What do you mean by "free will?"

[Koldo]

I'm not sure where you think the conflict lies, are you're asking how the world can be composed of free agents if there are external influences which dictate that some things will not be possible (for example a man decides to go out but he is forced to stay inside because the snow that has been falling all night is blocking his doorway) considering how this would not allow them to mould the world in the way they intended (which could, perhaps, be either the man stealing something from an old lady or, more positively, helping that lady carry her heavy bags)?

If this is your question (a charge that we are prevented by divinely ordained circumstances from freely doing certain things) then I can answer it on two fronts:

1) This is, again, more of an attack on the coherence of libertarian free will rather than something unique to the free will defense, for it is a general question of how external influences (be they random, brute facts or divinely orchestrated) can be squared off with the idea that we are the ultimate source of our characters and actions. The problem is not, therefore, one that I find relevant for discussing whether free will (on the assumption that it is real) solves the problem of evil.

2) As I said in my previous post, God's goal is to balance the world so as to have optimal intristic value which may mean making certain situations impossible. The agents would still be free but certain situations which would lead to overriding deficiencies would be prevented from happening (such as the case of the man wanting to go out but being unable due to the snow blocking his door).

No. What I mean is: how can the world always have just the right amount of good and evil ?
If it is a world composed of free agents then good and evil will be constantly fluctuating and you can't enforce just 'the right amount of good and evil'.

I believe I have answered these two questions in my previous post so, unable to make myself much clearer, I will not answer them again.

I am afraid that is not the case at all.
First, you have simply ignored the significance there is on God also molding himself through his own actions. You haven't even mentioned it.
Second, you haven't explained why an evil ( not the mere possibility of evil ) is necessary to achieve a greater good.

 

[Apologes]

No. What I mean is: how can the world always have just the right amount of good and evil ?
If it is a world composed of free agents then good and evil will be constantly fluctuating and you can't enforce just 'the right amount of good and evil'.

Well, in that case the complaint is irrelevant as I never said the balance must be constant, the value of a world may well be measured by God according to the final results it produces. (For christians that would be the doctrine of end times )

Also, I do not see how good and evil constantly fluctuating necessarily follows from there being free agents and I wonder how you could ever demonstrate that.

 

[Koldo]

Well, in that case the complaint is irrelevant as I never said the balance must be constant, the value of a world may well be measured by God according to the final results it produces. (For christians that would be the doctrine of end times )

You have said and I quote: "Also, God, being a provident deity, has so ordained the world to have just the right amount of good and evil so as to create the world of most intristic value."

Considering that a world with less evil is better than a world with more evil, barring the evil necessary to achieve the greater good assuming such an evil exists in the first place, a free agent being free to choose unnecessary evil ( I will refer to it this way from now on ) would cause a worse world to exist than if he had chose not to do such an evil.

In other words, God isn't able to create a world of most intrisic value in a world of free agents because God can't enforce the world to have just the right amount of good and evil in a world with free agents. He can't force people to choose to do the least amount of evil possible.

Also, I do not see how good and evil constantly fluctuating necessarily follows from there being free agents and I wonder how you could ever demonstrate that.

That's correct. Not necessarily so. Although it is highly unlikely it wouldn't fluctuate. Everyone would need to, consistently, keep choosing the same amount of good and evil.
However, If there are free agents then you necessarily can't enforce how much good and evil there is.
Which was my point of contention.

 

[Apologes]

You have said and I quote: "Also, God, being a provident deity, has so ordained the world to have just the right amount of good and evil so as to create the world of most intristic value."

Considering that a world with less evil is better than a world with more evil, barring the evil necessary to achieve the greater good assuming such an evil exists in the first place, a free agent being free to choose unnecessary evil ( I will refer to it this way from now on ) would cause a worse world to exist than if he had chose not to do such an evil.

In other words, God isn't able to create a world of most intrisic value in a world of free agents because God can't enforce the world to have just the right amount of good and evil in a world with free agents. He can't force people to choose to do the least amount of evil possible.

It's true that God can't force someone to freely do something but He can, granted His omniscience, know what each human would do in a given situation and according to that knowledge He can create a world in which agents do in fact make free choices which result in an optimal balance of good an evil.

