Plantinga’s “Significant Freedom”

[lightgigantic]

Critics of theism, such as John Mackie, have established what they ascertain to be a basic inconsistency in believing, on one hand, that an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good god exists, while on the other, conceding the existence of evil. For Mackie, the issue is not whether religious beliefs are bereft of rational support, or even whether the claims are true or false; he is particularly concerned by simultaneously establishing two positions that conflict with one another. If god is all-capable, and if evil is not wanted, then evil shouldn’t exist.

This assertion of inconsistency is strongly refuted by the “Free Will Defence” of Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga’s means is to esatblish the consistency of the two propositions by calling upon a third statement that reamins consistent with the first, and logically implies the second. Because this third statement need only demonstrate the logic that exists between the other two, it is not an issue of investigating the truth of any one or all of them.

This third statement of Plantinga’s has as a foundation that god created creatures with the freedom to choose moral good. This freedom, however, allows creatures to chose evil as well. So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil. Along with the assertion that god exists, evil also exists.

Mackie and Anthony Flew assail this claim by asking why a god who is all powerful be unable to create a world with free creatures who always abide by moral good. Plantinga responds by reminding his critics that god cannot be subject to illogical assertations. As t married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally. Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible. Plantinga put s this argument to rest with the following precise definition : significant freedom:

“A person is free with respect to action A at a time t only if no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so”

Plantinga’s Free Will Defence” appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil.

 

[SnakeLord]

The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible.

It has to be if one asserts an omniscient god and creation of man, (in this instance we'll use A&E).

1) god is omnipotent.

2) god is omniscient.

3) God chose to create a certain specific being. I ask you now, why not create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve?

You see, unlike Adam and Eve, Bob and Jane will never eat the fruit. He knows this, just like he knows what Adam and Eve will do. By choosing B instead of A he has saved so many billions from burning without impacting their free will.

He chose to create Adam and Eve.

He could choose to create Bob and Jane.

He knows everything Adam and Eve will do.

He knows everything Bob and Jane will do.

One leads to wholesale slaughter, the other leads to wholesale happiness. He didn't make their decisions for them, he simply knew what they would or would not do. He specifically chose to create A when he could have just as easily specifically chosen to create B.

* Kindly forgive me if my visual depiction of a god is inaccurate, I am not privy to the latest intel *

You see, the choice of this god was to create A - knowing full well exactly what they would do, exactly what the outcome would be. The same would apply equally for B, but the outcome would be entirely different.

By choosing to create B instead of A, mankind has free will, (in exactly the same manner that they have free will with A), but will choose to only perform moral actions in the same manner (A) chose not to.

Both cases as far as free will exists alongside an omniscient entity remains identical.

 

[greenberg]

So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil.
/.../
Plantinga responds by reminding his critics that god cannot be subject to illogical assertations. As t married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally.

I would be very very careful in combining the notions of "ominpotent god" and "impossible; cannot; unable; not within capacity".

Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible.

Why is this an argument that would need to be put to rest?

Plantinga put s this argument to rest with the following precise definition : significant freedom:

“A person is free with respect to action A at a time t only if no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so”

And how can a person know whether at a time t no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so?

In order to believe one is free -so that the notion of freedom will be relevant to one- one has to know about this freedom somehow, no?
Plantinga's argument, in order to be useful, requires direct perception.
Anything that requires direct perception frustrates the cognition of run-of-the-mill people. And in order for run-of-the-mill people to transcend being run-of-the-mill, they need something else, some instruction they, the run-of-the-mill, can act on, and not the requirement of direct perception - which is something reserved for those advanced enough. Otherwise, the run-of-the-mill people will just be frustrated, or fall prey to the false ego and delusions of grandeur.

Plantinga’s Free Will Defence” appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil.

Frankly, I do not see how this is the case.

I think that if anything, the logical problem of evil as you have sketched it out in the OP (as by Mackie) is actually fueled by the notion that "If one doesn't 'get it right' in this lifetime, one will be damned for all eternity, with no chance of redemption." - It is this notion that makes the problem of evil so pertinent, IMO. If people would operate within the context of notions of karma and rebirth -which Western philosophers usually do not-, the problem of evil would look a lot different, and a lot less intimidating and handicapping.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Plantinga’s Free Will Defence” appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil.

I think we are witnessing the slow death of religion with emphasis on the more ancient varieties. Religions are better off ignoring good and evil. Accept it as the way God made us and religions stand a better chance of surviving into the future. Of course that means God has an evil streak but that can be overlooked. Dwelling on good and evil projects the desperation current religion is facing with having a "Good" God.

Let's face it, if you want a good God then it is out of the question. Stop protecting Him. He must be portrayed as a deity that mixes in evil with the good if only for religious survival. He is omniscient isn't He? Then what would you expect, total irradication of evil? Even omni-God would know that's a stretch. IMO this is what free will is all about, accounting for God's creation of evil.

What it boils down to is that man is God's creator. The evidence of it in the written scriptures of countless religions is staggering. As more people become educated, with more time to reflect, then the tough contrary questions facing religion become harder to explain. Free will pundits are finding that out right now. Here's to religion for continuously shooting itself in the foot.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

It has to be if one asserts an omniscient god and creation of man, (in this instance we'll use A&E).

1) god is omnipotent.

2) god is omniscient.

3) God chose to create a certain specific being. I ask you now, why not create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve?

You see, unlike Adam and Eve, Bob and Jane will never eat the fruit. He knows this, just like he knows what Adam and Eve will do. By choosing B instead of A he has saved so many billions from burning without impacting their free will.

He chose to create Adam and Eve.

He could choose to create Bob and Jane.

He knows everything Adam and Eve will do.

He knows everything Bob and Jane will do.

One leads to wholesale slaughter, the other leads to wholesale happiness. He didn't make their decisions for them, he simply knew what they would or would not do.

What if Bob and Jane changed their minds later on ... or are you arguing that they made to forcibly act in a certain way?
Is something particularly distinct about the way Bob and Jane were made as opposed to Adam and Eve?
Are there some causal laws and antecedent conditions that determine that they not perform A at t ?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Psychoticepisode

I think we are witnessing the slow death of religion with emphasis on the more ancient varieties. Religions are better off ignoring good and evil. Accept it as the way God made us and religions stand a better chance of surviving into the future. Of course that means God has an evil streak but that can be overlooked. Dwelling on good and evil projects the desperation current religion is facing with having a "Good" God.

Just as theists would consider it easier for society at large to accept their values on face value, it comes as no surprise that atheists also work out of a similar modus operandi. That is why quite a few things are wagered on philosophical discussion and why no one will really accept the proposal that they are “better of ignoring” things

Let's face it, if you want a good God then it is out of the question. Stop protecting Him. He must be portrayed as a deity that mixes in evil with the good if only for religious survival. He is omniscient isn't He? Then what would you expect, total irradication of evil? Even omni-God would know that's a stretch. IMO this is what free will is all about, accounting for God's creation of evil.

Plantinga offers a more philosophically sound way of “facing it”

What it boils down to is that man is God's creator. The evidence of it in the written scriptures of countless religions is staggering. As more people become educated, with more time to reflect, then the tough contrary questions facing religion become harder to explain. Free will pundits are finding that out right now. Here's to religion for continuously shooting itself in the foot.

What this thread boils down to is how writing off god as invalid due to a particular inconsistency is a fallacy. Since education is a rising tide that lifts all boats, I would argue the questions only become tougher for one who cannot specifically focus on the issues at hand.
That is why more polished academic atheists focus on specific issues and more polished academic theists focus on specific refutations of the issues. For instance Plantinga is dealing with a very specific gripe presented by Mackie. I mean statements like “The evidence of it in the written scriptures of countless religions is staggering” is extremely tentative and can be tagged to any claim, albeit theistic or atheistic, and go nowhere .

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil.
/.../
Plantinga responds by reminding his critics that god cannot be subject to illogical assertations. As t married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally. ”
I would be very very careful in combining the notions of "ominpotent god" and "impossible; cannot; unable; not within capacity".

Omnipotency does not necessarily mean that anything can be accomplished – like married bachelors, square circles and moral good without moral evil (or even living entities that can become just as powerful as god) – of course these things can be achieved by the potency of illusion

SB 1.1.1 ..... By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water ......

(IOW the mind and senses can become deluded and perceive something non-existent) but it’s the nature of illusion that it periodically gives way to reality

“

Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible. ”
Why is this an argument that would need to be put to rest?

