Are you also fideist?

Not sure exactly - I think there are 3 ways one can believe something is true, and act accordingly. Fact, reason and faith. In general the realm of fact is the realm of science - and when stated well is undisputed. Reason is the realm of philosophy, and Faith is the realm of theology. Any truth believed by reason, can not be in conflict with fact, and any truth believed by faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason. Not sure what that makes me.

It is interesting to compare this discussion of free will with Spinoza's proof of God who incidentally avoids the problem of free will in the conception of omniscience by denying free will actually exists.
The argument is the inverse of Anselm's from the point of view of what is possible to imagine. Anselm presents the idea of God as being so hard to conceive that only his existence makes it possible for us to do it. Spinoza presents God as being the easiest thing to imagine but that quality tells us little about either his nature or that of his creation.

I am glad you made this distinction since, for me, this is a far more reasonable belief than, God simply having the power to envision all future. However, this reasoning still doesn’t satisfy the problem of free will. Your prediction of a person choosing a meal over assassination is far different from God knowledge of the choice. The difference between even 99.999% and 100% is where the problem lies.

1. If God has 100% knowledge of our choice, he calculated it from the factors affecting it.
2. Our choice can be pre-calculated in every situation, by the set of factors.
3. You only have one “choice” in every situation (from 2).

This infers that our decisions are direct results of all the factors affecting them. Further, these factors are going to be consequences of other factors that affected them and so on. Resulting in Infinite regress.

Unless we take the Universe to be finite, in which case all actions are just a domino effect set off Big Bang or the day of creation. So accordingly, we would have to say all actions were predetermined and every being as just a cog in a machine.

I am fine with this belief of humans as just biochemical robots, but if you add theism to the picture it adds further contradictions. How would the concept of souls align with this? How do we think about Heaven and Hell congruent with this ideology?

Any truth believed by reason, can not be in conflict with fact, and any truth believed by faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason. Not sure what that makes me. — Rank Amateur

That seems like a dubious claim. Can I not have good reasoning but arrive at a conclusion that doesnt coincide with facts? For example, if someone did a really good job framing someone for a crime? The evidence and reasoning would not coincide with the fact.
If I believe on faith that someone can heal with thier touch, this will not coincide with the facts. I mean, there could be no god, and my faith in god wouodnt line up with the fact. Couldnt I believe in god because god revealed himself to me, granted me powers and declare me his emissary in earth? Couldnt I believe that with no faith at all in that case ?
It seems to me the 3 things do indeed conflict at times.

Not really about Anselm's ontological argument... — jorndoe

As an example of knowledge versus freedom (albeit somewhat distasteful according to some), consider:

1. if Trump knows that he'll run for president again, then Trump will run for president again (traditional definition of knowledge, knowledge implies truth)
2. Trump knows that he'll run for president again ((omni)science assumption)
3. therefore Trump will run for president again (1 and 2)

^{(yes yes, I know, Trump is not all-knowing, and distasteful was mentioned, but you get the gist) :)}

Trivial syllogism, no modal reasoning involved here for example.
We can make it more specific by year, or next election, or whatever, doesn't matter in this context.
We can also replace "run for president" with "not run for president", and the resulting syllogism holds.
Surely he will either run for president again or not (and not both).
Now we may ask: what does that entail in terms of Trump's freedom? ^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}

4. does that then mean that Trump has lost the freedom to postpone a decision, the freedom to make up his mind later?

they say that one should never do today what may be put off till tomorrow — someone

As an aside, Trump may harbor justified belief, which may be true or false. For true it's knowledge. That's the ontological condition, truth.
Also, "free will" is a can of worms all by itself, so I'm trying to avoid that and just go by "freedom" in some sense.

^{(no no, I'm not trolling by mentioning Trump) :)}

It seems to me the 3 things do indeed conflict at times. — DingoJones

Think you are missing my point.

so lets say, i say I believe by faith the world is flat. That just makes me a fool, it does not make faith itself foolish, and it is not the faith making me foolish - it is my ignoring facts that makes me a fool.

Let's next say - by faith alone I won't get a vaccination for something. There is very very reasonable evidence that this vaccination is 99% effective in preventing this illness. That just makes me a fool, it is not faith itself that is foolish, and it is not faith that is making me unreasonable. It is my ignoring reason that makes me a fool.

