Steven Carr

Perhaps I can help Ghost out here, by explaining my views and he can correct me.

Plantinga says there are true counterfactuals.

For example, let us say it is true that if Ghost were head coach of the New York Giants in the 90s, he would not cut Laurence Taylor from the roster.

Of course it might be true that if Ghost were head coach of the New York Giants in the 90s, he would cut Laurence Taylor from the roster.


Now which of these is true?

One of them is. One of them is not. But which????

According to Ghost's Maurice logic, God cannot choose which of them is true. Only Ghost can.

But Ghost cannot choose which one is true. Ghost has never been head coach of the Giants!

Whichever counterfactual is true, the truth of that counterfactual is not based on any free will decision Ghost has ever made, or ever will make.

Ghost cannot choose which of these is true. He will never get the chance to make that particular free will decision, although God necessarily knows what Ghost would have done if Ghost had had the chance to make that particular free will decision.

If it is true that in situation X, person P will freely do A, then that truth is not contingent upon any free will decisions P makes.

Indeed, it is not even contingent upon P ever being in situation X.

Indeed, it is not even contingent upon P ever existing!

If counterfactuals are true, then they must be necessary truths.

God cannot choose if they are true or not. Person P cannot choose if they are true or not, because person P might never even exist and even if he existed, he may never be in situation X.

Of course, if Ghost thinks a true counterfactual such as 'It is true that if God actualises Maurice and puts him in situation X, he will choose oatmeal' is not a necessary truth, he can tell us what it is contingent upon. Is it contingent upon the existence of Maurice?

If God never actualises Maurice, then how does Maurice get to choose if this counterfactual is true or not?

Spenser

LOL, Ghost your emotions have really got the best of you...

May I now take the time to point out your insulting attitude towards atheists? Looks like I just did. And it takes a big man to be anonymous on a forum and call others cowards...

BTW, plenty of theists here are nice, treated with respect, and don't leave. Of course you'll probably try to deny this as well and mask it in the form of an equation...



What is funny is you feel the need to resort to modalities as if they are the only method of obtaining truth. Why shoud anyone waste time countering such a long complicated ball of fluff when you can't counter the simple argument I present which clearly demonstrates the contradiction of omniscience and free will??? Here, I'll go over it again:

God knows for a fact what you will do at said time. What you will do is predestined, it is the only possible outcome else God in not omniscient. In order to have free will you must have more than one possible outcome each of which is avoidable. You have one possible outcome if you do not have freewill, or if you have multiple possible outcomes (free will) then God isn't omniscient.

Simple argument that doesn't need calculus to rebuke, just words. And you have addressed this in NO way.

And I love the part about 'all possible worlds!' Wait a sec, I thought we were talking about this world, and us, and the supposed God that created it. WTF is the point of talking about other possible worlds? The argument applies to observed reality. Without being able to counter this simple argument you resort to a long complex modal argument that does little more than make everything so complicated as to appear as of it really says something. Once again, complicated philosophical terminology or modalities doesn't make anything more true with their use. It's just something you are hiding behind because you have no real argument.



...and fun to do...

Argumentum ad Absurdum??? Why, cause you said so? The argument couldn't be any more simple or straight forward but apparently its too much for you to handle. You have to prove things exist, not prove they do not. Why not pantheism or agnosticism? Because you have to introduce the idea of God or Gods into the equation before deciding either. Atheism precedes these, therefore default. Incase you haven't realized it yet, atheism is the lack of belief in God (or Gods) not the denial of one. You obviously lacked belief in Santa Claus prior to your parents telling you about him. Lack of belief was the default position and doesn't require proof OBVIOUSLY! You don't say 'Why not an agnostic stance on Santa or Elfism. Duh!

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim of a positive statement. Examples; There is a God, there are leprechauns, there is an antigravity device, there is an IPU. No one should be required to offer evidence to the claim that leprechauns do not (not, a negative word)exist. Now that would be stupid.

