Emuse's argument against LFW

[RichardChad]

My original post stands unaltered in Pat's reply below. "P1. ~D -> LFW" is logically equivalent to "P1. ~LFW -> D" if we apply modus tollens to the original conditional.  Here is the proof ...

P1. LFW -> ~D
P2. LFW
C. :. ~D

And ...

P1. LFW -> ~D
P2. ~~D (D)
C. :. ~LFW

And ...

P1. D -> ~LFW
P2. LFW
C. :. ~D

Whereas my version ...

P1. ~D -> LFW
P2. ~D
C. :. LFW

And ...

P1. ~D -> LFW
P2. ~LFW
C. :. D

... then gives us ...

P1. ~LFW -> D
P2. ~D
P2. :. LFW

So "~D -> LFW" is logically equivalent to "~LFW -> D". 

This requires some modification but only slightly (I don't see why my version is problematic particularly as we are talking about intentional beliefs only).  So we have ...

P1. If I have reasons to believe P and I am unable to believe not-P then my belief in P is neither free nor random.
P2. I have reasons to believe that God exists and I am unable to believe that God does not exist.
C. Therefore, my belief that God exists is neither free nor random.
P3. If my belief that God exists is neither free nor random then my belief that God exists is determined.
C1. Therefore, my belief that God exists is determined.
P4. If my that God exists is determined then it is impossible that I could have believed that God does not exist.
C2. Therefore, it is impossible that I could have believed that God does not exist.

This would hold for anything we believe but we find impossible not to believe.  Are there any problems with this?

The crux of your argument is essentially that if there is anything that we find impossible not to believe, then LFW does not exist.

This is false.

1. LFW doesn't require that you be able to disconnect your rational thought process and believe anything to be true. The ability to rationally deliberate is a function of our living in a well ordered universe surrounded by other rational (for the most part) animals. We form and hold beliefs based on that rational thought process. LFW does not require that there be no such thing as a rational belief held to be true.

2. LFW requires the ability to freely choose and is demonstrated as existing with a simple example.
-- a ball is thrown to me
-- I can catch the ball, or not catch the ball
-- Both possibilities exist and I can decide between the two.
-- This is in direct contradiction to the definition of determinism on which only one possibility exists.

determinism: the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time.

[RichardChad]

bump

[RichardChad]

Earth to emuse! Are you going to address this?

[RichardChad]

Just going to keep bumping until emuse deals with this.

[searcherman]

Wish I could jump in. Is there a primer on logic notation on the other be?

[RichardChad]

For anything I believe, if there is a necessary relationship between my belief and the reasons and evidence for my belief then my belief is determined by the reasons and evidence.  If not then either my belief just randomly corresponds to the reasons and evidence (but might not do tomorrow) or I am believing freely in response to the arguments and evidence but could believe the negation despite the arguments and evidence.  The same would hold for things I don't believe (eg, the existence of Darth Vader).  Either the lack of evidence and reasons determines my lack of belief (there is a necessary relationship between the two) or I'm just lucky but things could change for no known reason or I could believe despise the lack of evidence.  If the latter then nothing prevents me from switching beliefs by definition.

There is no necessary relationship between a belief and the reasons and evidence for my belief, there is a relationship but it is not necessary.

LFW doesn't require that you be able to disconnect your rational thought process and believe anything to be true. The ability to rationally deliberate is a function of our living in a well ordered universe surrounded by other rational (for the most part) animals. We form and hold beliefs based on that rational thought process. LFW does not require that there be no such thing as a rational belief held to be true.

We see this all the time when beliefs change simply as a result of reconsidering the reasons and evidence by thought process (no further information presented, just ruminating on what was already taken in).


This is a very typical atheist trick when it comes to "refuting LFW", it goes along the lines of:
1. You can't stop doing 'X'
2. Therefore you are determined in doing 'X'

'X' has taken on many different forms, "can't stop saving your child from torture", "can't leave your hand in the fire" this latest from emuse is just "can't stop believing a thing is true if your thought process came to that conclusion."

[RichardChad]

Wish I could jump in. Is there a primer on logic notation on the other be?

I suspect emuse will acknowledge that the crux of his argument is that: if there is anything that we find impossible not to believe, then LFW does not exist.

so, addressing that is to address his argument and you can avoid all the notation.

[Identity Crisis]

D    determinism
LFW     libertarian free will
~     not
->     if, then
:.     therefore

So,

D -> ~LFW
LFW
:. ~D

would be

if determinism is true, then libertarian free will is false
libertarian free will is true
therefore, determinism is false

[searcherman]

Wish I could jump in. Is there a primer on logic notation on the other be?

I suspect emuse will acknowledge that the crux of his argument is that: if there is anything that we find impossible not to believe, then LFW does not exist.

so, addressing that is to address his argument and you can avoid all the notation.

This is interesting, I did some reading on LFW, which I also saw referenced as metaphysical libertarianism. Then I saw that I have to read up on incompatiblism to get a broader view. More on that later.

I wonder if you could indulge me, PR. There are some anecdotal phenomena among some "deconverted" atheists that I wonder might be relevant. These individuals go through a stage where they stop believing. It is not due to abuse or anger at any "evil of religion". They find that they can't "unknow" this realization that there is no God. They don't indulge in hedonism, but they miss God. But like the bell, it can't be "unrung". Often this can be accompanied by mental health issues. How the causal arrow works there is up for debate.

[RichardChad]

D    determinism
LFW     libertarian free will
~     not
->     if, then
:.     therefore

So,

D -> ~LFW
LFW
:. ~D

would be

if determinism is true, then libertarian free will is false
libertarian free will is true
therefore, determinism is false

wow, that is very helpful. Thanks!

and, that's not sarcasm at all, I didn't know how to read that notation, turns out it's fairly straightforward.

[searcherman]

D    determinism
LFW     libertarian free will
~     not
->     if, then
:.     therefore

So,

D -> ~LFW
LFW
:. ~D

would be

if determinism is true, then libertarian free will is false
libertarian free will is true
therefore, determinism is false

Thanks, IC, I've mastered advanced math, but never learned this.

[RichardChad]

no problem.


odd we never heard from emuse addressing the refutation of his argument.