That's not true though. If there's a God, and God knows
everything, how does that take away free will? Knowing about it
doesn't change the freedom of the choice. == There's no way for
us to know. We'd never have a God's eye perspective to be able
to test it out. For all intents and purposes, we have free will
because we _don't_ have omniscience. If some other being _does_,
and we do not have their insight, our choice is free from our
perspective. From their perspective? We can't know. They're
beyond us. == That's the trouble. You're not talking about
omniscience as a concept properly. You're talking logic with
aristotle's excluded middle. You're working with an artificial
human construct (logic) and placing a being that is supposed to
be beyond that, and then constraining that being to the human
system you've devised. It's ridiculous. I understand what you're
saying, but you've got the pyramid upside down. == In short,
your hierarchy has: LOGIC (system) OMNISCIENCE (concept) GOD
(hypothetical being) on top. Logic is the god of your system and
reigns with omnipotence. In your system, everything will succumb
to the will of Logic. But logic itself as a system cannot be
questioned in your system. It is the unquestionable thing. ==
That is your axiom. Part of your belief structure. You've put
logic as "beyond belief" and into a category of Absolute Truth.
Untouchable. Undefeatable. This is the role that logic plays for
you. == Actually, I'm agnostic. I don't know if God exists or
not. Probably not. But I know logic is a human system. A very
effective system, but nevertheless, a human system. == Logic did
not fall from the heavens like the hebrew letters of old. Logic
did not construct the Universe from its axioms and proofs. It's
a pragmatic system for sorting things out with. == I am being
logical, but I am using other techniques of rhetoric, for
convincing requires rhetoric, not naked logic. For example, I am
utilizing analogies. I am making metaphors, drawing from one
system and bringing it into another system. I'm painting images
in your mind to convince you that logic is wonderful but not
everything. So, logic is a part of these things, and what I'm
doing in this conversation can be mapped out utilizing some
system of logic or another, but it's better described as
rhetoric. Rhetoric has more convincing power than skeletal
logic. == Indeed, it is very useful. I tend to think of some of
the broader descriptions (that are built up with logic) to
describe it with such as: Don't take things at face value. Be
skeptical of intentions. See if somebody is trying to sell me on
an idea. How are they trying to convince me? How much can I
trust them? This of course related to dealing with people. With
regards to survival when there are no people around to
communicate with, I tend to think in terms of affordances rather
than logic, even though affordance is built with logic. "How
much space do I have to work with? What actions can I take at
present given the situation? What are my capabilities? What are
my tools? What is easiest? What is efficient? What is most
effective?" Things like that. These all involve logic, but they
can be very complicated to map out using logic. ==
