Does free will exist? Alex Malpass vs Tim Stratton • Hosted by Andy Kind

This week on Unbelievable we return to the topic of free will. Following the debate between Ben Shapiro and Alex O'Connor, Christian apologist Tim Stratton got in touch to say he took issue with some of Alex's arguments against free will. Indeed Tim noted that Alex agreed with Ben Shapiro that if there is no God, then there is no free will. Tim Stratton develops the argument in a spirited debate with atheist philosopher Alex Malpass.
Alex Malpass has a PhD in philosophy from the University of Bristol, and these days specialises in philosophy of religion, but also metaphysics and logic more generally. He runs a podcast called Thoughtology and an infrequently updated blog called the Use of Reason. Alex Malpass has published in various philosophical journals including the International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion and edited History of Philosophical and Formal Logic: From Aristotle to Tarski.
Tim Stratton holds a graduate degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University and a PhD in theology from North-West University. He is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary and the author of Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism. He has also recently contributed a chapter to a book entitled, Faith Examined: New Arguments for Persistent Questions, Essays in Honor of Dr. Frank Turek. Stratton has coauthored multiple academic journal articles (most notably with J.P. Moreland) related to the topics of libertarian freedom, the problems of evil, and also responding to the Hiddenness Argument. To find Stratton’s popular level work, find his videos on KZbin at FreeThinking Ministries and his blogs at FreeThinking Ministries.com or FreeThinkInc.org. His X handle is @TSXpress
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...

[@PremierUnbelievable]

Hello lovely fans of Unbelievable! Happy New Year and thanks for engaging with the show. We do value your feedback so drop us an email [e-mail] if you have a) questions you want us to debate or b) guests who you think deserve a seat at the table. Thanks!

[@martinploughboy988]

Can we drop the philosophers, they really have no understanding unless they start from the Bible. This was 1 hour 14 minutes of nonsense.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Great guests! Good show. I think you may be related to Malpass, I can see it in your face.

[@armadyl1212]

nice discussion, but kind of annoying how the host kept switching to a break or interrupting as soon as alex and tim got to a proper disagreement

[@paulcreber8261]

Alex Malpass is a brilliant thinker. A large part of his brilliance lies in his capacity to listen attentively, often for long periods, before he responds. It is a capacity that many others, including Tim Stratton, might learn from.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

I've learned much from Alex over the years. I have nothing but respect for him. To be fair, my job was to offer, explain, and unpack the Free-Thinking Argument for Alex and the audience. Alex's job was to poke holes in the argument. By the nature of the format, speaking time is guaranteed to be lopsided. I had the burden of proof. Alex had the burden of poking holes.

[@paulcreber8261]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Fair enough, and thank you for responding. You clearly possess considerable zeal for your position, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nevertheless, I hope you will accept that on more than one occasion you allowed that zeal - that enthusiasm - to interrupt Alex before his point was fully made.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@paulcreber8261 yes, I did interrupt on a couple occasions simply by noting "that's not true," or "that's not my position." I did this in an attempt to keep Alex from unintentionally attacking a straw man instead of my actual view (which I clearly was not clear enough when previously articulating it). On those occasions, Alex invited me to offer further explanation and I did. Upon reflection, I took too much time on those occasions to offer further clarity. I wish I could do that part over.

[@FightFilms]

I find that whenever an atheist clearly loses a debate, fellow atheists complain about decorum.

[@christaylor6574]

This was interesting - thanks. One major critique of Tim is that providing a defeater doesn't mean the person is no longer "justified." If the person doesn't accept your "defeater" ie: doesn't agree it's a "defeater" then it's not going to have any affect on that person. At minimum a "defeater" (undercutting) is something Tim offers as a reason why *he doesn't think he is "justified" to accept some proposition. eg: Tim believes God exists - he could offer this as a "defeater" to an atheist. But that doesn't mean the atheist is obliged to just agree with Tim he has a successful "defeater."

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

A person's subjective stance against an objective defeater is irrelevant. But, of course, if one sees the problem the objective defeater offers, then we move closer to truth. Fortunately, most people see the problem of having their metaphysical beliefs determined by mindless stuff that knows nothing about metaphysics and doesn't care if humans do either.

[@christaylor6574]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Thank you for your reply. I don't see how it's irrelevant when the contention is as to whether a person actually has an "objective" defeater or not. Just seems to be an argument from assertion. Sure, because telling most people they are "determined by mindless stuff" has strong, rhetorical power.

[@FightFilms]

Oh, come on Tim! Everybody knows atheists frame and judge every debate they are in! That's how we know Atheism is true!!!!

[@goodquestion7915]

Tim's explanation of Free Will uses an analogy to JUST ASSERT agency without explaining how the agent's will is free.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

The “how” is a different question, but I did explain how humans could possess this power in what was referred to as “option (iv).”

[@goodquestion7915]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Your explanation doesn't really explain Free Will. Let me present an example of what I'm referring to: Let's say we are PERFECTLY free to will ANYTHING, therefore given good health and good mental conditions we should ALWAYS arrive to the SAME result/solution given the same problem. Why? Because we will it so. But, we know by our personal experience that we make silly mistakes and we arrive at sub-par solutions even in the best conditions. Why is that? Our minds are faulty. And the feeling that "we can do otherwise" comes from the assumption that we can direct our thoughts, and as I mentioned before WE CANNOT do it even if we try in the best physical and mental conditions. Remember math mistakes during tests? Or, brain farts? Or, slip of the tong? "You" are trying, but not delivering. Are you IN CONTROL? Further proof. Now, thinking about LESS than optimal conditions. When drunk, half asleep, or mentally sick, the results of our will are glaringly bad, even if we try our darndest best. And we regret what happened and we seek help and forgiveness. OUR WILL could NOT deliver, even if we imagine it is free.

[@jjccarpentry]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Tim, do you have a link to the exact FTA formulation/wording that you used with Alex? You have put out so many different versions of this argument online and I'm not seeing the exact wording. Thanks.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@goodquestion7915 //Your explanation doesn't really explain Free Will.// Sure it does. If we are supernatural thinking things -- souls/immaterial minds -- created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26), then we would be the kinds of things that would not be determined by mindless antecedent conditions (the laws and events of nature). //Let me present an example of what I'm referring to: Let's say we are PERFECTLY free to will ANYTHING, therefore given good health and good mental conditions we should ALWAYS arrive to the SAME result/solution given the same problem. Why? Because we will it so. But, we know by our personal experience that we make silly mistakes and we arrive at sub-par solutions even in the best conditions. Why is that? Our minds are faulty.// You make my point for me! Obviously, even those with good health and brains still make tons of mistakes regarding metaphysical issues (Graham Oppy makes this clear). Thus, when you affirm false metaphysical beliefs, it's often because you -- as a mind with the power to freely think -- failed to do so (but you could have). You were not as careful as you should have been and could have been. But that entails libertarian freedom. //And the feeling that "we can do otherwise" comes from the assumption that we can direct our thoughts, and as I mentioned before WE CANNOT do it even if we try in the best physical and mental conditions.// Now you are begging the question and assuming that mindless stuff is determining you to get this metaphysical matter right, and the metaphysicians who disagree with you to get things wrong. What makes you so special that mindless stuff -- that knows nothing of metaphysics and does not care if we know anything about metaphysics -- determines you to get metaphysical matters right, and me to get them wrong? Careful not to beg the question in response. //Remember math mistakes during tests? Or, brain farts? Or, slip of the tong? "You" are trying, but not delivering. Are you IN CONTROL?// I never argued for total control. I argued that mindless stuff cannot be in total control. I have argued that humanity needs **SOME** active control. If we do not have any control, then antecedent conditions that know nothing about metaphysics are in total control of your mental activity. That provides a huge defeater against your metaphysical claims of knowledge. //When drunk, half asleep, or mentally sick, the results of our will are glaringly bad, even if we try our darndest best. And we regret what happened and we seek help and forgiveness. OUR WILL could NOT deliver, even if we imagine it is free.// What about when you are not drunk, half-asleep, or mentally sick? Do you have the power to infer the best explanation about metaphysical matters then . . . or is mindless stuff in total control of the entirety of your mental activity? If it's the latter, you don't possess metaphysical knowledge. If it's the former, congratulations . . . you are a free thinker!

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@jjccarpentry I had thought I already replied to your question but I do not see it. I apologize if there are multiple answers floating around. To answer your question, I do not yet have the argument offered in the above debate in print. It is included in a forthcoming piece of academic literature. I may reword it slightly because of this dabte (or at least include a slightly different syllogism along with it). One reason why there are so many versions out there is because the vast majority of detractors do not engage the big ideas or concepts that drive the Free-Thinking Argument, but simply choose to nit-pick the wording. Words are easy to tweak as long as the big ideas are left unscathed.

[@caiomorino8672]

It's funny how Tim repeatedly pointed out how PhD metaphysicians can barely agree on anything while arguing we can reliably attain metaphysical truths.

[@nemrodx2185]

"It's funny how Tim repeatedly pointed out how PhD metaphysicians can barely agree on anything while arguing we can reliably attain metaphysical truths." That's the point... without free will none of those people could reach conclusions about metaphysical questions including the existence of free will that Alex denies!! Checkmate! Alex's clumsiness is not being able to see that he also needs the concept of reliability to defend what he wants to affirm. (and tell him that Alex is a very good philosopher)

[@jjccarpentry]

I thought the same thing initially, got a laugh out of it. But I think the disagreement among metaphysicians is a red herring and does not support Tim's point. At best he offered it as a reason to doubt the mechanism of evolution, but 9 wrong beliefs and one correct one doesn't entail that you can't be justified in that belief. Same with divine determinism as far as I can tell. If it cuts against determinism, it cuts against LFW.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@jjccarpentryit does not cut against the “option (iv)” that JP Moreland and I offered in our paper - which entails libertarian freedom. I shared it in this debate.

[@jjccarpentry]

@@FreethinkingMinistries I will re-read the paper.👍

[@martinploughboy988]

@@nemrodx2185 No one addressed the question, if God exists & what He says in the Bible is true, then libertarian free will is impossible.

[@mikeholt8479]

Alex’s method of dissecting arguments is so precise and charitable that he takes what could have been a 10-minute discussion and enables what could have been a multi-hour conversation. Libertarian free will is a non-starter, but Alex more or less gave that a pass to examine how the rest of the argument functions (or fails to function). I think that’s what Tim meant at the end…about learning from Alex. He’s got quite a bit of work ahead of him, though. Great conversation nonetheless.

[@FightFilms]

LFW is a non-starter because? Alex got crushed here. But it really doesn't matter what we say, as we had no choice to say anything else. Mindless magical mechanisms that have no clue that we or they exist determined us to make profound statements about these very mechanisms. Makes sense.

[@mikeholt8479]

@@FightFilms…its a non-starter because it doesn’t provide an explanation for why an individual chooses any given option over another available option. It is effectively equal to randomness.

[@mr.c2485]

Excellent discussion! Look forward to more just like it.

[@martinploughboy988]

There was nothing excellent about it. The Bible was never introduced so the whole discussion was made in ignorance.

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

@@martinploughboy988it’s about if god exist or not buddy

[@martinploughboy988]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf We all know God exists.

[@bigbrointhesky]

@@martinploughboy988Wrong. Disagree? Then prove it.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@bigbrointhesky Address my point.

[@jamieammons]

Great job, both of you guys!

[@martinploughboy988]

Great job doing what? They really have no idea.

[@danielcartwright8868]

I agree with Tim's argument, but I think the discussion could have gone better if he took Alex's advice and dropped the word 'reliable' and instead just focused on the possibility of metaphysical knowledge. I think it would also be great if he could learn to be a bit shorter-winded when responding to his opponent, especially when his opponent is just beginning to articulate their own view.

[@jjccarpentry]

Two observations I agree with👆

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

I agree that there was some talking past each other here. Much time was spent discussing the word “reliable.” The master premise of my argument was carefully worded and stated this way: “If human beings lack libertarian freedom, then their rational processes are unreliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.” What I refer to as the “pivotal premise” is stated in this manner: “Human beings’ rational processes are reliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.” So, it is clear that I am highlighting the fact that if naturalistic determinism is true, then the antecedent conditions that are the source of our metaphysical beliefs - and sufficient to necessitate our metaphysical beliefs - are **unreliable** to determine humans to hold true metaphysical beliefs. Why is this the case? Because those same mindless antecedent conditions that are the source of your metaphysical beliefs know nothing about metaphysics and could care less if you do either. Thus, if naturalistic determinism were true, we would have reason to doubt our metaphysical beliefs. During the break between the second and third rounds, Malpass and I seemed to finally come to an agreement upon the big idea or concept I was attempting to communicate. Upon reflection, perhaps this wording might have been helpful: 1- If naturalistic determinism is true, then mindless stuff determines all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs. 2- If mindless stuff determines all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs, then metaphysical beliefs (including those which are true by accident) are not justified. 3- If metaphysical beliefs are not justified, then metaphysicians do not possess knowledge of metaphysics. 4- Metaphysicians do possess knowledge of metaphysics. 5- Therefore, mindless stuff does not determine all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs. 6- Therefore, naturalistic determinism is false. Be that as it may, Malpass finally agreed with me that humans do possess the power to reliably infer best explanations about metaphysical reality IF we painstakingly and carefully work at attaining metaphysical truth. That is to say, it is possible to attain metaphysical knowledge (we can do it). Indeed, if one were to attempt to argue otherwise, then, with that very act, they would be providing evidence that one can reliably infer truth about metaphysical matters. That’s a great reason to think the pivotal premise is true.

