Free will and determinism

[Jo555]

I got that Bradskii, after 155 pages. I'm not that dumb, although some may disagree. No problema here ... Self-deprecating sense of humor.

I thought i established that i agreed on the freewill thing, even prior to joining this invigorating topic.

I'm just saying that choice still exists, even if we choose under the influence.

I thought you, of all people, would appreciate that i would try and equip my people with an alternative term, rather than freewill.

Capiche?

Did i misjudge you?

I read my reply again and that "capiche" sounds a little snooty to me.
Apologies. I was just trying to show off my Italian-ish.

Me thinks, Bradskii, that you are closer to the truth than many Christians, at least in this aspect. Although you may not realize that the truth is not disproving our gospel, but strengthening it.

I will say though, that i do believe no matter how ignorant we may be, if we have the main component right regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ, that we are way ahead of the game.

Me speaking as a Christian to my people so they don't feel bad about their ignorance, and we all are to some degree.

And that is not of ourselves so we need to show the same amount of patience that God shows to unbelievers, and love.

I love you man, in God's love of course.

Ok, now you can pull me over and throw me in prison, but please, don't leave me there. I don't like the food.

You are alright Bradskii.

You ready to switch teams now?

Just kidding. Not here to convert anyone. Seriously.

Yes, i can do serious.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Google: Here is the definition of choice. An act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

The fact that Google or whoever Google is quoting failed to inject skepticism into the term, "possibiliies", doesn't mean all options are therefore possible. It only means, (at most), that people think they are possible when they choose.

 

[Jo555]

The fact that Google or whoever Google is quoting failed to inject skepticism into the term, "possibiliies", doesn't mean all options are therefore possible. It only means, (at most), that people think they are possible when they choose.

What?

You had me at Google, but then i spaced out again.

I'll answer the first portion, that i think i understand.

Google is the smartest person i know, after God. I know, i know, God is not a person, but you get the picture.

WELCOME TO MY WORLD.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The argument hinges on self-referencing logic because something Joe will do in the future affects him, the person about whom the prediction is made. I have a somewhat altered form of it here.

The link takes me to an article on "The Philosophy Page", which states, right off the bat, "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle reveals a basic physical limitation on the determinacy of the physical world..." Now, unless the author means, "physical" and "determinacy" something only physical in the mind's concept of the thing, or is referring to determinacy as a question of whether an observer (or participant or other intelligent being) is doing the determining of the validity of a concept or theory, he is wrong --at least according to wiki.

"Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known." This demonstrates nothing physical, but only what can be KNOWN. It is talking about what people can know --not about what the truth actually IS.

 

[Chesterton]

By the meaning common in this thread for "free will" --that is, 'uncaused will', or 'uncaused choice'-- the notion that God could cause something uncaused is a bit ridiculous, isn't it?

And no, both the child and the cause of the child's existence are caused. Husbands and wives are not uncaused causers. Not creators. Not God.

I don't subscribe to the definition that says "free" is "uncaused". If I make a choice, I am the cause.

 

[Jo555]

I don't see how creating free will beings involves any contradiction. It's what husbands and wives do whenever they produce a child.

No.

Chesterson, let me save you from falling down the same endless rabbit hole that I did.

Freewill is defined as the ability to choose without anything influencing you.

I will be corrected, quite cordially, if i got it wrong.

Love these guys though. Not their fault that I don't know the lingo, but I'm learning.

I do believe there are some really good things being shared here, but I can't say how much i agree or disagree due to language barrier.

 

[Jo555]

I don't see how creating free will beings involves any contradiction. It's what husbands and wives do whenever they produce a child.

No.

Chesterson, let me save you from falling down the same endless rabbit hole that I did.

Freewill is defined as the ability to choose without anything influencing you.

I will be corrected, quite cordially, if i got it wrong.

Love these guys though. Not their fault that I don't know the lingo, but I'm learning.

I do believe there are some really good things being shared here, but I can't say how much i agree or disagree due to language barrier.

I don't subscribe to the definition that says "free" is "uncaused". If I make a choice, I am the cause.

Hmmm. Appears you are picking up the lingo faster than i did.

Just when i thought i was helping.

Good night all. And thanks for putting up with me, although i understand if you don't.

Is there a defense attorney here? I think I am going to jail soon. I'm thinking of pleading insanity.

 

[Jo555]

What?

You had me at Google, but then i spaced out again.

I'll answer the first portion, that i think i understand.

