Does choice imply more than one actual possibility?

[makesends]

I'll try to move through the opening post point by point. The aim is to offer a few summarized and abbreviated points. My numbering will correspond to your numbering.

(1) It is important to correct the causal conflation fallacy. It is essentially the reductionistic tendency to reduce complex causal systems down to only one level. It is a fallacy plain and simple. Calvinists get this all the time when dealing with God's decree over all things. I've outlined this fallacy in greater detail in another thread. Link following.
https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/
Most often we see this fallacy when accused of robots or automatons. We have received the puppet accusation. We also see this fallacy when Open Theists tell us that they hold to a dynamic view of God's providence while the Calvinist view is again reduced down to some cheesy level of fallacy. Calvinists can hold to a dynamic view of interaction precisely because their "means-as-well-as-the-end" view. Dynamic interaction is built into the ordained system, and eventually it becomes clear that the issue is not "dynamic" vs "automatic" but rather the issue is a God-defined view of reality and identity vs a man-defined view of reality and identity. I tend to view the "dynamic" point as a cheesy and stupid reductionistic whine against Calvinism; it is verbiage accomplishing nothing other than demonstrating the man-focused assumptions of the objector. (God determined vs man determined)

Obviously, a biblical Calvinist would at least endorse the material and the immaterial, so I totally agree with the materialistic caution. More is going on than the material level, and you are right to point out that materialism does not describe your view.

An uncaused view of the will is typically reserved for libertarian freedom, which is the main driving force behind the various anti-Calvinistic views. Greater than that is the assumption of autonomy.

(2) Command and ability. My memory is a bit fuzzy on all the details that Jonathan Edwards covered. However, I've always appreciated his illustration of the distinction between physical inability and moral inability. His illustration is of two men in prison. The first man is paid a visit by the king. The man is told that he is free to leave. However, the prison bars and gates are still shut and locked. The chains and locks are still present upon the man's wrists and ankles. He is physically unable to leave. No one would fault him for being unable to leave the prison, and sadly, all to often this is the perception that people have of Calvinism, and they are wrong to have that perception.

The second man is also paid a visit by the king. The king opening the doors, unlocks the chains, and removes every physical hindrance to the prisoner. The king then announces to the prisoner that he has been given the opportunity to leave, but there is one condition. The man must bow down to the king in a true heartfelt way, truly repent of his crimes, and become a loyal subject for life. If this man truly demonstrates a change of heart and action, then he is completely free to leave. Unfortunately, this situation is a bit more complex than meets the eye. The man is in prison for treason. The man hates the king will all his heart, and bitterness and contempt have complete mastery over him. He will not repent, for his animosity is too great. He hates the king, and will not repent.

All can see the obvious difference, both between the type of causation as well as the difference between physical inability and moral inability. It is not hard to see how physical inability can excuse a person, but moral inability definitely does not excuse a person. In both situations a person was bound and unable, but the quality of the binding is vastly different.

(3) I don't think that my description above fits into what you were seeking to avoid. My critique of libertarian freedom is in the forum for all to see. I hold a consistent position against libertarian freedom. Link provided.
https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/libertarian-freedom-a-critique.2187/

(4) Opposition to their will? The non-Calvinistic rant would say that Calvinism presents a god that forces people to do what he wants. But that is the furthest thing from the truth. The type of causation matters, but this is often ignored because the standard for the non-C is that if anything takes way from human ultimacy of choice, then it is force. However, that is merely begging the question. At least two other views exist. One would be the agnostic view, where one simply says that he/she does not know. The other points to a different definition of responsible human action; it does not need human ultimacy (i.e. an uncaused choice or person). Rather, freedom should be judged upon a lesser standard of doing as one most prefers, and to choose is to prefer. In the second case, now we are dealing with compatibilism, and this view is compatible with God's sovereign hand over the choice. There is no opposition of the will, for the person does as he most prefers, and human ultimacy is irrelevant to the issue of force or coercion.

(5) I'm not too sure where you are going with this, but I can comment on the final sentence. Yes, our temporal existence may be a vapor, but this does not mean it is unreal. God is the standard of reality, and what He creates and sustains is real. Yes, there is a Creator/creature distinction, and yes this distinction entails that God is ultimately self-sufficient while the creation is dependent, but this dependency does not establish the premise of creation being unreal. Certainly, God's being is different than ours, but God has created and established creational reality.

Now, perhaps you are saying that God's level of reality is greater than ours, and on that point I agree. You used the word "Real," and perhaps you were distinguishing between "Real" and "real".

Due to some problematic elements in this thread, I'm going to leave this as my only interaction.

I really appreciate this.

I specially like this: "The type of causation matters, but this is often ignored because the standard for the non-C is that if anything takes way from human ultimacy of choice, then it is force. However, that is merely begging the question."

