Free Will vs Determinism

[ken]

Did you notice if you just answered My questions, then you would be providing the evidence of what you believe. But because you do not answer My questions what do you think others might conclude?

They may conclude as their wits allow them. Some may think a man is shown wiser by the multitude of his words. Some may think pejoratives are a display of insight. People think all kinds of things. The discerning ones may conclude your messages are rather long, and that they appear to take issue with everything. They may wonder if I will respond at that length myself, and ponder whether or not they want to read that much text. And I suspect they'll decide not to. Beyond that, I cannot say.

You say you can not think what human beings think, but amazingly you think that the discerning ones may agree with what you see. That is that my messages are rather long, and that they appear to take issue with everything. What I find truly amazing is that you actually believe discerning people think like you do and that any person who thinks differently are the discerning ones. You may now be wondering how do I know what you think, well the answer is it is obvious by the way you write.

What I can say is that I can't detect the "question(s)" that really matter to you, and I seem to be answering some that aren't your central concern. We should fix that.

Yes and the way to fix that is for Me to explain to you that the questions that really matter to Me are ALL of the ones I ask. I never thought that a human being could not be able to detect that. I thought it would be logically obvious that if I ask a question, then it is important to Me that it is answered. Do you not want all your questions answered?

I'm detecting anger and hostility...which I don't feel in return, but there it is.

All of that anger and hostility that you are detecting must be coming from within you.

However, I confess I'm at some difficulty in finding a reasonable cause for that, or any particular focus for your "questions."

The focus for My questions is so that your answers will highlight the evidence that I am providing and showing.

They seem more to me like shotgun complaints against everything I write...I can't find the place where you want to start.

If that is how they seem to you, then that might just be more a reflection of 'you' rather than 'Me'.

If you can not find the place where I want you to start, then you really are one lost soul. I wanted, and still want, you to start by answering My first question. If you did not try to avoid that question, then you would not be so confused as you are now.

Thus the "tree" you want me to locate is hidden in a "forest" of unrelated things. But if you've got a particular issue you want to address, I'm all go.

The particular issue is the same as the very first one I had and still have with you. That is you making judgmental calls of others and you stating that letting children do as they please means those parents are horrible parents. Surely that tree was not that hard to see. Just maybe if you had not try to avoid that tree and faced the issue head on from the start, then you would not be now lost in the forest. If you had focused on the issue in the beginning, then you would not be now so utterly confused.

By the way everything I write is far more related than you could even imagine now.

[Immanuel Can]

You say you can not think what human beings think...

The reply that starts with these words forms a long message, and is not responsive to my immediate reply to your question. I shall not bother replying to it for that reason.

But if we can get back on track now, what's your response to my reply? I shall respond to that.

[ken]

You wrote;
"Let your children do as they please, and you'll be a horrible parent."

In ALL cases of letting their children do as they please are those parents horrible?

No, of course not.

If "of course not", then WHY write it?

If you did not mean what you wrote, then WHY express it?

(Why would you even assume I meant that?)

Because you wrote it.

Only in those cases wherein the child wants something that he or she does not realize is foolish, dangerous or self-destructive.

Now comes the judgmental call, which is expressed in the rest of what you write here.

But those happen often enough, when one is young. A child may chase a ball into the roadway, or take a tricycle there. A child may prefer to eat ice cream exclusively, to the point of illness. A child may click on every link that catches the eye on the net, or to swallow a candy-coloured pill or drink orange floor cleaner. A child may decide that sharing toys isn't fun, so she should not have to do it, or that hitting others is desirable.

Parents who take no thought for these things, or blithely assume if a child puts his or her hand on the stove it's just "his own fault" are horrible parents.

If you KNOW what horrible parents do and thus you would also KNOW what "non horrible parents" would do and not do, then WHY do you not write the book that ALL parents could and should follow?

I doubt you would disagree with that, if you're a reasonable person: so why the ire? I'm at a loss to know.

If you are at a loss to know why another feels a particular way that you are, remember only, assuming they are feeling, then what do you think is the best thing to do in this situation. Let me guide you along here. Just ask for clarification. By the way this is better done before you actually start assuming anything also.

Anyway, what you doubt here is so totally wrong, and the reason why it is best to never assume. But I am glad you have shown what you doubt, judged Me and pronounced Me as being an unreasonable person. You are proving My findings and your responses are the evidence showing My continual research.

