Free will Argument against Divine Providence

[genkaus]

Of course you are, in both cases. If you hadn't built the first robot, the second one would not exist. If you hadn't written the programme, then the equation in question would remain unsolved. In either case, it may help to think of youself as a sort of Aristotelean 'prime mover

If you are going to use Aristotelian concepts of causes, then you should better acquaint yourself with them. When we talk about the creator of an object, we are talking about the efficient cause not a form of prime mover. We say that Michelangelo created David, not his mother who gave birth to him without which there would've been no statue. We credit the creation of the painting to the painter - who happens to be the efficient, i.e. the direct cause of the painting. We do not credit its creation to his ancestors. Similarly, in the cases laid out, I'm the creator of the robot and the program, but not of the second robot or the solution. This is a very important distinction to be recognized.

By anything. Whether you are chained to a wall, confined to a wheelchair, or have your decisions pre-planned for you, you are not a free agent, in the sense that you cannot act freely.

Then you have just made the concept of free-agent superfluous. Any agents actions are always constrained by reality, by his nature and by himself. Which means regardless of whether or not god exists, you've just declared that existence of a free-agent is a logical impossibility.

No argument. But it creates a tremendous headache for those theistic structures who claim that God created everything.

Once again, I've never heard theists claim that.

Really? You can point to an Abrahamic theism which makes the claim that God created some things and not others?

Sure. Ask any theist here if god created sin and I assure you that the answer would be a resounding "NO".