An Analysis of Free Will

[nightbringer]

Does this apply to God?

Yes, I think so.

I think we need to consider that the nature of the human will is that it is intentional and uncaused... in at least that sense made in the image of God.

I don't think the Bible's "image of God" language carries such precise philosophical information.

I'm still struggling to see how an intentional component alleviates the problems that arise by saying agen'ts actions are uncaused. If an action is uncaused the agent didn't cause it.

[themuzicman]

Yes, I think so.

Then you have no initial causal agent.

I don't think the Bible's "image of God" language carries such precise philosophical information.

Well, the image of God as described in Gen 1 includes commands to procreate, subdue, and have dominion. All of those requires free will.

I'm still struggling to see how an intentional component alleviates the problems that arise by saying agen'ts actions are uncaused. If an action is uncaused the agent didn't cause it.

The agent causes the action. The agent, however, was not caused to initiate that action.

[nightbringer]

Then you have no initial causal agent.

Of course I do. I think God's nature is such that he necessarily will do the things that he does.

Well, the image of God as described in Gen 1 includes commands to procreate, subdue, and have dominion. All of those requires free will.

Sure but we're debating what free will is/what it requires. It is question-begging to merely assert that because Scripture teaches that humans have free will, then humans have free will as described by your view.

The agent causes the action. The agent, however, was not caused to initiate that action.

I agree, but I only think that's possible if the agent necessarily causes out of her nature. I don't think you're able to escape the contingency problem.

[themuzicman]

I agree, but I only think that's possible if the agent necessarily causes out of her nature. I don't think you're able to escape the contingency problem.

I think you're inventing a problem that does not exist. The nature of the free will is such that it is not caused.

Let me throw this monkey wrench into the mix:

If all choices are made necessarily out of the nature, then all choices are necessary.

Contingency requires real possibility. The resolution of any contingency requires either randomness or intent.

Those two reasons are why 26 and 29 aren't valid. Your conclusion that the first element in a causal chain cannot have a cause is correct. What you're missing is that any free will agent can be that first causer. That's the nature of having free will.

[nightbringer]

Contingency requires real possibility. The resolution of any contingency requires either randomness or intent.

I don't see that contingency is something to be resolved. To say that something is contingent is just to say that it isn't necessary - things could have been otherwise than they are. I take it self-evidently true that there is a cause for why things are the way they are, and not another way. I don't see how adding a contingent will helps anything. It just pushes the problem back, there is a cause for why the will is the way it is. You say the will has intentionality. I don't see how that helps anything. If the will is contingently intentional about something, there is a cause for why it is the way it is. There keeps having to be a cause until you trace it back to something necessary.

But I'm not saying anything here that I haven't already said. I think if we pressed each other on the matter much further we'd just keep going round in circles.

[themuzicman]

I don't see that contingency is something to be resolved. To say that something is contingent is just to say that it isn't necessary - things could have been otherwise than they are.

But that's exactly the point. If the nature necessarily determines the choice, then the choice is necessary. It cannot be otherwise.

I take it self-evidently true that there is a cause for why things are the way they are, and not another way. I don't see how adding a contingent will helps anything. It just pushes the problem back, there is a cause for why the will is the way it is. You say the will has intentionality. I don't see how that helps anything. If the will is contingently intentional about something, there is a cause for why it is the way it is. There keeps having to be a cause until you trace it back to something necessary.

There is a cause for the way it is, but not a cause for what it does. You seem to have trouble divorcing the two concepts.

But I'm not saying anything here that I haven't already said. I think if we pressed each other on the matter much further we'd just keep going round in circles.

Possibly.

[nightbringer]

But that's exactly the point. If the nature necessarily determines the choice, then the choice is necessary. It cannot be otherwise.

I agree. I'm not sure that free will (or at least moral accountability) requires that sort of ability to do otherwise. And let's say you're right that it does. That doesn't mean such an ability is actually possible.

There is a cause for the way it is, but not a cause for what it does. You seem to have trouble divorcing the two concepts.

I understand that conceptually there is a difference between a person's reasons for doing something and some force causing a person to do something. I'm saying that while we can understand such a difference, if an agent causes something only contingently, there must be a regress until one hits a necessary cause.

[themuzicman]

I agree. I'm not sure that free will (or at least moral accountability) requires that sort of ability to do otherwise.

Not sure how you can have a string of necessary events and then say that there is freedom there.

And let's say you're right that it does. That doesn't mean such an ability is actually possible.

If God has it, then it's possible.

