...and now for something completely different: Free Will!

[loverofhumanity]

I am told by many persons that if their god were to stop someone from acting on their desire to hurt another, that said god would be interfering with the free will of the perpetrator. Protecting the free will of the victim is never presented as a priority. Even in cases of sexual assault.

I am curious. If one person were to restrain another, at what point would they no longer have free will? Please note the poll above.

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will​

My understanding is that God does not interfere in the running of our world for better or for worse. He sends us Messengers or Prophets with a code of ethics and morals and guidance on what is right or wrong, good or bad, immoral or immoral but then leaves it up to us to choose our path as individuals and as a society.

We always maintain freedom of choice to do what’s right or wrong, then it’s up to our society, according to ethics it has adopted, to act accordingly. But apart from sending a Messenger usually with a Book, I don’t believe God interferes. He leaves it all up to us the way we choose to live and we’ve already chosen two world wars over peace so it’s all up to us.

 

[Balthazzar]

I am told by many persons that if their god were to stop someone from acting on their desire to hurt another, that said god would be interfering with the free will of the perpetrator. Protecting the free will of the victim is never presented as a priority. Even in cases of sexual assault.

I am curious. If one person were to restrain another, at what point would they no longer have free will? Please note the poll above.

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will​

Why would any act against their desires?

 

[Secret Chief]

Isn't science edging towards saying that free will does not actually exist? If so, that would explain my relationship to biscuits.

 

[Ella S.]

In what way is omnipotence not an answer? An omnipotent being can do anything. Therefore, whatever action is under discussion is one that being is necessary capable of doing..

"Omnipotence" means all-powerful, not unlimited ability, and it's a synonym for "almighty."

It doesn't necessarily mean that one can do literally anything. For instance, most people agree that an omnipotent being could not make a squared circle.

Originally, it mostly referred to someone who has "supreme" or great power. It was often used in reference to people.

So until you know what someone specifically means when they claim that God is omnipotent, it's not valid to assume that they believe that God can do anything.

 

[ppp]

If it is not your feelings or emotions that are causal, then what is?

You said, "Because I can" which merely speaks to ability, not impetus.

 

[ppp]

Not correct.

I am a "Free Will Theist", but I stick to Sai Baba His explanation regarding Free Will. That one is rock solid. This explanation holds no ground

Is this what you are referring to?
How Free is Free Will? - Sai Sarathi
I will give it a read.

 

[ppp]

I just wanted to point out that most theists in this world don't hold that belief. I know you linked to a web pate and it's done nicely, but in my opinion they are too hell-bent to bring God into the picture that they have lost substance. No offence, it's a good website to read up but not good enough because of at least this fundamental error.

Sure. We already recognize that there are different conceptions of freewill and determinism. You brought up compatibilism earlier. My position could come from a place borne of interaction with a self-selected group. Primarily Christians and Muslims. I remain unconvinced that most Christians and Muslims do not share that belief. Even Luther and Calvin ascribed to uncompelled decisions with regards to non-spiritual decisions.

 

[ppp]

I think free will means ability to want freely whatever one wants.

You think that you have the ability to control what you desire? As opposed to how you act upon it?

It does not mean that the person also gets everything he wants, because free will is not the same as omnipotence.

I think you misread. There was no suggestion the humans are omnipotent.

This is why, my answer is in your scenario: Bob loses free will when he dies, not before that. Even if he would be in jail and couldn't do anything, he would still have free will and could want something else freely.

Under the hypothetical that free will exists, I would agree. Which is why I reject respecting free will as a valid reason for a tri-omni god to allow suffering, whether the agent of the suffering is human or not.

 

[ppp]

Nope. Taking one action necessary makes it impossible to take an opposite action. Once God created the physical world he created a situation where he could not do whatever he wants.

That doesn't solve the problem. Given an omniscient and omnipotent god"
Such a being could create any world that they wish.
Such a being would know all events that would take place in the world they choose.
Therefore they chose to create this specific world. Which means that they are necessarily the author of all events that take place in that world. The good. The Bad. The indifferent.

If such a being created this world then he created the event where I would have chicken and waffles at brunch with three of my friends this morning. Those specific friends seated at that specific table in those specific seats.

 

[ppp]

Can god do illogical things?

That depends on your specific conception of god and omnipotence. If you are Descartes, yes.
I don't have a god, so I go with the definition of the person to whom I am speaking.

