The Modal Fallacy and the Problem of Free Will

[DogmaHunter]

Nonsense!

Any good book on philosophy will explain that foreknowledge only rules out certain kinds of free will.

"certain kinds"?

It seems to me that one is either free in their decision making or one is not.

What "kinds" are you talking about and what "kinds" do you think are ruled out by foreknowledge?

And do you have an actual counter point to what I said?

How can I be free to chose "B" if it is known before hand that I will chose A when that foreknowledge can't possibly be incorrect?
What other explanation is there then my choice of A being predetermined (by whatever process)?

In such a context, I can only conclude that free will is an illusion and that all our fates are sealed even before we were born.

 

[Albion]

"certain kinds"?

It seems to me that one is either free in their decision making or one is not.

And if someone else knows what you're going to decide (but you don't know that) how have you lost your free will?? That seems to me to be the question here.

How can I be free to chose "B" if it is known before hand that I will chose A

He's not making the decision for you, and you have no idea what he knows, so of course you're free.

 

[talquin]

And you are STILL refusing to properly define this, even when difficulties with the concept are pointed out.

This is not genuine discussion; this is just spamming us with the same thread posted 6 months ago. I suggest that this thread be closed, just like that one was.

FWIW, I'm with elopez -- I believe in compatibilist free will and in determinism, so your "scenario" doesn't apply.

If you don't like what's in here, you're free to not participate. But I'd like to better understand your position.

Up until someone chooses A out of an A/B choice, could they have chosen B? If so, then this is an example of a freely made choice I'm referring to in my OP. If not, then have they really made a choice? If not, then what exactly is a choice and are humans capable of making one?

 

[talquin]

Nonsense!

Any good book on philosophy will explain that foreknowledge only rules out certain kinds of free will.

Let's all try to be on the same page with respect to what we mean by "free will". For the purposes of discussing the modal fallacy and the problem of free will, it means the freedom to make a choice when more than one option is available to choose from and that up until the time such choice is made, one could still have chosen the option they ended up not choosing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you don't like what's in here, you're free to not participate. But I'd like to better understand your position.

Up until someone chooses A out of an A/B choice, could they have chosen B? If so, then this is an example of a freely made choice I'm referring to in my OP. If not, then have they really made a choice? If not, then what exactly is a choice and are humans capable of making one?

Does it really matter? For all intents and purposes, from our perspective, we make choices, free will or not.

 

[Radagast]

"certain kinds"?

It seems to me that one is either free in their decision making or one is not.

Please go away and read a book or something. The whole question is more complex than you realise.

What "kinds" are you talking about and what "kinds" do you think are ruled out by foreknowledge?

Basically, incompatibilist versions of free will are ruled out by foreknowledge. Compatibilist versions of free will are not, as elopez has explained.

Let's all try to be on the same page with respect to what we mean by "free will".

You mean, you wish to "stack the deck" by permitting only one version of free will to be discussed?

I think it's time for this thread to be closed, just like its previous incarnation.

 

[durangodawood]

In fact, God's foreknowledge does not in any way affect the decisions made by the individual. He merely knows what will be chosen....

This may be true.

But it certainly does NOT make sense.

 

[talquin]

Does it really matter? For all intents and purposes, from our perspective, we make choices, free will or not.

What matters is that some people think A is equal to B, B is equal to C and C is not equal to A.

If we freely make choices, then it follows that God (or anyone) doesn't have infallible foreknowledge of what our choices will be.

 

[talquin]

Please go away and read a book or something. The whole question is more complex than you realise.



Basically, incompatibilist versions of free will are ruled out by foreknowledge. Compatibilist versions of free will are not, as elopez has explained.



You mean, you wish to "stack the deck" by permitting only one version of free will to be discussed?

I think it's time for this thread to be closed, just like its previous incarnation.

As I've said, to get a clarification of what a freely made choice is, I ask, "if Fred chooses A out of an A/B choice, could he still have chosen B up until the time he actually chose A?". I'm only responding to the claims of those who would say YES to that question.

 

[Radagast]

could he still have chosen B up until the time he actually chose A?

That depends on how, in formal terms, you define "could." Different Christian philosophers would give you different answers.

If we freely make choices, then it follows that God (or anyone) doesn't have infallible foreknowledge of what our choices will be.

You're clearly not listening to anyone here; several of us have pointed out that certain kinds of free will are compatible with foreknowledge.

Please go away and read a book or something. The whole question is more complex than you realise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And if someone else knows what you're going to decide (but you don't know that) how have you lost your free will?? That seems to me to be the question here.

And imo the answer to the question is "yes" if that knowledge of that other person is absolute and all-encompassing.

Remember what we are dealing with here...
This is not the kind of foreknowledge like if I ask you "what would you prefer? a nice meal or a bullet in the head?" where I can then 'know' that you will chose the meal.

No, no, we are talking about a god who is supposedly all-knowing and the foreknowledge we speak of is every single decision you will ever make from the important to the trivial. From the obvious to the obscure.

