How does God's omniscience negate an individual's agency / free will?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Chum said:

I think our Faith plants an assumption. It's that God eventually shares enough of his plan (for each of us) to earn our trust in that plan.

For all other Saints, I will accept that is true. For me personally, I am long past needing that info and no longer expect I'll get it in this life. It could still arrive one day I just don't know what I'd do with it.

Do you trust in the Plan without it or have you found another way?

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you trust in the Plan without it or have you found another way?

I trust He's a lot smarter than I am, that His goals are benevolent and it is wisdom for me to follow what we're taught. But his plan for me personally? I can't take any set of experiences and suss out a plan.

Long term, reinforcement consistently seems to be counter what is should be. Over decades, the more observant I am the worse life gets. As I gave up of churchy things, corresponding life things finally turn around. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Chum

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

Even trying to suss it out thru reinforcement gives bad conclusions.

About your eternal state?  Or do you mean mortal life?

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[CV75]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Several times over the years I have encountered folks who have asserted that the Church's doctrines about God's omniscience and our free will / agency are incompatible.  That is, the former negates the latter.

See, e.g., this formulation:

The first general position above makes sense, except that I don't understand the "horns of the dilemma" reference.  What is the "dilemma?"

From ChatGPT:

I responded:

The response:

Me:

ChatGPT:

Still not helpful.

I'm reminded of this clip from Minority Report:

John Anderton : Why'd you catch that?

Danny Witwer : Because it was going to fall.

John Anderton : You're certain?

Danny Witwer : Yeah.

John Anderton : But it didn't fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was *going* to happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Since I do not consider myself omniscient, I do not assume or presume that God is, except in a relative sense to me (i.e., I have faith that He knows more than me). I have a personal relationship with Him, which to me indicates that we enjoy the free exercise our wills from.moment to moment, to the extent our respective (and changing) knowledge base permits. I prefer to use the word "experience" over "knowledge" since there are so many different kinds of knowledge simultaneously at play. Christ experienced all that we collectively might, and more, and continues to do so as the eternal round expands.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

There are sometimes in life, that we as humans must needs sit back in our chairs and just say "Wow!" We can think and think until our thinker hurts so badly we must say "Wow" again, get up and go about those things which we can comprehend in all the very best that our capacity as humans allow us to comprehend. Some things are simply not figure-out-able given our brilliant yet limited ROM and RAM capacity as humans.

God is one of those. That is why someone like the Apostle Paul had to finish Ephesians 3:19, start Ephesians 3:20 and put down his quill in despair. He wanted to write a verse about God. He, a capable philologist could not come up with the right word in Classical or Koine Greek. So, he decided to make up a new word - combine three existing Greek words to describe his inability to comprehend or describe who God is and what He will do for us. It was a kind of su·per·ca·li·fra·gil·is·tic·ex·pi·a·li·do·cious kind of a word. He invented the word ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ (huperekperissou- quite a long word, even for Greek. He would use it a total of three times in his writings to describe something indescribable. As far as I know, his is the only use of the word at that time in the history of the Greek language. It is what is called in Greek a hapaxlogomene. The word carries with it the idea of something that is over-from-beyond our comprehension. In English it is variously translated as Immeasurably more, exceedingly above, abundantly above, abundantly beyond, super-abundantly more, exceedingly abundantly above, infinitely more, more than we can think of, more than we can imagine, and on and on. Get the picture?

 

I quite like this, from the (Alas, Dear, Departed! ) Reverend S.M. Lockridge:

I'm sure there is a fair amount of what the Good Reverend Lockridge said with which I, as a Latter-day Saint, necessarily would disagree, but if there is anything of that sort here, I don't know what it is.

 

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

This may be an unfair observation, but perhaps because my LDS friends view God as a glorified human, they (you) believe they (you) should be able to figure Him out using your not-quite-yet-glorified (exalted) reasoning ability and say "Eureka, now I understand God!"

My Friend, I don't know that your conclusion follows necessarily from your premise, even if your premise is true.  

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would encourage you to simply take your fingers off the keyboard, sit back and say with the Apostle Paul,  "huperekperissou!" or if you prefer with  Mary Poppins, sing "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!" - a word that has been described as "sticks to you like gum to the bottom of your shoe."

"Perhaps, just perhaps it is better to trust than to understand." That is my Navidadism for the day!

Fair enough.  I don't disagree with you there, and even if I did, I like you too much to disagree with you ... disagreeably!  

As Always, I Bid You ...

Warm Regards and Best Wishes,

-Ken

[the narrator]

The problem isn't one of God's omniscience, it's the absurdity of libertarian free will.

