- #1
moving finger
- 1,689
- 1
Firstly - if this topic has already been debated on this forum then I apologise, and would be grateful if someone could refer me to the relevant thread(s).
If not...
Epistemic Determinism : The incompatibility between infallible foreknowledge and human free will
(sometimes presented as the equivalent Theological Fatalism : The incompatibility between God’s omniscience and human free will)
This thread investigates the hypothesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act renders the act necessary and hence unfree.
Or : If there is a supreme being (God?) who/which is omniscient (ie knows infallibly the entire past and future of the universe) then all human acts are constrained and no human act is free.
The dilemma has attracted much attention in the history of philosophy because both the belief in a being with infallible foreknowledge and the belief in the existence of free will are strongly entrenched in the “world-view” of many philosophers. To give up one or both of these beliefs is difficult and often has many ramifications for one's other beliefs. It is to be expected therefore that many people will go to great lengths to try and preserve their beliefs both in a being with infallible foreknowledge and in the existence of free will.
Can I ask what do forum members think of the suggestion that infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with human free will?
Do you agree, if so why?
Do you disagree, if so why?
Thanks!
MF
(ps I chose to post this topic in Logic rather than under General Philiosophy because the Epistemic Determinism argument is an argument in logic)
If not...
Epistemic Determinism : The incompatibility between infallible foreknowledge and human free will
(sometimes presented as the equivalent Theological Fatalism : The incompatibility between God’s omniscience and human free will)
This thread investigates the hypothesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act renders the act necessary and hence unfree.
Or : If there is a supreme being (God?) who/which is omniscient (ie knows infallibly the entire past and future of the universe) then all human acts are constrained and no human act is free.
The dilemma has attracted much attention in the history of philosophy because both the belief in a being with infallible foreknowledge and the belief in the existence of free will are strongly entrenched in the “world-view” of many philosophers. To give up one or both of these beliefs is difficult and often has many ramifications for one's other beliefs. It is to be expected therefore that many people will go to great lengths to try and preserve their beliefs both in a being with infallible foreknowledge and in the existence of free will.
Can I ask what do forum members think of the suggestion that infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with human free will?
Do you agree, if so why?
Do you disagree, if so why?
Thanks!
MF
(ps I chose to post this topic in Logic rather than under General Philiosophy because the Epistemic Determinism argument is an argument in logic)