(May 16, 2017 at 10:27 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:(May 16, 2017 at 10:23 am)mh.brewer Wrote: The definition of omniscient god eliminates the possibility of free will. Why do you have a problem with other peoples definitions?
It doesn't eliminate the possibility in the compatabilist sense. But the compatabilist sense is fucking stupid and fucking idiots (i.e. 99% of people) make logically incompetent equivocations rather regularly.
The compatabilist definition of free will is basically just the legal or social definition. It's a construct. It's about holding people responsible because it's better for society in practice even though the truth of the matter metaphysically is the fact that no one can ever do otherwise in precisely the same circumstances. The incompatabilists are right. The compatabilists believe exactly the same thing as the incompatabilists but choose to loosen their definition of free will and merely redefine it. What the compatabilists have is a vacuous label of "free will" added to exactly the same conclusions.
I think all arguments for "no free will" are nonsense. Of course there are actions that humans will take based on past experience, even evolution. That does not eliminate independent actions not constrained by the past.
The christian definition of omniscient god = only the illusion of free will. This is one of the incompatible parts of the fantasy that christians refuse to admit.
I expect we will see some tap dancing soon. It should take the form of, we get to make our own definitions, rationalizations and inconsistencies, it's our fantasy.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
