tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5553819306216651823..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: "God's little robots"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4679509555100554032010-03-05T07:04:12.726-05:002010-03-05T07:04:12.726-05:00Briefly, I think we might say an agent is morally ...Briefly, I think we might say an agent is morally responsible in so far as he is free of external constraints and abnormal internal constraints that prevent the agent from actualizing his desires (some might want to say second order desires). If Mr. X meets those conditions in your scenario, and it looks like he does, then he is moral responsible.<br /><br />Conversely, we might ask the you how Mr. X has the ability to "NOT" rob the store if God at some prior time, t1, believes that Mr. X will rob the store at t2.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85382511198158217202010-03-05T01:09:24.961-05:002010-03-05T01:09:24.961-05:00Reading The Metaphysics of Free Will by John Marti...Reading <i>The Metaphysics of Free Will</i> by John Martin Fischer has been very helpful for me, Rob; maybe you can read through his chapters on control and alternate possibilities in the book. He points to Frankfurt cases to show that responsibility doesn't require ability to do otherwise, and the only reason to think determinism is incompatible with freedom is that it is inconsistent with AP (alternate possibilities)--but notice, if alternate possibilities aren't required, then it's hard to see why determinism as such rules out responsibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86066884201895568792010-03-04T21:33:48.172-05:002010-03-04T21:33:48.172-05:00"To the contrary, Calvinism accentuates the m..."To the contrary, Calvinism accentuates the moral responsibility of human agents."<br /><br />So let's say that one trillion years ago, God decrees that there will be a person who we'll call "Mr. X" who will, on March 15 of 2010, go into a liquor store, shoot the clerk in the head and take off with about $100 in cash. <br /><br />How does God's decree interplay with Mr X's responsibility here?<br /><br />Mr X's nature may have made him inclined to rob the store, sure, but we all desire to do things we never end up doing. We all have selfish inclinations and thoughts at times. I'm sure you've had the desire to sock an Arminian in the nose at one point or another.<br /><br />However, what puts Mr X over the edge from desire to action? Is it God? If so, Mr X had no real ability to NOT rob the store, yes?<br /><br />His hand pulled the trigger, but it was God acting through him, no? <br /><br />You may say Mr X is "responsible", but responsible in what sense? Technically responsible? <br /><br />Flesh this out for us.Rob Zechmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05369463377497705313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57292301612461816612010-03-04T17:54:13.953-05:002010-03-04T17:54:13.953-05:00Friel: “If God created you and provides everything...Friel: “If God created you and provides everything for you, does he have rights on your life?”<br /><br />Hitchens: “No. I don’t accept anyone’s right to own me. I created my children and provide for them, but I don’t own them. <b>Besides, would this mean that the sick and starving for whom God has not provided are not owned by God?”</b><br /><br /><br />**********<br /><br />Gotta love publicly displaying one's ignorace about simple matters of logical reasoning, like the fallacy of denying the antecedentMaul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64264857009891081782010-03-04T14:44:41.344-05:002010-03-04T14:44:41.344-05:00“Not heaven, I hope. An eternity of praise and gro...“Not heaven, I hope. An eternity of praise and groveling and thanksgiving would be my idea of hell.”<br />-Hitchens<br /><br />I said a similar statement years ago when I was on the broad road to destruction.<br /><br />I was trying to pick up a girl in Ocean City MD, and she was a Christian, and I had a good bit of beer in me.<br />She was actually very nice, and yet firm with me.<br />Her Mom came along and said, "Get away from this inebriated fool." Or something like that.<br /><br />I told her to get lost.<br /><br />She told me I was on my way to hell.<br /><br />I told her, "I'd rather go to hell lady, if you'ree gonna be in heaven."<br /><br />I was really wrong. But this lady ws wrong as well.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18064826974867408972010-03-04T14:10:06.034-05:002010-03-04T14:10:06.034-05:00They rankle at the idea that they are not totally ...<i> They rankle at the idea that they are not totally dependent on God, while God is totally independent of them.</i><br /><br />I wonder in what sense God is totally independent of creatures in the libertarian molinist scheme. God's knowledge isn't independent of them... nor is his decree. In both cases isn't God dependent upon facts (and, subsequently, ontology) of the (libertarian) creatures?<br /><br />Maybe Birch isn't a molinist and he has some other scheme in mind that would preserve God's total independence, omniscience, decree and creaturely libertarian freedom...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.com