Closer look at Soft Libertarian-ism

TomFL

Well-known member
You are saying God determined that Satan, and Adam, would be “capable” of sin!
So, you agree, God is the “first cause” of their “nature” allowing sin!

So sense, in your system, God did not create them “like” God, sin was allowed into the final “set of options”!
Now can you answer for “second cause”?
What caused Lucifer and Adam’s “will” to land on the sin option in the “set” instead of the non-sin option?
I’m sure the “will” didn’t flip-a-coin and it just happened to randomly land on the sin option... so what caused the “will” to land on sin?
Well golly gosh gee

If Adam and Satan were created without a capability to sin they wouldn't have sinned would they ?

And I already told you no God is not the first cause of their sin

Do you recall I spoke of ultimate responsibility and agent causation in a soft Libertarian free will model

The ultimate responsibility party for Adam's sin is Adam

Lucifer -------------------------------------------------lucifer

As to why they sinned I have no idea

I am not God and have no access to such information
 

Sketo

Well-known member
As to why they sinned I have no idea

I am not God and have no access to such information
Thank you!
This answer is for Lucifer and Adam so is the answer different for Satan and fallen man?

What causes Satan and Fallen man’s “will” to land on the sin option in the “set” instead of the non-sin option?
I’m sure the “will” didn’t flip-a-coin and it just happened to randomly land on the sin option... so what caused the “will” to land on sin?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Thank you!
This answer is for Lucifer and Adam so is the answer different for Satan and fallen man?

What causes Satan and Fallen man’s “will” to land on the sin option in the “set” instead of the non-sin option?
I’m sure the “will” didn’t flip-a-coin and it just happened to randomly land on the sin option... so what caused the “will” to land on sin?
Lucifer is Satan

Fallen man in my view a combination of factors including his nature

In consistent Calvinism whether mans sins or does not sin in any particular circumstance has been determined by God

See the op you affirmed

Determinism or random chance however is your view not mine

I do not agree that if a thing is not determined it is random chance

Which lead us back to God's creation

God determined or creation just random chance ?

Will you ever answer
 

Sketo

Well-known member
Lucifer is Satan
So Lucifer’s “nature” then was no different than his “nature” as Satan now?
Interesting... So according to you God created Satan before he sinned!

TomFL said:
As to why they sinned I have no idea

I am not God and have no access to such information
And if “Lucifer is Satan” as you stated above then the answer for...
What causes Satan and Fallen man’s “will” to land on the sin option in the “set” instead of the non-sin option?
I’m sure the “will” didn’t flip-a-coin and it just happened to randomly land on the sin option... so what caused the “will” to land on sin?
... remains the same...
TomFL said:
As to why they sinned I have no idea
Thank you again for your answer!

Fallen man in my view a combination of factors including his nature
But as you stated above
TomFL said:
As to why they sinned I have no idea


I do not agree that if a thing is not determined it is random chance...
Then what is it? Oh you already answered...
TomFL said:
...As to why they sinned I have no idea
It’s ok not to have an answer! It’s better than making something up “randomly”!


Which lead us back to God's creation

God determined or creation just random chance ?

Will you ever answer
This has been answered multiple times but the most recent time ins in post #32
 

Kampioen

Member
Are you saying God create Lucifer with a “nature”, different than Gods “nature”... a “nature” that allows sin into the “set of options” available for the will to choose from?
Yes. God's nature is different than creation's. God created Satan with the libertarian option to sin.
 

Sketo

Well-known member
Yes. God's nature is different than creation's. God created Satan with the libertarian option to sin.
And this is like someone saying...
Yes. God's nature is different than creation's. God created Satan with the compatible option to sin.
Neither one really says anything! They are just opinions!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
TomFL said:
and then deal with that you have been running from

Did God have a huge gap in his decision processes ?
No!
TomFL said:
Was creation determined for him ?
No!
TomFL said:
Did he have no other option ?
Yes! Neither were sin!


If he had another option how can you state creation was determined


that does not compute
TomFL said:
Was God's decision determined or just random chance ?
Determined? Absolutely... but NOT AS YOUR “NEUTRAL STRAWMAN” SUGGESTS!

I don't have a neutral strawman

Never even spoke of God having any such thing or claimed that you hoild it

It appears you do not know what a strawman is
TomFL said:
Is it impossible for God to create a creature with a limited amount of his capability
No! He did but they are not “morally neutral” as your strawman suggests!

Again I never stated man today is morally neutral

So what do you object to

The idea Adam could sin

The idea Adam could avois sin

which ?
TomFL said:
Why is it you cannot/will not defend you determined /random chance model ?
Because I don’t believe in “your determinism strawman” or “Soft Libertarian random chance-ism”!

