Conversation from YT I'd like thoughts on:
1 If God's knowledge that (A) "Billy becomes a nurse" is necessary, then (~A) is an impossibility.
2 Billy can only be considered free if (~A) is a possibility.
Therefore, either Billy is not free or God's knowledge is fallible.
Conversation
Changes quite a bit w/ different tense & subject:
1 If John's knowledge that (A) "My Parents had sex in '96" is necessary, then ~A is an impossibility.
2 M.P. can only be considered free if ~A was a possibility.
3 J's knowledge is the direct result of ~A being falsified by M.P.
1
if 3 is equally applicable to God, then is God's knowledge contingent upon our actions/choices?
I feel like that'd raise other issues.
1
1
Take "God" out of the equation, and, neither Billy nor John's parents are free
1
1
What puppeted them? Their brains? Does that mean you would not consider their brains to be 'them' then? I know you don't believe in the self, so I guess you don't believe there is a 'them'. Then to what are you referring to as not being free? Their brains? lol
1
There is an "ego" (self) which is a mental construct. What puppeted them? Biology... chemistry... the same forces that "puppeted" the first DNA molecule to replicate. No airy fairy "god" need be added.
1
Like gravity then, there is some singular force driving all actions towards procreation.
I guess this drive must be present within all organisms, and cannot be rejected.
One way this theory could be falsified is to point to some person or act that was not driven by 'procreation'.
1
Life has one mission: To consume and to reproduce. It is driven by blind, brute force.
1
That sounds like two missions.
1
Replying to
The two are interrelated. Life needs to consume life in order to reproduce more life. It's a vicious circle.