BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will

============= C1 - Foreknowledge does not prima facie negate free will ============= I don't think Pro understood the nature of this argument. What I've presented is a Frankfurt counterexample, which attempts to show that there is no inconsistency in thinking that both free will and determinism are true. In order to demonstrate that the two are mutually exclusive, Pro needs to give a reason, such as van Inwagen's consequence argument, or the source incompatibilist model. ============= C2 - Molinism ============= Pro has dropped his argument that Molinism isn't viable because God doesn't possess free will. My contention remains unrefuted. ============= C3 - Open theism ============= Pro has given several generic dictionary definitions of omniscience, but none of these are what I would call good technical, philosophical definitions. I explained in the first round that omniscience is knowledge of all true propositions. Stated formally, S is omniscient just in case for every proposition p, if p is true then S knows p. If-then statements are propositions and there is no reason to think that "will" and "will not" counterfactuals are the only kind. As I've already explained, "might" counterfactuals are viable and Pro has not given any reason to think otherwise. I fail to see the relevance of the verses Pro cites. If God directly intervenes, he can change the course of history to bring about a specific future he intends. If anything, the *need* for divine intervention in response to human action *supports* open theism. Moreover, even if Pro is correct, his verses not refute Molinism or compatibilism. Also, note that I am not arguing for any specific God or religion in this debate. The question is whether or not the idea of an omniscient being prima facie negates the existence of free will. I have clearly demonstrated it does not. :: Conclusion :: To sum up, I've given three different theories of free will, all of which are compatible with the existence of an omniscient God. Pro gave a muddled response to my compatibilist account. Molinism, the second version I explained, has gone completely unaddressed. Open theism is the only contention Pro has actually responded to and I've completely refuted his objections. The resolution is negated.
does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will

it is possible that the future is undetermined and God's *(omniscience does not include free choices.)* Webster's dictionary defines God as The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and "OMNISCIENT" originator and ruler of the universe. Webster's dictionary defines omniscient as 1. Infinitely wise. 2. Having universal knowledge; knowing all things; infinitely knowing or wise. 3. Being all-knowing. 4. Total knowledge. In other words, there is nothing that god does not know. If there was something that god did not know he would no longer be omniscient. The being in question would no longer be god. it is possible that the *(future is undetermined)* and God's omniscience does not include free choices. Genesis 22 I swear by myself, declares the LORD, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed... This is clear evidence that god does affect free will and determines the future. For if god makes an event happen and drives various peoples decisions throughout their life time how could they possible have free will. Abraham followed gods ORDER, but then god told him he was going to "MAKE" all of his descendants numerous, and they "WILL" take possession... How can we account for the descendants free will? Keith did not know if his partner would commit the crime or not. "Which makes him not omniscient." He had to alter the physical world in order to ensure what he did not know would happen, would indeed happen. "If your claiming Keith is god then this could be considered divine intervention." Plus, if the mind control device were in his head, limiting his actions to only once course. How could we prove it was his free will or the device. Simply by placing the device there prior to the even is enough to tell you he has intentions to compromise free will. Taking away all other choices and leaving only the one choice or the mind control device does take away free will. If you were running through a maze you could turn right, left, or straight at any intersection you have free will. If Keith comes in and turns the maze into one short straight hall way with no turns then you have no choice to but to travel the only path before you. This is no longer a free will choice, it is the only option. I have more but cant fit it in, see you next round.
does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will

