Omnipotence

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think he'd have been much of a drinking companion - he was nearly a teetotaller. As for thinking, he was more intelligent and learned than you, me, or anyone else on this forum. I think his stone-kicking and free-will-asserting were born of his impatience with the kind of sterile, obsessive ratiocination common on this forum.

it would help if you want to make a case for free will to actually make a case for it. Calling something sterile or obsessive is merely posh name calling. It's possible for someone to be very intelligent and wrong - Linus Pauling is the classic example. Simply to assert that free will exists without any attempt to explain it as a logically coherent proposition as both you and Johnson have done isn't an argument.

[SteveH]

We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals. All of us were predestined to believe what we believe, so what becomes of objective truth, and out ability to know it, if that is the case? If there is no free-will, how can we possibly know, one way or the other?

[Nearly Sane]

We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals. All of us were predestined to believe what we believe, so what becomes of objective truth, and out ability to know it, if that is the case? If there is no free-will, how can we possibly know, one way or the other?

That's mainly an ad consequentiam  argument. Can we know objective truth given that we are subjective by definition?

[bluehillside Retd.]

L’Eau,

We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals. All of us were predestined to believe what we believe, so what becomes of objective truth, and out ability to know it, if that is the case? If there is no free-will, how can we possibly know, one way or the other?

You’ve just tried two* logical fallacies (the fallacy of judgmental language and the argmentum ad consequentiam) that tell us nothing at all about the argument – namely that you can’t have something that’s “omnipotent” and at the same time has parts of the universe that are ring fenced from its omnipotence.

Why not engage with that rather than throw sand at it in the hope no-one notices?

* Coda: actually three if we include the argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) re how clever Dr Johnson was.

[Shaker]

I don't think he'd have been much of a drinking companion - he was nearly a teetotaller. As for thinking, he was more intelligent and learned than you, me, or anyone else on this forum.

In some areas, no doubt.

Clearly not all. The famous stone comment and his response to the issue of free will reveal that his was an embarrassingly lacking mind when it came to anything like philosophical thought. If those were what he took to be serious contributions to serious issues, he was to philosophy what James Dean was to road safety.

I think his stone-kicking and free-will-asserting were born of his impatience with the kind of sterile, obsessive ratiocination common on this forum.

For one it makes him look like a clodhopping clown. For another, a great many people don't regard thinking seriously, carefully and clearly about matters philosophical as "sterile, obsessive ratiocination". I'm not remotely surprised to find you in agreement with him; but if you were trying to persuade people that you don't have a mile-wide anti-intellectual streak and regard "Man has free will because I've said he does" as the last word in philosophical thought on the subject, you need to find a new strategy.

ETA: Buggeration - I've just realised that this is in the FSA rather than the commentary thread on omnipotence so if The Management want to delete or move that's fine by me.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

It seems clear, in spite of best intentions, that this thread isn't suited to FSA after all - therefore it is being moved to Theism & Atheism.

[Dicky Underpants]

In some areas, no doubt.

Clearly not all. The famous stone comment and his response to the issue of free will reveal that his was an embarrassingly lacking mind when it came to anything like philosophical thought. If those were what he took to be serious contributions to serious issues, he was to philosophy what James Dean was to road safety.

Quite so. Berkeley may well be wide of the mark with his 'philosophy of spirits' and denial of material substance, but his arguments are a bit more subtle than stubbing a toe on a rock might refute. Johnson simply demonstrated that he hadn't a clue what Berkeley meant by 'perception'.

[Shaker]

We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals.

I forget who it was (may have been either bluehillside or wigginhall: apologies for the lapse of memory) but only yesterday or the day before somebody remarked that we all instinctively feel that when we touch something - when we sit on a chair for example - we're actually touching it. But we're not: in fact we're only experiencing the repulsive force between our own electron shells and the electron shells of the object. With everything. All the time. Our instinctive feeling is knowably, demonstrably wrong, so it's not a reliable guide to the truth of the matter.