[@iainrae6159]

Christopher Hitchens commented we have no choice but to have free will. Dogs have free will will, which tree will they stick a leg in the air.

[@kimmyswan]

If libertarian free will exists, and we are truly free to reason and believe without antecedent “causes”, then from one day to the next, we could just change our beliefs at will and with no justification.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

You are confusing direct doxastic voluntarism with indirect doxastic voluntarism. The former seems absurd, but I argue for the latter and explain why that requires libertarian freedom.

[@kimmyswan]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Indirect doxastic voluntarism means just what it says…”indirect”. I don’t see how indirect control requires free will. An agent “causing”something to happen that will in turn “cause” them to change their beliefs, can take place in the middle of the causal chain. What caused you to take that action? Your will to take the action. What caused your will to take the action? Your will to learn more about a topic. What caused your will to learn more about the topic? At so on, and so on.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@kimmyswan you said, //Indirect doxastic voluntarism means just what it says…”indirect”. I don’t see how indirect control requires free will.// Indirect doxastic voluntarism entails your libertarian freedom to be a careful thinker along the way (in this case, when determining your metaphysical beliefs). One can be a careful and active analyzer, or not. Note the alternative options. If determinism is true, what you experience as "carefulness" is not up to you. You have zero power to be more careful than what mindless antecedents conditions determine for you. You do not have the power to judge premises in arguments, that is determined for you by mindless antecedent conditions. You do not evaluate data, that is determined for you by mindless antecedent conditions. If you are a rational libertarian free-thinker, however, then your mind is free from these mindless antecedent conditions. //An agent “causing”something to happen that will in turn “cause” them to change their beliefs, can take place in the middle of the causal chain.// If the agent is the source -- and causally determining this change in deliberation -- then the agent is not determined by antecedent conditions. What you have described is libertarian freedom as the agent "breaks the chain" of determinism." //What caused you to take that action? Your will to take the action. What caused your will to take the action? Your will to learn more about a topic. What caused your will to learn more about the topic? At so on, and so on.// Careful not to beg the question in favor of your own view. You are assuming causal determinism to conclude causal determinism. I have argued that the agent is a first mover. (or first thinker). So, the agent herself determines these things -- as they are not determined for her. I argue that this kind of rational driving makes the best sense if the biblical view of God and humanity are true.

[@kimmyswan]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Where are these rational free-will decisions taking place if not in the brain? Does the will give rise to itself? I think you are making assumptions about our rational faculties requiring libertarian free-will (an uncaused cause - basically a soul), where there is no evidence. I think that for libertarian free-will to exist you would have to provide evidence of the existence of a soul or some such non physical entity that interacts with our brains but is independent of it (therefore defying the laws of physics). Just because we don’t yet know exactly HOW a thought forms in the brain, does not mean that therefore it must be something independent of the brain. Our brain is the source of our decisions and is also subject to the laws of physics. This means that what our brains do is determined on antecedent conditions. A person with brain damage presumably have libertarian free will, animals have libertarian free will and yet they are not rational. So how does one depend upon the other without appealing to the supernatural? When exactly do we gain free will? Can we also lose it? Sounds like compatibilism to me. Asserting that reason and rationality cannot be determined by mindless antecedent conditions and therefore we HAVE to be the undetermined source of our own rational thought assumes that our ability to reason, determine and deliberate is not caused, which is itself irrational.

[@kimmyswan]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Agents are contingent. Every relevant fact about the agent is contingent. According to the Principal of Sufficient Reason, contingent agents are intrinsically such that they must be explained by external causes (otherwise such facts would be inexplicable or brute). If you would like to bite the bullet and deny PSR, then your claim that we are the uncaused cause of our free will is incoherent and absurd as it denies the principle of causality (that it comes into being out of nothing). All we need to be good choosers is what we've got: a sensory and motivational system that responds adaptively to immediate exigencies, plus a sophisticated reality simulation system that generates hypotheses which can die in our stead. Why these systems entail conscious experience is a tough question, but empirical investigation reveals no evidence for an immaterial, uncaused will that floats free of the brain

[@joshuabrecka6012]

Honestly kinda painful to litsten at points. Tim's gotta loosen up on the apologetics and just be willing to have a conversation that goes off script.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

Why assume I'm not willing to go "off script"? I was tasked with the burden of proof. I did have notes, but much of this discussion was "off script." Especially when Alex raised possible objections. Indeed, that's exactly why there was some talking past each other (the painful parts). That was all off script and that's why it took so long for Alex to finally agree with the premise he thought he was going to reject. But I agree that there was some "painful to listen to" parts. Much time was spent discussing the word “reliable.” The key premise of the free-thinking argument was carefully worded this way: “If human beings lack libertarian freedom, then their rational processes are unreliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.” The pivotal premise is stated this way: “Human beings’ rational processes are reliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.” I was obviously highlighting the fact that if naturalistic determinism is true, then the prior conditions that are the source of our metaphysical beliefs - and sufficient to necessitate our metaphysical beliefs - are unreliable to determine humans to hold true metaphysical beliefs. This is the case because those same mindless antecedent conditions that are the source of your metaphysical beliefs know nothing about metaphysics and could care less if you do either. Thus, if naturalistic determinism were true, we would have reason to doubt our metaphysical beliefs (especially since there is so much disagreement among epistemic peers and professional metaphysicians).

[@martinploughboy988]

@@FreethinkingMinistries What disqualified you was your failure to use the Bible. All you had was the philosophy of Man, which is broken.

[@kimmyswan]

Determinism entails Cause and Effect. Theists LOVE cause and effect when arguing Kalam Cosmological. And yet, free will entails an uncaused cause (our will). How does this follow?

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

For the same reason God is the uncaused cause of the universe. If humans are created in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26), then it stands to reason that we could be "unmoved movers" as well. That's exactly what I argue for in depth and detail in my book "Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism" (2020).

[@kimmyswan]

@@FreethinkingMinistries maybe. But, one could argue that God does not even have free will. If divine simplicity is true, then any knowledge that God has should be identical to God's necessary existence; thus, God's knowledge is also necessary and whatever God knows must occur, necessarily.

[@evanminton8315]

Humans are the cause of their own actions. You fall into the trap most determinists fall into in thinking that libertarian free actions are spontaneous uncaused activities. Being committed to the principle of sufficient reason or the law of causality does not commit one to exhaustive determinism.

[@kimmyswan]

@@evanminton8315 your action is “free”, but it certainly has a cause…it’s not spontaneous. However, free ACTIONS are not the same as free WILL. The will is not either spontaneous, but deterministic. Spontaneity would require libertarian free will that has no cause. Human decision-making capacities are realized by the brain and body, operating in a physical and social context, and subject to laws of physics, chemistry, biology, cybernetics, behavioral psychology, and any higher-level regularities yet to be discovered. Are you suggesting that we are somehow NOT determined by these factors? As contingent agents our actions must be explained by external causes, or they would come into being from nothing. Please explain to me HOW this happens?

[@evanminton8315]

@@kimmyswan I think your problem is that you assume anthropological physicalism. It's understandable, and I would agree that if human beings are purely physical through and through then we are completely subject to physical processes. Tim's FreeThinking Argument against Naturalism usually is formed to deduce dualism from LFW. In this debate, he used a different syllogism, most likely because he wanted to zero in on whether we have free will in the first place, leaving the best explanation as to how we can have it an open question.

[@joserivera8429]

Great Job, Tim.

[@LordBlk]

Inspiring philosophy channel has a grest playlist series on consciousness pointing out that brain state are mental state are not nessecarily causally linked.

[@kimmyswan]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately because I kept getting stuck on “mindless antecedent causes” and Stratton’s insistence on metaphysical (abstract) knowledge rather than just rationality or complex rational thought. I think that by using specifically “metaphysical knowledge”, Stratton is able to avoid discussing the rational decisions made by non human animals. So, what about the phrase “mindless antecedent” causes. This is where I think we should think in terms of immediate antecedent causes and remote antecedent causes. This is because immediate antecedent causes of our metaphysical knowledge are definitely not mindless…quite the contrary, they require mindFUL causes IN the brain. If, on the other hand Stratton means remote antecedent causes, then I would be interested to know if Stratton believes that evolution by natural selection is true. If so, I would then like to know at what (non-arbitrary) point during our evolutionary history that he thinks humans were endowed with Libertarian free will. Is there a specific point in history where we were unable to form justified metaphysical knowledge? If so, when? And how?

[@methodbanana2676]

It's so frustrating when one guy is pushing an important point, the other is struggling and debating, and then the first just moves the conversation on. Eg at 41:00. Alex is asking for a definition, Tim evades.

[@methodbanana2676]

FFS. Again at 46:40 ... Tim is dancing around a simple point and the host just moves the conversation on

[@jjccarpentry]

I see Alex is still a fan of framed wrapping paper art, athough he switched up the pattern since the Matt Slick face palm days!😄

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

What's matt slick doing nowadays? Did he finally give up reasoning?

[@jjccarpentry]

@fukpoeslaw3613 I see he does FB live stuff nowadays, doesn't run the same TAG syllogism that he did 7yrs ago, so that's progress🤷‍♂️

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

​@@jjccarpentry😅

[@NN-wc7dl]

It would be interesting if Stratton could provide a list of reliable metaphysical truths. Is there anything within metaphysics where consensus prevails? Anything at all? Metaphysics is a rather chaotic place, is it not?

[@evanminton8315]

You’ve misunderstood the argument. The reliability lies not in the conclusions one comes to, but in the processes that govern your cognitive faculties. And the debate is whether or not you are in charge of your cognitive faculties, how you evaluate evidence, whether or not you’re going to believe reliable, sources, etc. or whether the atoms and chemicals in your brain are just responding to whatever environmental circumstance you happen to be in. As is the case on naturalism. So Stratton wouldn’t produce “a list of reliable metaphysical truths” because that’s not even what he’s talking about. The debate is over whether you can trust your metaphysical conclusions if you are not the one in charge of “the ship of reason”.

[@NN-wc7dl]

@@evanminton8315 I do understand the argument, but I find it interesting that the speaker uses the term 'reliable metaphysical truth.' What exactly does that mean? Although I have previously questioned the argument as such, as I don't believe it to be a strong one, I can see why it may appeal to religious individuals who appreciate reasoning dressed up as 'metaphysical arguments' in the absence of actual evidence to support their beliefs.

[@evanminton8315]

@@NN-wc7dl I think Stratton might have misspoke. The fact remains that there is no "reliable metaphysical truths". Malpass was right to think that was "odd" and to ask "what does that even mean?" Truths are either true or they're not truths at all. The argument is that if the thing that governs your cognitive faculties is entirely outside of your control, and those things governing your reasoning faculties are unreliable, then that means that you can't trust your reasoning. If you arrive at true conclusions, it happened merely by accident. Ressoning happened to you, but you as an active agent didn't reason. To use Stratton's ship analogy (or truck analogy as he's used in other contexts), you might arrive at the correct destination, despite the fact that you are tied up, bound, and gagged in the back, rather than being in the driver seat. But if you do, you're just lucky that you ended up at the right destination. If your brain is nothing but a bunch of firing neurons and bubbling chemicals, reacting to internal and external stimuli, and if you arrive at wrong conclusions, then you just happen to be unfortunate enough to find yourself in circumstances that causally determined to reason poorly. And we all poorly sometimes on some subjects. The fact that you're disagreeing with me thinks that you think I'm reasoning poorly. but if naturalism and determinism are true, it's not my fault. I am at the whims of my life circumstances, and the chemistry inside my brain. I'm not reasoning, but reasoning is happening to me. On the other hand, maybe I'm the one thinking correctly and you're the one in the unfortunate circumstances. Maybe it's your brain that's misfiring. in either case, neither one of us are in control. This makes all of our knowledge on inferential subjects suspect. Now, this doesn't make all of our knowledge on all things subject. Mundane or "humdrum" as Alex Malpass put it wouldn't necessarily be suspect. After all, you can see that your shoe is untied because of the physical processes of light, bouncing off of your shoe and hitting your retina, and going through your brain circuits that caused you to see. But when it comes to knowledge that requires reasoning, making inferences, interpreting evidence, all of those conclusions would be suspect. Indeed, even the conclusion that all of those conclusions would be suspect with itself be suspect. Again, no one is talking about "reliable truths". What is under discussion is reliable antecedent conditions to cognitive processing.

