Free will Argument against Divine Providence

[genkaus]

Your excuse is to make 'libertarian' and 'free will' synonymous. This means your conclusion would read like this:

" C) Therefore, in the worldview of an Abrahamic monotheist there can be no certainty regarding the 'free will' concept of free will's truth at any given point. "

Sounds a bit silly now, doesn't it?

He is not trying to make them synonymous, he is referring to metaphysical libertarian view of free-will

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#M...rtarianism

[MindForgedManacle]

Your excuse is to make 'libertarian' and 'free will' synonymous.

Brakes. I didn't do that at all. I specifically said referred to the libertarian concept of free will. I did not make then synonymous. It's but a description.

This means your conclusion would read like this:

" C) Therefore, in the worldview of an Abrahamic monotheist there can be no certainty regarding the 'free will' concept of free will's truth at any given point. "

Sounds a bit silly now, doesn't it?

Your misunderstood objection sounds silly, yes.

---

Yes, I agree that God does not exist. But I think you're supposed to put your disbelief aside and only judge the logic within the strictures of the argument.

Logic without reason? I may as well sit around at night and do arithmetic with only the aid of my toes (basis for the decimal system????).

Logic is a tool, nothing more. If one of the premises is false, then the conclusion based on the argument can be dismissed (note: the conclusioon may still be true, but not for the reasons given if a premis is untrue).

It isn't to expected of you to actually accept that a god exists; you're being dense. It's just an application of reductio ad absurdum. It only weakens the position of the believer.

[genkaus]

In that situation, you incline people to do certain actions based on some aspect of their nature. If God's interference is akin to that, he becomes morally blameworthy doesn't he? He would then be part of the causal process of evil's creation, and then would be known to have been able to have determined a different outcome at the onset. And that's not something I see Christians or Muslims agreeing with.

Doe he? Assigning moral blame is not that easy, especially when the underlying concepts of morality remain undefined.

For example, I assume that in my given analogy, you would consider me morally blameworthy for what had happened, i.e., one guy putting another in the hospital. But why would you assign the moral blame to me?

My own actions, in and of themselves, were either morally correct (I told the truth all the way) or morally neutral (nothing wrong with putting a crowbar beside my desk). All the immoral choices were made by the other guys.

Is it because my intention was that such a beating should occur that makes me morally guilty? But my ultimate intention was that neither of them should get the job, which could be argued as moral thing.

Is it because I could foresee something immoral happening? In that case a woman who gets raped while walking down a dark alley shares the moral blame for it because she could've easily foreseen it.

Is it because I was the beneficiary of this immoral event and not the victim? Then that would mean that even the company, which ultimately benefits from having me as the manager, should be held morally guilty.

Or is it simply because I was part of the causal chain that culminated in that event? Then that causal chain would cover a lot of other people as well - who all should share the moral blame.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There's actually a fairly well-known concept that human free will cannot exist within the framework of an omniscient being. Attend:

P1 - Any Being who can reasonably be considered God will, by definition, have to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnicreative.

P2 - Omniscience, by definition, requires that there is nothing unknown or unknowable to God.

P3 - From (P2), God knows in advance the actions you will take.

P4 - From (P2), God created the actions you take and the choices which lead to those actions.

P5 - From (P4), there is no action you can undertake and no choice for which you can opt which has not been pre-created for you.

C - Since (P5) you are constrained to act in pre-determined ways by God, you have no free will.

Boru

[genkaus]

There's actually a fairly well-known concept that human free will cannot exist within the framework of an omniscient being. Attend:

P1 - Any Being who can reasonably be considered God will, by definition, have to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnicreative.

P2 - Omniscience, by definition, requires that there is nothing unknown or unknowable to God.

P3 - From (P2), God knows in advance the actions you will take.

P4 - From (P2), God created the actions you take and the choices which lead to those actions.

P5 - From (P4), there is no action you can undertake and no choice for which you can opt which has not been pre-created for you.

C - Since (P5) you are constrained to act in pre-determined ways by God, you have no free will.

Boru

P4 does not follow from P2. Being omniscient does not imply that god created your actions or your choices. Therefore, P4, P5 and therefore the conclusion would be invalid.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There's actually a fairly well-known concept that human free will cannot exist within the framework of an omniscient being. Attend:

P1 - Any Being who can reasonably be considered God will, by definition, have to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnicreative.

P2 - Omniscience, by definition, requires that there is nothing unknown or unknowable to God.

P3 - From (P2), God knows in advance the actions you will take.

P4 - From (P2), God created the actions you take and the choices which lead to those actions.

P5 - From (P4), there is no action you can undertake and no choice for which you can opt which has not been pre-created for you.

C - Since (P5) you are constrained to act in pre-determined ways by God, you have no free will.

Boru

P4 does not follow from P2. Being omniscient does not imply that god created your actions or your choices. Therefore, P4, P5 and therefore the conclusion would be invalid.

My mistake - it follows from P1, God being 'omnicreative'. However, from P2 we can infer that, since God knows (and always has known) the choices you make, you can't be a free agent in any meaningful sense of the term.

Boru

[genkaus]

My mistake - it follows from P1, God being 'omnicreative'.

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

However, from P2 we can infer that, since God knows (and always has known) the choices you make, you can't be a free agent in any meaningful sense of the term.

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

[Anomalocaris]

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.

[Red Celt]

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

[Edwardo Piet]

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".