Featured Libertarian Free Will???

I suppose we must simply disagree here, then.

Alice did choose without external cause. She may have had motivations and biases influencing her, but she did make a decision. (Unless there’s something in the actual Alice in Wonderland text that states she had no free choice, in which case I point out that it’s a fictional book.)

In any case, my questions remain unanswered, so I assume temporary victory.

 

Libertarian free will doesn't have much to do about causes for decisions. I can only see this argument heading towards hard determinism. Rather, libertarian free will is more so a question of God's providence being "general" or "specific".

"The general providence view holds that God has general goals that he intends and actually attains, but that with respect to the specific details, he permits considerable variance, allowing for human choices. The specific providence view is that God ultimately decides even the details of his plan and ensures that they eventuate as he intends.

Among general providence proponents, traditional Arminians hold that humans have free will, by which they mean libertarian or noncompatibilist freedom. They emphasize that God could have created a world in which all the details were determined, but instead chose to limit himself, one major illustration of which is found in the incarnation.

Those who hold to specific sovereignty, or, as it is sometimes called, “meticulous providence,”contend that the Scriptures teach God’s sovereignty over all that occurs. Some are hard determinists, who feel that human freedom would be libertarian freedom, but believe God’s sovereignty precludes this. They are willing to make God responsible even for evil in the world. Others also hold to hard determinism, denying human freedom, but believe that humans are still responsible in some paradoxical fashion, since Scripture teaches this responsibility. Finally, there are soft determinists, who hold that while God is sovereign over all things, this is not inconsistent with human freedom, which is understood as compatibilistic freedom."


Post is a quotation from Christian Theology by Erickson p. 369

 

Referring to post 43. I tend to believe in compatabilistic free will

 

Saul, on the road to Damascus, obeyed the commands of Jesus.
"Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?..."
Did Jesus disregard Saul's free-will, assuming he possessed free-will?
If Saul had free-will, should he have reminded Jesus of that fact and told Him "I will do as I please"?

 

Straw man.

Free will doesn’t mean doing what you please. It means Saul could’ve chosen to obey Christ or not. One choice is the right choice, of course, and the other was the wrong choice, and he would be responsible for his choice. But he still had the ability to choose.

 

The more I read from the defendants of "free-will", the better understanding I have of why I don't believe in it.

 

That’s not an argument.

It sounds more like something you’d say if you don’t have an argument.

 

Rom 6:16

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

 

It is interesting that I do not recall you offering correction to TC....Any interaction would provide comic relief as TC will eat your lunch so to speak....

 

You still don’t understand what Free Will means.

 

This syllogism is egregiously bad.
Truly, it's really not serious at all.

line by line then:

Sure....of course, anything that isn't necessary is contingent. Choices are, by definition, contingent.
fair enough. Everything is either caused or uncaused. This is the one premise he gets right, everything else is nonsense.

No.
No one believes that choices are "uncaused".
Even L.F.W. choices are "caused"...they're simply not necessitated.
The causal factor in a Libertarian schema is simply the agent themselves so, nothing is "uncaused".

Of course, this is really simply built on confusion between causality and necessity which this syllogism makes no distinction between and Mr. Frame obviously knows nothing about.
But the simple fact that something is "caused" does not make it "necessary".
also...being "uncaused" doesn't mean anything like "springs from nothing" (whatever the hades that means)

Some are.
Some aren't...
Frame failed to distinguish between morally relevant choices and irrelevant ones.
It is no crime to prefer strawberry ice-cream above vanilla and yet, both are choices......

So, Frame fails to distinguish here as well.

Egregious ignorance.

Necessity stands over-against contingency....not causality...

Contingent things aren't causally effete...

Contingent things which stand in causal relationships might be something like a nuclear bomb.....
It's very existence is contingent upon a gazillion factors, but it is quite causally powerful. It isn't causally effete at all.
The real distinctions are between contingency and necessity...not necessity and CAUSALITY....

The fact that 2+2=4 in base ten........ is a NECESSARY truth....

But every one of those things...the number 2 the number 4 etc are abstract objects, and abstract objects don't stand in causal relationships....
Nuclear Bombs...are concrete objects and they, therefore stand in causal relationships, but everything about them is contingent.

So, abstract objects can be necessary but causally effete.
But contingent objects (like persons and their wills) are causally potent.
Those are the correct distinctions. Frame is completely out of his element here.

HUH??
This particular sequence of words is nonsense.
It says absolutely nothing intelligible.........the rest of this syllogism simply makes absolutely no sense at all.
By Premise six...I can only guess he means that to "chose" and to "cause a choice" creates an infinite regress?????????

I guess.

Actually, he would then mean a "VICIOUS infinite regress" ...(like the song "found a peanut")...not a mere "infinite regress".. which would be something like distinguishing between trying to make God infinitely "OLD" and therefore infinity temporally existent (an infinite regress)...
vs.
the song "found a peanut"...which is a "vicious" infinite regress because of it's circularity....

Frame, again, fails to distinguish.

This syllogism is simply nonsense. It's unintelligible and proves nothing.

 

OH...
He was "wrong" on every conceivable possible level.
That is absolutely one of the most convoluted and pathetic syllogisms I have ever seen in my life...

That was horrific.

Truly horrific.
It floors me that you took that caucophony of random words thrown together as a serious argument.
I weep for the condition of education in this country if this "syllogism" is taken seriously at all.

It's complete nonsense.

 

I said quite a lot.
That syllogism fails on the most basic level.

I assume you find it meaningful in some way I can't possibly conceive...
but it is illogical,
it fails basic Philosophical and logical distinctions and frankly, it makes absolutely no sense.

It is convoluted and unintelligible.

You may find it powerful Brian, but you would be wrong.
Take that syllogism to any Philosopher of Religion or Christian Philosopher anywhere on the planet and they will tell you it is nonsense.
This includes Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.

It's a bad argument Brian, and you couldn't possibly defend it.
I imagine you defend it only because it would humble you to think you found something so horrible to be convincing...but we've all done it before.
Don't let pride get in the way of learning.
We've all confused verbosity with knowledge at some point....

How about this...tell me where I went wrong, can you do that?

Where was I wrong Brian?
Explain to everyone here, where I went wrong, and why Frame's argument is correct.

 

False...
I can quote myself insisting that all choices are caused.
I said all choices are caused...

I'll quote myself:

That was me...
Insisting like any sane person would that choices are caused.....three times...in exactly as many independent clauses in case any Calvinist missed it.

Apparently you did.

Now, please try again....
Where did I go wrong.
I renew the challenge for you to speak intelligently on this:
Where was I wrong Brian?
Explain to everyone here, where I went wrong, and why Frame's argument is correct.