The very notion of making a choice involves a person applying their will to given set of circumstances.

For example, this morning the question arose of whether I should shave or not. The given set of circumstances involved (among a billion of things) the amount and length of hair on my neck, the amount of sleep I received last night, the depleting patience of my dogs wanting to go out, expectations of who I may or may not see through the day, the food I ate last night, cultural expectations, and so on. I applied my will to that nearly infinite set of circumstances and chose to shave.

Now, given the state of my will (which has been formed by nearly infinite sets of infinite sets of experiences through my life) when I made that choice given the particular set of circumstances, how could I have possibly chosen to not shave this morning? If it were actually possible that I could have chosen to not shave this morning given the exact same state of my will and the exact same set of circumstances, then the very notion of me choosing anything is rendered meaningless. It's not a choice, it's mere randomness.

Thus the opposite of determinism isn't free will, it's randomness. Free will simply isn't a thing.

 

A good way to see this is the movie Ground Hog Day. In that film the given set of nearly infinite circumstances is repeated for everybody each day--except for Bill Murray's character, whose set of circumstances is new each day because he is able to retain his memory of the prior repeated days. So while everybody else makes the exact same decisions every day based on the exact same state of their will being applied to the exact same set of circumstances, Murray's character is able to make different choices because both his set of circumstances has changed due to his memory of the previous repeated days--and his will itself has changed because of his new experiences (which is part of the point of the movie, as he is finally released from his curse by his will becoming such that he begins to make virtuous decisions).

Now, through each repeated day (there were eventually over 12,000 repeated Groundhog Days [the original draft had well over 3.5 million]), the townspeople do begin to make different choices than they had the day before--but that is because their set of circumstances has changed due to Murray's interactions with them. If it were not for those interactions (and the chain effect of them then interacting with other townspeople), they would being doing the exact same thing as the original Groundhog Day. (In fact they do just that when Murray does not interact with them.)

 

I believe it was in his Confessions that Augustine wrestled with the question of how God could know the future and be all powerful if persons had wills of their own, and his (I think correct from a theistic perspective) solution was essentially grace--that God could affect and change the wills of persons and thus both determine and know what choices those persons would make. This is ultimately the stories of Paul and Alma the Younger. Both had wills such that given the circumstances they encountered they would have chosen immorally. What enabled them to choose righteously was not an act of their own or their ability to change their own will, but God intruding into the world and slapping them across the face and presenting them with an experience and set of circumstances that quite abruptly changed their wills. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by the narrator

[Amulek]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

So what of the cases of future harm where it appears he didn’t intervene even with prayers asking him to as commanded?

I don't believe God is obligated to intervene every time we ask something of Him, even if doing so could prevent some future harm.

The point I was making about prayer with respect to free will is that, if God really does know the future infallibly, then - no matter the question - no response from Him is ever capable of influencing our actions. Why then would God command us to pray, knowing that even He cannot get us to alter course?

No, I think we can be influenced by God (and I think God can be influenced by us as well).

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't believe God is obligated to intervene every time we ask something of Him, even if doing so could prevent some future harm.

The point I was making about prayer with respect to free will is that, if God really does know the future infallibly, then - no matter the question - no response from Him is ever capable of influencing our actions. Why then would God command us to pray, knowing that even He cannot get us to alter course?

No, I think we can be influenced by God (and I think God can be influenced by us as well).

 

But doesn't God command us to pray during those times (which isn't all the time, but sometimes) when He knows that no matter what we pray He is not going to alter His course?  

 

[Ryan Dahle]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

We assume the universe and all that is in it act in a mechanistic way.  Even the body is just a very complicated biological machine and the spirit is just finer material, so a machine as well, organized and programmed by God to which he adds our unique programming/intelligence. (If you disagree, then please explain what it is and how it acts.)

I think part of the problem is that, from a scientific perspective, we actually don't know the first causes of any physical laws. And without the ability to see first causes, we will always lack sufficient evidence to prove determinism. The other problem is that even in the present, there are major gaps and deficiencies in our knowledge of the physical world. We don't actually know what is going on at the deepest levels of micro and macro analysis. And that means that what seems like simple, straightforward mechanistic determinism may be more complicated than we might assume, as suggested by the Free Will Theorem. The other major problem, of course, is the fact that we can't directly observe and are woefully unable to mechanistically understand human consciousness--which, for humans, is the most crucial realm of potential agency. It seems entirely possible that while much of the world may function in a mechanistic way, there might be crucial exceptions.