Google is the smartest person i know, after God. I know, i know, God is not a person, but you get the picture.

WELCOME TO MY WORLD.

Oh sorry Mark. Thought you were wondering who google is. From what i read of your posts, i think i agree on some important areas with you. Just can't say for sure ... Where is that room for dummies?

 

[Jo555]

Ok. Guess I'm finally out because it should be illegal to have this much fun.

To our astute host, Bradskii, merci beaucoup, gracias, grazie, for putting up with me. Me thinks you are pretty cool. Do they still say cool?

To Corey, Godspeed. May His force be with you.

To Mark, I'm impressed, what i could understand, for whatever that is worth to you.

To Chesterson, sense of humor (bro?). You are going to need it. Peace, love, and understanding. Real groovy. I'm digging it.

And to everyone else that i may have missed, thanks for expanding my vocabulary, and the food for thought. Much to chew on. And thanks for not insulting my food. I'm a cook in progress.

Going to miss everyone. I feel confident we shall meet again.

 

[Bradskii]

And this is the starting point for my argument.

It starts with this:

'As usually presented, the argument makes a minimal assumption about the relationship between brain (or cognitive mechanism) and mind: brain and mental activities are correlates. Physical activity in the brain is related (somehow) to conscious events.'

Well, yeah. I'll go with that. But...

'He avoids assignment of causality; all that is necessary is a correspondence. From this single physical assumption, the rest of his argument is purely logical.'

So there's a 'correlation' between our brain and our conscious self, therefore there is no causality? Is he talking about causality between the brain and the mind? The physical make-up of the brain changes as it takes in information. Both externally - you hear a gunshot, you see it's raining, and internally - you're hungry, you're angry and that causes the mind to decide what happens next. So I don't see how we can move on to 'the rest of his argument' when the initial premise makes no sense,

 

[Bradskii]

I don't subscribe to the definition that says "free" is "uncaused". If I make a choice, I am the cause.

No, you are the process. It's you making the decision. And you make it because...? Fill in the elipses yourself and you'll then know what determined it.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes. Why on earth do you think that's a problem? The claim is based based on inductive reasoning - that determinism is true. Which, by definition, you can't prove. But which you can disprove. All you need is one example.

So you want me to disprove something that is not proven?
Why would I need to do something like that?
Is that not like someone saying multiverses exist, and you need to disprove it, because it cannot be proved.

Whenever you are ready to supply one...

Give me an example that you are thinking rationally, and I will give you another example that decisions are made with no antecedent causes.

Have you thought this through?

 

[CoreyD]

Corey. Having problems with this quoting thing so just going to address your points where you quoted galatians here.

At the bottom of the post you want to respond to, click or tap on Reply (not Quote).
When the page comes up, and you want to respond to portions of the user's post, place your cursor, at the end of the sentence you want to respond to, and hit enter (not sure how that works on a phone or tablet, but it would be the equivalent for ENTER on a keyboard).
Type your comment in the space that appears.
Do this for every place in the post, you want to comment.

I care for mom and she is my priority, but she fell asleep so diving in again for now.

First, I need to be cautious of what i say because i firmly believe in not hurting a weak conscience, as the apostle Paul speaks of and this is a public forum.

But let us go to the cigarette example.

One more "but" ... But before that every believer should realize what Jesus said, if thou lust, that's adultery. If thou hate, murdered.

Think about it for a moment as life speaks of God's truth. God sees the heart and just because we don't physically murder our neighbor doesn't mean we haven't murdered them at heart.

You don't have to believe in God to see that. Some people even say of someone they may hate, "They are dead to me." At heart they cease to exist for us. As the song goes. "You 've lost that loving feeling."

And let us not get so specific as to describing if love is more than a feeling and such because i am trying to speak as to Christians and atheist alike so my choice of words may not fit to a tee, depending on what side of the fence you are on.

So let us say that smoking is a sin. I personally don't feel bad about smoking. Probate mind some may accuse me of, maybe, maybe not. I prefer to see it as fully secure in my Heavenly Father's love while i am being perfected in love. But as i said, I don't like to speak of these things on public forums due to sensitive conscience.

If a person does not feel bad about sin, they are unrepentant sinners, and what is the reward of an unrepentant sinner? Eternal death. Luke 3:7-9; Luke 13:2-5; John 3:36; Acts 3:19; Acts 8:21-23; Acts 17:30, 31; 2 Corinthians 7:9, 10

In order for a person to be truthful about love for God, they must also hate sin - Psalm 97:10
Of course, if they are working at this, God will help them, as he understands that habits are herd to break, and humans are weak.

