RE: Free will Argument against Divine Providence
August 6, 2013 at 4:24 pm
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2013 at 4:36 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(August 6, 2013 at 3:08 pm)genkaus Wrote: Its not a question of what I think because I haven't given my own view of free-will.You objected to mine though. Your objection is a question of what you think.
Quote: You seem to be taking the close-minded view that somehow you have stumbled onto the right definition of free-will - that you understand what the concept means and that is the only possible view and if that form of free-will does not exist, then no form of free-will can exist.
Where did I say that? And why should I care what "seems to you".
Quote:Basically, if your will is causally determined, then you don't have free-will. If it isn't, then you do.
This ignores hard incompatabilism.
Quote:Once again, this isn't my opinion, it is the libertarian view of free-will. Which means that yes - within the Libertarian view, indeterminism = free will.
And that is where Libertarianism loses to the arguments of hard incompatabilism.
Quote:As for pessimism - their view is that the Libertarian view of free-will, that is, the view that you have free-will is your will is free from causal determinism, is incorrect. My answer to that is - nothing. I'm not a Libertarian. I do not subscribe to their view of free-will. So I don't need to spend my time defending it.
Then you are just wasting my time with pettiness. I guess I subscribe to pessimism and you subscribe to pettyism.
EDIT: Plus, the idea that Libertarianism is merely the view that free will is the absence of determinism and that chance alone is free will is only one version of Libertarianism. Some libertarians believe that ordinary chance is enough for the will to be "free" (even though randomness has zero effect on ultimate responsibility of actions for human beings, which is why many people are so interested in the free will debate in the first place) but many don't. Many believe that mere randomness is just as unfree as determinism (and of course it is, either way we have no more ultimate responsibility of action), and yet we still somehow have "free will".
You know why the free will debate is important in the first place... right?
