The incoherency of libertarian free will

T

TomFL

Guest
Again, no one is saying that desires choose. Straw man

And the person chooses among those desires in keeping with the greatest one.
So if desires do not chose you agree the person choses

which is all I am saying
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Compatibilist freedom is in the WCF. You are misreading the document to force a contradiction. Even the people who wrote, "Why I'm Not A Calvinist" understand the WCF properly.
Of course it is in the WCF



According to monergism.com

In order to understand this better theologians have come up with the term "compatibilism" to describe the concurrence of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11).
In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. Monergism.com How can God be sovereign and man free

So tell me how am I misreading it
 

His clay

Well-known member
So if desires do not chose you agree the person choses

which is all I am saying
The point of disagreement is not whether the person chooses (hence your straw man earlier). The point of disagreement is over "what" of the person determines the choice. You are willing the place the choice over the greatest desire, thus ruling out the greatest desire or desires as the determinative reason within the person for the choice. Reformedguy and I are both advocating that choice is subservient to the greatest desire or preference. You are wanting to rule out the highest motive, desire, or preference of the person as the determinative cause, but you still have the problem of the person, with all those characteristics being only one person at the moment of choice, which means that there is only one person choosing, with a definite set of characteristics, and hence you have nullified the ability to do otherwise with your own determinism.
 
Last edited:

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Again which is under the control of the person and may vary at any time
So what. At the moment the choice is made you will choose your greatest desire. A drug addict may desire to kick his drug habit but at the moment of choice his greater desire is to do drugs.
 

His clay

Well-known member
Of course it is in the WCF



According to monergism.com

In order to understand this better theologians have come up with the term "compatibilism" to describe the concurrence of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11).
In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. Monergism.com How can God be sovereign and man free

So tell me how am I misreading it
You stated, "the WCF disaggres with you," which is false if the WCF is endorsing compatibilism in their understanding of human freedom.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
So what. At the moment the choice is made you will choose your greatest desire. A drug addict may desire to kick his drug habit but at the moment of choice his greater desire is to do drugs.
Yes it may be but he may also come to the point when his greatest desire is to kick drugs
 
T

TomFL

Guest
You stated, "the WCF disaggres with you," which is false if the WCF is endorsing compatibilism in their understanding of human freedom.
The LFW of Adam



CHAPTER IX. Of Free Will

GOD hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.
II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.c


Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 59.

Do youu disagree it posits LFW for Adam ?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
The point of disagreement is not whether the person chooses (hence your straw man earlier). The point of disagreement is over "what" of the person determines the choice. You are willing the place the choice over the greatest desire, thus ruling out the greatest desire or desires as the determinative reason within the person for the choice. Reformedguy and I are both advocating that choice is subservient to the greatest desire or preference. You are wanting to rule out the highest motive, desire, or preference of the person as the determinative cause, but you still have the problem of the person, with all those characteristics being only one person at the moment of choice, which means that there is only one person choosing, with a definite set of characteristics, and hence you have nullified the ability to do otherwise with your own determinism.
No I did not rule out the greatest desire. I stated that may change based upon circumstances and the person

It is not like giving a Lion a choice to eat meat or eat grass

In other words it is not fixed in stone that a person can never do what once may have been his greatest desire
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Clearly, the analysis here hasn't studied the issue very much and is therefore missing the point. Libertarian free will IS in the options of the opening post. That is precisely what is giving the opening post its punch.
He has told us what he thinks libertarian freewill is not, but not what it is. This is his list:
1. Not being determined.

2. Not being random or arbitrary.

3. Not simply a combination of the two, which would be called probabilistic.
The third is a mixture of the first two, so his list has only two components:
1. Not being determined.

2. Not being random or arbitrary.
By “determined” he means by an outside force over which he has no control (i.e. by God). That is the Calvinistic definition. So he is basically saying that your choices are either randomly arrived at, or predetermined by God. It doesn’t allow for the possibility of a third option, that the choices are independently arrived at by the person making the choice, which is the definition of libertarian freewill.
 

His clay

Well-known member
The LFW of Adam



CHAPTER IX. Of Free Will

GOD hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.
II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.c


Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 59.

Do youu disagree it posits LFW for Adam ?
I can accept correction on that point. There is an inconsistency in many Calvinistic understandings of the fall (will of Adam and Eve) with the will of people post-fall. I distinctly remember reading Calvinistic literature to that effect. Usually, this is where the various Latin phrases pop up.

On account of the above, I stand corrected. The other poster, simpletruther, holds a consistent understanding of the will (compatibilism) and is thusly at odds with the WCF on the particular point with respect to Adam. Since neither Simpletruther nor I hold the WCF to be authoritative, however, the rub created by being at odds with it is lost. It is, however, a fairly well-worded document that usually describes Calvinism well.
 

Sketo

Well-known member
LFWism has no specific mechanism for the final choice landed upon, therefore it is has no better explination than the mere flipping-of-a-coin...

LFW-ism = The “chooser” lands on x instead of y...
Flip-a-coin-ism = The “coin” lands on tails instead of heads...

 

His clay

Well-known member
He has told us what he thinks libertarian freewill is not, but not what it is. This is his list:

The third is a mixture of the first two, so his list has only two components:

By “determined” he means by an outside force over which he has no control (i.e. by God). That is the Calvinistic definition. So he is basically saying that your choices are either randomly arrived at, or predetermined by God. It doesn’t allow for the possibility of a third option, that the choices are independently arrived at by the person making the choice, which is the definition of libertarian freewill.
To which he would respond that you are only ignoring the issue. The idea that "the choices are independently arrived at by the person making the choice," only backs the issue up a step. It is then legitimate to ask that since the person is not eternal and begins to exist, then it follows inevitably as to what causes the person to be. If you say that the person just is, then you have advocated an arbitrary understanding of the individual, and thusly you have jumped into the "chance" criticism. Hence, your third option is only illusory.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Sure it is. You choose your greatest desire at the moment you choose.

Stealing dont work for you. Either your greatest desire is to adhere to your moral principles or it is to steal.
You can look at it that way if you want. The problem there is that in Calvinism that “desire” is predetermined by God, whereas in the Bible it is not.
 

His clay

Well-known member
No I did not rule out the greatest desire. I stated that may change based upon circumstances and the person

It is not like giving a Lion a choice to eat meat or eat grass

In other words it is not fixed in stone that a person can never do what once may have been his greatest desire
I didn't say that you "rule out the greatest desire." I said that your understanding of it is inverted from what myself and another were saying. You place it under the choice; while we place choice under the greatest desire. A person's nature is fixed in stone at the moment of choice. The fact that people deliberate (mentally consider pros and cons of a particular decision among various future objects of choice) does not change this.
 
Top