OK, you know what? Just for shits and giggles I’ll go over this, to demonstrate, if not to you to others, how clueless you are.
Oh yes I do. It’s you that doesn’t have a clue. The problem is that they are changing the definition of what it means to have the free will to do otherwise once a choice is made.
What does the above even mean, peacegirl? How the hell can anyone do otherwise AFTER they have done, what they have done?
Exactly! It can't, but that's what is necessary to prove free will true, which can't be done. Compatibilism is just a semantic shift; therefore, it fails to address "could do otherwise" (after the fact) without changing definition.
p. 26 “But these theologians don’t agree with you; they say that man’s will is definitely free. Look here comes a rabbi; ask him if man’s will is free, just for the heck of it, and you will see for yourself how dogmatic he responds.”
“Rabbi, we have been discussing a subject and would appreciate your opinion. Is it true, false, or just a theory that man’s will is free?”
“It is absolutely true that man’s will is free because nothing compels an individual to choose evil instead of good; he prefers this only because he wants to partake of this evil, not because something is forcing him.”
“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more alternatives when making a choice?”
“Absolutely! That bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the bank; he wanted to do it.”
“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to prove that which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I mean.”
“Is it possible for you not to do what has already been done?” “No, it is not possible for me not to do what has already been done, because I have already done it.”
“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is equivalent to asking, is it possible for anyone not to understand four as an answer to two plus two. Now if what has been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is it possible not to choose B which has already been chosen?”
“It is impossible, naturally.”
“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of mathematics, not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose B instead of A once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice you must not choose B, which has already been chosen?”
“Again, I must admit it is something impossible to do.”
“Yet in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already been done, and then show that A — with the conditions being exactly the same — could have been chosen instead of B. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, free will must always remain a theory. The most you can say is that you believe the bank robber had a choice, but there is absolutely no way this can be proven.”
“I may be unable to prove that he was not compelled to rob that bank and kill the teller, but it is my opinion that he didn’t have to do what he did.”
“I’m not in the mood to argue that point, but at least we have arrived at a bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable, for we have just learned that it is mathematically impossible for any person to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the will of man is free, yet a moment ago you made the dogmatic statement that man’s will is definitely free.”
“My apology, dear Sir; what I meant to say was that it is the consensus of opinion that the will of man is free.”
“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following: If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false?”
“Yes, it is possible.”
“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”
“That, my friend, is your opinion, not mine.”
“Let me show you that it is not an opinion. If you could prove that determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the opposite of determinism, true? And didn’t we just prove that it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”
“I see what you mean, and again, I apologize for thinking this was a matter of opinion.”
“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical knowledge, and that is, although we can never prove free will true or determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving determinism true or free will false. Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing your belief in free will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge that, when released, can remove the very things you would like to rid the world of, things you preach against such as war, crime, sin, hate, discrimination, etc.—what would you say then?”
“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s ways are mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed talking with you, son, and perhaps I shall live to see the day when all evil will be driven from our lives.”
“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is not far away and that it must come about the very moment certain facts pertaining to the nature of man are brought to light, because it is God’s will.” (NOTE: ONCE AGAIN, FOR THOSE ATHEISTS WHO DON'T LIKE THE WORD GOD, HE USED THIS WORD ONLY TO MEAN THE LAWS THAT GOVERN OUR UNIVERSE.)
That IS the definition (the ability to do otherwise after a choice is made)
Nobody can do otherwise, AFTER a choice has been made! No compatiblist says that — no one in their right mind says that!
That he could not choose otherwise after a choice has been made can never be proven. If that's not what compatibilists say (since you deny this), you are using a definition of free will that is not used in this debate, and therefore it's moot. You said in so many words, "So what difference does it make if my choice is what is the most preferable?" It makes a very big difference when this knowledge is extended.
You probably mean, in this word salad, that the compatibilist argues that one could HAVE DONE OTHERWISE, after the choice has been made, had he chosen to do so. And that is absolutely correct — underscoring the fact that your ridiculous claim that choice is contingent before it is made, and necessary after it has been made, is totally false, a logical absurdity that violates the principle of the fixity of modal status.
What are you talking about? When you choose, it's based on the antecedents (i.e., the unchosen thoughts in your brain) that you are contemplating. DBT explained it this way: going back to the Big Bang, everything
was necessary leading up to this very moment to make your decision. Because of this fallacious modal logic regarding other worlds, you can't seem to get beyond the two words (contingent and necessary) that are just word play.
What they do is say that’s not fair because we can’t go back in time.
The fuck? Compatibilists say nothing of the kind — not a word about time travel! And, as a matter of fact, it can easily be demonstrated that if you could go back in time, it would be logically impossible to change ANYTHING in the past.
Again, going back in time is the only way you can prove that a person, given the exact moment when A was already chosen, could have chosen B. You can't prove this, and to bring up another time and place to prove your kind of free will true is not what is being debated. Can't you see this?
For one, they’re right, but then they screw up again by saying this isn’t what proves we have no free will because we have the free will to change our decisions at a later next time!
No, again, compatibilists do not say this — we have freedom of will in the compatibilist sense at any time.
Yes they do, Pood. Stop changing the goalposts. All Norman Swartz has done is created a premise that may sound valid, but it certainly isn't sound. Contingency does not mean that in every possible world (whatever that means) the same person could have chosen otherwise because it was contingent (different from three triangles that don't change in another world) and therefore could be otherwise. We are talking about individuals who have individual reasons for their choices [in the direction of greater satisfaction or preference]. Prove to me that you personally can move in the direction of dissatisfaction (or less satisfaction) when an option that gives you greater satisfaction is available. You cannot do it.
They actually think this follows from the premise. As I said,
it’s a bait and switch word game they’re playing just so they can support the idea of moral responsibility. You know deep down I’m right! 
All of the
bolded part is
ad hominem.
Go tattle tale to the moderators then. You are such a hypocrite. You are playing a bait and switch game whether you realize it or not. I believe compatibilists use this logic because they accept determinism as true, so they had to find a way to create a definition of free will that would keep moral responsibility intact. Every philosopher knows this.
All of your stupid word salad has now been deconstructed. You’re welcome.
Another projection!
