Argument of theological fatalism
  • Yajur
    31
    A number of philosophers have given arguments that prove that if God has for knowledge of human actions then free will could't possibly exist. The basis of these arguments are simply: If God is omniscient, God cannot be wrong about what human agents will do.

    So now if God has a belief about your future, say the fact that you will eat carbs tomorrow, then you will eat any carbs tomorrow. The only way you can avoid carbs tomorrow is if you have the power to make God's belies false or change the past, which you do not. What's the theistic defense o this argument?

    This argument is outlined with the following premise:

    1. If yesterday God believed that you will eat carbs tomorrow, then you can refrain only if
    a. You can make this omniscient God’s belief is false, or
    b. You can change the past and make make God never have this belief yesterday

    2. You can’t do either of those things.

    3. God believed yesterday that you will eat carbs tomorrow.

    4. So, you cannot avoid eating carbs tomorrow.

    5. So, you are not free with respect to your carb consumption.
    Yajur Options
  • Yajur
    31
    Aristotle gave an objection this argument by denying the principle of bivalence when it comes to propositions about the future. I.e. the statement that you will eat carbs tomorrow is neither true nor false. Now God's omniscience only entails him to know true statements, and since this statement isn't true he isn't obligated to know it.

    However this objection doesn't stand. Suppose I say that there is an overhead wave coming and then my friend catches an overhead wave right after. He will say I was right , but how could my statement have been right if it was never true (denying the bivalence)? So this objection can be further refuted.

    Also there are evidence for claims made in the Bible explicitly stating that God does in fact know the future.
    Yajur Options
  • RegularGuy
    2.6k
    ↪Yajur
    This is precisely why Calvinists don’t believe in free will.
    RegularGuy Options
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    This appears to be an argument o some kind. What are your givens, your presuppositions? For example, it starts with an "if." Why is anyone obliged to proceed past the if?
    tim wood Options
  • Yajur
    31
    "if." — tim wood

    The if in premise 1 is a set up for premise 3 which states God does have beliefs about your future
    Yajur Options
  • SophistiCat
    2.2k
    So, you are not free with respect to your carb consumption. — Yajur

    You are not "free" in one narrow sense, but that sense has little relevance to what we usually think of as exercising free will. Case in point - your own example. Everyone would agree that if you have the luxury to choose what you eat, and no one intervenes to limit your choice, then your choice is free. Now, this is an empirical fact. The task of the philosopher is to make her account of free will consistent with that fact.
    SophistiCat Options
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    ↪Yajur
    The point is that the entire argument has no feet on firm ground anywhere - which leaves the question, why bother with the argument? Why does it matter? And if you're going to make categorical statements like pr. 3, what are your grounds for making that statement?
    tim wood Options
  • Yajur
    31
    this is an empirical fact — SophistiCat

    Is it a empirical fact or quite possibly an illusion? That’s my whole argument.

    And yeah it’s proving no free will in a narrow sense but this argument can be repeated for every action
    Yajur Options
  • SophistiCat
    2.2k
    Is it a empirical fact or quite possibly an illusion? That’s my whole argument. — Yajur

    It is an empirical fact.

    You are going at it backwards. The first thing you need to do is to ask: What is free will? And think very carefully about how you are going to answer that question. Instead, you kind of assume that you know what it means, based on how the words sound to you. And as a result, you end up talking about some simplistic artificial concept that doesn't apply to anything in the world.

    So you proved that "free will" in your sense does not exist. But so what? It's an absolutely useless result, since your sense does not concern anyone but yourself.
    SophistiCat Options
  • BrianW
    999
    So now if God has a belief about your future, say the fact that you will eat carbs tomorrow, — Yajur

    Is this a matter of belief? If God is omniscient then it means He is intelligent in the absolute sense. Doesn't that mean He knows how free-will works and wouldn't bother wasting energy on needless attention? God is omniscient, He knows you will choose what to eat tomorrow or you won't. Either way, there will be a tomorrow with or without you. That is basic God-wisdom. I call it the way things are.
    BrianW Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories