What do you mean by "free will?"

[Enoch07]

You're free to disagree of course but you have yet to explain how your version of free will can exist in a cause and effect universe. I've already clearly stated that I don't believe in spirits, magic, or the supernatural. Therefore siting the bible and your god to me as legitimate sources of information to back your claims is a lost cause. I consider your bible and god nothing more than ancient superstitious myths that are no more relevant to reality than myths about Thor and Zeus.

I didn't cite the bible. The serenity prayer is not in there.

Regardless if you believe, if you fail to see the wisdom of the prayers message that's on you.

 

[Enoch07]

Provide another idea that is actually supported by logic and evidence and I will consider it. So far, theists that argue for "free will" have provided NOTHING to support their arguments but wishful thinking.

As opposed to evidence free will does not exist?

 

[Willamena]

If you say this then it means we have different understandings over what libertarian free will means ( or entails ).
I am going to present the framework I am using, and then you present yours: Libertarian free will is, by definition, the capability of self-determination despite any facts that could determine what an agent would choose to do.

If one can predict with absolute certainty what a free agent is going to do then that entails there are facts that determine what a free agent is going to choose to do. Which means such an agent is not free at all, not in sense of libertarian free will. Therefore, free agent actions' must necessarily have a certain degree of unpredictability.

In re-reading this, I spot an error: if libertarian free will is self-determination despite determinism, then nothing determinism entails can possibly impact it.

 

[Koldo]

In re-reading this, I spot an error: if libertarian free will is self-determination despite determinism, then nothing determinism entails can possibly impact it.

Depends on what you mean by determinism and by 'impact', doesn't it ?
If determinism is akin to having a jar full of white balls then a single blue ball is sufficient to entail the jar no longer represents determinism. Determinism can't 'impact' libertarian free will because they can't coexist in the first place.

 

[Willamena]

Depends on what you mean by determinism and by 'impact', doesn't it ?
If determinism is akin to having a jar full of white balls then a single blue ball is sufficient to entail the jar no longer represents determinism. Determinism can't 'impact' libertarian free will because they can't coexist in the first place.

But if one exists despite the other, they already do co-exist.

 

[Glaurung]

We and the universe will live in is made of material, energy, and space-time that function and interact in set ways that can be observed, measured and thus we can make accurate predictions about it. To say there is no evidence for a material universe is complete and utter nonsense.

That's not what I said.

I said that your determinism is predicated on a notion you cannot prove; that notion being that there is no reality beyond matter and its interactions.

And this belief of yours is based on something more than wishful thinking?

It was a gradual thing, but I embraced Catholic Christianity because reason, experience and the inner testimony of my conscience lead me to it. Your incredulity that anyone could possibly reject your metaphysical assumptions without self-deceit aside.

We are still us. Even if free will is an illusion I'm not going to just lay down and die. I still feel. What purpose does denying reality serve?

If material causality is all that exists, then "you" won't do or deny anything. You will only think and act as causality plays out.

 

[Koldo]

But if one exists despite the other, they already do co-exist.

As I have said, it depends on what you mean by determinism. As I see it, determinism is not the mere existence of some events determining other events in a cause and effect relationship. It is also the absense of events that do not follow this rule. It is the absence of events not determined by previous states.

 

[Willamena]

As I have said, it depends on what you mean by determinism. As I see it, determinism is not the mere existence of some events determining other events in a cause and effect relationship. It is also the absense of events that do not follow this rule. It is the absence of events not determined by previous states.

And all that I am saying is that "despite" probably isn't the word you wanted to use.

 

[Koldo]

And all that I am saying is that "despite" probably isn't the word you wanted to use.

Why not ?
I have said '...despite any facts that could determine...'. Could, but do not.

 

[Apologes]

Originally, I didn't intend to make a response to the last post as it was completely focused on refuting the idea that God knows future free actions, which I take to be a red herring and replying would put me in an ungrateful position of having to offer an apology for not answering an opponent's question. Seeing how many people have decided to jump on this issue, however, I feel like explaining myself since I think the last few exchanges perfectly illustrate why the issue is (while certainly fascinating and worth talking about) irrelevant here.

The reason I say this can already be seen partly in my previous post in which I said the problem of evil presupposes God's knowledge of future evils (if God did not know what evils will occur then the problem of evil cannot get off the ground since then God is not in fact responsible for these evils occuring as he simply didn't see them coming). Koldo, ofcourse, responds to this but in a completely unsatisfactorily way:

Actually, if one has to drop omniscience to maintain the other two attributes then the problem of evil has been successful.

