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

[ppp]

That's not an answer.

In what way is omnipotence not an answer? An omnipotent being can do anything. Therefore, whatever action is under discussion is one that being is necessary capable of doing..

 

[ppp]

Sure, because I can.

Nah. "Because I can" does not account for choosing X over not- X. Or not-X over X.

 

[firedragon]

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​

You should have had the option "free-will is always there". This research is fundamentally flawed.

This post is about addressing what proponents of God have presented only? What about what atheists have proposed? Atheists have proposed libertarian free-will, compatibilism, and determinism. So in response to your question, what would an atheist's response be? Compatibilism? Just a thought.

For theists, it is very rare to have hard determinism although it is quite common in the atheist worldview. Only small groups have ever proposed Libertarian free-will. I would like to hear which theistic proposition libertarian free-will is built in to. I am thinking there is a big misunderstanding here.

Cheers.

 

[1137]

Free will can't really be taken away, only stifled.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, only if he controls the assaulters mind in such a way to remove his choices. God often protects people in response to prayer.
God also has free will, but he can't do anything that's not in line with his character.
We are who and where we are as a result of our choices, and others choices and God's choices.
God doesn't choose for us, but that doesn't mean he isn't involved in our lives. So if you think God should control our choices where does that end? Does he only control the bad ones or only a good ones? Or both? Should he just throw away our free will all together?
Free will is a topic that gets progressively more complex the longer you try to understand it.

I understand the notion that god wouldn't want to take over anyone's mind and override their free-will. What baffles me is why this god doesn't just give this wicked scumbag who assaults children a heart attack and be done with him. Why let him spend his life assaulting child after child and then take his life when he's an old man?

 

[ppp]

You should have had the option "free-will is always there". This research is fundamentally flawed.

I am only interested in what happens during the mortal human life span. But point taken.

This post is about addressing what proponents of God have presented only? What about what atheists have proposed? Atheists have proposed libertarian free-will, compatibilism, and determinism. So in response to your question, what would an atheist's response be? Compatibilism? Just a thought.

It is more about what interferes with a person's free will. And what does not.

For theists, it is very rare to have hard determinism although it is quite common in the atheist worldview.

I wouldn't be surprised if that were true, but I question the assertion. Are atheists Buddhists hard determinists?

I would like to hear which theistic proposition libertarian free-will is built in to. I am thinking there is a big misunderstanding here.

I am thinking libertarian free-will is baked into the proposition that humans have free will that transcends physical nature or environment. That for any given choice that it is possible for you to have made a different choice. But you should . check with theists.

 

[firedragon]

I wouldn't be surprised if that were true, but I question the assertion. Are atheists Buddhists hard determinists?

Many are.

I am thinking libertarian free-will is baked into the proposition that humans have free will that transcends physical nature or environment. That for any given choice that it is possible for you to have made a different choice. But you should . check with theists.

As far as I know, only one group, during maybe a small interval in time have proposed libertarian free-will. I have never heard of Judaism, Christianity or Islam other than that proposing libertarian free-will.

I am thinking that you have misunderstood, but you can clarify that.

 

[Nakosis]

Nah. "Because I can" does not account for choosing X over not- X. Or not-X over X.

If it is not your feelings or emotions that are causal, then what is?

 

[firedragon]

If it is not your feelings or emotions that are causal, then what is?

Read on determinism by atheist's. You will trust them more.

 

[Nakosis]

Read on determinism by atheist's. You will trust them more.

I wish some would post here so I could argue with them.

 

[firedragon]

I wish some would post here so I could argue with them.

Many atheists believe in determinism. Determinism is the thesis that "there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future". The principle of sufficient reason states that “a thing cannot come to existence without a cause which produces it. That for everything that happens there must be a reason which determines why it is thus and not otherwise".
The fixing of one aspect of the system fixes some other. Well, some scientists went as far as trying to prove that even our actions are determined and we have no free-will over it. Free-will is only a perspective, but our actions are determined. You see a bird on the road and you think you should stop your car and save it from getting smashed in to pieces. You slow down. You are late for work. You pick work over a life. It's determined based on you and a whole lot of causes that caused it's outcome which causes another outcome that ultimately determined your action. Your thoughts are within your mind and you made a decision, that's right, but that was determined and you only think that you made a decision based on your free-will.

That's determinism from an atheistic perspective.

 

[rational experiences]

I've heard God Proved to some criminals who freely by will natural life were victimising family. Sent protection with spirit animals. Or angels. Or just other humans.

And scared the beejezus out of them.

If a human asks their free willed family why do you assert your will to hurt me. The answer is because I human want to.

So legal said let's make some harsh laws and throw that human as a criminal in jail. Just to remind them life owned freedom naturally first.

To stop them blaming God.

But as they do blame God they still act as that criminal. Saying God created good and bad. When god only owned the highest status.

So then the criminal says Satan made me do it. Yet they're a human doing it for human purposes only.

 

[stvdv]

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.

Not correct.

I am a "Free Will Theist", but I stick to Sai Baba His explanation regarding Free Will. That one is rock solid. This explanation holds no ground

 

[firedragon]

Nah. "Because I can" does not account for choosing X over not- X. Or not-X over X.

Hmm. Yes, you are absolutely right.

I don't think I understand you'r OP.

 

[firedragon]

All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility,

I just wanted to point out that most theists in this world don't hold that belief. I know you linked to a web pate and it's done nicely, but in my opinion they are too hell-bent to bring God into the picture that they have lost substance. No offence, it's a good website to read up but not good enough because of at least this fundamental error.

I am not well versed in Hinduism which is a major religion in the world so I can't speak for it. But at least from Christian and Islamic perspectives, they do not hold to a libertarian position. This assertion is fundamentally flawed.

@stvdv

 

[firedragon]

I am a "Free Will Theist"

I don't mean to pry, but what is your theological teachings on free-will? Is it libertarian? Is it like a deist kind of view or another?

 

[1213]

...
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 think free will means ability to want freely whatever one wants. It does not mean that the person also gets everything he wants, because free will is not the same as omnipotence. This is why, my answer is in your scenario: Bob loses free will when he dies, not before that. Even if he would be in jail and couldn't do anything, he would still have free will and could want something else freely. No doubt rulers of this world frantically seek a way how to control that and destroy that freedom and make people want what they want them to want.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I understand the notion that god wouldn't want to take over anyone's mind and override their free-will. What baffles me is why this god doesn't just give this wicked scumbag who assaults children a heart attack and be done with him. Why let him spend his life assaulting child after child and then take his life when he's an old man?

Sometimes I'm sure God does strike down the evil. At the very least thier deeds will come back to hurt them. It's not karma, it's the natural result of sin.

 

[Wildswanderer]

In what way is omnipotence not an answer? An omnipotent being can do anything. Therefore, whatever action is under discussion is one that being is necessary capable of doing..

Nope. Taking one action necessary makes it impossible to take an opposite action. Once God created the physical world he created a situation where he could not do whatever he wants. Having a physical reality is a limitation within itself. For free will to exist God has to decide to limit his actions in this reality. So apparently God wanted to give us free will more than he wanted to control everything. This is why he had to become one of us to offer us salvation.
God has to tolerate our inclination to sin for the time being because his greater desire is for us to be capable of choosing him. He still hates sin but it's worth the sacrifice because it gives love a chance to be real.

 

[paradox]

Is your purported god omnipotent? If so, yes, he could.

Can god do illogical things?