(May 14, 2018 at 4:07 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 3:15 pm)Hammy Wrote: If God knows you will do X then that means he knows you cannot not do X. A choice between X and X is not a choice. A choice between X and not X is a choice.

The first sentence is just wrong. It is never the case that "will do" is the same as "cannot not do".

Um... we're talking about an omniscient being that knows you will not not do X. If there is no possible way in which you ever not do X then it makes no sense to speak of X being a choice. Again, a choice between X and X is not a choice. A choice between X and not X is a choice.

Quote: You are adding some unnecessary connection to the definition of omniscience or free will (I don't know which). 

I'm saying a choice between X and X is not a choice. If God knows you will do X then you must do X otherwise you contradict God's absolute knowledge that you will do X.

Quote:In a nutshell, libertarian free will is choosing an action that is not causally determined by factors outside of ourselves. 

And when God causally determines everything...

Quote:Outside knowledge of how a person will choose does not negate the choice. 

If God knows that you will do X then you cannot not do X. How are you not seeing that? If you don't do what God knows you will do then he isn't omisicent. Therefore if X= the action he knows you will take then there is no choice because a choice between X and X is not a choice. Likewise, if God knows you will not do X then you cannot do X because that would contradict God's knowledge that you will not do X. And again, a choice between not X and not X is not a choice. A choice between X and not X is a choice. A choice has to have an alternative. If you have to do or not do one specific thing, if there are no alternative options, there's no choice.

Quote:Compatibilist (which you seem to be) redefine free will into a meaningless phrase. 

I agree with you and I'm no compatabilist.

The compatabilist version of free will is misleading and trivially true. What the compatabilst believes in literally everyone except a total fatalist believes. We agree here, it's misleading nonsense. It's analagous to naturalistic pantheism (without giving the universe), in my mind. Compatabilists will say that incompatabilists like myself are a "Compatabilist in everything but name!" as if that exclamnation means I'm the one with the problem when they just admitted that their own stance on free will is just a label without content. The fact that an incompatabilist can agree 100% without a compatabilist on everything but not call it "free will" shows how meaningless their version of free will is. In the same way that how a pantheist who merely labels the universe as God call yell at the atheist "You're a pantheist in everything but name!" just because the atheist doesn't wish to label the universe as "God". It's just an example of how silly compatabilism and pantheism are (the modern naturalistic kind where "God" is a meaningless label for the universe, I mean. If one believes the universe has a cosmic mind then that's not totally meaningless but believing exactly the same things as the atheist but merely labelling the universe as "God" is totally meaningless. Likewise, believing the same things as someone who doesn't believe in free will does but calling it "Free will" is equally meaningless.

Quote:No, that is not what I said. Either someone is free to choose or one is not. You cannot have a version that only allows a certain set of choices (as you were proposing). That ceases to be free will.

That makes no sense because having the ability to choose doesn't mean having the ability to choose anything. Even if free will were possible that doesn't mean there aren't options that are un-opt-intoable. 

Quote:Again, compatibilism relies on a "quagmire of evasion".

It's meaningless and pointless, yes. That's why I don't call it fee will. It's trivally true and not worthy of the label because it's a 'version' of free will that's not even up to debate. And dodges the real issue.

The real issue is the question of incompatabilist free will, which is incoherent.

When I am saying that compatabilist free will is the only kind that makes any sense... I am NOT saying that it is worthy of being called 'free will'. I'm just saying that the kind that is worthy of the label, the one that we are actually debating, is incoherent.

Compatabilist free will is compatible with determinism. That's why it's called "compatabilsm".

(May 14, 2018 at 7:50 pm)Hammy Wrote: Compatabilist free will is compatible with determinism. That's why it's called "compatabilsm".

Reminds me of a story. Two compatabils were sitting at the dinner table. One compatible turns to the other and says, "I can't stand my Mother In Law!" The other compatible replied, "Well, here. Try some of these potatoes.".....or was that two cannibals sitting at the dinner table?

(May 14, 2018 at 6:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 4:07 pm)SteveII Wrote: In a nutshell, libertarian free will is choosing an action that is not causally determined by factors outside of ourselves. 

Wrong.  That's compatibilist free will.  Libertarian free will is essentially uncaused choice, which is why it's incoherent.

Libertarian free will is only incoherent if you assume the deciding agent is wholly within the chain of physical causes.

---

(May 14, 2018 at 7:50 pm)Hammy Wrote: Compatabilist free will is compatible with determinism. That's why it's called "compatabilsm".

A distinction without a difference.

(May 14, 2018 at 11:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 7:50 pm)Hammy Wrote: Compatabilist free will is compatible with determinism. That's why it's called "compatabilsm".

A distinction without a difference.

(1) A distinction is a difference. (2) "indeterminism" means "non-determinism" so that's a true dichotomy right there.

Not a relevant difference? Sure. But the point is that the kind of free will most people believe in most people can at least see isn't compatible with determinism. It's harder for some people to see it isn't compatible with indeterminism either. And Compatabilism absolutely is compatible with determinism.

(May 14, 2018 at 11:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 6:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Wrong.  That's compatibilist free will.  Libertarian free will is essentially uncaused choice, which is why it's incoherent.

Libertarian free will is only incoherent if you assume the deciding agent is wholly within the chain of physical causes.

No, it's incoherent whether it is or it isn't within the chain of physical causes.

Yep. It's incoherent whether determinism or indeterminism is true. That's the problem. Like I said—it's so incoherent even God himself can't have it.