I understand that conceptually there is a difference between a person's reasons for doing something and some force causing a person to do something. I'm saying that while we can understand such a difference, if an agent causes something only contingently, there must be a regress until one hits a necessary cause.

I'm having difficulty creating a category for the chooser as being either contingent or necessary. I suppose we could say that the will itself is necessary, in that it cannot be other than intentional, and as a result it chooses contingently.

I guess I would argue that if there is a causal chain, that only the initial element of that chain would be contingent, and contingent upon the one who initiated it. Thus, the person choosing isn't a part of the chain, but is the one who "kicks it off" as it were.

[Carrikature]

By the way, if I haven't mentioned it yet, I started identifying as a 'hard determinist' after reading Essay on the Freedom of the Will. So...recommended to anyone interested in the topic.

Are you a moral nihilist, then?

[nightbringer]

Not sure how you can have a string of necessary events and then say that there is freedom there.



If God has it, then it's possible.



I'm having difficulty creating a category for the chooser as being either contingent or necessary. I suppose we could say that the will itself is necessary, in that it cannot be other than intentional, and as a result it chooses contingently.

I guess I would argue that if there is a causal chain, that only the initial element of that chain would be contingent, and contingent upon the one who initiated it. Thus, the person choosing isn't a part of the chain, but is the one who "kicks it off" as it were.

I'm gonna withdraw from this dialogue for the time being. I wanna sit on the idea for a while and stew over it. Thanks for getting involved!

[shunyadragon]

Of course, an argument can be valid while containing false premises. What I was shocked at was your claim that human beings can do logically impossible things. Seeing as I don't even grant that "ability" to God.

The important point is what is it that you are referring to as 'logical?' I definitely do not consider the 'logical' to be a barrier to what humans nor God are capable of doing. Logic is human construct to solve problems and logically understand the world we live in. It does not describe the limit of human possibilities.

[mattbballman]

The important point is what is it that you are referring to as 'logical?' I definitely do not consider the 'logical' to be a barrier to what humans nor God are capable of doing. Logic is human construct to solve problems and logically understand the world we live in. It does not describe the limit of human possibilities.

And I'm supposed to trust you on understanding Platinga's Evolutionary argument against Naturalism and you don't even understand what it means to not be able to do logically impossible acts???

Can you please reply and not reply to this post at the same time and in the same sense, please? You know, since we can do logically impossible things, and all.

Do you even know what a logically impossible act is? We're not talking about logical arguments.

Are you not aware of possible world semantics? I thought you were, since you seem to know Plantinga inside and out.

Seriously, though. I can't really trust anything you've claimed you've 'read' or 'understood' by this comment alone.

[shunyadragon]

And I'm supposed to trust you on understanding Platinga's Evolutionary argument against Naturalism and you don't even understand what it means to not be able to do logically impossible acts???

You failed miserably on Plantinga, and do not do much better here. If you read my posts it would be clear.

Can you please reply and not reply to this post at the same time and in the same sense, please? You know, since we can do logically impossible things, and all.

Do you even know what a logically impossible act is? We're not talking about logical arguments.

Are you not aware of possible world semantics? I thought you were, since you seem to know Plantinga inside and out.

Seriously, though. I can't really trust anything you've claimed you've 'read' or 'understood' by this comment alone.

In my previous post I made it clear that it is best to refer to them as 'physically impossible acts' as clarifying my position, and not 'logically impossible.' I do not like the wording of logically impossible in this case as describing what humans cannot nor can do, that's all. I make a distinction between logically and physically. Read my entire posts, and do not pop in and out like some gooney bird dropping a smelly load in the dark.

I to misspoke also, though 'logically impossible' is most definitely a rule in logic, and not equated to what would be a physically impossible task.

Logically impossible in logic is to an attempt to prove a negative, a classic fallacy. Can humans prove a negative argument, no.

Logically impossible

http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g978140510679513_ss1-110

Logic A purported state of affairs or fact that violates the laws of logic, and is therefore inconsistent or self-contradictory , is logically impossible. For instance, “God is a skeptic” is logically impossible because it would be self-contradictory to ascribe skepticism to a being defined as having perfect knowledge. The logically impossible should be distinguished at least from metaphysical, epistemic, and scientific impossibility, each with its own grounds. A proposition is scientifically impossible, for example, if it violates the laws of nature. Propositions are logically possible if they do not violate the laws of logic. We do not necessarily know of every proposition whether it is logically possible or logically impossible. Nor do we have a clear understanding of how different kinds of impossibility and different kinds of possibility are related. “When we hold a proposition to be logically impossible, we are claiming that it is incompatible with some general proposition which is itself logically true.” Ayer, Probability and Evidence ...