Why the ire you ask? Because you judge others as being less than you and/or inferior to you. You make assumptions, which are totally wrong. You believe things and thus you are not open to anything opposing. You write things, but when I question you for clarification, you then express that of course you did not mean what you wrote down. You believe if people disagree with you, then they are unreasonable people. This last one was a ire I was sub-consciously feeling, but you have now just highlighted the fact of what it was for not just Me but for all of us to see.

You are aware right, that if you guide a child a particular way, then you can let them do as they please, and always let them do as they please, and you most certainly NOT be a horrible parent? In fact that parent may just be a far better parent than you ever could be. Are you aware of this fact? Is this fact even a possible thing for you to imagine? Just maybe your judgmental views are making you a horrible person, and a horrible influence on the upcoming ones who will one day be adults and/or parents? Just something to think about.

Anyway, let me guess here, you believe that you are not a horrible person, and only others could be and are horrible people. Am I right? And remember you answering ALL My questions is what is really important to Me.

[ken]

You say you can not think what human beings think...

The reply that starts with these words forms a long message, and is not responsive to my immediate reply to your question. I shall not bother replying to it for that reason.

But if we can get back on track now, what's your response to my reply? I shall respond to that.

That was OBVIOUSLY not a response to your immediate reply. I have already replied to that in another very simple single, and on track, response. That is just a follow on from your previous response prior to your immediate reply. I hope you are not getting to confused with this. I need you to not get to lost.

That response was just my way of pointing out to others some of the ways you respond. The way you respond is what I need you keep doing in order for Me to be able to show others My research in a purely unadulterated and detailed way. That way is by asking questions, from a truly open perspective, making you (and others) respond the way you and they do. The way you/they respond is the evidence I need to show others how the Mind and the brain work. The responses you are providing is the evidence I need to show and prove for My findings. My research is being done here, which is proving My findings more and more correct. How the Mind and the brain work is being proven and evidenced by My questions AND by your responses. So, I need you to now respond to My response to your "immediate reply", which you said, "I shall response to that".

[davidm]

I happened to be wading through this thread while bored at work and came upon this:

It's got nothing to do with human expectations, that's just a cop-out. If your 'God' is all knowing then 'it' knows everything and as such it knows what you are going to do and if this is the case then you will not be able to do anything else, so you are determined.

The argument here, going back to page 38, is that God’s omniscience precludes your free will because he infallibly knows what you will do; ergo, you must do that thing. It’s an argument sometimes trotted out by atheists against theists, purporting to show that one’s freedom of will, required for the moral responsibility that God demands, is incompatible with God’s omniscience.

But the argument is a logical botch and thedoc is correct when he states “just because God knows what we will choose, does not mean that our choice is not free.”

The argument commits a modal fallacy.

It goes: if God knows in advance that you will do x, then you must do x.

But doing x –- say, choosing eggs for breakfast over y, choosing pancakes –- is a contingent truth. Moreover, in modal logic, it is necessarily a contingent truth: its modal status can never change.

The argument could be corrected as follows:

If God knows in advance that you will do x, then you will [not must!] do x.

This correction is fine as far as it goes –- after all, if God knows in advance you will do x, you certainly will do x, without question –- but it fails to capture some sort of necessity that the scenario implies, and it doesn’t quite capture why you are free to do y rather than x regardless of God’s foreknowledge.

The correct formulation is:

Necessarily, (if God knows in advance you will do x, then you will [not must!] do x.)

The necessity logical operator applies conjointly to the antecedent (what God infallibly foreknows) and the consequent (what you will do) and not just to the consequent. This has big implications.

Using the modal logic heuristic, we can now parse out the possible worlds of this scenario.

There is a possible world at which you do x.

There is a possible world at which you do y.

There is a possible world at which God foreknows you do x, and you do x.

There is a possible world at which God foreknows you do y, and you do y.

But there is no possible world at which:

God foreknows you do x, and you do y.

God foreknows you do y, and you do x.

By “possible worlds” we mean logically possible worlds, and –- in virtue of God’s omniscience -- there is no possible world at which you do x and he foreknows y, and there is no possible world at which you do y and he knows x.

But it is certainly possible for you to do either x or y; the upshot is that if you do x, God will foreknow that you will do x; but if you do y instead, God will foreknow that you will do y.

Omniscience does not preclude your freedom to do x or y; it merely precludes you from fooling God. Your free act –- choosing either x or y –- provides the truth grounds for what God infallibly foreknows. This means that you, by your free act, control what God foreknows; and not the other way around –- that what God foreknows, controls what you will do. Omniscience and free will are thus perfectly compatible.

