God's Freedom?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe God is who He is, and will always remain that way.
Perfectly rational, with a libertarian free will are not two ways I have ever
described God, or seen in scripture. I don't think of Him as tall or short either.
Kelly

Ok, that's fine.

But what you have just told me/us, means that the god you believe in doesn't
have libertarian free will.

I'm not saying that's a problem, I'm just saying that that is what you are saying means...
or it is at least one of the things it means.

And that you shouldn't have any problem with the part of the argument in the OP that
says that god is not free.

So the interesting question for you, is now...

Given that you don't believe god is free and thus accept the position C1...

Do you now agree with C2 which states...

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

With (4) and (C1) for reference...

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.

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

And if not, why not?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok, that's fine.

But what you have just told me/us, means that the god you believe in doesn't
have libertarian free will.

I'm not saying that's a problem, I'm just saying that that is what you are saying means...
or it is at least one of the things it means.

And that you shouldn't have any problem with the part of the argument in the OP that ...[text shortened]... ose to A.

(C1) Therefore, God's choice to A was not free. [/quote]


And if not, why not?

I've maintain throughout, that if you are not giving a God a choice than there
is not choice to talk about. If you want to say that God is not free because
He isn't evil just good, okay by that def He is not. He is going to live by His
nature period, and He will always do so.

It is not different than the honest man, to be an honest man means you will
not be dishonest.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've maintain throughout, that if you are not giving a God a choice than there
is not choice to talk about. If you want to say that God is not free because
He isn't evil just good, okay by that def He is not. He is going to live by His
nature period, and He will always do so.

It is not different than the honest man, to be an honest man means you will
not be dishonest.
Kelly

I've maintain throughout, that if you are not giving a God a choice than there
is not choice to talk about.

You may have maintained this stance throughout, but it is in fact wrong.

Lets take Google's self driving cars as an example.

As these vehicles are driving down the road the on board computer is making choices
about how fast to drive, which direction to go, which turnings to take, whether to signal
and on which side... All kinds of decisions all the time.

The computer is receiving outside input which it analyses and then on the basis of that
information makes decisions about what instructions to send to the cars controls.

It is also completely deterministic.

The computer is unwaveringly following a rigid set of mathematical rules and given an identical
set of inputs to an identically configured car it will make identical choices.


When we say that [in this example] god is being given a choice, it means that there are a
set possibilities for what god does next. And when god selects one of those options then
god has made a choice. Irrespective of whether that choice was free.


So when you say that god cannot act in opposition to gods own unchanging nature, then you
are saying that god doesn't have libertarian incompatibilist free will, but that doesn't mean that
god doesn't, or can't make choices.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I've maintain throughout, that if you are not giving a God a choice than there
is not choice to talk about.

You may have maintained this stance throughout, but it is in fact wrong.

Lets take Google's self driving cars as an example.

As these vehicles are driving down the road the on board computer is making choices
about how fa ...[text shortened]... rian incompatibilist free will, but that doesn't mean that
god doesn't, or can't make choices.

We can play that game, lets go back to the honest man, and we will
throw in a dishonest one too.

Two different guys each find a wallet with ID and money in it.
The honest one wants to do right so he finds owner returns it all.
The dishonest one wants the money, he keeps it.
The two men both do what they want, but there is a difference.
The honest man will do what he wants all the time even if we throw in
a few other people who see him find the wallet.
The dishonest man will not be able to do what he wants if others are
around him who would hold him accountable for what he does.

So only the honest man is free to act as he will at all times which is
what God does. The fact that lying, stealing, cheating, are dishonest
things we may be tempted, but only free will person will act as they
see fit in the light of day or the dark of night. An evil one will do what
they will behind closed doors, in secret plot, they may believe they are
free, but the fact they have to hide what they do shows otherwise.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge

I've maintain throughout, that if you are not giving a God a choice than there
is not choice to talk about.

You may have maintained this stance throughout, but it is in fact wrong.

Lets take Google's self driving cars as an example.

As these vehicles are driving down the road the on board computer is making choices
about how fa ...[text shortened]... rian incompatibilist free will, but that doesn't mean that
god doesn't, or can't make choices.

