Libertarian Free Will, question

Theo1689

Well-known member
You still have the choice. Just because there are consequences, it does not follow that you don't have the choice.

Can you define what you mean by "choice"?

How does "choice" relate to "will"?
How does "choice" relate to "determination"?

I think you are making some unsubstantiated assumptions in your understanding, and if you won't discuss them, you can't confirm them true or false.

If a man points a gun to your head, and tells you to give him all your money or else he'll kill you, is he giving you a "free choice"?
 

zerinus

Well-known member
EXACTLY. So your coerced into paying them under threat of penalty. You could choose not to of course. Your free to choose either way
That is a contradictory statement. If you are “free to choose either way,” then you are not “coerced”.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
No not free

There is still coercion
Not correct. True coercion would prevent you from not paying no matter what. The fact that there are consequences, is not quite the same as being coerced. In ancient Rome, the penalty for converting to Christianity was death. But many people still converted, notwithstanding the consequences, and suffered the consequences, proving that they were not “coerced”.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Not correct. True coercion would prevent you from not paying no matter what. The fact that there are consequences, is not quite the same as being coerced.

Seriously?!

So if someone approaches you with a gun, and threatens to shoot you if you don't hand him all your money, then if you "choose" to give him all your money, he's not guilty of theft, since you "chose" to give him money?

Is that SERIOUSLY your position?


"This is your brain."
"This is your brain on Mormonism."
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Again, your free to choose not to pay your takes. You are coerced to choose to do so under the threat of penalty
You haven't learned to choose your words carefully enough. It is possible to say what you are trying to say without being self-contradictory.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Not correct. True coercion would prevent you from not paying no matter what. The fact that there are consequences, is not quite the same as being coerced. In ancient Rome, the penalty for converting to Christianity was death. But many people still converted, notwithstanding the consequences, and suffered the consequences, proving that they were not “coerced”.
Threats of Jail are not real coercion to you ?

Threats of exorbitant fines neither ?

We definitely disagree
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Threats of Jail are not real coercion to you ?

Threats of exorbitant fines neither ?

We definitely disagree
How about the penalty of death (by torture)? It couldn't get any worse than that, right? But many Christians still converted, and suffered the consequences, proving what? You guessed right, that they were not “coerced”. See how easy that was?
 

zerinus

Well-known member
So He restrains Himself so He can remain divine? How silly
Not silly at all. The Bible says that God “cannot lie”. Does that mean that he is not “omnipotent” enough to be able to lie, if he really wanted to? How silly is that?
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Not silly at all. The Bible says that God “cannot lie”. Does that mean that he is not omnipotent enough to lie if he wanted to? How silly is that?
That simply means He is not able to lie. What does omnipotent have to do with morality? Like I said, so silly.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
That simply means He is not able to lie. What does omnipotent have to do with morality? Like I said, so silly.
“Omnipotence” means that he can do anything that he wants, including sinning, being evil, and telling lies. The fact that he can't do those things means that something else is at play that prevents him from acting as such. What do you think that might be?
 
Top