[Immanuel Can]

Because you judge others as being less than you and/or inferior to you.

I do not. These are not claims I have made.

I have spoken of people's actions, and which actions constitute being a horrible parent. That's all.

You are aware right, that if you guide a child a particular way, then you can let them do as they please, and always let them do as they please, and you most certainly NOT be a horrible parent?

So...which of the examples I actually gave do you now wish to defend?

Do you think it's right for children to be allowed to ride a tricycle on the road? Or to eat only ice cream? Or to ingest someone else's medicine, or floor cleaner? Or maybe it was the idea of letting them put their little hands on a hot stove...

You see, those are the examples I actually gave. You would have to be objecting to one of those. The rest, you're just making up. So in your next message, please tell me which one you think characterizes a good parent.

And remember you answering ALL My questions is what is really important to Me.

It may be to you. It's not to me. A conversation is a privilege, not a right. Nobody has a right to demand anything, let alone to say, "You owe me to chase every side-show and jump through as many circus hoops as I can devise."

But they can speak civilly, ask nicely, or maintain a reasonable tone, and we can discuss anything in order.

If you're up for that, we're good.

[Immanuel Can]

The way you respond is what I need you keep doing in order for Me to be able to show others My research in a purely unadulterated and detailed way.

The welfare of your "research" does not interest me.

[Arising_uk]

The argument here, going back to page 38, is that God’s omniscience precludes your free will because he infallibly knows what you will do; ergo, you must do that thing. It’s an argument sometimes trotted out by atheists against theists, purporting to show that one’s freedom of will, required for the moral responsibility that God demands, is incompatible with God’s omniscience. ...

Actually it's an atheist paraphrasing an argument that theists have been dancing upon pin heads with since it dawned upon them that their 'God's' will appears incompatible with their 'freewill'. Or at least if it isn't then one or more of the big 3 O's are in doubt.

But the argument is a logical botch and thedoc is correct when he states “just because God knows what we will choose, does not mean that our choice is not free.”

The argument commits a modal fallacy.

It goes: if God knows in advance that you will do x, then you must do x.

But doing x –- say, choosing eggs for breakfast over y, choosing pancakes –- is a contingent truth. Moreover, in modal logic, it is necessarily a contingent truth: its modal status can never change.

The argument could be corrected as follows:

If God knows in advance that you will do x, then you will [not must!] do x.

This correction is fine as far as it goes –- after all, if God knows in advance you will do x, you certainly will do x, without question –- but it fails to capture some sort of necessity that the scenario implies, and it doesn’t quite capture why you are free to do y rather than x regardless of God’s foreknowledge.

The correct formulation is:

Necessarily, (if God knows in advance you will do x, then you will [not must!] do x.)

The necessity logical operator applies conjointly to the antecedent (what God infallibly foreknows) and the consequent (what you will do) and not just to the consequent. This has big implications.

Using the modal logic heuristic, we can now parse out the possible worlds of this scenario.

There is a possible world at which you do x.

There is a possible world at which you do y.

There is a possible world at which God foreknows you do x, and you do x.

There is a possible world at which God foreknows you do y, and you do y.

But there is no possible world at which:

God foreknows you do x, and you do y.

God foreknows you do y, and you do x.

By “possible worlds” we mean logically possible worlds, and –- in virtue of God’s omniscience -- there is no possible world at which you do x and he foreknows y, and there is no possible world at which you do y and he knows x.

But it is certainly possible for you to do either x or y; the upshot is that if you do x, God will foreknow that you will do x; but if you do y instead, God will foreknow that you will do y. ...

Except that in either world you will only be able to do the x or y that 'God' already knows you are going to do. Now given this 'God' is omniscient it seems quite consistent that 'it' would know all the outcomes of all possible worlds(excepting of course all the possible worlds were there are no 'God' or 'God's' that is) but if as you say there is no possible world where you can do a y rather than an x without this 'God' knowing it then your will/must distinction is moot as whilst 'foreknowing' sounds cute it is still knowing the future and if 'it' knows the future then what you do in that future has already been predetermined at the past point of 'foreknowing' whether this is microseconds in the past makes no difference, just that it is before the future. All you are saying is that this 'God' of yours knows which inhabitant of every world is going to do in each world and leaves you still with the problem that in each of them you have no choice to do the other, if that is your 'God' is omniscient. I'm quite happy with the idea that 'it' isn't if you are.