Another thing, a computer only acts as it is programmed to do, it may
react one way or another, but it isn't because it wants to, it is
programmed to. It reacts as it's code guides it, one thing may have
more weight over another, but that is not because the computer wants
it that way its guiding direction comes from the coders.

The reason computers are so trustworthy is because of this! If they
acted otherwise we would not be able to use them the way we do. Once
a computer comes up with an answer different than 1+1 =2, than no
bank could use it, no GPS could be trustworthy. There is no will involved
in a computer other than the programmer's.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We can play that game, lets go back to the honest man, and we will
throw in a dishonest one too.

Two different guys each find a wallet with ID and money in it.
The honest one wants to do right so he finds owner returns it all.
The dishonest one wants the money, he keeps it.
The two men both do what they want, but there is a difference.
The honest ma ...[text shortened]... may believe they are
free, but the fact they have to hide what they do shows otherwise.
Kelly

The honest man decides to fly home from work, he jumps of the roof of his building
and falls to the ground and dies... So the honest man is not in fact to do as he will
at all times. External factors, like the laws of physics, will always limit the available
options and dictate the consequences of different choices.

Apart from the fact that it's ludicrously easy to come up with counter examples that
show the exact opposite from the example you chose, your example has nothing to
do with free will.

Look, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what libertarian free will means.

It's not about what options are available, it's not about the consequences of those
choices.

Libertarian free will is that if you are given a set of possible actions [say A, B, C, and D]
and you choose to do A... Could you in fact have chosen to do [for example] C.

If you couldn't have chosen to do C [or anything other than A] then you don't have
libertarian free will.


You are obsessing over what choices are available, instead of how we/god chooses
between the choices that are available.

In your example you are basically saying that the dishonest person wants to do A, but
A isn't an available option, and so must do something else.
Your example doesn't deal with the ability to make different choices from the available options.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The honest man decides to fly home from work, he jumps of the roof of his building
and falls to the ground and dies... So the honest man is not in fact to do as he will
at all times. External factors, like the laws of physics, will always limit the available
options and dictate the consequences of different choices.

Apart from the fact that it's ...[text shortened]... Your example doesn't deal with the ability to make different choices from the available options.

If you cannot choose C than C is not a choice.
Jumping off the roof is a good example, if it isn't a valid choice, than it
isn't a valid choice.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you cannot choose C than C is not a choice.
Jumping off the roof is a good example, if it isn't a valid choice, than it
isn't a valid choice.
Kelly

Yet people jump off roofs.

Basically what you are saying is that choices don't exist period.

Which is nonsense.

Lets try sticking with my google car analogy for a while because it's
actually applicable.

The google car is driving down a street and faces a cross road junction.

It can go left, right, or strait on. These are the available options/choices
that the cross road junction affords.

However the car has a specific destination in mind and thus chooses to go
left because that option takes it towards it's destination.

The cars 'brain' will, when faced with this choice, always choose to go left.
However that doesn't negate the existence of the choice.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yet people jump off roofs.

Basically what you are saying is that choices don't exist period.

Which is nonsense.

Lets try sticking with my google car analogy for a while because it's
actually applicable.

The google car is driving down a street and faces a cross road junction.

It can go left, right, or strait on. These are the available op ...[text shortened]... this choice, always choose to go left.
However that doesn't negate the existence of the choice.

The car computer again isn't making a choice, it is following program.
It can take you right off the edge of a cliff too! We were driving on a
mountain awhile back and the GPS we were using said turn right, which
would have taken us off a cliff straight down, much like the roof example.

Choices, if you go back to the honest and dishonest people that choice
really meets the example as I see it. They can both take the money or
give it to the rightful owner. Both on their own can do what they want
with one keeping the money the other giving it back. Unlike the roof
example, or the car examples, the dishonest person wants and would
make a choice, and is hindered by what others may do. That is not the
same as a car computer following a preprogrammed path, or a sane
person not jumping off a roof.

If freedom of choice matters here, doing what one wants is the only
freedom that is worth having. If a choice is going to be judged by what
is best or not, and you want the right, best one. Than that is what you
do being God or not, that would be correct choice. If one choice is
bad, evil, and goes completely against one’s nature why would you
think it would be wrong to reject that over take what is best? A choice
means you pick one or the other, always doing right just means you
always do it correctly.