Because we commonly see that we don’t live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions (so IOW it is argued that theism cannot provide a consistent solution to the problem of evil)

“

Plantinga put s this argument to rest with the following precise definition : significant freedom:

“A person is free with respect to action A at a time t only if no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so” ”
And how can a person know whether at a time t no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so?

In order to believe one is free -so that the notion of freedom will be relevant to one- one has to know about this freedom somehow, no?
Plantinga's argument, in order to be useful, requires direct perception.
Anything that requires direct perception frustrates the cognition of run-of-the-mill people. And in order for run-of-the-mill people to transcend being run-of-the-mill, they need something else, some instruction they, the run-of-the-mill, can act on, and not the requirement of direct perception - which is something reserved for those advanced enough. Otherwise, the run-of-the-mill people will just be frustrated, or fall prey to the false ego and delusions of grandeur.

For Mackie, the issue is not whether religious beliefs are bereft of rational support, or even whether the claims are true or false; he is particularly concerned by simultaneously establishing two positions that conflict with one another.

IOW Mackie is simply focusing on how there are two premises within theism that are inconsistent and he feels that is sufficient to put an end to theistic inquiry. Of course what you say is kind of the next step ... I


“

Plantinga’s Free Will Defence” appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil. ”
Frankly, I do not see how this is the case.

I think that if anything, the logical problem of evil as you have sketched it out in the OP (as by Mackie) is actually fueled by the notion that "If one doesn't 'get it right' in this lifetime, one will be damned for all eternity, with no chance of redemption." - It is this notion that makes the problem of evil so pertinent, IMO. If people would operate within the context of notions of karma and rebirth -which Western philosophers usually do not-, the problem of evil would look a lot different, and a lot less intimidating and handicapping.

Sure, karma and rebirth allow for a more complete picture of the problems presented, however I am just presenting an argument in a purely logical medium (since Mackie’s criticism is purely logical) .

 

[SnakeLord]

What if Bob and Jane changed their minds later on ... or are you arguing that they made to forcibly act in a certain way?

They wont. No force involved, just knowledge that they wont.

Is something particularly distinct about the way Bob and Jane were made as opposed to Adam and Eve?

No.

Do note: You would need to be very careful what you say next. If you were to assert that as they were made the same as Adam and Eve then it is impossible for them to always be moral then you are making an argument against free will and for forced design.

Are there some causal laws and antecedent conditions that determine that they not perform A at t ?

Like A&E, god knows every single action they will ever perform. He has always known it. Unless you tell me that knowing what they will do removes their free will, (in which case we'd find ourselves in a bit of a dilemma), then his knowledge and decision does not in any way hinder it.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

This third statement of Plantinga’s has as a foundation that god created creatures with the freedom to choose moral good.... As married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally.

Then why are we punished for it? You forget that this wonderful god who gives us the freedom, and I use that word lightly, to choose what's morally good is by His threats actually cancelling out free will.

God, if He is to allow us freedom to choose must not interfere or influence our decision. In order to do He must remain incommunicative and unseen. The paradoxical question is: just how does such a god deliver the free will speech?

 

[lightgigantic]

Do note: You would need to be very careful what you say next. If you were to assert that as they were made the same as Adam and Eve then it is impossible for them to always be moral then you are making an argument against free will and for forced design.

.

well that is your argument - that we be made like bob and jane

"He specifically chose to create A when he could have just as easily specifically chosen to create B."

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Then why are we punished for it? You forget that this wonderful god who gives us the freedom, and I use that word lightly, to choose what's morally good is by His threats actually cancelling out free will.

what makes you say that

God, if He is to allow us freedom to choose must not interfere or influence our decision.

he doesn't

In order to do He must remain incommunicative and unseen.

generally speaking, he is

The paradoxical question is: just how does such a god deliver the free will speech?

free will speech?
I don't understand

 

[greenberg]

Omnipotency does not necessarily mean that anything can be accomplished – like married bachelors, square circles and moral good without moral evil (or even living entities that can become just as powerful as god)

Allright. But where do you draw the line?
"God cannot make square circles" vs. "God cannot help to save you from burning in hell for all eternity" -?

Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible.

Why is this an argument that would need to be put to rest?

