Well, that's the only way I can make sense of the Christian approach to Man's Free Will and God's Will myself Wagga . To me it seems God (no matter how Omniscient and Omnipotent) must simply allow people (and angels ) to make bad choices if they choose to.

And conversely, God wants things to end up a certain way (according the doctrines of Predestination and Pre-ordination). Under those circumstances it seems that God could choose to tweak the odds in favour of those working with the same goals in mind as God, in order to end up with the Positive Outcome He desires. It seems to me the only way to maintain a God that is ALL GOOD, yet allowing Evil to exist.

Now my own view on Good vs Evil, is more in keeping with Eastern Traditions, such as Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism. In those systems the key is Balance of Forces, between the Creative and Destructive, Light and Dark, the Individual and the Collective, Chaos and Order, Spirit and Matter etc,... Thus Destruction is the Shadow of Creation, neither can exist without the other. Positive and Negative are thus Relative.

But if the system (or the Individual) becomes unbalanced with too much of one or the other, "Evil" follows. And it is as "Objective" an Evil as it is by Abrahamic standards. The Moral Code (Golden Rule) still stands--in the end--as a Universal principle. CS Lewis makes this case brilliantly in The Abolition of Man.

Brahma is so transcendent, that "He" is thus beyond Duality/Multiplicity and yet embodies (and is embodied by) ALL. The Individual's or the Collective's choices can lead to greater balance or imbalance. Free Will is inherent in All Beings, and yet Individual Free Will is also Shaped by the Whole.

So even though I lean towards the Eastern view, The Abrahamic view--as I see it--comes at the Answer from the "Other" direction and meets it in the "Middle" (yes, blasphemy to many I know ).

As for Rowling and Voldemort, I don't think TBG actually meant that Voldy was her version of Eru Illuvatar. But as he has yet to explain what he meant, one can't be certain where he was going with that .

GB

But in any case I have difficulty seeing what is meant by God creating sin, or in any way using humans as puppets.

First, God did not create sin--He allowed sin. There are no purely evil acts because evil can only pervert what is good--it cannot create anything.

Second, we do have free will. Free will here does not mean the freedom to do anything, but the freedom to do what we want. In other words, millions of factors influence our decisions. Responsible? Yes. This principle fuels our legal system--the principle that environment, economic status, and background are no excuse. Have they played into the crime? Yes, but you are ultimately responsible.

My point in bringing up J.K. Rowling and Voldemort was to say that Voldemort is responsible for Voldemort's evil even though Rowling wrote the character. She did so for the purpose of bringing greater good out of it, so no one, even in the context of the stories, could put the blame for Voldemort's evil on Rowling.

The Characters in the story don't have any Actual Free Will, only a "Virtual" "Free Will" that is completely at the mercy of The Author. Many, many pages ago I presented a way that would make logical sense of Free Will in confluence with God's Will. But my analysis was shot down by WiseWoman as not being true to the "Calvinist" position.

Such a view as I have presented is (I think) fully consistent with my own compatibilist views on free will and determinism. We do make real choices and they are really ours, however they have, at the same time, been planned out by an omnipotent God. All choices are caused, else we would not be responsible.

Again, the question is: what do you mean by "freedom": the ability to do what you want? Then there are causes that determine your choice in advance yet you are still responsible. Do you mean the ability to do anything at all? Then your choices are causeless and therefore meaningless and you are not responsible for your actions.

Here is the choice: either a) We have total free will and God does not know the future (contrary to Scripture) b) we have caused free will and God does know/foreordain the future (as Scripture teaches).

Remember that if you have a motivation for your choice, then it was predetermined.

TBG

You see TBG, I am almost on the same page as you when you say stuff like this :

First, God did not create sin--He allowed sin. There are no purely evil acts because evil can only pervert what is good--it cannot create anything.

Second, we do have free will. Free will here does not mean the freedom to do anything, but the freedom to do what we want. In other words, millions of factors influence our decisions. Responsible? Yes. This principle fuels our legal system--the principle that environment, economic status, and background are no excuse. Have they played into the crime? Yes, but you are ultimately responsible.

I agree with much of this to varying degrees. Law does recognize however; mitigating factors such as environment, economic status, and biology. Many of these factors can diminish one's ultimate responsibility, though the degree to which one is able to make any INFORMED choice at all, is what gives (some of) us a smidgeon of Free Will. And that Tiny Piece of Free Will is EVERYTHING.

It's all about how aware we are of our own actions and the possible consequences. That's why Free Will has to be determined (in law) on a case by case basis. Not everyone is capable of Free Will. And some are more capable of Free Will than others, and therefore more responsible than others. This is all recognized in Science and therefore--increasingly--the Law.

