Just_An_Atheist

I was just thinking of an argument that I would like to see discussed. This argument would have the same structure as Oppy's argument from the falsity of moral realism:

1.Moral freedom is a necessary consequence of traditional theism.

2.Moral freedom is impossible.

3.Therefore, traditional theism is impossible.

I'm aware that not everyone is a determinist, but I would like to see a discussion of the first premise.

Violent Messiah

Actually, i'm having quite a different thought;

If we assume determinism, predestination and fatalism true, then the Cosmological argument would have to be true also. There arises the need to move all and to determine all.

Big Spoon

How is moral freedom impossible?

Ojuice5001

I see determinism as being the testing ground for naturalism. However, the more relevant form of indeterminism is chance rather than free will. Naturalism means seeing the universe as closed and self-sufficient; supernaturalism means seeing matter as continuously acted on by something else. Now, if the universe is closed and self-sufficient, surely everything would work by whatever laws the universe has. But if there is a large class of events that cannot be predicted by the laws the universe has, that looks more as if this class of events is determined by something else, something we may call the supernatural aspect of the world.

That's why materialists in the eighteenth century insisted so strongly on determinism. They understood that determinism and materialism are connected, and at that time materialists had every reason to be optimistic that this was the case.

Now, however, science is taking support away from determinism. It's been decades since most scientists thought that matter really is as predictable as LaPlace thought. That's why people of this day should believe in supernaturalism, though not necessarily the miraculous kind.

Violent Messiah

Isn't the Uncertainty principle a big blow to determinism?

diana

How, exactly, might determinism be an argument for God's nonexistence? Calvin didn't have a problem with it.

Are you equating "God" with "traditional theism"?

I'd like to see a discussion of the first premise, too. How do you support it?

d

EvolvEarth

According to today's limited technology, the Heisenburg's Uncertainity Principle isn't exactly stating that we'll never be able to predict the future locales a particle will move to, it's just we're uncertain with our current equipment and capabilities. So, no, this isn't a big blow to determinism.

Philosoft

Are you sure? I thought HUP said roughly: it is fundamentally impossible to precisely know both the position and momentum of a particle because measuring one invariably alters the other.

Just_An_Atheist

The first premise can be used against a variety of sects of Christianity, (especially the ones that assumes that since God created us in his image, then we'd have moral freedom). And since God is the highest moral ideal, it would seem that this could only make sense if He were morally free.

Violent Messiah

Right on the money Philosoft.

HUP does not acknowledge that we are of limited knowledge and technology that we cannot determine both the position and the velocity of any particle - As Philosoft stated, HUP states that measuring one variable disturbs the system that it is impossible to know the other one accurately.