The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?
The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn’t the same as objectively having it.
And if there was a god and he was allowing (in fact, causing) us to believe we had free will, when we actually didn’t, would just create the situation where god had misled us.
I think the best way out is that we do have free will, but god isn’t omniscient (if he exists at all).
The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?
Well that’s the nature of paradoxes, isn’t it? But paradox philosophy is a whole 'nother can of worms and a very long discussion in of itself, though you’ve probably encountered some examples before, such as this one:
The next sentence is true. The prior sentence is false.
It results in an endless loop. Contradictory, yes, yet both sentences still exist, and are sentences.
The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn’t the same as objectively having it.
Yes, true, but the point of that third one is that the result would be the same in the sense that in both cases, humans believe they have free will, and therefore their actions are determined by that, whether or not that path was outlined beforehand by a being we cannot fathom / fully comprehend or not. The actions will still become as they are.
I’ve also heard this third argument combined a bit with the second one as an attempt to better make sense of the paradox (although by doing so, it’s really not a paradox anymore), and that is that God knows all possible paths humans would take, but not necessarily which one / God made infinite path he knows the outcome of but we are free to pick which one we take.
This issue I have with that one is that it’s no longer a truly full omniscient being at that point.
Interesting, thanks.
Addressed the first one on that other comment.
The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?
The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn’t the same as objectively having it.
And if there was a god and he was allowing (in fact, causing) us to believe we had free will, when we actually didn’t, would just create the situation where god had misled us.
I think the best way out is that we do have free will, but god isn’t omniscient (if he exists at all).
Well that’s the nature of paradoxes, isn’t it? But paradox philosophy is a whole 'nother can of worms and a very long discussion in of itself, though you’ve probably encountered some examples before, such as this one:
The next sentence is true. The prior sentence is false.
It results in an endless loop. Contradictory, yes, yet both sentences still exist, and are sentences.
Yes, true, but the point of that third one is that the result would be the same in the sense that in both cases, humans believe they have free will, and therefore their actions are determined by that, whether or not that path was outlined beforehand by a being we cannot fathom / fully comprehend or not. The actions will still become as they are.
I’ve also heard this third argument combined a bit with the second one as an attempt to better make sense of the paradox (although by doing so, it’s really not a paradox anymore), and that is that God knows all possible paths humans would take, but not necessarily which one / God made infinite path he knows the outcome of but we are free to pick which one we take.
This issue I have with that one is that it’s no longer a truly full omniscient being at that point.