 

[firedragon]

Sure. We already recognize that there are different conceptions of freewill and determinism. You brought up compatibilism earlier. My position could come from a place borne of interaction with a self-selected group. Primarily Christians and Muslims. I remain unconvinced that most Christians and Muslims do not share that belief. Even Luther and Calvin ascribed to uncompelled decisions with regards to non-spiritual decisions.

Yes you are right. Calvin did preach libertarian free-will or at least some model of it. But orthodox Christianity does not. Even calvinists these days do not even get into this discussion. Orthodox Muslims don't hold to libertarian free-will as well. But I don't where Luther was proposing libertarian free-will. The bondage he spoke of is not libertarian necessarily, it's just that he does not make a proper philosophical case.

Anyway, the issue is most of the people in these faith's don't really adhere to libertarian free-will. They do propose free will.

 

[ppp]

Why would any act against their desires?

That question does not follow.

 

[paradox]

That depends on your specific conception of god and omnipotence. If you are Descartes, yes.
I don't have a god, so I go with the definition of the person to whom I am speaking.

You said omnipotence means being able to do anything including preventing evil and not taking free will in same time, which is self-contradictory.

GOD CAN DO ALL THINGS THAT ARE POSSIBLE - THOMAS AQUINAS
This means that God can't perform logically impossible acts, like drawing a 4-sided triangle. This isn't because God lacks the power but because a logical impossibility isn't really a 'thing' at all. When you state a logical impossibility, you are not really stating anything, not really challenging God to do anything.

Definitions of God - PHILOSOPHY DUNGEON (weebly.com)

 

[Balthazzar]

That question does not follow.

I was suggesting we always act in accordance to our strongest want, or desire. Sure, we can act against them, but the reason is very telling.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Sometimes I'm sure God does strike down the evil. At the very least their deeds will come back to hurt them. It's not karma, it's the natural result of sin.

But why would a loving and compassionate god only SOMETIMES strike down the evil? Why does he let these scumbags assault and murder dozens of innocent little children over the course of their long lives? Is there some reason that god WANTS them out there committing their vile and evil acts? Apparently he does, since he obviously COULD remove them from the equation at any time, but chooses not to. Thus I can only conclude that this is NOT a loving and compassionate god that we're talking about. This is clearly a god who wants at least some of his innocent creations to face evil and suffer.

 

[ppp]

You said omnipotence means being able to do anything including preventing evil and not taking free will in same time, which is self-contradictory.

So if you see a guy trying to molest a kid and you restrain him till the kid can get away you are preventing an evil act. Are you taking away the guy's free will?

 

[ppp]

I was suggesting we always act in accordance to our strongest want, or desire. Sure, we can act against them, but the reason is very telling.

I understood the sentence. I don't see the relevance to my post. The one to which you were responding.

 

[paradox]

So if you see a guy trying to molest a kid and you restrain him till the kid can get away you are preventing an evil act. Are you taking away the guy's free will?

lol yes, what do think "free will" really is?

 

[Balthazzar]

But why would a loving and compassionate god only SOMETIMES strike down the evil? Why does he let these scumbags assault and murder dozens of innocent little children over the course of their long lives? Is there some reason that god WANTS them out there committing their vile and evil acts? Apparently he does, since he obviously COULD remove them from the equation at any time, but chooses not to. Thus I can only conclude that this is NOT a loving and compassionate god that we're talking about. This is clearly a god who wants at least some of his innocent creations to face evil and suffer.

I remember sitting in a tree, rifle loaded, waiting for a deer to come walking through. Venison makes a great meal, and a single deer able to provide a few month's worth of food for myself and family. I gut shot my first buck. It took 2 hours to track him. We found him still alive attempting to lift himself up. I took one last shot.. The bullet hit him in the spinal cord round about the neck area ending his suffering instantly.

That was an evil experience for the deer, and I didn't enjoy seeing him suffer. I learned to aim better to lessen the suffering of my dinner. Evil is part of life. The benevolence of God has nothing to do with it, nor malevolence. Death is part of life, so is suffering. I think the issue comes down to society and what we accept as part of. What's permissible? Why? Why not? Penal systems and law become the vehicle of choice to counter things such as child rapists and murderers, but even then there's a societal demand for due process.

 

[Balthazzar]

I understood the sentence. I don't see the relevance to my post. The one to which you were responding.

Following the line of reasoning is all. Your first sentence speaks of God, free will, and interfering with an assault against someone. The question was about restraint and freewill being robbed. The first would place blame on God, as opposed to perp when onlookers (if any) might be able to intervene, but then safety comes into the picture, famiy, responsibility, courage, etc. Acting against a desire happens often, but never against the stronger desire.