(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.

(May 14, 2018 at 3:24 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

---

(May 13, 2018 at 10:13 am)A Theist Wrote: Here is the Christian view of Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God. He is God's regent and He is co equal with God. Jesus is the world's Messiah sent by God. No one comes to God except through Jesus Christ...

Acts 4:10-12, When brought before Annas  the High Priest and questioned by what power a lame man was healed and made to walk, Peter stood before the council and said,.... 


In the Gospel of John 14:6, Jesus Himself said...


In the Apostle Paul's Epistles, He wrote...
 
I Timothy 2:5-6


The Apostle John also wrote in I John 4:14-15


 
And in the Gospel of John, John 20:31


I John 5:

The Gospel of John, John 3:36

So, yes. The Bible has direct verses which show that Jesus is God's Son, sent to be the Saviour and to reconcile all who will to God. In the Christian faith there's no compromise with this. Jesus is the only way to God. All who reject that are disbelievers and will have their reward as disbelievers. Even someone like me, who professes belief in the faith, yet walks contrary to the faith of Christ they believe in, will also be counted among the disbelievers.

---

I'm familiar with the Christian view of Jesus; I wasn't asking about that.

Quote:To answer your last question, yes. The Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the church in Rome that Christians, as much as possibly lies within them, should live in peace with all...

But the Bible has very extreme verses that some quote Jesus himself of saying:

Quote:https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ESV
Matthew 10:34
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Quote:https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ESV
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

I wanted an answer on this precise category of Biblical verses.


Here's Matthew 10: 34 - 36

Quote:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

 The parallel verse to that one is found in Luke 12: 51-53

Quote:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Jesus was speaking allegorically, using the sword as an illustration for division and contention as seen in the parallel verse in Luke's Gospel. Jesus was telling His disciples that just the very preaching of the Gospel would create such a stir that it would divide households, immediate family members, and neighbors. This was evident throughout the New Testament where Christians were railed against by the Pharisees and the Sadducees as heretics to Judaism. Before his conversion, Saul, (The Apostle Paul), had received letters of authority to bind and imprison all who converted to Christ. The preaching of the Gospel was wining converts away from the old faith and that wasn't tolerated by the established religion of the fathers. Now with the Romans, the Empire didn't pay much attention to the Christian faith at first and basically dismissed it as a harmless cult until many in the Empire became converts to Jesus Christ. Christians were then seen as rebels and were considered a threat to the Empire and to Caesar. Christians were sought out and persecuted. The Gospel divided households in that many rejected the preaching of Jesus Christ, holding passionately to the faith of their ancestors while others of the same household rejected their ancestral faith and became passionate converts to Christ. In the Roman world, those who became Christians were seen as traitors to the Empire by other family members who opposed to the faith. Even now the preaching of the Gospel remains a controversy and a dividing factor with many people who passionately oppose the message of Christ. 

From Acts 17.

Quote:17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.

To Deuteronomy 13. It was prophesied in the Old Testament that the rituals, the ceremonies, the Aaronic priesthood with the traditions and the acting out of the law of Moses was going to be abolished and replaced with a new covenant.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

Quote:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The New Covenant is established in Jesus Christ and no one is bound by the rituals and the ceremonies and the methods of punishment under the Mosaic Law. 

How did Jesus handle the issue of stoning transgressors under the Mosaic Law? John 8:1-11

Quote: Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
[b]5 [/b]Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
[b]7 [/b]So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
[b]10 [/b]When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
[b]11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.[/b]

I already answered you before where the Apostle Paul instructed Christians to live in peace with all. Was there something else, a point you're wanting to make?

(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.

Given that you've redefined libertarian free will as compatibilist free will, it makes it all the funnier when you later say:

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

Quote:Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.....Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism.

Wikipedia || Libertarianism (metaphysics)

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.

(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.

Given that you've redefined libertarian free will as compatibilist free will, it makes it all the funnier when you later say:

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

Quote:Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.....Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism.

Wikipedia || Libertarianism (metaphysics)

Fine, I will clarify. However, libertarian free will is not "essentially uncaused choice." It is that the cause is internal mental processes that are themselves not physically determined.