What amount of free will is necessary for Plantinga's "Free Will defense?"

Faith & Science Conversation
41

Not a fallacy. Just because most Christians believe something that does not make them right. I’m certainly not a big fan of the Trinity. I believe @mitchellmckain professes to take the Bible seriously though I certainly can’t speak for all the nuances of his particular model of inspiration since I don’t know it. I was raising this as an issue of scriptural exegesis. Most Christians (I mean those reading the Bible at a scholarly level–not pew warmers) under the guise of some form of inspiration do not see this version of God being articulated in the text.The sovereignty and control of God is all over the place. This may be the over

What is your view of “eternity”? Our universe was not eternal as best as I can tell from current cosmology though the laws of physics as we know them break down before Planck time(10^-43s) about 13.8 billion years ago.

The story itself starts with God creating and centers around that activity. He shapes and fastens the sky, earth and humans, the latter of which he breathes life into. To call Genesis 1-2 “inspired metaphor yearning for meaning, projecting the best of 500 BCE morality on to evolving God” is a bridge built too far to me. If it is the completely incorrect babble of a 500BC group merely yearning for meaning void of any deep theological truths its nothing more than any other creation account, which are legion as you know, that all yearn for meaning. If there is no difference between an inspired and uninspired text, the distinction has no meaning. For some of us, its hard to buy into that the only truth of Genesis 1-2 is that God is somehow ultimately responsible for the universe which organizes itself, makes its own morality, goals, meaning and purpose in manner completely unknown and unpredictable by God. This looks a lot like apotheosis and it certainly isn’t consistent with a lot scripture.

That God doesn’t have a choice is an open issue to me. The nature of eternity and time outside the context of our universe and how it does or does not apply to God is an open issue to me. Traditional view? Open view theism? Some might think God’s own nature forces him to do certain things but to think we actually understand God is silly. His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways not our ways. We see in part as in a mirror dimly lit.

You have not postulated what I define as God, a maximal being. Am I wrong in saying you appear to have relegated God to the category of a helpless, mute. The penultimate naturalistic process from which all others arise? God is a “being” of some sort or irrelevant to me. Either we have God’s image or who really cares? I’m seeing pantheism cloaked under the guise of panentheism.

Vinnie

42

Doesn’t the mere concept of organizing require consciousness and planning? The junk in my garage will never organize itself so how do atoms operating under the influence of the four fundamental forces of our universe fit that bill? Atoms are good at following physical laws. I think somewhere this is being turned into the word “self-organized.” The “self-orgaizing” may easily be broken down into simpler, more elegant physics that just ends up being particles following rules in a causal fashion.

Why did God give Israel the Law in your view? We know he established a covenant and according to Paul it was to make us conscious of sin. So “sin” and concepts like morality and good and evil are just concepts that happened to randomly self organize when God let life role? Then God decided to jump in and interact with life on its own terms? Is that your view? Is morality then entirely subjective? Jesus came to save us from the boogeyman of our own devising? Or are we truly fallen? Did we simply self organize and discover truths grounded in the being of God?

Are we scientifically confident the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago? I am not talking about the evidence for modern cosmology but problems when we get back to the 10^-43 seconds? Can we truly say anything before this or since the entire physical universe as we know it today was compressed into a tiny point 13.8byo is this just a practical beginning? If time is continuous is there then not a time in our universe’s history that we just can’t talk about? Or do some theories simply require or indicate a t = 0 event?

Which sense of spontaneous do you mean? I understand it i the context of invariance. It doesn’t seem to mean in science what the dictionary uses for spontaneous:

1 : proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint.
2 : arising from a momentary impulse.
3 : controlled and directed internally : self-acting spontaneous movement characteristic of living things.

I don’t think fine tuning arguments work work as logical proofs either. But the sheer number of constants and values that line up to create the universe as we know it could show careful planning whether or not it can be proven. Most look at these and countless Biblical statements and make the logical connection.

I think where I take the most exception is the removal of God from the equation. The lack of foresight and planning does not seem to mesh with scripture. Maybe I misunderstand you though. What knowledge do you suppose God had of the final product 13.8 byo?

Vinnie

43

My apologies for my interpreting you as invoking a majority. Aye, the text has God determining every apparently random outcome. That’s ancient, pre-rational texts for you. Nowt ter do wi’ faith, just cognitive bias and superstition.

Eternity, regardless of my or any other view, is that there is nothing new under any sun in any universe from… eternity. 13.8 ga ago go is nowt. There have always been universes. Virtually no believer, including your good self, and even some non-believers can do real eternity.

The inspiration in Genesis is of its classless, inclusive humanity, its humaneness. Nothing else.

Yourself, ‘That God doesn’t have a choice is an open issue to me. The nature of eternity and time outside the context of our universe and how it does or does not apply to God is an open issue to me. Traditional view? Open view theism? Some might think God’s own nature forces him to do certain things but to think we actually understand God is silly. His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways not our ways. We see in part as in a mirror dimly lit.’

