I understand where you’re going, but doctors, parents, firefighters are not possessing of ‘typical godlike attributes’ such as omniscience and omnipotence and a declaration of intent not to use such powers in a way that would obviate free will.
Nothing about humans saving other humans using fallible human means is remotely the same as a god changing the laws of physics to effect a miracle. And one human taking actions does not obviate the free will of another human. But when God can, through omnipotence, set up scenarios so that you have no choice at all… obviating free will… its a different class of thing all together.
So your responds reads like strawman fallacy to me.
In conclusion: I accept that my position isn’t convincing for you.
I agree with you that “you have to apply yourself to understanding their priors and to engage with those priors”. If someone’s beliefs are, for example:
God will intervene to prevent human extinction
God will not obviate free will
God cannot prevent human extinction without obviating free will
Then I agree there is an apparent contradiction, and this is a reasonable thing to ask them about. They could resolve it in three ways.
Maybe god will not intervene. (very roughly: deism)
Maybe god will intervene and obviate free will. (very roughly: conservative theism)
Maybe god will intervene and preserve free will. (very roughly: liberal theism)
However they resolve it, discussion can go from there.
I understand where you’re going, but doctors, parents, firefighters are not possessing of ‘typical godlike attributes’ such as omniscience and omnipotence and a declaration of intent not to use such powers in a way that would obviate free will.
Nothing about humans saving other humans using fallible human means is remotely the same as a god changing the laws of physics to effect a miracle. And one human taking actions does not obviate the free will of another human. But when God can, through omnipotence, set up scenarios so that you have no choice at all… obviating free will… its a different class of thing all together.
So your responds reads like strawman fallacy to me.
In conclusion: I accept that my position isn’t convincing for you.
I agree with you that “you have to apply yourself to understanding their priors and to engage with those priors”. If someone’s beliefs are, for example:
God will intervene to prevent human extinction
God will not obviate free will
God cannot prevent human extinction without obviating free will
Then I agree there is an apparent contradiction, and this is a reasonable thing to ask them about. They could resolve it in three ways.
Maybe god will not intervene. (very roughly: deism)
Maybe god will intervene and obviate free will. (very roughly: conservative theism)
Maybe god will intervene and preserve free will. (very roughly: liberal theism)
However they resolve it, discussion can go from there.