...and just to quote what YOU quoted:

Thanks for reference. I started with nothing, then observed the universe. I lack belief in anything else; YOU are the one making the claim that there is something else that created all this and that something is God. YOU have the burden of proof and you commit the fallacy of 'shifting the burden of proof' when I deny your positive claims. You act as if my denial of your claims is a positive statement in your attempt to shift the burden onto me. Nice try, but like usual you're wrong.

To dig up another old saying. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are the one who is more than obviously making the extraordinary claim. And yet all you do is hide behind overly complicated modal arguments. For one who acts as though he knows so much about atheists, its curious that you use this phrase:

No wonder you don't get anything we are all telling you. Rather than come in here and bitch, throw insults, demonstrate your emotional anger and refuse to listen to what anyone says much less actually debate it; why don't you calm down, take a breath, realize we are all humans as well, many here highly educated, articulate and reasonable and talk to us with a little more respect. Else many of us (myself included) will simple reflect back at you and act like pricks...

L8

Spenser

…and since you are not a coward Ghost, cause no one who calls everyone else cowards could possibly be a coward, answer me this:

God, being all powerful and all, has the power to pop up next to me in space time, perhaps as Jesus, and tell me he knows exactly what I am going to do tomorrow at noon. He writes down on a piece of paper what that is, puts it into an envelope, seals it and hands it to me saying ‘open this at one and you will see that I knew exactly what you were going to do.’ Unbeknownst to me the paper says I’m going to laugh at noon. Now, in order for that piece of paper to be true I must laugh at noon tomorrow. Because if I will do it, I have to do it, I must do it, there is no possible way of not doing it unless what God wrote on that piece of paper is wrong (hence he’s not omniscient). I must do it or it won't happen.

How is this not a contradiction of free will and omniscience???

Godless Wonder

(At the risk of jumping into a conversation unprepared :-)

Any argument based on the proposition that free will exists is on shaky ground. Can you describe any experiment which you may perform which will have one outcome if you do have free will, and another, different, distinguishable outcome if you do not have free will?

In other words, how do you know you do in fact have free will?

I, in fact, believe that you, that I, that we, we do not have free will. We are merely the atoms we are made of, adhering to the rules of physics. Whether deterministic or not (probably not). In any case there is no "magic being" that supercedes these rules, so there is no free will. Or, at least no free will has yet been demonstrated, nor any evidence by which we may suppose such a thing.

And so I attempt to yank the rug from under arguments which presuppose free will exists, whether they argue for or against the supernatural.

Carry on. ;-)

theghostinthemachine

To my atheist friends,

I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot. I apologize for my comments that have offended you. My intent was not to offend you or insult you, and I am sure that we can all agree that shouting matches only end in frustration. I have been somewhat moody lately, and instead of reading your posts for what you were trying to say, I read what I wanted to see, in part because of bad experiances with some atheists. (And I have also had bad experiances with theists as well) I see no reason to bicker back and forth over side issues, when what we shoudl be discussiong are the important issues. Again, I apologize for getting off on the wrong foot - I am sure we would get along had we met after work for some beers I will be busy the next few days, but will get back to these two issues (evil and free will), becaus eI think you make some great points. See you around.

Jobar

Actually, further snarling and dirt-kicking will get this tread locked down, and possibly action taken against the snarler.

Something I noticed in one of Ghost's posts above, which seems to be a paraphrase of Plantinga's argument by Ghost:

Suppose Maurice has the choice to eat oatmeal or not at some time t. Let the state of affairs S' include Maurice's being free to take the oatmeal and free to reject it; let S' also include all factors relevant to Maurice's decision (though they do not determine his decision without his input, since we are assuming his decision is freely made).

Now, if situation S' includes all factors relevant to Maurice's decision, then the situation must include the *internal* factors which influence his decision. If God is *not* aware of those internal factors, then He isn't omniscient. And if God is omniscient, and aware of all factors external and internal which contribute to Maurice's decision, then Maurice has only the illusion of free will.

Spenser

Ghost,

Cheers!



