Argument from Fatalism: A Reply to the Fatalist

If God is omniscient, then how can we have free will? A reply.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• argument
• fatalism
• omniscience
• free
• will
• volition
• incompatibility
• thesis
• contradiction
• god
• jesus
• theism
• argum

[stamboni316]

I was out after your failure with Ockham.

[telemantros]

@stamboni316 Unless you wish to explain how Ockham 'fails' then this is nothing more than an assertion, which is not an argument.

[beardlessjoebae]

nice explosions in the sky song, it helped your argument

[stamboni316]

If you then posit that god can see all possible outcomes of all possible choices, events could unfold other than according to his plan unless god restricts the list of possibilities. Either way, there is a contradiction between the existence of free will and omniscience. Your points concerning certainty and necessity are irrelevancies due to the presuppositions of the properties of the biblical god hence my statement concerning your misapplication of Ockham.

[stamboni316]

Ockham doesn't fail, your use does. My argument goes like this. Presupposition: god is an omniscient, omnipotent and eternal creator of everything with ineffible purpose. Statement: if events could unfold other than the way they would in god's prior foresight then god cannot be omniscient because he does not know how the alternative events will unfold. (cont.)

[Hexdoll]

Is the argument for free will just a statement of ignorance of future events.

If I knew the future I still would need to make the same choices I would make as my future self or I would not truly know the future. If i had to make the decisions then where does the freedom come in.

[superjam18]

hey telemantros i don't know if you've ever heard of this youtuber called

Evid3enc3's

but he has an interesting deconversion story and I just want to know your thoughts on it if you choose to watch it sometime. :)

[richie3622]

Might I also point out that my "Christianity to Atheism" video, in which I DO suggest an issue of fatalism, is severely dated (by almost two years), and my views have evolved heavily since then.

This was the case when you made your video response to it, and part of the reason for my demeanor in my response back.

[richie3622]

(cont'd)

ignores how thought processes work from a strictly naturalistic sense, all being the end point of a series of chemical reactions and neural impulses. You are bound to where your brain leads you, but this does not obstruct your "freedom".

I'd be leaning towards a problem of equivocation over the word "freedom" in arguments of this sort.

The way I see it, you are both fated and "free" - there is no issue of compatibility - and as such, attacking the necessity of X isn't needed.

[richie3622]

I actually find fatalism to be absurd, but I don't find the counter-arguments in this video to hold much water. "Omniscience" coupled with "omnipotence" implies *absolute* knowledge. Not your "middle knowledge", but a strict, linear chain of events - known in full.

As stated, I still don't believe this implies a lack of "free will" as per common atheistic/agnostic positions, and that's why I have carefully avoided suggesting such things.

My terminology fails me, but such a position (con't)