============= C1 - Foreknowledge does not prima facie negate free will ============= Even if we take Pro's criticisms of Molinism and Open Theism as sound (which I will respond to shortly), a deterministic world only rules out libertarian free will; compatibilism is still viable. Harry Frankfurt's view of compatibilism is based on higher-order desires. Higher-order desires are desires about other desires. For example, a drug user may have an immediate, action-causing desire to use drugs, but a higher-order desire to want *to want* to stop. In instances where action-causing desires align with higher-order desires, an an agent acts freely. It's not necessary that an agent have alternate possibilities open to him in order to perform a morally free action. For example, imagine Mick and Keith are partners in crime who've decided to step up their operations and perform a bank job. Mick will hold up the bank and Keith will drive the getaway car. Worried that Mick might lose his nerve, Keith plants a mind-control device in his brain that will become activated should Mick decide not to go through with the act. As it happens, Mick does go through with the job and the device remains inert. Thus, he acted freely, even though no alternative course of action actually existed. ============= C2 - Molinism ============= Pro objects that God himself might not possess free will. This is clearly false. Though God may necessarily will himself to create a world, there is no reason to think that there is only one possible world he could actualize. For example, if there were one more crater on the dark side of the moon, would this negate the optimal qualities of our world? Facts like this are "inert." Depending on the criteria God uses to determine which world to actualize, there could be quantitatively significant differences between the actual world and other possible worlds that are nonetheless inert. Thus, God's choice of which world to actualize was volitional. Pro claims that a God with middle knowledge is not omniscient, yet hasn't given a coherent reason why. He also hasn't shown why an indeterministic world is necessary for free will. On Molinism, free actions are not necessary, but contingent on both God's necessary knowledge and creative volitions. Moreover, as I explained, there are other possible states of affairs a perfect God could have actualized, thus his creative volitions were not themselves necessary. ============= C3 - Open theism ============= My defense of Molinism extends to neo-Molinism. "Might" counterfactuals still possess eternal truth value. Greg Boyd explains: "if God knows it is true that 'John might and might not marry Sue,' then God knows it's false that 'John will marry Sue' (for he might not) and false that 'John will not marry Sue' (for he might)." :: Conclusion :: Even if both Molinism and neo-Molinism fail, we are still left with compatibilism. The resolution is affirmed.
does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will

Remember, we are talking about an Omniscient god. The Molinists view with their 3 separate incomplete knowledge's, (is not omniscient as it has the knowledge exist in separate times) while interesting and brings a new element to the table, does leave some holes in the argument. The Molinists state that god uses two separate knowledge's prior to creating the world. The knowledge of what is law (up vs down) and the knowledge of how you will act in any situation. He uses those two knowledge's to create the world, and all of history as we know it. Therefore he chose in advance what was going to happen based on his decisions. Now if god did indeed know all the "counterfactuals" he would have to create the world at random in order for us to have free will. Another issue is free will came after the creation of the world. God created free will. So free will did not exist before god created it, therefore god (a perfect being) cant have free will, and how could he. If all he does is perfect that leaves only one "ACTION" (not choice) for god to do, and only one order for him to do it in. ("counter argument") ("god does not exist in a time line or this dimension") Then god created all of time and history all at once, or in no particular order which leaves the Molinists view of taking two separate knowledge's and putting them together, THEN creating the world and having a third knowledge a little off. as for Matthew 11:21 (King James Version) Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for IF THE MIGHTY WORKS, WHICH WERE DONE IN YOU, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. This is evidence of divine intervention, where god made and affected the outcome. This is true because god knew the "counterfactuals" and chose to intervene fully knowing what the outcome would be. As for the open theism view, it is only anther view where god is not fully omniscient (therefore not omniscient)
does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will

Thanks, Pro. Free will is an issue I really enjoy debating. ============= C1 - Foreknowledge does not prima facie negate free will ============= If I set a piece of chocolate cake and a rotting, maggot infested fish in front of you and tell you choose one to eat, I already know you're going to pick the cake. However, this does not mean that you didn't choose freely. The issue at hand is whether or not it is *physically necessary* that you will choose the cake. I don't think it is, and I'll explain why in C2. ============= C2 - Molinism ============= Many contemporary theists are Molinists.[1] Standard Molinism is based on the view that God has middle knowledge of contingent truths called counterfactuals. A counterfactual looks like this: If any agent X were in any situation Y, X would freely do Z. If this seems confusing, here's a real world example: If Joe were at Taco Bell, he would freely choose to order a crunch wrap instead of the nacho supremes. Middle knowledge refers to the timeframe of creation. According to the standard Molinist model, it went like this: 1. God's knowledge of necessary, logical truth. 2. God's middle knowledge of contingent truth, such as counterfactuals. --- Creation of the world --- 3. God's free knowledge. God's middle knowledge of counterfactuals influences the type of world that he actualizes. Knowing how all free agents will behave in all possible situations, God (hopefully) creates the best possible world. Thus, God's free knowledge (including foreknowledge) is contingent upon both middle knowledge and the ontology of the created world, therefore an agent's actions are not physically necessary. Evidence for God's middle knowledge usually comes from Matthew 11:21 "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." ============= C3 - Open theism ============= Open theism is an alternative view similar to Molinism that holds God's omniscience does not include knowledge of how free agents will behave. Evidence for open theism is based on the binding of Isaac that takes place in Genesis 22, where God tests Abraham's faith. Omniscience is defined simply as knowledge of all true propositions. Rather than "will" counterfactuals (in situation X, Y will freely perform action Z), open theists believe God has knowledge of "might" counterfactuals: If Joe were at Taco Bell, he *might* freely choose to order a crunch wrap instead of the nacho supremes. :: Conclusion :: Foreknowledge does not pose a threat to free will. This would only be an issue if God's foreknowledge came from the physical necessity of the actions in question. Moreover, it is possible that the future is undetermined and God's omniscience does not include free choices. The resolution is negated. References: 1. http://tinyurl.com...
does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will