Godless Wonder,

You wrote:

I do not necessarily state that free will exists. The argument is about the theistic belief that God exists, is omniscient and gave us free will. We must presuppose both free will and omniscience for the sake of this argument then compare them to see if they are found logically compatible. I find them not to be, Ghost finds them to be. In this argument one of us is correct, unless of course we are battling with different definitions of the terms omniscience and free will (which is possible).

1. If free will exists, then I see it as having a choice between multiple possible outcomes, each of which is avoidable.
2. If omniscience exists, I am willing to accept a few definitions of the word. In the above case it applies to having knowledge of future events and this is the form I am using in this particular discussion.

This particular discussion actually started in another thread and perhaps should go back to that thread, however since this whole thread is about debating, it seems any debate in it isn’t too far off topic…

Nowhere357

Yes. Because your wording allows me to perform the experiment on myself. I can put my hand in a candle flame. Natural reaction is to jerk the hand back. This experiment works very consistently. Now, I can choose by application of will to leave my hand in the flame. At first it's easy, then it gets harder, finally I surrender my will and remove the blistered hand. Haha, I've done it! I showed Godless Wonder that I have will! I'm maimed, but what the hell!

People are able to resist their urges. Call this will power. People really do resist their urges, therfore will power really exists.

The answer of course is introspection. If the question were how do I tell if you have will, then the answer is I don't know for sure, although reason and Occam tell me you do, since the idea that I am the only person in a world of biological robots is illogical.

I don't know what you mean by "free" will, but we definitely have will. The word is descriptive - it describes observations. The nature of will is questionable, but it's existence is not.

From these atoms, per the laws of physics, arise emergent properties. It's easy to tell the difference between a live person and a dead person, though they consist of the same atoms. One has the emergent property of mind, the other doesn't. So when it comes to life, there is nothing "mere" about atoms and physics.

No rules are being superceded. Just because we don't fully understand the rules, does not mean the rules don't exist.

"Demonstrated" is problematic. Normally it would mean in the scientific sense, with verifiable results. In that case you are right - no one will ever find a mind or will by looking through a microscope.

But we also can demonstrate to ourselves, through introspection. I do not need scientific confirmation of my mental existence in order to accept that I exist!

(Btw note that the scientific method works because it removes the subjective from the equation.)

Put another way: people really do feel pain - reducing the explanation for pain to neurons and chemicals is a fallacy, confusing the map for the terrain. Suffering is real, so minds are real. And the claim of will is no more mysterious than the claim of mind! People say they make decisions, people behave as if they make decisions, that's enough to say that people make decisions! And that argument doesn't even require introspection!

It's possible you define free will in a way that presupposes it does not exist, such as calling it "magic". Other than that, I reject your claim. I hope you didn't burn your hands when you decided to pull my rug!

Steven Carr

No, Maurice has free will. He even has free will if Plantinga is right and it is a truth that in situation S' Maurice will freely refuse the oatmeal, and if this truth exists even if Maurice himself was never born.

This truth is simply a fact about Maurice's nature and situation S and how they interact. God has created Maurice and situation S, such that it is a plain fact that Maurice will freely refuse the oatmeal.

But in that case Maurice MUST freely refuse the oatmeal as it is true that he will freely refuse the oatmeal.

There is no point Ghost contemplating the alternative. The alternatives are simply false. (if Plantinga is right that counterfactuals are true)

Steven Carr

Personally, I don't think you have said anything which has offended me in the slightest. And I did revise what a 'necessary truth' was :-)

Would be happy to see you back.

You might like to try defending your statement 'Despite actuality (God knowledge that I will do A at T1), it is still possible that I will do A or ~A. '

If Plantinga is right about the truth of counterfactuals, then it is true that you will do A and false that you will do ~A.

It is not possible that you will do ~A. It is false that you will do ~A

~A has ceased to be a live possibility. It is extinct. It is no more.

(With apologies to Monty Python)

Of course, for we compatibilists, there is no problem here at all.

There is no contradiction between omniscience and free will, as Ghost said and was right to do so.