Omniscience does not preclude your freedom to do x or y; it merely precludes you from fooling God. Your free act –- choosing either x or y –- provides the truth grounds for what God infallibly foreknows. This means that you, by your free act, control what God foreknows; and not the other way around –- that what God foreknows, controls what you will do. Omniscience and free will are thus perfectly compatible.

I'm perfectly happy if you are saying that this 'God' has not determined and does not determine how the world is going to work out nor does it know what the future holds until it occurs. It's what some of the Churches will get around to in dealing with Physics and Biology one-day as all they have to say is 'God' started it all and is waiting to see how it turns out(without interfering). Or you could argue that reality is like a computational neural-net in that the end result is known but how it gets there is not, but that'll make this 'God' non-omniscient with respect to the a large chunk of the world. I'm happy with that as well if you are. But you are blowing it out of your arse if you think that modal logic will let you escape that you are already predestined to be in the world where you will or must chose x or in the other world where you choose y as in modal logic both exist I'd have thought? As if they didn't then you'd be back in the one world where you can only choose x or y and 'God' already knows which you are going to choose so no choice at all, just a pretense of choice.

[Arising_uk]

You seem to be implying that for a decision to be free it must be decided on the spot, immediately. A decision can be made well in advance and still be freely made, and just because God knows what our decision will be, does not mean that it has been determined, it could still be freely made.

No, I'm saying that if anything infallibly knows what is going to happen before it happens then there is no way for it to happen differently otherwise it is not infallible. Since there is no way for it to happen differently then you are determined to do it that way and you have no choice about it. Now whether it is this 'God' of yours that does the determining is another matter.

[ken]

Because you judge others as being less than you and/or inferior to you.

I do not. These are not claims I have made.

I have spoken of people's actions, and which actions constitute being a horrible parent. That's all.

Are you really that clueless that you can not recognize and see that if you are labelling others as being "horrible" then you are claiming them to be 'less than' you. Making judgments about other's actions and then claiming those people are horrible IS claiming that they are inferior to you.

Do you ever speak of your own actions that make you yourself look like a horrible person also? Do you ever express to others just how much of a horrible person you are?

You do realize that a person does not have to actually stipulate what they are doing, or not doing, for others to be able to actually see what is taking place. By labelling others as "horrible", you are trying to infer others are worse or less than you. You do this because of your of your own insecurities. By judging others in this way, you are trying to feel better about yourself.

You are aware right, that if you guide a child a particular way, then you can let them do as they please, and always let them do as they please, and you most certainly NOT be a horrible parent?

So...which of the examples I actually gave do you now wish to defend?

Are you really still not recognizing anything of what I am saying?

I will state it again, and feel free to ask for clarification if you do not understand anything I say. If you guide children thee right way, then you can allow them to whatever they please AND instead of being a "horrible parent" as you state is the truth, I say they are being a much better parent then you ever could be.

Do you think it's right for children to be allowed to ride a tricycle on the road? Or to eat only ice cream? Or to ingest someone else's medicine, or floor cleaner? Or maybe it was the idea of letting them put their little hands on a hot stove...

The answer is "Yes sometimes" for each of your questions.

You see, those are the examples I actually gave. You would have to be objecting to one of those. The rest, you're just making up. So in your next message, please tell me which one you think characterizes a good parent.

And remember you answering ALL My questions is what is really important to Me.

It may be to you. It's not to me.

You were the one who previously stated that you could not detect the questions that really matter to Me. I informed you that each and every question I ask ALL equally really matter to Me. I was just reminding you here that you answering ALL the questions I ask IS important to Me.

If it is not important to you then that does not really matter to Me. I was NOT unclear of what really matters to you. If I was, then I would have asked you to clarify this. I did not ask so you do not have to tell Me what is not important to you.

You were the one stating A conversation is a privilege, not a right.

Was I?

Can you point is to where I was supposedly doing this?

Nobody has a right to demand anything, let alone to say, "You owe me to chase every side-show and jump through as many circus hoops as I can devise."

Why do you continually try to defer away from the issue? I have never demanded anything that you are alluding to here. You bringing this up is just your way of not answering My questions. No one says you have to answer My questions but it would be considered of you to just make it clear that you do not want to answer the questions.

Trying to make assumptions about My questions is only confusing you and the issue here.

But they can speak civilly, ask nicely, or maintain a reasonable tone, and we can discuss anything in order.

If you're up for that, we're good.

What do you mean if I am up to that? This is all I have ever done here. It is your assumptions and beliefs that is make you see otherwise.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not finding your conversation civil, honest or interesting.

