Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They don't have to be. An atheist might believe in a soul. Though in my opinion free will is still impossible with a soul.
Not being able to predict complex things isn't a good reason to believe in free will.
An atheist can believe in souls or lots of other things; just not free will.
If you could predict such a complex thing as your opponent's rock-paper-scissors choice, what could possibly prevent your opponent from defying the prediction if you told him beforehand? There are no physics which could prevent him.
We're talking about functioning human beings. Of course I can outrun a motor vehicle if I disable it first, say by removing the motor.
An atheist can believe in souls or lots of other things; just not free will.
If you could predict such a complex thing as your opponent's rock-paper-scissors choice, what could possibly prevent your opponent from defying the prediction if you told him beforehand? There are no physics which could prevent him.
An atheist can believe in souls or lots of other things; just not free will.
Considering the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, and considering naturalism doesn't leave much room for free will if people are just molecules reacting on a larger scale, (although you could play the quantum physics game, which still cant create a truly free agent) are the atheists on this board determinists?
This entire thread is moot... quantum physics proves free will
Eudaimonist said:No, unfortunately, that doesn't prove anything. At best, it shows that we aren't stuck in a Newtonian mechanistic universe, and so predictive determinism based on Newtonian principles is wrong.
I would love it if QM proves free will, but the case can't be made on that alone.
I and Dr. Kaku disagree. QM proves a world based on percentages.
This entire thread is moot... quantum physics proves free will:
Sure, but we're just giving free play to our imaginations here. How about this? If you could detect in advance the motor neuron circuitry resulting in the rock/paper/scissors hand shapes, and had time to act accordingly, you could always win. I'm not talking about discerning the player's decision to make a particular hand shape. But the final motor pathways which cause the fist to clench or the fingers to extend. That neural activity will be much the same, no matter what is motivating those actions.
Why do you think a theist can, and an atheist can't?
If you told them, they might change their mind. Like if you type 'Y' into a computer, it could be programmed to display 'X'. Ie: a determined machine could be in such a state that it will always 'choose' a different letter than the one you tell it.
Ridiculous, why on earth would atheists be limited in that way when the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities?
Because free will requires supernatural agency to impart it to humans. You can get only determinism from physical nature.
You're right. They might change their mind. Not you, but they.
Because free will requires supernatural agency to impart it to humans. You can get only determinism from physical nature.
You're right. They might change their mind. Not you, but they.
I and Dr. Kaku disagree. QM proves a world based on percentages.
But imagine additionally that you also had time to tell the opponent what he was going to do. You've then thrown a monkey wrench into the proceedings, that is free will. The opponent may do what his circuitry indicated (maybe he wants to lose intentionally), or he may choose to do otherwise.
Consider this:
You have three boxes, in each is a tiny man, they write numbers on paper and pass said paper through a slit in the top of the box.
One is copying numbers out of a book .
The other is writing totally random numbers.
The other is choosing numbers using their own Freewill.
Now, here's the thing, not only is there absolutely no way of telling which man is inside which box by looking at the numbers they write - perhaps leading one to believe that all three things are fundamental the same, or at-least there is no meaningful difference -, there are a few interesting ideas:
-Where did the information in the book come from? Was it ultimately a product of free will or randomness? It seems logical that predetermination must be a result of one of those two.
-If the numbers writing by the man choosing them himself are of Free Will, then why is he writing them? Is that not just the predetermined product of his thought pattern, or is that not just randomness?
-What's the difference between the man writing them down randomly and the man using Free Will?
The terms 'Random' and 'Freewill' are some of the few terms that are not strictly defined. We have no idea what either of them really means.
What we can say is this: Weather Free Will does or does not exist, nothing changes.
Consider this also: I prefer tea over beer. (A lot.) So, If I am put in a room with a cup of each and told to drink one, I drink the tea, obviously.
Then do the same experiment, under the same conditions. I have no idea it has happened before, everything is EXACTLY the same. I will choose tea again.
I will never not choose tea. Is that not predetermination? I can choose which one to drink, but that's based on what I want, and I CANNOT choose what I want.
Furthermore, if Free Will is neither predetermined or random, what IS it? what causes it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?