#5 was meant to point to the very SURE fact of what God is doing (not to mention what and who HE is) as BASIC. THAT is the 'given', THAT is the 'usual', THE reason for existence. All this, which humanity considers natural, the status quo, is the outlier. I wish Christians would see things that way. I wouldn't expect it of unbelievers.

I saw video of a non-believer, a comedian, who saw through that stupid, "God Is My Co-pilot", bumper sticker. He said something like, "If God is in your car, shouldn't he be driving?"

 

[Josheb]

(All emphases mine.)

Read again, carefully, what Josh just said here. Notice the implication, that his original statement (”zero veracity”) was an overreach—exactly like I said.

I did not screw up, as it turns out.



Is Josh always correct? Of course not—which, presumably, any Christian would freely admit. (Does he? Not here, anyway.)

The question arises quite naturally: Should errors be corrected? I assume any rational and honest person would answer affirmatively. One would think it’s the easiest thing in the world to admit: “Of course I’m not always correct, and of course my errors should be corrected.”

But here we have Josh refusing to admit either. That is worth noting.

MOD HAT: Rule 4.9 prohibits members from acting like moderators, which includes explaining or interpreting the rules or referencing any rule violations. If the “entire post is off-topic,” hit the Report button and a moderator will make a determination (cf. 6.3).

Yes, I am a mod. But Josh is not.

As any competent reader can recognize, it’s because that post was my answer to Josh’s erroneous claims about truth, science, and Feynman. It is understandable if Josh would prefer that I ignore them and talk about OP-related issues, but I responded to his claims instead.

Nevertheless, anyone interested in reading my engagements on choice, possibility, and determinism—Josh included—can read them in this thread here and here (responding to Makesends), here, here, and here (responding to Josh), and here, here, and here (responding to QVQ).

And those are only some of my posts on those issues in this thread.



What point is that? (It is a rhetorical question. I believe he won’t answer.) I disagreed with a lot more than I agreed with—and I carefully explained why. Moreover, some of his points certainly were not valid, like revisability entailing zero veracity (a claim he has now abandoned). There was also no validity to his claim that I used science to answer the opening post. And so on.

Anyway, I am content to likewise move on.

What is it you think I think you screwed up?

MOD HAT: Let's move on, shall we?

 

[makesends]

“Ask an OP-relevant question,” Josh said.

“I did,” I replied, showing where.

“Yep,” he responded.

Okay, well, that was a very devastating and well-argued critique he defended there. I am undone.



A self-defeating argument

I ask you, reader, if you can track Josh’s logic here. It may not be obvious at first but take a look. He just argued that if something you assert provisionally now could be revised within the next 100 years or so, then what you assert provisionally now has zero veracity or truth-value. [1] And he says this applies to not only science but also theology.

But that is self-referentially incoherent because its proponent is fallible. In other words, the claims Josh asserts today—the interpretations of Scripture, the theological assertions, the philosophical analyses—could be overturned at some point in the future. (In fact, I am sure that he has already experienced beliefs being overturned and replaced with more biblically or theologically consistent ones. I doubt he was born with his current set of beliefs.)

According to his own argument, that means he presently has zero veracity.

Either (a) revisable claims can be true, in which case revisability is irrelevant to veracity, or (b) revisable claims can’t be true (zero veracity), in which case the claim “revisable claims can’t be true” is itself without truth-value.

I don’t know about you, reader, but I prefer the more modest claim that people like Feynman have “limited, domain-specific veracity that is also provisional and defeasible.”

A false claim about science

The unstated truth about science, he said, is that its offerings are likely to be revised, even substantially, as new evidence is discovered.

But that is hopelessly naïve, because the reality is that it isn’t unstated at all. Not only are scientists and science communicators very transparent and candid about the tentative and provisional nature of scientific ideas and conclusions (Wikipedia), but the very history of science bears this out, as one idea after another has been revised or replaced (e.g., static universe).

Here is the point: Just because a claim is revisable, that doesn’t mean it has no truth-value now.

“It’s likely that everything Feynman said in that video will be revised in 100–150 years,” he said—essentially repeating what I had just finished saying (“provisional and defeasible”).

Maybe it only has veracity if it comes from his keyboard, so he was doing me a favor by repeating it.



He doesn’t seem to understand that’s precisely why his invoking modern physics was ironic.

Notice, too, that right after he claimed modern physics has zero veracity, he wants to highlight its (limited) usefulness in these discussions.

This is great stuff.



Observe the complete non-answer response, despite my specific questions. "Do unto others" and all that.



I have contributed 23 posts now to this thread. In how many of them did I attempt to use science to answer the OP?

Exactly. We can all verify the answer: Zero.

I referred to Feyman five times:

1. I introduced Feynman’s ideas on time as a conversational resource (here).
   
   ​
2. I engaged @makesends questions and concerns about Feynman’s talk (here).
   
   ​
3. I shared a new link with @makesends, who wanted to give it a listen (here).
   