It's got to be at least one of the three, or it's not worth having.

So I'm just not bothering anymore: life's too short. But feel invited to troll elsewhere. There are no fish here.

[ken]

I'm not finding your conversation civil, honest or interesting.

It's got to be at least one of the three, or it's not worth having.

So I'm just not bothering anymore: life's too short. But feel invited to troll elsewhere. There are no fish here.

Asking you to clarify your points of view is NOT trolling, from your perspective of "trolling".

If you can not stand up and support your points of view, then so be it.

You are just another human being to afraid to look at yourself from the fear of what you will find. Running away will not help your cause at all. I have only ever been civil and honest in asking you completely open questions. If you find this interesting or not is another matter, but I know many others will find this extremely interesting. In fact if you were to look at yourself honestly by answering my questions openly and honestly, then what you would have discovered, would have been far more interesting than you could have ever imagined now. You would also have discovered WHO you actually are AND that there was nothing whatsoever to fear at all.

[Belinda]

Arising_uk wrote:

I'm perfectly happy if you are saying that this 'God' has not determined and does not determine how the world is going to work out nor does it know what the future holds until it occurs. It's what some of the Church's will get around to in dealing with Physics and Biology one-day as all they have to say is 'God' started it all and is waiting to see how it turns out(without interfering). Or you could argue that reality is like a computational neural-net in that the end result is known but how it gets there is not, but that'll make this 'God' non-omniscient with respect to the a large chunk of the world. I'm happy with that as well if you are. But you are blowing it out of your arse if you think that modal logic will let you escape that you are already predestined to be in the world where you will chose x or in the other world where you choose y as in modal logic both exist I'd have thought? As if they didn't then you'd be back in the one world where you can only choose x or y and 'God' already knows which you are going to choose so no choice at all, just a pretense of choice.
Top

I agree especially "It's what some of the Church's will get around to in dealing with Physics and Biology one-day" . The churches are well organised institutions and often do good works. When the churches do get around to in dealing with Physics and Biology one-day they will do so by means of taking the doctrines up to speed and then the churches will be more powerful for good. One of the first doctrines to go should be Free Will and other miracles which contravene physics and biology by allowing that God intervenes in nature and history.

Arising_uk wrote;

'God' has not determined and does not determine how the world is going to work out nor does it know what the future holds until it occurs-----"

is deism, and I think that the deism idea is already familiar to most of us.

I had not heard of

reality is like a computational neural-net in that the end result is known but how it gets there is not, but that'll make this 'God' non-omniscient with respect to the a large chunk of the world.

I understand about the lack of omniscience, and I wish that Arising_uk would explain it a little more. It looks to me to be consistent with a God which is omniscient about the creation and the end of the universe but not all-powerful to intervene in natural process. I think that knowledge is necessary for power but not sufficient for power, so God could be silently weeping or angrily ruminating about bad events while being unable to intervene to sort them out.

I'm saying that of God's traditional attributes : omniscience, omnipotence, and absolute goodness, the one that we need to get rid of is omnipotence.

[Immanuel Can]

Asking you to clarify your points of view is NOT trolling, from your perspective of "trolling".

No, it would not be, if that were a fair representation of what you were doing. But you insist on imputing to me motives and feelings I do not have, and you're rude, and your complaints are...well, just boring. And that's the most I can say about it: your conversational style has been, on this occasion, uninteresting. And since, as I wrote to you,

A conversation is a privilege, not a right.

I feel happy to withdraw that privilege solely on the grounds that you are being dull.

Moreover, as for honesty, I see that you modified my earlier statement to read...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 9:21 pm
You were the one stating A conversation is a privilege, not a right.

...which deliberately misrepresents who said what, and feigns a misunderstanding on your part. Then you feigned umbrage, as I I were putting these words in your mouth. I did not, and you know very well I did not. So this was a transparent ruse. I note that you didn't even pay enough attention to remember to change the capital "A" to a small one, so as to conceal your misrepresentation. C'mon, ken; you've got to at least try harder than that, if you hope to fool anyone.

If you can not stand up and support your points of view, then so be it.

Tell yourself this happy story. If it makes you sleep better, go ahead. I'm just dandy with that.

I have only ever been civil and honest in asking you completely open questions.

Lie number 2, right there. While I have refrained from using pejorative language in reference to you, you have been consistently rude. You won't find I've called you one name. Go and look, if you doubt that. Or never mind...you'll just imagine something , impute false sinister implications, or revise what was written again. This stuff is terribly easy to predict. Trolling is such weak dealing.

