Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
It is funny that you use a website/content, thinking it is in favor of your argument, which clearly shows, that no matter which strain of Compatibilism you use for your argument (they are not exactly compatible with Determinism as we know it), you won't be able to "marry" it with the concept of the Abrahamic God.
How I know this? Because I've studied this discussion and related material for years. Nice coincidence, even though I doubt God made you do it.
The completion of a task ("Creation") has nothing to do with the fact that given a set of rules, only a limited number of outcomes is possible. When that's the case (there is an infinite number of "impossible" Universes/histories of events and an astronomically large, yet not infinite number of possible Universes/histories of events), Compatibilism is still incompatible with the notion of a God as monotheists understand it (or better said, claim to understand it).
A game of "perfect knowledge" (for example chess), gives you an astronomically high number of possible outcomes/move histories, but not an infinite number. Same applies for a deterministic Universe.
At ANY point in the game, ANY possible combination of positions or future moves is known/"knowable". A Creator knowing all moves, setting the rules cannot be expected to NOT know a move in advance, hence no Free Will for ANY "player" to ever make an UNEXPECTED move. DUCY?
No need to grant Free Will, if it is impossible in practice.
Giordano Bruno was literally HATED by the Catholic Church for being the main scientist introducing the concept of infinity into science.
Basically that alone makes it clear, that the Catholic Church doesn't have any devine knowledge.
If you realize how knowing all possible moves during a game of chess prevents you from being surprised (read: never heard of/impossible/unknown move) by ANY move of yours or your opponent's, you will understand how Determinism and the concept of an all-knowing God are incompatible.
Now as far as being deceived into thinking you have Free Will in a created, deterministic Universe; I urge you (because I've seen you quote him before) to read the whole/part surrounding Descartes "I think, therefore I am"-argument, because everyone quotes "Cogito ergo sum", but almost no one read the whole argument which led to it. This is the "I know there could exist someone/something, who knows all the whole cards of all possible hands of poker, but I am in a hand right now and don't know my opponents whole cards, so even if I knew all possible combinations of all possible hands of poker which could ever be played, I don't REALLY know anything beside my hand, the community cards, which combinations of hands the opponents CAN NOT have AND that I am playing poker. No matter if I am deceived by said being and he sees my whole cards and all the whole cards of my opponents, I AM THINKING ABOUT THIS HAND RIGHT NOW and I AM PLAYING, THEREFORE I AM A POKER PLAYER!".
"Cogito, hand history, ergo sum"
DUCY?
If you understand the difference between poker and chess, you will understand the difference between what Theologians/believers claim and what's possible. Chess is not poker and determinism isn't non-determinism.
One is a spectacle (because if we knew all possible chess games by heart, we would just WATCH a certain hand), one is a limited set of variables, with an infinite set of outcomes (you couldn't even know you play the same hand TWICE, even if the community cards were the same, your whole cards were the same, your opponents actions were the same and the outcome was EXACTLY the same).
You are dealt a hand and there is no way you can ask for a different one without changing others' hands (new deck, new hand).
Muck your hand, I have a Royal Flush every single time we play and you don't believe me, even though I show you my cards. DUCY?