 

[Koldo]

It's true that God can't force someone to freely do something but He can, granted His omniscience, know what each human would do in a given situation and according to that knowledge He can create a world in which agents do in fact make free choices which result in an optimal balance of good an evil.

This is a direct attack against libertarian free will. If God can foresee with absolute certainty what each person will choose in any given situation then libertarian free will does not exist. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Besides, it is hard to see how what the likes of Luis Garavito did ( you can google the name for more information ) was necessary to achieve the optimal balanced in good and evil. The argument is simply unconvincing.

 

[Apologes]

This is a direct attack against libertarian free will. If God can foresee with absolute certainty what each person will choose in any given situation then libertarian free will does not exist. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Until a contradiction between God's knowing that action X will happen and action X being a free one is demonstrated, this remains just an assertion.

If, however, you do wish to protest God's omniscience when it comes to human actions then the problem of evil can't even get off the ground as if God is not omniscient then He cannot know what evils will happen and as such He isn't responsible for not stopping them. Hence why every serious formulation of the problem of evil (if logical formulations can be taken seriously at this day and age at all) claims that a contradiction follows from joining the following set of propositions:

1) God is omnipotent
2) God is omniscient
3) God is omnibenevolent

with

4) There is evil in the world

If you're going to cut out the second step, then I wonder why you tried to pursue this topic in the first place. Aside from the fact that the problem of evil presupposes God's omniscience (and it's compatibility with free will) the free will defense presupposes it as well, so once again, this is an issue separate from the free will defense (if it is an issue at all). In light of this, I concur: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Besides, it is hard to see how what the likes of Luis Garavito did ( you can google the name for more information ) was necessary to achieve the optimal balanced in good and evil. The argument is simply unconvincing.

This comes across as a mere argument from incredulity, but even if I were to accept it, the free will defense need not be plausible (it need not even be realistic at all) to be succesful. A defense aims to merely demonstrate a possibility of God and evil coexisting. Unlike a theodicy, which aims to specify what God's reasons for permitting evil really are, a defense aims to provide a possible reason for doing so while considering God's actual reasons irrelevant.

 

[Koldo]

Until a contradiction between God's knowing that action X will happen and action X being a free one is demonstrated, this remains just an assertion.

If you say this then it means we have different understandings over what libertarian free will means ( or entails ).
I am going to present the framework I am using, and then you present yours: Libertarian free will is, by definition, the capability of self-determination despite any facts that could determine what an agent would choose to do.

If one can predict with absolute certainty what a free agent is going to do then that entails there are facts that determine what a free agent is going to choose to do. Which means such an agent is not free at all, not in sense of libertarian free will. Therefore, free agent actions' must necessarily have a certain degree of unpredictability.

If, however, you do wish to protest God's omniscience when it comes to human actions then the problem of evil can't even get off the ground as if God is not omniscient then He cannot know what evils will happen and as such He isn't responsible for not stopping them.

Actually, if one has to drop omniscience to maintain the other two attributes then the problem of evil has been successful.

Hence why every serious formulation of the problem of evil (if logical formulations can be taken seriously at this day and age at all) claims that a contradiction follows from joining the following set of propositions:

1) God is omnipotent
2) God is omniscient
3) God is omnibenevolent

with

4) There is evil in the world

If you're going to cut out the second step, then I wonder why you tried to pursue this topic in the first place. Aside from the fact that the problem of evil presupposes God's omniscience (and it's compatibility with free will) the free will defense presupposes it as well, so once again, this is an issue separate from the free will defense (if it is an issue at all). In light of this, I concur: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The problem of evil itself is silent on regards to free will. But the thing is: There is no contradiction in being omniscient and not knowing what can not be known ( such as what free agents will choose to do ). My contention ( at least the only one you are trying to address ) has to do with your particular answer to the problem of evil that involves the free will defense and God being able to achieve the utmost balance of good and evil.

This comes across as a mere argument from incredulity, but even if I were to accept it, the free will defense need not be plausible (it need not even be realistic at all) to be succesful. A defense aims to merely demonstrate a possibility of God and evil coexisting. Unlike a theodicy, which aims to specify what God's reasons for permitting evil really are, a defense aims to provide a possible reason for doing so while considering God's actual reasons irrelevant.

I am well aware of the distinction between the defense and the theodicy.
I am just saying that even if one accepts your defense, therefore accepting there is no inherent contradiction, it would still be a very long way from accepting that such a possibility happens to be the actual case considering how far-fetched it sounds.

