Yet Another Thread on Freewill

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin is not an theist. And you're the one who chimed in trying to show that a skeptic can judge God. I'm glad we've cleared this up. Hopefully in future conversations, you will remember what we talked about here.

Please don't try to bring me into whatever you're going on about now.

 

[dybmh]

Still with this, the presumption that your belief is our belief? Ok. I will do the same.

I have no idea what this means.

My posting with you will be based in the assumption that this god doesn't exist.

And you can't judge something that doesn't exist.

I'm leaving it behind for now, but it's all over RF. I discuss it here and here (search the word agnostic to find the sentence). Normally, I post that gods cannot be ruled in or out, which is what I believe, but I'm modifying that for present purposes and treating them as ruled out. My comments will all be based in an assumption YOU don't share. I don't see any reason to accommodate your beliefs if you keep ignoring mine.

The point is, you claim to know things about me that you don't actually know. I'm not the only one who notices this. And you don't default to agnosticsm when shown your own ignorance. That indicates, not an agnostic.

"God" again? The skeptic judges the reports of gods, not gods.

Then the language should reflect this. "The report of god in X, Y, or Z is good/bad/ugly, etc..."

That's not credible. None of your comments indicate that you don't consider your god's existence to be a fact. It's my chief complaint with your posting.

It is by belief, not my knowledge. Knowledge ruins it. You don't know me, or my beliefs, my life experience or my values.

Not by my definition. I don't know what you think an unfree will does, but I suggest that it's doing what it wants. You seem to equate the condition with a coma. I don't believe that my will is free, you I'm not only doing something, I'm doing what I want to be doing.

Without free-will, you are doing what you do whether you want to or not.

 

[dybmh]

Please don't try to bring me into whatever you're going on about now.

The other poster claimed you were a theist. I said you weren't. What's the problem?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The other poster claimed you were a theist. I said you weren't. What's the problem?

Please don't @ me.

 

[shunyadragon]

You haven't actually provided any. You only see them as problems because of the POV you have chosen.
I was trying to understand how determinism allows for this accountability but I don't see it here.

I actually provided several documented references and you still have failed to respond. Pleading ignorance gets you nowhere.
You may see it, but accountability is a reality in our human existence regardless of what we believe. That is an actual undeniable fact

However, I have explained why the problem you've posed are not problems from my POV.
Maybe if I explain this way, causality is not a problem for libertarian freewill. If you think it is, it is because you, well I won't say wrong, but different understanding of the libertarian concept of freewill..

No you have provided nothing only the assertion of two different views. This does not represent an argument for libertarian free will.

As cited there are immense problems with libertarian free will. You need to demonstrate that our human will is unimpeded as defined. You have failed to do this.

 

[dybmh]

Please don't @ me.

I do believe the forum rules require it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As cited there are immense problems with libertarian free will. You need to demonstrate that our human will is unimpeded as defined. You have failed to do this.

"Libertarians believe that persons choose freely in such a way as to make them morally responsible at least some significant amount of the time, and that persons are free and morally responsible only because they make undetermined choices."

Is the above correct?
..so tell us .. what is impeding our decisions?
..apart from the obvious, such as mental incapacity.

 

[Nakosis]

I actually provided several documented references and you still have failed to respond. Pleading ignorance gets you nowhere.
You may see it, but accountability is a reality in our human existence regardless of what we believe. That is an actual undeniable fact

No you have provided nothing only the assertion of two different views. This does not represent an argument for libertarian free will.

As cited there are immense problems with libertarian free will.

Ok, well I'll express it again, the "luck objection" in your link is a red herring. Libertarian freewill doesn't rely on luck.
That reference has been addressed, twice now.
Was there something else?

Sorry, your right, I didn't see the second reference.

So...

Do you think it is fair to link a site that addresses a religious view of freewill and expect me to respond to it?
Could you at least find something that doesn't involve religion.

I see no reason to defend an argument I didn't make. I'd assume you are capable of making the argument yourself based on what I said and not someone else's response made to an entire 3rd party.

If you want to make an argument, fine. If you just want to post links to that are a response to someone else's argument, that's ok, I'll pass.

 

[Nakosis]

You need to demonstrate that our human will is unimpeded as defined. You have failed to do this.

Also, to address this. Libertarian freewill i.e. libertarian free will holds that people are individually independent to make decisions autonomously—not controlled by any outside force our someone else but rather fully self-governed.

Post #24 you claimed was a bad example but it is the exact example that shows a choice can be made with external causation.
An unimpeded choice. I didn't fail, you never showed how this was externally impeded.

You gave some examples of internal impedance, which I pointed out was all internal to the agent. Perfectly fine causally for libertarian freewill.
So you never countered my example.

 

[Nakosis]

"Libertarians believe that persons choose freely in such a way as to make them morally responsible at least some significant amount of the time, and that persons are free and morally responsible only because they make undetermined choices."

Is the above correct?
..so tell us .. what is impeding our decisions?
..apart from the obvious, such as mental incapacity.

Yes, exactly.
How was my decision to eat vanilla ice cream instead of strawberry impeded by another person or another force?
Of course there are obvious ways it could have been but lets say nothing obvious did.

Anyway, thanks for reminding me of this.

 

[Soandso]

True. For those that claim/believe this, they are probably fine without free-will in heaven. They are submitting to the divine will.

But in that case is god's divine will free? If god can have free will and would never commit sin, why wouldnt he make men this way?

