tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post6973153774358897268..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: A Quick Response to GodismyjudgeTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-6122813267947553192007-12-08T15:04:00.000+00:002007-12-08T15:04:00.000+00:00Dear Dan,You wrote: "I honestly thought you were a...Dear Dan,<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "I honestly thought you were agreeing with me above."<BR/>I answer: In case it was unclear, I do not question your honesty or integrity. I assume there was some sort of miscommunication between us.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "I think I could demonstrate that what I mean by a divided is self canceling when stated overtly within the context of what is divided out." <BR/>I Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-23181598113485442312007-12-08T13:15:00.000+00:002007-12-08T13:15:00.000+00:00Dear Turretinfan,Me: "I wonder if the average comp...Dear Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/><I>Me: "I wonder if the average compatiblist is aware he’s speaking in a divided sense and providing a self canceling assertion?"<BR/>Thee: I'm not sure why continue to imagine that the assertion is self-cancelling. Where was I unclear (or wrong) above?</I><BR/><BR/>I honestly thought you were agreeing with me above. I think I could demonstrate that what I mean by a Godismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-156079040482984402007-12-07T20:02:00.000+00:002007-12-07T20:02:00.000+00:00Dan,You wrote: "The problem is that not everyone w...Dan,<BR/>You wrote: "The problem is that not everyone will agree with you that the ability to choose freely is normally in a divided sense." <BR/>I answer: That's not a problem. It would be a problem if they had a reason for their disagreement. So far, though, I haven't seen a reason expressed.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, as established above, "ability" is normally spoken of in a divided sense.<BR/><Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-22114266884318062562007-12-07T01:31:00.000+00:002007-12-07T01:31:00.000+00:00Dear Turretinfan,Your analogy is not analogous, be...Dear Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/><I>Your analogy is not analogous, because the divided sense of "except on Fridays" is not normally implied in a statement like "Pizza is half price."<BR/><BR/>In contrast, statements regarding ability are generally statements in a divided sense, and consequently a divided sense IS implied in a statement that someone has an ability (Whether that be to lift 10 lbs. run 10Godismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-60026812750154115132007-12-06T15:05:00.000+00:002007-12-06T15:05:00.000+00:00Your analogy is not analogous, because the divided...Your analogy is not analogous, because the divided sense of "except on Fridays" is not normally implied in a statement like "Pizza is half price."<BR/><BR/>In contrast, statements regarding ability are generally statements in a divided sense, and consequently a divided sense IS implied in a statement that someone has an ability (Whether that be to lift 10 lbs. run 10 ft. or select A or B).<BR/><Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-71723844926047882312007-12-06T04:09:00.000+00:002007-12-06T04:09:00.000+00:00Dear Turretin,Let's say we both had Pizza shops ac...Dear Turretin,<BR/><BR/>Let's say we both had Pizza shops across the street from each other. You had a sign up that said:<BR/><BR/>Pizza is half price except on Fridays and today is Friday.<BR/><BR/>I had one that said:<BR/><BR/>Pizza is half price and today is Friday.<BR/><BR/>Let's say the customers start heading my way, but when I ring them up I start charging them full price. If they Godismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-13737275520804519442007-12-05T21:20:00.000+00:002007-12-05T21:20:00.000+00:00Dan,You wrote: "One can’t imply a divided sense wi...Dan,<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "One can’t imply a divided sense within the context of what has been divided out."<BR/>I answer: I'm sure you mean something by that, but I cannot guess what.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "Full disclosure would be in order to do so." <BR/>I answer: Same comment as above.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "W/o full disclosure its not just confusing, a different (although perhaps unintended) Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-24096523886228802982007-12-05T01:20:00.000+00:002007-12-05T01:20:00.000+00:00Dear TF,You wrote: The problem is with P1. The sta...Dear TF,<BR/><BR/>You wrote: <I>The problem is with P1. The statement that two concepts are logically compatible does not entail what you assert.<BR/><BR/>Let me provide an example:<BR/><BR/>1) Pizza is half price (except on Fridays), and<BR/>2) Today is Friday.<BR/><BR/>Those are logically consistent, and yet we can properly make both statements, even though considering that today is Friday Godismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-44602192821404126922007-12-03T20:21:00.000+00:002007-12-03T20:21:00.000+00:00You wrote:1: When one posits that idea A is logica...You wrote:<BR/><I>1: When one posits that idea A is logically compatible with idea B, he is speaking of idea A in a compound sense, including idea B<BR/>P2: compatiblism posits that the idea of being able to freely choose between 1 & 2 and the idea of being determined to 1 are logically consistent<BR/>C1: Therefore, the compatiblist is speaking of being able to freely choose between 1 & 2 in a Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-23234467502269602512007-12-03T20:04:00.000+00:002007-12-03T20:04:00.000+00:00Dan,You wrote: "Thank you for defining choice. Whi...Dan,<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "Thank you for defining choice. While it’s not how I would define choice, it’s useful in letting the discussion progress."<BR/>I answer: ok<BR/><BR/>You wrote: Hum… this example is different than the one above. Here what’s being divided out is not preference but rather the relative merits of cases. <BR/>I answer: The analogy is:<BR/>strength of preference = merit of case<Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-19773502395535777452007-12-03T19:12:00.000+00:002007-12-03T19:12:00.000+00:00Dan,You wrote: "No, because I can’t leave preferen...Dan,<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "No, because I can’t leave preference aside."