...and now for something completely different: Free Will!

[ppp]

lol yes, what do think "free will" really is?

I have already provided a working definition on the OP. What do you think free will really is?

 

[ppp]

Free will has not been lost if one traps oneself in a vault. One can choose to leave the vault. If one chooses to leave the vault and is unable to leave because the door closed behind them, one still has the free choice to leave even if one is unable to solve their problem.

That is internally consistent.

Have you ever tried to help someone but no matter what you did you could not help? God will not allow anyone to interfere with the lessons of another. It's just like the vault. One has the free will to choose regardless of whether that choice can be accomplished.

What you think god will or will not do is irrelevant to whether a god is able stop someone from taking an action without abrogating their freewill.

Did I miss the box to check where it said Bob never lost his free will or was there no way to answer the question correctly?

Nope. I didn't really care about anything after Bob died. But I will take your answer into account.

 

[ppp]

The first would place blame on God, as opposed to perp when onlookers (if any) might be able to intervene, but then safety comes into the picture, famiy, responsibility, courage, etc.

Yes. I would place the blame for not interfering on every onlooker who could interfere, with minimal or no risk to their own safety, but does not. Every. Single One.

 

[ppp]

Knowing and causing are very different things

cool. I will read it after I get setted in from travelling

 

[QuestioningMind]

Again you can ask the same question about any suffering. Why is it only about children?
Does that mean God wants every other sort of suffering? Many adults suffer from cancer or mental illness or an abusive spouse. Also, if God delivers everyone from suffering he would deliver the murderer too.
And the Christian belief is that he will eventually deliver anyone who comes to him in faith.
But for now we make choices that determine our path for good or evil.

I suppose the question could apply to all suffering, but I'm asking about a specific example. I'm asking why if god can intervene to prevent evil and suffering does this god refuse to intervene to prevent the suffering of 11 children after a child murderer kills the first one? Originally you said that it was because of free will, but then I pointed out that simply giving the murderer a heart attack after the first murder would not deny the murderer his free will. The only conclusion I can reach is that this god had a desire for the 11 other children to suffer the murderer's abuse.

 

[ppp]

. Molinism addressed this by deciding God created the best of all possible worlds. So then, two options were available: God could have not created anyone, knowing many would do evil, or he could create anyway, on account of the good that would also happen.

That god is not omnipotent. A god that cannot create a world in which humans can live, but diseases never arise is not all powerful.

 

[Balthazzar]

Yes. I would place the blame for not interfering on every onlooker who could interfere, with minimal or no risk to their own safety, but does not. Every. Single One.

Opening scene Boondock Saints -

 

[ppp]

Opening scene Boondock Saints -

I don't talk to Tamarians.

 

[Alien826]

@Policy
Bob walks into a vault with an open door. At what point does he lose his free will?

You did not have the option I would have selected. I would select that Bob never lost his free will at any point.

That would be the final option ... not until he dies, which is "never" in terms of his life span.

 

[Alien826]

Again you can ask the same question about any suffering. Why is it only about children?

I think people tend to word these examples as applying to children because children are typically seen as being innocent. To me, it applies to anyone that didn't so anything to "deserve" the bad thing that happened to them. And I put "deserve" in quotes in full understanding that there is a wealth of discussion there too.

 

[Alien826]

I have already provided a working definition on the OP. What do you think free will really is?

That's the question isn't it? I''l start with what I think it isn't, relative to this discussion, and see where that goes.

- It's not being able to do anything at all. In that case, nobody would have it.
- It's not being able to do anything that we are capable of. In that case, people's free will would vary by individual. A paraplegic should have as much free will as a healthy person.
- Though the deterministic argument seems logical, I don't accept it. My best reason is that all the mechanisms we have to make decisions form part of a system that selects between options. That's good enough for me.

So, is it the ability to form the will (make a decision) to do things? Maybe.

Is a person who is temperamentally prevented from doing something less free than someone who isn't? I don't think so, as our character can be seen as part of our decision making process, and in a sense a person's rejecting, say, rape has made a decision in a way.

I don't have a final answer, but it's somewhere there. Overall we don't have total free will, so if God limited our free will some more we would still have the same kind of free will we have now, just more limited.

