My responses to the woman would be:

- Smile sweetly and say “Thanks, but she’s already had Satan’s blessing.” Oh, and if she were only old enough to teach how to say ‘redrum.’ And walk away.

- Smile and say “Thank you, but I’m a bit offended by you imposing your religion on us.” And walk away.

- If I were feeling energetic, make up some silly dance and chant, circle around her for minutes (going basically for maximum embarrassment), and then tell her that’s how we do blessings in my religion. If she reacts, tell her I was just applying the golden rule.

No, not every recession-affected person has shopped at Wal-Mart. In fact, there is no reason a rational person would promote that business.

Why did you not expect to find ignorant crazy people at Wal-Mart?

That was one of the holes I was referring to. To restore absolute omniscience requires a larger discussion about the nature of time and space. Julian Barbour’s book “The End of Time” has a thought provoking and attractive perspective on that topic. And there are other ways of arguing the case for omniscience and free-will, I was trying to keep it short. But all that aside, I must emphasize that both the compatibilist and incompatibilist views are logically sound. Since they are mutually exclusive this indicates to me that the problem is defined incorrectly. We are asking the wrong questions. It’s like arguing about what species of dragon live near the edge of the Earth. The question presupposes a flat earth and the existence of dragons. Neither presupposition is true as we now know. Exactly what presuppositions are wrong in the free-will discussion is not yet clear. I find it much more useful when encountering these kinds of conflicts to be open to both sides of the discussion. Being able to mentally move around gives me freedom and insight not available if I get stuck on one side of a paradox. I suggest you experiment with being a compatibilist. Instead of looking at why it is wrong think of reasons why it must be true. You have nothing to lose and a bigger mental universe in which to play.

“I’m not superstitious. But I am a *little* stitious.”

I fail to see how throwing away one prong of compatibilism still supports compatibilism.

Now you’re bringing in quantum uncertainty and chaos theory, which I agree bears more resemblance to the world I see around me.

But I think you are describing a world where God is not omniscient. By bringing in unknowable futures, you are throwing omniscience out the window.

I fail to see how throwing away one prong of compatibilism (omniscience is compatible with free will) by throwing out omniscience, or redefining omniscience to mean “partial, limited niscience”.

I understand we could both argue this until the universe suffers heat death. But I think you’re breaking your own logical suppositions here.

Why don’t you just say that you believe in partial but not total omniscience?

I hope it is clear this is not a logically resolvable discussion. I’m willing to go this one round but suppose you successfully argue till I have no plausible response. That demonstrates I am not able to make a good compatibilist case, but it cannot demonstrate compatibilist ideas are invalid. The reverse is also true. To stump you in this discussion does not make the incompatibilist position less valid. To claim otherwise would make us the arbitrators of reality.

Also I would like to also point out a full exploration of this topic might literally take us to every sphere of human endeavor. This is not a topic to be unraveled in a few paragraphs or even a few pages.

I believe the essence of your argument is Dr Frankenstein created Eve and therefore has compete dominion over her actions and thoughts. Additionally he has complete foreknowledge of her actions therefore Eve cannot make free choices.

As you have pointed out god is absolute in power and knowledge. But Dr Frankenstein has dominion only over Eve not over all existence. Hence Eve is a machine in the shape of a woman. Free-will is not attributable to a machine. (I’ve glossed over huge areas of discussion such as mind, creation (as process not as religion), and duality).

To continue this discussion I will give Dr Frankenstein omniscience and omnipotence over all things. This brings us to determinism and causality. We know from Chaos theory that a deterministic system can be unpredictable. In other words we can know everything about a system and still not be able to predict its action. This is not a human failing but an aspect of existence. It could be said god built surprise into the fabric of the universe. Hold that thought while we look at causality. We know from quantum mechanics that acausality exists. Events can occur out of sequence or without apparent cause. There is some evidence that acausality occurs at every level not just at sub-atomic scales. By implication our perception of cause and effect is flawed or completely wrong. So we have a universe that does not follow cause and effect as we humans demand and is able to surprise even the omniscient Dr Frankenstein.

Yes I know there are holes everywhere and that is exactly my point. For every claim I make you counter, then I counter, etc, etc. Both our arguments can be logical and rational yet we never arrive at consensus. Parallel tracks going to infinity.

If that is your case, for compatibilism, let me propose a thought experiment and see if it holds up. I think where your Onion example falls down is that you didn’t create the onion nor your friend’s taste buds.

Let’s work it this way: Assume I am Dr. Frankenstein.

Let us assume that I have a Creature. A stunning woman I have named Eva. Yes, her hair is very tall and curly, with lightning-white streaks on the sides of it. But otherwise she is quite beautiful.

Now, I have built her. And when I designed her, I was very detail oriented. Some might say I was infinitely so. I designed her taste buds to loath Onions.

I have also genetically designed a variety of onion that is especially loathsome to Eva.

I have also designed Eva’s mind, so that she is extremely reluctant to retry foods she does not like.

I put the plate with the onion in front of Eva.

But that is not enough. As a mad scientist, I also have invented a time-machine. You did not know how multi-talented I am, did you? But anyway, BEFORE I invented Eva, I went forward in time to this very evening and witnessed her refusing that onion. With that knowledge, I then built Eva to loathe onions.

And now, Eva refuses the onion, just as I foresaw AND made certain would happen.

Who is more to blame for the onion being uneaten. Me or Eva? How much of Eva’s refusal to eat the onion is a result of her will, and how much the result of my will?

See, I think where your analogy breaks down is you are postulating finite characters making predictions about others. God supposedly made us what we are. So he made some of us hate onions AFTER he knew that onion hating would land us in hell.

Or so the story goes. Again, not my religion. But at least that’s how I see this controversy.

Yes that is a strong incompatibilist position. I can put myself in that mindset now and it makes perfect sense. This is not about logic or rationality. Your mental presuppositions determine what seems valid and what seems invalid, this happens BEFORE logic or rationality. You might find the experience of a compatibilist mindset enlightening. I cannot explain exactly how to make such a shift but the essence is to be willing to see it and desire the understanding. It is the most elemental, most fundamental application of choice.