Originally posted by knightmeisterBut my claim is that freedom is not an illusion under the compatibilist conception. Your merely asserting otherwise is question begging. Further, my conception of freedom has independent support, since it preserves the link between our choices and the reasons that explain and justify them. Your conception severs this link between reason and choice, since no set of reasons will ever be sufficient to elicit a free choice. It is no argument to merely suppose, as you do, that it is unimaginable how a choice could be free without having the capacity to have done otherwise. My response to this sort of question begging is merely this: According to the compatibilist conception of freedom, one could have done otherwise had the situation been different (e.g., had there been different reasons, different psychological states, etc.).
As long as I am able to act authentically by choosing in accord with who I am and the reasons I have at my disposal, without threat of coercion, then that is as free as I can be.BARR
Not at all. Your experience of making choices would be the same. The illusion of freedom would be maintained but in real terms you would not be free , only under the il ...[text shortened]... w about if I authentically experience myself as Julius Caesar? Am I as much Julius as I can be?
Now, please explain to me, given my arguments in the post to which I earlier referred you, how your view does not entail that your choices are arbitrary and how God, given his properties, could choose freely.
Originally posted by bbarrBut if God is perfectly rational, and if being perfectly rational entails that one always choose that which has the most reasons in its favor, then it would be inconsistent with God's very nature for him to choose otherwise than in the manner he does, in fact, choose. That is, it is strictly impossible for God to have the sort of knowledge you think he does, be perfectly rational, and yet fail to choose the best course of action. But that entails that for any choice God makes, he could not have chosen otherwise. And this entails that God is not possessed of libertarian free will. But if God doesn't have libertarian freedom, then how can he bring it about by manifesting in you that you have libertarian freedom? BARR
You haven't answered the question. All you have done is claim that God manifests in us in a manner that allows us to freely act. I'm asking you for an explanation for a possibly different choice. Think of like this: At T0 and T3, all of your psychological states are the same. All your reasons for choosing are the same. All your beliefs and desires are th ...[text shortened]... dom, then how can he bring it about by manifesting in you that you have libertarian freedom?
The way I would begin to address this would be to say that "can't" can have different meanings in different contexts. For example , I can't fly. Another example , I can't kill my son. Notice the difference? Now if I said that I can't kill my son does this mean the same as it is impossible for me to kill him? The answer is that if I wanted to I could kill him , the potentiality is there. I am in real terms free to kill him. But I am not free to fly (even if I wanted to). Now , this does not answer your question entirely , and maybe it's not even half way , but you are asking me to probe the mind of God so I may find myself coming up against limitations here.
Clearly there is a difference between can't as in "I can't kill my son because it would rip me in two and break my heart" and "I can't kill my son because it's impossible for me to do so" . Am I less free because I have a conscience or know what love is? So when we say God can't do things because of his nature are we really saying he is restricted or just that he has a heart?
Originally posted by bbarrAccording to the compatibilist conception of freedom, one could have done otherwise had the situation been different (e.g., had there been different reasons, different psychological states, etc.).BARR
But my claim is that freedom is not an illusion under the compatibilist conception. Your merely asserting otherwise is question begging. Further, my conception of freedom has independent support, since it preserves the link between our choices and the reasons that explain and justify them. Your conception severs this link between reason and choice, since no ...[text shortened]... t entail that your choices are arbitrary and how God, given his properties, could choose freely.
But the situation would have always been so and could not have been different in a deterministic universe , so the objection is pointless. Even if you argue that the universe is not wholly deterministic all you have is random indeterminism instead. So you either get choices determined by the big bang (with a huge sequence of determined events in between) or determined by the random quantum dice in the sky. Neither of these sound like meaningful freedom in real terms to me , even if the universe manages to conspire to create that illusion for you.
Originally posted by bbarrTo say that God does not possess freedom is to not understand the meaning of the word. God has ultimate freedom: whereas the creature recreates, the Creator creates. Acting in accordance with His perfect character is the ultimate freedom.