[@NN-wc7dl]

​@@evanminton8315 “The reliability lies not in the conclusions one comes to, but in the processes that govern your cognitive faculties.” A naturalist could have said this. However, there is a wide difference between a "free-thinker" like Stratton and a naturalist of course. Stratton doesn't bother to follow those processes further back than the workings of the brain at a given moment. On the other hand, naturalists understand that the brain's activities are not isolated from the rest of the body and the environment but are part of a complex system of interactions and causes. I find the idea of "libertarian free will" to be embarrassingly silly, and modern neurology discoveries and advancements seem to agree with me. You can for instance look into the works of Peter Sapolsky, who, in my opinion, has a far more reliable understanding of what's going on here than a metaphysical argument constructor like Stratton.

[@NN-wc7dl]

@@evanminton8315 I wrote a comment to your latest reply which mysteriously vanished. I have seen others in this comment section experience the same, so I'm not wasting any more time here. A small recommendation, though: You should have a look at the works of the well-known neurologist Peter Sapolsky. I am quite convinced he has a lot more understanding of what is going on here than a constructor of metaphysical arguments.

[@kimmyswan]

What about animals with “free will”? They cannot obtain knowledge about the metaphysical. Are they determined, but not humans with rational faculties?

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

I do not believe animals have the libertarian freedom to think. They only act on instinct and do not think about abstract concepts such as the laws of logic and the rules of reason. They cannot bracket their biases and be "more careful" as they think things through. I believe the thoughts of animals are determined by antecedent conditions. This is what separates humans from animals. Indeed, that's why Aristotle described humans as "rational animals."

[@petery8629]

moderator shouldn't interfere when debaters hit the crux of disagreement. If there is no overtalking just don't interfere.

[@CorndogMaker]

if you rewind time without changing anything, and give everyone a second chance to do whatever they were doing- and you believe they *could* chose differently, you're crazy.

[@joesteel3459]

Making a claim about the edge of the universe would absolutely qualify as a metaphysical claim. Metaphysical being “idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception.” The idea that the average human could have an idea or sense perception of what an edge to a universe would be like is kinda absurd.

[@RahzZalinto]

I vote no. I also vote that true random does not exist either. Dunno tho, just voting on my poll that also does not exist.

[@nemrodx2185]

"vote no. I also vote that true random does not exist either. Dunno tho, just voting on my poll that also does not exist." Don't worry, without free will it's not even worth voting because you are not free to choose either option.

[@joebossano9440]

The C.S. Lewis argument in Miracles in the background is very interesting. Lewis goes on to say some very powerful things, bearing on today's little corner of the internet 'project'. I recommend the book. I'm a few chapters in only myself as I type. But consider his challenge: are we each to become sages, or what if not do we accept for the wisdom infrastructure of the society we want?

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

I stand on the shoulders of CS Lewis! The forthcoming book I’m currently editing is dedicated to his work in Miracles.

[@AnonymousWon-uu5yn]

People are forced to think and do the types of things that their type of genetics and their types of life experiences program them to think and do throughout their life. And who and how someone happens to be is an extremely unfair unjust lottery that is determined by what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life.

[@micahkunkle]

Great conversation! I’m going to have to listen to it again. Some parts might be technical but if you stick with it it makes a lot of sense. Also, has anyone ever seen Andy Kind and Alex Malpass in the same room? 😂 they look like the same person

[@martinploughboy988]

They didn't say anything of worth.

[@micahkunkle]

@@martinploughboy988 and neither did you

[@martinploughboy988]

@@micahkunkle So what did they say of value. All they had was human philosophy, which is broken. They did not address what the Bible says once. It was an utter waste of time.

[@micahkunkle]

@@martinploughboy988 All truth is Gods truth. Including philosophy. Was Thomas Aquinas dumb for doing philosophy? Did Augustine waste his time writing theological and philosophical books? Also, do you not know that Alex is an atheist??? Tim bringing up the Bible to him would do nothing to convince non believers. After all Tim’s argument is to convince non believers that God exists because libertarian free will exists. Your comments are ignorant, not helpful, and harmful in discussions with non believers.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@micahkunkle Not all philosophy is truth, Man's philosophy is rarely accurate. Thomas Aquinas strayed far too far from Scripture to be reliable. Of course I know Alex is an Atheist, that doesn't mean I have to abandon what is true & argue from his perspective. I also know that libertarian free will does not fit with the nature of God. God is in control, so our wills are limited by His.The evildoer isn't free to do as he wishes and as Proverbs points out: The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will. (Proverbs 21:1) None of us is a free agent. Indeed, salvation requires God to intervene, to change the heart of the sinner, give them the new birth, so they are willing to repent. No one of their own will becomes a Christian.

[@rickydettmer2003]

Well done by Tim

[@CorndogMaker]

you could only come to that conclusion if you had prior experiences. If you had learned to avoid bias. In the same way that a kid would just eat a whole plate of brownies and think nothing of it, but you would avoid that impulse *because* you got sick last time.

[@KrazyKittyKatKatcher]

I mean at least this was a cordial discussion... Alex wasnt super clear with his objections Tim didnt understand the objections and didnt seem interested in them at all and just went back to canned talking points Moderator interjected too much to pass the conversation, I feel like the he took a good 10 min of the video time saying "now you talk, now you talk" but even there failed as Tim used a large amount of time restating the same thing over and over instead of getting more out of Alex. Not sure the moderator could follow or understood what was going on so he didnt know how to properly interject. I didnt learn much and it didnt feel like either side actually advanced the discussion. Maybe ill go back and watch the ben/alex debate again just for some sanity :p

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

//Tim didnt understand the objections and didnt seem interested in them at all and just went back to canned talking points.// What do you mean by "canned talking points?" I understood and answered each of Alex's objections. What one do you think I failed to grasp? Here's some I can think of off the top of my head: Objection 1: "What makes a metaphysical belief unreliable?" Answer: "If a belief has a defeater raised against it, it is not reliable." Objection 2: "Alpha Zero is rational." Answer: Alpha Zero is programmed by rational persons who desire it to be a successful at chess. If naturalism is true, the metaphysical beliefs of humanity are determined by mindless antecedent conditions that know nothing of metaphysics and don't care if humans know about metaphysics. Thus, the Alpha Zero example is not relevantly analogous. Objection 3: "Evolution could provide the answer." Answer: "Why suppose the blind watchmaker determines you to affirm true metaphysical beliefs and all those who disagree to affirm false beliefs? Careful not to beg the question in response. Feel free to add more here; I'm happy to engage.

[@KrazyKittyKatKatcher]

​@@FreethinkingMinistries I'm not a professional but let me try to get to where I think the issues are. O1: a)the issue is your use of the word reliable as Alex mentioned. The idea that our metaphysical beliefs are not “reliable” is perfectly acceptable under some definitions of “reliable”. b) Without a positive definition, I'm not sure if you are trying to say that anything that doesn't have a defeater is “reliable”. In which case, I'm not sure your defeater actually works. O2: a) here I'm not sure if you understood how machine learning is different than traditional programming. Open to being wrong about this, it just didn't come across in the vid. In machine learning you give the computer a goal (akin to our survival goal) and provide the environment or rules of the game (akin to the physics of the universe). You don't program it with what good moves are or on how to achieve the goal. It has to figure out how to play and what is important to getting to the goal. It plays millions of games with mutations and evolutions to develop an algorithm to make decisions about which moves to make given the current game state. The only difference to me is that for us the “goal” of survival we have emerges from the physical laws of the universe so there really isn't an actual “goal” in the colloquial sense. b) the antecedents themselves don't need to care about metaphysics. For a simpler example, they also don't care about numbers. We care about numbers because it's useful for our survival. O3: a) having a predictive model for what will follow is immensely useful and every iteration towards this will increase your survival. b) just to head off an iteration on your “why do so many people disagree then”, I would say to this that 1) we all have a large number of different antecedents both on the nature and nurture side of things 2) I don't know how much evolution we have really had at this level of emergent conscious experience 3) given that part of our development from birth seems to include creating a large number of the algorithms we need to operate in society (example language), it stands to reason there is even more opportunity for variation. c) so for me, someone with incorrect beliefs just hasn't been exposed to the stimulus needed to either develop the algorithm or to supply the algorithm with the information needed. While our “reasoning” does have high predictive power, it is not flawless and so while you might say that you can't trust my reasoning at all, I would say that we are all trying to create a correct predictive model of the world we live in to survive. My current decision making algorithms work well for this purpose, not flawlessly, but well enough. It's also in my interest to listen to your algorithm's response and integrate that into my decision algorithm ;) Hopefully this was clear and cordial. I appreciated that you reached out. I also realized half way through that responding using a phone was a bad idea :p next time a keyboard.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@KrazyKittyKatKatcher no worries about "tone." Keyboards rarely allow the original intent to come through. For some reason, typing with thumbs is often worse! :) Please allow me to respond point by point. //O1: a)the issue is your use of the word reliable as Alex mentioned. The idea that our metaphysical beliefs are not “reliable” is perfectly acceptable under some definitions of “reliable”. b) Without a positive definition, I'm not sure if you are trying to say that anything that doesn't have a defeater is “reliable”. In which case, I'm not sure your defeater actually works.// I was clear that a belief is not reliable (in the sense of being trustworthy) if it faces a defeater. That is to say, if naturalistic determinism is true, then mindless antecedent conditions that know nothing about metaphysics determine the beliefs of all metaphysicians. As Graham Oppy notes, there is not majority agreement on barely any metaphysical matter. With this in mind, if naturalistic determinism is true (a metaphysical matter), we have two reasons to doubt the process delivering our metaphysical beliefs is reliable to give us truth. //O2: a) here I'm not sure if you understood how machine learning is different than traditional programming. Open to being wrong about this, it just didn't come across in the vid. In machine learning you give the computer a goal (akin to our survival goal) and provide the environment or rules of the game (akin to the physics of the universe). You don't program it with what good moves are or on how to achieve the goal. It has to figure out how to play and what is important to getting to the goal. It plays millions of games with mutations and evolutions to develop an algorithm to make decisions about which moves to make given the current game state.// Yes, I understand this. My point is that chess and metaphysics are completely different matters. Moreover, with Alpha Zero in mind, the machine was created, fine-tuned, and programmed (albeit in a different manner than other computers) by rational humans who desired it to reach true conclusions about the world. On the contrary, if naturalistic determinism is true, then non-rational and mindless antecedent conditions - that know nothing of metaphysics - did not program us to attain true beliefs about metaphysical matters. Which, ironically, is the very thing we are engaged in during these debates. //b) the antecedents themselves don't need to care about metaphysics. For a simpler example, they also don't care about numbers. We care about numbers because it's useful for our survival.// But metaphysical matters such as "do numbers actually exist?" are not beneficial to our survival. Indeed, philosophers and metaphysicians -- who are surviving quite nicely -- debate this topic and reach multiple conclusions. Are these beliefs determined by mindless antecedent conditions or not? //O3: a) having a predictive model for what will follow is immensely useful and every iteration towards this will increase your survival.// Again, how does this relevant to metaphysical matters? //b) just to head off an iteration on your “why do so many people disagree then”, I would say to this that 1) we all have a large number of different antecedents both on the nature and nurture side of things 2) I don't know how much evolution we have really had at this level of emergent conscious experience 3) given that part of our development from birth seems to include creating a large number of the algorithms we need to operate in society (example language), it stands to reason there is even more opportunity for variation.// Based on the law of excluded middle, the entirety of your mental activity is either determined by antecedent conditions, or it isn't. If it is, then -- given naturalistic determinism -- the entirety of your metaphysical beliefs are determined by mindless stuff (that knows nothing of metaphysics or could care less if you know the truth about metaphysics). That's a defeater against your metaphysical beliefs -- including those under discussion. //c) so for me, someone with incorrect beliefs just hasn't been exposed to the stimulus needed to either develop the algorithm or to supply the algorithm with the information needed.// How do you know that's not you? Careful not to beg the question in response. Moreover, to reiterate Graham Oppy's observation: the professional PhD metaphysicians who have all been exposed to the same material and are epistemic peers disagree about everything. Thus, as I noted in the debate above, these mindless antecedent conditions seem rather clumsy at producing true metaphysical beliefs. What's worse, if we are not libertarian free-thinkers, then we stand in no epistemic position to know what metaphysicians are right and who is wrong. Indeed, the same mindless antecedent conditions will decide that much for us. We are at an epistemic loss if naturalistic determinism is true. //Hopefully this was clear and cordial. I appreciated that you reached out. I also realized half way through that responding using a phone was a bad idea :p next time a keyboard.// Yes, you are very cordial in your friendly pushback. I hope I come across in the same manner. In truth and love, Tim

[@martinploughboy988]

Cordial but meaningless.

[@Soteriology101]

Imagine happening upon a machine that could beat all humans in chess and assuming that it exists by happenstance due to an explosion. 💥 😮

[@jjccarpentry]

Lehighton, what was Alex's point in bringing up at illustration? Hint, it had nothing to due with fine tuning. To redirect it to fine tunning would be a red herring, a step away from TFA.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@jjccarpentryactually, the Free-Thinking Argument is also **related** to intelligent design. I believe I referred to this as “option (iv)” in the above debate.

