How can there be human moral culpability without libertarian free will?

[RBerman]

That's the opposite of what I've said. I've clearly said that LFW means that the causal chain originates in the agent, as opposed to non-LFW where the causal chain(s) originate outside the creature's control. Equivalently, with LFW, "C in S" is not sufficient to determine the output, because the creature can choose any of the options.

Both of these are possible worlds:
"In situation S, creature C selects option O"
"In situation S, creature C selects option ~O"

Both of them are "inputs", and only one is output, determined by C's LFW.
Both are possible, only one is actual. (Thus its actuality is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. Contingent on the creature's LFW choice.)

Then we are back to the claim I made earlier which you disputed: God chooses to actualize the world in which either O or ~O is chosen by the creature. This is tantamount to God choosing O or ~O.

[Joel]

That's the opposite of what I've said. I've clearly said that LFW means that the causal chain originates in the agent, as opposed to non-LFW where the causal chain(s) originate outside the creature's control. Equivalently, with LFW, "C in S" is not sufficient to determine the output, because the creature can choose any of the options.

Both of these are possible worlds:
"In situation S, creature C selects option O"
"In situation S, creature C selects option ~O"

Both of them are "inputs", and only one is output, determined by C's LFW.
Both are possible, only one is actual. (Thus its actuality is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. Contingent on the creature's LFW choice.)

Then we are back to the claim I made earlier which you disputed: God chooses to actualize the world in which either O or ~O is chosen by the creature. This is tantamount to God choosing O or ~O.

How are we back to that? Of course I dispute that. If C has LFW, then God does not select between those two possible worlds; C does.
It may be the case that God chooses "C in S" to be actual, but, as I said, "with LFW, 'C in S' is not sufficient to determine" whether O or ~O is selected.

(Unless you are not saying that God chooses which of O or ~O will be true, but are only saying that God chooses that the proposition "O or ~O" is true. But "O or ~O" is necessarily true (law of excluded middle), thus no one chooses it.)

So, as far as I can tell, my arguments still stand that human moral culpability requires LFW. I still don't see how it is possible otherwise.

[dacristoy]

How are we back to that? Of course I dispute that. If C has LFW, then God does not select between those two possible worlds; C does.
It may be the case that God chooses "C in S" to be actual, but, as I said, "with LFW, 'C in S' is not sufficient to determine" whether O or ~O is selected.

(Unless you are not saying that God chooses which of O or ~O will be true, but are only saying that God chooses that the proposition "O or ~O" is true. But "O or ~O" is necessarily true (law of excluded middle), thus no one chooses it.)

So, as far as I can tell, my arguments still stand that human moral culpability requires LFW. I still don't see how it is possible otherwise.

If O exists, where do we find enough information to conclude that ~O even exists. If LFW is a theory based on this O theory, where does reality enter in?

[Joel]

If O exists, where do we find enough information to conclude that ~O even exists. If LFW is a theory based on this O theory, where does reality enter in?

I don't understand what you are asking. If O, then ~O is false.
I don't know what you mean by "this O theory". An example is that this morning either you eat breakfast (O) or you don't (~O), and you are able to choose any of the two.

[dacristoy]

I don't understand what you are asking. If O, then ~O is false.
I don't know what you mean by "this O theory". An example is that this morning either you eat breakfast (O) or you don't (~O), and you are able to choose any of the two.

[RBerman]

How are we back to that? Of course I dispute that. If C has LFW, then God does not select between those two possible worlds; C does. It may be the case that God chooses "C in S" to be actual, but, as I said, "with LFW, 'C in S' is not sufficient to determine" whether O or ~O is selected. (Unless you are not saying that God chooses which of O or ~O will be true, but are only saying that God chooses that the proposition "O or ~O" is true. But "O or ~O" is necessarily true (law of excluded middle), thus no one chooses it.)

But does not middle knowledge consist of certain knowledge of what a person would do in a counterfactual situation, as illustrated by Matthew 11:23? That seems contrary to your claim that either O or ~O might ensure in that (or any) situation. In what sense is the choice free, by your lights?

So, as far as I can tell, my arguments still stand that human moral culpability requires LFW. I still don't see how it is possible otherwise.

All other things aside, "I do not see how X is possible" does not strike me as an objection that a Christian should consider worth two seconds if time when we are talking about God doing or being X.

[RBerman]

I don't understand what you are asking. If O, then ~O is false.
I don't know what you mean by "this O theory". An example is that this morning either you eat breakfast (O) or you don't (~O), and you are able to choose any of the two.

Yes, but knowing that I did in fact choose to eat, on what grounds do you suppose that another choice might have ensued?

[Joel]

But does not middle knowledge consist of certain knowledge of what a person would do in a counterfactual situation, as illustrated by Matthew 11:23? That seems contrary to your claim that either O or ~O might ensure in that (or any) situation. In what sense is the choice free, by your lights?