 

[Willamena]

Okay, why is Bob carrying an open door as he walks into the vault?


Edit: Anyway, Bob's free will isn't dependent upon the circumstance. He had free will before he entered, he has it as he enters, and after.

 

[ppp]

That's the question isn't it? I''l start with what I think it isn't, relative to this discussion, and see where that goes.

- It's not being able to do anything at all. In that case, nobody would have it.
- It's not being able to do anything that we are capable of. In that case, people's free will would vary by individual. A paraplegic should have as much free will as a healthy person.
- Though the deterministic argument seems logical, I don't accept it. My best reason is that all the mechanisms we have to make decisions form part of a system that selects between options. That's good enough for me.

So, is it the ability to form the will (make a decision) to do things? Maybe.

Is a person who is temperamentally prevented from doing something less free than someone who isn't? I don't think so, as our character can be seen as part of our decision making process, and in a sense a person's rejecting, say, rape has made a decision in a way.

I don't have a final answer, but it's somewhere there. Overall we don't have total free will, so if God limited our free will some more we would still have the same kind of free will we have now, just more limited.

Not bad at all.

 

[Willamena]

I am told by many persons that if their god were to stop someone from acting on their desire to hurt another, that said god would be interfering with the free will of the perpetrator. Protecting the free will of the victim is never presented as a priority. Even in cases of sexual assault.

I am curious. If one person were to restrain another, at what point would they no longer have free will? Please note the poll above.

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will​

I disagree with theopedia, or at least I would have to have the argument explained to me.

I agree with "...for if our choice is determined or caused by anything" (i.e. besides ourselves), "it cannot properly be called a free choice.

I do not understand the leap to "Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature...." and "always means that one could have done otherwise," et al. The leap makes no sense.

 

[ppp]

I disagree with theopedia, or at least I would have to have the argument explained to me.

I agree with "...for if our choice is determined or caused by anything" (i.e. besides ourselves), "it cannot properly be called a free choice.

I do not understand the leap to "Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature...." and "always means that one could have done otherwise," et al. The leap makes no sense.

I disagree with it too. The underlying foundation of LFW is that the will is completely uncaused. That choices are (or can be) made independent of one's nature, environment or desires. I find that to be ridiculous.

But the impetus for this OP is that I have so many theists telling me that their god is unable to stop a sexual assault without violating the freewill of the assailant.

 

[Willamena]

I disagree with it too. The underlying foundation of LFW is that the will is completely uncaused. That choices are (or can be) made independent of one's nature, environment or desires. I find that to be ridiculous.

But the impetus for this OP is that I have so many theists telling me that their god is unable to stop a sexual assault without violating the freewill of the assailant.

Not that the will is uncaused, but that you are the cause.

Re the "impetus," if god does something, that would be a cause "outside" of you, so not free.

Edit: Libertarian free will means that our choices...

Us. Me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Bob's free will isn't dependent upon the circumstance. He had free will before he entered, he has it as he enters, and after.

True.

 

[ppp]

Not that the will is uncaused, but that you are the cause.

"You" are an aggregation of more than just your will. Your nature, your experiences and your environment. If "you are the cause" then your choices are a product of your will plus those deterministic factors. Which is anathema to Libertarian Free Will.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That god is not omnipotent. A god that cannot create a world in which humans can live, but diseases never arise is not all powerful.

You really aren't understanding. Disease is a result of man's wrong choice.
God created a perfect world. It's now cursed by sin. It will be perfect again. For now, to allow free will, God has to allow the possibility of suffering.

 

[Willamena]

"You" are an aggregation of more than just your will. Your nature, your experiences and your environment. If "you are the cause" then your choices are a product of your will plus those deterministic factors. Which is anathema to Libertarian Free Will.

"Your will" is a blanket term for anything that you cause. If you ate ice cream, it's because you willed it. Like Nakosis said in post #20, "because I can." Free will is the "I can."

"I can" (I did) puts you in a stance in opposition to anything else being the cause of [whatever the topic is]. It's the position of you taking responsibility, taking ownership for what occurred. Your thoughts and feelings, your intentions, your experiences and memories, human nature, and your environment may have played in part in it, but ultimately, it's your responsibility. Not any of those things.

That is the attitude of free will.

It is the libertarian (individual freedom) free will.