[@JustifiedNonetheless]

To argue that the a complete separation from prior causes is a prerequisite for the existence is to commit a fallacy of proving too much because to have a will at all is contingent upon, at a bare minimum, our own birth--a prior cause. Thus, even with the proposed prerequisite met, we still wouldn't have free will, rendering an absurdity. This is without taking into account that to define free will in such a manner is to also commit a definist's fallacy, as most proponents of free will don't assert the libertarian variety in the first place. Thirdly, foreknowledge does not equate to control (if we are considering the existence of a deity possessing omniscience). I know without absolute certainty that if I see a child drop a ball, the ball will fall to the ground. Yet, I do not control the child, the ball, or the force of gravity acting on it.

[@garfieldbraithwaite8590]

You choose

[@dodumichalcevski]

You dont

[@nemrodx2185]

@@dodumichalcevski"You don't" But, you chose that we do not have free will!

[@dodumichalcevski]

@@nemrodx2185 What 🤣 Everything is either determand or random

[@nemrodx2185]

@@dodumichalcevski What 🤣 Everything is either determined or random Who says that? Our best foundational scientific theories are indeterministic (quantum mechanics) and science could not be done in a random world. The same applies to a mind.

[@dodumichalcevski]

@@nemrodx2185 I am talking about our choices

[@alexp8924]

My intuition is reliable about metaphysics. I intuit that god exists. Therefore god exists. - wtf is this argument.

[@aletheia8054]

Free will noun the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Well, if I have a thing called free will I certainly don’t have very much of it. I’ve been trying to exercise my willpower to never sin again at my own free will discretion. It’s not working out so well.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

An event is determined if antecedent conditions are sufficient to necessitate said event. If all things about humanity are determined, then this means that antecedent conditions are sufficient to necessitate all things about human mental activity and physical movements. If this is true, then 1 Cor 10:13 is false.

[@aletheia8054]

@@FreethinkingMinistries there’s no such thing as a free will

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@aletheia8054 well, that's a metaphysical claim. If there is no such thing as libertarian freedom (what I assume you mean by "free will"), then that means that something or someone else determined you to think that there is no such thing as free will and to type those words. However, if naturalistic determinism is true, then that means that mindless antecedent conditions that know nothing of metaphysics determined your entire mental activity including all of your thoughts and beliefs about metaphysics. This means that your thoughts and beliefs about metaphysics are NOT justified, which means when you make metaphysical claims -- like "there's no such thing as free will" -- you do not KNOW what you're talking about. After all, if you are not a libertarian free thinker, then something else determines the entirety of your mental activity -- all of your thoughts, judgements, evaluations, beliefs, and everything else. With that in mind, consider logical deduction: 1. If (naturalistic or divine) determinism is true, then mindless stuff or deceptive beings determine all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs. 2. If mindless stuff or deceptive beings determine all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs, then metaphysical beliefs (including those which happen to be true) are not justified. 3. If metaphysical beliefs are not justified, then metaphysicians do not possess knowledge of metaphysics. 4. Metaphysicians do possess knowledge of metaphysics (you offered a knowledge claim above). 5. Therefore, mindless stuff or deceptive beings do not determine all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs. 6. Therefore, determinism is false. It follows that if you claim to know that "there is no such thing as free will," then you have offered evidence that there is libertarian freedom and that you are wrong. Bottom line: it is self-refuting to argue for determinism or against libertarian freedom.

[@aletheia8054]

@@FreethinkingMinistries free will, by definition means you have the power to choose what you want and to choose your want. If that’s true, I could choose to not want to sin ever again. If you know anybody that has that power, let me know. I certainly don’t.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@aletheia8054 you not only oppose the Holy Bible with your statement, it's also demonstrably false. First, consider 1 Corinthians 10:13. Paul says that God always provides a way of escape so that when a regenerated Christian faces temptation to sin, he can take an available way of escape. It follows that when you sin, you could have done otherwise and taken the way of escape. This is the strongest form of libertarian freedom. Moreover, if you reject this clear biblical teaching, you are left with saying that God determined your fall into temptation. Not only is that absurd, it violates the very nature of a perfectly good and loving God. The God who promises to never tempt us! Second, do you have the power to not sin in thought or action for the next 10 seconds? According to the above Bible verse you do. If so, why not 20 seconds? If 20 seconds, why not 60 seconds? If not 60 seconds, why not 60 minutes? What arbitrary number are you going to assign to make sense of your anti-biblical ideas?

[@JustifiedNonetheless]

Can a belief be justified, if the subject isnt actually reasoning, but merely reacting to inputs?

[@byebry]

...isn't "reacting to inputs" reasoning?

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@byebry that's referred to as "reasons responsiveness," but that does not solve the problem because people reason incorrectly and believe stupid things for bad reasons all the time. The pertintnet question is this: Are your metaphysical thoughts and beliefs determined by mindless antecedent conditions, or do you ever have the power to pilot -- and take the controls -- of the ship of reason. Can you train yourself to be a better thinker, or does that "happen to you" (as CS Lewis said)? Can you be careful -- and more careful -- while deliberating, or does the exact manner in which you experience sensations of reasing happen to you (determined by mindless stuff)? "Reasoning doesn't happen to us; we do it." - CS Lewis If you disagree with Lewis, then you are stuck with mindless and unreliable antecedent conditions determining the totality of your mental activity. If you agree with CS Lewis, welcome to the land of the free (in a libertarian sense).

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

//Can a [metaphysical] belief be justified, if the subject isn't actually reasoning, but merely reacting to inputs?// Not if the manner in which one reacts to inputs is determined by mindless antecedent conditions that knows nothing about metaphysics and could care less if the subject does either.

[@byebry]

@@FreethinkingMinistries I definitely think reasoning is necessarily dependent on antecedent conditions - otherwise there is no reasoning happening. I don't think we can "drive". I think we observe and contemplate which can provide feedback to our brains and change our future behavior, and that's enough for me.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

​@@byebry Not so fast! That's not what I said. Let's be careful here. You said, //I definitely think reasoning is necessarily dependent on antecedent conditions - otherwise there is no reasoning happening.// I never said that your reasoning was not "dependent upon" prior thoughts (for example). I noted that mindless or untrustworthy antecedent conditions cannot be sufficient to necessitate the entirety of your mental activity and simultaneously hold justified metaphysical beliefs. Note the vital difference between "depend" and "determine." //I don't think we can "drive". I think we observe and contemplate which can provide feedback to our brains and change our future behavior, and that's enough for me.// Did mindless antecedent conditions determine you to think that . . . or did **YOU** reach that conclusion yourself? If it's the former, there is reason to doubt your thoughts and beliefs on this matter. If it's the latter, then you have libertarian freedom.

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

So why does Tim feel free will works better for theism over atheism?

[@dr.h8r]

Seems like Tim is presupposing that naturalism entails eliminativism & LFW is the only game in town, both of which a naturalist qua naturalist has no reason to accept & thus begs the question from the outset. Interesting discussion, tho.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

The first premise offered in this debate began with "IF naturalistic determinism is true . . ." That's not presupposing anything and happened to be Alex's position. From that point, I deductively concluded libertarian free thinking is possessed by humanity.

[@oftenincorrect]

On Tim’s view, why do people reason incorrectly, occasionally? Why can’t we just use our free will to reason correctly every time, if that’s what he thinks we’re doing?

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

Simply put: Because people are not as careful as they should have been and could have been. But that entails libertarian freedom. The technical term is indirect doxastic voluntarism.

[@FightFilms]

Because you have the free will to make errors, for example.

[@relvar3158]

Yes!!! A chess analogy! Go Alex.

[@cloudoftime]

Yet another host who is confused on what the free will debate is about. Right from the start, he says they're here to discuss free will, whether they chose that or were determined to be there. Not having free will doesn't mean you don't choose things. Of course you choose things. You just don't choose things freely.

[@FightFilms]

What and how is making you choose things and how do you know this?

[@cloudoftime]

@@FightFilms The form of your sentence appears odd to me but I think I understand your question. Briefly, I am struck by inclinations toward or away from any specific actions. I don't choose these inclinations (or wants). I don't know how that would even be possible. If you want something, that want happens to you. There is an infinite regress problem that you can't get around either: If you were to claim that you freely chose something you want (want 1), where did your want (want 0) to make that choice come from? In order to have freely chosen that want (want 0) to make that choice, that itself would require you to have wanted (want -1) to make that choice. That is yet another want back. And back and back and back. You would never get to the beginning of this series.

[@kennorthunder2428]

Calvanists make the point that God has to activate our DESIRE. Desire preceeds choices. We're held accountable because we're capable of choices. Knowing that our desire is the problem drives us to pray "change my heart oh God". and "lead us not into temptation".(avert us from temptation)

[@dodumichalcevski]

Not only desire but also experience. Feelings, knowleage and all those things make our choices determand.

[@martinploughboy988]

God is sovereign, therefore libertarian free will is impossible. Scripturally, we are either slaves of sin or of God, in neither case do we have libertarian free will.

[@kennorthunder2428]

@@martinploughboy988 "Libertarian" free will is impossible, but Jesus appealled, pleaded and reasoned with people as if they had some "mechanisim" that was supposed to respond; *while at the same time* telling us that we could never could "unless the Father who sent me, draws him". That drawing is aimed at the desires. The "mechanism" is the result of being created in the image of God. It's what allows us see, appreciate and execute justice. That very faculty is what allows God to damn us and hold us accountable - therefore Jesus appealed, pleaded and reasoned. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life". Truth damns as well as blesses. We must be willing to be damned before we can be blessed. Desire plays into this willingness.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@kennorthunder2428 Jesus didn't appeal, He commanded. Nor did He reason, indeed much of the time He hid what He was saying in parables so that people would not understand. The Father draws to the Son those God had chosen before time to save. The Bible tells us that we are broken, our reason is broken & that we cannot obey God: as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Romans 3:10-18) Is there anything in that description that implies we might do the right thing & turn to God? Until God changes us, gives us the New Birth, we will not be willing.

[@madolite]

How about people actually get down to simple facts, for once, instead of overthinking the whole issue? We obviously cannot be predetermined to do anything that doesn't currently exist in our brain as an option, such that our brain isn't yet able to produce the thought or decision that we think of as "the will" to begin with. So when we DO learn of the existence of that new option - you are now, by comparison, free (aka able) to intend to do that thing, where previously you were not. And you can also compare your will up against other people's wills. Comparisons are what help us make future decisions/intents that we previously weren't able to make. Hence why adults can intend to drive a car, but unborn children cannot (yet).

[@AtheismActually]

Well, one can say "I digested breakfast", but I expect one would not suggest that the digestive process is unaccountable within physics. "I" is just a name we give to the biological phenomenon of the human as a self, from its digestive processes to its neural processes.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

I noted this difference in the above video when I likened the phrase "I have reasoned . . . " with "I have caught a cold." You passively caught a cold, but you did not actively do it. If that's how reason works, then your metaphysical beliefs are determined by the mindless antecedent conditions that knows nothing of metaphysics and could care less if you do. Given the wide range of differing metaphysical beliefs (even among atheists), that's great reason to doubt multitudes of theological beliefs. If you are not actively reasoning, then you passively experience sensations of reason which are determined by non-rational and mindless stuff (the laws and events of nature). That's a big problem.

[@AtheismActually]

@@FreethinkingMinistries "Active" is just the label of classification convenience we assign to physical phenomena that is run through cognitive processes - in the case of humans, organic neural networks. You can't do anything but reason in response to physical circumstance, even when you claim to "choose" to not reason. And you yet face this challenge if some part of the reasoning process happens outside our spacetime, since whatever that is still has a constitution, interaction interfaces, and state sequences. Unless you're suggesting that some part of reasoning just randomly pops out of nowhere in particular.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@AtheismActually thanks for your reply. Please let me address it. You said, //"Active" is just the label of classification convenience we assign to physical phenomena that is run through cognitive processes - in the case of humans, organic neural networks.// That's not true. Philosophers are careful to analyze the qualitative texture between these two kinds of thoughts that most humans are directly aware of. Most people can recognize the difference between passive and determined thoughts (that happen on auto pilot -- as it were), and when one actively takes the controls of the ship of reason. Moreover, as JP Moreland and I explained in our 2022 paper (and as CS Lewis was touching on in the 40s), if you are never "behind the controls" of the manner in which you think about metaphysics, then you are nothing but a passive cog, determined, necessitated, and at the mercy of mindless stuff that knows nothing about metaphysics and doesn't care if you do either. That's a huge reason to doubt your metaphysical views -- including those under discussion. //You can't do anything but reason in response to physical circumstance, even when you claim to "choose" to not reason.// It seems you are unfamiliar with the literature on this topic. First, I am not discussing "physical circumstances," but rather, gaining knowledge about metaphysical matters. Second, I am not arguing for direct doxastic voluntarism, but rather, indirect doxastic voluntarism. //And you yet face this challenge if some part of the reasoning process happens outside our spacetime, since whatever that is still has a constitution, interaction interfaces, and state sequences. Unless you're suggesting that some part of reasoning just randomly pops out of nowhere in particular.// You have severely misunderstood my view. I recommend the 2022 essay I referenced above: "Explaining and Defending the Free-Thinking Argument." It's free on line.