If every single move, every single thought, every single action I will ever engage in is known before hand.... then the path of my life is set in stone.

Let me ask you this...
Suppose tomorrow I will have a choice between 4 options. Your god knows today that I will chose for the 3th choice.

Would I be free to go for 1, 2 or 4 instead? Doing so would mean that your all-knowing, perfect god was wrong.

What other explanation is there then my choice being pre-determined?

He's not making the decision for you

I never claimed that to be the case. In fact, in the post you reply to, I explicitly mentioned choices being pre-determined by whatever process.

and you have no idea what he knows, so of course you're free.

Try to think it through a little bit.

Suppose I'm god. I can't be wrong. I know that tomorrow you will eat a sandwich with chicken. Will you really be free tomorrow to eat a sandwich with turkey instead? You'ld prove me wrong if you do.

You might think you are freely chosing chicken... And I might not be the one making you chose chicken. I'm not talking about the underlying decision making process and what influences or determines it. I leave that completely open. The point of the matter is simply, if I can know with certainty what your decision will be... how could you say that you were ever "truelly free" to chose differently?

To be free in ones choices implies the ability to change your mind at the very last second. It implies that it can't be known with certainty in advance what you will decide until you actually make the decision.

As I started my posts in this thread: free will and perfect foreknowledge cannot co-exist in the same universe as far as I can see.

If you disagree, try to explain why. And actually explain please, don't just make a bunch of assertions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Does it really matter? For all intents and purposes, from our perspective, we make choices, free will or not.

I agree. It's not a problem for us. But it is a problem in the theistic worldview.

They believe in humans to have free will on the one hand, but they give their deity of choice properties that contradict that notion.

To them, it should matter. That is, if they care about having a consistent worldview.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please go away and read a book or something. The whole question is more complex than you realise.

Instead of trying to make me stop posting on the topic, you could just as well try to answer my question and explain what I'm missing if I'm missing something.

Basically, incompatibilist versions of free will are ruled out by foreknowledge. Compatibilist versions of free will are not, as elopez has explained.

Please, can you explain in your own words what the difference is between "compatibilist" and "incompatibilist" free will?

You mean, you wish to "stack the deck" by permitting only one version of free will to be discussed?

I think he just wants people to define what they mean when they use words in different ways as those they speak to. It's quite an essential part of meaningfull conversation.

I think it's time for this thread to be closed, just like its previous incarnation.

I think you should stop trying to stop an interesting discussion.
First, you request me to leave the thread, now you request for the entire thread to be closed.

Perhaps you should drop the arrogance and let us discuss this topic in peace. Clearly, you don't like this thread. Instead of trying to stop everybody of discussing the topic, perhaps you should just not frequent this thread anymore if it bothers you that much.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If we freely make choices, then it follows that God (or anyone) doesn't have infallible foreknowledge of what our choices will be.

This.

And not only god off course... anyone and anything.

We are either free to change our minds about anything at anytime, or we aren't.

 

[quatona]

You're clearly not listening to anyone here; several of us have pointed out that certain kinds of free will are compatible with foreknowledge.

The problem, however: Those "kinds of free will" are not suited for the God defense that "free will" is often used as.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please go away and read a book or something. The whole question is more complex than you realise.

You think you are making a point, but instead you just come accross like someone who's desperatly trying to end this discussion.

I wonder why.

 

[Radagast]

Please, can you explain in your own words what the difference is between "compatibilist" and "incompatibilist" free will?

Please go away and read the links, or read a book on the topic. Then you might have something useful to contribute.

If you were serious about wanting discussion, you would have replied in detail to the excellent post by elopez. And you would listen, instead of telling us "what Christians say."

The problem, however: Those "kinds of free will" are not suited for the God defense that "free will" is often used as.

I have no idea what you mean. Christians have been discussing the "free will" issue for about 2,000 years. There are a number of standard perspectives on "free will" (Calvinist, Thomist, Molinist, etc), which in turn have been widely used in other theological discussions. If you have specific criticisms of any of those, please elucidate.

 

[Radagast]

You think you are making a point, but instead you just come accross like someone who's desperatly trying to end this discussion.

No, it's more that lengthy discussions by people ignorant of the topic should be restricted to places where there's free beer.

 

[God's Child]

MOD HAT ON

Just passing through and saw some flaming going on. This is a friendly reminder to please address the content of the post only and not flame one another. Thanking you in advance and hope you have a pleasant evening.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[quatona]

I have no idea what you mean. Christians have been discussing the "free will" issue for about 2,000 years. There are a number of standard perspectives on "free will" (Calvinist, Thomist, Molinist, etc), which in turn have been widely used in other theological discussions. If you have specific criticisms of any of those, please elucidate

Well, if you feel that we should let others discuss on our behalfs (and just refer to their works) I guess all I need to do is refer to the fact that all those perspectives have been criticized. Literate as you are, I am sure you are familiar with those criticisms, as well.