So we're going full circle on the free will debate, I see.

.

@mdk The ability to make decisions that you were not forced to make.

The gardener didn't force the apple tree to grow apples. The apple tree simply grew apples, as the gardener knew it would.

So we're going full circle on the free will debate, I see.

I feel debating something this philosophical, won't do well with using meme's and without links/thoughtful consideration. So I'm basically pressing the "nope" button on this one. :D

.

@mdk The gardener did force the tree to grow, because the apple tree has no choice but to respond to its environment in ways that the gardener can already predict and control. In the same fashion, a deity that created everything and knows everything forces us to act as they dictate, because they set us and our environment up in ways that would produce results they can predict and control.

It's a simplification to demonstrate a concept, which is this: the tree does anything the tree wants to do. Without exercising control over the tree, the gardener can benefit the tree without the tree's knowledge or comprehension. In what way does this infringe upon the tree's free will?

It's a part of a plan, yes, its ends are predictable and known, yes. None of that matters to the tree. The tree just trees, in the way that a person persons.

If the predictability of outcomes precludes free will, then you don't need an omnipotent being to destroy your free will. If that's true, there's no such thing as free will in, say, socialism, or a cancer ward. But I don't buy that.

.

@mdk The tree doesn't do whatever it wants without being forced, because the gardener controls and knows everything about the tree and its environment.

Have you ever tried to control a tree?

.

@mdk We're talking about a hypothetical tree gardener that controls and knows everything about a tree and its environment. If you're not, then your analogy doesn't accurately describe the relationship between creation and its omnipotent and omniscient creator.

No, we're talking about whether or not knowledge precludes free will, unless you changed the convo on me.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity If I created you and your environment, all while knowing everything you will do in advance, how can you have the ability to freely make your own decisions?

If you wanna talk about CONTROL interfering with free will, that's a totally different conversation. I can probably still do it with gardens and trees though.

@catchamber

You never said you would influence it; done, that simple. The criteria you gave me there says nothing about your proposed or projected interference. You never stated anything about my inability to make my own choices and by implication you are suggesting I do have free will.

You merely know anything I will do, meaning no matter what individual choice I make, you can counter it. I however, because I have free will, can still choose. The choice is not an illusion either, it is just that you will still be able to act or react to it. As simple as an example I could give you is if I choose red, you know to choose blue. If I pick the apples, you chose the oranges. If my starter type was Fire, yours is Water.

I was still allowed to choose, but an all powerful thing will always out play you every time.

Now it is my turn.

Make a case for how or why people do not have free will in the context of the Christian God who we were talking about. Since you seem to know it so much better than the rest of us, reveal to us your theological exploit for which there is no rebuttals any of, believers or non-believers, could argue from our own doctrine.

Also, feel free to use as many words as you deem needed for it. I am not one to make arbitrary requests just for convenience.

On another note since we were talking about the Russian investigation, the probe might be legally dead and the case over. No less, the rumor is that it is to be addressed next week, perhaps Friday in some official format, meaning we might get to know something on it. Regardless of what it is, this is another nail in the coffin for this investigation's sloppy attempt.

.

Excellent work dodging the point, @catchamber, kudos for the form, but I am awarding you nothing for it. You continue to repeat yourself and ignored the contrarian challenge. You have your answer, in as simple as words as I can put it, so if that is insufficient then I suggest you find someone else to explain it; I cannot boil it down any further than, "You can make any choice you desire but the outcome is always accounted for and used to their benefit." Instead you harp on have total control than exercise total control.

That said, enjoy speaking to yourself on this in an infinite cycle. I am confident this will be another one of those cases where any argument we make, it will be insufficient for you because of some arbitrarily chosen "flaw". As for me? Consider that my parting shot on the matter.

<Snipped quote by mdk>
Omniscience alone doesn't infringe on another entity's free will, unless the omniscient being interacts with the other entity.

Okay, that's all I was trying to demonstrate with the previous analogy.

From the very beginning, I've said that an omnipotent and omniscient being creating everything makes it impossible for whatever that being creates to have free will.

Wellllllll does it though? If the gardener above was also a scientist who created the seed, how does that change the tree's life? That's still leaving omnipotence out of the equation..... okay. Let's say you encounter a tree in a garden, and it turns out it was planted by the groundbreaking tree biologist Treebert, who genetically engineered the seed and planted it. He's never pruned it, he's never messed with it really -- well when it was just a little baby tree, he put up some stakes to sorta guide it along its early growth in ways that he knew were healthy for it. But ever since then it's been growing on its own. He doesn't even water it anymore, because he knows it's getting enough from the rain. He could prune it, water it, shape it, etc.... but he doesn't. Treebert pretty much leaves the tree alone. Does the tree have, uh.... tree will? And if not, why is this different from the previous tree?

.

@mdk The analogy doesn't parallel the relationship between God and their creation, because God created everything. An accurate parallel would be a scenario where a gardener created a tree and its environment from nothing.

You're changing it up on me again. A minute ago this was about creation AND omniscience overriding free will, now it's supposed to be a God allegory.

Alright.

Treebert starts a class in his greenhouse, teaching people gardening. Treebert knows it all, I mean take it to whatever logical extreme you need in order to satisfy your *ahem* latest requirement. And in this greenhouse, he has total control over every environmental factor -- again, whatever logical extreme you need.

Instead of looking at the trees, let's look at the students.

Now, we've established that Treebert can nurture one hell of a tree, but these students, well, they're all types. Some of them have that green thumb, some don't. Treebert's advice to all of them is the same -- and it's, I mean, it's coming from Treebert, it's pretty good advice, the guy knows trees, he literally wrote the book and passed it out to all the class. The book tells you exactly what you need to do to help your tree grow. Each student gets genetically-engineered Treebert seeds, and they get to use his greenhouse gadgets to pretty much control their tree's environment (they're all in the same greenhouse, so there's some overlap with temp and whatnot), and they've got the guidebook that flat-out tells them how to do everything to grow a tree.

Do his students have "free will" in this scenario? Bear in mind, Treebert wrote the curriculum, wrote the book, and owns the greenhouse and the trees, and if he wanted to, he could step in and take over the gardening duties.

.

@mdk My criticisms with your previous analogies have been consistent. If you disagree, you should reread our entire exchange.

Well yeah, they've all been two-line quips that move the goalposts followed by "try again," there is a sort of consistency to that.