The problem of evil itself is silent on regards to free will. But the thing is: There is no contradiction in being omniscient and not knowing what can not be known ( such as what free agents will choose to do ). My contention ( at least the only one you are trying to address ) has to do with your particular answer to the problem of evil that involves the free will defense and God being able to achieve the utmost balance of good and evil.

The first paragraph obviously misses the point. What I'm talking about is not the theist rejecting God's omniscience (or knowledge of future events) in order to escape the problem of evil, rather it is that the theist (or an atheist) who already believes that God's knowledge is limited with respect to evils that will occur will not be in any way affected by the problem of evil as all the proponents of the problem know that very well, hence why they themselves presuppose that God's knowledge is not limited in this way which means that He is responsible for not preventing these evils. Instead of being successful, the problem of evil is just irrelevant in this situation.

The other paragraph (atleast the part which doesn't propose a view of omniscience that is irrelevant to the problem of evil, which is actually just the first sentence) says that the problem of evil is silent on free will. I'll grant you that but while a general discussion of the problem of evil does not require any mention of free will (calvinists also disagree with the problem of evil yet their doctrines don't allow them to believe in free will), the one who presupposes free will is the OP himself. This thread wasn't stated as a general discussion of the problem of evil but was a complaint that a very specific answer (using free will), even when granted that free will is true, still fails to satisfactorily explain away the problem for (so it is said) it does not deal with the first and the third step of freedom when it comes to evil.

Therefore, in the context of this thread (and my posts so far) both free will and God's knowing of future evils (which, granted free will, occur because of that free will) are presupposed and all I aimed to show was that there was no objection offered by the OP which managed to show that this particular answer fails to satisfy. At the very least, this is how I take the thread and under which framework I constructed my replies and the idea at which these replies were directed . Even if the OP meant it some other way (in which case he'd be advised to word his threads more clearly) I feel disinclined to suddenly drop the way I answered so far and shift to (supposedly out of some sense of duty) a topic which I wasn't particularly interested in discussing (indeed, one which is completely independent of the problem of evil and which deserves to be approached on it's own merit).

 

[Willamena]

Why not ?
I have said '...despite any facts that could determine...'. Could, but do not.

What sort of facts could support determinism but do not?

 

[Koldo]

Originally, I didn't intend to make a response to the last post as it was completely focused on refuting the idea that God knows future free actions, which I take to be a red herring and replying would put me in an ungrateful position of having to offer an apology for not answering an opponent's question. Seeing how many people have decided to jump on this issue, however, I feel like explaining myself since I think the last few exchanges perfectly illustrate why the issue is (while certainly fascinating and worth talking about) irrelevant here.

The reason it is not a red herring is because it directly addresses your rationale, your answer. If this matter is irrelevant then your answer was irrelevant in the first place. This is up to you to decide.

The reason I say this can already be seen partly in my previous post in which I said the problem of evil presupposes God's knowledge of future evils (if God did not know what evils will occur then the problem of evil cannot get off the ground since then God is not in fact responsible for these evils occuring as he simply didn't see them coming). Koldo, ofcourse, responds to this but in a completely unsatisfactorily way:

The first paragraph obviously misses the point. What I'm talking about is not the theist rejecting God's omniscience (or knowledge of future events) in order to escape the problem of evil, rather it is that the theist (or an atheist) who already believes that God's knowledge is limited with respect to evils that will occur will not be in any way affected by the problem of evil as all the proponents of the problem know that very well, hence why they themselves presuppose that God's knowledge is not limited in this way which means that He is responsible for not preventing these evils. Instead of being successful, the problem of evil is just irrelevant in this situation.

The other paragraph (atleast the part which doesn't propose a view of omniscience that is irrelevant to the problem of evil, which is actually just the first sentence) says that the problem of evil is silent on free will.

You ignore how it is possible to prevent evil coming from free agents without foreknowledge over their choices. This is a major mistake on your part. Humans wouldn't be able to ever prevent evil coming from free agents if foreknowledge was absolutely necessary.
Therefore, God's knowledge can be limited this way and the problem still be applicable.

I'll grant you that but while a general discussion of the problem of evil does not require any mention of free will (calvinists also disagree with the problem of evil yet their doctrines don't allow them to believe in free will), the one who presupposes free will is the OP himself. This thread wasn't stated as a general discussion of the problem of evil but was a complaint that a very specific answer (using free will), even when granted that free will is true, still fails to satisfactorily explain away the problem for (so it is said) it does not deal with the first and the third step of freedom when it comes to evil.

