meaning of words in the English language. And it fails as a logical exercise because it smuggles in through the back door the very thing it claims doesn’t exist (choice). ----- Let’s keep our eye on the ball. Look back at Armand Jack’s claim in a more obvious form: God knows AJ will choose eggs => AJ chooses eggs => AJ has no free will. This is the essence of Armand Jack's claim. It is self contradictory. If he has no free will, then the second part of the equation never occurred – he couldn’t have chosen eggs. Without his free will we must look to some other cause for the order of eggs. So I ask again, what is the cause of him getting eggs for breakfast? Is he claiming God caused it, that it was an inevitable outcome of physics, or that it was a random chance? Those are the three possibilities left on the table. And none of those three makes the slightest bit of sense. Everyone knows that he got eggs precisely because he chose to get eggs. He exercised his free will. A small school child could see the chain of causation and get this one right. This is incredibly simple and rational and confirmed by our daily experience. There is no mystery here. The only thing that is going on is that some people are tying themselves in philosophical knots over a simple perceived “paradox” because (a) they conflate terminology, (b) smuggle in the very thing they are trying to deny,* and (c) don’t carefully think through the chain of causation. ----- * Incidentally, smuggling in as a precedent the very thing one is trying to deny exists is also quite common in materialist arguments against the existence of design, perhaps the most famous example being Berra’s Blunder.Eric Anderson_{April 22, 2017
April
04
Apr
22
22
2017
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

EA @ 163, Hello again. I enjoyed conversing with you about the freewill/foreknowledge debate in another post several months back. I like the way you approach this subject and I have learned from your insights. Also, I have enjoyed reading this blog post. You, Mugwump3, Phinehas and others offer thought-provoking posts. I also think that the materialists (GUN, AJ, and RVB8) are making some good points about foreknowledge and predestination. Their line of thinking is that if something is known in the future, then the knower has some implication, some affect in that future. You, on the other hand, try to completely remove the knower (God in this case) from any cause of the future event. And you are very sure of yourself that you label it a “freshman-level paradox” that can easily understood. I do take issue with that statement. I think people over the centuries with much more time and smarts than you and I to expend on this subject have not resolved it. As Mugwump3 (post 124) said, “Freewill” is difficult to define. “Free” is not has free as we think for various reasons and “will” might not be always attributed to ourselves. I would agree with you that the knower has no involvement of the outcome of the future IF he had no ability to interfere with that future. If God were somehow constrained to remain in a spaceship (for lack of a better term) that was floating outside of time and that God had omniscience, then I would agree with your contention that knowledge and causation are completely separate. But when you free God from this spaceship and allow any intervention, then I would claim that the knower is instantly, inseparably, and imputably tied with the outcome of the event. I know you will object. But let me explain. I see God as the ultimate “filter”, in the allowance of events to occur. If God sees that AJ is going to order bacon and eggs tomorrow (based on freewill of AJ) but God does not like that outcome, he may override AJ’s will and cause him to order pancakes. Or God may allow the outcome to occur and AJ eats his bacon and eggs. In the first case, you will say that we are talking about God’s will, not AJs will and that you are not addressing this situation. In the second case you might retort that allowance is not the same as causation. Agreed, they are not technically the same. But allowance does impute affect on the event in question. And I think this is what our materialist interlocutors are saying. You can dismiss this idea and claim that causation is different from allowance. And technically I think you are correct. But you won’t help resolve the intuitive sense that knowledge (in some way) is linked with causation. Justinjuwilker_{April 22, 2017
April
04
Apr
22
22
2017
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

BTW, would you mind clarifying where you are headed with this interim argument about knowledge and free will. I take it you think you have free will. Are you saying this shows that although God exists, God doesn't have foreknowledge (based on your claim that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible)? or Are you saying that God doesn't exist, because God must have foreknowledge (based on some definition of God and based on your claim that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible)? ----- Also, let me know your thoughts on my question at the end of 163 regarding non-free-will situations. Thanks,Eric Anderson_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

