Questions for "Our Role(s) as Christians on Atheist Forums"

[SteveII]

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.

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.

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...

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.

You continue to miss my point. You are confusing foreknowledge with middle knowledge. It is not that God knows what you are going to do (foreknowledge), he knows what you will choose to do as a result of perfect knowledge of you and all the antecedents and conditions of your choice (middle knowledge). The key concept is how he obtains that knowledge. He has not seen the future event. He knows the truth of all future subjunctive conditional statements of what someone will freely choose do in a range of circumstances (whether they are realized or not). The mechanics of the choice are still in place. 

Example. I know that my wife will choose chocolate ice cream over vanilla every time. I know that when we go to my daughter's house tomorrow, those are the two options. The fact that I can almost guarantee that my wife will take the chocolate choice in no way infringes on her choice. I further know that if there is only vanilla left, she will almost definitely skip the calories altogether. That is what God is doing--but with a near infinite amount of background knowledge. 

Additionally, I think that God intervenes all the time to bring about circumstances that serve his purpose. Even an orchestrated series of events that guarantees a particular outcome does not change the fact that you freely chose it even though circumstances dictated your choice--because the definition of libertarian free will is that the decision was made using mental processes that were not themselves physically determined. An example of this would be if you were in a voting booth and you have a choice between candidates A and B. But you did not realize that the booth was fixed that if you went to push the lever for B, you would be subjected to a mind control device that would make you vote for A. However, you voted for A on your own. The fact that really you couldn't have done differently under these circumstances does not change the fact that you freely chose A.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

That's kind of the way I understand it. I think everyone agrees that hard determinism means that everything you think, feel and do, is mechanically fixed since the beginning of time. To me, the only thing compatibalism adds is a causally inert epiphenomena whose subjective experience of choice exactly correspond with what would have happened anyway. Both assume that the universe is casually closed. At least the first makes some kind of sense within ontological naturalism.

SteveII, not sure how you conceptualize libertarian free will. As for me, I do not consider the physical universe causally closed, which regardless of how one defines free will is the crux of the matter. Causal closure has some merit in a mechanistic Newtonian universe, but we now know, scientifically, that's not how it is. Those who argue for either hard determinism or its bastard child, compatibalism, are pretty much stuck in the past and making arguments of convenience to close off any consideration of Divine Providence.

Libertarian free will simply views the physical universe as being open to the influences of agents that are not themselves directly subject to causal changes manifest in the physical universe. Those who object will usually say this pushes the problem back; however that assumes that those outside agents are subject to only material and efficient causes, which are the only ones physicalists will recognize. There is no reason to make that assumption which makes the objection to libertarian free just another argument from incredulity.

[SteveII]

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.

That's kind of the way I understand it. I think everyone agrees that hard determinism means that everything you think, feel and do, is mechanically fixed since the beginning of time. To me, the only thing compatibalism adds is a causally inert epiphenomena whose subjective experience of choice exactly correspond with what would have happened anyway. Both assume that the universe is casually closed. At least the first makes some kind of sense within ontological naturalism.

SteveII, not sure how you conceptualize libertarian free will. As for me, I do not consider the physical universe causally closed, which regardless of how one defines free will is the crux of the matter. Causal closure has some merit in a mechanistic Newtonian universe, but we now know, scientifically, that's not how it is. Those who argue for either hard determinism or its bastard child, compatibalism, are pretty much stuck in the past and making arguments of convenience to close off any consideration of Divine Providence.

Libertarian free will simply views the physical universe as being open to the influences of agents that are not themselves directly subject to causal changes manifest in the physical universe. Those who object will usually say this pushes the problem back; however that assumes that those outside agents are subject to only material and efficient causes, which are the only ones physicalists will recognize. There is no reason to make that assumption which makes the objection to libertarian free just another argument from incredulity.

I don't disagree with anything there. I would only add libertarian free will requires holding to a mind/body dualism: mental processes are not simply the result of chemical/electrical processes in the brain. We are something more than the sum of our parts. It is how all of us live and perceive reality. Denying it seems to the intellectual price of ascribing to strong naturalism.

[The Valkyrie]

Have you ever got up to get something from another room, only to step through the door and find yourself in a parallel world or dimension?

[LastPoet]

Have you ever got up to get something from another room, only to step through the door and find yourself in a parallel world or dimension?

Yes, and we were boin.., I mean bump... We were fighting Judo! repeatedly weirdly.

Oh that is a question for the theists?

[brewer]

Question: Should the entire bible be taken as literal, just certain sections/parts, or is it open to interpretation by each individual/sect?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would only add libertarian free will requires holding to a mind/body dualism: mental processes are not simply the result of chemical/electrical processes in the brain.

I'm with you in spirit. I just think the mind/body problem has multiple options consistent with Christian doctrine (not taking into account Calvinist predestination). I do not reject substance dualism outright; I just find hylomorphism more promising. So personally, I wouldn't marry the doctrine of free will to substance dualism since I believe there are other equally valid options. That could be a discussion for another day.

[WinterHold]

Here's Matthew 10: 34 - 36

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

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.

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

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

 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?

My only point is the same I made clear in my last post to you: the bible contains very extreme verses, if we ignored what lies exists in the old testament, we are left with many in the new testaments that being defined as "allegorically" would not serve the purpose of defending the "peaceful" approach suggested.

I'm not convinced that the verse was being "allegorical". If somebody told me that they are going to "bring a sword upon me" if I ever -let's say; eat their food-; I'll understand immediately that they're going at war with me for my action. It's a threat that is not even trying to be implicit. It is terrifying because this is exactly what extremist ISIS Jihadists say and heard repeating in their speeches. "Division of the one house by the sword=fight your own family. With all what the word "fight" might carry from meanings.

Rome was a bad, corrupted empire. But the verses of the bible don't stop at Rome; they extend with nothing to stop them. I don't see the word "except".

There is no other questions in my post; "allegorical" was your personal preference for an answer to the meaning of the verse -and for that I return to say:you personally are a good person for choosing that route-, but not all Christians agree with your interpretation, we had the Crusaders in the past, modern rightists and most importantly: Zionists. They don't like your interpretation at all.

It's a similar case in Islam, as many don't like my interpretations, and some even prefer extreme violent views.

Though hats off for your choice and peace be upon you.

[Edwardo Piet]

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:

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.

Libertarian free will demands more than that: It demands that the universe be both indeterministic and the beings that live in it are able to determine themselves (a contradiction). It both dismisses causes and asks for a special pleading for self-causes in the case of humans (or any beings with a supposed soul). And yet even if the special-pleading were granted it would still be impossible because it would demand us to be self-causing which is completely incoherent.

As Galen Strawson has said, "I'll give you an immaterial soul. I'll give you indeterminism. It does not matter."

This is why libertarian free will is fundamentally impossible in any possible universe:

"You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do." - Galen Strawson

---

I would only add libertarian free will requires holding to a mind/body dualism: mental processes are not simply the result of chemical/electrical processes in the brain.

I'm with you in spirit. I just think the mind/body problem has multiple options consistent with Christian doctrine (not taking into account Calvinist predestination). I do not reject substance dualism outright; I just find hylomorphism more promising. So personally, I wouldn't marry the doctrine of free will to substance dualism since I believe there are other equally valid options. That could be a discussion for another day.

All forms of mind/body dualism make no sense. The problem with dualism is twofold: (1) It posits two kinds of fundamental stuff for no good reason. (2) It gives absolutely no explanation for how they can interact with each other and still in any meaningful way be considered two different fundamental kinds of stuff.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So it cannot be because we dont know how?...that's argument from ignorance, Hammy.