Replies

There are no holes in Quinns argument. Absent free will, morality can not exist and Dawkins thesis that religion is evil becomes a joke.

Let's say that Dawkins' view makes everything deterministic ( after all, we area all ultimately a product of a collission of atoms. A group of atoms called Nazis just "happened" to attack a group of atoms called Jews ).

But, does the absurdity of the atheistic worldview mean that the Theistic worldview has no philosophical problems ?

Let me play a little devil's advocacy here ...

Doesn't belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent God, make this same God the source of evil, and hence, deny the existence of free will ?

Consider :

1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (Assumption: Omnitemporality of Truth)

2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth. (Assumption: Infallible Foreknowledge)

3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow. (From 1 and 2)

4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone’s power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing. (Assumption: Fixed Past)

5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow. (From 3 and 4)

6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow. (Necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness)

7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow. (From 5 and 6)

8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning. (Assumption of Libertarian Free Will)

9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow.

I'd really like to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

This is very similar to the classic Armenian vs Calvinist debate which is still going on even as we speak.