 

[Willamena]

I am going to present the framework I am using, and then you present yours: Libertarian free will is, by definition, the capability of self-determination despite any facts that could determine what an agent would choose to do.

If one can predict with absolute certainty what a free agent is going to do then that entails there are facts that determine what a free agent is going to choose to do. Which means such an agent is not free at all, not in sense of libertarian free will. Therefore, free agent actions' must necessarily have a certain degree of unpredictability.

...or that truth has unpredictability (per Aristotle); or the absolute predictor necessarily has no future sense (Boethius); or the fixity of future predictions of the past have no bearing on the fixity of future predictions of today (William of Ockham); or the predictor with "absolute certainty" requires concepts that pre-exist him (de Molina); or there simply is no past/future and only now exists.

You are considering only one solution to the dilemma, but the history of the discussion provides us with many.

 

[Koldo]

...or that truth has unpredictability (per Aristotle); or the absolute predictor necessarily has no future sense (Boethius); or the fixity of future predictions of the past have no bearing on the fixity of future predictions of today (William of Ockham); or the predictor with "absolute certainty" requires concepts that pre-exist him (de Molina); or there simply is no past/future and only now exists.

You are considering only one solution to the dilemma, but the history of the discussion provides us with many.

Some of them can't be used in tadem with the idea that God can "know what each human would do in a given situation and according to that knowledge He can create a world in which agents do in fact make free choices which result in an optimal balance of good an evil", like Aristotle's. And others like Molina's, which is probably going to be line used here, amount to nothing more than determinism.

 

[Willamena]

Some of them can't be used in tadem with the idea that God can "know what each human would do in a given situation and according to that knowledge He can create a world in which agents do in fact make free choices which result in an optimal balance of good an evil", like Aristotle's. And others like Molina's, which is probably going to be line used here, amount to nothing more than determinism.

Yes, they can be used. Ontology trumps God.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, they can be used. Ontology trumps God.

You are free to try.

 

[Willamena]

You are free to try.

It's not like I have a choice.

 

[JustWondering]

We can work within it. Obviously your closed minded to any other idea. You want to be a defeatist, you go right ahead. I'll be over here doing my thang.

Provide another idea that is actually supported by logic and evidence and I will consider it. So far, theists that argue for "free will" have provided NOTHING to support their arguments but wishful thinking.

 

[JustWondering]

I disagree. Sure some things cannot be changed. The serenity prayer comes to mind.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.


There is wisdom to found there whether your religious or not.

You're free to disagree of course but you have yet to explain how your version of free will can exist in a cause and effect universe. I've already clearly stated that I don't believe in spirits, magic, or the supernatural. Therefore siting the bible and your god to me as legitimate sources of information to back your claims is a lost cause. I consider your bible and god nothing more than ancient superstitious myths that are no more relevant to reality than myths about Thor and Zeus.

 

[JustWondering]

I am not defending Slavery it has been made unlawful by Baha'u'llah and I personally detest the idea of slavery, as we know it.

To be just you must search the history of this topic. Your comments indicate you may not be looking for the truth in this matter.

Stay well and always look with justice.

Regards Tony

Lol, since I find slavery abhorrent I'm not looking for the truth? Slavery by definition is one person OWNING another person as property. That's it. I realize it's inconvenient for you to claim to be moral and yet have holy scripture that condoned slavery as being cool that you have to try explaining away. Not my problem. The one who isn't looking for the truth in this matter isn't me.

 

[JustWondering]

First we can not judge a ancient people by modern standards.

Sure we can, it's easy. Societies that practiced slavery were barbaric, unenlightened and evil. See? I just judged ancient people by my modern standards.

But lets get to the other part of your attack...er' reply. The sad thing is how often the bible is misinterpreted. Or when its cherry-picked. Or when its misread. Or when its twisted in an attempt to justify the readers own hate for Christianity. So what verse are you referencing when making those sad sad claim. ; {>

I just looked in my King James bible, Exodus 21:20-21. Masters can beat their slaves, and as long as a slave doesn't die right away from wounds inflicted from a beating, the master is off the hook. Anything else you would like me to educate you on?