It has been you who has insisted if a thing is not determined it must be random chance
TomFL said:
BTW you have not produced anything to deflect from
Except for your “circular reasoning” above!

You have not demonstrated any circular reasoning

Perhaps you do not know what that is either
 

zerinus

Well-known member
I thought this might shed some light on some very important factors of Soft Libertarian-ism! Enjoy...

How does moral accountability work with soft libertarian-ism? Some people say that you can't be blamed for doing wrong if you are unable to do good, and you can't be praised for doing good if you are unable to do bad. But if your nature restricts the scope of your options to good or to bad, then how can you be morally accountable for your actions?

Let's suppose you're in a situation where you can either choose to do X or choose to not do X. Doing X is morally obligatory, which entails that not doing X is wrong. If a person's nature constrains them in such a way that they can only do the right thing, then wouldn't that determine their choice in this case?

The reason I ask is because they define soft libertarianism as being constrained to your nature, but free within your nature. But when it comes to individual choices, it's not a matter of doing X or doing Y; rather, it's a matter of doing X or not doing X. I can see how if your nature is good, and X and Y are good, then you could choose between X and Y, but if X is good, and not-X is bad, and you had to choose between X and not-X, you'd be determined to choose X, in which case soft libertarianism seems to reduce to determinism.

I suppose you could say there are some goods that are not obligatory. Or some actions are morally neutral. For example, there's nothing wrong with playing a video game or writing a blog post, but there's also no obligation to do either. They're morally neutral. So you're free to do either. But in cases where some action is either forbidden or required, that wouldn't be the case. If it's forbidden, and your nature is to always do the right thing, then you'd be determined to choose not to do it. If it's required, and your nature is to always do the right thing, then you'd be determined to choose to do it.

So I'm not sure soft libertarianism accounts for a lot of the moral choices we have to make. If you are required to do X, and your nature is to do either right or wrong, then whether you choose X or not, you could not have done otherwise. Can a person be morally responsible for failure to do their duty if it was not within their nature to do their duty? Or can they be worthy of praise for doing their duty if it was not in their nature to refuse?

One of the objections to the notion that Jesus or God had libertarian freedom is that it entails the ability to do evil which they are unable to do because of their perfectly moral character. The fact that Jesus and God are worthy of praise even though they are unable to do evil shows that libertarian freedom isn't necessary for moral responsibility.

Soft libertarianism appears to be designed to avoid these criticisms. But I don't think it works. If we're going to say that some kind of libertarian freedom is necessary to be morally responsible, then there are a lot of things Jesus can't be praised for. The demands of the Mosaic law, combined with Jesus' perfect moral character, would've determined his choices in a lot of cases. Also, it seems that under the supposition that libertarianism is necessary for moral praise and blame, an act can only be good if one could've done otherwise, and the otherwise must be not good. How could one be worth of praise for choosing one good thing instead of another equally good thing? It seems like the instead of would have to be a bad thing or at least a less good thing. Can you imagine saying, "Oh, you are such a wonderful person because you chose to do that good thing when you could've just as easily chosen to do a different good thing"? That doesn't make sense. I would like to know from anybody who subscribes to soft libertarianism and thinks some kind of libertarianism is necessary for moral praise and blame, why does my ability to choose an equally good option instead of the one I chose make me worthy of praise? How does this improve upon a situation in which I'm determined by my moral character to choose a specific good action, and I couldn't have chosen a different action that was equally good? It seems to me, given the usual way that libertarians think of moral responsibility, I can't be praised for doing good unless I could've chosen evil, and I can't be blamed for choosing evil unless I could've chosen good. So soft libertarianism doesn't seem to solve the problems raised by compabilitists against libertarianism concerning Jesus and God's moral abilities and inabilities and their worthiness of praise.

by Sam Harper

Who is Sam Harper, and why should I be interested in what he has to say? Why can't we just stick to the Bible to obtain our theology from it? I had a quick look at the thread, and found the whole discussion to be so convoluted, "philosophical," and biblically unrelated that I got bored and gave up trying.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Who is Sam Harper, and why should I be interested in what he has to say? Why can't we just stick to the Bible to obtain our theology from it?

<Chuckle>

Say that to yourself the next time you want to bring up "Heiser".
Double standards much? :) :D
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Still no

Book chapter and verse

Your cannot prove your view scripturally
You definitely dont understand scripture, i dont care how many of them you quote. All u can do is quote scripture but very unskillful in tthe word of Righteousness.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
You definitely dont understand scripture, i dont care how many of them you quote. All u can do is quote scripture but very unskillful in tthe word of Righteousness.
You're hiding

Post Book chapter and verse

or you cannot prove your view scripturally

Sorry but you lack even a basic understanding of how scripture should be interpreted
 
Top