© source where applicable

[mattbballman]

You failed miserably on Plantinga, and do not do much better here.

Find me one post where we talked about Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. Good luck!

If you read my posts it would be clear.

Clear? That's funny, actually. Yea, right. You, my friend, are NOT clear.

In my previous post I made it clear that it is best to refer to them as 'physically impossible acts' as clarifying my position, and not 'logically impossible.'

Let's look at your previous posts, shall we?

In post #62, you say, Careful about logic. The best constructed valid logical argument can be totally and yes the human agent is clearly able to do what is logically impossible. I don't know what it means for an argument to be totally: this is Mr. Jello's mind we're talking about. Dude, that argument is totally!!! Totally what???? This is what you call clarity?

Anyway, this was in response to nightbringer who said, Do you think any human agent has the ability to do what is logically impossible?

Nightbringer is talking about an ACT. You come out of left field (as usual) and talk about valid logical ARGUMENTS. You then say that because there can be valid ARGUMENTS, therefore we can do the logically impossible??? Only in Mr. Jello's mind, of course.

Then, you bring up physical impossibility, which is COMPLETELY irrelevant, since Nightbringer is talking about LOGICAL impossibility. But hang with me, because this is what you like to do. I'll draw out the whole flow of the conversation and lay it all out for you to see, since you're too lazy to do it yourself.

Nightbringer was then in complete disbelief that anyone would say, the human agent is clearly able to do what is logically impossible., as anyone who is not Mr. Jello would feel the same. THEN, you say in post #81, yes, a logical argument can be valid and false.

We're not talking about ARGUMENTS, you idiot. AGAIN, we're talking about ACTIONS. Logically impossible ACTS! Hello! If you had the least bit acquaintance with all the literature you CLAIMED to have read, you'd know this. I'm utterly clueless, because you quote Ayer later (which I'll get to), which totally disproves your point. You're just too ignorant to notice it.

Nightbringer says the SAME thing I'm saying: that no one even mentioned ARGUMENTS. That we're talking about ACTIONS, something a freaking two year old could notice. You respond in post #101, The important point is what is it that you are referring to as 'logical?' Yea, no DUH, Sherlock. We're talking about logically impossible ACTIONS. ACTIONS that can't be performed in any possible world, because they violate the laws of logic. Example: me typing this response AND not typing this response at the same time in the same sense is a LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ACT. It violates the law of non-contradiction. Got it?

You go on: I definitely do not consider the 'logical' to be a barrier to what humans nor God are capable of doing. So, please find me someone who can pick up a pencil and not pick up a pencil at the same time in the same sense. Please! Please! And again, even YOU notice we're not talking about ARGUMENTS anymore, you Sophist! You're now talking about what humans are DOING. What God can DO! ACTIONS. Do you even pay attention to what you're writing?

You again: Logic is human construct to solve problems and logically understand the world we live in. Again, so according to YOUR logic, this is a possible state of affairs: logic being a human construct and NOT being a human construct at the same time in the same sense? Seriously? That is NONSENSE! And besides, this has NOTHING to do with logically impossible ACTIONS. You're still wondering around in the ARGUMENTS no-man's-land. Then you say: It does not describe the limit of human possibilities. YES IT DOES! It tells you you can't do X and -X at the same time in the same sense, PERIOD. You can't do it. I can't to it. God can't do it. NO ONE CAN DO IT. Unless, again, you're still talking about arguments, which you probably are, and it's BESIDE THE POINT.

Now, we come full circle to my response to you. I'll quote you again: In my previous post I made it clear that it is best to refer to them as 'physically impossible acts' as clarifying my position, and not 'logically impossible.

IN CONTEXT, you brought up PHYSICAL impossibility, which was completely IRRELEVANT to what Nightbringer was saying. A physically impossible act would be like me flying. I can imagine me flying, so it's NOT logically impossible. You can't IMAGINE logically impossible acts. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out to someone who claims to be such an expert on Plantinga.

So, 'what you made' clear doesn't do ANYTHING to rebut my point.

I do not like the wording of logically impossible in this case as describing what humans cannot nor can do, that's all.

Well, too freaking bad! It's a category of a type of act. It's in the literature on metaphysics. Deal with it. And it happens to be what Nightbringer wants to talk about.

I make a distinction between logically and physically.

If you make such a DISTINCTION, then you're admitting TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTS, you dolt. Man, you're stupid.