I have taken many classes on philosophy (specifically ancient Greek) and theology. The most recent of the two classes were "great ideas of ancient and western thought" and "understandings of love (as all major cultures/religions understand it)" I had a very unique professor who taught in both classes (both classes were taught by two professors teaching the class in tandem). The professor was an Ex-minister who is now agnostic (not atheist) who taught the class from a unbiased point of view. He posed a question that had the class going back and forth for a week. Does the idea that god is all knowing (knows what you did, what your doing, and what you will do) affect your free will. I believe if god is all knowing, it does affect my free will. If god created the world, and put all things in motion, then no matter what I do I am not exhibiting free will as I am a result of his action. God, fully knowing what is to happen, demands that I love him out of my own free will. How can it be my own free will. I have much more to say about the topic but I would first like to what others have to say.
Utter Stupidity

yeah but i'm also a teenager... so of cource i'm gonna screw up! lol but i'm nothing like my mother and i could never see myself hurting my kids as bad as she hurt us! and yeah french fries sound really good right about now thanx for reminding me! ha! (yummy) anyhow i'll try and do a bit better... but as for my jobs... i have to keep them up just for about another year and a half till i can get social security! <3
Utter Stupidity

Are you kidding I love helping you, but it just feels wierd sometimes. You should really help your mom get her life together that way you don't have to work as much I'm just saying you need to get your education and not be working as a full time mom before you end up like your mom I love you and I don't want you to end up like that, but even so there are some times where even you know your little hamster running the wheel took a break for a minute (probably for a couple of french fries) and you do some really stupid stuff!!
Utter Stupidity

ouch!!! lol any how good point ya all i do is sleep and it's not that im stupid as u say i am, it's just the point that i really don't care i mean ya school is important but which is more important saving you'r brothers life making sure he can be all he can be? or should i let him fall and just care about school and myself... he needs me and that's all i can for him right now! he's such a smart kid and just seeing him smile everyday makes life worth wild! i mean i can do my school work and everything during the summer while he's off taking a vacation with his grandparents... and plus next year i'll be in home schools and graduating a year early... i've already got the books and everything paid for i just got to wait till the begining of next year that way i have more time for my brother... and a little bit more time for myself while he's at school! but as for right now he's all i'm worried about... i mean it's hard to explain to a 10 year old why his mommy won't wake up when he crys for her... or why she's never home... and why there is a diffrent guy with her every night! i just have my hands full! i'm sorry! u don't have to help me if u don't want to.... it don't bother me... but thanks for helpin u r a good friend and some day u'll be a good engineer...! <3 ya!
Utter Stupidity

Yeah but whenever I ask you to help with YOUR work you can't even find the answer until I point it out. You could at least try to make an effort, but all you do is sleep and on the off chances you wake up you just want to know where your food is. I understand your situation, but how can you improve your knowledge if you have me doing all your work? Plus you're a blond which means you have literaly no common sense at all. I rest my case...
Utter Stupidity

yeah i admitt i am kinda off edge right now!!! but i'm working two jobs at the age of 16.... and raising a 10 year old ( brother) my mother is an acoholic... and is never around to take care of anyone so my main prioedy is to my family. i don't get home til 3 or 4 in the morning then i get about 2 or 3 hours of sleep and get up for school. school is the last thing on my mind right now i'm sorry to say!!! and ya i have a kid 3 years younger than me doing my work... it's not that i'm completly stupid i'm just stressed and tired so i lean on her for help.... thanx issa! geeze!
rezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same people

I submit that rezzealaux is not the same person as I am. I posit this because if rezzealaux was myself, then he would not challenge himself on this topic. Not only that, but if by challenging himself on this topic, it could reveal himself to be himself. If rezzealaux has two different accounts, then he would not want others to know this and therefore wouldn't challenge himself.
Halo 3 has more gameplay value than most games

I say this because halo 3 can be turned into A. a raving game by making a track on a map and then making a VIP vatiant with one vip and with a car B. it can be a regular shooter. C. it can be somewhat of a survival-horor* shooter with the infection varient and custom map. or D. a sports game courtesy of the geys at roosterteeth. if anyone thinks differently please respond intellegently* *probably spelled wrong*
Halo 3 has more gameplay value than most games

