Does Free Will Exist?

[Exiledoomsayer]

Well, that is just another's stimuli'ed brain trying to stimulate you with apparent "logic." Now you probably can tell that I'm a Christian, and therefore hold none of what i have said in truth. I was coming from a naturalistic worldview. If you want my opinion, I would say there is free will, because i believe in the supernatural which would allow something above this physical world, which would allow free will, as shown by my previous arguments against free will.

Perhaps you could start offering some arguements for the existance of freewill then?

Just being a christian does not do it, I just had a lengthy conversation with a fine christian that did in fact not belief god bestowed freewill upon his creation.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Perhaps you could start offering some arguements for the existance of freewill then?

Just being a christian does not do it, I just had a lengthy conversation with a fine christian that did in fact not belief god bestowed freewill upon his creation.

Hmmm... odd that a Christian would do that. Well here we go. Using curiosity as my basis.

Note: Some may call me out on making a straw man. If anyone has a different view than what I am attacking, than kudos to you. I am attacking one view right now.

Curiosity is the killer to any no-free-will argument. Curiosity is what drives a person to think outside the box. If thought and action derive from simple stimuli, then where does curiosity come from? A stimuli? All of the stimuli? Well, you can come up with an almost infinite amount(and actually you can come up with an infinite amount) for a few things. But stimuli isn't infinite as it is part of the physical world, and therefore you can't have a finite amount of stimuli to make an infinite amount of possibilities. What goes in must come out in equal proportions. Like a math formula.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Hmmm... odd that a Christian would do that. Well here we go. Using curiosity as my basis.

Well you could take it up with grayangel. I just know its his position.

Note: Some may call me out on making a straw man. If anyone has a different view than what I am attacking, than kudos to you. I am attacking one view right now.

Curiosity is the killer to any no-free-will argument. Curiosity is what drives a person to think outside the box. If thought and action derive from simple stimuli, then where does curiosity come from? A stimuli? All of the stimuli? Well, you can come up with an almost infinite amount(and actually you can come up with an infinite amount) for a few things. But stimuli isn't infinite as it is part of the physical world, and therefore you can't have a finite amount of stimuli to make an infinite amount of possibilities. What goes in must come out in equal proportions. Like a math formula.

So.. If I provide a natural reason for curiousity. Will I have killed your arguement for freewill? I just wanna make sure I understand this correctly.

 

[bricklayer]

Do you think free will exists?
Yes. A free-will is a will free to act according to its nature.
If yes, how does it exist if cause and effect determines everything?
Of all of the possible combinations of all of the choices by all of the people of all the generations, God first chose to create exactly this creation.
A human-free-will is a will free to act according to its nature, it is not a will free from being known.
If you do not think cause and effect determines everything, then give an example.

Human-free-will does not trump God's first choice.

 

[jonmichael818]

Human-free-will does not trump God's first choice.

I am trying to figure out what it is you are saying here?
Are you saying that: gods first choice was to create "exactly this creation," and that part of that choice was that he gave humans free will?
Also, that god knows what we will do with this free will?
If so, is it true that you think god is omniscient?

 

[jonmichael818]

Hmmm... odd that a Christian would do that. Well here we go. Using curiosity as my basis.

Note: Some may call me out on making a straw man. If anyone has a different view than what I am attacking, than kudos to you. I am attacking one view right now.

Curiosity is the killer to any no-free-will argument. Curiosity is what drives a person to think outside the box. If thought and action derive from simple stimuli, then where does curiosity come from? A stimuli? All of the stimuli? Well, you can come up with an almost infinite amount(and actually you can come up with an infinite amount) for a few things. But stimuli isn't infinite as it is part of the physical world, and therefore you can't have a finite amount of stimuli to make an infinite amount of possibilities. What goes in must come out in equal proportions. Like a math formula.

I am wondering if you could just tell me why you believe free will exists, instead of creating arguments that may or may not be held by people in this thread.