So my definition of faith is a basis to believe something is true and can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

If you believe something that is conflict with fact or reason - the problem is you - not faith.

1. If God has 100% knowledge of our choice, he calculated it from the factors affecting it.
2. Our choice can be pre-calculated in every situation, by the set of factors.
3. You only have one “choice” in every situation (from 2). — Yajur

I dont see how 100% knowledge over any other percentage matters, thats a question of accuracy rather than of the principal of what I said. Foreknowledge does not affect the choice being made excepting when the foreknowledge is one of the factors in the choice. (Like if you were to change your choice between two doors after learning the door you were going to choose was the wrong one).
2...well I think my point still stands. The set of factors are what the decision is based on, and people only make decisions they think are good (even if they admit its not a good decision, they will be thinking of some other good that will come of it ie i will chop off my arm (bad decision) to escape this death trap (good decision). Again, the predictability of the decision doesnt mean a choice isnt being made. It still is, based on the set of factors as you said.
For 3, I think its better phrased as “you only MAKE one decision in every situation” rather than “have”.
I think by stating it the way you did you are treating free will as something that happens in a vacuum, a sort of magical event absent of the set of factors. I think this is an obviously fallacious way of defining free will, a throughback to when religion dictated the terms so to speak.

Think you are missing my point.

so lets say, i say I believe by faith the world is flat. That just makes me a fool, it does not make faith itself foolish, and it is not the faith making me foolish - it is my ignoring facts that makes me a fool. — Rank Amateur

I feel like I have a good grasp in your point, I just disagree.
Also, I didnt say faith was foolish, you are putting words in my mouth there. All I intend to say is that things believed on faith can conflict with fact or reason.

Let's next say - by faith alone I won't get a vaccination for something. There is very very reasonable evidence that this vaccination is 99% effective in preventing this illness. That just makes me a fool, it is not faith itself that is foolish, and it is not faith that is making me unreasonable. It is my ignoring reason that makes me a fool. — Rank Amateur

This is just a different example, illustrating a different point. I understand that not every example will show a conflict, but some do, and that is enough for your claim to be in error.

So my definition of faith is a basis to believe something is true and can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

If you believe something that is conflict with fact or reason - the problem is you - not faith. — Rank Amateur

I do not think you have made headway in your point, except to attempt to define away my objections. You define faith as not in conflict with fact or reason, then declare faith cannot be in conflict with fact or reason. Again, im not saying there is anything wrong with faith, that's another discussion in itself, but only that its pretty clear to me that faith and fact (i didnt really address reason) can indeed conflict.

So my definition of faith is a basis to believe something is true and can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

If you believe something that is conflict with fact or reason - the problem is you - not faith. — Rank Amateur

You should rethink this. People have faith in all sorts of irrational things. Suggestion: accept what you know by faith AS LONG AS it does not conflict with reason. God's non-existence cannot be proven, so you're position is safe. Philosophers of religion puzzle through various aspects of God, and sometimes change their opinions after rational analysis. If they simply had faith in their view of God, there would be no role for rational analysis.

First, to clarify. I believe that in your arguments, foreknowledge means: “having true knowledge of a future action, event, outcome. God’s omniscient foreknowledge would be having knowledge of all future events, actions, or outcomes” If this is incorrect, please let me know.

I believe that you are mistaking predictions with knowledge of future actions. In your example of the firing squads, you state that you have knowledge that the man will choose the meal and that it is obvious that he would do so. However, this is not representative of knowledge of his choice. You simply would have some knowledge of the person’s possible results and the desires and characteristics of that person. You then are making a prediction about what they will choose. However, no matter how likely your prediction is and regardless if your prediction comes true, it does not constitute of actual knowledge of someone’s choice. Predicting someone’s action, no matter how likely, is not foreknowledge and would not constitute the omniscience that is being referred to.

“My foreknowledge doesnt effect your decision, the factors of the choice do.”

