How about the Baal's?

Maybe the OP can't see the difference?

Not taking a shot at this particular OP as I grunched most of the thread, but it's hard to tell around here sometimes. Just sayin.

I didn't have a specific question lined up, but planned on winging it depending on how you responded.

But, i guess a proper follow up question to your answer of 'yes', would be to ask what is at the heart of free will if it is not the ability to "do"? If every time we misused our free will it was "taken" from us, then did we ever really have free will to begin with?

still awaiting response for the counterargument that i so blatantly facepalmingly misunderstand...

It's not about misuse and consequent denial of free will. It's about constructing reality so that the correct choice is always made. I don't think I can put it more concisely than I did elsewhere, ages ago:

Andy could have chosen the left fork or the right fork in the road. There was a strong smell of onions wafting from the general direction of the right-hand fork, so Andy (who absolutely despises onions) chooses the left-hand fork where otherwise he would have chosen the right-hand fork.

Do you consider free will violated if god alters reality such that there is no smell of onions wafting down the road, and, consequently, Andy chooses the right-hand fork?

Then wouldn't he be choosing for us? If the game is set up in a way where we cannot choose wrong, then how can you say that we have choice?

It depends on the degree of coercion. I would say that reality is already set up in a way that doing wrong has an "onion" smell. The problem is that if Andy really wanted to go down the left he could have, and he could have just eventually gotten used to the onion smell. I believe that is what happens. Doing wrong usually does not feel good, but the more you do it the easier it becomes.

What does the Bible say, something about no dove falling? That god knows everything that happens, everywhere, all of the time. Knowledge is power. Doesn't infinite power imply infinite responsibility?

Well the question is just about free will, it doesn't matter for our purposes if the left fork is wrong or right or neutral.

It's not about whether Andy 'could have' gone left, it's about the fact that he didn't, and wouldn't. God knew, at the moment of creation (and presumably before), that Andy would take the left fork. It also knew that a strong smell of onions would cause Andy to choose the right fork. The point is that all of the factors influencing Andy's decision were also made by god - not just the smell of onions. The onion smell is an addition by god to create an adjustment, causing Andy to choose the right fork. This is why it's not about 'degrees of coercion' - there are no degrees, because every factor influencing our decision is already the product of god's will.

I'm aware that you hold some minority-type position on god and free will (Molinism?) - can you explain your position?

I understand your point now I think, although it is a little different from where I started in the OP. That post seemed to assert that free will was inconsistent with God's knowledge of future events. I guess we can agree that is not necessarily true.

My understanding of your point is that if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, is he not then all-responsible. I would say not necessarily. But it is very much dependent on free will to reach my conclusion. If we are created with free will, then responsibility for our actions rests on us. One could argue that by creating beings with free will God is responsible for what they do, but then the question becomes, what can we do? We are stuck in a space-time box with no ability to effect or even measure (at least as far as we know now) anything outside of that box. Maybe that is the only limitation. Any evil we create is totally contained until such time as we can be trusted to leave the box.

Obviously just speculation, but the point is that you have not fashioned a solid inconsistency imo. Is that heading in a direction that at least addresses your point, or am I still off course?

Yes. Free will has nothing to do with the issue of god being responsible for outcomes.
The rock tumbling down the hill may be following the laws of nature, the whims of QM or remotely controlled by the greenies on Vixon, but if it's within my power to push it over a few inches so it misses the kid's head or to have put the last boulder in it's way 6000 years ago and I didn't, then I am responsible for it landing on the kid's head.
The kid's free will about where to walk, run, breakdance or whether to stand and watch the pretty rock come down the hillside is irrelevant.
We can get charged with 'reckless indifference' or 'criminal negligence' even when we can't know the outcome with certainty. A being that knows the outcome for certain and is in control of it is responsible for the outcome.

Boooooo to AIF's new avatar.

Free will means nothing. Nobody's ever been able to define it. Just try and you will eventually find it's an empty concept.

*sigh*


Yes...to a 14 year old...it means nothing.

Free will isn't a free pass to do whatever without consequences any more than free speech means you can stand up in an airplane and say "I have a bomb" and then claim... "No, no,no..... I have free speech!"

Free will is a very simple concept if you leave the semantics alone.

You are "free to choose" ... you are not free from the consequences of your choice.



unreal

there's NOTHING simple about the concept of free will (actually it makes my head hurt). Did you even open that link I posted?

Well, I agree, in a way. I don't deny that free will is meaningful in a moral or judicial sense, but I had something more nebulous in mind.

For example, "free will means that I could have acted differently if I had so chosen."

this, or more particularly: given that I chose course A in a given situation, could I ever have chosen choice B?

No I didn't...and that reply you just quoted wasn't aimed at you.

You told me you didn't want to talk about or derail the thread...so I honored your request.

WINNER ! ! ! !

Let's examine these types of definitions. What I think is productive to think about this is that they rest on some dubious premises:

1) Time is real

2) There is a singular reality

3) I am a person

Or, possibly another way to try to render free will meaningless is by observing that thoughts just enter our heads and we act on them. We do nothing to make them appear.

Ok, but you're almost begging for a derail by continuing to suggest that free will is a simple concept.

do yourself a favour and check out the thread. It's truly a mind boggling concept.

Aro...we are discussing something that pertains to the OP...if you don't wish to participate... please exercise your free will to not participate.
The fact that you don't understand free will...does not make it a complex idea.

This guy is making some really good points that I would hope help you understand the simplicity of free will.

This is good.... but I think this makes us robots and not mankind with free will.

First off, I was not trying to scoff at your understanding, nor do I expect you to have a deep understanding of things like this.

I am not one for Bible verse hunting, so I will just give you one of your own that whomever decided to use that passage purposefully left out the rest. I feel this should demonstrate my point adequately.

Your list contained 1 Cor 8:4 which reads,

but if you read it in context,

If you look at many of the passages about there only being one God, you will see that it is not to deny that no other gods exist, but that Yahweh is the one true God.

I don't want to imply that! Free will has many aspects and we are just discussing one here. The other aspects can well make up for the existential deficit acquired here, and even leave us with a good profit.

But when you say "thoughts just enter our heads and we act on them"...that's pretty much a robot.

I think that God is ultimately responsible for us, but that does not mean that we are also not responsible for our own actions. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying.

I understand that it does not matter if one side is right, wrong, or neutral. Either way, to have a true choice, one must be capable of going with A or -A.

I don't agree with this statement. You asked about my minority view, it is not really about free will, but is about God's omniscience. And it would be a take on molisism. Which Boyd calls Neo-Molinism. In a nut shell it states that God does not know the free will actions of men because the actions are not there to be known. Now it is much more complicated then that though.

I don't believe that God could know for fact what I will do in a specific free will situation, but that if he did it in fact would not be a free will action. If the action is known before me, then how could it have originated from me? Can an eternal effect be caused by a contingent being. In other words, can an effect exist before it's cause?