 

[Soandso]

It wouldn't be paradise if people were free to harm one another. You've probably seen the trope about God not wanting robots, meaning not wanting people incapable of sin, but assuming that one can get kicked out of heavenlike the disobedient angels, free will for eternity means eventually getting kicked out or leaving first.

Seems that way to me, too. Eternity is a long time, and it's only natural for people to trst boundaries. Seems everyone would get kickef out sooner or later

 

[dybmh]

But in that case is god's divine will free?

Yes.

If god can have free will and would never commit sin, why wouldnt he make men this way?

There are at least two possibilities.

1. If improvement is valued, then people need to start out flawed
2. In order to give a just reward, there needs to be a challenge

 

[Soandso]

Yes.



There are at least two possibilities.

1. If improvement is valued, then people need to start out flawed
2. In order to give a just reward, there needs to be a challenge

I suppose, but the problem seems to be the punishment for failure - especially since the rules created are stacked against people to the point that without jesus they are doomed to lose. It's unnecessarily harsh, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason why

Where does the improvement come in, and why is faith the measure for success when it repeatedly has been shown to produce less successful results when compared to other ways to arrive at a true answer in the real world? That's doesn't seem like improvement, that just seems like luck, assuming I accept the correct religion

This is, ofcourse, referring to mainland Christianity in the USA. I dont get it

 

[dybmh]

I suppose, but the problem seems to be the punishment for failure - especially since the rules created are stacked against people to the point that without jesus they are doomed to lose. It's unnecessarily harsh, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason why

Where does the improvement come in, and why is faith the measure for success when it repeatedly has been shown to produce less successful results when compared to other ways to arrive at a true answer in the real world? That's doesn't seem like improvement, that just seems like luck, assuming I accept the correct religion

This is, ofcourse, referring to mainland Christianity in the USA. I dont get it

Well, let's see... I'm having trouble justifying that as well. I suppose that it goes back to a different set of values. In Christianity the highest virtue, the highest love, is self-sacrifice. A person cannot be forced to self-sacrifice. So they need free-will to do so. The capability to nullify one's own desires and self-interest is a powerful tool. A god cultivating that using extreme scare tactics might be justified, maybe? Also there's the feeling one gets when contemplating God sacrificing it's only son. Both of those combined might serve a useful purpose.

Faith is a measure of commitment. So, faith could be used as a metric for whether or not a person has sacrificed their own will for another's will.

Although, faith can be dangerous as well. I'm not sure how Christianity moderates this.

Does that get you any closer to answering to your questions?

 

[Soandso]

Well, let's see... I'm having trouble justifying that as well. I suppose that it goes back to a different set of values. In Christianity the highest virtue, the highest love, is self-sacrifice. A person cannot be forced to self-sacrifice. So they need free-will to do so. The capability to nullify one's own desires and self-interest is a powerful tool. A god cultivating that using extreme scare tactics might be justified, maybe? Also there's the feeling one gets when contemplating God sacrificing it's only son. Both of those combined might serve a useful purpose.

Faith is a measure of commitment. So, faith could be used as a metric for whether or not a person has sacrificed their own will for another's will.

Although, faith can be dangerous as well. I'm not sure how Christianity moderates this.

Does that get you any closer to answering to your questions?

Heh, well I do have a past in Christianity so I've heard these answers, but they still don't seem very reasonable to me. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it, though!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have no idea what this means.

We're just not communicating, so I think it's time to end the discussion. You want to discuss the mind of God, which is of little interest to an atheist, and I want to discuss the validity of critical thinkers assessing the claims about gods, which seems to be of no interest to you.

Now you want to argue that I'm not agnostic while simultaneously telling me that I can't know your mind, and quibbling whether you consider your beliefs knowledge.

Plus, it seems to be getting personal and emotional for you. I see you struggling to contain your impulse to strike out, and you're doing a pretty good job, but it's not necessary. It goes with the territory when one challenges the cherished beliefs of the faithful.

I'm reminded of the movie My Little Chickadee, in which Mae West has approached the bench in a courtroom trial, and the judge asks her (paraphrased), 'Ms. West. Are you trying to show contempt for this court?' to which she replies, "No, your honor, I'm doing my damnedest to conceal it."

There's an interesting asymmetry there. I never feel that way when by beliefs are challenged, and don't see emotional reactions from the other critical thinkers, either, but these are different cultures with different assumptions about what debate is and rules of acceptable conduct.

So thank you for your time, but discussing gods like they exist just isn't helpful to me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know what you think an unfree will does, but I suggest that it's doing what it wants..

I have no idea what this means.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have no idea what this means.

It means that even if we don't have free will, we still have the illusion of free will, that is, that we have desires and the experience of fulfilling many of them. That was in response to, "Without free-will "we wouldn't make the world more to our liking" by definition. "We wouldn't" be doing anything." He seemed to be conflating the lack of free will with unconsciousness or paralysis. I suggested that a received will (not free or generated by the conscious self, but discovered and obeyed) not only directs a body to do things, but that self can be happy doing as it pleases within the constraints of the circumstances.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I suggested that a received will (not free or generated by the conscious self, but discovered and obeyed) not only directs a body to do things, but that self can be happy doing as it pleases within the constraints of the circumstances.

That's a contradiction ..
You suggest a "received will" that is obeyed, can be happy "doing what it pleases".
..perhaps you speak in double-dutch .. is that it?