-DingoJones

I also believe that you make a good point that foreknowledge does not have an effect in changing your decision. However, that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that God’s knowledge of a future event excludes all other future events from occurring besides the one He knows is going to happen. There is no changing the factors of the “choice” because God already knows every possible factor and knows what will occur from it. This foreknowledge or knowledge of future events would be precognitive and part of God’s omniscience.
It's not a lack of free will because it changes your present decision or affects your present decision in any way. It is a lack of free will because there is no choice in the action that you make. The omniscience of God excludes other actions other than the one that He knows you are going to take.

First, to clarify. I believe that in your arguments, foreknowledge means: “having true knowledge of a future action, event, outcome. God’s omniscient foreknowledge would be having knowledge of all future events, actions, or outcomes” If this is incorrect, please let me know. — Abecedarian

I think I see where we diverge. I dont think of omniscience as granting foreknowledge directly, I think of omniscience as granting foreknowledge based on infallible knowledge of the present. God would perfectly track the causality, not peek into the future. I think this is clear unless you think omniscience transcends time and space, which I take it you do?

I believe that you are mistaking predictions with knowledge of future actions. In your example of the firing squads, you state that you have knowledge that the man will choose the meal and that it is obvious that he would do so. However, this is not representative of knowledge of his choice. You simply would have some knowledge of the person’s possible results and the desires and characteristics of that person. You then are making a prediction about what they will choose. However, no matter how likely your prediction is and regardless if your prediction comes true, it does not constitute of actual knowledge of someone’s choice. Predicting someone’s action, no matter how likely, is not foreknowledge and would not constitute the omniscience that is being referred to. — Abecedarian

Ya see I think god is just a perfect predictor, because he knows all that is, he can infallibly predict someones choice.

The omniscience of God excludes other actions other than the one that He knows you are going to take. — Abecedarian

I dont think it does, I think that the omniscience only informs. It is knowledge, it can only effect something by being known if it is known by the actor/agent that is making the decisions. Knowledge, regardless of accuracy of the knowledge, possessed by someone other than the agent/actor has no ability to effect the outcome or decision. It is just data, data which indicates certain things, but does not control the outcome as you attest.

Suggestion: accept what you know by faith AS LONG AS it does not conflict with reason. G — Relativist

That is exactly what I am saying, just add fact as well to complete.

I think this is clear unless you think omniscience transcends time and space, which I take it you do?

-Dingo Jones

I am not necessarily sure what may be entailed with omniscience transcending time and space.
However, I certainly believe that God transcends time and space. I would also believe that God’s characteristic of omniscience is not lost due to the fact that He “moves” through time and space. In this way, omniscience itself may not be able to transcend time and space, but God’s omnipotence and omnipresence (which allows God to transcend time and space) allows His omniscience to transcend time and space as well.

I think omniscience is redundant to omnipotence. Everything is. I’ve never really understood why any other attributes would be included in gods description.

Questions to Yajur. (Or, someone having read that posted claim to analysis.)
1. What argument -- do exist-- does not fail?
2. What criterion -- to might exist-- did a failure-success distinction have?
3. What definition -- to only exist-- for contradiction to formulate, in principle, never has incoherence?
4. If and only If Questions [1.], [2.], [3.], have correct answer, then and only then has existence proof -- (thereby not refuting argument from incompatibility to incoherency)?
5. To whose iteration --does exist somewhere in text-- of 'The Ontological Argument' has referral, here?
6. If --indeed-- someone's understanding matters for others to not exist, does 'Yajur' refer nothing not existing to whom has not any understanding of anything (--.Or is an objection not claimed, understood by Yajur)?

Attention about Critique for Incoherency.
Were there an older version of theism, more classical -- there is a most!-- than that which is claimed,
was gender to really make a difference, for purpose of reference, had some one language not one pronoun ? Thusly: What should -- morality or ethic?-- be argued just to never conflict with what would --will or power?-- be argued, means for example that and only that, that morality does co-derive will-to-power, mirrors a thesis so gave earlier, so then subjugation is correct, because an argument might fail? While the Nietzsche is in the background sentiment is appreciated --by the way: this is a judgement & analysis & comment-- what whips about freely is a characteristic belief, for coherency to not have been morally bankrupt, neither to have need to understand when so -- i.e. being morally nil-- why. Rather. Understanding to not exist, thereby "thus fail", could be actually an unpalatable taste, even to follow the remit to dare think for oneself (Dares can always be not followed.) A reply awaits, a whip.