 

[Gracchus]

I was coming from a naturalistic worldview.

No. You weren't. You were perhaps, making an attempt, but you don't understand a naturalistic world-view, and so you only succeeded in demonstrating that.
What you describe as a naturalistic world-view is not held by anyone I know about. It is a strawman, a simplified and indefensible concept, that no one can take seriously, and so no one can take your demolition of it seriously.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I never said it was opposed to logic. They go hand-in-hand a lot of the time. When you take your hand off of a hot knob, that is stimuli telling you to take it off. Past stimuli tells you how to and why. And that is why free will doesn't exist. Because it is a series of stimuli affecting other stimuli.

Free will has to be able to go against logic, against all stimuli. The choice to keep your hand on the hot knob. And here is the confusing part. The idea of keeping your hand on the knob could be said to be pure stimulus from past experience. But the idea of curiosity destroys my entire idea that there is no free will.

The point is that you're assuming all basal behaviour is instinct, and anything contrary to basal, animalisitic behaviour must result in free will - after all, only a human could consciously choose to leave its hand on a heated hob, right?

Right? Wrong. Basal instincts can be routinely overridden by non-human animals - just look at the training we can give to dogs and horses. We can even make pigeons superstitious!

No, either all animals have some degree of free will (which undermines your entire argument for human free will), or all animals have no free will (again, undermining your argument for human free will).

In other words, I see no reason to conclude that humans have free will; your arguments seem to be based on little more than unsubstantiated premise.

 

[variant]

Free will exists because abstraction is possible. B stands in for A but is not A, when something is capable of abstraction it creates it's own boundaries and starts to become the cause of it's own actions rather than the boundaries being placed upon it by an external source.

Also a human brain is one of the most complex structures in the universe and much more complex than almost anything around it. Most of the causes in the system are caused within that brain so it is impossible to say it's actions are mainly caused by something external to it.

 

[dawiyd]

I am trying to figure out what it is you are saying here?
Are you saying that: gods first choice was to create "exactly this creation," and that part of that choice was that he gave humans free will?
Also, that god knows what we will do with this free will?
If so, is it true that you think god is omniscient?

I think I know where you are going to go with this...

 

[bricklayer]

I am trying to figure out what it is you are saying here?
Are you saying that: gods first choice was to create "exactly this creation," and that part of that choice was that he gave humans free will?
Also, that god knows what we will do with this free will?
If so, is it true that you think god is omniscient?

God does not, cannot, come to know. He does not need a thing to exist, to know it completely. God has no sequence of ideas. God knows His creation, quite apart from its existence (in temporal terms, before its existence).
A free-will is no more and no less than a will free to act according to its nature.
It is not a will free from being known.

A human-free-will does not equate to a human-sovereign-will.
A human-free-will is, like everything else about humans, not-sovereign, it is not-necessary; it is subject and quite contingent indeed.

 

[GrayAngel]

Hmmm... odd that a Christian would do that. Well here we go. Using curiosity as my basis.

Note: Some may call me out on making a straw man. If anyone has a different view than what I am attacking, than kudos to you. I am attacking one view right now.

Curiosity is the killer to any no-free-will argument. Curiosity is what drives a person to think outside the box. If thought and action derive from simple stimuli, then where does curiosity come from? A stimuli? All of the stimuli? Well, you can come up with an almost infinite amount(and actually you can come up with an infinite amount) for a few things. But stimuli isn't infinite as it is part of the physical world, and therefore you can't have a finite amount of stimuli to make an infinite amount of possibilities. What goes in must come out in equal proportions. Like a math formula.

It's really not a strange position for a Christian to take. My Baptist church teaches in predestination, and I believe it because it's spelled out all over the Bible.

Romans 8:28-30 - And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Ephesians 1:4-12 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

I used to believe in free will, but I could never have it make sense in my mind. The concept of free will is in conflict with God's infinite knowledge. Before the creation of the world, God knew everything we were going to do.

