Free will Argument against Divine Providence

[genkaus]

Did you already miss that it was clear what definition I was talking about in the first place?

P1) Humans have free will to choose otherwise than they did (libertarian).

They have ultimate choice in a non-random self-determined way? I think not.

---

The other definition doesn't deal with the issue that some people believe in the shitty libertarian definition anyway, it merely deals with the obvious; so your definition is futile, in my opinion.

Did you miss the point where I indicated the difference between your definition and the Libertarian definition?

No, it is not clear which definition of free-will you are talking about.

Are you using the Libertarian definition which requires only the option of "choosing otherwise" and the requirement of it being "ultimately self-determined" is unnecessary? In this case, your criticism does not apply.

Are you using your own definition which requires free-will to be "ultimately self-determined"? In which case, your criticism would apply, but that's irrelevant because that wasn't the point of the thread to begin with.

I provided a third definition to illustrate the point that your criticism applies to your definition of free-will and not any other definition - including the Libertarian definition.

You are merely talking about the fact that our will has relative freedom AFTER it is fully determined ultimately entirely. So what? Everyone believes that apart from idiot fatalists. Even full blown determinism doesn't imply fatalism.

Trivial compatabilists. The "you" that is your personality and identity is ultimately entirely unfree, (but yes indeed, so what? However many people do find this important and believe otherwise like free-tards and that's what matters... that's the serious part of the debate (the part that isn't petty).

Yes you are free to act as your will wills... guess what? Of course! That's why it's called your will! It does all that for you anyway!! That's what it's meant to do either way! That's the whole point!

Compatabilism. Compatabilism. It's a diversion from the debate based on pedantic, trivial, futilism, fucking compatabilsm. Waste of time.

Except, its not compatibilism because determinism is irrelevant to my definition of free-will. My definition of free-will was "freedom to act according to your will irrespective of how that will came about". Being determined by past events was just one possibility. Our will may just as easily be determined by random quantum fluctuations in the brain and my definition would still apply as long as we are free to act accordingly.

And the point of providing that definition was to show how your criticism only applies to your definition of free-will. In a non-deterministic universe, my definition of free-will would be compatible with and inclusive of the Libertarian definition of free-will. And since your criticism does not apply to my definition, it does not apply to all possible interpretations of Libertarian free-will. Which means, your criticism only applies to your own narrow interpretation of the Libertarian position.

---

I'd say free will is the freedom to act on ideas, principles, etc.-- in other words, to process the universe through your own unique symbolism, and to impose that symbolism ON the universe to some degree.

This implies the reality of a self somehow distinct from the rest of the universe (which we obviously all accept since we're talking about people in exactly this way). My problem with determinists is that they constantly mix coneptual realities (for example, about people, feelings, etc.) with objective realities (physics and chemistry). There's no bennyboy in physics or chemistry; the physical reality is just a bunch of particles vibrating in space, and energy flowing through various channels and routes. Particles do this EVERYWHERE, and energy does this EVERYWHERE; bennyboy is an arbitrary concept.

Rather than regarding them as two distinct realities, I see them as aspects of the same reality which become evident when it is considered at two different levels. Its the difference between considering parts and considering the whole.

The best analogy that illustrates this difference is between software and hardware in a computer. If you are doing piece by piece analysis of the computer, then all you are going to see are small electric pulses being sent to and fro. At this level, "software" does not exist. It is only when you consider the operation as a whole that the existence of software becomes evident. This does not mean that the two are distinct - as in, separate and independent from each-other. A particular software cannot exist without a specific arrangement and operation of the hardware and the changes made in those electric pulses would effect a change in the software. Similarly, if the software is altered by the interaction of two or more programs, then that results in a change in hardware as well. And this is why the existence of software would not be just an arbitrary concept.