Zalpha Primes argument against the existence of God. P1. If God is omniscient, then he knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen without error. P2. If knowledge exists of the true and unfailing outcome of a choice, then there is no possibility that any choice can be made that does not conform to said knowledge. C1. (From P1 and P2) Therefore, if omnipotence exists, than no choice has more than one option. P3. Free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. C2. (From C1 and P3) Therefore, omnipotence and free will are mutually exclusive. My response is as follows: There are two kinds of Atheistic arguments, namely: 1. Logical arguments and 2. Evidential arguments. Moreover logical arguments are deductive arguments and Evidnetial arguments are inductive arguments. The argument above is meant to be a logical atheistic argument. However it is an invalid argument. An argument is invalid if)and only if) 1. its conclusion does not follow by virtue of logical necessity, 2. If its from is incorrect, 3. if a valid and sound counter argument can be successfully presented against it, 4. If it does not violate the principles of logic, 5. if it does not commit any logical fallacies e.t.c What is an atheistic logical argument? A logical argument is one that is used to show that the concept of God is impossible, because of a paradox that is intrinsic to a particular definition/or concept of God. Okay, i will evaluate the argument now. First of all let us consider its validity by asking the following question: Is the argument valid? Well: 1. An argument is valid if (and only if) its conclusion follows from the premises. 2. Thus, if the conclsuion of the argument does not follow from the premises, then the argument is invalid. 3. The conclusion of the argument does not follow from the premises. 4. Therefore, necessarily, the argument is invalid. In other words C1 does not follow from P1 and P2. Or C1 cannot be inferred from P1 and P2. Consider the argument again: P1. If God is omniscient, then he knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen without error. P2. If knowledge exists of the true and unfailing outcome of a choice, then there is no possibility that any choice can be made that does not conform to said knowledge. C1. (From P1 and P2) Therefore, if omnipotence exists, than no choice has more than one option. For you cannot infer a conclulsion about omnipotence from premises about omniscient. Therefore the argument is a non seqitur. In other words it does not follow. For there is no logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion or 3. No. For the conclusion does not follow by virtue of logical necessity. But i will give him the benefit of the doubt. Therefore i will assume that C1 is a typing error. In other words he made a mistake by introducing omnipotence to an argument about omniscience. Now, i will reconstruct his argument so that it is logical. P1. If God is omniscient, then he knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen without error. P2. If knowledge exists of the true and unfailing outcome of a choice, then there is no possibility that any choice can be made that does not conform to said knowledge. C1. (From P1 and P2) Therefore, if omniscience exists, than no choice has more than one option. P3. Free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. C2. (From C1 and P3) Therefore, omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. But stll, the conclusion does not follow by virtue of logical necessity. Let us focus on the language that he used in C1 briefly. It is as follows: Therefore, if omniscience exists, than no choice has more than one option. My response; 1. Choice is based on the ability to choose between two distinct options or between many distinct options. 2. Thus, if two distinct alternatives do not exist or if many distinct alternatives do not exist, then CHOICE does not exist. 3. Therefore if choice eixsts, then more than one options must exist. Let me give you can example; If i told you to pick a blue pen from amongst twenty other blue pens, you do not have a choice, because a distinct alternative option does not exist, and therefore you are causally determined to always pick blue. Since you are causally determined to always pick blue, it implies that you cannot pick independent of a prior antecedent. Therefore you have no choice, because free will is precluded. So choice does not exist if more than one option does not exist. And yet he uses the word choice in the context of only one option eixsting. No that is not choice. And so the statement is wrong. For he is affriming that choice can exist if there is only one option. Next; if omniscience eixst, it does not negate the ability to choose more than one options. And therefore it does not follow that if omniscience exist that a choice cannot entail more than one options. For omniscience simply means that God knows all the choices that we will make, we are making, and that we have made. The fact is omniscience is not the same as predestination and fore ordination. 1. Omniscience: All knowing. Or God knows everything. 2. Foreknowledge: God knows beforehand. 3. Foreordination: To fix and appoint befroehand. 4.Predestination: To predetermine beforehand. So we see that it is only foreordination and predestination that can negate the existence of free will. In otherwords; 1. If God foreordains human choices, then humans cannot (A.) choose, (B.) determine, and (C.) regulate themselves independent of prior antecedents/causes. 2. God foreordains humans choices. ( Let us assume that this is true for the sake of argument) 3. Humans cannot (A.) choose, (B.) determine, and (C,) regulate themselves independent of prior antecedents/causes. 4. If humans cannot (A.) CHOOSE, (B.) determine, and (C.) regulate themsleves independent of prior antecedents/causes, then free will cannot eixts. 5. Therefore, necessarily, free will cannot exist. It is also possible to use the word predestine. If we did the conclusion would still be the same. My point is this; It is predestination and foreordination that negates the eixstence of free will. But omniscience does not. Next; Knowing what someone will do (before they do it) does not negate their free will, since knowledge is not a cause and therefore our choices cannot be effects of knowledge. If our choices are not effects of knowledge, then our will is not causally determined by knowledge; Our will is not causally determined by knowledge; If our will is not causally determined by knowledge, then our will is free to make choices that exist independently from prior antecedents/causes; Therefore our will is free to make choices THAT exist independently from prior antecedents/causes. Next let us examine P2. It is as follows: P2. If knowledge exists of the true and unfailing outcome of a choice, then there is no possibility that any choice can be made that does not conform to said knowledge. My response: I agree with this... Indeed if the knowledge of the outcome of our choices eixst, then we can only choose what is consistent with that knowledge. In other words we can only choose what God laready knows that we wil choose or have chosen. However this does not negate free will. For some may say that the implication of that is this: We cannot chnage our choices.. Ofcourse we cannot change our choices on grounds of logic. Consider this; If i chose to throw a ball and if i confiorm my actions to the choice(namely; if i throw the ball), then it is impossible to change my mind and to unthrow the ball. For once the ball has been thrown, then it cannot be unthrown. For the action and choice is irreversible. So if we assume that God has foreknowledge of such an event, then how is it possible for me to change my mind? In otherwords, it is not Gods foreknowledge that makes it impossible to choose contrary to what one has chosen to do and done. For foreknowledge simply means that God knows that i will choose to throw the ball and that i have thrown the ball before i do it. So, if i have done so in the future(that is, if God knows how i am going to exercise my free will), then how can such an act of knowing negate free will? No it does not follow, since how i am going to use my free will is known to God. So if the knowledge of how i am going to use my free will exists, then free will must actually exist. Therefore omniscience does not negate the eixtence of free will. Finally; I am going to present Philips counter argument. It is as follows: To all you atheists who think free will and Gods omniscience are incompatible in the real world, check this. Heres my argument that free will does NOT rule out Gods omniscience. P1. If God is omniscient, then he knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen without error. P2. If humanity has free will, then they have the ability to choose between two or more options according to their own WILLS. P3. If God is omniscient and humanity has free will, then God knows the wills of every human. C. Therefore, the reality of free will does not rule out Gods omniscience. In order to prove my argument false, you must provide a counter argument explaining why any of my premises are false, and explain your counterargument so we all understand your superiority. Next; The argument above is valid and sound. Thus based on everything that i have stated i can confidently say that the atheistic argument has been refuted. I could have presented my own counter argument, but Philips argument has already doen the job.
Posted on: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:34:11 +0000