 

[JustWondering]

Science is changing. It is becoming unreliable in some areas, and worse its violating its own scientific method and the rules its used for over a century to define valid theory. Old dogma and idea are being gently pushed aside and some dearly held scientific ideas are getting body slammed to the gutter. The changes are especially true in cutting edge physics and cosmology. You said we (and all objects...addition mine) have to obey physical laws which is true at least in our local area. However, theoretical physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists are suggesting scientific (Physical) laws can and are different in some areas of the universe*. Even long held laws are violated as well.

A fairly recent theory called the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) of universe origins tells us reality is stranger than any fiction. The MWI is an accepted scientific theory but its implications are suggesting reality is like what happens in the Beetle juice movie or a Grim brothers fairy tale**. In the many universe or many worlds interpretation there are realities (places) where anything we can imagine are or will become reality, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING**.

And consider how lax science has become when accepting theory that does not meet its very own scientific method. The science establishment embraced String theory***. However after its acceptance the convoluted mess did not produce any verifiable predictions as required to meet the scientific critira for theory. In fact ST failed for decades to produce verifiable results, and there is still debate if it has to this day! Lastly but not all, just recently I read an article that said researchers are convinced that in some areas of the universe physical law is so different**** it would be unrecognizable, translation? Things like cause and effect may not exist everywhere gravity may (is) repulsive rather than attracting, and time may not exist. For example, we know that once an object goes past the event horizon of a black hole time 'stops', gravity becomes infinitely powerful and most if not all phyical law fails....reality isn't reality in the singularity. We should note the big bang also emerged out of a type of singularity, remember time does not exist in a singularity? How does cause and effect work without time?

So be careful with getting too comfy with the false reality that science has painted for us the last centuries. Why? Because what we call reality is in fact an illusion. Reality is Gods realm an atemporal world where time does not apply and mans puny eighty years or so means nothing. Science is merging with metaphysics as it should as it was before the logical empiricists perverted the nature of reality and the science of the western world in the early 1900's.

Supporting notes;

*.......Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm
... that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe. ... regions may exist where different laws preclude ... new physical theories to ..

** ...... You Have Done And/Or Will Do Everything You Could Ever Conceive Of
http://listverse.com/2013/02/22/10-mind-bending-implications-of-the-many-worlds-theory/

***..........Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory – Starts With A Bang! – Medium

****.......https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm
Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study ... is not the same everywhere as ... other far more distant regions may exist where different laws ...

Laws of physics may change across the universe | New …
Laws of physics may change across the universe...
Laws of physics may change across the universe. ... which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. ... At the centre of the new study is the fine ...

; { >


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein

Nothing in all of that response addressed my post in any way. The universe we live in is a physical one that has cause and effect as one of it's many laws. Why don't you try addressing that instead of wondering off.

 

[JustWondering]

One last correction about the slavery falsehood you posted before I cut the roots I have grown to this chair, no notebook here but I want another (I crunched the last one camping)...


"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)


Get it?

: {>

Now who's cherry picking? The rules in Exodus apply to and protect Jews. Owning non-Jewish slaves was totally fine.

 

[JustWondering]

Your reasoning is predicated on a view of the universe you can't actually prove, physicalism.

We and the universe will live in is made of material, energy, and space-time that function and interact in set ways that can be observed, measured and thus we can make accurate predictions about it. To say there is no evidence for a material universe is complete and utter nonsense.

I don't take it for granted that reality is nothing but one big clockwork system of material interactions.

And this belief of yours is based on something more than wishful thinking?

If you truly believe that your volition is an illusion then I can't really talk to you any further. How can I? You say that free will is an illusion of the mind, but take your reasoning to its logical conclusion you can't even assert the existence of the mind. On what intelligible level can anyone be said to "think" if our thoughts are utterly predetermined?

We are still us. Even if free will is an illusion I'm not going to just lay down and die. I still feel. What purpose does denying reality serve?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Lol, since I find slavery abhorrent I'm not looking for the truth? Slavery by definition is one person OWNING another person as property. That's it. I realize it's inconvenient for you to claim to be moral and yet have holy scripture that condoned slavery as being cool that you have to try explaining away. Not my problem. The one who isn't looking for the truth in this matter isn't me.

You need to look at the history of the word Slave and you are free to see it as you wish to.

Have a great life.

Regards Tony