(April 25, 2017 at 12:20 am)Grandizer Wrote:(April 24, 2017 at 10:25 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. Are you really asking me if it is probable that tens of billions people making hundreds of millions of interacting choices each would always choose good? I am highly confident that it is impossible.
How many different ways should I make it clear that I am asking you to demonstrate that it is actually impossible that all human beings would choose good all the time? I don't care for mere expressions of incredulity about the possibility, I want you to demonstrate that it is impossible. If you can't do that, then it's a legit objection that you have not been able to rule out.
To put this in a Biblical way: If Adam and Eve had never eaten from the forbidden tree, would their descendants have inevitably disobeyed God by eating from the tree?
To be free to do good means to be free to do good all the time.
Quote:2. I do not have to show that it is impossible in order to undercut your premise. I have shown that your premise is highly improbable--probably approaching impossible--and that is sufficient to cast doubt on the conclusion.
Steve, if it is at all possible, then this does undercut the argument that God could not have created a better would.
Quote:3. This might be a definition problem of Free Will. This is the one I go by:
Definition: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)
Of course there are internal factors that shape our choices (circumstance/knowledge/memories/beliefs/feelings/etc.). The fact that we decide what to do without any external constraints is free will.
Then that makes you a compatibilist, essentially a determinist. You don't adhere to libertarian free will. But then, how is this a useful type of free will to argue for in the context of this discussion? At the end of the day, compatibilism/determinism implies that you couldn't have been some other way and that therefore every choice you make was predetermined (even if you made the choice in accordance with your preferences, personal experience, understanding of life, etc.). And if everything you do (including your intentions) are predetermined, then why is God punishing anyone for failures that they couldn't have avoided doing? He could've simply created all human beings to be predetermined to not fail and thereby avoid punishment and other repercussions ...
1/2. And how many times do I have to say that it is an atheist argument and all I have to do is undercut the premise that it is actually possible (versus broadly logically possible) that God could create a world were everyone would always choose good. I have undercut with it does not seem possible that such a world could exist. This is an intuitive and reasonable conclusion after observing human history. You do not have a defeater for that objection and that is just one reason the PoE argument fails and no one outside of atheist forums think it is a successful logical argument.
3. No, I believe in dualism. The immaterial mind causes material things to happen. No determinism there. No determinism, no compatiblism.