<BR/>I answer: Then it will be hard for you to follow along. I'm asking you to set it aside for the sake of the argument, not forever.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "I think [preference is] an essential aspect of choice."<BR/>I answer: It would seem to be impossible to provide any transitive justification for that classification. Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-76588069486405286092007-12-02T20:26:00.000+00:002007-12-02T20:26:00.000+00:00Dear TF,TF: I say that I am "able to choose betwee...Dear TF,<BR/><BR/>TF: <I>I say that I am "able to choose between right and wrong" (or if that is to controversial, between "apples and bananas for breakfeast cereal topping") in a divided sense, not considering the strengths of my preferences.<BR/><BR/>I will choose (let's say) bananas, but I could choose apples, if my preference for apples were stronger than my preference for bananas.<BR/><BR/>Godismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-76567295585041214142007-12-01T19:16:00.000+00:002007-12-01T19:16:00.000+00:00Dan wrote: I wonder if “ability to choose freely” ...Dan wrote: I wonder if “ability to choose freely” could have a divided sense, but maybe it can.<BR/>I answer: Let me reduce the general argument this way:<BR/><BR/>1. When we say "I am able to do X," we normally mean that at in a divided sense.<BR/><BR/>2. The same is true, even when we are speaking about mental activities, such as memory, problem solving, or the like.<BR/><BR/>3. Therefore, Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-72161425921770002262007-12-01T18:46:00.000+00:002007-12-01T18:46:00.000+00:00Dear TF,I am glad we can agree that divided senses...Dear TF,<BR/><BR/>I am glad we can agree that divided senses shift as the topic shifts. I wonder if “ability to choose freely” could have a divided sense, but maybe it can. My concern is if it could have one, would that divided sense be of any use to you? One of the reasons I wonder this is because compatiblism and division seem at odds. That’s why I have been asking you (and Gene and Sinner Godismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-38930029626099116562007-12-01T16:09:00.000+00:002007-12-01T16:09:00.000+00:00Dan has responded: (link)Dan: “A divided sense is ...Dan has responded: (<A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/libertarian-free-will-and-total.html#c2034134137314202218" REL="nofollow">link</A>)<BR/><BR/>Dan: “A divided sense is a way of speaking about one or more variables, within a combination of variables. It includes one or more variables and excludes one or more variables.” <BR/>I answer: As long as “variables” just means “things” – Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-48675095767591835562007-11-29T00:54:00.000+00:002007-11-29T00:54:00.000+00:00In response to GIMJ's response:- I assume that the...In response to GIMJ's response:<BR/>- I assume that the comment regarding the change from 10 to 150 is just a joke.<BR/><BR/>- I also assume that the "quick remarks" including the "corner the market" comment is also a joke.<BR/><BR/>G: "I hope you can see that choosing and lifting are different."<BR/>I answer: Of course. Yet in the form of "able to do A" they are not different, they are just Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-24055633397562365302007-11-29T00:07:00.000+00:002007-11-29T00:07:00.000+00:00Here's a more direct link to GIMJ's reponse:(Link)...Here's a more direct link to GIMJ's reponse:<BR/><BR/>(<A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/libertarian-free-will-and-total.html#2509843461762381885" REL="nofollow">Link</A>)<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-20704535033915997692007-11-29T00:01:00.000+00:002007-11-29T00:01:00.000+00:00I responded back on triablogue. My response God b...I responded back on triablogue. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/libertarian-free-will-and-total.html" REL="nofollow">My response</A> <BR/><BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/>DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-45195215901693269032007-11-28T23:47:00.000+00:002007-11-28T23:47:00.000+00:00Wow,1. If that's true, then if I say that the Supr...Wow,<BR/><BR/>1. If that's true, then if I say that the Supralapsarian order of decrees or unconditional election or non-libertarian free will is "axiomatic" then, according to EM, I don't have to prove it. That's a real timesaver. I'll have to remember that.<BR/><BR/>2. Of course "axiom" and "given" are not convertible principles. I realize that EM isn't big on higher education, given his GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-48401062140349455882007-11-28T19:20:00.000+00:002007-11-28T19:20:00.000+00:00EM:In a debate, you do have to prove axioms that a...EM:<BR/>In a debate, you <B>do</B> have to prove axioms that are disputed.<BR/><BR/>Calling something an axiom (and treating as axiomatic) does not remove the burden of proof.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise any debate would reduce to the affirmative speaker claiming that the resolution was an axiom.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-19168752602693493552007-11-28T19:15:00.000+00:002007-11-28T19:15:00.000+00:00As I've also said over there, we Calvinists have n...<I>As I've also said over there, we Calvinists have no burden of proof to prove "compatibilism," but the Libertarians MUST prove libertarianism since they're positing it as axiomatic.</I><BR/><BR/>You don't have to prove axioms. That's why they're axioms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-23696773986000972742007-11-28T01:09:00.000+00:002007-11-28T01:09:00.000+00:001. I'd point out that there are many kinds of comp...1. I'd point out that there are many kinds of compatibilism, but...<BR/><BR/>2. As I've also said over there, we Calvinists have no burden of proof to prove "compatibilism," but the Libertarians MUST prove libertarianism since they're positing it as axiomatic. We Calvinists have only to show that our choices have antecedent causes, particularly that our desires are viewed in the Bible as GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com