See my edit above. It is contradictory to suppose that God has the sort of freedom you think we do.
Originally posted by bbarrNow, please explain to me, given my arguments in the post to which I earlier referred you, how your view does not entail that your choices are arbitrary and how God, given his properties, could choose freely.BARR
But my claim is that freedom is not an illusion under the compatibilist conception. Your merely asserting otherwise is question begging. Further, my conception of freedom has independent support, since it preserves the link between our choices and the reasons that explain and justify them. Your conception severs this link between reason and choice, since no ...[text shortened]... t entail that your choices are arbitrary and how God, given his properties, could choose freely.
Ok I'll have a go. My choices would not be arbitary because they would still be reasoned and have a reasonable (or unreasonable basis). If I choose choice A over choice B then I may have reasons for both choices and deliberations that could lead either way. Whichever one I choose I have reasons and a rationale for that choice so neither choice is arbitary. However , God may prompt me via his spirit in a way where he is saying (not audibly LOL) " Choice A is more in line with what I want for your life " and "choice B is not" . However , he does not force choice A on me and choice B is still possible. An act of will (or obedience) is required but it is my choice. Surrender to what God wants for me , or continue with choice B in the belief that I know best. God is able to (being God) create the perfect balance between the two choices. This is where guilt or conviction comes in. It's the knowledge that I could have done something different. God puts this in our hearts as if he is saying " if you had surrendered your will to me in choice A then I would have empowered you to do it". Our choices in situations like these are not arbitary because they have a clear moral element involved. Afterall , God did not create us to have the freedom to just flick between TV channels !
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI agree with you. I think we are free when we act in accord with our character on the basis of the reasons that we have at our disposal. What I'm disagreeing with in knightmeister's claim that God is free in the following sense: If God chose P at time t, it would have been possible for him to have chosen otherwise even if everything had been exactly the same just prior to his choice.
To say that God does not possess freedom is to not understand the meaning of the word. God has ultimate freedom: whereas the creature recreates, the Creator creates. Acting in accordance with His perfect character is the ultimate freedom.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSure, if you wanted to kill your son you could. If God had wanted to act otherwise than he in fact did, he could have. But this is not libertarian freedom, this is compatibilist freedom. Note the similarity between what you've just said and my conception that we are free when are able to act in accord with our characters and on the basis of the reasons at our disposal. If we had different desires or wants, then of course we could act differently than we do in fact. This is why I specified in the argument above that at T0 and T3 your psychological states are identical.
But if God is perfectly rational, and if being perfectly rational entails that one always choose that which has the most reasons in its favor, then it would be inconsistent with God's very nature for him to choose otherwise than in the manner he does, in fact, choose. That is, it is strictly impossible for God to have the sort of knowledge you think he ...[text shortened]... his nature are we really saying he is restricted or just that he has a heart?
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy choices aren't determined by the universe in any meaningful sense. They are determined by my deliberations, my reasons, my character, etc. And it is the causal link between my psychology and my choices that makes my choices both meaningful and mine. It is precisely because your choices are putatively made without sufficient reason that your choices are ultimately arbitrary, and arbitrary choices are truly meaningless.
According to the compatibilist conception of freedom, one could have done otherwise had the situation been different (e.g., had there been different reasons, different psychological states, etc.).BARR
But the situation would have always been so and could not have been different in a deterministic universe , so the objection is pointless. Even if you ...[text shortened]... in real terms to me , even if the universe manages to conspire to create that illusion for you.
Originally posted by knightmeisterRight, God manifests himself in you, or communicates his will to you in a way that gives you a reason to choose. It is your character, as a man of faith, that leads you to take what God communicates to you as normative; as reason giving. So, your choices are ultimately brought about by the way your character works to determine which considerations at your disposal give you sufficient reasons to act.
Now, please explain to me, given my arguments in the post to which I earlier referred you, how your view does not entail that your choices are arbitrary and how God, given his properties, could choose freely.BARR
Ok I'll have a go. My choices would not be arbitary because they would still be reasoned and have a reasonable (or unreasonable basis). I ...[text shortened]... Afterall , God did not create us to have the freedom to just flick between TV channels !