AJ @164: I'm sorry. You seem to be making two contrary claims. I have argued the knowledge is separate from the free will, and, to your second pancake example, that lack of knowledge doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you have free will. It only has to do with the level of the knowledge. You say you agree and that this is indeed your point. Then you turn around in the same paragraph and seem to say exactly the opposite. Namely, that inerrant knowledge means no free will. You haven't provided any basis for your claim that foreknowledge means no free will. Your breakfast example certainly doesn't support that claim. ----- If the pancakes example is mixing you up, stick with the bacon and eggs. Let's say you order bacon and eggs for breakfast. Again, I repeat -- and please don't avoid the issue that is central to the whole claim you are making: What caused the order of bacon and eggs? Did you choose to order bacon and eggs? If not you, then are you claiming God caused you to order bacon and eggs? Are you claiming it was a pre-determined outcome of chemistry and physics? Are you claiming it was a random occurrence? Those are your four options: (1) God caused it; (2) you caused it; (3) it happened by inevitable force of physics; or (4) it was a random occurrence. Which is it?Eric Anderson_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Eric, thank you for honestly discussing this.
Agreed. All it means is that there wasn’t “certain” knowledge. Nothing more; nothing less. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not you have free will.
That is all I have been arguing. Either god has inerrant foreknowledge, in which case there is no free will, or god is not omniscient. Frankly, I don't see how a non omniscient god is any less impressive.Armand Jacks_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

AJ @159: Don't tie yourself into intellectual and philosophical knots over this fun freshman-level "paradox" -- they are a dime a dozen. We need to stay focused on the causal chain.
If the knowledge has nothing to do with the consequences of B’s action, then I agree with you.
Agreed. Further, if the knowledge is not causally linked to B's action -- never mind the consequences, look at the action itself -- then there is no issue.
But if you or god or KF know with certainty that I am going to order bacon and eggs, sunnyside up (not predict. Know), where is my free will?
What caused the order of bacon and eggs? Did you choose to order bacon and eggs? If not you, then are you claiming God* caused you to order bacon and eggs? Are you claiming it was a pre-determined outcome of chemistry and physics? Are you claiming it was a random occurrence? Those are your four options: (1) God caused it; (2) you caused it; (3) it happened by inevitable force of physics; or (4) it was a random occurrence. Which is it?
If I then order pancakes, you, god and KF really had no knowledge of this.
Agreed. All it means is that there wasn't "certain" knowledge. Nothing more; nothing less. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you have free will. So, again, in this second case what was the cause of you ordering pancakes: God, you, physics, or chance? Is the cause different in the second case than the first case? If so, why? ----- Incidentally, I haven't pored through this whole thread to know what everyone is discussing. I just saw your prior comment on a quick pass and wanted to correct the record. Thus, if you've already answered the following question, I apologize: Does this "paradox" of prior knowledge of events only concern you in the context of free will, or do you think it also relates to inanimate objects -- hurricanes, floods, a rock rolling down a hill, and so on. In other words, does prior knowledge (say, God's, for example) of an event somehow implicate God's involvement in the event? ----- * For ease of further discussion, we'll focus on one individual and I'll grant that KF and I don't know anything about your breakfast.Eric Anderson_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Andrew:
You are equating knowledge of an outcome with forcing an outcome. Two different things.
No, I am talking about knowledge of an outcome limiting the choices of those responsible for the outcome. Let's look at my breakfast example. It is possible to know the outcome without limiting my choice in this case only if the waiter screwed up my order. But that still assumes that I would not complain about the mixed up order.Armand Jacks_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

(not predict. Know)
Armand, You are equating knowledge of an outcome with forcing an outcome. Two different things. But I suspect you know that already and are trolling. Imagine that. Andrewasauber_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

KF:
NOTICE: The commenter now using AJ as monicker has now again played the troll. KF
If a troll is a person who points out when someone has repeatedly lied about having answered a question that they have not, and then falsely accuses the truth teller of lying about it, then I accept the assignation gladly. Have you found your comment that answers my question yet? Have you found the comment where I claimed to have a knock down refutation of ID yet?Armand Jacks_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Eric:
What is your causal link between A knowing something and B doing something? Please outline the cause-effect chain.
If the knowledge has nothing to do with the consequences of B's action, then I agree with you. Knowing that KF will continue to speak in disregard to the truth is not going to affect the options available to me for tomorrow's breakfast. But if you or god or KF know with certainty that I am going to order bacon and eggs, sunnyside up (not predict. Know), where is my free will? If I then order pancakes, you, god and KF really had no knowledge of this.Armand Jacks_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Armand, Just think of God as having a 100% prediction rate. Andrewasauber_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