[@anomaly918]

Tim came prepared to defend P2 but not P3. When pressed for clarity on it, he really struggled.

[@kentyoung5282]

Clearly they edited some out around the 41:53 point. I didn't see it as Tim struggling to defend P3, but as him not understanding Alex's question. Alex was assuming "reliable" meant something like "does a good job getting at the truth," where in the premise it simply means does any job at all of getting toward the truth, doing any better than blind chance does. Tim didn't defend P3 because to deny it (at least as he means it in the argument) is to deny the reliability of reason at all.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

Alex eventually conceded and agreed with the premise.

[@anthonystevens8897]

It seemed like there was just some initially talking past each other but they came to agreement in the end.

[@lordblarg]

Sort of. P3 is obviously true in some form, so I think that's why Tim wasn't as prepared to discuss it and struggled as you say. But Alex was taking issue with the precise wording/meaning (rightly so; I also thought it was too vague) and this does a good job of honing Tim's argument, but it has precisely zero bearing on the validity of the argument.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@lordblarg Thanks for your feedback (Tim Stratton here)! You said: //Sort of. P3 is obviously true in some form, so I think that's why Tim wasn't as prepared to discuss it and struggled as you say.// You're right, I was not prepared to discuss P(3) because to rationally argue against it assumes it. I was floored when Alex pushed back against that premise. This led to much time discussing the word “reliable.” The master premise of my argument was carefully worded and stated this way: “If human beings lack libertarian freedom, then their rational processes are unreliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.” What I refer to as the “pivotal premise” is stated in this manner: “Human beings’ rational processes are reliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.” So, it is clear that I am highlighting the fact that if naturalistic determinism is true, then the antecedent conditions that are the source of our metaphysical beliefs - and sufficient to necessitate our metaphysical beliefs - are unreliable to determine humans to hold true metaphysical beliefs. Why is this the case? Because those same mindless antecedent conditions that are the source of your metaphysical beliefs know nothing about metaphysics and could care less if you do either. Thus, if naturalistic determinism were true, we would have reason to doubt our metaphysical beliefs (especially since there is so much disagreement among epistemic peers and fellow metaphysicians). During the break between the second and third rounds, Malpass and I seemed to finally come to an agreement upon the big idea or concept I was attempting to communicate. Upon reflection, perhaps this wording might have been helpful: 1- If naturalistic determinism is true, then mindless stuff determines all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs. 2- If mindless stuff determines all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs, then metaphysical beliefs (including those which are true by accident) are not justified. 3- If metaphysical beliefs are not justified, then metaphysicians do not possess knowledge of metaphysics. 4- Metaphysicians do possess knowledge of metaphysics. 5- Therefore, mindless stuff does not determine all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs. 6- Therefore, naturalistic determinism is false. Be that as it may, Malpass finally agreed with me that humans do possess the power to reliably infer best explanations about metaphysical reality IF we painstakingly and carefully work at attaining metaphysical truth. That is to say, it is possible to attain metaphysical knowledge (we can do it). Indeed, if one were to attempt to argue otherwise, then, with that very act, they would be providing evidence that one can reliably infer truth about metaphysical matters. That’s a great reason to think the pivotal premise is true. //But Alex was taking issue with the precise wording/meaning (rightly so . . .// I don't think it was "rightly so." See the above premise I offered again. I was discussing unreliable sources, and I believe Alex asked me what it meant to hold an unreliable belief. Now, while there is a coherent way to answer that question, the question did not reflect the premise of the argument. I did not pick up on that during the live interaction. Upon reflection I realized the exact wording of the premise was often missed (by both of us). With that said, since it was my premise, I should have caught that. I take the blame. But fortunately, as noted above, Alex and I eventually came to agree on the big idea behind the premise. //... I also thought it was too vague) and this does a good job of honing Tim's argument, but it has precisely zero bearing on the validity of the argument.// It sure seems as if the argument is valid and sound. While the argument alone might seem vague, the defense of each premise is what provides clarity. I think I was clear enough when unpacking each premise. If you'd like more clarity, I'd be honored to answer any specific question you might have.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Waar zijn mijn comments gebleven?

[@anthonystevens8897]

It seems to me that Malpass's example of the chess machine is only a relevant counter example of something that can reliably learn while also being determined if it is assumed that the people who programmed it are also themselves completely determined. Otherwise, it falls into the category that Tim describes where a benevolent agent who wants the machine to reliably learn determines how the machine learns. Stratton affirms that we can have justified true belief in a deterministic system if we dont have defeaters that show the source and manner in which we come to our beliefs is mindless, deceptive, or random.

[@justindoud8842]

Either our minds have rational capacities that are reliable or they don’t. Either they are made up of material or they aren’t. The fact that none of the atoms in my brain independently understand metaphysics is a great debaters point, but it’s a red herring. None of the atoms in my calculator know the truths of mathematics, but the emergent calculator absolutely does. Better than most people ever could, in fact. That doesn’t suggest in any way that it’s not made of atoms. Also yes, reasoning is “happening” to us just as much as we are “doing” it. If you doubt this, I would submit to you that you haven’t paid enough attention to what it’s like to think moment to moment. You don’t know what you’re going to think before you think it, and you don’t know what you’re going to decide before you decide it. Thoughts just appear in your stream of consciousness. We don’t know where they come from, and we don’t know where they go. Which is not to say that decisions are random or uncontrolled. Decisions are usually made in accordance with your beliefs, values, desires, needs, etc., guided by your rationality and cognitive faculties. However, moment to moment, there’s a mystery at our backs about where thoughts come from.

[@PeterTryon]

I think Tim was right about his conditions being sufficient (rather than necessary). Lack of causal determinism is a necessary condition (e.g. "If a person does some action X freely, then the person is not causally determined to do action X"). The ability to freely refrain from X is a sufficient condition for freedom (e.g. "If a person has the ability to refrain from some action X, then the person is free with respect to X")

[@jjccarpentry]

I don't know what to make of this, I don't fully understand the catagories of nessesary and sufficient conditions. You have two conditions, PAP(principle of alternative possibilites) and Sourcehood (which entails there are no determining factors outside of yourself) At times, Tim has said a LFW act can obtain without PAP. This makes me think PAP is sufficient, but Sourcehood is nessesary?

[@dr.tobias3821]

⁠@@jjccarpentry correct, sourcehood is strictly necessary and PAP is strictly sufficient

[@jjccarpentry]

@dr.tobias3821 Thanks for the feedback! If PAP is only sufficient and not nessesary, why does the FTA read as though the lack of PAP would count against determinism, whether natural or divine? If it's not nessesary on LFW, why is it nessesary on determinism?

[@PeterTryon]

@jjccarpentry That's an excellent question. If PAP is a sufficient but not necessary condition for LFW and lack of determinism is a necessary condition but not sufficient condition for LFW, it does not follow that PAP entails the falsity of determinism. We would need to argue for that conclusion independently (and i think we can do just that). I am not well read in the FTA so I cant comment on that. It seems to me that determinism does logically entail the falsity of PAP. I would argue this way: If it is true that an agent is causally determined to do action X, then necessarily that agent is not free to refrain from doing action X (otherwise what exactly does it mean for the agent to be determined to so X?). If this is correct then the lack of determinism is a necessary condition for PAP. And therefore if determinism is true then PAP (and LFW) must be false.

[@tylerpedersen9836]

Where did Justin Brierly go?

[@zachg8822]

Sex change. He lives on a farm.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

He became an atheist

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

So he went on a rampant rape and killing spree!

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

He was spot in las Vegas, Amsterdam, Gaza and Venezuela.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

He's not expected to come back anytime soon.

[@TheCannoth]

Tim is the new Matt Slick

[@alexp8924]

The guy is a walking contradiction: we have reliable metaphysical intuition but all philosopher disagree on everything. Clearly its not reliable is it? We are like god but not like god.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

You seem to miss the point. Given the fact that metaphysicians disagree on so many things, that is either because they are determined by mindless antecedent conditions that know nothing about metaphysics and don't care if you do either (thus, these antecedent conditions are unreliable), or it's because many metaphysics are not being as careful as they could have been (which entails libertarian freedom). We are like God in the sense that are minds are not always determined by the laws and events of nature. But of course, we are not just like God. No contradictions or walking contradictions detected.

[@alexp8924]

@@FreethinkingMinistries so are our metaphysical intuitions reliable or not?

[@FightFilms]

I see no "metaphysical intuitions" in the argument. But granting these things are ours, you seem to grant free will. Moreover, you have no proof that tomorrow will be like today. Yet, you plan for tomorrow and days after and your metaphysical intuition has not failed you yet. I am not talking about predicting the future, so please do not strawman.

[@alexp8924]

@@FightFilms how is it my intuition? You found one intuition that seems reliable. What about others?

[@lordblarg]

The issue with the chess example is that AI didn't figure out how to play chess, as in the rules of chess, nor did it even decide how best to evaluate moves. It had a pre-programmed way of determining what was best and just applied it over and over again updating pre-programmed weight matrices. The AI was given a set of rules, a method of testing the positions, and left to do a bunch of deterministic math. When you understand how AI works, it is a lot less impressive and just does not work as a counter to Tim's argument.

[@byebry]

But... how is that not directly analogous to rational human thinking?

[@lordblarg]

Seriously?

[@lordblarg]

I don’t know about you, but my thinking can’t be reproduced by math.

[@byebry]

@@lordblarg Well, your thinking is complicated because of the chemicals that make you emotional. Do they prevent you from reasoning?

[@lordblarg]

Emotions have nothing to do with it. Rational thought isn’t math. I don’t do math to make decisions, unless it requires it. AI make every “decision” by doing what the math says.

[@user-tb2vc3gd5w]

This fellow Tim was out of his depth; he's just relying on other philosophers and regurgitating their arguments, he's deflecting, and not actively doing philosophy. You can tell by his frequent narrating "I'm going to do x now" "i'm about to do x" and constant narrative/appositional glosses (bulky language, inelegant, always needing to re-define the same terms, quotations and references to others that don't actually contribute to the discussion). It's the kind of thing that fills empty papers that don't say much, but show that someone's been through a grad degree and learned the academic register. Alex is doing philosophy, speaking simply, and with more analyticity. It was also quite "Christian" of Alex to be kind to Tim in the dialogue and not call out his flaws more assertively. Fodder for listening, anyway. I say this as a Christian. Listen and ask yourself: when Tim talked, did I learn or understand? When Alex talked, did I learn or understand?

[@CCiPencil]

As a Christian, I learned from Tim. Thought Alex was great too, definitely disagree.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

If you didn’t learn anything from my points, then you have proved my points. You are not being careful, but you should have and could have learned something. But that means you’ve got libertarian freedom. Bottom line: if you are not a free-thinker, then what is determining the entirety of your mental activity - including your metaphysical beliefs? Are those antecedent conditions trustworthy to determine you to hold true metaphysical beliefs? Why or why not?

[@CosmicalChrist]

When a discussion or a point is way over once head or alien, it takes time to understand. Which is why you should listen over and over. "Repetition is the mother of learning" ~ One of my professor~

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

Does God have free will, if you say yes, then he has the freedom to do evil, yet, if he has the freedom to do evil it is in his nature to do evil so he chooses the good, yet, it is not in his nature to do evil so how can god have free will, at least wise, in doing the good or the evil, this is why Christ died and Rose again, to put in man the nature of good that he should produce it, not by the power of choice but by the power of the nature of the Holy Spirit to do good. Thus the scripture, a good man bring forth the good that is in his heart and an evil man brings forth the evil that is in his heart. Thus the scripture, salvation is a gift of God it is the power of God the power of the Holy Spirit unto salvation.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

Just because God is necessarily love (and thus, cannot do evil), does not mean that He does not possess the libertarian freedom to create or refrain from creation (for example).

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

@@FreethinkingMinistries you going to have to elaborate by giving an example of what you mean

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@TempleofChristMinistries Did God possess the power to refrain from creation? if not, then omnipotence needs redefined. if yes, then God has libertarian freedom. I discuss this in more detail in my book, Human freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism.

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

@@FreethinkingMinistries yes of course God is free to do what he likes but I was speaking of the good in the evil. Thank you for your comment

[@ByDesign333]

(Choose to) Draw nigh unto God, and (then) he will draw nigh unto you.

[@TheMirabillis]

A Maximally Great Being ( God ) is “All Knowing” ( Omniscient ). God knew prior to Creation that Bob would reject Him and end up in Hell. Now that the World has been created and Bob is an actual person, he must reject God and go to Hell because it is impossible for God to be wrong in His knowledge of Bob. Bob cannot do other by getting saved. Therefore, Libertarian Free Will is not even possible on Tim Stratton’s position.