Intuitively, it certainly feels to most people like we have a significant degree of free will. Most human societies are built on the axiom that we have free will. And human agency is a crucial, fundamental tenet of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Without it, the Plan of Salvation is incomprehensible. Fortunately, I don't think there is any compelling scientific reason to give up on free will. Without an accurate knowledge of any first causes of the universe, without an understanding of the true origin of physical laws and constants, without the ability to comprehensively understand the physical universe at all levels of analysis, and without the ability to mechanistically observe or describe human consciousness, it seems that mechanistic determinism is far, far from being a proven as a universal feature of the universe.

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Not sure we can even conceive of existence at the very basic level in any other way.  Cause and effect.  There is nothing truly random if we know enough details  of everything leading up to it (at least in everyday thought).  If a ball is so perfectly balanced that it truly can’t be predicted which way it will fall, it won’t fall either way, but keep bouncing straight up and down.

Except, at an intuitive personal level, almost all of us don't feel like we are just playing out a cause-and-effect script. Even people who strongly believe in biological determinism tend to act as if they are mostly free agents. In other words, while we may conceive of the natural world outside of consciousness as being a product of inevitable causes and effects, we tend to almost universally see ourselves as an exception to the otherwise apparently mechanistic universe around us. 

19 hours ago, Calm said:

So what if we are wrong (which given history seems like we should accept this as a given) and the universe only appears like a machine to those with very poor eyesight?

Yes, considering that we are all lacking significant pieces of information regarding agency on multiple levels of analysis, it seems wise to assume that we are seeing through a glass darkly. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Since I do not consider myself omniscient, I do not assume or presume that God is, except in a relative sense to me (i.e., I have faith that He knows more than me).

There seem to be all sorts of scriptures that speak of God's omniscience and foreknowledge.

Omniscience: 

Quote

• God saw … every imagination of the thoughts of his heart, Gen. 6:5.
• Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all, 1 Chr. 28:9.
• thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men, 2 Chr. 6:30 (Acts 1:24; 15:8).
• he knoweth the secrets of the heart, Ps. 44:21 (Luke 16:15).
• Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, Ps. 94:11.
• Thou … art acquainted with all my ways, Ps. 139:3.
• Great is our Lord … his understanding is infinite, Ps. 147:5.
• eyes of the Lord are in every place, Prov. 15:3.
• I know their works and their thoughts, Isa. 66:18.
• are we sure that thou knowest all things, John 16:30.

• Known unto God are all his works from the beginning, Acts 15:18 (1 Ne. 9:6).
• wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable, Rom. 11:33.
• In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom, Col. 2:3.
• word of God … is a discerner of the thoughts, Heb. 4:12.
• wisdom of him who knoweth all things, 2 Ne. 2:24.

• God … knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows, 2 Ne. 9:20 (Morm. 8:17; D&C 127:2).
• reveal all things from the foundation of the world, 2 Ne. 27:10.
• Lord knoweth all things which are to come, W of M 1:7.
• Spirit knoweth all things, Alma 7:13.
• Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things, Alma 18:18.
• he knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart, Alma 18:32 (D&C 6:16).
• all wisdom, and all understanding; he comprehendeth all things, Alma 26:35.
• except he was a god he could not know of all things, Hel. 9:41.
• God knowing all things, being from everlasting, Moro. 7:22.

• knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes, D&C 38:2.
• he comprehended all things, that he might be in all, D&C 88:6 (88:41).
• all things are present with me, for I know them all, Moses 1:6.

• all things are numbered unto me, for … I know them, Moses 1:35.
• Lord … told Enoch all the doings of the children of men, Moses 7:41.
• Lord showed Enoch all things, Moses 7:67.
• I know the end from the beginning, Abr. 2:8.

• See also Job 21:22; 42:2; Isa. 41:26; 46:10; 48:3; 55:8–9; 59:1; Jer. 33:3; Dan. 2:28; Matt. 6:6; Luke 12:6; John 6:64; 14:26; 16:13; Eph. 1:8; 1 Ne. 10:19; Jacob 2:10; Mosiah 27:31; 3 Ne. 13:6; 26:3; Morm. 8:34–35; Moro. 10:5; D&C 1:1; Moses 7:4, 36; Abr. 3:19, 21.

Foreknowledge. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I have a personal relationship with Him, which to me indicates that we enjoy the free exercise our wills from.moment to moment, to the extent our respective (and changing) knowledge base permits. I prefer to use the word "experience" over "knowledge" since there are so many different kinds of knowledge simultaneously at play. Christ experienced all that we collectively might, and more, and continues to do so as the eternal round expands.

I agree with these sentiments.

