Formal Debate Peanut Gallery Thread: "The Question of Free Will"

[elopez]

, I admit to having simply assumed we were discussing the more classic definition of "free will" which naturally gives rise to contentious debate. Having now spent some time reading over the details of your debate (albeit rather quickly still) I see that there was no such discussion going on in the first place. In my opinion the debate should have been aborted as soon as your opponent saw that you had removed any concept of cause and effect and its relation to free will from your definition

The "classical" definition of free will, IMO, is not useful. It is not ueful as it is false. It false both Biblically and philosophically. Both my opponent and I understand that, and actually both agree to that point. In fact, a lot of other Christians do as well. The term for that definition of free will, libertarianism, is not very tenable. Let us seet why. Also note that cause and effect are not taken away from any concept of free will, as I outlined that very specifically in my opening post...

"In by doing so He started a causal chain of events that lead to where we are today." As I went on to explain that is causal determinism.

I've never heard of someone whittling down the definition that way.

Well I must admit sir, the definition I provided is a working definition, used to describe the camp of thought known as compatibilism. As I was saying, that is a more detailed, consistent idea of free will as opposed to libertarianism. If you have not heard of compatibilism, I can only wonder how much more constructive this discussion will be than my actual debate.

So we both agree that the more typically contentious definition of free will as your opponent naturally assumed you still somehow held, despite your definitions, does not exist and makes no sense.

Who is "both we"? You are aware that my opponent, if referring to him, does not accept libertarianism. He does not accept compatibilism either. He rejects free will all together. One point of agreement between him and I was that libertarianism fails. Why my opponent thought I held that definition is beyond me, as prior to the debate in the proposal thread, I made abundantly clear my definition and position of freet will. I can only assume that MAY be why he did not give out his last response, as that was one of the main points I confronted him about.

You are just describing man's will in action, and admitting that it is deterministic. I challenge you to tell my why the term "free" belongs to it.

So far you haven't really taken a direct approach to answering my questions. Hopefully that will change as I'm not asking for nothing, but truly am curious as to your thoughts, and would help develop the dialog. So while I readily accept your challenge, I hope you take mine into consideration and answer some relevant questions.

Do you adhere to determinism, or do you out right deny it? Did you at all notice how I described determinism? If not here it is.

The first we can say is by way of God creating the world. In by doing so He started a causal chain of events that lead to where we are today. Another sense of determinism is in omniscience, specifically in that what God foreknows of must happen. Lastly, there is predestination, which is that God has chosen to save some as an eternal decree.

I also described, in good detail, how free will and determinism are compatible. Did you happen to read that part?

You never actually reconcile the contradictory senses most people have of this "freedom" and this "determinism",

Again, this is not true. Compatibilism was explained in my opening post. In all three sneses of the above...

But again, how then and it what sense was Bob "free" to choose otherwise?

Well Bob does not have the ability to choose otherwise. Indeed, for the question to bear any significance, it would have to be shown that's what free will means anyway. How does the ability to do otherwise, also known as PAP (Principal of Alternative Possibilities) within the free will debate, give way to a meaning of free will? In regards to determinism, which I outlined above, PAP is nullified. If God foreknows what you are going to do tomorrow, you will not do otherwise than how God foreknows.

Your average computerized chess software on your laptop can do this simple scanning of options and consequences, and weighing of better (more "desirable") outcomes. That doesn't make it "free".

Of course not but that is a weak comparison to man. The computer does not desire to do any of those things, it simply does what the person on it is making it do. Man has desires that he understands and wants to act on. Yes they may be influenced and determined themselves, yet they are ultimately his desires that he acts out in accordance with his reasons. That makes man a morally responsible agent, and moral responsibility gives way to free will.

Perhaps it needs more clarity, but "free from coercion"? You mean if someone buckles under the pressure of coercion, they have lost their free will as an inate human capacity or attribute? Don't tell me you think this "free will" is somehow removed, diminished, or made less "free" in light of "coercion" ... I mean, like what, a death threat? That's what most people think of as a prime example of "coercion", but are we really arguing whether or not people feel more angst and inner conflict (feels less "free"?) when they can't readily get what they want or none of their preferred options are available? Nonsense.

It really would be helpful, mainly on your behalf, had you read all the way through the debate. Especially my posts since you want to question them, your questions would be more relevant, and your objections possibly more stronger. I maintained that one's free will does not cease to exist if they coerced, just that their free will is being infringed upon.

Coercion -

1. the act of coercing; use of force orintimidation to obtain compliance.

While coercion could be a death threat, it is usually more thought of as an actual act, even by way of violence or physical force. Like when a cop arrests a theif. The theif is being forced into something that is preventive from his desires. Of course for the good, but just as an example. Or when someone holds a gun to your head in a robbery attempt. That is what people normally think of when it comes to coercion, and is more so the manner in which I did clarify in the debate as to how it was being used. So you ask someone in jail if they feel less free, or someone who had been robbed, and see what they say.... I guarantee they will tell you they feel as if they free will is being infringed upon.

And physical? This I couldn't believe. Put a man in handcuffs and his "free will" is diminished?

Unfortunately for you, and not taking the time to read through my posts fully, has lead you to make the same redundant objection that has already been addressed. Explain how man's free willis not infringed upon, if he is placed in cuffs?? That is what is baseless here.

how then is that lie NOT a form of coercion?!!!

Ugh, I never said it wasn't...

If we were truly "free of coercion" we would be free to choose that immediately

Not necessarily. Coercion is not exclusive to Satan's lie. And also, that's not what free will is about. Again, and for the last time, I brought up those verses for a reason. Not only did you nearly request them, I questioned you about them. Still have not gotten an answer. The Bible makes it clear salvation, faith, is not something we bring to ourselves. It is a gift of God. Do you deny that?