You start well. Open is good. But we do know the mind of God. It is unchanging love. He has no choice at all. From forever and ever. He has always done nature, because He cannot increase supernature without it. He grounds being and incarnates in it. Always. Always has. As the ultimate gift, revelation of helpless solidarity. Always will. And aye, we haven’t the faintest idea what transcendence will actually be like.

Thissen, ‘You have not postulated what I define as God, a maximal being. Am I wrong in saying you appear to have relegated God to the category of a helpless, mute. The penultimate naturalistic process from which all others arise? God is a “being” of some sort or irrelevant to me. Either we have God’s image or who really cares? I’m seeing pantheism cloaked under the guise of panentheism.’

Tilt your head. It’s panentheism. God moved the prophets. He spoke as a Pennine or Appalachian carpenter. Nothing penultimate or naturalistic about Him when He’s Himself, His triune self, at home.

Are you seeing eternity yet? The greatest single fact of existence?

44

A question requires more than just tacking a question mark at the end of your sentences. If you simply want me to stop reading your posts then keep it up.

Nope. You can find organization in anything which follows a set of rules. And when the rules are complex enough you can find processes which maintain themselves by absorbing energy from their environment to reinforce their own structure.

Yes and there is no life on the moon either.

Yep and following a set of rules is all that computers can do also. That is all it takes for them to beat us at all of our hardest games and to design better machines than we can. We just gave them the rules for learning things on their own and they did it faster and better than we could.

There were lots of reasons depending on the particular law. For many of them it was social reform. For others it had a great deal to do with their particular situation and needs.

No, I see no point whatsoever in the silly strawmen you are constructing.

That is what Jesus did. It is also what God did with Israel many many times.

Nope. Morality has both subjective and objective elements just as it has both relative and absolute aspects to it.

God certainly did not make golems of dust and bone with necromancy, nor are truths acquired by eating magical fruits.

Yes. When the evidence from every different direction provides means for a more and more accurate calculation of the same thing then our confidence increases.

In the sense of “spontaneous symmetry breaking.” Look it up. But here is a simplistic example for explanation. If you have a stick heavy on one end and light on another so it floats vertically in the water of a pool, then what happens when the water is drained out of the pool? Eventually the stick is standing without the water to support it and it has fall in some direction or another. Thus the symmetry is broken because the stick has to choose a direction in which fall.

God is not a watchmaker designing and manufacturing products. That notion comes from Deist philosophy not the Bible. The God of the Bible is a shepherd seeking a relationship with things which are alive.

If you want more meaningful answers then I suggest you ask more meaningful questions. You can do this by focusing your whole paragraph on just one question taking the time and effort explaining what exactly it is that you want to know.

45

Your presuppositions let you dissuade yourself too easily. Be careful – you may be dissuading other children, turning them into adults like yourself.
 

“Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

46

So your not a very fan of the Oldest Tradition of the Christian faith?I recall the earliest sects worshiping both Father and Son(although it took them a while to add in the Holy Spirit as i think they were confused about its role)

47

I also don’t use the coined term “Trinity” to explain any of my beliefs.

48

Whether or not the current orthodox understanding of the Trinity was was 1) preached in apostolic times and that it was 2) universal or even mainstream ca 30-70CE are two very contentious points. There are a lot of later “heresies” the Church has to step over on the issue and the only writings we have from 30-70CE may be the 7 genuine Pauline epistles.

The oldest traditions including those going back to Jesus are that He was God’s son in a special sense. Like the majority of critical exegetes, the Gospel of John to me represents a post-easter back reading of later Christian belief into the life and ministry of Jesus. Some of it is certainly historical but definitely not all of it. A point I don’t think is very difficult to demonstrate.

Vinnie

1 Like
49

I encourage anyone and everyone to enter in to the Kingdom. Including you and all here.

50

I think that whether a person believe they have free will, which can really only be libertarian free will, depends on their worldview.

People who believe that they are wholly material and that they have evolved to become conscious then that person cannot possibly accept that they have free will because they are bound by deterministic consideration.

However if a person believes and knows that he or she is a conscious beings who have a temporary physical manifestation, then they will believe that they have free will. This means that they have the ability, independent of the physical aspects of this life, to make choices and decisions. This does not mean that the person can’t be cheated as to make a decision that they would not otherwise have made. However given no adverse underhanded conditions are present and unseen, the person is able to make an independent choice because that choice is made owing to the fact that they are a conscious being and not bound by any deterministic constraint…

51

I don’t see anyone demonstrating free will here in the slightest.

52

There, now you have it. I chose to respond to you.

Vinnie

2 Likes
53

: ) dah, you couldn’t not Vinnie! Tho’ you did surprise me.