If your whole debate is, is there really a choice being made by God? Well
your choice of words in your question answers that! God has a choice, than
God had a choice. You frame it however you want, you pretty much answer
your own question.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't see how you can miss it, but okay. God is God, He is true to His nature.
He does not change, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
If the right thing to do is pick A and its wrong to pick B, than it isn't a choice
for God A will be picked, that does not mean He isn't free, it means He is true.
Kelly

If the right thing to do is pick A and its wrong to pick B, than it isn't a choice
for God A will be picked, that does not mean He isn't free, it means He is true.

When you say, basically, that "it isn't a choice" because He must pick A, that is pretty much the same as saying that He does not have the sort of incompatibilist freedom at issue in the argument. So, yes it does "mean He isn't free", when the freedom at issue is of the relevant incompatibilist sort. So, I'm confused why you think this is an objection against the argument. It is perfectly consistent with the argument and, if anything, counts as confirmation of the argument. So you pretty much agree with the argument, if anything, I take it.

I think now, however, I finally undestand your actual initial objection, and thank you for your attempts at clarification. Correct me if I am wrong, but your objection was basically the following. The argument supposes (in premise 5) that God chose to A. But then, of course, the argument works to the conclusion that this choice was not free. But you take this to be sort of a contradiction or doublespeak, since if it was not free then it was not a choice to begin with. If this is your position, then I understand it. However, I do not agree with it. In philosophical concept, there is nothing analytic to 'choice' that entails that when a choice is made it is free in an incompatibilist sense or in the sense that there was actual live possibilities of doing otherwise. 'Choice' is consistent with there only being imagined or hypothetical alternatives, not actual ones, for example.

So, I think I understand your objection, but I do not agree with it and do not see any need to revise the argument on its account. And, as already discussed, your arguments would only support the conclusion of the argument that God is not free in the relevant incompatibilist sense. So, there's no need here for all the hubbub.

Originally posted by LemonJello

If the right thing to do is pick A and its wrong to pick B, than it isn't a choice
for God A will be picked, that does not mean He isn't free, it means He is true.

When you say, basically, that "it isn't a choice" because He must pick A, that is pretty much the same as saying that He does not have the sort of incompatibilist freedom at ...[text shortened]... is not free in the relevant incompatibilist sense. So, there's no need here for all the hubbub.

I'm glad you understand it, but I still reject God isn't free. With my point of
view the only one not free is the dishonest guy in my example. He would if
he could get away with it, take the money, given a chance he'd take the
money and run. He does things, but he hides, he plots in secret. While the
honest guy will act as he will in the light of day and at night. If you have
a choice, then its a choice you have. Always picking one because it is the
right thing to do only means you, pick the one that is the right one to do.

I admit God will stay true to his nature, we all do. That being the case no
one is as free as you seem to suggest, NOT a one! There are always going
to be things someone will not do, or something they would always do. The
times that they would make a really bad choice is if they want to end
themselves, which in my opinion isn't a good thing so it isn't something I'd
even want to strive for.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
This is an argument aimed at a theist who is committed to all the following (1) through (4):

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

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

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 ...[text shortened]... rgument is moot. Alternatively, of course, find and point out some error(s) within my argument.[/b]

After thinking about this topic for a while, I'd have to say no one is going
to fit that definition. There will always be choices each of us will turn
down, or always make. To even attempt to be "free" to do anything would
require a most broken down warped person or thing imaginable. The selfishness
that would have to be there would outweigh all norms, and make all
other considerations towards everyone and anything meaningless.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
After thinking about this topic for a while, I'd have to say no one is going
to fit that definition. There will always be choices each of us will turn
down, or always make. To even attempt to be "free" to do anything would
require a most broken down warped person or thing imaginable. The selfishness
that would have to be there would outweigh all norms, and make all
other considerations towards everyone and anything meaningless.
Kelly

Very good, thank you for your assessment. This reply suggests that you probably lean toward a compatibilist view of freedom, and that you ought to just reject premise (3). I would have to agree with you: premise (3) is false, as I have already stated in this thread. Some theists, however, think all of (1) through (3) are true, and one of the points of the argument is that I think they should thereby be also committed to (C1).