1. Logically impossible acts - humans flying and not flying at the same time and in the same sense.
2. Physically impossible acts - humans flying

See it now, idiot?

Read my entire posts, and do not pop in and out like some gooney bird dropping a smelly load in the dark.

That really did make me laugh. Thanks for the comedic relief.

I to misspoke also, though 'logically impossible' is most definitely a rule in logic, and not equated to what would be a physically impossible task.

Just because it's a rule in logic (which is kind of vague anyway), doesn't mean we're talking about ARGUMENTS. There can be logically impossible ACTS, and logically impossible STATES OF AFFAIRS too.

Logically impossible in logic is to an attempt to prove a negative, a classic fallacy. Can humans prove a negative argument, no.

This is the stupidest comment I have ever read, bar none. I don't know what to say.

Let me start with 'Logically impossible in logic'. First, logically impossible WHAT? Acts? States of affairs? What are you freaking talking about? If it's arguments, don't get me started again. But even if it is, 'proving a negative' DOES NOT encompass all of INVALIDITY. It's one fallacy in a sea of fallacies. I don't even know how to respond to something this stupid. Logically impossible ACTS have NOTHING (absolutely NOTHING!) to do with proving a negative!!!!!!!

Now to your quote from Ayer, who COMPLETELY contradicts what you've been saying the whole time!

A purported state of affairs or fact that violates the laws of logic, and is therefore inconsistent or self-contradictory , is logically impossible.

IN OTHER WORDS, what Nightbringer said in the freaking first place!!!!!!! What is the point of this! This is NOT PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY, idiot!

For instance, “God is a skeptic” is logically impossible because it would be self-contradictory to ascribe skepticism to a being defined as having perfect knowledge.

This would be a logically impossible STATE OF AFFAIRS. Nothing to do with PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Nothing to do with valid arguments with false conclusions. Nothing to do with ARGUMENTS at all!!!!!!

The logically impossible should be distinguished at least from metaphysical, epistemic, and scientific impossibility, each with its own grounds. A proposition is scientifically impossible, for example, if it violates the laws of nature.

This is just another way of saying WHAT I ALREADY FREAKING SAID. Stop wasting my darn time. In other words, scientific impossibility is this PHYSICAL impossibility you're ranting about. Nightbringer was talking about LOGICAL impossibility. So, what is the freaking point of quoting this????? NONE!!!!!!! Is English your second language? Seriously. I'm wondering.

Propositions are logically possible if they do not violate the laws of logic.

It's just sad this needs to be reiterated. Really sad.

We do not necessarily know of every proposition whether it is logically possible or logically impossible.

This is EPISTEMIC. Not physical. So, what is the POINT OF QUOTING THIS?

And the rest is equally pointless. Dude, you're dumb. Face it. You're not familiar with the literature. Which isn't bad in itself. It's that you flaunt that you are. You're just a laughing stock. And a waste of time. No one should take you seriously on these topics ever . . . again.

[shunyadragon]

Find me one post where we talked about Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. Good luck!



Clear? That's funny, actually. Yea, right. You, my friend, are NOT clear.



Let's look at your previous posts, shall we?

In post #62, you say, Careful about logic. The best constructed valid logical argument can be totally and yes the human agent is clearly able to do what is logically impossible. I don't know what it means for an argument to be totally: this is Mr. Jello's mind we're talking about. Dude, that argument is totally!!! Totally what???? This is what you call clarity?

Anyway, this was in response to nightbringer who said, Do you think any human agent has the ability to do what is logically impossible?

Nightbringer is talking about an ACT. You come out of left field (as usual) and talk about valid logical ARGUMENTS. You then say that because there can be valid ARGUMENTS, therefore we can do the logically impossible??? Only in Mr. Jello's mind, of course.

Then, you bring up physical impossibility, which is COMPLETELY irrelevant, since Nightbringer is talking about LOGICAL impossibility. But hang with me, because this is what you like to do. I'll draw out the whole flow of the conversation and lay it all out for you to see, since you're too lazy to do it yourself.

Nightbringer was then in complete disbelief that anyone would say, the human agent is clearly able to do what is logically impossible., as anyone who is not Mr. Jello would feel the same. THEN, you say in post #81, yes, a logical argument can be valid and false.

We're not talking about ARGUMENTS, you idiot. AGAIN, we're talking about ACTIONS. Logically impossible ACTS! Hello! If you had the least bit acquaintance with all the literature you CLAIMED to have read, you'd know this. I'm utterly clueless, because you quote Ayer later (which I'll get to), which totally disproves your point. You're just too ignorant to notice it.

