Free will Argument against Divine Providence

[genkaus]

This argument is silly. The attributes of "god" has always been made intentionally slippery and laced with double speak so domineering theists can shift it to cower the gullible whenever they feel the urge, and defensive theists can slide the goal post whenever their apologetics open them to too much ridicule.

You can argue against any appearently interpretation of what theists say about their god, and tomorrow the theists will change the interpretation so as to lead you on another goose chase.

Agreed. But if you choose to engage in that debate today, then you should be familiar with attributes currently being applied.

---

Theology: the debate over the colour of a unicorn's horn.

That debate has already been settled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn_horn

[Red Celt]

That debate has already been settled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn_horn

With the whole "God does not exist" thing, my comparison remains... vis a vis the whole "settled" thing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've actually never heard anyone attribute omni-creativity to god.

Of course you have, though perhaps not by that specific term. If God created the Universe - and the overwhelming majority of theists will claim that he did - then God created everthing, including human choices and actions.

That's debatable, depending on what you mean by a "free agent".

I use the term to mean a being capable of actions not constrained. If God created human actions, then we would have no choice but to act in pre-determined ways. To look at it from the other side, if human beings are able to take actions NOT created by God, then theists need to admit (but they never do) that there are things in the Universe which God did not create.

Boru

[genkaus]

Of course you have, though perhaps not by that specific term. If God created the Universe - and the overwhelming majority of theists will claim that he did - then God created everthing, including human choices and actions.

Not quite. If I built a robot that goes on to build another robot, then I am not the creator of the second robot. Or, in simple terms, if I write a program to solve mathematical equations and it solves a particular equation, then I am not the one who solves it.

I use the term to mean a being capable of actions not constrained.

Unconstrained by what, exactly?

If God created human actions, then we would have no choice but to act in pre-determined ways.

And it remains debatable if god did create human actions.

To look at it from the other side, if human beings are able to take actions NOT created by God, then theists need to admit (but they never do) that there are things in the Universe which God did not create.

AFAIK, they do admit it. As matter of fact, that is the basis of their whole theology.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not quite. If I built a robot that goes on to build another robot, then I am not the creator of the second robot. Or, in simple terms, if I write a program to solve mathematical equations and it solves a particular equation, then I am not the one who solves it.

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

Unconstrained by what, exactly?

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.

And it remains debatable if god did create human actions.

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

AFAIK, they do admit it. As matter of fact, that is the basis of their whole theology.

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

Boru

[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".

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

Either:

1.

We are ultimately fully unconsciously determined.

or

2. We are ultimately entirely undetermined.

Either way there is no ultimate self-determination, ultimate moral responsibility or so called "free will".

I agree, I don't accept it, but you'd be pressed to find theists that don't (Calvinist-predestinationists notwithstanding). Libertarian free will is basically untenable as things stand.

[genkaus]

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

What does "ultimate choice" even mean?

Either:

1.

We are ultimately fully unconsciously determined.

or

2. We are ultimately entirely undetermined.

False dichotomy.

Either way there is no ultimate self-determination, ultimate moral responsibility or so called "free will".

That's only true if "free-will" is somehow contingent upon "ultimate self-determination" - whatever that means.

[Edwardo Piet]

I've argued about this point so many times on these forums that I'm only going to reply once, sorry. It's hardly worth replying at all because I doubt you'll suddenly change your mind. So, I hope that you understand:

False dichotomy.

I merely left out the possibility of being partly determined rather entirely one way or the other for brevity because since neither work at all having a bit of one and a bit of the other (however that would work) does fuck-all too of course.

That's only true if "free-will" is somehow contingent upon "ultimate self-determination" - whatever that means.

Either we are determined or we are not (or partly, which I dealt with above).... and our own self-determination (meaning self-motivation) has to, ultimately, be motivated (determined) unconsciously from somewhere. I hope that you understand. I don't know how you define "free will" but I'm talking about the (non-political) libertarian sense of free will, google it.

[genkaus]

Either we are determined or we are not (or partly, which I dealt with above).... and our own self-determination (meaning self-motivation) has to, ultimately, be motivated (determined) unconsciously from somewhere. I hope that you understand. I don't know how you define "free will" but I'm talking about the (non-political) libertarian sense of free will, google it.

Here's what I do understand. In many ways, free-will is similar to the idea of god. People have a vague idea about what it means and based on that idea, they decide whether or not to believe in its existence. All the specifications and rationalizations are then based upon this belief. And that is why many people end up defending or criticizing a concept of free-will that didn't make any sense in the first place.

The first thing to be answered while considering free-will is what is it that your will is supposed to be free from? Your belief or non-belief in it should be based on the answer to this question.

Within libertarian metaphysics, the answer to this would be causality/determinism. In your words, if an agent's will is ultimately indeterminable - i.e. if we are ultimately undetermined, then our will is free from causality and therefore we have free-will. Whether or not our will is "ultimately self-determined" is not a consideration here.

Your idea of free-will seems to be that it is supposed to be free from everything but the self. In your view, it seems that if a person's will is contingent upon anything other than his self - whether fully determined or undetermined - then the will is not free. So, for you, "ultimate determination" is irrelevant unless it involves the self.

And these are two different conceptualizations of free-will. In my opinion, both definitions, upon closer inspection, render the concept of free-will, superfluous and pointless. However, given the basic difference of definition, your criticism of free-will does not apply to the libertarian view of it.