John R. Frame says that Epicurus' idea of the atomic swerve is the origin of the doctrine of libertarian free will.

But seriously, folks, I think Gandalfs Beard has a point. If all of our actions and their causes have been predetermined by God, how can free will exist? Conditioned free will, if it is conditioned that way, isn't free at all. But why does it matter? Let's just go ahead and admit that our wills are not free; that the natural man's will is bound to sin, and the regenerate man's to Christ.

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.

Ah, but in that scenario it was inevitable that I choose coffee because I have an overriding reason. Reason is just as deterministic as desire because it is itself a desire. In this case, I desire the caffeine more than I desire the pleasure of tea.

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".

But that can only happen if my desire for tea is stronger than the desire for extra caffeine.

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.

Just call me a pre-modern classical foundationalist .

All the Universes must still exist in a Singular Multi-verse.

A singular multiverse is called the actual world--that is, the possible world that happens to actually exist.

I challenge you to find me an example where a choice you made was not determined--whether by reasons, desires, wants, needs, whatever. Find me an example of a non-determined choice. You want to know what that's called? An arbitrary choice--a choice based on chance.

Again, compatibilism is the only way to logically reconcile human responsibility with determinism (Gladius, you are talking about a different kind of freedom).

TBG

There is no "different kind of Free Will". Free Will either exists (to varying degrees) or it does not. Compatibilism reconciles nothing. It's just word-play that masks that it is the OPPOSITE of Free Will.

If something is Inevitable, then no Free Will is involved.

GB

If something is Inevitable, then no Free Will is involved.

Yet I have demonstrated that we do really choose even though the results of our choices are inevitable because of our predispositions.

You defined free will as, "Having options and the ability to choose between them. It's as simple as that." Just because I had options and chose between them doesn't make the result any less inevitable. Argue all you want, but your definition in no way contradicts determinism.

TBG

TBG:
Yet I have demonstrated that we do really choose even though the results of our choices are inevitable because of our predispositions.

No, you haven't. All you've demonstrated is that you don't really believe in Free Will even though you claim to do so.

You defined free will as, "Having options and the ability to choose between them. It's as simple as that." Just because I had options and chose between them doesn't make the result any less inevitable. Argue all you want, but your definition in no way contradicts determinism.

Outcomes are never Inevitable. But the choices we make Inevitably Determine the Outcomes .

GB

Outcomes are never Inevitable. But the choices we make Inevitably Determine the Outcomes .

And those choices are determined by multiple factors in our character, habits, desires, dispositions, emotions, and reasons. Just because we choose freely does not make the choice any less determined by these factors because these things are part of who we are.

Again, find me a decision that you have made that was not determined by anything. No reasons, no desires, simple arbitrary will.

"`Cheshire Puss,' [Alice] began, rather timidly, as she did not at all know whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little wider. `Come, it's pleased so far,' thought Alice, and she went on. `Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
`That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
`I don't much care where--' said Alice.
`Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.

That is what indeterministic (libertarian) choice would look like in the real world.

TBG

All those influences on the decision making process do not determine the outcome we choose. They certainly Influence our decisions, but they do not Determine them. When we understand how certain factors influence our decision making process, we can factor them in. There is nothing inevitable about which factors will have the most influence.

I can see now (in part) why this discussion is going round in circles, you are conflating Influences with Causes. There are many influences, some that are in contradiction with each other. When we become aware of them, we can rationally choose between them.

GB

Ah, so it's probability? So every time I choose, I spin the mental roulette wheel with all the different factors taken into account and the result comes out and voila we have a winner! How then can I be said to be responsible since my motives and reasons were only factors in my decision? It was still arbitrary and made independently of those factors.

Or maybe, upon closer introspection, I find that my desires and reasons are in fact the whole story.

So in the end you are an indeterminist, as I thought? I need to seriously reread my Edwards on free will.

TBG

Well, now that I have my previous account back, I can get back to posting!

However much I do enjoy the whole Predestination vs. Free Will debates, I always quote my pastor on this one. One of the church-members asked him, "How would you reconcile Free Will and Predestination?" and he simply replied, "Funny you ask! Though, I see no need to reconcile friends!" Afterwards I asked him of how he could come up with such an answer as that, and he explained it to me as he had read in a book. He went over how in Hamlet, you could ask, why Hamlet killed Claudius? Someone could answer it that it was Hamlet's decision to do so, and his intentions, or because Shakespeare wrote it that way. After thinking a bit of time over it, I found that Free Will vs. Pre-destination, really don't disagree with each and other, but, they seem to even compliment each other!

