(July 20, 2013 at 8:09 am)genkaus Wrote: The problem with this argument is that the concepts involved are too vague and can be interpreted in many ways. For example:
[Premise 1]
That depends on the meaning of free will you accept. What exactly is your will supposed to be free from? Your circumstances? Your past? Your own nature and desires? Others humans? God's will? All of the above?
Depending upon the meaning of free-will one accepts, humans may or may not have free will.
I noted that the kind of free will is the so-called libertarian conception of free will, which can be generalized as the ability to have done otherwise than one did. I think it's bullshit - as does most of the philosophical community - but I'm almost certain that most theistic philosophers accept it since, for Christian theists, it is necessary to stop God from being morally responsible for the evil in his creation.
Quote:Again, debatable. Do you mean here that he set up things a particular way in the beginning or that he interferes for corrections?
Either works for the argument I think. However, if theists choose the first option you listed then they are accepting the compatibilist view of free will which then necessitates God being morally culpable for evil and thus could have determined the world to not have evil; they can't have that, eh? So they've got to go with the 2nd option you listed: that God makes periodic alterations. But that then means that God's alterations will transgress, by virtue of interference, on some agent's ability to have chosen a different action.
Quote:Maybe, or maybe not. Maybe free will simply means that god won't get into your head to alter your will - thus giving you technical freedom from his will but he can rearrange things around you to make you do something. Maybe god set up the dominoes in the beginning and your will right now is the result of them falling - but it is still free form other influences. Depending upon your understanding of the concepts, this may or may not be true.
But then that becomes compatibilism again - or certainly not libertarian free will - then, doesn't it? If God can rearrange the events and circumstances around you to necessitate that you act in some particular way, that's not the libertarian concept of free will that Abrahamic theists so badly need for their theodicies, despite its current conceptual incoherence.
Quote:The problem here is that the concepts can be used in many ways. That leaves a lot of wiggle-room for theists to rationalize their way out of it. And I don't think it can be improved without a lot of debate establishing a definite meaning of those concepts.
I think the argument forces the theist to have to reject the libertarian concept of free will for compatibilism, but that then means they lose [their already fallacy-ridden] theodicies like the free-will defense response to the problem of evil.
Quote:By the way, how long does everyone think it will be before GC pops up shouting "the only free-will you have is in choosing Jesus - nowhere else"? I give it 24 hours.
He probably hasn't seen the thread due to the other threads. xD As soon as he sees it, he'll probably respond... and we'll laugh.
Thanks for the response.