But then you lose me entirely when you say this:

...however they have, at the same time, been planned out by an omnipotent God.

...then it was predetermined...

This completely and utterly undermines your previous point in every conceivable way.

...there are causes that determine your choice in advance yet you are still Then responsible. Do you mean the ability to do anything at all? Then your choices are causeless and therefore meaningless and you are not responsible for your actions.

Remember that if you have a motivation for your choice, then it was predetermined.

This is just muddled and incomprehensible . One can ONLY be responsible for One's Actions if one has Awareness of their choices and the consequences--i.e. what you consider "libertarian Free Will".

Remember, it is the ability to GET PAST our Determinist roots which give us Free Will to varying degrees .

Indeed, you are preaching Theological Determinism which is more in line with (and is in fact the psychological basis for) Scientific Reductionist Materialist Determinism.

I don't subscribe to an entirely Determinist view, either Theological or Scientific Reductionist.

Your key point that everything is PLANNED, is ENTIRELY Determinist. Under it their is NO choice, NO Free Will, and NO Individual Responsibility (except for God's).

GB

though the degree to which one is able to make any INFORMED choice at all, is what gives (some of) us a smidgeon of Free Will. And that Tiny Piece of Free Will is EVERYTHING.

Information is just another factor that plays into your free choice. Information doesn't make you any more or less responsible for your choice.

This is just muddled and incomprehensible . One can ONLY be responsible for One's Actions if one has Awareness of their choices and the consequences--i.e. what you consider "libertarian Free Will".

That's not libertarian free will: libertarian free will is the unconditioned ability to have chosen differently given the exact same set of circumstances. It is the ability to choose arbitrarily--even God doesn't have this kind of freedom because it's nonsense.

If you believe that your choices have any sort of reason behind them, then you deny libertarian free will.

Not everyone is capable of Free Will. And some are more capable of Free Will than others, and therefore more responsible than others. This is all recognized in Science and therefore--increasingly--the Law.

Actually, I would maintain that we all have free will and use it every day. Just because our free will is conditioned doesn't make it any less free. Our legal system is actually deteriorating on this point, not realizing that no amount of therapy can heal the darkness within man's soul.

Again, reasoning and information are determining factors. Our choices are determined by who we are--which is why we need the grace of God to change us if we hope to overcome the darkness within.

our key point that everything is PLANNED, is ENTIRELY Determinist. Under it their is NO choice, NO Free Will, and NO Individual Responsibility (except for God's).

I maintain that determinism is perfectly compatible with individual responsibility and, in fact, without determinism there would be no individual responsibility--at least not in any reasonable sense of the word. I don't deny free will, properly defined as the ability of an agent to choose according to what he or she wants most at a given time.

I will even go further than that to say that you, GB, have never in your life chosen to do anything that you did not want to do. Coercion is no excuse because fear is a motivator.

TBG

My point in bringing up J.K. Rowling and Voldemort was to say that Voldemort is responsible for Voldemort's evil even though Rowling wrote the character. She did so for the purpose of bringing greater good out of it, so no one, even in the context of the stories, could put the blame for Voldemort's evil on Rowling.

True, though I think that Rowling was more interested in working out cause and effect in her characters than in dodging blame for creating such a loathesome character. Cause and effect also has a role to play in the predestination/free choice debate. Both Rowling and Lewis have characters who think they are above the rules that bind everyone and both authors have characters alluding to prestination and free choices. Rowling has Voldemort saying 'there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to seek it', whilst Uncle Andrew and the White Witch both proclaim 'Ours is a high and lonely destiny' as they both claim that rules are for lesser beings.

Voldemort believes in prophecies, and so he sets in motion Sybil Trelawney's half-heard prophecy by trying to kill the baby he thinks is the one destined to destroy him - Harry Potter. A similar prophecy is made about C.S.Lewis' Shasta, that he would one day save Archenland from its greatest peril. Like Harry Potter, Shasta only learns about the prophecy after the events were set in motion, but it is Lord Bar, who heard the prophecy, who stole Shasta away to stop the prophecy happening, and thus set it in motion.

Again, reasoning and information are determining factors. Our choices are determined by who we are--which is why we need the grace of God to change us if we hope to overcome the darkness within.

What about 'Our choices show who we truly are'? (Dumbledore in COS). Is that the same thing or something different? Let me illustrate from both HP and HHB.

1.Harry might have been chosen to defeat Voldemort by Voldemort, himself, but he still has to choose to want Voldemort finished. 'It is the difference between being dragged into battle and walking into a battle with one's head held high' (HBP p.479).