Thanks,

-Smac

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

There is more than one side to this:

https://iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

Foreknowledge and Free Will:

"In this article, various ways of trying to solve the problem—for example, by putting constraints on the truth-conditions for statements, or by “tightening” the conditions necessary for knowledge—are examined and shown not to work. Ultimately the alleged incompatibility of foreknowledge and free will is shown to rest on a subtle logical error. When the error, a modal fallacy, is recognized and remedied, the problem evaporates."

The Wikipedia article on Arguments from Free Will also references the Modal Fallacy:

Quote

A logical formulation of this argument might go as follows:^[1]

1. God knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
2. It is now necessary that C.
3. If it is now necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
4. If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
5. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.

Norman Swartz, however, contends that the above arguments commit the modal fallacy. In particular, he asserts that these arguments assume that if C is true, it becomes necessary for C to be true, which is incorrect as C is contingent (see modal logic). Otherwise, one can argue that the future is set already regardless of his actions.^[2]

Other means of reconciling God's omniscience with human free will have been proposed. Some have attempted to redefine or reconceptualize free will:

• God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further is an illusion. This is the move made by compatibilistic philosophies.
• The sovereignty (autonomy) of God, existing within a free agent, provides strong inner compulsions toward a course of action (calling), and the power of choice (election). The actions of a human are thus determined by a human acting on relatively strong or weak urges (both from God and the environment around them) and their own relative power to choose.^[5]

[Amulek]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But doesn't God command us to pray during those times (which isn't all the time, but sometimes) when He knows that no matter what we pray He is not going to alter His course? 

Sure. Prayer doesn't obligate God to change course, but if God knows the future absolutely then neither God nor us even has the capacity to change course. Ever.

 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sure. Prayer doesn't obligate God to change course, but if God knows the future absolutely then neither God nor us even has the capacity to change course. Ever.

 

Whenever you change your mind, you change the future, no matter what you know.

[Pyreaux]

On 7/12/2023 at 4:21 PM, smac97 said:

Several times over the years I have encountered folks who have asserted that the Church's doctrines about God's omniscience and our free will / agency are incompatible.  That is, the former negates the latter.

See, e.g., this formulation:

The first general position above makes sense, except that I don't understand the "horns of the dilemma" reference.  What is the "dilemma?"

From ChatGPT:

I responded:

The response:

Me:

ChatGPT:

Still not helpful.

I'm reminded of this clip from Minority Report:

John Anderton : Why'd you catch that?

Danny Witwer : Because it was going to fall.

John Anderton : You're certain?

Danny Witwer : Yeah.

John Anderton : But it didn't fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was *going* to happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

At this time, on my portable device, I haven't yet read all responses nor have I a source for my comment, but I wanted to say;

I think the Doctrine of Foreordination, as I was taught it, seemed to be against the idea of fate of individuals. You are ordained for when and where to be born and ordained for a mission. It was not fate that you will accomplish your mission, but God's plan will not be thwarted, he'll simply send another. The ultimate outcome might be predetermined, as God has the power to enforce his will upon the grand scheme but not people.

Though it all depends on the source of God's foresight. Is God outside time and space, in a 4th or higher dimension? Then it can be both, we are freely choosing in real time, but from God's perspective outside time, it's already happened.

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Latter-day Saints didn't invent the concept of theological fatalism. In using our "not-quite-yet-glorified...reasoning" to try and understand God, we doing the exact same thing that philosophers and theologians have been doing for centuries.

I don't believe it will be possible to fully know or understand God in our present state, but that doesn't mean we should give up on striving to understand or know him better that we do today.

 

Can you define theological fatalism for me? I am not familiar with that term. Thanks.

I am also uncertain about what source documents, data, or information we can use to know Him better than we did yesterday and do today? I guess I am not a big fan of the results of what philosophers and theologians have been doing for centuries in that regard. How do we know God better today than John Hus did when he died on the stake six hundred-eight years ago last week? Or how, thanks to the work of philosophers and theologians do we know God better than Bernard of Clairvaux did 970 years ago? How do we know God better today than St. Boniface did one thousand-eighty years ago when he reformed the Frankish church and ultimately was killed for his faith and trust? I am a bit skeptical of anything that doesn't involve faith, trust, and commitment to Him as a means of having a closer personal relationship with Him. I would say the same about knowing my wife better and having a better relationship with her. But, I also realize that because something doesn't float my boat, that it isn't important to others! Best wishes.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I quite like this, from the (Alas, Dear, Departed! ) Reverend S.M. Lockridge:

I'm sure there is a fair amount of what the Good Reverend Lockridge said with which I, as a Latter-day Saint, necessarily would disagree, but if there is anything of that sort here, I don't know what it is.