LITD

LITD, The Black Glove and I would both agree with you (and each other ) on the basic principle in your statement. But when we examine the contexts within which we frame that statement, some contexts make more sense than others (mine of course ).

GB

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, GB, perhaps expand for me?

TBG believes that Free Will and Pre-Destiny are compatible, yet his context is that God Plans it all out and everything has been Determined in Advance. This totally redefines Free Will as it's opposite (No Will, No Choice), therefore they aren't really compatible at all. But his original basic statement COULD work, but not as he's defined it.

I also think that Free Will and Pre-Destiny are compatible. But I have a couple of ways of looking at this. One is that all Possibilities exist in the Multi-verse. From the Perspective of a Photon (the God Perspective) time does not exist. Past, Present, and Future in ALL Universes are Simultaneous, everything that can happen will happen. Therefore from that point of view, EVERY possibility, Every Outcome is Pre-destined.

Yet from our own perspective, we can only experience One Outcome of the choices we make at a time. We can choose between the possibilities presented to us. Thus we have Free Will. So we are Destined to Choose, and our Choices are Destined, depending on the perspective.

Sometimes I almost feel like TBG is trying to say the same thing , but his definitions just don't make logical sense to me.

So I came up with a Theistic way to make sense of TBG's ("Calvinist") view. God has a Plan. But he gave Sentient Beings Free Will. Now those folk can stray from God's Plan if they so choose. But God still wants His Plan to work out. So He uses Providence to Tweak the odds in Favour of those who choose a Path that aligns with his Plan, therefore assuring His Plan will work out. Hence, That which God has Destined can still come to pass, but a Sentient Being still has the Free Will to choose to align themselves with God's Plan or not.

But I have been told in no uncertain terms that this very logical way of Reconciling Destiny with Free Will is not "Biblical", and thus cannot be true . So be it .

In the End, my argument is much like your post that started this current round of the Free Will debate. If God has so thoroughly Pre-planned, Pre-destined, Pre-Ordained, and Pre-Viewed everything, Good and Bad, then there really aren't any Free Choices, and Man does not bear Responsibility for any of it. Thus, God must be Responsible for Evil, and Damning His Creations to Eternal Hellfire for doing exactly what He intended seems grotesquely unjust. That doesn't fly with me .

So there has to be some way for Destiny and Free Will to be compatible, but I don't see it in the Calvinist Compatibilist Theistic Determinist Model .

GB

TBG believes that Free Will and Pre-Destiny are compatible, yet his context is that God Plans it all out and everything has been Determined in Advance. This totally redefines Free Will as it's opposite (No Will, No Choice), therefore they aren't really compatible at all. But his original basic statement COULD work, but not as he's defined it.

"Will" is simply what you want. To say that "he did that willingly" is to say that he wanted to do it. Will is not the opposite of necessity but of coercion.

Let me define destiny here: destiny is what will actually happen in this possible world (the only one any of us will experience anyway). Determinism is the idea that everything that happens happens necessarily--that is, it could not have happened any other way, given all of the factors involved.

You have redefined destiny to mean "What might happen if all goes well," which is simply not the Biblical picture. The Biblical picture is that all things work together for the good of those who love God and are the called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). The Biblical picture is of a God whose plans cannot go awry because of anything we do--whatever happens, God is still on His throne and in control.

One is that all Possibilities exist in the Multi-verse.

So all possible worlds are actual worlds? There are worlds in which good doesn't triumph over evil? I must say it takes a lot of faith to believe that there is an infinite number of actual worlds.

I found that Free Will vs. Pre-destination, really don't disagree with each and other, but, they seem to even compliment each other!

Exactly--in fact, without God's foreordination/predestination, there would be no free will--no responsibility because it would be a matter of pure chances and probabilities (whatever those might be in an indeterministic world--I wouldn't know, never lived in one ).

TBG

TBG:
You have redefined destiny to mean "What might happen if all goes well

I said no such thing . But if that's how you want to "interpret" my two analyses of how Destiny and Free Will could be compatible, Knock Yourself Out .

I'm over it for now .

Peace and Long Life

Gandalf's Beard

"You cannot admire will in general because the essence of will is that it is particular." ~G.K. Chesterton--who was no Calvinist.

Grace and peace,

TBG