...there was nothing whatsoever to fear at all.

However, this bit you said is true. You roar and bellow, but It's all, to quote the Bard, "sound and fury, signifying nothing." I find your arguments intellectually toothless...and, I suspect, just plain insincere anyway. I don't think you want an answer, nor do I think you care what anyone says on this particular occasion.

Their worst feature, as I say though, is not the crudity of your misrepresentations or the rudeness of your manner...it's that they're boooooring.

We're going nowhere. So I am happy to part company with you, and to let you go there alone.

[davidm]

Actually it's an atheist paraphrasing an argument that theists have been dancing upon pin heads with since it dawned upon them that their 'God's' will appears incompatible with their 'freewill'. Or at least if it isn't then one or more of the big 3 O's are in doubt.

I'm aware of this. The theists' worries were misplaced. They had nothing to worry about.

Or you could argue that reality is like a computational neural-net in that the end result is known but how it gets there is not, but that'll make this 'God' non-omniscient with respect to the a large chunk of the world. I'm happy with that as well if you are.

No, not at all. Let me reiterate: a God that infallibly foreknows the outcome of all future contingent events, and how and why they will happen, including everything that you and I and anyone else will ever do, is perfectly compatible with human free will. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of logic.

Centuries ago, Maimonides wrote:

…"Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect.…”

This, I think, succinctly captures your own position. But Maimonides was wrong. He did not have access to modal logic.

Maimonides gets the flow of truth-making exactly backward. He thinks God’s foreknowledge compels John to do x, even before John does x. The truth is the precisely the opposite. John, freely doing x, compels, or more accurately, provides the truth grounds for, God foreknowing what John will do.

Now, let me be clear on one point. We are talking about God’s omniscience here, and not his omnipotence. If God, in his omnipotence, wills John to do x, then of course John must do x and has no free will. But we are not talking about omnipotence. If you prefer, you can drop talk of God, and just invoke some abstract Omniscient Agent with infallibly true beliefs about all future contingent events. This is at the heart of Newcomb’s Paradox, and also provides the solution to that paradox.

This issue I am describing is sometimes known as Epistemic Determinism — the (false) notion that knowing ahead of time what someone does, determines that someone do that thing. But Epistemic Determinism is really just a special case of a broader, more inclusive thesis — the alleged problem of Logical Determinism.

This is also known as the problem of future contingents, and goes back to the ancient Greeks. If it is true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, does this mean the sea battle must occur? This concerned Aristotle, who concluded that there are no truth-apt statements about the future; truth-apt statements only become true or false at the time that the event they describe occurs. Otherwise, he fretted, the future is predetermined.

Again, a modal logical treatment of the Sea Battle shows that Aristotle’s concerns were misplaced. Truth-apt statements are indeed timelessly true. If someone uttered thousands of years ago that “Donald Trump will be elected in 2016,” he spoke truly. However, his statement would have had no ontological clout. On reflection, we can see that it is ridiculous to suppose that a statement of this kind uttered thousands of years ago — even though true — compelled the election of Donald Trump in 2016. It might be easier to see this if one removes tensed talk and just sticks with the present. Just ask yourself this question: If someone says, “I see the sun coming up now,” would you imagine that his statement makes the sun come up? That’s ridiculous, obviously. Rather, the sun coming up, makes his statement true.

And Trump being elected makes true a statement describing his election, even if uttered thousands of years ago.

And John doing x makes true God’s foreknowledge; John could have done y instead (John has free will) but if John had done y than God would have foreknown y instead of x.

For a fuller in-depth treatment of the alleged problems of epistemic and logical determinism, I recommend the following article at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Foreknowledge and Free Will,, by Prof. Norman Swartz.

From the article:

Ultimately the alleged incompatibility of foreknowledge and free will is shown to rest on a subtle logical error. When the error, a modal fallacy, is recognized and remedied, the problem evaporates.

Finally, if we extend propositional truth — Correspondence Theory — to the alleged threat of causal determinism to human free will, and couple it with a neo-Humean view of the “laws” of nature, then all the alleged deterministic threats to human free will, will simply evaporate like a water mirage on a highway.

Nor is this even compatibilism. Sure, free will is compatible with determinism, but not in the way that compatibilists argue. That kind of compatibilism is superfluous. As Swartz writes in one of his book, the idea that free will is compatible with determinism (any form of determinism) is as odd as saying that noses are compatible with itches.

For why in the world would noses and itches be incompatible?