1 Like
54

Well, it isn’t provable - in the same category as the a priori proposition that our entire experience of everything is actually a dream. Like determinism, it’s logically possible, and impossible to disprove. But the evidence doesn’t really support either ‘dream’ or ‘determinism’ for me.
1. Free will is affirmed by the human experience, across all cultures (phenomenality of agency) - Human behaviour and descriptions of our experience affirm that we experience (have introspective evidence of) making choices and changing our mind. It is evidenced by the preponderant existence of human phenomema directed directly at influencing the exercise of choice and responsibility for using it: rules, teaching, punishment, morality, ethics, justice, arguments, blame, plans… None of these ‘determine’ because all can be ignored or followed, which further affirms free will. We conceive a plan, we implement, we change our plans. We regret decisions - we change our behaviour. We teach our children responsibility. All this is pointless if we can only make one choice. (For occurrences of human belief in determinism, see ‘contradiction of behaviour’ below number 8.)
2. Affirmed by rational process: Effective agency is presupposed by all scientific inquiry (rational enquiry) and so cannot rationally be doubted. (I didn’t make that up.)
3. It is confirmed by neuroscience. The famous 1961 experiment that was used to disprove free will to many - affirms that some decisions are made automatically, giving the illusion of choice. But this experiment only included System 1 thinking, quick automated responses, not System 2 thinking which is considered. Moreover, we now also affirm that system 1 thinking is based on complex processing and is conscious (eg, Thinking Fast and Slow, Heineman, Nobel Prize ). Interestingly, System 1 thinking - useful for efficient, quick responses - begins as system 2 thinking until automated or intuited.
4. Free will is a necessary condition for moral responsibility. If we can ‘only make one choice’ then we are not responsible for our choices. This is a quite solid piece in philosophy. Moral responsibility is distinguished from causal responsibility. Making judgments about whether a person is morally responsible for her behaviour, and holding others and ourselves responsible for actions and the consequences of actions, is a fundamental and familiar part of our moral practices and our interpersonal relationships.
5. Affirmed by all legal systems - All legal systems are based on personal accountability for decisions/actions. ‘The universe made me do it’ is not deemed an adequate defence.
6. Weakness of deterministic arguments - Almost all the arguments against free will are based on an a priori assumption that free will is incompatible with causal determinism. The assumption is used to dismiss evidence in favour of the assumption. It can’t be true, otherwise my presupposition would be wrong. The two major arguments, Consequence and Origination, are circular reasoning. Here’s a classic example of Origination -
1. An agent acts with free will only if she is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.
2. If determinism is true, then everything any agent does is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside her control.
3. If everything an agent does is ultimately caused by events and circumstances beyond her control, then the agent is not the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.
4. Therefore, if determinism is true, then no agent is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.
5. Therefore, if determinism is true, no agent has free will.
The logic is true, but it has a gaping hole in step 3. “Ultimately caused” inserts an unproven assumption. It might equally read, ‘If something an agent does is only influenced (rather than ‘caused’) by events and circumstances, then the agent is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.’ Try using this as a defence in court: ‘My wife started it and made me cross so when I killed her she is the ultimate source of my action.’ Yeah, right.
7. It is affirmed by consciousness and phenomenality: Determinism makes us observers, not actors. This means there is no personal responsibility for action, as the action was inevitable.
8. People who believe in determinism contradict it in their behaviour: ‘Blame’ is evidence that you believe the person had a choice. This means that if you get angry about someone’s action and hold them responsible, or demand justice or are disappointed that you don’t receive justice - your actions demonstrate that the way you live in the world contradicts to your stated belief. Drunk people at parties insist that there is no free will, no morality and everything is determined. Until you pour your drink all over them. Enter contradiction, stage left.

So - you can argue against all of these to hold your presupposition true. I could even make those arguments for you. But you as a person will still act and plan and decide, and get cross with people as if they are responsible for their actions rather than that they, ‘could only make one choice.’ Enter contradiction, stage left.

5 Likes
55

I don’t see anyone demonstrating free will here in the slightest.

That’s because…
“Convince a man against his will,
He’s of the same opinion still.” Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792.

1 Like
56

Aye. Only sufficient, subversive, suffering can challenge opinion.

1 Like
57

I agree with you on all counts. Well stated. But of course our will is constrained in a number of ways. For one, we are not free to do that which we are unable to do. I will never fly no matter how willing I may be to do so. Then I may be hampered by present or past circumstances, something the law will cm also take into account in determining culpability.

2 Likes
58

I do not see free will as

Right, how do I summon the immense effort to override the stimuli of the situation, overcome all my life experience to this point, and despite the weight of my natural tendencies, decide on an action which transcends universal causation?

Rather, it is an emergent property of our consciousness, how we process our perception and evaluate our experience with the outside world, and channel all that with the faculty of logic and problem solving.

I do not maintain I can prove any of this. I put it out there in response to the thread title. In my mind, free will is either fictitious, or an inescapably essential feature of our humanity.

59

Please point it out here. Or anywhere. By anyone. An actual, real world example.

60

He gave a couple of examples, but he also said