   ​
4. I answered Josh regarding the problems inherent with Feynman’s view (here).
   
   ​
5. I critically scrutinized Josh‘s attempt to use science to answer the OP (here).

While I did attempt to answer the OP, it was not in any of those five references to Feynman or science.

If memory serves, I think we have a member who has little patience for those who seem to ignore what he takes care and time to write.



He is right about that. There is, however, a need to correct Josh’s errors, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.



That problem, of course, being that Rovelli and Kaku have zero veracity because their views, like Josh’s, are revisable.

---

Footnotes:

[1] Let’s expose the hidden premise: “If a claim is revisable, then it lacks truth-value” (wherein veracity tracks truthfulness or correspondence to reality). But then maybe Josh didn’t mean veracity, despite saying it.

MOD HAT: FWIW, one member (if not more) on this site has a habit of taking anyone else's statements to extremes, which is sometimes almost indistinguishable from mere hyperbole. I honestly can't tell which it was in the case you have answered, but whether engaging in arguments against the extremes —i.e. a 'strawman', since that poster was misrepresenting what his opponent had said— or engaging in argument against the literal meaning of his own hyperbole —i.e. uncogent, if not incoherent— does serve his purpose of overwhelming or at least silencing his opponents.

One poster in the last couple of days simply gave up, stating in his one post that he would not post again in that thread, without even referencing directly that he did not want to be a part of the continuing contention. I have opened 3 very similar threads in the last 3 weeks or so, to try to get back on track without the squabbling, but the squabbling continued even when at the core the person in question agreed (ok, to avoid hyperbole, "agreed to some degree"), with the principle I was trying to get across or ask about. While some feedback on off-topic claims is sometimes necessary, this is, nevertheless, off-topic.

I haven't read the last few posts, but if this hasn't gotten back on track, I'ma take my ball and go home!

 

[John Bauer]

MOD HAT: FWIW, one member (if not more) on this site has a habit of taking anyone else's statements to extremes, which is sometimes almost indistinguishable from mere hyperbole. I honestly can't tell which it was in the case you have answered, but whether engaging in arguments against the extremes … or engaging in argument against the literal meaning of his own hyperbole … does serve his purpose of overwhelming or at least silencing his opponents.

Two things on this.

First, I was allowing him to paint himself into a corner. It was his own view expressed in his own words, which I confirmed and then critiqued. Maybe his original wording was materially misleading, maybe his thoughts are evolving in real time, maybe he simply chose to moderate what he previously stated. I don’t think it matters much which is the case. At the end of the day, I said it was an overreach and his recent statement confirms that.

Second, I don’t think it’s fair to say that his purpose is to overwhelm or silence his opponents. While it can certainly feel like that sometimes, that may not be his purpose at all.

One poster in the last couple of days simply gave up, stating in his one post that he would not post again in that thread, …

I read his comment differently, that his post would be his only engagement in this thread because of “problematic elements” (which were unidentified). In other words, he wasn’t giving up, for he only ever intended a single post.

And that’s fine, of course. Some people have a low tolerance for contention.

While some feedback on off-topic claims is sometimes necessary, this is, nevertheless, off-topic.

To point out the obvious, I did say I was moving on. Josh will need a new sparring partner—unless he contributes something relevant to the OP, which I would be pleased to engage.

 

[makesends]

I have always appreciated how clearly Mitch Cervinka articulated this distinction:

It is generally true that in order to be responsible a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it!

The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities, nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness—and this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.

To me it seems reasonable to even consider it instinctive, that man, regenerate or not, understands the implication of "GOD", that is His complete ownership and authority over creation and, most relevantly, over every individual man. The atheist/agnostic must deny, or relegate to irrelevancy, the existence of God, because it is automatically inclusive of moral responsibility, not of man's making, but of someone to whom they cannot, will not, submit.

 

[makesends]

The basic theological format for the Op and subsequent POV's is Aquinas
Why I mention it is because it is motion:
The First Way: Motion
1. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion.
2. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality"

If that axiom could be proven, it would eventually imply Aseity. I find it absolute, but others (atheists, for the most part) have asked me to prove it. I can only assert that it is altogether reasonable to me. I invoke another axiom, that nothing comes from nothing.

3. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect.
4. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with respect to motion
5. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by something else.
6. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no motion.
7. But there is motion.
8. Therefore there is a first mover, God.

Like 2 others of Aquinas' 5 ways, this one is based on what WE see. Therefore, (I say), "If these things (#1-7) be so, we should admit to #8."

Nevertheless, as regards the subject(s) of the OP, Aquinas' First Way here gives great fodder to the idea of God's singularity and the huge difference between him and his creation. It affirms God's perfect and driven purpose, that this world is not its own thing with its own aseity. GOD is the main thing, the only thing of his kind, and that from which everything else descends and upon whom everything else depends.