[@martinploughboy988]

Scripture says that God chose who He would save before He created. Thus it isn't God's knowledge of Bob but His choice to exclude Bob. Libertarian free will is not possible for a Christian.

[@NN-wc7dl]

"We are having a substantive discussion.", says the host. Well, Malpass provides valuable content, but Stratton's contributions are very unclear, to say the least.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

How did you reach that conclusion? My premises were clear. Examine them again: 1- If naturalistic determinism is true, then human beings lack libertarian freedom. 2- If human beings lack libertarian freedom, then their rational processes are unreliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters. 3- Human beings’ rational processes are reliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters. 4- Therefore, human beings have libertarian freedom. 5- Therefore, naturalistic determinism is false. One of the points I have sought to convey is that if naturalistic determinism is true (a view held by many atheists), then the entirety of human mental activity is determined by non-rational antecedent conditions. As I pointed out in the debate, this means that all of a person’s metaphysical beliefs are determined by “consciousness-lacking, intelligence-lacking, wisdom-lacking, reason-lacking, morality-lacking, and, as Joshua Rasmussen would say, ‘mindless stuff’ that knows nothing about metaphysics.” I followed that by noting that this might have been why Charles Darwin himself admitted: “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind . . . are of any value or at all trustworthy.” Now, the FTA finds the cardinal difficulty, not only in the conjunction of naturalism and evolution per se (which is a problem) . . . but primarily in determinism (and its preclusion of libertarian free-thinking) coupled with the biggest problem that the mindless stuff sufficient to necessitate all of Malpass’s metaphysical beliefs knows nothing about metaphysics and could care less if anyone (including Malpass) has correct metaphysical beliefs (including those under discussion). That’s a huge reason to doubt Malpass’s metaphysical beliefs about free will. After all, if one’s rational processes are determined by external factors (mindless stuff), then how can one be responsible for-in the sense of having the ultimate say or decision or power over-his use of reason or the manner in which he reasons? By definition, determinism entails that a person’s mental activity is not up to him, and this implies that one’s role in his mental performances is, at best, as a passive cog, a caused cause, or a controlled puppet. Thus, the naturalistic determinist cannot trust himself to reason correctly on metaphysical matters, but rather, he must trust mindless stuff to make him reason correctly on metaphysical matters. This leads to what I have referred to as “epistemic meltdown." This is the case because mindless stuff that knows nothing about metaphysics (and could care less if humans possess true metaphysical beliefs) is an unreliable source to determine a person to possess true metaphysical beliefs. This raises a huge defeater for the one who claims that (i) naturalistic determinism is true, and (ii) he knows the truth about metaphysical matters. As I noted in the debate, if a defeater is raised against one’s metaphysical belief, it is not reliable. That is to say, one has reason not to trust it as there is a big reason to doubt it. This is known as an undercutting defeater. Much time was spent discussing the word “reliable.” The master premise of my argument was carefully worded and stated this way: “If human beings lack libertarian freedom, then their rational processes are unreliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.” What I refer to as the “pivotal premise” is stated in this manner: “Human beings’ rational processes are reliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.” So, it is clear that I am highlighting the fact that if naturalistic determinism is true, then the antecedent conditions that are the source of our metaphysical beliefs - and sufficient to necessitate our metaphysical beliefs - are unreliable to determine humans to hold true metaphysical beliefs. Why is this the case? Because those same mindless antecedent conditions that are the source of your metaphysical beliefs know nothing about metaphysics and could care less if you do either. Thus, if naturalistic determinism were true, we would have reason to doubt our metaphysical beliefs. That was all explained in the debate, but perhaps things will be clarified now that you've had a chance to read through it. I hope it helps.

[@NN-wc7dl]

@@FreethinkingMinistries No, I'm sorry, I don't think a person's consciousness can be a self-contained entity where a free will can exist. Your view of the "I" appears to be unreasonable to me. It's quite evident that our consciousness arises from non-conscious circumstances, thanks to our (material) brains. This is what we call evolution, and it's not necessarily more bizarre than the fact that our lungs have learned to take oxygen from the air. Furthermore, just because our brains have developed the ability to think rationally doesn't imply that what they evolved from must possess the same rational ability. I believe you may have misunderstood the term "evolution." And, as Malpass pointed out, premises 2 and 3 are still very puzzeling. ”Metaphysical truths” sounds just as mysterious as ”God” to me and as a convinced atheist I feel I have to pass on that one.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

​@@NN-wc7dl you said, //I don't think a person's consciousness can be a self-contained entity where a free will can exist.// Okay, if you do not think you are a free-thinker, then that means that something else determined you to think such things. Well, if naturalistic determinism is true, then the antecedent conditions sufficient to necessitate your belief that libertarian freedom does not exist knows nothing about libertarian freedom and could care less if you do either. That provides a big defeater for the thoughts and beliefs you just expressed. //Your view of the "I" appears to be unreasonable to me.// Okay, if you do not think you are a free-thinker, then that means that something else determined you to think such things about my view of the "I". Well, if naturalistic determinism is true, then the antecedent conditions sufficient to necessitate your belief that my view of the "I" is unreasonable knows nothing about the "I" and could care less if you do either. That provides a big defeater for the thoughts and beliefs you just expressed. Namely, your view that my view is unreasonable. If anything, that show of unreasonableness is on your foot. //It's quite evident that our consciousness arises from non-conscious circumstances, thanks to our (material) brains. This is what we call evolution, and it's not necessarily more bizarre than the fact that our lungs have learned to take oxygen from the air. Furthermore, just because our brains have developed the ability to think rationally doesn't imply that what they evolved from must possess the same rational ability. I believe you may have misunderstood the term "evolution."// I understand evolution just fine and have published a book about it. This might surprise you, but I am a Christian who does not reject evolution. The misunderstanding here is on your part. I made it clear in the debate as to why evolution -- while it might help you gain knowledge of how to avoid tigers -- is not sufficient to attain knowledge of metaphysical reality. //And, as Malpass pointed out, premises 2 and 3 are still very puzzeling. ”Metaphysical truths” sounds just as mysterious as ”God” to me and as a convinced atheist I feel I have to pass on that one.// Okay, we can do this all day (as Captain America would say). If you do not think you are a free-thinker, then that means that something else determined you to think such things about metaphysical truths, God, and being a "convinced atheist." If naturalistic determinism is true, then the antecedent conditions sufficient to necessitate your belief about metaphysical premises, God, and being a "convinced atheist," knows nothing about metaphysics, God, or what it means to be convinced of atheism. This provides a big defeater for the thoughts and beliefs you just expressed. This provides a big defeater to all in which you were previously "convinced."

[@NN-wc7dl]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Thank you for your response. I understand your perspective, but I will need to take some time to consider it further. Currently, it does not align with my own beliefs. Even though it may not be a convincing argument for others, it simply doesn't feel right to me. I appreciate your input, and I hope to be able to revisit this topic at a later time.

[@NN-wc7dl]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Okay, I will try to, shortly, explain why your argument doesn't resonate all that well with me. Something like this: It is common for people to mistake the terms "free will" and "free choice" as interchangeable. However, these are two separate concepts. While we can freely imagine anything, our "choices" are limited by the circumstances at hand. I can think - have the will to think - that I am Napoleon Bonaparte and there is no determinism involved for bringing about that specific thought. I can easily change that thought to me being Kurtz in The Heart of Darkness at any time. Our thoughts are free in that we can imagine anything we want, but our "choices" are subject to naturalistic causation. When you talk about attaining “metaphysical truths”, you are basically referring to the freedom of our thoughts to imagine things independent of reality. On the other hand, naturalistic determinism concerns causal relationships in reality and their significance for our "choices". So, while thoughts and imagination are free, choice operates in a world that is subject to certain limitations imposed by reality. In this context, it is worth noting that we can't choose to truly believe anything, which seemingly would follow the idea of libertarian free will. For instance, under ordinary and fairly sane circumstances, I can't choose to truly believe that I am Napoleon Bonaparte. My "choice" in actually believing X or Y is determined by a wide variety of antecedent causes. Your argument seems to be a defense for the idea that our consciousness has the ability to produce thoughts, and fantasies, in an undetermined, unrestricted way. (Is that a bug or a feature, evolutionary speaking, by the way?) However, your argument does not get you any further than that as far as I can see.

[@the_Kurgan]

I think this proves that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to be a philosopher.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

I don't know of any rocket scientists who are qualified to have a discussion on metaphysical matters like those discussed here. Be that as it may, although I (Tim Stratton) am not the sharpest tool in the shed, Alex Malpass is a great thinker. It was an honor to discuss these big ideas with him.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Is a philosopher qualified to have a discussion on metaphysics if they are not also a Christian.

[@jjccarpentry]

The more times I listen to this conversation, the more it seems like a cluster of unclarity. Tim should banish the word "reliable" from any of his inevitable 😉 future premises, it creates confussion and does not get his point across. For one, premise 3 desribes the *rational processes* as reliable, and in and of itself, doesn't even mentinon justification or knowledge. My most charitable reading of Premise 3 after many listens is "Human being's rational processes *can sometimes* bring about Justified True Beliefs without overiding defeaters." This would shed light on Premise 2, which would communicate "Without LFW, there are deafeaters that prevent JTMB (Metaphysical Knowledge) on Naturalisic Determinism." This would have made it clear that Tim believes JTMB is *impossible* on Naturalistic Determinism, which is what Alex tried to clarify a number of times, and is what they both eventually agreed to focus apon for the sake of progress. We could have freaking skipped the whole cluster about "reliability", and got right to the interesting parts about defeaters and defeater defeaters! Damn.😬😄

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

I have reworded the premise for my forthcoming blog article discussing my post-debate reflections. Be that as it may, it’s not that complicated. I shared this exact argument at a philosophy conference several weeks prior and not one philosopher in attendance struggled to comprehend that if mindless antecedent conditions are unreliable to determine true metaphysical beliefs, then this unreliability transfers to one’s metaphysical beliefs. Thus, a defeater is raised against one’s metaphysical beliefs.

[@jjccarpentry]

@FreethinkingMinistries Thanks for taking the time to read my comment, and for responding. I look forward to your debate reflections. Do you think my reformation of Premise 3 is accurate to your intended comunication and provides more clarity to the reader? In your 3hr Soteriology101 interview, you said that you thought Alex eventurally agreed with Premise 3. I challenge you to point to the time stamp where that took place. As far as I can tell, Alex seemed to communicate that you both agreed off air that Premise 3, at least as it was worded, wasn't relevant and did not matter to the thrust of the FTA. Alex stated that you both agreed to focus instead on the *possibility* of metaphysical knowledge on Naturalisic Determinism. I could be wrong about this, But I am very confident your memory didn't serve you correctly to say he agreed with Premise 3, at least in what was communicated to the audience. I cant speak for those in attendance at the philosophy conference, on whether they scrutinized the argument or not. Thanks for your time.

[@jjccarpentry]

One more thought- Numerous times, Alex communicated that he had difficulty understanding what you meant in Premise 3 by the word "reliable", Asking straightforwardly what you meant by the word, and asking for a definition. Every time you gave a response it was in the context of premise 2, not Premise 3. Even here, When I make it clear I was frustrated with the wording in Premise 3, you answer in the context of premise 2. Why is that going on? I'm genuinely confused by this.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@jjccarpentry let me reply to your comments in a step by step matter. //Do you think my reformation of Premise 3 is accurate to your intended comunication and provides more clarity to the reader?// I assume you are referring to this? "My most charitable reading of Premise 3 after many listens is "Human being's rational processes can sometimes bring about Justified True Beliefs without overiding defeaters." No, that does not encapsulate what I've been pretty clear to communicate. I do claim that mindless antecedent conditions that know nothing of metaphysics and do not care if humans do either can *accidentally* determine true metaphysical beliefs. But this is a far cry from justification (especially since they face the overwhelming defeater of being mindless, non-rational, and lack any knowledge of metaphysics. //In your 3hr Soteriology101 interview, you said that you thought Alex eventurally agreed with Premise 3. I challenge you to point to the time stamp where that took place.// See the third and final round. During the preceding break Alex and I came to agree on the big idea behind the premise. He said that the word "reliable" was a stumbling block for him, but eventually saw what I was communicating. This much is clear when he offered his closing remarks. //As far as I can tell, Alex seemed to communicate that you both agreed off air that Premise 3, at least as it was worded, wasn't relevant and did not matter to the thrust of the FTA. Alex stated that you both agreed to focus instead on the possibility of metaphysical knowledge on Naturalisic Determinism.// Yes, since an undercutting defeater is raised against mindless antecedent conditions that know nothing about metaphysics determining our metaphysical beliefs, then these beliefs are not justified. Thus, metaphysical knowledge is not justified. Here is a different manner to advance this big idea: 1. If naturalistic determinism is true, then mindless stuff determines all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs. 2. If mindless stuff determines all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs, then metaphysical beliefs (including those which are true by accident) are not justified. 3. If metaphysical beliefs are not justified, then metaphysicians do not possess knowledge of metaphysics. 4. Metaphysicians do possess knowledge of metaphysics. 5. Therefore, mindless stuff does not determine all metaphysicians to affirm false metaphysical beliefs. 6. Therefore, naturalistic determinism is false. //I could be wrong about this, But I am very confident your memory didn't serve you correctly to say he agreed with Premise 3, at least in what was communicated to the audience.// I'm pretty sure we agreed to the concept; just not the wording. the wording is easy to change, the big idea isn't going anywhere. //I cant speak for those in attendance at the philosophy conference, on whether they scrutinized the argument or not.// I'm simply pointing out that a room full of philosophers had no problem with the wording of the premise or the concept described by the premise. Of course, that does not make the premise true, but it would sure be odd if this premise is so problematic that a room full of PhD philosophers would miss it. Indeed, that's why these papers are read in front of these experts. Bottom line: this is not the premise to reject -- it literally is shooting yourself in your own foot (if not worse) to reject it. The master premise -- the one that should be attacked -- is the second premise offered in the above video.