Therefore, in the context of this thread (and my posts so far) both free will and God's knowing of future evils (which, granted free will, occur because of that free will) are presupposed and all I aimed to show was that there was no objection offered by the OP which managed to show that this particular answer fails to satisfy. At the very least, this is how I take the thread and under which framework I constructed my replies and the idea at which these replies were directed . Even if the OP meant it some other way (in which case he'd be advised to word his threads more clearly) I feel disinclined to suddenly drop the way I answered so far and shift to (supposedly out of some sense of duty) a topic which I wasn't particularly interested in discussing (indeed, one which is completely independent of the problem of evil and which deserves to be approached on it's own merit).

To be fair, it is you who has chosen the direction our conversation has headed. You have refused to properly reply my other points of contention back then which dealt with the OP, and insisted that you couldn't further elaborate on your view to address my statements. The only point which you have replied dealt strictly with your specific answer to the problem of evil, and I am showing you how it is impossible for God to achieve the utmost balance of good and evil in a world of free agents. If you wish to further discuss the other points, and actually engage in a conversation about them rather than merely stating your argument and going away pretending my points have been addressed, you are free to do so.

 

[Koldo]

What sort of facts could support determinism but do not?

I am afraid I don't understand your question. Or rather the point you are trying to make with it.

 

[JustWondering]

As opposed to evidence free will does not exist?

Fact 1: The brain is where our thoughts and emotions originate and the brain is a physical organ.

Fact 2: Physical things in our universe (like human brains for instance) are bound by the universes laws which include cause and effect.

You need to refute one or both of the above facts to support that our thoughts and actions are not predetermined by past events.

 

[JustWondering]

I didn't cite the bible. The serenity prayer is not in there.

Fair enough.

Regardless if you believe, if you fail to see the wisdom of the prayers message that's on you.

The thread is about free will, not the serenity prayer, let's stay on topic.

 

[Enoch07]

You need to refute one or both of the above facts to support that our thoughts and actions are not predetermined by past events.

LoL

Someone is afraid of being responsible for their own thought and actions!

You continue to hide behind your pointed finger. Because it's always someone or something else's fault why you did the bad thing.

 

[Enoch07]

The thread is about free will, not the serenity prayer, let's stay on topic.

It's relevant. It's a good way to help people who struggle with free will deal with it.

 

[JustWondering]

LoL

Someone is afraid of being responsible for their own thought and actions!

You continue to hide behind your pointed finger. Because it's always someone or something else's fault why you did the bad thing.

I find it amusing that you label yourself as being rational, yet when I provide you with a logical argument you respond with an emotional outburst instead of a reasoned rebuttal to my actual argument. Which is all you can really do since you have NOTHING to back up your position but wishful thinking.

 

[JustWondering]

That's not what I said. I said that your determinism is predicated on a notion you cannot prove; that notion being that there is no reality beyond matter and its interactions.

The problem with your premise is that if free will originates from something beyond the material world, it still needs to interact with the material world, and such interactions would be visible and measurable in the material world. No such observations have been made to suggest something beyond the material world interacts with it, in a way to suggest souls/spirits exist. So claims about anything that cannot be observed like souls, gods, ghosts, aliens, and big foot should be taken as just claims until actual evidence is provided. The alternative, if you are being fair and unbiased, is to believe every claim about anything, until it is disproven or proven.

It was a gradual thing, but I embraced Catholic Christianity because reason, experience and the inner testimony of my conscience lead me to it. Your incredulity that anyone could possibly reject your metaphysical assumptions without self-deceit aside.

I can come off as a jerk sometimes and I'm not trying to be a jerk with my next question. How is your belief that Jesus was real and walked on water really any different than an ancient Norseman's belief that Thor threw lightning? From my perspective both are myths. I give as much credence to Jesus as I do Thor or Leprechauns, they all have the same level of credible evidence backing them up.

If material causality is all that exists, then "you" won't do or deny anything. You will only think and act as causality plays out.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Enoch07]

I find it amusing that you label yourself as being rational, yet when I provide you with a logical argument you respond with an emotional outburst instead of a reasoned rebuttal to my actual argument. Which is all you can really do since you have NOTHING to back up your position but wishful thinking.

You are projecting.

You are the one using wishful thinking. Because you refuse to accept responsibility for your own actions. You wish to blame it on the universe or whatever keeps you from accepting the responsibility of your own actions. Your "logic" is nothing but a mere cop out.