The Evangelical Universalist Forum

God won't violate human 'free will'

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#206

I think you are looking at the word force too narrowly, just as you were looking at the word cause too narrowly before.

Saying a person knows refusing to hand over money at gunpoint could result in death, as you said above, is force; it’s the force of logic reasoned through the intellect. The relevant definition of the word force is “to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means” (Merriam/Webster). Confrontation at gunpoint is at least intellectual force, in that the person affected is intellectually aware of possible death or injury for refusing to comply when confronted at gunpoint. And of course, as I said, force is part of the definition of cause.

But I hope this can cleared up by looking at how the word force is defined legally in the USA. Here it is discussed.

"Force means power, violence, or pressure directed against a person or thing. Force is a compulsion by physical means or by legal requirement. For example, if A used a gun to force B to use that person’s ATM card or under the malpractice policy clause, the insurance company was forced to defend the doctor.

Force is synonym to unlawful violence and it can be actual or implied. The entry into the ground of another without his consent and the case of false imprisonment are examples for implied force."

Note this in the above description: “A used a gun to force B to use that person’s ATM card” and “Force is synonym to unlawful violence and it can be actual or implied.” The first shows clearly that using a gun to gain an advantage over another is force. The second shows that force can be actual OR implied.

#207

[quote=“Paidion, post:203, topic:5287”]
He can refuse to hand it over, even though he knows it could result in his death.
[/quo

He may be a family man supporting his family who needs him, so be compelled to hand over his money or a pacifist and actually not have a choice or other reasons where he may not have a choice, so you just repeating he has a choice is not evidence that everyone really does have a choice.
In many cases there is no choice and the threat is in fact a cause.

#208

Again, it does appear that we are just quibbling about preferred semantics. We’re not really touching the real debate than exists over the nature of the will and its’ ‘freedom.’

#209

But the object won’t move downward off the building if somethings holds it up, like the floor of a patio on the 10th story of a building.

But the floor also prevents it from moving.

Or maybe there is a forest fire in the nearby woods.

But the ultimate cause is the genotype of her mother and father.

Yes, but the ultimate cause might have been the economic downturn or the fact that you are a lousy worker.

All of these are jokingly made; I was simply following your lead from last night.

See my last two posts and especially the one to Paidion for a more thorough look at the word force.

#210

Quibbling over preferred semantics??? What??? It’s all about semantics. Words, definitions, and logic are critically important here. Standards are key to sorting one’s way through this discussion, just as they were when discussing omniscience and its effect on the expression of free will.

#211

Heavens, I first said this digression all comes down to semantics. But debating the nature of the will, and then putting all the energy into insisting that everyone define their terms in what I see as the right or best way, strikes me as a tad silly, unless we’re bored stuck at home by COVID-19 :slight_smile:

I think it’s usually better to clarify how the opponents understands the terms that he uses, and move the argument on from there.

#212

No, you referred to “preferred semantics,” i.e., “it does appear that we are just quibbling about preferred semantics.” That relativistic jargon is what has led to abject confusion in this thread and many others in this forum.

You say “it’s usually better to clarify how the opponent understands the terms that he uses.” Well, that is what is silly, in my opinion. We should all use the same standard definitions, and those come from recognized authorities on those definitions (such as the Merriam/Webster Dictionary–which I have used repeatedly in my posts), not on the confusingly relativistic “how the opponent understands the terms that he uses.”

#213

I do see you insist on that ideal! We have different understandings of how language works. If you find such prolonged semantic debates worthwhile, you’re welcome to pursue them.

#214

Which ideal is more likely to solve objectively thorny issues that depend on accurately understanding the meanings of key words such as cause and force?

“it’s usually better to clarify how the opponent understands the terms that he uses.”

vs.

“We should all use the same standard definitions, and those come from recognized authorities on those definitions”

Gee, that’s a tough one.

It’s prolonged only because some here seem to have their own special vocabulary that does not agree with standard, respected sources of word meanings. One will likely never solve complex issues with such subjectivity in language use.

So, it’s not that I prefer prolonged debates. I much prefer seeing clean resolutions of issues that impinge on theism, something not likely with each having his or her own subjective vocabulary.

