Philosophy Now Forum

sthitapragya wrote:How has A taken away B's free will?

A has taken away B's freedom, not his free will.

Harbal wrote:In the AB scenario it may well be the case that B would choose death over remaining in captivity, or at least, decide it is no worse.

I think the difference lies in the choice. B can choose to try and escape because he really wants to and in doing so, he momentarily snatches his freedom back, and is therefore free till he is shot by A or actually manages to escape. However, if he chooses to stay, he does it in spite of not wanting to for fear of death. He is not staying of his own free will.

Harbal wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:How has A taken away B's free will?

A has taken away B's freedom, not his free will.

But isn't free will also being able to do what one wants to do? Oh! I see what you are getting at. If B wants to leave, he can choose to. That is the exercise of his free will. If A shoots him, he faces the consequences. Okay. So this is not a restriction on free will.

So God given free will still stays free will. But we just lose our freedom. Is that it?

sthitapragya wrote: So God given free will still stays free will. But we just lose our freedom. Is that it?

When you talk about "God given" is that literally what you mean ore are you talking about people'a belief in God given free will?

Harbal wrote: When you talk about "God given" is that literally what you mean ore are you talking about people'a belief in God given free will?

People's belief in God given free will. In the present context we would have to assume that God exists and will sit on judgement and punish us for our sins.

sthitapragya wrote:

Harbal wrote:I would say this is a question about choice, rather than free will.

That is the point I am trying to make here. If you believe in an interventionist God who plans to punish you for your actions, you don't have free will. You just have a choice.

True.
It's worse than that, though. If you believe in God, you are also accepting that God can give you a quality that is impossible: free will is a miracle.
However, since God is omnipotent; omni- this and that, he has made you such that he already knows how you will choose. In fact he has known since the dawn of time that you will die a sinner or a saint; shall be born into a culture that has heard of god, or one which rose and fell before Judeao-Christianity had reared its ugly head.

SO for most people in history they don't even get a choice.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Harbal wrote:I would say this is a question about choice, rather than free will.

That is the point I am trying to make here. If you believe in an interventionist God who plans to punish you for your actions, you don't have free will. You just have a choice.

True.
It's worse than that, though. If you believe in God, you are also accepting that God can give you a quality that is impossible: free will is a miracle.
However, since God is omnipotent; omni- this and that, he has made you such that he already knows how you will choose. In fact he has known since the dawn of time that you will die a sinner or a saint; shall be born into a culture that has heard of god, or one which rose and fell before Judeao-Christianity had reared its ugly head.

SO for most people in history they don't even get a choice.

Where are you getting the idea that God is 'omni-' anything from?

attofishpi wrote:
Where are you getting the idea that God is 'omni-' anything from?

Well, you might not believe so, but most believers do believe that God is omni-everything. In fact, in some religions it is the basic requirement of God.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Harbal wrote:I would say this is a question about choice, rather than free will.

That is the point I am trying to make here. If you believe in an interventionist God who plans to punish you for your actions, you don't have free will. You just have a choice.

True.
It's worse than that, though. If you believe in God, you are also accepting that God can give you a quality that is impossible: free will is a miracle.
However, since God is omnipotent; omni- this and that, he has made you such that he already knows how you will choose. In fact he has known since the dawn of time that you will die a sinner or a saint; shall be born into a culture that has heard of god, or one which rose and fell before Judeao-Christianity had reared its ugly head.

SO for most people in history they don't even get a choice.

This argument of mine has been defeated by harbal and IC and i finally understood what they meant, I think, so I do understand how we still would have free will. An interventionist God takes your freedom and gives you free will.

sthitapragya wrote: This argument of mine has been defeated by harbal and IC and i finally understood what they meant, I think, so I do understand how we still would have free will. An interventionist God takes your freedom and gives you free will.

By "interventionist" are we thinking of a God who is Deterministic, and thus "interferes" with absolutely every action a person can possibly make, or are we thinking of One that is only "intervening" rarely and from time to time, as in the case of a God who allows free will but calls people to account for it at the end of the day?

