Joe Campbell

1/6 What do you think of this counterexample? It runs counter to NRB: (1) It is beyond human control that p (2) It is beyond human control that if p, then q Hence, (3) It is beyond human control that q. NRB is like Peter van Inwagen's Revised β (2015); a Newly Revised β.

@JefferyParkins2 I’m not sure there’s even a proof that it is possible.

@PhilosopherJoeC Please provide evidence why anything is necessarily existent?

That God necessarily exists entails it is impossible for God not to exist (Leibniz). Thus, talk of necessity is wasted for those who fail to see God as possible. Ergo, if God is necessarily existent, a proof of existence depends on a proof that necessary existence is possible.

@aslaveofJEHOVAH @RainerMist1987 @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @Lion_IRC @TheDrewHaas @st_th_aq What if you think causes are not secret powers in objects passed on from one to the next, and believe our knowledge of causal power is based on experience?

@RainerMist1987 @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @PhilosopherJoeC @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @Lion_IRC @TheDrewHaas @st_th_aq The entire chain of effects is the effect of any of the given causes the every cause is the effect of the prior cause and thus did not exists until brought into being by its antecedent,so the infinite sucession is the effect of every prior cause

The Argument from Derivative Causal Power 1. In a chain of events without a prime and first cause any member of the series causal power is zero. 2. If the causal power of something is zero, then no effect could be produced from this event. 3. Then, in a chain of events without a prime and first cause any member of the series could not produce any effect. If in a chain of events without a prime and first cause any member of the series could not produce any effect, then an infinite chain of events is impossible. Therefore, an infinite chain of events without a prime and first cause is impossible.

@maggiewestrum That joke would be funny with a laugh track

“The truth will set you free, Jerry. But not until it is finished with you.”

@rociodaniela96 Good, no one is responding.

@PhilosopherJoeC Responding to come back to this later

Foreknowledge 1/2 The compatibilist thinks the possibility relevant to free will is NOT a kind of physical possibility that requires consistency with the past & the laws. Some reply that those are not "real" possibilities but remember that these are unactualized possibilities.

@tormntos Still, just as in the case of causality, the indeterminism can't be too drastic. For causality, we don't live in a world with random laws. They are statistical. In theology, providence imposes a limit on God's lack of knowledge. Or might God's plan not come to fruition?

@PhilosopherJoeC One lil detail...what if- God has severely limited His omniscience; and lives by faith- as He expects us to live. An all seeing God does not get surprised. There are dozens of examples of Him being surprised. A wager is invalid IF the outcome is known--think Job.

@ident_smithjohn @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @worldviewdesign @Lion_IRC Now that I think of it, 1 has got to be false. Here is a proof. a. No necessity entails a choice. b. What is necessary entails what is possible. c. Ergo, Some possibilities (e.g. the necessary ones) do not entail a choice.

@AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign @Lion_IRC Begging the question. Demonstrate 1.

1. Every possibility entails a choice. 2. Every choice entails an intelligence behind that choice. 3. The universe is a possibility. Therefore, the universe entails a choice. (from 1 and 3) Therefore, the universe entails an intelligence behind that choice. (from 2 and 4)

@mondocesar I agree. What matters are determinate truths - claims that we (people) have determined to be true. Theoretical truths - the set of laws of nature, truths about the past, truths in God's providence - are indeterminate, meaning that have not actually been determined by people.

@PhilosopherJoeC Free will is human while God is a idea

@LocoJoJo89 @SleeperYankees & 1 + 1 = 5 🫡

@SleeperYankees I say the performance was elite because he had an ERA better than the season ERA of only 10 other pitchers in the MLB.

@SleeperYankees Two mistakes. Still has a VERY low ERA. He looks dominant. I wonder how much having a high powered office plays in the psychology of a pitcher. Maybe he is a bit more worried and less focused. But still elite. And he was ONE OUT away from a win (though no one knew it).

Thoughts?

@Lion_IRC @nzmkroberts @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @worldviewdesign Can something be both unpredictable yet also follow the beliefs and desires of the agent? Both are essential to control.

@nzmkroberts @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign Is the mechanism predictable? Does it carry out inevitable, unavoidable mechanistic actions? Then those actions are not "possibilities" they are necessarily going to occur.

@PAHoyeck What did he do when he felt like wasting time?

Today in fun philosophy facts: The British philosopher Derek Parfit always wore the exact same thing—gray pants with a white shirt and red tie—to avoid having to waste time picking out clothes. He also drank room temperature instant coffee to avoid wasting time boiling water.

@maggiewestrum "The mission of the FBI is to protect the innocent and identify the enemies of the Government of the United States."

@AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @allegiantfaith @SpeedWatkins @RandySVoges One point Hume makes (often missed) is that a sentimentalist can accept this argument because God creates beings with sentiments. But on Leibniz's view, sentiments are a function of individuals, eternal possibilities of choice & action. Does God actualize or create morality?

1: If normativity requires personhood, then universal normative obligations require a supreme, and universal Personal Source. 2. Normativity requires personhood. Therefore, universal normative obligations require a supreme, and universal Personal Source.

@nzmkroberts @TheHistoryGuy07 Why not accept some conceptions of free will are impossible. The way I see it, we can't have any powers unless we have some fundamental power to act or not. But even if we have feeble powers, we have some powers. The mistake is in thinking free will gets one ultimate control.

@PhilosopherJoeC @TheHistoryGuy07 Indeed. It would require some other unknown mechanism that is somehow in your control, whatever that means. This is why I've accepted that true free will (not just choices made due to your brain's wiring) doesn't exist. Technically having multiple options doesn't cut it for me.

Not creating those who would reject God would cancel genuine human free will and love. If God only created obedient people, then obedience would lack significance, and humans would be reduced to pre-programmed beings without the freedom to choose. Hope this helps.

@PAHoyeck Great writers. I mean there were actual writers who also wrote scripts: Raymond Chandler and William Faulkner, for instance.

@drFoxcroft @FiresideYankees Yes

@PhilosopherJoeC @FiresideYankees Good thing they had a sizable lead.

Jasson Domínguez loses the ball and can't make the catch. Runners are now at 1B and 2B.