However, if we do not feel bad about something we know is wrong, we are deliberately sinning. This is not something we to be taken lightly. 2 Corinthians 12:21

I will say that i do believe smoking is a sin against my own body, and in that sense may be a sin also against God, but i believe Christ has me covered while I grow in his love. If i died with a cigarette in my mouth while i am a believer growing in love, i believe i will be with Jesus when i am absent from the body.

So this is where i see Bradskii's point of view, which I don't see it as necessarily disagreeing with scripture.

If history were to repeat itself and i am in the same place that i was when i chose to have that cigarette, not more mature in love for God and myself, then my decision would probably be the same.

Christ sacrifice on the cross has us covered while we come into his full stature, which we are told won't be fully realized of ourselves, but as we come together in Him.

I understand that you are saying there are certain factors that play a role in your decision making.
However, to believe that we would make the choice we made, based on those factors - in other words, the choice we made was determined by those factors, contradicts God, and his word the Bible.

In fact, there are many examples in the Bible, that helps us to see why this philosophical view of determinism is flawed to its very core. I'll use one, though I can think of plenty.
Why did Cain choose to kill Abel?
Both brothers were born into the same household, and had the same parents.
Cain was warned - even encouraged to take a different course. His decision was not determined by causal factors he could not overcome, or go contrary to.

Let's run this one by @Mark Quayle, and yourself. If causal factors determined Cain's decision, why did God's influence fail.... and @Bradskii, why did other causal factors not determine Cain's decision?
In other words, there were "causal factors" that were opposing each other. How could one be the determiner, over the other?

She's awake again and i still have to do more things for her today, but will revisit as time allows.

I hope your mom recovers well.
How old is she, if I may ask?

 

[CoreyD]

No, you are the process. It's you making the decision. And you make it because...? Fill in the elipses yourself and you'll then know what determined it.

I chose to go law school because I want to be a lawyer.
I chose this because I want to secure my future with a good financial income.
Where are the antecedent causes?
Why can't free will exist along with purpose, and reason?
Please answer the questions in conjunction with your argument.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't subscribe to the definition that says "free" is "uncaused". If I make a choice, I am the cause.

How does you being the cause mean that there are no other causes?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I chose to go law school because I want to be a lawyer.
I chose this because I want to secure my future with a good financial income.
Where are the antecedent causes?
Why can't free will exist along with purpose, and reason?
Please answer the questions in conjunction with your argument.

Why do you want to be a lawyer?
Why do you want to secure your future with a good income?
Are there not cause(s) for both of those?
Choice CAN exist along with purpose and reason. But uncaused choice cannot.

 

[CoreyD]

Only first cause is a functioning cause without antecedent cause.

Is that to say free will exists?

"A will generated from a functioning cause" is in full agreement with a the ability to decide "- a choice made, not because it was determined by an antecedent cause". It is not one or the other. It is both. If I didn't know any better, I would have concluded you were in full agreement with the OP and were posting rhetorical questions.

The OP denies free wiil, so I am not getting how you think that I could be in full agreement with the OP.
Please explain.

That is correct. Thus, there is no such thing, unless it is first cause. And I think you would agree, there can be only one First Cause.

I do not agree.
Perhaps you do not understand how a funtioning cause exists in persons, and not only a first cause.
I saw that this was being explained to you before.
So, what did you not understand about making a choice of one's own free will?

 

[CoreyD]

You make choices whether free will exists or not. The deciding factor is whether the choice was determined by antecedent conditions or not .

Please prove this assertion.
We can't just throw false statement around as if they are facts, and expect people to just accept them.
A programmed robot doesn't make a choice because it is not free to determine between different options, but rather is programmed to do only what it is programmed to.
People are not robots.

I'd be happy if @Mark Quayle can join you in providing proof of your claim, since he wholeheartedly agrees.

 

[CoreyD]

I'm guessing you commented on that before continuing further. I used the will of the dog to compare to the will of human, so that one might see that the differences --degree of intelligence, sentience, abstract thought, suppression of instinct, and other things-- are all still causal, no matter the degree of willingness, cheerfulness, obligation, compulsion and the other things you seem to think defeat the principle of causation concerning the will and choices.

Mark Quayle said:
The question here isn't what option each one does, nor what he should do, even whether what he does is under obligation or compulsion, but WHY they choose whatever they finally choose. What the OP suggests fits Scripture perfectly (other than failing to give credit to God as the first cause of all long (or short) chains of causation).