2.Aslan might have done everything that was necessary to save Shasta's life, and to encourage him to complete his mission, but surely Shasta was left with a few choices of his own. He could still choose whether or not he wanted to be Anradin's slave, whether or not to trust Bree, and more particularly, Aravis. And he still could choose what to do when Aslan chased the party to the Hermit's door.

In the Talmud, Moses is anything but willing to take the road to Egypt to face Pharaoh to free the Children of Israel. God has to argue with him quite extensively, all along the way, which is why Aaron has to do a lot of the work against Pharaoh. The Talmud, though I think it isn't in the Biblical account, describes God mourning for Abraham and others who had shown more faith, and argued less. Moses has to be persuaded, right up until he finally dies on Mt Nebo, why he should do God's bidding. Was Moses chosen to lead the Children of Israel out of bondage? Or did he finally choose, of his own free will to be the leader?

Sometimes I think it's merely a semantic distinction that separates some of our views TBG, much like in the last debate. For instance:

TBG:
That's not libertarian free will: libertarian free will is the unconditioned ability to have chosen differently given the exact same set of circumstances. It is the ability to choose arbitrarily--even God doesn't have this kind of freedom because it's nonsense.

I'm not certain that I buy your definition of "libertarian" free will here. And I disagree that people wouldn't make different choices "given the exact same circumstances". It happens all the time that given the same circumstances people will often make different choices. That is in fact the very DEFINITION of choice. Anything else is NOT choice at all.

But I do agree that there are always "conditions" that shape our choices.

If you believe that your choices have any sort of reason behind them, then you deny libertarian free will.

This just strikes me as completely illogical. In part, because I think you're setting up a kind of Straw Man by making one of those Distinctions-Without-A-Difference again. And also because, Choices without Reason are not Choices.

Information is just another factor that plays into your free choice. Information doesn't make you any more or less responsible for your choice.

More illogic. A choice made without Information, or an ability to understand the Information isn't a Free Choice at all.

Actually, I would maintain that we all have free will and use it every day. Just because our free will is conditioned doesn't make it any less free.

Well, this is objectively and existentially untrue. The greater the "conditioning", the less Freedom of Choice we have. The fact you think the Legal system is going to pot because it is reflecting the latest advancements in science, doesn't make it so.

Again, reasoning and information are determining factors. Our choices are determined by who we are--

This is definitely True to varying degrees. But it is only a Half-Truth. Because, (also to varying degrees) Wagga is right too. Our Choices also determine who WE are.

I maintain that determinism is perfectly compatible with individual responsibility and, in fact, without determinism there would be no individual responsibility--at least not in any reasonable sense of the word. I don't deny free will, properly defined as the ability of an agent to choose according to what he or she wants most at a given time.

Again, this doesn't make any sense at all. And yes you are denying Free Will, because your (unintentional, I presume) "Straw Man" definition is the OPPOSITE of Free Will.

Coercion is actually an excellent example of the ranges of Choice people have. Some people are more capable than others of making a Free Choice in Coercive Circumstances. Some choose to Save others at their own expense (and sometimes against their own Survival Instincts), and some either do not, or cannot.

GB

I'm not certain that I buy your definition of "libertarian" free will here. And I disagree that people wouldn't make different choices "given the exact same circumstances". It happens all the time that given the same circumstances people will often make different choices. That is in fact the very DEFINITION of choice. Anything else is NOT choice at all.

Would you say then that are choices are made independently of all factors? To be able to have chosen differently given the exact same circumstances (this includes all psychological factors/reasons and information) is to have chosen randomly.

And also because, Choices without Reason are not Choices.

Then our choices have causes (reason is a cause) and therefore we cannot choose otherwise than we do even though we are not being coerced or forced. We are free and yet our choices are predetermined.

More illogic. A choice made without Information, or an ability to understand the Information isn't a Free Choice at all.

Sure it is. Just because I didn't see the speed limit sign doesn't make me any less guilty of having broken the law. The policeman can still give me a ticket. You are responsible not only for what you know, but for what you don't know.

Well, this is objectively and existentially untrue. The greater the "conditioning", the less Freedom of Choice we have.

So if I was conditioned to be a mass-murderer by neo-Nazi parents in secret, I'm less responsible for my actions? Conditioning has nothing to do with responsibility because unconditioned choices are impossible--all things are never equal. You acted for a rational reason because you have been conditioned to accept a certain kind of reason as "rational" and to value that sort of reason above others.

All choices are conditioned, but still responsible.