Twilight Princess isn't the same. It has the same CONCEPT as other Zelda's, but its different. Story, concept, everything, even the CHARACTERS are different(with the exception of Epona, Zelda, and Gannon) The same idea goes for Halo, but even to a BIGGER extent. Same enemies, same characters, same style, same controls, same almost everything. Sequals work that way, but Twilight Princess isn't really a sequal, its an addition, since the Zelda story is set up how it is. The errands aren't random, they go with the story. Also, that links to my idea of SIDE QUESTS, which are fun to many people. Also, critics have loved the idea of side quests. And its not most of the time, most of the time, you are in dungeons, and fighting bosses. Hyrule doesn't get boring, according to the critics. IGN talks about how just walking around is fun, because of how big hyrule is. I personally go to older towns for fun, you have the option of doing so, while you don't in Halo. Fishing isn't boring, after you get to certain points, plus, its fun for certain people. Heart pieces do take a long time. Notice in my other speech I said it takes challenge, and adds playability to the game. My opponent brings up the survival horror idea again, but he doesn't meet my definition of LIMITED people. He stated that you can have 10 other teammates. And this graphics argument doesn't relate. I think my opponent got off topic a bit. He said that "Halo 3 has more gameplay value than most games. " And I provided an alternative: Zelda Twilight Princess. This debate is specifically about GAMEPLAY VALUE, not graphics, so ignore that argument. My opponent also didn't mention any of his statements from his first speech, so he has no offense, but the idea of survival horror.
Halo 3 has more gameplay value than most games

I understand where your going with the twilight princess thing but still its the same game for every new installment and most of the time spent playing is spent running around doing random errands* hyrule is huge but this can get boring and once you are halfway through the game you dont even need the horse you can turnto a wolf at will and telleport* you only go back to old towns if you need to fishing is BORING!!! heartpeaces take a LONGtime specail moves are worth it i'll give you that and it can be survival horror in an infection game you could just start out with onle a pistol and just a warthog and ten other teamates and there could be invisible zombies (somehow this has turned into a halo 3 v. twilight princess debate) because of this i need to say: i am a zelda fan but twilight princess but its graphics are just high def. gamecube graphics has no multiplayer options and you cant challenge yourself by putting it on a harder difficulty like before if its wrong then there will be this* (also just a little note halo has acheivements, you can like them or hate them)
Halo 3 has more gameplay value than most games

First of all, I love Halo 3. Its a great game, and one of my favs on the 360. So I'm NOT against it But, I would like to say that Zelda: Twilight Princess has more than Halo 3. 1) The game itself lasts around 30 hours of gameplay, and has a great story. 2) Hyrule is huge, and fun to ride around with on Epona 3) going back to old towns is fun 4) Fishing is great, and adds lots of replay value. 5) Side quests are everywhere, and great fun. Getting all of the heart pieces is also something to do 6) The special moves add fun to the game. Finding them is a challenge. Also, responding to the Halo case. c) I wouldn't say survival horror.(2 r's but its ok) Survival-horror is being put out in the middle of nowhere, with only a few guns. While in halo, you are put with lots of guns, and marines come after quite a while. Thanks for a fun topic!
I beez in the trap- many meanings

I don't think that there is really anything for me to be 'random, but logical and creative' about, because the only actual argument for my case is 'there are no valid explanations for these lyrics'. Rebuttals: Your first argument about Shakespeare basically says that Shakespeare was deciding whether or not to be in the trap. This could be true, but you forgot one key detail: Shakespeare died long before the song was released. There is no way that he could have known about 'I beez in the trap'. Now, if you are saying that Nicki Minaj based their song on Shakespeare, take a look at the lyrics(1). It is highly unlikely that the same person could write that song and make subtle Shakespeare references. Minaj is clearly just rapping for the sake of the rap and the money they make from it. You also say that 'beez' is a reference to 'bees'. The flaw in your argument here is that you assume that the hive is a trap. It is true that it limits the bees, but it's a trade off they were willing to make for the protection. The same goes for the singer, they built their career, and even though their other opportunities may be limited, they were aware of the trade off, and they're satisfied with it. Arguments: 'I beez in the trap' is nonsense. If you look at the lyrics to the song, it is clear that Minaj has ran out of other meaningless phrases to shout into the microphone. It's like interpretive reading. There are tons of people trying to figure out the hidden meaning of the author's words, even when the author's didn't try and hide anything; sometimes adjectives are just adjectives. (1) http://www.azlyrics.com...