How in the world do you come up with that from what I said? --and, WHY? Are you mocking a larger point, in a diversion from directly answering my comments?

This was from my earlier post to you, which you did not respond to.
It's a response to you. When you answer that question, it determines the position of your argument here.

Mark Quayle said:
It is said that only philosophers and theologians have a problem defining free will. There is a truth to that, but it doesn't mean that anyone else's definition is valid. It only means they don't really try for accuracy, but instead assume that their point-of-view is valid, because it is how things seem to them.

I assume you are referring to the above quote. No, It doesn't mean that I agree that free will exists. Particularly if that free will is what the posts in this thread usually mean by it. It is only a humorous note on the fact that a common agreement should be reached before the arguing makes any sense. Here we are, more than 3,000 posts, and you're still conflating the one with the other.

What does the posts in this thread mean by free will, and what am I conflating?

I don't think I mentioned that you should agree with the OP, but, oh well. If free will only means that there are "reasons involved in decision making", then I'm thinking the OP could agree with that, since he's been claiming there are reasons involved in decision making for many posts, now. (In fact, in a way, that is the very thesis of the OP.) You, rather obviously, though, think that terminology implies things he does not.

Is that the thesis.
The claim is that free will does not exist because there are an effectively infinite chain of events that determine one's choice.
Are you changing that to, reasons period? A reason does not have to be an antecedent cause.
Am I missing something?

Besides that, even if I did agree that reason and free choice go hand in hand, which I more than once directly said, it still does not agree with the OP which dismisses free will, because it involves reason.

Hardly. I am asking that you accept the simple logic that all things are caused, except first cause, and thus that the will and choices of creatures are caused.

Why would I accept something that is not true?
A reason, is not always a preceding cause. A reason can be a goal that one's choice affects.

For example, I went to the gathering because I wanted a chance to talk to Susan.
Now you will ask a series of questions to try to find some prior reason, in order to claim that some prior cause led up to this, when in fact it was all prior choices that affected my decisions to tis point.
One reason is, I made a choice to serve God, and be molded by him, rather than the world, and so I chose to marry only someone who serves God... but you want to tell us, that we do not make free willed choices to serve God.

Someone was trying to explain this to you earlier, but the philosophical world view has some tied, and perhaps indeed there is an antecedent cause involved in that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let's run this one by @Mark Quayle, and yourself. If causal factors determined Cain's decision, why did God's influence fail.... and @Bradskii, why did other causal factors not determine Cain's decision?
In other words, there were "causal factors" that were opposing each other. How could one be the determiner, over the other?

Why do you think God's influence failed? I don't remember if it was you who considered the Reformed/Calvinistic notion of 'two wills of God' to be bogus, but they do present a way of understanding what is presented in Scripture, as, 1) what God ordained from the beginning that would happen, (if no other way but by everything subsequent to his creating being an effect), being the one Will of God, and the other being 2) what he commands to his willed human creatures.

That God gives Cain advice, cajoling, even if it is pleading, or commanding does not even imply that Cain possessed the ability to obey, nor does it indicate what God expected to happen, nor does it at all supersede or control what God, from the very beginning, intended to happen.

So what do you even think God's influence was? There were, even back in simpler times, multitudes of determining factors, the whole of which resulted in precisely what God intended to happen -- redemption and salvation, and "God with us." There is no "one be the determiner", but many.


Again, take a look at simple logic: If God is first cause, then everything else, (regardless of how anyone may wish to describe it), is effect of that cause (whether directly or indirectly), and all effects are caused ("law of causation").


For those bringing up the notion after what has been said here, that God by commanding what he did not ordain, is working against himself, consider:
1) Again, what were his INTENTIONS (plans, reasons) by creating?
2) His commands are given for at least 3 reasons --like his word always accomplishes what he sent it out to do-- a. To effect certain results that are always in keeping with what he ordained to happen; b. To drive some away from him while to attract others toward him; c. To demonstrate to all of us our INABILITY to do anything worthy apart from him.
3) Consider the implications of the Christian 'Attributes of God' of the Simplicity of God and the Transcendence of God. God's purposes are beyond our understanding, yet as simple as speaking all fact into existence. This is what is commonly referred to as his "decree". That it takes all time for it to be completed, time is only a temporal consideration. When we see him as he is, I rather imagine we will not see time at all how we do now. The Bible makes it plain that God certainly does not see it the way we do.