[@jjccarpentry]

@FreethinkingMinistries The FTA Premise 3 that you affirm -"Human being's rational processes are reliable to obtain truth about metaphysical matters." I took this to mean that "It is possible for the human being rational processes to (sometimes) bring about JTMB without overriding defeaters." I say 'sometimes', because we probably don't believe *all* all our metaphysical beliefs are true and justified. This is exactly what Alex stated you agreed to focus on in the 3 round, the *possibility* of metaphysical knowledge, not whether the rational processes were reliable. If my paraphrasing of your premise 3 isn't accurate, than I genuinly cant track your linguistics. I have no idea why you brought up acidental beliefs in the context of Premise 3, and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, so I'll leave it there.🤷‍♂️ In regards to your defeater narrative, I don't think the narration develops or connects how the lack of PAP or the presence of mind-less processes in naturalistic determinism guarantees the *impossibility* of JTMB on naturalistic determinism. I understand you claim it over and over, and it may be due to the lack of my capacities, but I don't see it in the Phil narrative you provide. There are many "How can this.." and "How can that..." questions, but ya know, questions aren't arguments😃 I would love to see those questions turned into statements of impossibility that could then be defended. If the questions are just a pass of the ball, then your response to the evolutionary true belief forming mechanism via natural selection just seems quantitative, ie "All the metaphysical beliefs aren't true, so you can't trust any of them, (or be justified) etc." Sorry, I wanted to respond, But I think I'll hang up here. Not looking to obligate you, And the fruitfulness might be waning. Thanks for your interaction, I appreciate your time👍

[@alexp8924]

Think about three different movies and tell it to me? While you are doing it note how your mind gives you a short list out of 100s of movies you ever watched. You ARE an observer.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

I don't know why this argument still continues. If you decide to believe in an all powerful God who has complete control over you and knows everything you will think, say and do before he ever made you then where is your free will? God believers automatically dodge anything that threatens their belief.

[@sndpgr]

"If you decide to believe in an all powerful God who has complete control over you and knows everything you will think, say and do" . I don't think most Christians believe that.

[@user-dy3uh]

@@sndpgr So God knows the future (via prophecies) but doesn't know what everyone will do? More cognitive dissonance.

[@sndpgr]

@@user-dy3uh A little less snarky attitude will be usefull. God does know how everything will end , and he guides history towards that end however our individual parts are upto us.

[@user-dy3uh]

@@sndpgr You read snarky attitude, because your cognitive dissonance got triggered. I didn't know if you were a Christian or not until you posted.

[@user-dy3uh]

@@sndpgrSo your claim is that he can orchestrate prophecy but he doesn't know what we will do?

[@jkm9332]

If no free will, then no meaningful debates.

[@jjccarpentry]

If free will, then no meaningful debate😉

[@jkm9332]

@@jjccarpentry Did YOU freely type that because it’s true, or did fingers type it because they had to?

[@jjccarpentry]

@@jkm9332 by 'freely', do you mean unrestrained and unhinged from any causal interaction? Because I do believe there was a causal chain that explains my comment, and is therefore nessesary.

[@jjccarpentry]

Let me ask you- Can you provide any contrastive causal explanation as to why you chose to write your initial comment? Or was it a result of LFW, unhinged from any contrasting causal explanation?😉

[@jkm9332]

@@jjccarpentry By freely I mean able to have done otherwise, not from coercion. Did you make a choice to post that comment, or did your fingers type it because they were forced to?

[@alexp8924]

Ignorance is bliss. If I give you 30 metaphysical claims, not only you won’t be able to reliably guess most of it, you wouldn’t be able to prove even one.

[@FightFilms]

Pigeon chess is for pigeons.

[@nemrodx2185]

Excellent performance by Tim Stratton here. The mere fact that such a competent philosopher Alex Malpass is completely blocked by the free will argument should make many people consider his position. But sometimes the affiliation with mainstream naturalism is so great that not even having the most obvious thing in front of them will change their mind. Of all things, attacking free will is the most intellectually suicidal thing you can do.

[@chriswallis8258]

Are we watching the same video?

[@51elephantchang]

@@chriswallis8258 My thoughts exactly.

[@jjccarpentry]

Holy smokes, did we watch the same video?! At around 38:00, Tim fails 3 times to offer a definition for 'reliability" when asked for one by Alex, and you can see the interaction turning into a train wreck. Im not even sure he was hearing Alex. At 41:30, Alex is given the reigns to salvage the conversation by steelmaning the FTA, and help Tim out by jettising the unnecessary contentious language. Go back and watch the video, where was Alex 'blocked' by TFA?

[@nemrodx2185]

@@jjccarpentry"Holy smokes, did we watch the same video?! At around 38:00, Tim fails 3 times to offer a definition for 'reliability" when asked for one by Alex, and you can see the interaction turning into a train wreck. Im not even sure he was hearing Alex. At 41:30, Alex is given the reigns to salvage the conversation by steelmaning the FTA, and help Tim out by jettising the unnecessary contentious language. Go back and watch the video, where was Alex 'blocked' by TFA?" That is a perfect example... Alex is forced to waste time on definitions that he himself DOES NOT GIVE, and then accept that it is possible to draw conclusions in metaphysical terms and then not give any alternative or explanation of how he can have reliable metaphysical knowledge. . The last straw is that the topic is philosophical and metaphysical... (free will). So Alex can't even claim that free will doesn't exist. Checkmate!

[@nemrodx2185]

@@chriswallis8258"Are we watching the same video?" Of course we watched the same video. But if we both think differently about the same thing... how do we know who is right if neither of us have free will?

[@Paradoxarn.]

What this debate shows is that those who link free will with reliability of reasoning have no idea what they are talking about.

[@nemrodx2185]

"What this debate shows is that those who link free will with reliability of reasoning have no idea what they are talking about" On the contrary, without free will you are not even free to know if your thoughts are trustworthy.

[@richtomlinson7090]

​@@nemrodx2185you were determined to write that, because of all the events that lead up to the feeling that you had to write something.

[@LordBlk]

​@richtomlinson7090 ah, but what if I told you the brain state (chemical make up etc.) Have little bearing on emotion or will. Would that not defeat your arguement. You might want to look up the quantum mind or quantum biology.

[@nemrodx2185]

@@richtomlinson7090"you were determined to write that, because of all the events that lead up to the feeling that you had to write something." How do you know I was determined to write this? That's precisely the problem... you can't justify your beliefs because you would be just a puppet of a mindless process.

[@richtomlinson7090]

@@nemrodx2185 that's not how it works. Our minds are included. It's all included. Do you believe in Biblical prophecies?

[@jimothy9943]

Premise 2 be false yo.

[@LordBlk]

I feel like the crux of the point and contention sits around reliability of knowledge. And a distinction between the quality of knowledge as metaphysical and physical. Alex syms up in the end at 1:10:20 by saying "Tim conflates libertarian freewill with justified beleifs." In the sense that, for alex, he can be the AI (biological machine) with a causal system that comes to objective true knowledge. (My opinion: alex makes the leap in his concept of true beleifs or justifies knowledge from physical knowledge to metaphysical knowledge. He fails to account for the quantum state that is inherently undertermined amd affirmed my physical knowledge via modern science. Alex does not answer the chinese room problem which is a thought experiment that demonstrates/describes the qualitative difference of physical to meta-physical truth. The ai machine doesnt truly understand what its purpose is or of the task in the room.) I though Tim was very gracious, christ-like even, partocularly complimenting and acknowledging the role alex played in his own progression and development. Tim's point are very tight, but pretty technical, but that is what makes it fun for me. (Tim struggled to articulate this leap. He should have defined meta-physical knowledge and Truth better for alex to folow his argument. He could bring up the undeterminism of quantum mechanics, information theory, the hard problem of consciousness because much of the leading theories and research around the mechanics of the brain point to a "driver of the ship" as it were.) Good work holding this.

[@KrazyKittyKatKatcher]

I think the question that Tim needs to answer though is who's driving the driver? Are the driver's decisions determined or not determined?

[@LordBlk]

@@KrazyKittyKatKatcher that is what he means by antecedent factors We would have to consider what consciousness is and is if purely physical in nature and therefore not free or something metaphysical and independent of the causal chain. Since quantum mechanics shows that space and time are not fundamental to reality, leaves a pretty open spot for debate

[@KrazyKittyKatKatcher]

@@LordBlk consciousness need not be physical. Even if it is metaphysical, you would have to say whether it itself is determined or undetermined. To me, I can't see how an undetermined consciousness (metaphysical or otherwise) gives you libertarian free will and if it is determined then I go back to my previous point, what drives the driver.

[@LordBlk]

@@KrazyKittyKatKatcher well, if consciousness is non-physical (thus reliant on some other primordial plane) Perhaps it is not libertarian free in the sense that it is contingent on that unseen realm, not God, per se. I would argue that God would be the only totally libertarian free being. Otherwise, you would have to explain how the consciousness isn't free despite it being seperated from the causal chains of the physical.

[@LordBlk]

@@KrazyKittyKatKatcher what drives the driver.....that seems like it has two answers Either you imply that consciousness can be influenced (which I don't diaagree,) but is that the same as being driven? I mean there is hypnosis and ideological capture that can drive people to do things. Or are you asking is there a consciousness within a consciousness.....and that just seems to regress into infinity. I mean, it is like asking who created God.... If consciousness is outside the physical, then it has unique and timeless qualities, which we can only speculate on.

[@evanminton8315]

I think Tim Stratton won this debate. The vast majority of the debate was Tim Stratton explaining and defending the argument and Alex Malpass going “I don’t understand what you’re talking about” in multiple various ways. I don’t wanna be too hard on the guy, but he comes across as someone who hasn’t really researched the argument well. I’ve been informed that he has studied the argument, but he comes across as someone who is just hearing of The FreeThinking Argument for the first time. To be fair, the debate is “Does Free Will Exist?” not “Is The FreeThinking Argument Against Naturalism Sound?” but if one is going up against Stratton on this issue, one has to know that he’s going to go straight to this argument. Just as William Lane Craig would head straight to The Kalam Cosmological Argument if the topic was “Does God Exist?” Now, 50 minutes in, he finally seems to get it and accurately restates the argument back to Stratton. However, I think that Stratton is right that Alpha Zero (or similar AI thought experiments) don’t prove that inferential reasoning is possible on naturalistic determinism. After all, as he pointed out, Alpha Zero was designed by rational free agents who wanted Alpha Zero to make good decisions when playing chess. This would only be a good counter if the fact of the matter were that we were exhaustively determined by God to always reason correctly and never to arrive at false beliefs. But not even divine determinists like Calvinists believe that. It’s obvious that not everyone comes to correct conclusions, otherwise there would be no such thing as debates over ANYTHING. Not everyone is right on everything. And on naturalism, your reasoning is happening to you. If naturalism is true, your beliefs, and the cognitive processes that led to those beliefs, are caused by the atoms in in your brain bumping around, brain chemicals bubbling, your environment, and so on and so forth. If you arrive at the correct conclusion, you did so because you just found yourself lucky to find yourself in just the right causal chain of events to land at correct metaphysical conclusions. Too bad for those who were not in the same circumstances that you were in. Moreover, how can you know that you were in the correct environmental circumstances and someone else wasn’t? Pointing to machines designed by rational beings is not analogous to people who (if naturalism is true) are determined by non-rational processes. I’m glad Malpass eventually understood the argument and was able to offer a rebuttal before it was all over, but unfortunately for him, it was not a successful defeater.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

You have a great grasp of the Free-Thinking Argument!