 

My Friend, I don't know that your conclusion follows necessarily from your premise, even if your premise is true.  

Fair enough.  I don't disagree with you there, and even if I did, I like you too much to disagree with you ... disagreeably!  

As Always, I Bid You ...

Warm Regards and Best Wishes,

-Ken

I know his church well. To my recollection, I never met him but I spoke on several occasions to the Black Pastors group in San Diego and know the esteem in which he was held, regardless of denomination! Best wishes back at you!

[Chum]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

About your eternal state?  Or do you mean mortal life?

My mortal life. I have my hands full with that, this millennium.

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I know his church well. To my recollection, I never met him but I spoke on several occasions to the Black Pastors group in San Diego and know the esteem in which he was held, regardless of denomination! Best wishes back at you!

I don't know if I was aware he had a connection with the San Diego area.  Now that I know that, my esteem of him has only increased.  (And, of course, if and when I find myself back in that neck of the woods, I'd love to touch base with you, as well!)

All the Best,

-Ken

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Sure. Prayer doesn't obligate God to change course, but if God knows the future absolutely then neither God nor us even has the capacity to change course. Ever.

 

I was more responding to the "what's the purpose of prayer if it can't change anything" statement that you made, illustrating that there must be a purpose to the need for prayer that goes beyond its ability to cause change.

However if free will is freedom from coercion (which is how I've always defined it), then not being able to change course does not negate it, right? (Or am I missing something else?)

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Several times over the years I have encountered folks who have asserted that the Church's doctrines about God's omniscience and our free will / agency are incompatible.  That is, the former negates the latter.

See, e.g., this formulation:

The first general position above makes sense, except that I don't understand the "horns of the dilemma" reference.  What is the "dilemma?"

From ChatGPT:

I responded:

The response:

Me:

ChatGPT:

Still not helpful.

I'm reminded of this clip from Minority Report:

John Anderton : Why'd you catch that?

Danny Witwer : Because it was going to fall.

John Anderton : You're certain?

Danny Witwer : Yeah.

John Anderton : But it didn't fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was *going* to happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Easy.

Door number 1

Compatiblism 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

"Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.^[1]

Compatibilists believe that freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.^[2] In other words, that causal determinism does not exclude the truth of possible future outcomes.^[3] Because free will is seen as a necessary prerequisite for moral responsibility, compatibilism is often used to support compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism."

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Sure. Prayer doesn't obligate God to change course, but if God knows the future absolutely then neither God nor us even has the capacity to change course. Ever.

 

His KNOWING it will happen has NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING IT HAPPEN.

There are landslides destroying houses worth millions, in California right now.

Experts KNOW that they will continue.

Can we sue the geologists for CAUSING the landslides which are happening?

Of course not.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

 

I am not convinced the premises support the conclusion.

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, Chum said:

My mortal life. I have my hands full with that, this millennium.

Okay, I get that.  Sometimes I think my life is a massive joke, giving me the brains and the drive to be out there helping make life better, but then pulling out the plug, so I can’t even manage being an observer and clapping for others.  And my life has been relatively free of trauma and bad stuff, just a sleep disorder screwing stuff up.  No massive emotional suffering, no significant trauma dealing with family, no financial struggles like I know you have struggled with.

Mortality does not make sense.

I think you are doing great if you can keep trust that God has the eternity stuff worked out.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

When you add the atonement in it causes even more questions.  Did Jesus have to need to know all the sins, mistakes and sufferings in order to atone for them?  Or did he just suffer for them?  Either way, how does the fact that he already suffered affect the sins I will make in the future?  Did he suffer for nothing if I choose not to do them?  Does the suffering mean I will do them so while it will be a choice for me it was already decided and paid for?   

It's a strange concept to wrap my head around.  For example, I go to the store today and tell the store owner, "My son is going to come in and steal a candy bar from you.  I'm going to give you the money to pay for it now."   I can just see the store owner now thinking, "if you know he is going to steal it then why don't you stop him?"

 

[the narrator]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Fortunately, I don't think there is any compelling scientific reason to give up on free will.

Sure, there may not be any scientific reason to give up on free will, but there is also no scientific reason to assume free will is a thing in the first place. There is, however. a pretty simply philosophical reason to recognize that libertarian free will is nonsense (lacking sense) as I laid out above.

A big problem with analytic philosophy--and particularly analytic philosophy of religion--is that so much of it begins with assumed premises that are nonsense or confused misapplication of language.