You are dragging Molinism into this thread, which does not depend on the assumption of molinism or middle knowledge. In fact I think it is best to leave molinism out of this thread as far as possible, so as to reduce the complexity. The thread topic also does not depend on the question of whether all human actions are LFW.

All other things aside, "I do not see how X is possible" does not strike me as an objection that a Christian should consider worth two seconds if time when we are talking about God doing or being X.

That statement was not an objection. It was a summary of where we are in our discussion, and an attempt to get us back on topic: How can there be human moral culpability without LFW?
The reason why I currently do not see how it is possible, is because of the objections I have given previously, which still seem to stand. Instead of addressing the objections, you seem to keep switching to unnecessary side discussions, like whether man in fact has LFW.

Yes, but knowing that I did in fact choose to eat, on what grounds do you suppose that another choice might have ensued?

Whether "another choice might have ensued" depends on whether you had LFW. I don't know about you, but I am capable of eating or refraining from breakfast. Sometimes I do one and sometimes I do the other. Primae facie, I am capable of each and each is possible. But, as I've said, this thread is not about proving whether we have LFW, but asking how human culpability is possible without it. Previously you objected that LFW is nonsensical (and therefore the topic is moot), but no one in history has ever proven such a thing, so I'd ask that you please get back to the topic.

(Or if you are talking about after the fact, I have stated at least twice that from our perspective, a choice made in the past is now fixed and unchangeable, but that does not tell us at all whether it was a LFW choice when it was being made.)

[Joel]

What we do not have is this: If O is true, then the bible said this; but if ~O is true, then the bible said something entirely different. What I am actually saying is this is not a discussion/debate concerning the word of God... The bible does not indicate or even deal with whither God actualizes this reality of that reality. But even if it did, because we are confined to the reality that we are all residing in, we would have absolutely no knowledge of it...

I think I'm still not understanding you. Are you saying that there is no proof that anything is/was possible other than what exists? Are you arguing that everything is necessary being, and there is no such thing as contingent being?

The basic point about LFW (for this thread) is that LFW means the causal chain began in the agent's will, whereas non-LFW means that the causal chain began externally to the agent, thus the agent is necessarily forced by outside causes (like a puppet is) to do what it does. Non-LFW makes the agent not really an agent but just another object, entirely subject to the laws of nature, like a rock, or a domino in a chain of dominoes.

I agree.

[RBerman]

That statement was not an objection. It was a summary of where we are in our discussion, and an attempt to get us back on topic: How can there be human moral culpability without LFW?
The reason why I currently do not see how it is possible, is because of the objections I have given previously, which still seem to stand. Instead of addressing the objections, you seem to keep switching to unnecessary side discussions, like whether man in fact has LFW.

The question of the existence of LFW seems quite germane to its necessity for anything that does exist. Hopefully as Christians, we do not consider the reality of moral accountability an open question. To someone who asks on what basis moral accountability can exist without LFW, I am content to say that it exists because God makes it so; He is the arbiter, and thus it exists on the terms he sets forth. LFW is simply not necessary.

Whether "another choice might have ensued" depends on whether you had LFW. I don't know about you, but I am capable of eating or refraining from breakfast. Sometimes I do one and sometimes I do the other. Primae facie, I am capable of each and each is possible. But, as I've said, this thread is not about proving whether we have LFW, but asking how human culpability is possible without it. Previously you objected that LFW is nonsensical (and therefore the topic is moot), but no one in history has ever proven such a thing, so I'd ask that you please get back to the topic.

(Or if you are talking about after the fact, I have stated at least twice that from our perspective, a choice made in the past is now fixed and unchangeable, but that does not tell us at all whether it was a LFW choice when it was being made.)

i am talking about the fact that you have no way of ascertaining whether, in retrospect, we have any way to say that you ever would have refrained from eating the breakfast that you did in fact eat. Many smokers profess their ability to quit smoking; yet the tobacco industry prospers. Our own self-perception of the likelihood of various choices before us may not comport with reality. "I might eat breakfast, or not," may simply be an admission of our ignorance of what we would certainly do in a given situation in the future. Why appeal to LFW, except that you have circularly decided that it needs to exist in order for moral accountability to exist? That is backwards.

[dacristoy]

The question of the existence of LFW seems quite germane to its necessity for anything that does exist. Hopefully as Christians, we do not consider the reality of moral accountability an open question. To someone who asks on what basis moral accountability can exist without LFW, I am content to say that it exists because God makes it so; He is the arbiter, and thus it exists on the terms he sets forth. LFW is simply not necessary.

[Joel]

The question of the existence of LFW seems quite germane to its necessity for anything that does exist.

But only because you are bringing in additional premises, that aren't necessary for the discussion.

From what I understand, you are critiquing a syllogism like:

1) Humans are morally accountable.
2) LFW is necessary for human moral accountability.
3) Therefore humans have LFW.

You are saying that questioning (3) is relevant to the discussion because we know (1) is true, so if (3) is false, then (2) must also be false.
Okay. But that supposes that premise (1) is relevant to the discussion in the first place. It supposes that premise (2) cannot be examined on its own grounds. This thread is not about that syllogism.

And again, even if you show that (3) and (2) are false (which I don't think you can do), then you still haven't addressed my objections--the reasons to think that absence of LFW implies absence of moral accountability. How would we deal with them? Overturning them would seem to overturn fundamental ideas about human moral accountability.

Hopefully as Christians, we do not consider the reality of moral accountability an open question.

This is already settled. I already agreed that (1) is true. (And given (1), if (2) happens to be true, then (3) necessarily follows.)

To someone who asks on what basis moral accountability can exist without LFW, I am content to say that it exists because God makes it so; He is the arbiter, and thus it exists on the terms he sets forth. LFW is simply not necessary.

This doesn't address the objections that I have given--positive reasons to think that absence of LFW implies absence of moral accountability.

To most people, your statement here sounds absurd, like saying that straight lines are not necessary for planar triangles to exist because the maker of a triangle makes it exist on the terms the maker sets forth.

i am talking about the fact that you have no way of ascertaining whether, in retrospect, we have any way to say that you ever would have refrained from eating the breakfast that you did in fact eat.

Our most intimate knowledge of the matter comes not in retrospect, but in the moments of deliberation and willing.

I'm also reminded of some comments by C. S. Lewis,

"There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do."
(Mere Christianity, chapter 4 http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt_...ictures.html#7 )

This seems to apply equally to most other faculties of men's souls. We cannot determine by outside observation, whether a creature has/had LFW or has/had consciousness, etc.

Many smokers profess their ability to quit smoking; yet the tobacco industry prospers. Our own self-perception of the likelihood of various choices before us may not comport with reality. "I might eat breakfast, or not," may simply be an admission of our ignorance of what we would certainly do in a given situation in the future.

Note that if this "inside information"--that which we know more nearly than anything else--is untrustworthy, then faculties like moral awareness, consciousness, belief in God, may just as likely be illusions.

We could expand the smokers example to: Virtually everyone professes their ability to do good, yet people sometimes do bad. This is no proof of lack of LFW. People give into inordinate desires all the time. It's easy. It's hard to refrain. And it's hard work to develop virtue. It's easy to fall. It's easy to go with the flow and not exercise will power.

Consider also 1 Cor 10:13 "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man ; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it."

But persons able to endure/withstand temptation sometimes do give into it. That sounds like LFW to me.

Why appeal to LFW, except that you have circularly decided that it needs to exist in order for moral accountability to exist? That is backwards.

As I've said before, humans automatically believe they have LFW. They believe it primae facie from their constant experience as men. It is shocking and disturbing for men to suppose that they lack LFW. That is why the LFW-vs-fate question has been such a captivating question throughout the history of human thought. It would never even occur to a human to question his LFW if it weren't for concepts such as fate (or predestination). Humans through history have recognized, as self-evident, their own LFW and its connection with the sense of morality. It takes some other, conflicting concept for humans to even question that. Thus there is nothing circular about my reasoning.

Thus, unless you have some proof that there is no LFW (which nobody in history has managed to prove), then please get back to addressing the thread topic and my objections.

[The Remonstrant]

Phew! I'm glad I've given up the debate over free will for the most part.

[dacristoy]

I think I'm still not understanding you. Are you saying that there is no proof that anything is/was possible other than what exists? Are you arguing that everything is necessary being, and there is no such thing as contingent being?

I would not say it in that way. This is how I would express my POV...
I believe that God has unlimited options available to him, I believe that he chooses the absolute best option before he acts. His omniscience and perfection means that any other choice other than the one he made becomes impossible/unacceptable to him. Ergo, no other possibilities exist for him other than the ones that he made. Each choice is the absolute perfect one for what he is working with and what he intends to intends.

This scenario where God actualizes different realities predicated upon the choices of men does not fully take into account who God is and the perfection in which he operates... IOW, rather silly to me at least... Even with the reality of free will, nothing that we can do can prevent God from accomplishing his original intentions; we are just not that important in the overall scheme of things. Our choices are real as well as important to us, but when it comes to God's purposes, they do not even represent a nuisance...

The basic point about LFW (for this thread) is that LFW means the causal chain began in the agent's will, whereas non-LFW means that the causal chain began externally to the agent, thus the agent is necessarily forced by outside causes (like a puppet is) to do what it does. Non-LFW makes the agent not really an agent but just another object, entirely subject to the laws of nature, like a rock, or a domino in a chain of dominoes.

Causal chains can only exist in the absence of free will, freewill choices break, mitigate, or alter this chain...

[RBerman]

Phew! I'm glad I've given up the debate over free will for the most part.

May God bless and guide your alternative pursuits.