Because we commonly see that we don’t live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions (so IOW it is argued that theism cannot provide a consistent solution to the problem of evil)

Just because Peter's room is messy, does that mean all people's rooms are messy ...
IOW, if we don't live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions, that doesn't yet mean that such a world is impossible or that it doesn't exist.
But I know - this is a weak line of argument because it's so general; what it does, however, is that it points out that we are not omniscient and therefore should not make claims that presume we are.

For Mackie, the issue is not whether religious beliefs are bereft of rational support, or even whether the claims are true or false; he is particularly concerned by simultaneously establishing two positions that conflict with one another.

IOW Mackie is simply focusing on how there are two premises within theism that are inconsistent and he feels that is sufficient to put an end to theistic inquiry. Of course what you say is kind of the next step ... I

The next step to what? In Mackie's direction?

Sure, karma and rebirth allow for a more complete picture of the problems presented, however I am just presenting an argument in a purely logical medium (since Mackie’s criticism is purely logical) .

Sure. But there are underlying assumptions and implications to the premises in the logical arguments presented; and it's these assumptions and implications that need to be addressed. Written out, the same argument can be logically valid or not, depending on the underlying assumptions and implications. To avoid this, in Indian logic, context is considered part of the logical argument, while this isn't the case with traditional Western logic. :itold:
For starters, it's clear that advocates of theism and advocates of atheism do not operate with the same definitions of terms. So it's to be expected that there will be contradictions perceived.

And I still don't see how Plantinga’s Free Will Defence appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

“ The paradoxical question is: just how does such a god deliver the free will speech? ”

free will speech?
I don't understand

How does a non-interfering and incommunicative God inform the populace that they have free will? Or is it merely understood that we are endowed with this divine gift? Is free will solely what religion calls a rational conclusion?

Even if all God ever said was "Hello, I'm here" then He has influenced our lives. That's all it would take for someone to eventually come up with the free will edict. As it is, the free will declaration needed no divine interference. Humanity has come up with it on its own since God is noticeably absent.

Again that presents a perplexing problem. Free will cannot exist with any interference from God yet it can without. Unfortunately, life without divine interference means we wouldn't know if God existed. Does total non interference reduce free will to a human construct? Absolutely! There simply cannot be any free will once God is established. Free will is just religion trying to prove God's existence.

 

[SnakeLord]

well that is your argument - that we be made like bob and jane

Then we have that dilemma I mentioned. It would be no less of a choice to create A instead of B and no more of a choice to create B instead of A. In either instance it is a choice made by this entity, (unless it didn't have a choice in which case we will start peeling away certain claimed aspects of such entity).

However, my statement was on a slightly different aspect of the issue - in that if such god could choose to create A or B or C or D (etc) but that in every single instance it was an impossibility for such creations to be perfectly moral then it becomes a design issue.

I doubt many theists would subscribe to the flawed design aspect or a non-omnipotent god and so we are left with the conclusion that such entity could have easily created humans that chose not to sin with their free will in the exact same identical manner that he chose to create humans that chose to sin with their free will.

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Omnipotency does not necessarily mean that anything can be accomplished – like married bachelors, square circles and moral good without moral evil (or even living entities that can become just as powerful as god) ”
Allright. But where do you draw the line?
"God cannot make square circles" vs. "God cannot help to save you from burning in hell for all eternity" -?

A circle by definition cannot be a square since the two are mutually exclusive.
It’s not clear how one could argue the same for hell and eternity (actually, one could argue the opposite, that only scope for eternal life is in connection to god – since god is eternal – if one argues that one achieves hell by being disconnected to god, it’s not clear how that can be anything but temporary)

“ “ “

Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible. ”
Why is this an argument that would need to be put to rest? ”
Because we commonly see that we don’t live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions (so IOW it is argued that theism cannot provide a consistent solution to the problem of evil) ”
Just because Peter's room is messy, does that mean all people's rooms are messy ...
IOW, if we don't live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions, that doesn't yet mean that such a world is impossible or that it doesn't exist.

Atheists fault however that if god could create a person who is perfectly moral, there is no clear reason why everyone could not be created in that way (of course they argue on the strength of deterministic reasoning ... but such reasoning makes it difficult to conceive of how free will exists)



“

For Mackie, the issue is not whether religious beliefs are bereft of rational support, or even whether the claims are true or false; he is particularly concerned by simultaneously establishing two positions that conflict with one another.