Again, I maintain that free will is the ability to do what you want--and while you have some control over your wants, that control is still based upon deeper wants/reasons. You can't have infinite regress--at some point you have to realize that you are a determined being, yet you are still responsible for your actions because you did what you wanted.

Coercion is actually an excellent example of the ranges of Choice people have.

All that coercion is, is a limiting of options. Limits on options is not a limitation on freedom. Whenever one chooses, one limits one's options.

The definition I have given of LFW is the accepted one. Libertarian free will is the doctrine that our choices are undetermined prior to the moment of choice and that we have equal possibility of choosing either option (principle of alternative possibility).

The problem here is that this is the opposite of free will, as you have pointed out: this is chance. Theistic Determinism is, in fact, the ally of free will because it maintains that our choices may have meaning and reasons behind them. The catch, though, is that reasons are also determined by external factors such as psychological makeup, education, and the like.

Again, I maintain compatibilism because it is the only way to logically reconcile responsibility with determination, both of which are taught in the Scriptures.

TBG

It doesn't make any difference if your definition of "Libertarian Free Will" is the correct one or not. My problem is that the qualifier "Libertarian" is used to create an extreme position as a Straw Man to tilt against.

A measure of Randomness is always a factor in Choice, as is a measure of Determinism. Neither extreme Determinism, nor extreme "Libertarianism" is a view reflecting Reality. A balance of "Forces" is necessary for Free Will.

GB

A measure of Randomness is always a factor in Choice, as is a measure of Determinism. Neither extreme Determinism, nor extreme "Libertarianism" is a view reflecting Reality. A balance of "Forces" is necessary for Free Will.

"Chance" is simply a descriptor for probabilities--it is not a force because it does not actually exist. Probability only exists as a descriptor for what might be from a finite point of view. God is not finite and therefore for Him, chance does not exist. From an ultimate perspective, such as the Bible gives us, nothing happens by chance because everything happens for a purpose.

Chance, if it existed, would be the opposite of free will because it is the opposite of reason.

TBG

"Libertarianism" and "Compatabilism" are also mere descriptors . Every word I use is a symbol for some element of Reality, not Reality itself.

Again my argument is two-fold:"Compatibilist" Free Will isn't Free Will at all, and "Libertarian" Free Will is a Straw Man. As usual, these sorts of terms simply confuse the issue even more.

Of course "Randomness" and "Chance" are terms describing a pattern that affects Probabilities, i.e. the number of options. But the number of options is still an Objective Reality. Just because you say they "don't exist", doesn't make it true. Nor did I say that Chance=Free Will (there's that Straw Man again ). If there is only One Option (God's Will) in the End, then there is no Free Will for Mankind.

Having more than one option is necessary for Choice.

The fact that numerous factors affect how we Choose, or limit our Choices, do limit how much Free Will a person has. But those with limited Free Will, or limited Options, necessarily bear limited Responsibility for Outcomes. Those with Greater Free Will, Greater Options (or Greatest, as in God) have Greater Power, have Greater Responsibility for Outcomes.

GB

Ok, first of all I do think that in any choice there are multiple options--but there can only be one option that we actually choose--and if we have no compelling reason to choose one option over the others, we will elect the option of indecision.

I would like you here to define what you mean by "free", since you would deny both of the definitions I have given--you seem to be using it mostly for its connotations. I have given its definition as the ability to choose among options according to one's wants/needs/desires/reasons (all of which are causes--that which is caused is, by definition, determined).

A man who has the options of a gun to his head and the demand "Deny Christ" is quite responsible for his answer even though his options are severely limited.

What I meant with my comments on chance is that chance cannot exist in a theistic universe--its only proper use is as a placeholder for things we don't understand.

Every effect must have a cause--pure chance would be a lack of causation. Therefore no effect can be caused by chance. Everything that exists is either a) an effect b) self-existent. Therefore chance does not exist.

TBG

I know I'm cutting in with an "older" discussion, but I was not able to answer TOM's question before about meat eating.

As I already pointed out, scripture already states that man, and beast were originally plant eaters. Now granted after the fall God used skins to cover Adam, and Eve. Literally, I believe that was the first shedding of blood to cover sin. If God introduced meat eating at that time, the Bible does not say. Now I know Able kept flocks, but there only use stated in scripture is for sacrifice. That there fleece was used for cloth is possible.
We do know from the fossils that are found that at least some animals were meat eaters at the time of the flood.
As for Man eating meat, I believe that it is possible with the sinful nature at that time that it was very probable. Noah, being righteous, most likely fought the urge in an effort to please, and serve God.
I know I mentioned before the animals even in modern time that even though they possese "canine" teeth are vegitarian, and that even carnivoures are knowen to eat plants. The mosquito, has been observed drinking nectar from flowers. Grizzly bears have been filmed grazing like cattle, etc. So even with sin, I do believe God's original plan/design is still evident in His creation.

