|
I think we are arguing on different terms. I was (and I do mean was; see below) arguing on the basis that free will was to be able to choose differently in a situation, while many others were assuming that free will is being able to choose. Period. However, most of those on the other side to me, are saying that you can choose a different outcome to a situation. This is, as I've said, impossible. You will always choose the same. You can not do anything different.
Now the important thing, is that I'm willing to concide that this is not a restriction on your free will. The fact that you can choose, that you go through your own thought processes to reach a conclusion, without being guided in anyway by external forces other than your own observations and experiences, is what is important to free will. Sorry for the complete about face.
So back to the topic at hand. So far the best argument of omniscience vs free will, is the idea that to do something other than that which the omniscient being knows you will do, it would deny it's omniscience, thus you can not do this. However, you won't, so is it actually restricting you? It's stoping you doing something you can't do. Is it a restriction?
__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."
Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602
|