This is disjunction; it says that either event X happens or event X doesn’t happen. In Classical Logic, there is simply no way for this statement to be considered false, there is no excluded middle or alternative track to take. To deny this would like denying A = A. So now consider this story:
In the pre-existence it was true that in the future Bob Loblaw would either accept the Gospel or reject the Gospel before going through the veil and participating in the mortal experience.
If it is true that Bob would accept or reject the Gospel before he actually made the choice, then we cannot say Bob freely chose the Gospel, rather it was predetermined that he would and could not change it otherwise.
This is a restatement of the problem that god's omniscience prevents the 'free agency' of each man and woman to make a choice.
To force the square peg into the round hole, Mormon explainers have tried to put limits on god's knowledge of the future or omniscience generally. Sort of like KevinSim's recent thread entitled, What Does Omnipotence Mean?
Other Mormon explainers argue that god's omniscience does in fact include what our choices would be, and concede that this means we as individuals cannot choose differently than what god knew we would/knows we will. They denigrate the mortal experience to more of one of our each learning about ourselves and coming to realize what god already knew--what each of us would choose and thus where we each should be assigned in the hereafter eternity. This mortal experience, as their argument goes, does not actually include free agency, because god's omniscience precludes our free agency, and it is simply our ignorance about ourselves that is unfolding before our very eyes as we go through this mortal life.
If it is true that Bob would accept or reject the Gospel before he actually made the choice, then we cannot say Bob freely chose the Gospel, rather it was predetermined that he would and could not change it otherwise.
To what degree of probability was it known that Bob would accept or reject the Gospel?
I just disproved your argument. The problem is not that black and white arguments are wrong because of shades of grey, but that it's not a true black and white argument until the argument can be completely reduced; it's a question of resolution. While one can always give a correct answer, one may or may not have enough information to give THE correct answer.
MrStakhanovite wrote:Here is a true logical statement:
X v ~X
This is disjunction; it says that either event X happens or event X doesn’t happen. In Classical Logic, there is simply no way for this statement to be considered false, there is no excluded middle or alternative track to take. To deny this would like denying A = A. So now consider this story:
In the pre-existence it was true that in the future Bob Loblaw would either accept the Gospel or reject the Gospel before going through the veil and participating in the mortal experience.
If it is true that Bob would accept or reject the Gospel before he actually made the choice, then we cannot say Bob freely chose the Gospel, rather it was predetermined that he would and could not change it otherwise.
I don't agree, if I'm understanding this correctly. Your prediction is merely saying that something will happen, and then giving options that happen to cover all possibilities. Nothing in what you said implies foreknowledge.
It would be like saying:
In the pre-existence it was true that in the future Bob Loblow would flip a coin, and either it would come up heads or it would come up tails.
Does this statement imply that the future coin flip's results would not be random?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
God is Lord over free agency. If the following is true:
God >> Free Agency (God is infinitely more powerful than F.A.)
Then free agency is near zero at the level of God. In other words, there is no free agency in God because he knew Bob (bless his soul) would not make it back.
But mortals work on a different level where:
Mortal < Free Agency (free agency is more powerful than the mortals)
Sethbag wrote: Your prediction is merely saying that something will happen, and then giving options that happen to cover all possibilities. Nothing in what you said implies foreknowledge.
This has nothing to do with God or what knowledge God has.
Sethbag wrote:It would be like saying:
In the pre-existence it was true that in the future Bob Loblow would flip a coin, and either it would come up heads or it would come up tails.
That is exactly what I'm saying. What this shows is that there is a future state of affairs, which implies some kind of determinism, which then makes the kind of incompatible free agency LDS theology needs hard to come by.
If it was already determined that Bob would or would not accept the Gospel before Bob was even organized, much less passed through the veil, then his accountability disappears.
bcspace wrote:To what degree of probability was it known that Bob would accept or reject the Gospel?
There is only one probability in play, and it is 1.
bcspace wrote:I just disproved your argument. The problem is not that black and white arguments are wrong because of shades of grey, but that it's not a true black and white argument until the argument can be completely reduced; it's a question of resolution. While one can always give a correct answer, one may or may not have enough information to give THE correct answer.
sock puppet wrote:This is a restatement of the problem that god's omniscience prevents the 'free agency' of each man and woman to make a choice.
It is a stronger problem, because it doesn't even involve God, so we don't have to play around with what God does or doesn't know, or say the same kind of stuff Quark just posted about God being a lord over free agency.
One of the components of Free Will that Mormon/LDS theology needs is a future that does not exist, because agents need to be held morally responsible for their actions.
God will draw unto himself those whom he HAS given to Christ. The manner in which this drawing is accomplished would stagger the imaginations of men, even today. Regardless how dynamic and even tragic the means of bringing a chosen son or daughter to the covenant the actual making of the covenant remains the free will choice of the event candidate who must close the deal and make the whole heart choice. This is free agency. Without it there would be no virtue in the covenant.
It is the choice which God savors and makes possible a joy of unspeakable triumph that endures forever and ever. That the majority fail makes it all them more precious and vital. Thank you, with due tears, due tears, due tears.