Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I am not a Christian or theist so I have a completely different view of morality and accountability than yours.
What is interesting is that it appears that if your ideas on free will are shown to be wrong, then your whole world view on morality etc will also collapse. What is also interesting is that you are yet to articulate in any understandable f ...[text shortened]... ill have to come up with another word when I want to say "not caused and could go either way."

So far I hear you saying that:
1. a free choice is not caused by anything WHTEY

No a free choice is caused by the individual who makes it.

2. a free choice is not random. WHITEY

Yes , it is not random because it is possible due to God not being random or caused.

3. a free choice could go either way.WHITEY

Yes , it could it depends on whether the person decides to go God's way or not.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I just want to be clear here: If you or I elected to rescue the drowning child, it would not be an exercise
of free will, but if an evil individual elected to ignore the child, he is exercising free will?

Assuming I am correct, what accounts for this disparity? For you, your conscience compels you to
act. In his, his selfishness compels him to ...[text shortened]... such that you opine that you are not exercising free
will but that the evil man is?

Nemesio

Assuming I am correct, what accounts for this disparity? For you, your conscience compels you to
act. In his, his selfishness compels him to ignore (or perhaps his love to see others suffer). Why do
you see a material difference in these situations such that you opine that you are not exercising free
will but that the evil man is? NEMESIO

Simply because I placed myself into the first scenario because you asked me what "I" would do. I would be compelled to act and cannot imagine that I wouldn't. In the second you asked me to imagine some guy I don't know so I used my imagination.

The reality is that I don't know . God is the only one who is able to make these intimate judgements correctly. I have a half decent chance with myself because I've got insider knowledge of myself , but even I don't know the limits of what I am capable of. It's potentially possible that I could choose to not rescue the boy but the consequences for my conscience , sense of self esteem and what I value as a human being would be terrible. This needn't make me saving the boy a robotic thing though because I am aware within myself of the potential for evil (which we all have) and as such it couldn't be ruled out.

The other guy may or may not have decided that the path for him in life is sadism. He could be exercising his free will in a very negative way by defying morality and committing inhumane acts. Free will isn't always nice. It allows bad stuff too. God has allowed a world in which evil dwells as well as good.The other possibility is that this guy is extremely messed up and a psychopath and not responsible for his actions.

Overall , I would say this is not a good example. Why don't you try something like the man who chooses to surrender his life to God versus the man who doesn't.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Simply because I placed myself into the first scenario because you asked me what "I" would do. I would be compelled to act and cannot imagine that I wouldn't. In the second you asked me to imagine some guy I don't know so I used my imagination.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that you didn't choose to act
when you saved the child. As I see it, there were two basic choices: strive
to save the child, or elect not to. Like you, the second choice isn't even
a reasonable consideration, but it is something available to me that I
could choose. That's why I think striving to save the child is, indeed, a
free choice.

Similarly, the 'evil man' doesn't consider another person's life as valuable,
and certainly considers his getting wet more valuable than another person's
life (as I explained). So, the opposite seems to be true: while he has
the choice to save the child, it doesn't even seem reasonable, and thus
he doesn't elect to do it.

This is very different than a situation in which there is only one possible
course of action -- pick an even number between 7 and 9, e.g.. It's not
merely that 'not saving the child' isn't a reasonable choice for you (it's
available for you to choose), it's that there is only one even number
between 7 and 9 from which to choose.

So, let me try to clarify one more time: are you sure you didn't choose
to save the child (even though you feel the choice was obvious, the other
choice being so repugnant as being hardly worthy of consideration)?

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
Overall , I would say this is not a good example. Why don't you try something like the man who chooses to surrender his life to God versus the man who doesn't.

I think that this example is too complicated, too laden with implication,
and too 'political' if our interest is understanding free will generally. We
will get bogged down in details, definitions, and interpretations. That's
why I picked something pretty obvious (saving a child at no risk to yourself)
as a place to start: straightforward and simple. I'll ask that you humor
me.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I think that this example is too complicated, too laden with implication,
and too 'political' if our interest is understanding free will generally. We
will get bogged down in details, definitions, and interpretations. That's
why I picked something pretty obvious (saving a child at no risk to yourself)
as a place to start: straightforward and simple. I'll ask that you humor
me.

Nemesio

Ok , do it your way , but I expect an answer to my question in return.

Originally posted by Nemesio
It seems to me that you are suggesting that you didn't choose to act
when you saved the child. As I see it, there were two basic choices: strive
to save the child, or elect not to. Like you, the second choice isn't even
a reasonable consideration, but it is something available to me that I
could choose. That's why I think striving to save the c
choice being so repugnant as being hardly worthy of consideration)?

Nemesio

So, let me try to clarify one more time: are you sure you didn't choose
to save the child (even though you feel the choice was obvious, the other
choice being so repugnant as being hardly worthy of consideration)? NEMESIO


I could easily be persuaded that I did infact choose to save the child in the sense that the option of going against my conscience is potentially possible and could happen . In this sense one could say i was not forced to save the child despite finding it difficult to imagine how I wouldn't.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes , it is not random because it is possible due to God not being random or caused.

