God's Freedom?

Originally posted by LemonJello
If the theist wants to stick to his incompatibilist conception of freedom and wants God to be free, I think the theist should simply deny that God is necessarily perfectly rational...such that God is, in fact, perfectly rational in the actual world but such that there are possible worlds in which He is not. I think this particular problem with God's freedom then evaporates.

That necessitates allowing that god is not perfect...

Most theists seem to be remarkably determined to never do that.

Originally posted by LemonJello
If the theist wants to stick to his incompatibilist conception of freedom and wants God to be free, I think the theist should simply deny that God is necessarily perfectly rational...such that God is, in fact, perfectly rational in the actual world but such that there are possible worlds in which He is not. I think this particular problem with God's freedom then evaporates.

I don't see how being perfectly rational can prevent one from having free will. You seem to be saying that we humans have free will because we are NOT perfectly rational, but God can not have free wiil because He is perfectly rational. That does not seem to be perfectly rational.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't see how being perfectly rational can prevent one from having free will. You seem to be saying that we humans have free will because we are NOT perfectly rational, but God can not have free wiil because He is perfectly rational. That does not seem to be perfectly rational.

I don't see how being perfectly rational can prevent one from having free will.

Me either. Unless, of course all the following are also specified: the perfect rationality is part of one's very essence or definition; one is also omniscient; and the freedom at issue is of a particular incompatibilist sort. Then it becomes much clearer: for instance, actually read the opening argument.

You seem to be saying that we humans have free will because we are NOT perfectly rational, but God can not have free wiil because He is perfectly rational.

"Obviously, you're not a golfer."

Originally posted by LemonJello
Ok, I can see we are getting nowhere here. In what follows below, I will simply make my case for why (9) does in fact follow from (2)&(6)&(8). Then, it will be your turn to tell me why (9) should still be rejected: be prepared that it will require your presenting some actual argument against (2) or (6) or (8); or your presenting some actual argument for ...[text shortened]... since it results in contradiction with that being's putative essence.

Ok, now your turn....

No, I think we are done, you refuse to acknowledge my complaints.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I think we are done, you refuse to acknowledge my complaints.
Kelly

I asked for clarification concerning your complaints. You are now refusing to give any.

I presented clear reasoning why I think (9) is true. You are now refusing to provide anything in return.

Take the log out of your own eye.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I asked for clarification concerning your complaints. You are now refusing to give any.

I presented clear reasoning why I think (9) is true. You are now refusing to provide anything in return.

Take the log out of your own eye.

Gave it to you two or three times, none of them were accepted, if you don't
see it you don't see it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Gave it to you two or three times, none of them were accepted, if you don't
see it you don't see it.
Kelly

Yeah, and each time I asked for further clarification. Then, when you provided none, I changed gears and provided you with my own reasons in favor of premise (9), expecting you to actually give a crap and provide something in return. Well, if you have no interest in fair debate, then you have no interest in fair debate.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah, and each time I asked for further clarification. Then, when you provided none, I changed gears and provided you with my own reasons in favor of premise (9), expecting you to actually give a crap and provide something in return. Well, if you have no interest in fair debate, then you have no interest in fair debate.

Not sure what you want from me? I have an issue that you set up your
question so that God has no choice, than you asked me about God's choice! If
there is not a choice to be made, then the discussion about God's choice
seems a tad bit pointless. If there is a choice and there is only the correct one
to be made, well yea He will make the correct one. It isn't that He could not
make the bad one, He just will not, as I wish I was like in all of mine.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not sure what you want from me? I have an issue that you set up your
question so that God has no choice, than you asked me about God's choice! If
there is not a choice to be made, then the discussion about God's choice
seems a tad bit pointless. If there is a choice and there is only the correct one
to be made, well yea He will make the correct one. It ...[text shortened]... at He could not
make the bad one, He just will not, as I wish I was like in all of mine.
Kelly

This is like watching two people who speak different languages trying to talk to each other.

Kelly, The OP contains a logical argument, that shows a contradiction between some purported
properties some peoples version of god is supposed to have.

It basically describes a being [god] that has certain properties.

(1) God is, by definition, all-knowing.

(2) God is, by definition, perfectly rational.

So the god of the argument is Omniscient [all knowing] and perfectly rational.

The argument then defines what is meant by free will

Freedom of will is of an incompatibilist sort, one which entails at minimum the ability to choose otherwise. So in particular:
(3) If God freely chose to A, then He could have freely chosen not to A.

The argument then asserts a criteria for god to be held morally accountable for his actions.

Freedom of will is necessary for moral responsibility. So in particular:
(4) For God to be an appropriate object of praise or blame regarding His choosing to A, it must be that God freely chose to A.

These are the arguments premises, the things the argument is based on.

Do you have a problem with any of these?



The argument then goes on to show that these premises lead to a the conclusion that
god cannot have free will, and at the same time be perfectly rational [by definition].
And thus cannot be held morally responsible for his actions

So here is how my formulation of the argument would continue (perhaps still somewhat under construction):

(5) Suppose God chose to A.