If we had free will, then we should be able to break away from the future God's sees. But if God knows what we are going to do, and if His actions resulted in that action, then free will by logic cannot exist.

In essence, if God knew everything from the start, then that makes Him the ultimate cause of every event that took place after.

The Bible compares us to clay of pottery, with God as our potter. God creates us with a specific purpose in mind.

Romans 9:20-21 - But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

Who we are is shaped and molded by our genes and our environment (nature & nurture), both of which are given to us by God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If we had free will, then we should be able to break away from the future God's sees. But if God knows what we are going to do, and if His actions resulted in that action, then free will by logic cannot exist.

I think your problem with free will is its apparent conflict with predestination, prophecy, omniscience, etc. If there was no conflict, if you could, potentially, have both free will and predestination, would you believe in free will?

 

[jonmichael818]

God does not, cannot, come to know. He does not need a thing to exist, to know it completely. God has no sequence of ideas. God knows His creation, quite apart from its existence (in temporal terms, before its existence).

Ok, thats fine.

A free-will is no more and no less than a will free to act according to its nature.
It is not a will free from being known.

Let me ask you this, do you believe free will is free of all influence?

 

[GrayAngel]

I think your problem with free will is its apparent conflict with predestination, prophecy, omniscience, etc. If there was no conflict, if you could, potentially, have both free will and predestination, would you believe in free will?

The two cannot go together. Trying to fit free will into predestined history is like trying to fit a round piece into a square hole.

Why? Do you think they can be compatible?

Ok, thats fine.

Let me ask you this, do you believe free will is free of all influence?

He'd probably argue that free will has influences, but that people may defy those influences.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The two cannot go together. Trying to fit free will into predestined history is like trying to fit a round piece into a square hole.

Easily done, given sufficient proportions. Besides, you didn't answer my question

Why? Do you think they can be compatible?

I do.

 

[Tielec]

I'm always reminded by a speech given by Daniel Dennet on the topic wherein he remarks that free will exists, but not in the way that people WANT it to exist. For alot of people if it's not magical it's not free will. It's so mundane that free will might just mean we have the ability to fire different neurons, rather than be a function of some 'spirit' floating out in the supernatural ether.

I personally think the argument is a moot one. How could we ever disprove predestination? Likewise if free will is an illusion, it is such a powerful one as to be almost impossible to dispel. The two are compatible inasmuch as neither can be demonstrated to be correct. I think I will just wash my hands of the affair, proclaim that both views are right, and let the hardcore philosophers argue over the fine detail.

So like Wiccan Child (although maybe for different reasons) I am a compatabilist.

 

[bricklayer]

WE HAVE A FREE-WILL
We are free to do anything we can do, but we are not free to do anything.
There is much more that we cannot do than can do.
For example: We cannot know in the begining everything we know in the end.

God also has a free-will. He is free to do anything that can be done.
There is much more that cannot be done than can be done.
For example: God cannot come to know anything.

A free-will is a will free to act according to its nature,
IT IS NOT A WILL FREE FROM BEING KNOWN.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

Do you think free will exists?
If yes, how does it exist if cause and effect determines everything?
If you do not think cause and effect determines everything, then give an example.

NO !

Effect goes back to cause and cause goes back to effect.
Are you implying that effect is the first action?
Did the chicken or the egg come first?

 

[jonmichael818]

WE HAVE A FREE-WILL
We are free to do anything we can do, but we are not free to do anything.
There is much more that we cannot do than can do.
For example: We cannot know in the begining everything we know in the end.

God also has a free-will. He is free to do anything that can be done.
There is much more that cannot be done than can be done.
For example: God cannot come to know anything.

A free-will is a will free to act according to its nature,
IT IS NOT A WILL FREE FROM BEING KNOWN.

I guess this means that you believe free will is not free of all influence, but that you still believe free will exists.
So, you consider yourself a compatibilist?