I am tired of going round in circles and asking the same question over and over and you intentionally dodging it. How do you define random?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am tired of going round in circles and asking the same question over and over and you intentionally dodging it. How do you define random?

A random event is something that appears to happen by chance for no apparent reason. We think that random events may occur in the universe but we can't really be sure because we can't eliminate the possibility of finding an explanation later.

NB-God is not an event , nor did he happen.

Originally posted by knightmeister
A random event is something that appears to happen by chance for no apparent reason.

Please define "chance".
So by your definition an event that is not random must have an apparent reason. Hence a cause. So your statements to the effect that an event can be both uncaused and not random are logically inconsistent. So come up with a different definition or withdraw your statements.

We think that random events may occur in the universe but we can't really be sure because we can't eliminate the possibility of finding an explanation later.
Note that your definition only requires the cause to not be apparent. It does not say that there is no cause or that we will never know the cause.
Interestingly the uncertainty principle rules out the possibility of finding an explanation later - but I suppose the principle may be wrong.

NB-God is not an event , nor did he happen.
Yet you appear to conclude from this that he is therefore special and that that lack of eventness applies to everything about him including events generated by him.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , do it your way , but I expect an answer to my question in return.

I did answer it. You asked why I don't use the example; I explained why.

Did you have another question that I missed?

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
I could easily be persuaded that I did infact choose to save the child in the sense that the option of going against my conscience is potentially possible and could happen . In this sense one could say i was not forced to save the child despite finding it difficult to imagine how I wouldn't.

Okay. So, you agree that there were (basically) two choices for both you and EvilMeister: save the
child or let the child die.

For you, the choice was rather obvious: the selection of saving the child was one you weighed as
the most valuable option, given the sets of values you hold, your ideals, your confidence as a swimmer,
and so forth.

For EvilMeister, the choice was similarly obvious: the selection of not saving the child was weighed as
the most valuable option, given the sets of values he holds (to disdain other life, to not get wet, to
not inconvenience himself, and so forth).

That is not to say that both you and EvilMeister are equally moral. All we are doing is understanding
the driving forces behind choices. Both you and EM had the potential option of doing the opposite to
your natures, but your dispositions, characters, values, &c. compelled you to choose what you did.
You each still chose it, but your choices were constrained (not determined) by your characters.

Are you with me so far, or do you have an objection?

Nemesio

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please define "chance".
So by your definition an event that is not random must have an apparent reason. Hence a cause. So your statements to the effect that an event can be both uncaused and not random are logically inconsistent. So come up with a different definition or withdraw your statements.

[b]We think that random events may occur in the univers at that lack of eventness applies to everything about him including events generated by him.

NB-God is not an event , nor did he happen. KM
Yet you appear to conclude from this that he is therefore special and that that lack of eventness applies to everything about him including events generated by him.WHITEY

Yes I do conclude that an all powerful eternal entity that has no cause and has willed the universe into existence of his own volition .....hmm... yes he might indeed be very special indeed , like nothing in the natural world we know of infact. You think of him like a random event but in doing this you are thinking only of a natural god not a supernatural eternal God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please define "chance".
So by your definition an event that is not random must have an apparent reason. Hence a cause. So your statements to the effect that an event can be both uncaused and not random are logically inconsistent. So come up with a different definition or withdraw your statements.

[b]We think that random events may occur in the univers ...[text shortened]... at that lack of eventness applies to everything about him including events generated by him.

Note that your definition only requires the cause to not be apparent. It does not say that there is no cause or that we will never know the cause.
Interestingly the uncertainty principle rules out the possibility of finding an explanation later - but I suppose the principle may be wrong. WHITEY

To be honest I don't really believe in chance at all. I believe most events to be the result of natural law and determinism and other actions to be the result of God's influence ( like the fact we have free will)

Originally posted by Nemesio
I did answer it. You asked why I don't use the example; I explained why.

Did you have another question that I missed?

Nemesio

So, my answer is, yes, people can be morally responsible for their actions when those actions were
freely chosen and when those actions had moral implications to begin with. NEMESIO


Ok, now notice that you have used the phrase "freely chosen" which to me implies free will. As you know it would be quite irrational to hold a man accountable for his actions if only one outcome were ever possible. Cards on the table now . I am going to show you how the concept of moral responsibility is irrational unless you introduce free will into the equation. So, my simple follow up question would be....

Do you believe that all mens actions come about as a direct or indirect result of determinism (dictated by natural laws) and randomness such that only one outcome is ever possible to those actions OR alternative outcomes are possible but can be attributed to random chance. ?KM


I then clarified what I meant by indirect determinism and you have not responded , don't worry about it , it's easy to lose track in these threads.

Originally posted by knightmeister


To be honest I don't really believe in chance at all.

Interesting. Suppose we had a shuffled deck of cards, and I offer you n:1 odds that the first card we turn over is an Ace. Is there a sufficiently great n such that you would accept the wager? Is there a sufficiently small n such that you would reject the wager?