is there free will?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thanks, that does indeed seem to be the argument. But, the libertarian view and the compatibilist view can't both be correct, yes? I think the libertarian view has a lot to answer, and that if you can get your head around the compatibilist view you can see that determinism is no threat at all to free will.

Indeed, they both can't be correct, the libertarian view is grounded on the idea that compatiblism is impossible. As for the libertarian view, I agree there are issues with the mechanics of it. For choice to exist in the libertarian sense, we must have a soul, or something that allows for decision making to take place above the purely scientific/biological view of how our brains work (well I'm pretty ignorant of the biological side, but I would guess it supports determinism with our brains working by signals with one inevitably determining the next, I could of course be completely, embrassingly wrong).

But I think PVC's argument here in defense of the libertarian view is more on the grounds of its necessity from a philosophical perspective with its relation to morality and responsibility etc, as opposed to laying out the actual mechanics of how it works.

In other words, I have my definition of free will, but I can't just claim that it is the correct one. Whether the definition is correct is a viable (and essential) source for argument.

I agree, that this dispute is best resolved now, since otherwise it's going to be impossible for people to understand each other. I agree that your definition of free will is the sum of the freedom which our will's possess in reality btw, but I see this as supporting purely determinsim and not free will (since I hold to the libertarian defintion of the term, which is how it has been traditionally used). I think we have the same ideas, but are just using different words for them.

it does not make them any better. you mistake good and evil for free and unfree. im not talking about that. if he is evil he is evil, but he is NOT RESPONSIBLE for being evil. and thus cannot be held ACCOUNTABLE for what he does in the way that we do now.

you cannot treat gods in the way you treat men and you cannot treat men in the way you treat god. but again if the god has no ability to change his nature than he cannot be responsible for how he is. and if how is is the same as what he does than in that sense he is also not responsible for what he does. but even so it is irrelevent because there is no one to hold him responsible or anyone he has to account his deeds to.

But does responsbility require the subjection of lesser beings to greater realities? Can only a follower of evil be responsible for his actions, as opposed to the source of the evil itself?

This is why I think your response to the Gnostic god issue is quite unusual. If one god is the source of all evil, the self-evident, self-perpetuating root of all evil - why should it be looked upon more kindly than one of its followers?