Originally posted by bbarrFair enough.
I agree with you. I think we are free when we act in accord with our character on the basis of the reasons that we have at our disposal. What I'm disagreeing with in knightmeister's claim that God is free in the following sense: If God chose P at time t, it would have been possible for him to have chosen otherwise even if everything had been exactly the same just prior to his choice.
Originally posted by bbarrNow, please explain to me, given my arguments in the post to which I earlier referred you, how God, given his properties, could choose freely.BARR
But my claim is that freedom is not an illusion under the compatibilist conception. Your merely asserting otherwise is question begging. Further, my conception of freedom has independent support, since it preserves the link between our choices and the reasons that explain and justify them. Your conception severs this link between reason and choice, since no ...[text shortened]... t entail that your choices are arbitrary and how God, given his properties, could choose freely.
I must admit that this is an interesting point. You are really questioning whther God has free will or not. If God is not free to commit evil then is he free? But there is a problem here. In christian terms true freedom is love. Jesus for example was full of love and there are lots of things you couldn't imagine him doing , but he was still the most free man alive. To be free of sin, evil etc etc is to be even more free than to have the freedom to be able to choose evil.
One could argue that God does not have free will and this paints a picture of him as robotic but that would be false in a way because true freedom would be to be free in love and unrestricted by external determining factors. But God's moral nature is not determined by any external factors , it's just who he is.
I guess what I am saying is that libertarian free will is a lesser form of freedom than the freedom that God has. But for us free will is neccessary for us to attain freedom in christ.
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut now you're just articulating a version of compatibilism according to which true freedom is being free from sin and being able to act from love. It is perfectly compatible with this conception that Jesus could not have sinned, given the perfection of his character.
Now, please explain to me, given my arguments in the post to which I earlier referred you, how God, given his properties, could choose freely.BARR
I must admit that this is an interesting point. You are really questioning whther God has free will or not. If God is not free to commit evil then is he free? But there is a problem here. In christian ter ...[text shortened]... freedom that God has. But for us free will is neccessary for us to attain freedom in christ.
Originally posted by bbarrRight, God manifests himself in you, or communicates his will to you in a way that gives you a reason to chooseBARR
Right, God manifests himself in you, or communicates his will to you in a way that gives you a reason to choose. It is your character, as a man of faith, that leads you to take what God communicates to you as normative; as reason giving. So, your choices are ultimately brought about by the way your character works to determine which considerations at your disposal give you sufficient reasons to act.
It's far less mechanical / intellectual than you describe and besides this happens to everyone (although unconsciously in many cases). Whatever reason I have to choose is also counterbalanced by the effects of sin , irrationality , the spiritual enemy of God etc etc . In this sense we get caught between two equal forces with only our will (or what we choose) to make the difference. We experience this as greater or lesser degrees of agonising over decisions , for example. What I am also saying is that it's just as much choices that create charactor as charactor dictating choices.
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut, again, all that is irrelevant to my question even if it is true. All the agonizing over reasons, the irrationality, the effects of satan, etc., will are identical at T0 and T3.
Right, God manifests himself in you, or communicates his will to you in a way that gives you a reason to chooseBARR
It's far less mechanical / intellectual than you describe and besides this happens to everyone (although unconsciously in many cases). Whatever reason I have to choose is also counterbalanced by the effects of sin , irrationality , the ...[text shortened]... aying is that it's just as much choices that create charactor as charactor dictating choices.
Originally posted by bbarrNot to quibble so shortly after agreeing, but...
But now you're just articulating a version of compatibilism according to which true freedom is being free from sin and being able to act from love. It is perfectly compatible with this conception that Jesus could not have sinned, given the perfection of his character.
the two natures of the God-man produced an entity that:
as God, not able to sin, and
as perfect man (sans a sin nature) able to not sin.