would you say then that God has libertarian free will?
He is not free to act contrary to his nature any more than you are free to breath gasoline. Defining libertarian free will that way is false.
1 Like
so there is something besides God, his nature, which dictates his will?
That’s a nonsense question. Of course not.
then i don’t underdtand why you say God does not have lfw according to
Libertarian free will states the agent is the fundamental originator of their choices.
but therr are a great many such things that i don’t understand, i will add this to the list
Libertarian free will is more typically defined with respect to human nature, not God, so trying to apply it to God is invalid by definition.
(I don’t think I said that God does not have libertarian free will, anyway. 
)
@Daniel_Fisher maintains lfw is a logically incoherent concept
my question is how can it be logically incoherent if God appears to fulfill the definition I provided? maybe my definition is wrong, but that is how i’ve seen it defined in philosophy books
still adrift in confusion
Well, it’s logically incoherent by definition of God. He is omnipotent, so how can anything else constrain him? That would include constraining his will. (Again, we are not going to address logical silliness, like heavy rocks.)
He is free to do anything that is not against his nature. For him to do so is logically false. What is a more important question is what is his nature, what are his attributes.
the point is God is the sole originator of His choices, which is the definition of lfw
so there is at least one entity in existence with lfw
a logically incoherent concept cannot exist
since God has lfw and God exists, lfw is not logically incoherent
do you disagree with any of the above?
1 Like
Okay. I’m not going to quibble about the definition of libertarian free will. The context is usually about determinism vs. human free will, not God’s.
to be fair, I think we both already agree both God and man have lfw from our previous discission about omnitemporality, so i actually don’t know why we are arguing 
it is @Daniel_Fisher who claims lfw is incoherent, which i am trying to understand
incidentally, this happens to be relevant to the ID debate
ID is only detectable within a world where lfw is a logical possibility
I think it is as I suggested above, it is about the definition of God and the definition of libertarian free will. If you allow God as a subject of libertarian free will in your definition, and let his omnipotence sort of be ignored, then yes, he has libertarian free will. If in your definition of free will, you mean only human free will, and fully include God’s omnipotence into your thinking, then by definition(s), talking about his free will is nonsensical. So it is really just semantics.
just like id, the definition of lfw says nothing about the nature of the subject
could be God or man, is stll makes sense to ask does X have lfw?
It depends where you read. Human free will is implicit in this and many other places: Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
and explicit here, and also in many other places, as well:
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%207%20Freedom/Freedom_Libertarianism.htm
(This is more than starting to get repetitive! )
as is the way of the internet
many discussions become circular and repetitive
probably my unwillingness to understand the other perspective at expense of my own
Eric, in the sense that even God is not “free” to do things contrary to his nature (e.g., “it is impossible for God to lie” - Heb 6:18) … if that is what we mean by libertarian free will, then i would be forced to agree that libertarian free will is inherently contradictory… anyone who makes a choice does so based on their inherent nature, be they human or divine. In that most extreme sense, no one is “free” to do absolutely anything.
Now, if we simply restrict the term to what you defined it above, then I would be ok saying that God has libertarian free will in the sense that nothing outside himself has constrained his choices. Any constraints to God’s choices (due to His own nature) come entirely from within himself. Now that fits the definition you proposed above, and to that extent i would have no issue with assigning the term “libertarian free will” to God himself.
but to us humans, who are contingent creatures… we whose nature has been given to us by another (by God, by the blind universe, etc.)… then we did not choose our nature, our moral inclinations, nor even our nature, our families, etc., and we are not in that strict libertarian sense free. unless we were self-existent and the cause of our own existence and nature, we simply by definition could not be.
(I for one wish I could just snap my fingers and change my nature and prefer other things than I do, practically on a daily basis.)
but that in no way means it wasn’t a free choice of mine to have raisin bran for breakfast this morning.
But i am still awaiting your answer with interest… can you name me any philosophical system or world-view wherein libertarian free will in its fullest sense for humans is a genuine possibility?
1 Like
And just to clarify, this does indeed matter (if I understand your question properly).
Any being whose nature, whose inclinations, whose being, was by definition created by, defined by, or programmed by some entity or process outside itself is categorically different than a being who is defined as being self-existent.
As per your definition above…
-Any agent whose choices - which originate from their very nature - and whose very nature was given or defined by another entity, could not by definition have libertarian free will by your definition.
-Any entity whose choices - which originate from their very nature - and whose very nature was not given or defined by another entity, could have libertarian free will, by your definition.
Thus a contingent agent (humans) could not have this kind of free will, while a self-existent agent (God) could indeed have this kind of will, again, based on the definition you gave.
1 Like