1 Like
#215

The first. For my perception is that when your opponent doesn’t agree on your selected “authorities” (which regularly happens in linguistic debates), or on how language works, yet you insist that he define what his argument meant, using the definitions that you recognize, a discussion will go nowhere.

My evidence is that I have often tasted that kind of pudding. The first choice yields progress far more gratifying, and filled with mutual understanding. As I said about "other plausible conceptions of ‘cause and effect’ (like yours), if you define my terms and meaning by your own conceptions, of course your own version of the issue appears vindicated!

#216

“…it should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control involved in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Free Will”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

2 Likes
#217

That’s simply wrong in so many ways.

First, I am not insisting anything. I’m arguing that there are some standards that should be followed in dealing with what words mean.

Second, these are NOT definitions only I recognize! This is not some wishy-washy, subjective area.

Third, we are not talking about words that have arguable definitions. They have standard and similar definitions across a variety of dictionaries. And since these definitions are in agreement, there is little basis for one to disregard them. Look at the verb force that was mentioned in recent posts, as it is defined by these common dictionaries, every one that I could find online.

"to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means” (Merriam/Webster)
“to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something” (Dictionary.com)
“to make someone do something that they do not want to do, for example by using or threatening to use violence” (Macmillan)
“to make something happen or make someone do something difficult, unpleasant, or unusual, especially by threatening or not offering the possibility of choice” (Cambridge)
“to make somebody do something that they do not want to do” (Oxford)
“to compel someone or something to do something” (Wiktionary)

Thus, when Paidion said “But as I stated, the person threatened by a gunman to hand over his money is not caused, that is, NOT FORCED to hand it over,” he is not using a standard definition of the verb force. A gunman threatening a person to hand over his money is indeed forcing the person to do so, according to many different standard dictionaries. In addition, a legal source that was provided clearly stated that being held at gunpoint is considered legally forcing someone to do something.

It’s quite puzzling that there is so much disagreement with this very straightforward issue from you and Paidion.

2 Likes
#218

Time for some poetry. :crazy_face:

And for a poem I selected. :crazy_face:

Footnote: Poetry has much to teach us, regarding DEEP philosophical and theological discussions. :crazy_face:

#219

Your insistence that no other definitions can even be argued, simply confirms what I said happens with regularity concerning “authorities” in such debates. If you can’t engage what Paidion obviously meant about events “caused” and “forced” in relation to his interesting view of free will, and find your approach more fruitful, I’m o.k. with leaving room for your choice.

#220

Why would one engage what words like force and cause mean without some anchor in reality to show how those words have been traditionally used in the English language?

This is starting to sound like a celebration of ignorance, essentially dismissing authorities like established dictionaries and even placing the word authorities in quotation marks in a childish, deliberate attempt to demean these sources.

If you want to live by the belief that “Words mean whatever I want them to mean,” so be it. But be ready for the likely resulting chaos.

#221

Majoring in science, I explained to you how I saw those terms traditionally used. So I find what Paidion meant by language that an effect was “caused” and “forced” meaning it explains an inevitable result is so obvious, and so widely how these terms are used, that not meeting him on his ground, and insisting his argument is wrong, because he must use your definitions, seems an in vain use of time.

I was courteous enough to repeatedly tell you, that given the definitions I could see that you obviously believe are inarguable, your argument makes perfect sense. I don’t agree with Paidion’s conclusion, but for you to not give him a similar courtesy by engaging him in terms of the meaning he obviously intended doesn’t seem too much to ask.

#222

This is interesting, Bob. What scientific discipline, did you major in? Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, etc.?

#223

My UCLA B.S. in psychology happened to be summa cum laude. But more relevant to explaining why some may find my lexical sense odd here is that the Psych department was hugely behaviorist, deeply influenced by B.F. Skinner, and to my chagrin most classes centered on a rat lab and mazes :slight_smile: This also may explain why I said above that I’m skeptical of Paidion’s view of the freedom of our will :wink:

#224

Interesting. But Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, has been a very effective form of therapy.

1 Like
#225

Certainly, though Skinner would have a non-free stimulus-response explanation of why.

1 Like