IOW Mackie is simply focusing on how there are two premises within theism that are inconsistent and he feels that is sufficient to put an end to theistic inquiry. Of course what you say is kind of the next step ... I ”
The next step to what? In Mackie's direction?

The next step away from it – once one has reconciled the apparent inconsistencies, ..... then what?

“

Sure, karma and rebirth allow for a more complete picture of the problems presented, however I am just presenting an argument in a purely logical medium (since Mackie’s criticism is purely logical) . ”
Sure. But there are underlying assumptions and implications to the premises in the logical arguments presented; and it's these assumptions and implications that need to be addressed. Written out, the same argument can be logically valid or not, depending on the underlying assumptions and implications. To avoid this, in Indian logic, context is considered part of the logical argument, while this isn't the case with traditional Western logic.
For starters, it's clear that advocates of theism and advocates of atheism do not operate with the same definitions of terms. So it's to be expected that there will be contradictions perceived.

And I still don't see how Plantinga’s Free Will Defence appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil.

Hehe
I guess it’s a step towards clearing up the definitions of terms. Often atheists will launch into attacks on issues of theistically defined free will because they are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms (ie that all of our actions, psychological state of mind etc are determined by an intricate array of electrons etc so morality/reward/punishment/etc are completely relative, etc etc) .
Plantinga eloquently offers something clearly distinct from deterministic fields.

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic Episode

How does a non-interfering and incommunicative God inform the populace that they have free will? Or is it merely understood that we are endowed with this divine gift? Is free will solely what religion calls a rational conclusion?

I’m still not quite sure I follow. I’m not sure why we would require god to inform us that we have free will. It’s kind of like something we are using 24/7 to a greater or lesser extent

Even if all God ever said was "Hello, I'm here" then He has influenced our lives.

Only to the degree that we could say “yes its god” or “bah! Another bogus imposter” or something in between

That's all it would take for someone to eventually come up with the free will edict. As it is, the free will declaration needed no divine interference. Humanity has come up with it on its own since God is noticeably absent.

The idea of free will is that it is not something god (or even anyone else for that matter) can interfere with .... “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”

Again that presents a perplexing problem. Free will cannot exist with any interference from God yet it can without.

If people can exhibit their free will in the presence (or even indirect presence) of a person it’s not clear why bringing god into the picture radically changes something.
Free will doesn’t mean the ability to do anything and everything at a particular time.
Free will simply means that a particular state of being cannot be ensured at a particular time (hence action A at time t)

Unfortunately, life without divine interference means we wouldn't know if God existed. Does total non interference reduce free will to a human construct? Absolutely! There simply cannot be any free will once God is established. Free will is just religion trying to prove God's existence.

I think you still have to clear up some of your premises if you want to drive home this particular conclusion

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

”

Then we have that dilemma I mentioned. It would be no less of a choice to create A instead of B and no more of a choice to create B instead of A. In either instance it is a choice made by this entity, (unless it didn't have a choice in which case we will start peeling away certain claimed aspects of such entity).

You are assuming that the issue is deterministic (IOW that there is something particular about the way A is created that determines it will act in a way that B will not. The argument is that A and B are created in the same way and that free will comes with no deterministic constructs.

However, my statement was on a slightly different aspect of the issue - in that if such god could choose to create A or B or C or D (etc) but that in every single instance it was an impossibility for such creations to be perfectly moral then it becomes a design issue.

In that case there would be no possibility of even run of the mill morality because morality is completely meaningless unless it exists outside of deterministic constructs (IOW if I kill millions of people with a rusty knife I can say “it was predetermined that I perform such an act so there is no use in punishing me for by so called bad behaviour”)

I doubt many theists would subscribe to the flawed design aspect or a non-omnipotent god and so we are left with the conclusion that such entity could have easily created humans that chose not to sin with their free will in the exact same identical manner that he chose to create humans that chose to sin with their free will.

I think you should take a bit of time to look at what is involved with the issue of determinism. If two boats are made, one with holes in the hull and one without, it can be determined that the boat with holes will sink while the other will not. IOW we can specifically chose to create Alpha (a boat without holes) just as easily as we can chose to create Beta (a boat with holes). So we can call upon causal laws and antecedent conditions to determine either that the boat performs A at t or that it refrains from doing so.