Because it seems to me that the outcome is very different for your claim. In the first case, there would clearly be NEITHER freedom NOR free will; and in the second there would be BOTH free will AND freedom, but also eventual consequences.

There's no easy analogy between "Judgment" and "gun-to-head," especially if a person has the very live option not to believe in the "gun" at all. The consequences might turn out the be the same, but the existence of the freedom to choose to experience or escape those consequences would not be in doubt.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: This argument of mine has been defeated by harbal and IC and i finally understood what they meant, I think, so I do understand how we still would have free will. An interventionist God takes your freedom and gives you free will.

By "interventionist" are we thinking of a God who is Deterministic, and thus "interferes" with absolutely every action a person can possibly make, or are we thinking of One that is only "intervening" rarely and from time to time, as in the case of a God who allows free will but calls people to account for it at the end of the day?

Because it seems to me that the outcome is very different for your claim. In the first case, there would clearly be NEITHER freedom NOR free will; and in the second there would be BOTH free will AND freedom, but also eventual consequences.

There's no easy analogy between "Judgment" and "gun-to-head," especially if a person has the very live option not to believe in the "gun" at all. The consequences might turn out the be the same, but the existence of the freedom to choose to experience or escape those consequences would not be in doubt.

I cannot agree. Either there is intervention or there isn't. And God does not rarely intervene. At death, he intervenes EVERYTIME by judging EVERYONE. That is taking away freedom.

I cannot agree. Either there is intervention or there isn't. And God does not rarely intervene. At death, he intervenes EVERYTIME by judging EVERYONE. That is taking away freedom.

"Taking away," it might be; but it will be quite different from "never having allowed any freedom," I would say.

The Determinist thinks that, literally, every time you twitch an eyebrow, it's either God (Theist version) or Natural Laws (Atheist version) that have caused it to happen. There is never any human free will at all, even on small matters, and even for a second. "Intervention" there is said to be total.

That would be quite different from, say, the freedom given to a parent to a child or a student by a teacher, even if some "intervention" were to be the result. The child or student would have every opportunity to put on his best effort, and to make choices for himself. He could even choose to disregard or insult the parent or teacher. In fact, the child or student could even select what reaction he wanted the parent of teacher to have, provided the parent or teacher was himself consistent with his promises. So there would be lots of "freedom" in such cases.

But "freedom" never entails "absence of consequences," does it? Not even in this world. in this world, every action produces consequences. The question of our freedom is only, "What consequences are you prepared to accept?"

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
That is the point I am trying to make here. If you believe in an interventionist God who plans to punish you for your actions, you don't have free will. You just have a choice.

True.
It's worse than that, though. If you believe in God, you are also accepting that God can give you a quality that is impossible: free will is a miracle.
However, since God is omnipotent; omni- this and that, he has made you such that he already knows how you will choose. In fact he has known since the dawn of time that you will die a sinner or a saint; shall be born into a culture that has heard of god, or one which rose and fell before Judeao-Christianity had reared its ugly head.

SO for most people in history they don't even get a choice.

Where are you getting the idea that God is 'omni-' anything from?

Where are you getting the idea about God?

sthitapragya wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
That is the point I am trying to make here. If you believe in an interventionist God who plans to punish you for your actions, you don't have free will. You just have a choice.

True.
It's worse than that, though. If you believe in God, you are also accepting that God can give you a quality that is impossible: free will is a miracle.
However, since God is omnipotent; omni- this and that, he has made you such that he already knows how you will choose. In fact he has known since the dawn of time that you will die a sinner or a saint; shall be born into a culture that has heard of god, or one which rose and fell before Judeao-Christianity had reared its ugly head.

SO for most people in history they don't even get a choice.

This argument of mine has been defeated by harbal and IC and i finally understood what they meant, I think, so I do understand how we still would have free will. An interventionist God takes your freedom and gives you free will.

Gee - that makes sense?!?!?!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Where are you getting the idea that God is 'omni-' anything from?

Where are you getting the idea about God?

From God.

Where are you getting this idea that 'if' there is a God it is omni?