I grant you that "Chance" and "Randomness", or "Chaos" are only apparent at some levels of Reality. Complexity Theory, Fractal Mathematics etc., demonstrate that there is a "Deeper" level of Order within that which appears "Random" or "Chaotic". So that's a leaning I share with you. Nevertheless, the patterns of Nature that are referred to thusly, do exist.

"Free" Will, or Freedom of Choice, is what I described before. Having options and the ability to choose between them. It's as simple as that. No mumbo-jumbo qualifiers that turn it into the opposite of it's definition . No Philosophical Pretzels that Twist words back in on themselves until they become utterly meaningless.

If you want to argue Causality, the New Physics since Einstein turns Newtonian Physics on it's head. Causality no longer flows in a straight line from The Past into The Future. The Implications for Philosophy and our God Concepts are Tremendous, and there is no way I can do the topic justice in a post. But regardless, it forces us to re-examine philosophical aphorisms taken for granted such as the ones you just used.

TBG:
Ok, first of all I do think that in any choice there are multiple options--but there can only be one option that we actually choose--

Captain Obvious . But Physicists have finally accepted The Multi-Verse Theory. Indeed, I have stated before that in a very real sense, ALL choices are made in one Verse or another. In my view, this means that we are Destined to make ALL choices. If I choose one thing in this Universe, I may choose something completely different in another Universe.

A man who has the options of a gun to his head and the demand "Deny Christ" is quite responsible for his answer even though his options are severely limited.

Very True, but he still his a choice: His Life or His Faith.

GB

"Free" Will, or Freedom of Choice, is what I described before. Having options and the ability to choose between them.

Alright, here is an example: this morning, I had two options before me: coffee or tea. Now, if I had been so disposed, I might have chosen coffee--however, this morning I was feeling like tea, so I chose tea. The choice was completely free--had I been so disposed, I could have chosen otherwise than I did. However, I was disposed toward tea and therefore it was inevitable that I choose tea. A free choice is still determined--self-determination is just as deterministic as hard determinism.

If you want to argue Causality, the New Physics since Einstein turns Newtonian Physics on it's head.

Again, all effects must have a cause. Just because finite humans can't know or predict that cause does not mean that the cause is not there. As a theist, I must argue that everything happens for a reason.

But Physicists have finally accepted The Multi-Verse Theory.

I prefer possible world theory, but in any case . . .

If I choose one thing in this Universe, I may choose something completely different in another Universe.

But you don't exist in that universe because you are limited to this universe. There may indeed be a GB in that universe, but it is not the same GB who is in this universe because he chose differently and was therefore differently disposed.

Again, why a possible world theory makes a bit more sense than positing a multiverse that is unprovable.

TBG

TBG:
I had two options before me: coffee or tea. Now, if I had been so disposed, I might have chosen coffee--however, this morning I was feeling like tea, so I chose tea.

Sure, you might feel like tea today. But lets say you had a huge exam this morning on Schopenhauer. You really felt like tea. But you think you might need the extra caffeine you would get from a hot cuppa Joe. So you pick coffee , despite the fact you REALLY want tea. Your Reason has won out over your Desire.

You have just made a choice, that wasn't inevitable. You could have said to yourself "To heck with the test, I can't stand coffee, I'll drink tea instead".

Again, all effects must have a cause. Just because finite humans can't know or predict that cause does not mean that the cause is not there. As a theist, I must argue that everything happens for a reason.

This just proves you don't really understand Relativistic and Quantum Physics, and that you are still using the Newtonian Model. "Effects" and "causes" are terms that no longer have a whole lot of meaning.

But you don't exist in that universe because you are limited to this universe. There may indeed be a GB in that universe, but it is not the same GB who is in this universe because he chose differently and was therefore differently disposed.

Again, why a possible world theory makes a bit more sense than positing a multiverse that is unprovable.

All the Universes must still exist in a Singular Multi-verse. They necessarily intersect on any number of levels. Our Consciousness has "non-local" properties, that may link between the various possible "MEs" or "YOUs" (perhaps through dreams or visions). In this Reality you chose tea, in another coffee (against your own desires) and yet another you decided to try something new and drink a coke for breakfast (you expanded your options ).

And it's not unprovable. The science is just going where the evidence leads .

GB