The argument for free will is that it is not (ultimately) guided by any deterministic constructs.
This means that in regards to the ways in which one utilizes one’s free will, there is no way that a particular person can be made to particularly act in a particular circumstance. For instance if you go to jail for 20 years, the circumstances will certainly inhibit many of your activities, but there is no guarantee that the experience would make you repentant or a more law abiding citizen.

 

[greenberg]

A circle by definition cannot be a square since the two are mutually exclusive.
It’s not clear how one could argue the same for hell and eternity (actually, one could argue the opposite, that only scope for eternal life is in connection to god – since god is eternal – if one argues that one achieves hell by being disconnected to god, it’s not clear how that can be anything but temporary)

Here is a nice read for you:

In the new eternal life, God will be everything to His creatures, not only to the good but also to the wicked, not only to those who love Him, but likewise to those who hate Him. But how will those who hate Him endure to have everything from the hands of Him Whom they detest? Oh, what an eternal torment is this, what an eternal fire, what a gnashing of teeth!

http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm

Atheists fault however that if god could create a person who is perfectly moral, there is no clear reason why everyone could not be created in that way (of course they argue on the strength of deterministic reasoning ... but such reasoning makes it difficult to conceive of how free will exists)

Free will can be an enormous burden that many people would rather not bear. And it becomes an immense burden when the prospects are that you have to "get it right" in this one lifetime and figure out to believe in the right God/the right way, or burn in hell for all eternity.

In addition, many people will, at least privately to themselves, admit that they are pansies and that they feel guilty for whenever they say no, even when it is to a door-to-door salesman. So for these people to conceive they had originally been such swines to deliberately, in full knowledge, turn their backs on God - this is a difficult task. Nowadays, one has difficulty saying no to a trifle, but at some previous point, one was so proud to say no in regards to something that has had such enormous consequences as falling into a world of suffering, possibly to forever stay stuck in it??
Although anyone who has had some experience with abusive relationships will know first hand how one's self-confidence progressively diminishes in some circumstances (and how the afore-mentioned scenario of going from saying no to God to having difficulty ever saying no to anything is a plausible one), these things are quite difficult to stomach, although they can be empirically and logically shown to exist.

I guess it’s a step towards clearing up the definitions of terms.

Which goes back to the who-has-it-right problem.

Often atheists will launch into attacks on issues of theistically defined free will because they are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms (ie that all of our actions, psychological state of mind etc are determined by an intricate array of electrons etc so morality/reward/punishment/etc are completely relative, etc etc) .

They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms? This is an unkind thing to say, at least that. It's like telling a student "You're a basket case! Off with you. You'll never learn."

Plantinga eloquently offers something clearly distinct from deterministic fields.

Theoretically, yes. But how is one to make use of such a definition of freedom, unless one has the power of direct perception??

 

[SnakeLord]

You are assuming that the issue is deterministic (IOW that there is something particular about the way A is created that determines it will act in a way that B will not. The argument is that A and B are created in the same way and that free will comes with no deterministic constructs.

There arrives your dilemma. You would need to provide a suitable argument to suggest that the creation by god of humans is not deterministic. Such argument would invariably come down to one or more of the following:

1. Without intent

2. Without knowledge

3. Without choice

(3) can actually be discarded straight away because if this god had no choice then his own actions would be deterministic. (2) Doesn't get very much further if one sticks to the notion of an omniscient entity. This leaves us with (1), but that doesn't work because (3) has already been discarded. As it has made the choice to create, one can't argue that it did so unintentionally.

What we can see is that this god made a choice to create a specific entity.

From there we can argue that such god is a moral entity, (you have already mentioned that such entity would be perfectly good). So what you would typically have is that because such entity is perfectly good, evil wouldn't exist. However we shall allow it on the premise that:

- such perfectly good entity will allow evil to occur to serve the greater good, (while this in itself is problematic at best and downright pointless at worst, we shall ignore that and just accept it).

In saying, as this perfectly good god chose to create certain humans it must have already been determined that such creation was the best possible outcome of all possible outcomes. But in saying that you would have defeated your own statement shown in quotes. While this could argue for a reason why Bob and Jane were not created in place of Adam and Eve it could not be used to argue that the (deterministic) creation method would be any different.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I’m still not quite sure I follow. I’m not sure why we would require god to inform us that we have free will.

Exactly! Without God, free will is plausible.