Nietzsche was far from the only philosopher to use the example of criminals in the discussion of free will v. determinism*: but to use this, as Alan Burns has on several occasions, as a strike against determinism is to commit the ad consequentiam fallacy. A thing can be as unpleasant and unappealing as you (don't) like, but your abhorrence of the consequences won't change reality. If it is the case that there is no free will then there's no ultimate justification for punishing criminals: but then, if there's no free will then we can't say that it's unjustified since if the criminal's acts were determined, then so are ours in exactly the same way. In real life however it leaves little or even nothing unchanged: if it could be demonstrated that there was no such thing as truly free will, punishing criminals may still be justified on pragmatic grounds, i.e. as a society-protecting mechanism. The proximate justification, in the absence of an ultimate one, will have to do.

* Spinoza, of whom Nietzsche was a great admirer, also denied free will.

[Dicky Underpants]

The proximate justification, in the absence of an ultimate one, will have to do.

Well argued. But now - anyone fancy a pint?

[Shaker]

I'm afraid I've left my wallet at home ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

, – namely that you can’t have something that’s “omnipotent” and at the same time has parts of the universe that are ring fenced from its omnipotence.

Ooh I see the vultures gathering for this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

I'm afraid I've left my wallet at home ...

Not a problem. An omnipotent god could just leave £20 for you behind the bar.

Unless that is you're going to the Free Will Arms of course, in which case it's "generally agreed" apparently that this god isn't omnipotent at all within its walls.

Only he's still omnipotent really.

Or perhaps not.

Or something.

Hope that clears it up for you.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ooh I see the vultures gathering for this.

If you have a way to reconcile HV's "omnipotent, but sometimes not, but still omnipotent after all 'onest injun" proposal then by all means share.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you have a way to reconcile HV's "omnipotent, but sometimes not, but still omnipotent after all 'onest injun" proposal then by all means share.

Your reply has just made them a bit hungrier. Maybe you'll work it out before they feast on its carcass.

[ippy]

Do we have a choice in this free will game?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your reply has just made them a bit hungrier. Maybe you'll work it out before they feast on its carcass.

That's a "no" then.

Fair enough.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Do we have a choice in this free will game?

Depends what you mean by "we" and "free", but fundamentally no. That it feels as though we do though is good enough for most practical purposes.

[Nearly Sane]

ippy,

Depends what you mean by "we" and "free", but fundamentally no. That it feels as though we do though is good enough for most practical purposes.

It's odd so much of how we live life is good enough. Thus the 'truth' about touching stuff (as mentioned already),  free will, or morality is good enough. We don't need to  deal with the the truth because we get by with what is good enough. And that approach is what SteveH in his watery incarnation and Dr Johnson use as a knock out blow to the times when it isn't 'good enough'

[Rhiannon]

Is it just that it’s ‘good enough’ though? Or is that that it’s the only way we can get by without driving g ourselves nuts??

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It's odd so much of how we live life is good enough. Thus the 'truth' about touching stuff (as mentioned already),  free will, or morality is good enough. We don't need to  deal with the the truth because we get by with what is good enough. And that approach is what SteveH in his watery incarnation and Dr Johnson use as a knock out blow to the times when it isn't 'good enough'

Indeed, but such is the nature of a reality that's probabilistic. How could we ever be certain of anything?

Some of us are comfortable with that (revel in it even) but I sometimes wonder of one motivation for religious belief is a craving for certainty - some folks really, really must be sure of their ground, and if a god provides that then well and good.

[Nearly Sane]

Is it just that it’s ‘good enough’ though? Or is that that it’s the only way we can get by without driving g ourselves nuts??

Agreed, who gets up in the morning and thinks 'Do I have free will?' And in many ways it's boring as well as odd to think about it, but if you discuss stuff like the omnis it is where we end up.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Indeed, but such is the nature of a reality that's probabilistic. How could we ever be certain of anything?

Some of us are comfortable with that (revel in it even) but I sometimes wonder of one motivation for religious belief is a craving for certainty - some folks really, really must be sure of their ground, and if a god provides that then well and good.

Surely the craving for certainty is a widespread human trait developed by evolution?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely the craving for certainty is a widespread human trait developed by evolution?

Perhaps, but I was merely suggesting that the appeal of religious beliefs may in part be due to them providing it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

– namely that you can’t have something that’s “omnipotent” and at the same time has parts of the universe that are ring fenced from its omnipotence.

Having made this positive assertion can you explain how parts of the UNIVERSE are ring fenced from GOD'S omnipotence?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Perhaps, but I was merely suggesting that the appeal of religious beliefs may in part be due to them providing it.

And yet there are many who have religious beliefs not based on certainty.