[@evanminton8315]

@@FreethinkingMinistries Thanks. 😊

[@TheMirabillis]

Free Will certainly doesn’t exist in Molinism. I can only put it down to two reasons why Stratton and William Lane Craig don’t agree that there is no free will in Molinism. They are just not intelligent to understand or they are dishonest. I would go with that they are dishonest. And this is one reason I hate apologetics so much. Namely, Apologists are just so dishonest.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

You say that the alpha zero thing would only be analogous if god designed us to be perfect thinkers. Is alpha zero a perfect thinker? Maybe what makes it analogous is evolution designing us to be pretty good thinkers, like humans designing alpha zero to be a pretty good thinker.

[@satanshameer690]

Culture has to do with this delusion. Ameeican vs British

[@josephbrown9685]

My lack of free will compelled me to watch this video and agree with the person who believes that free will does exist.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

What the fukc is going on with my comments?!

[@NN-wc7dl]

I have experienced the same, comments not showing up. Censoring going on?

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

@@NN-wc7dl weird kind of censoring, even the innocuous looking comments vanish. Sloppy censoring algorithm I guess.

[@NN-wc7dl]

@@fukpoeslaw3613 Two of my comments, which were not very innocuous, seem to have been deleted. Maybe the freethinking community isn't all that freethinking after all?

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

@@NN-wc7dl not at all

[@samsimpson565]

Alex = proper philosopher. Tim = pretend philosopher.

[@jjccarpentry]

I mean they're both thinking deeply about these things, but dang Alex is so good at breaking complicated arguments down to the root of disagreement. I appreciate Tim's prepaired approach, but I don't think he thinks well on his feet. But hey, I don't either, that's why I'm typing this on my keyboard😄

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

Tim = systematic theologian (and makes it clear that he’s not a philosopher).

[@samsimpson565]

@@FreethinkingMinistriesSystematic theologians are de facto philosophers.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@samsimpson565 perhaps, but systematic theologians have not had all the graduate-level training as professional PhD philosophers.

[@RangerRyke]

Free will simply does not make rational sense. If you believe in it you have to take it on faith. Calvinism vs Arminianism are two sides of the same coin if you believe we have a personal will.

[@nemrodx2185]

"Free will simply does not make rational sense. If you believe in it you have to take it on faith" On the contrary, rationality depends on free will. Otherwise blind faith is the only thing that exists.

[@RangerRyke]

@@nemrodx2185 rationality depends on cause and effect. Bind faith is hope + chance. Those are the options. Cause and effect or random chance. Neither leaves room for anything to be attributed to the individual.

[@antiyttrad]

Determinism makes no sense. If we are determined then our faculties cabt be used to arrive at truth.

[@nemrodx2185]

@@RangerRyke"rationality depends on cause and effect. Bind faith is hope + chance. Those are the options. Cause and effect or random chance. Neither leaves room for anything to be attributed to the individual." That is a basic error that I have seen in certain atheist circles. The opposite of determinism is indeterminism, not "random chance." In libertarian free will the "individual" would be the indeterministic cause of an effect. It's a false dichotomy that you present... But don't worry, if there is no free will I could be right and you couldn't think any other way.

[@RangerRyke]

@@antiyttrad are faculties are determined by what helps us survive. It just so happens that an accurate/truthful view of reality usually benefits our survival. if our decisions were not based on cause and effect then they are random and arbitrary so then we really couldn’t trust them and we wouldn’t even survive.

[@grahamneville9002]

God does not, indeed cannot, determine anything meaningless as He is very meaning itself. In other words, no God = meaningless. Therefore, mankind is perfectly 'free' to think, speak, and perform everything God purposed within Himself from all eternity.

[@edwardprokopchuk3264]

This was probably the worst discussion on free will. There was a lot of talking but nothing was said.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

Logically deductive arguments were offered - along with defense of the premises. What more could one ask for?

[@edwardprokopchuk3264]

@@FreethinkingMinistries how about a real conversation about free will. There were no clear definitions presented and no applicable information was provided. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but for a lay person, this sounded like a bunch of gibberish. If one listens to Sam Harris on this topic, it’s very easy to follow what he says and very applicable to real life.

[@edwardprokopchuk3264]

@@FreethinkingMinistries this could have been a very simple conversation about a seemingly complicated topic. Free will- is a person’s ability to make an uncaused choice. Now, do persons possess such a thing? Go!

[@jezah8142]

​@edwardprokopchuk3264 I like Galen strawsons argument about this subject. His argument doesn't even need determinism to be true for it to work . Premise 1 . People do what they do because of who/ how they are Premise 2 . So to be responsible for what we do, we have to be responsible for how we are . Premise 3. We can't be responsible for how we are , so we can't be responsible for what we do

[@micahkunkle]

@@jezah8142 premise 1 is basically : there are prior conditions (who someone is) that determine people’s choices (what someone does). That argument absolutely deals with determinism and I think I find fault with all those premises.

[@dodumichalcevski]

Its doenst Its either determand or random

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

False dichotomy.

[@dodumichalcevski]

@@FreethinkingMinistries explain

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@dodumichalcevski JP Moreland and I offered four possible explanations for our metaphysical beliefs. Here's a quote from "An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument": "Ultimately, a person’s metaphysical and theological beliefs are either: (i) determined by something [mindless and] non-rational (and thus, untrustworthy), (ii) determined by a deity of deception (and thus, untrustworthy), (iii) random (and thus, untrustworthy),77 or (iv) caused by an intelligently designed78 free-thinking agent created in the likeness of a maximally great being (God) [who desires humanity to know the truth about ultimate reality] with cognitive faculties functioning properly (subject to no dysfunction) in an appropriate environment which can be aimed at truth if the agent is careful and handles his or her powers responsibly.79 The first three options leave us with skepticism and reason to doubt our metaphysical and theological thoughts and beliefs.80 Option (iv) is the best explanation and our best hope.81 However, the fourth option entails that one is free in a libertarian sense-not determined by something unreliable or someone who is untrustworthy. If one believes that he or she is a rational free-thinker who is not ultimately mind-controlled by something (or someone) else, then one should reject the determinism that seems to follow from both naturalism and [exhaustive divine determination]. Instead, one ought to affirm that a supernatural God exists. Moreover, one ought to realize that he or she is a supernatural and immaterial active and rational free-thinking thing-a soul-created in God’s image and likeness . . ."

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@dodumichalcevski see my paper co authored with JP Moreland called "An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument." It's free on line.

[@PastorMarc]

If you watch this debate and rationally decide that one debater won and the other lost, then free will exists.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

Yep, and if one rationally infers that libertarian free will does not exist, then libertarian free will does exist! ;)

[@TheMirabillis]

@@FreethinkingMinistries \\ if one rationally infers that libertarian free will does not exist, then libertarian free will does exist \\ That does not logically follow. You can infer libertarian free will does not exist and you could be determined by nature or by God to infer that.

[@jjccarpentry]

I don't know if Tim slipped up, but I think he affirmed that if God determined us to have true beliefs, we could be rationally justified in our knowledge claims (JTB). I could swear I've heard him say the opposite elsewhere, but not positive.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

@@jjccarpentry my point was that **if** the God of truth always determined all people to always affirm true metaphysical beliefs, then our determined metaphysical beliefs would be justified. However, we know that he does not do so, thus a variation of the Free-Thinking Argument called the Deity of Deception argument comes into play.

[@TheMirabillis]

@@FreethinkingMinistries \\ However, we know that he does not do so, thus a variation of the Free-Thinking Argument called the Deity of Deception argument comes into play. \\ Omniscience and Libertarian Free will are Incompatible. God knew prior to Creation that you will do X. Now that the World has been created, you must do X ( because it is impossible for God to be wrong ). Where is the Libertarian Free will to refrain from doing X ?

[@randallhatcher6028]

Oh a godless limie how typical .

[@paulburns6110]

If that faithful atheist sincerely denies free will (as much as he argues), then I assume he doesn’t drive on a public road, because the logical conclusion of his position would give him NO rational reason to believe that either he or other drivers would travel unharmed.

[@the_Kurgan]

Of course we have free will. Without free will there would be no benefit to consciousness. With no benefit consciousness would not have evolved.

[@martinploughboy988]

Your will is subject to your master, your sin or God.

[@the_Kurgan]

@martinploughboy988 Yeah, whatever. Does that apply to dogs, also.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@the_Kurgan Dogs don't have a will, they have a nature & instincts.

[@the_Kurgan]

@martinploughboy988 So help me understand your position. You think only humans have will? All other animals are meat robots?

[@BruceWing]

If free will doesn’t exist, neither does evolution. Why? It’s because in a mechanistic universe, nothing is random. Thus, the ‘random interaction’ of molecules that are though to have created life is an incorrect term… just as ‘random mutation’ is an incorrect term.

[@jjccarpentry]

This doesn't follow. Presumably the 'random' chemical interactions are not indeterministic, but are actually nessesitated by antecedent conditions. The 'random' in random mutations is meant to signify a deviation in the gene replicating sequence that deviates from the norm by way of unknown causes, not that it is literally indeterministic.

[@BruceWing]

@@jjccarpentry - In a mechanistic universe, nothing is random. The ‘conditions’ you referenced are deterministically created, not a function of chaotic, impossible to forecast events (assuming a powerful enough computer). Just like one might say what appears to be free will is actually a mechanistically determined response, so one might say that what appears to be a random interaction/mutation is actually a mechanistically determined response.

[@jjccarpentry]

@BruceWing I'm not claiming mutations are impossible to forecast, just that they deviate outside of the norm of the replication sequence, and that we likely don't know why they deviate. I barely know jack shit about biology, but no one claims random mutations are indeterministic as far as I know.

[@BruceWing]

@@jjccarpentry - But in a mechanistically determined universe, there is no “outside the norm”. To claim that there is… is akin to claiming there is free will.

[@jjccarpentry]

@BruceWing That is also false, by outside the norm, I just mean that which is statically abnormal. Are you going to claim that statistic deviations require LFW?

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

1. Logic demands that only one religion can be valid. God in the Bible acknowledges the presence of imaginary deities. The first commandment is: Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me." All religions have differing accounts of the origin of the universe, the nature of God, and what he has or has not said. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction is all that is necessary to understand that only one of them can be true. Furthermore, God knows he gave logical minds to mankind. So, he does not spend any effort trying to disprove things that every man already knows are logically impossible. 2. Everyone knows there is a God. A painting is proof of its painter. A building is proof of its builder. And the creation is proof of the Creator. God does not owe us more evidence for his power other than the gigantic Planet full of amazing creatures on which He has placed us. 3. Everyone is fully aware of what God requires from us. He requires us to live righteously. He has placed inside of our mind a conscience which gives us real time moral feedback on every single decision that we make. This conscience gives us permission to move ahead with an action or warns us to desist immediately. What do you think?

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

God said, there's no such thing as an atheist. 9 quotes from 1 paragraph in the Bible. Romans 1:18-21 - "revealed from heaven" "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" "what can be known about God is plain to them" "God has shown it to them" "have been clearly perceived" "they are without excuse" "they knew God" "they became futile in their thinking" "their foolish hearts were darkened"

[@thespiritualitypodcast]

That commandment was given at a time when civilians were calling other humans, politician leaders, gods.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

@@thespiritualitypodcast huh?

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

@@thespiritualitypodcast Do you pretend to that God doesn't exist?

[@BruceWing]

Logic allows one to believe that a given religion’s tenets may not accurately describe god. Thus, all religions may be inaccurate… even as all religions may contain some accuracies.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

God said, there's no such thing as an atheist. 9 quotes from 1 paragraph in the Bible. Romans 1:18-21 - "revealed from heaven" "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" "what can be known about God is plain to them" "God has shown it to them" "have been clearly perceived" "they are without excuse" "they knew God" "they became futile in their thinking" "their foolish hearts were darkened"

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

❤I'll leave the gospel here: So, how many lies have you told in your life? How many hours of p*** have you watched? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? How many times have you used God's holy name as a cuss word? How many times have you held a grudge in your heart? How do you get to hell? Very simple: claim that you're innocent. How do you get to heaven? Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy. hell. Ask him for mercy. His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine. The fine is death. Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die." That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy. Option A. You die for your own sins. Option B. Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died on the cross for you. ❤ **Honest questions are welcome.**

[@goodquestion7915]

God was wrong. Obviously.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

@@goodquestion7915 My original comment was short and perhaps could be misunderstood. There are many self-identified atheists in the world. The point is none of them actually believe what they say they believe. No one is genuinely an intelligent enough to believe our environment is the result of unguided chance.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

@@goodquestion7915 Atheists often throw around the term "cognitive dissonance" Which is clinging to the belief in something deep down when knows is untrue.

[@300mphmartyr]

So…. I don’t really have a choice between corn flakes and cheerios? … 🥱😴

[@MiseryRex]

Nope. Or more accurately the choice you think you made freely was always the choice you were going to make.

[@edwardprokopchuk3264]

Choice is not free will. Free will is a choice that has no prior cause.

[@300mphmartyr]

@@MiseryRex sounds like an over complication of basic, simple math. 🥱

[@MiseryRex]

@@300mphmartyr Thanks for the word salad.

[@antiyttrad]

​​@@MiseryRex how do you know? Your belief in determinism was also determined and not one you hold because its true.