Nightbringer says the SAME thing I'm saying: that no one even mentioned ARGUMENTS. That we're talking about ACTIONS, something a freaking two year old could notice. You respond in post #101, The important point is what is it that you are referring to as 'logical?' Yea, no DUH, Sherlock. We're talking about logically impossible ACTIONS. ACTIONS that can't be performed in any possible world, because they violate the laws of logic. Example: me typing this response AND not typing this response at the same time in the same sense is a LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ACT. It violates the law of non-contradiction. Got it?

You go on: I definitely do not consider the 'logical' to be a barrier to what humans nor God are capable of doing. So, please find me someone who can pick up a pencil and not pick up a pencil at the same time in the same sense. Please! Please! And again, even YOU notice we're not talking about ARGUMENTS anymore, you Sophist! You're now talking about what humans are DOING. What God can DO! ACTIONS. Do you even pay attention to what you're writing?

You again: Logic is human construct to solve problems and logically understand the world we live in. Again, so according to YOUR logic, this is a possible state of affairs: logic being a human construct and NOT being a human construct at the same time in the same sense? Seriously? That is NONSENSE! And besides, this has NOTHING to do with logically impossible ACTIONS. You're still wondering around in the ARGUMENTS no-man's-land. Then you say: It does not describe the limit of human possibilities. YES IT DOES! It tells you you can't do X and -X at the same time in the same sense, PERIOD. You can't do it. I can't to it. God can't do it. NO ONE CAN DO IT. Unless, again, you're still talking about arguments, which you probably are, and it's BESIDE THE POINT.

Now, we come full circle to my response to you. I'll quote you again: In my previous post I made it clear that it is best to refer to them as 'physically impossible acts' as clarifying my position, and not 'logically impossible.

IN CONTEXT, you brought up PHYSICAL impossibility, which was completely IRRELEVANT to what Nightbringer was saying. A physically impossible act would be like me flying. I can imagine me flying, so it's NOT logically impossible. You can't IMAGINE logically impossible acts. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out to someone who claims to be such an expert on Plantinga.

So, 'what you made' clear doesn't do ANYTHING to rebut my point.



Well, too freaking bad! It's a category of a type of act. It's in the literature on metaphysics. Deal with it. And it happens to be what Nightbringer wants to talk about.



If you make such a DISTINCTION, then you're admitting TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTS, you dolt. Man, you're stupid.

1. Logically impossible acts - humans flying and not flying at the same time and in the same sense.
2. Physically impossible acts - humans flying

See it now, idiot?



That really did make me laugh. Thanks for the comedic relief.



Just because it's a rule in logic (which is kind of vague anyway), doesn't mean we're talking about ARGUMENTS. There can be logically impossible ACTS, and logically impossible STATES OF AFFAIRS too.



This is the stupidest comment I have ever read, bar none. I don't know what to say.

Let me start with 'Logically impossible in logic'. First, logically impossible WHAT? Acts? States of affairs? What are you freaking talking about? If it's arguments, don't get me started again. But even if it is, 'proving a negative' DOES NOT encompass all of INVALIDITY. It's one fallacy in a sea of fallacies. I don't even know how to respond to something this stupid. Logically impossible ACTS have NOTHING (absolutely NOTHING!) to do with proving a negative!!!!!!!

Now to your quote from Ayer, who COMPLETELY contradicts what you've been saying the whole time!



IN OTHER WORDS, what Nightbringer said in the freaking first place!!!!!!! What is the point of this! This is NOT PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY, idiot!



This would be a logically impossible STATE OF AFFAIRS. Nothing to do with PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Nothing to do with valid arguments with false conclusions. Nothing to do with ARGUMENTS at all!!!!!!



This is just another way of saying WHAT I ALREADY FREAKING SAID. Stop wasting my darn time. In other words, scientific impossibility is this PHYSICAL impossibility you're ranting about. Nightbringer was talking about LOGICAL impossibility. So, what is the freaking point of quoting this????? NONE!!!!!!! Is English your second language? Seriously. I'm wondering.



It's just sad this needs to be reiterated. Really sad.



This is EPISTEMIC. Not physical. So, what is the POINT OF QUOTING THIS?

And the rest is equally pointless. Dude, you're dumb. Face it. You're not familiar with the literature. Which isn't bad in itself. It's that you flaunt that you are. You're just a laughing stock. And a waste of time. No one should take you seriously on these topics ever . . . again.

I answered this and made myself clear. Back to your Troll cave Egor.