(6) From (1), God knew all relevant reasons for or against His choosing to A.

(7) From (2) & (5) & (6), it follows that, on the basis of all relevant reasons, the reasons for God's choosing to A outweighed reasons against God's choosing to A.

(8) From (7), it is not the case that, on the basis of all relevant reasons, the reasons against God's choosing to A outweighed reasons for God's choosing to A.

(9) From (2) & (6) & (8), God could not have chosen not to A.

(10) From (3) & (9), it is not the case that God chose freely to A.

(C1) Therefore, God's choice to A was not free.

(C2) From (C1) & (4), God is also not an appropriate object of praise (or blame) regarding His choosing to A.

Try going through the argument step by step, and see if you agree with each step on it's own.
If you find one you disagree with then tell us, and try to explain why it is you disagree with it.


As it stands you have stated that you object to step 9.

Step 9 follows logically from steps 2, 6, and 8.

So if you think step 9 is wrong, you need to either show that step 9 does not in fact logically
follow from 2, 6, and 8. OR you have to show that one of the premises [2 and/or 6] that lead
to step 9 are wrong.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not sure what you want from me? I have an issue that you set up your
question so that God has no choice, than you asked me about God's choice! If
there is not a choice to be made, then the discussion about God's choice
seems a tad bit pointless. If there is a choice and there is only the correct one
to be made, well yea He will make the correct one. It ...[text shortened]... at He could not
make the bad one, He just will not, as I wish I was like in all of mine.
Kelly

Not sure what you want from me?

Some actual argument would be nice. If you have none, that's just fine. But please do not pretend that I ignored your objections, when I repeatedly asked for clarification (that you failed to provide) and even tried to change gears to keep the discussing going through presentation of reasons (which you dismissed on the basis of nothing, apparently).

I have an issue that you set up your
question so that God has no choice, than you asked me about God's choice!

Do you see premise (5)? Premise (5) directly entails that God had a choice and that He chose to A.

If there is a choice and there is only the correct one
to be made, well yea He will make the correct one. It isn't that He could not
make the bad one, He just will not

Yes, He has made the correct choice to A (the one with the relevant reasons in its favor). But if one's choosing to A is the most rational thing to do based on one's complete and exhaustive knowledge that the relevant net reasons are in favor of doing A; then choosing not to A would be less than perfectly rational on the same basis. So you explain it to me: how could it be possible for a being who is putatively perfectly rational, by definition, to do something that entails the lack of perfect rationality? If perfect rationality is simply definitional to the concept 'God', then it is just analytic that such a being must be perfectly rational. There is no possible world wherein such a being displays less than perfect rationality. Do you want to reject premise (2)?

Originally posted by LemonJello

Not sure what you want from me?

Some actual argument would be nice. If you have none, that's just fine. But please do not pretend that I ignored your objections, when I repeatedly asked for clarification (that you failed to provide) and even tried to change gears to keep the discussing going through presentation of reasons (which you d ...[text shortened]... wherein such a being displays less than perfect rationality. Do you want to reject premise (2)?

I'd have to go to life as we see it now to give you an answer, for one God's
love for us has Him accepting the "less than" as He saves us, because we are
less than. For rational choices there has be some measure to pick what is
and is not better, and taking everything into account that would include all
possible ways to look at things like justice. If life and choices were all just
1 and 0, than we could solve it by the numbers, but it is much more than that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd have to go to life as we see it now to give you an answer, for one God's
love for us has Him accepting the "less than" as He saves us, because we are
less than. For rational choices there has be some measure to pick what is
and is not better, and taking everything into account that would include all
possible ways to look at things like justice. If l ...[text shortened]... all just
1 and 0, than we could solve it by the numbers, but it is much more than that.
Kelly

I'm not sure I understand. Are you rejecting premise (2) on the basis that God is not perfectly rational?

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is like watching two people who speak different languages trying to talk to each other.

It IS watching two people who speak different languages. One speaks English; the other speaks well, whatever the hell that is.

I think the whole audience would agree with that statement, even if they do not agree on which one is which. 🙂

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not sure I understand. Are you rejecting premise (2) on the basis that God is not perfectly rational?

How would you or I know, since neither of us are? I acknowledge His ways
are not mine, so does that mean being "perfectly rational" don't know, that
is your term not mine! It could be that being perfectly rational is flawed for
all I know! I've been asking you about choices, if they are real or not? If they
are the right ones or not? Can you have a good, correct, right choice that is
not "perfectly rational"? I'd say if the answer to that question would go to
the heart of the discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello

I don't see how being perfectly rational can prevent one from having free will.

Me either. Unless, of course all the following are also specified: the perfect rationality is part of one's very essence or definition; one is also omniscient; and the freedom at issue is of a particular incompatibilist sort. Then it becomes much clearer: f ...[text shortened]... ot have free wiil because He is perfectly rational.[/quote]

"Obviously, you're not a golfer."

Obviously, you're not perfectly rational.