NOTICE: The commenter now using AJ as monicker has now again played the troll. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Armand Jacks:
If the future is know with certain by any entity (god, Cap’n Crunch or some clairavoyant), we are talking about determinism/fate. And if that is the case then those involved in the known events did not have free will.
This is nonsense. Why do you keep pushing this? Why is it hard to acknowledge that there is a difference between the knowledge of party A and the action of party B? What is your causal link between A knowing something and B doing something? Please outline the cause-effect chain.Eric Anderson_{April 21, 2017
April
04
Apr
21
21
2017
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

KF:
AJ, it is now too late, this is just a notice. KF
Too late for what? To admit that you made an error? I always thought that it was never too late for that. You are a real mystery. You accuse other people of lying at the drop of a hat. But when it is pointed out that you have made a false statement about someone, one that can be confirmed by anyone here, you go on the attack. Rather than admit an honest error, something that we all do, you go into lock-down denial mode and blame me for it.Armand Jacks_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

M62, I think enough of an answer was long since given. KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Forget about the 'God omniscient' discussion. Please Even us ID-friendly types get tired of that.mike1962_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

AJ, it is now too late, this is just a notice. KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

GUN, I agree. I honestly don't see what is so controversial. If the future is know with certain by any entity (god, Cap'n Crunch or some clairavoyant), we are talking about determinism/fate. And if that is the case then those involved in the known events did not have free will. If there is a god, which I don't rule out, she either knows the future and we don't have free will, or she doesn't know the future and we have free will. But this raises another issue. If free will was a gift that god gave to us, do animals have free will?Armand Jacks_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

KF:
AJ, at this point, I have little reason to pay much attention to your remarks due to a pattern of speaking to hoped for rhetorical advantage by speaking in disregard for truth. KF
I sincerely apologize. You obviously acknowledged that I never claimed to have a knock down refutation of ID. Could you please link to it? I must have missed it. Or are you still claiming that my original comment claimed that I had a knock down refutation of ID? If that is the case, could you please link to it? If you can't do either, I stand by the one claim that I have made. You have spoken in diregard to the truth. Some would call it lying, but I will use your term if it makes you happy.Armand Jacks_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

JoshRob asks:
Wow, is it so difficult to understand that taping a baseball game in progress does not later invalidate the players’ choices ex post facto?
It’s impossible to understand if your existential narrative is dedicated to not understanding it and to believing that theism is foolish because of certain supposed paradoxes. Those “god paradoxes” are like talking point memes people can use to support their preferred atheist narrative (like the “hands up don’t shoot” meme supports a certain social view) and block out reasoned discussion.
No one is suggesting that taping a game in progress is an issue for free will. Nothing about recording a game in progress suggests that our choices were pre-determined. People accept that the past is determined, and that what is on tape is determined. But most people believe that the future isn't determined. Ergo, most people would assume that producing a ten year old tape of a game currently in progress would be impossible. The ramifications of such a tape on free will are obvious. It would mean that the future is as determined as the past, and that events were determined long before the choices were made that were supposed to influence such events. IOW, does it make sense to speak of "determined free choices"? And, no, this isn't about attacking theism. IMO, such a suggestion is itself an attempt to block out reasoned discussion. Many theists see the same issues and either don't believe in free will (because they believe it conflicts with God's foreknowledge) or don't believe that God has foreknowledge (at least, not total foreknowledge). And the issue of foreknowledge and free will is hardly restricted to theology. As I mentioned above it's a common topic, for instance, in discussions about time travel.goodusername_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

AJ, at this point, I have little reason to pay much attention to your remarks due to a pattern of speaking to hoped for rhetorical advantage by speaking in disregard for truth. KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply