Libertarian Freedom, A Critique

[Josheb]

One more point: I've left out the matter of original sin because it is a red herring.

The facts of scripture are that all people have sinned and all fall short of God's glory. This means the dissenting protest denying original sin doesn't apply to the person making the protest (or the one receiving it). The protester is a sinful sinner basing his protest on ground he does not own or stand upon. That makes the protest irrelevant and asserting an irrelevancy, also known as a red herring, is a logical fallacy. God does not reason fallaciously, and He does not create or cause His creatures to do so. In other words, the protest itself is sin. The dissent is an act of unrighteousness, faithlessness, and disobedience. It is solely, always and everywhere, a work of the flesh that betrays the premise of autonomous volition.

 

[makesends]

Sin is what we are, not just what we do.

Well said. I love that way to put it.

Christ "became sin" for us.

 

[makesends]

Not only does imperfection never beget or cause perfection

Simple mathematical fact! Well noted.

 

[Simons]

Some of you may not follow the argument, and on my end that is probably due to the fact that my aim is to give a summary.

That might explain my inability to follow a coherent argument

Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise, but this ability,…

So a Libertarian would say that our hypothetical man (Bob) while standing in front of the bank could “do otherwise” and choose to either 1. rob the bank or 2. walk away/not rob the bank. That sounds right.

A man robs a bank, but if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he did not rob a bank even though he did (at the same time, and in the same way).

No libertarian (that I can envision) would agree that Bob’s choice to do 1 vs. 2 (at a moment in time: T) would necessarily create two concurrent and different realities (from point T onwards)…one where Bob robbed the bank and one where he didn’t. The Libertarian would say that just before T two potential realities existed and after the decision at T one of those potential realities came into existence and the other ceased as a possibility. The ability to “do otherwise” is a different thing from the ability to “be otherwise” as the ability to “be otherwise” is conditional upon which choice is made (the choice being the “doing otherwise”). I don’t see where in your post that you have proven that Bob’s ability to choose between two things creates two different realities going forward…one realty where he robbed the bank and one where he didn’t.

So then at 1.4 you declare:

Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise, but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment. This is a violation of the law of identity, as such, libertarian freedom is incoherent.

I don’t like the bit: “Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise”….I think that it should be (when applied to our man Bob): “Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its view that Bob had the ability to do otherwise”….

From there you declare: but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment.

As I have said, the ability to “do otherwise” is a different thing from the ability to “be otherwise” and the latter doesn’t follow from the former….but perhaps I have missed something because this is merely a summary.

If you are saying that that Bob’s ability to choose between two things necessarily creates two different (contradictory) realities going forward, then I think that such is merely your unproven assertion.

On the other hand, if you are saying that the Bob that would choose to rob the bank would have to be different than the Bob that would choose to walk away (to set up your law of identity issue), then I think that such is merely your unproven declaration.

On the further other hand, if you are saying that a future event is every bit as much of a fact as a past event and that Bob’s option to choose either 1 or 2 would necessarily create two contradictory future facts, then again you haven’t proven such to be the case.

BTW do you apply your reasoning to God?...does he not enjoy libertarian freedom or are all of his actions 100% determined? Could he do otherwise than he did? E.g. could he have done otherwise than die on the cross? If so, then (according to you) would that mean there are two contradictory realities out there? One where he died on the cross and one where he didn’t? Or are there two contradictory realities out there…one where he created the earth and one where he didn’t?

God bless.

back at you....cheers

 

[makesends]

No libertarian (that I can envision) would agree that Bob’s choice to do 1 vs. 2 (at a moment in time: T) would necessarily create two concurrent and different realities (from point T onwards)…one where Bob robbed the bank and one where he didn’t. The Libertarian would say that just before T two potential realities existed and after the decision at T one of those potential realities came into existence and the other ceased as a possibility. The ability to “do otherwise” is a different thing from the ability to “be otherwise” as the ability to “be otherwise” is conditional upon which choice is made (the choice being the “doing otherwise”). I don’t see where in your post that you have proven that Bob’s ability to choose between two things creates two different realities going forward…one realty where he robbed the bank and one where he didn’t.

Empiricism. Both have never happened, so why should we assume both are ever equally possible?

 

[Simons]

Empiricism. Both have never happened, so why should we assume both are ever equally possible?

Libertarianism holds that one's choices are not 100% determined...not that the choice hasn't been influenced in some way or that all options are equally possible

 

[makesends]

Libertarianism holds that one's choices are not 100% determined...not that the choice hasn't been influenced in some way or that all options are equally possible

"Libertarianism", then, operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions. If the choices are not equally influenced, they are not equally possible, and if not equally possible, then only one can possibly happen— the one chosen, as a matter of fact.

In effect, then, the only reasonable thing that Libertarian Free Will can say is that we do choose, and that our choices are real choices, or words to that effect, but it cannot reasonably say that our choices are not determined.

 

[Simons]

"Libertarianism", then, operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions. If the choices are not equally influenced, they are not equally possible, and if not equally possible, then only one can possibly happen— the one chosen, as a matter of fact.

Well thanks for declaring your opinion…if you can make it more than just an opinion, then I would be more impressed

In effect, then, the only reasonable thing that Libertarian Free Will can say is that we do choose, and that our choices are real choices, or words to that effect, but it cannot reasonably say that our choices are not determined.

I am curious as to your reasoning here. Scripture speaks of both the Son and the Father making choices. Here are some examples:

John 1:43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee.

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Luke 6:13 And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles:

Luke 9:35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!”

So in your opinion did the Son and/or the Father exercise Libertarian Free Will in making these decisions/choices or is it that you cannot reasonably say that their choices were not determined? I never thought of God as being bound by determinism, but I would love to hear your thoughts on that proposition if you believe it to be true. On the other hand, if you don’t think that God’s actions are 100% predetermined, then how does the Son’s possession of Libertarian Free Will not suffer from the same self-contradictory notions that you say apply to the assertion of Libertarian Free Will for men? ….same question for the Father’s possession of Libertarian Free Will

 

[Mr GLee]

Call it a framing fallacy, a straw man fallacy, and a red herring fallacy or whatever you like, but that is precisely your Original Sin. You really might want to read with comprehension before trying to condemn others; this would help you to actually deal with real people and real positions, rather than imaginary ones. The Calvinist theology says that all are condemned from the womb by virtue of Adam's sin, not by virtue their own sin unless and until God regenerates them. And that having nothing to do with them personally. In Calvinism, they are condemned to eternal damnation before they were even able to learn right from wrong, let alone actually doing anything wrong.

In Adam dying mankind life comes to a end .The whole creation suffers as in birth pains, daily.

We need his daily bread

God is not served by the dying hands of mankind as a will of man

The water of the word or baptism of the Holy Spirit the gospel its power can make our granite hearts soft

Job 23: 12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him. Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him. For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troublet

Who is it that makes yours soft ?

 

[Mr GLee]

I am curious as to your reasoning here. Scripture speaks of both the Son and the Father making choices. Here are some examples:

John 1:43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee.

The next day according to the will of the Father . Jesus the prophet was sent as a apostle. to go to Galilee.

 

[Arial]

So in your opinion did the Son and/or the Father exercise Libertarian Free Will in making these decisions/choices or is it that you cannot reasonably say that their choices were not determined? I never thought of God as being bound by determinism, but I would love to hear your thoughts on that proposition if you believe it to be true. On the other hand, if you don’t think that God’s actions are 100% predetermined, then how does the Son’s possession of Libertarian Free Will not suffer from the same self-contradictory notions that you say apply to the assertion of Libertarian Free Will for men? ….same question for the Father’s possession of Libertarian Free Will

Why are you conflating and defining God's position by man's position as though we are equals?

 

[Simons]

Why are you conflating and defining God's position by man's position as though we are equals?

I am not. makesends said "'Libertarianism', then, operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions. If the choices are not equally influenced, they are not equally possible, and if not equally possible, then only one can possibly happen— the one chosen, as a matter of fact." Do you see anything in what makesends said that would indicate that his/her reasoning would only apply to a human free agent and not to a divine free agent? I don't....which is why I asked: if you don’t think that God’s actions are 100% predetermined, then how does the Son’s possession of Libertarian Free Will not suffer from the same self-contradictory notions that you say apply to the assertion of Libertarian Free Will for men? Please note: I am asking what's the difference (such that self-contradictory notions do not result for God)...and I am not asserting the makesends is wrong based on a conflation of the human and the divine.

Feel free to offer your own answer.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
In effect, then, the only reasonable thing that Libertarian Free Will can say is that we do choose, and that our choices are real choices, or words to that effect, but it cannot reasonably say that our choices are not determined.

I am curious as to your reasoning here. Scripture speaks of both the Son and the Father making choices. Here are some examples:

John 1:43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee.

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Luke 6:13 And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles:

Luke 9:35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!”

So in your opinion did the Son and/or the Father exercise Libertarian Free Will in making these decisions/choices or is it that you cannot reasonably say that their choices were not determined? I never thought of God as being bound by determinism, but I would love to hear your thoughts on that proposition if you believe it to be true. On the other hand, if you don’t think that God’s actions are 100% predetermined, then how does the Son’s possession of Libertarian Free Will not suffer from the same self-contradictory notions that you say apply to the assertion of Libertarian Free Will for men? ….same question for the Father’s possession of Libertarian Free Will

What in the world does the "libertarian free will" argument have to do with whether God has it or not? Ha! The very notion of questioning whether God is free to do as he will, uncaused, is ludicrous —EVERYTHING God does is uncaused. But NOTHING man does is uncaused. I was talking about man, not God, rather obviously. Why write what you did? I said, "...that we do choose, and that our choices are real choices, ...but it cannot reasonably say that our choices are not determined." Why do you bring up whether God has libertarian free will? This whole argument about libertarian free will has to do with whether God determines OUR choices.

I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't like the rest lately, who go out of their way to knock a thread around all they can, without quite arguing concerning the point actually being made. I don't know you well enough to group you with them. I hope you were only sincere, and actually thought I was talking about the invalidity of libertarian free will even concerning God. Beats me, though, how you would think that.

 

[Mr GLee]

EVERYTHING God does is uncaused. But NOTHING man does is uncaused.

What do you mean everything God does is uncaused ?

Not performed by Him?

 

[Simons]

What in the world does the "libertarian free will" argument have to do with whether God has it or not?

Well, in this thread we are discussing the nature of Libertarian Free Will…and the opening poster has declared that “libertarian freedom is incoherent”. He has done so on the basis that he claims it violates the law of identity/ the law of non-contradiction. Now I don’t see anything about those two laws that would have them apply when a human agent is involved and then not apply when a divine agent is involved….and so I wonder how the opening poster (if consistent) would avoid declaring that libertarian freedom (even when it is applied to God) is incoherent. Now surely you can note that my question (which brings God into the matter) is directly on point…it is entirely about the nature of Libertarian Free Will and whether one can coherently assert that such a thing exists. If you can’t see it…then I doubt that I can explain it in a simpler manner.

Your claim that libertarian freedom, “operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions” is of the same sort as the opening poster’s claim that libertarian freedom is incoherent and can be treated the same way. There is a serious difference in that you haven’t provided anything in support of your claim.

Hopefully, later we can get to the opening poster’s claims that Libertarian Freedom Contradicts Scripture and that it is unlivable.

This whole argument about libertarian free will has to do with whether God determines OUR choices.

I would say the discussion here is more about whether Libertarian Free Will is incoherent and whether, as you have claimed, “operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions”. On this thread maybe everybody is a theist, but an atheistic materialist can also insist that all of our choices are 100% determined (without God playing any part in the matter).

Now to me it seemed (earlier) that you were declaring that Libertarian Free Will, because of its very nature, operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions…but now it seems that you are saying that it is not the nature of Libertarian Free Will that is the real problem, but that:

Libertarian Free Will, because of some aspect of human nature, operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions (and that it doesn’t so operate and reduce when it is possessed by God).

I have concluded this because you remarked “I hope you were only sincere, and actually thought I was talking about the invalidity of libertarian free will even concerning God.” From that I infer that you do not believe that Libertarian Free Will operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions when the agent is God. Now maybe my inference is wrong, but you haven’t given me any meat to work with…just declarations and complaints…no evidence, no proof and no explanation.

So now, back to the issue of this thread: is libertarian freedom incoherent?...is it valid? Can you articulate why Libertarian Free Will operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions?….or are you merely stuck with declaring such to be the case? Can you articulate why Libertarian Free Will operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions when applied to humans and not when applied to God?….or are you merely stuck with deflecting/avoiding the issue by declaring that the question is irrelevant to the issue (of the coherency of Libertarian Free Will) and suggesting that I might be trying to derail the thread.

What in the world does the "libertarian free will" argument have to do with whether God has it or not?

again, to be more precise, this thread is about whether the concept of Libertarian Free Will is incoherent and invalid. Such has been declared and I want to know if that is always the case or is the concept of Libertarian Free Will only incoherent when applied to humans. If you can’t articulate why Libertarian Free Will works in the one case and not the other, then it seems that you really don’t know what you’re talking about…. and that makes your declarations even more suspect.

I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't like the rest lately, who go out of their way to knock a thread around all they can, without quite arguing concerning the point actually being made. I don't know you well enough to group you with them. I hope you were only sincere, and actually thought I was talking about the invalidity of libertarian free will even concerning God. Beats me, though, how you would think that.

well, let me throw these words back at you with a slight twist:

I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't like the rest lately, who, in a knee jerk fashion, immediately claim that the thread is being derailed, rather than addressing the relevant point that is actually being made. I don't know you well enough to group you with them. I hope you were only sincere, and actually thought that wondering why Libertarian Free Will is valid in one instance and incoherent in another is somehow irrelevant. Beats me, though, how you would think that.

 

[makesends]

What do you mean everything God does is uncaused ?

Not performed by Him?

I guess I deserve that! I expressed it badly.

I mean he does it uncaused. Or, better, he does nothing by being caused to do it. He is First Cause. Everything else, (including all other causes), is Result.

 

[makesends]

Well, in this thread we are discussing the nature of Libertarian Free Will…and the opening poster has declared that “libertarian freedom is incoherent”. He has done so on the basis that he claims it violates the law of identity/ the law of non-contradiction. Now I don’t see anything about those two laws that would have them apply when a human agent is involved and then not apply when a divine agent is involved….and so I wonder how the opening poster (if consistent) would avoid declaring that libertarian freedom (even when it is applied to God) is incoherent. Now surely you can note that my question (which brings God into the matter) is directly on point…it is entirely about the nature of Libertarian Free Will and whether one can coherently assert that such a thing exists. If you can’t see it…then I doubt that I can explain it in a simpler manner.

Your claim that libertarian freedom, “operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions” is of the same sort as the opening poster’s claim that libertarian freedom is incoherent and can be treated the same way. There is a serious difference in that you haven’t provided anything in support of your claim.

Hopefully, later we can get to the opening poster’s claims that Libertarian Freedom Contradicts Scripture and that it is unlivable.

I would say the discussion here is more about whether Libertarian Free Will is incoherent and whether, as you have claimed, “operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions”. On this thread maybe everybody is a theist, but an atheistic materialist can also insist that all of our choices are 100% determined (without God playing any part in the matter).

Now to me it seemed (earlier) that you were declaring that Libertarian Free Will, because of its very nature, operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions…but now it seems that you are saying that it is not the nature of Libertarian Free Will that is the real problem, but that:

Libertarian Free Will, because of some aspect of human nature, operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions (and that it doesn’t so operate and reduce when it is possessed by God).

I have concluded this because you remarked “I hope you were only sincere, and actually thought I was talking about the invalidity of libertarian free will even concerning God.” From that I infer that you do not believe that Libertarian Free Will operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions when the agent is God. Now maybe my inference is wrong, but you haven’t given me any meat to work with…just declarations and complaints…no evidence, no proof and no explanation.

So now, back to the issue of this thread: is libertarian freedom incoherent?...is it valid? Can you articulate why Libertarian Free Will operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions?….or are you merely stuck with declaring such to be the case? Can you articulate why Libertarian Free Will operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions when applied to humans and not when applied to God?….or are you merely stuck with deflecting/avoiding the issue by declaring that the question is irrelevant to the issue (of the coherency of Libertarian Free Will) and suggesting that I might be trying to derail the thread.

again, to be more precise, this thread is about whether the concept of Libertarian Free Will is incoherent and invalid. Such has been declared and I want to know if that is always the case or is the concept of Libertarian Free Will only incoherent when applied to humans. If you can’t articulate why Libertarian Free Will works in the one case and not the other, then it seems that you really don’t know what you’re talking about…. and that makes your declarations even more suspect.

well, let me throw these words back at you with a slight twist:

I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't like the rest lately, who, in a knee jerk fashion, immediately claim that the thread is being derailed, rather than addressing the relevant point that is actually being made. I don't know you well enough to group you with them. I hope you were only sincere, and actually thought that wondering why Libertarian Free Will is valid in one instance and incoherent in another is somehow irrelevant. Beats me, though, how you would think that.

Clever. If you are a logical purist, then maybe you can enjoy this:

GOD is not like us; even the notion of libertarian free will (as concerns God) is bogus in that he is above that. WE use "free will" according to OUR notions of freedom, and for the sake of communicating ideas, have agreed to some idea of what WE mean by "libertarian free will". The concept is unnecessary in any treatment of God, IF "God" carries an agreed-upon definition by all here. But apparently it does not.

Let me try to show how the notion is bogus, concerning God, by way of a parallel. We often say that God thinks. But the very word, "think", is, in our minds, a human construct appealing to our experience of it. God need not think, unless for him to think is to do. He need not consider options —options proceed FROM him. Things don't happen to God, things happen to us.

So also, when I say God does have libertarian free will, I am answering your question, but only by short post, because I am answering according to your notion that the OP only deals with "libertarian free will", and not by what the author of the OP thinks of it. In fact, though, I think it is silly to assume the author was including in the use of the term, that it should (or should not) apply to God.

 

[His clay]

Thank you all for your contributions to the thread. I have been reading the discussions and the monologues. Please be aware, if any are unaware, that I do not allot much time to the forum. Hence, my interaction will of necessity be very intermittent. Time constraints in other areas are always pressing. Also, I try very hard to address the concerns of different posters, so that simply means that I prefer quality over quantity. That doesn't mean that I always have good quality, but it does mean that I strive for that. Again, thank you all for your contributions to the discussion, even if you may disagree with me.

 

[His clay]

BTW do you apply your reasoning to God?...does he not enjoy libertarian freedom or are all of his actions 100% determined? Could he do otherwise than he did? E.g. could he have done otherwise than die on the cross? If so, then (according to you) would that mean there are two contradictory realities out there? One where he died on the cross and one where he didn’t? Or are there two contradictory realities out there…one where he created the earth and one where he didn’t?

I'll very briefly respond to some of the quoted material. Since I have already gone on record, I have nothing to hide. I'll provide a link where I give 7 reasons for rejecting Alvin Plantinga's free will defense. I'll be more specific, take note of post #2. In my first point (of the seven), I make it clear that I reject ascribing the first part of the libertarian freedom definition to God (the ability to do otherwise). I think that it is dangerous, and it undermines the Christian faith. Link following.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/reconsidering-alvin-plantingas-free-will-defense.1662/

I do wish to state two key aspects of God's nature though. He is eternal, and He is utterly self-sufficient. On these two points, God's nature does coincide with the second aspect of the libertarian freedom definition, stated in the opening post. God does have ultimacy of His own being. However, I do make a very strong distinction between the Creator and the created. I outlined this in more detail, link following.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-creator-creature-distinction.1290/

If you wish to see my own view of the will, then take a look at post #8 in this thread, where I gave a link. I was specifically addressing the causal conflation fallacy (reductionist fallacy), but the link also has material where I have already addressed my own view of the will and the nature of choice-making. Again, as you capably know, this thread is about libertarian freedom and its coherence on the logical, biblical, and practical levels. It is not about me defending my own views of human decision-making. If you would like, feel free to start a different thread bashing or questioning my view. I only ask this to try to keep the posts in this thread on track and focused. I wish to again say thank you for seeking to keep this thread on point (post #35, your opening comments).

 

[Mr GLee]

Thank you all for your contributions to the thread. I have been reading the discussions and the monologues. Please be aware, if any are unaware, that I do not allot much time to the forum. Hence, my interaction will of necessity be very intermittent. Time constraints in other areas are always pressing. Also, I try very hard to address the concerns of different posters, so that simply means that I prefer quality over quantity. That doesn't mean that I always have good quality, but it does mean that I strive for that. Again, thank you all for your contributions to the discussion, even if you may disagree with me.

Thanks .

I agree a very strong distinction between the Faithful Creator and the creation must be understood . The god of this world would make it all one in the same as if God was a man as us . . dying creation. Their dead hope reincarnation

It is one of the reasons I think Christ spoke in parables and without he spoke not . Teaching believer how to walk by faith the unseen eternal .The gospel or spiritual understanding hid from the non-redeemed, faithless .

Pagan foundation .Out of sight out of mind (fools)