Does Free Will Exist?

[Girder of Loins]

"Why do you believe your interpretation of the Bible over everything else?"

If atheism is true, then my brain was never meant to think. Thinking is just the effect of atoms in my head. Therefore, I should not trust my own thoughts. As such, I should believe no argument for atheism that include thoughts, as thoughts cannot be trusted. But in the belief of a god, the brain was meant for thinking, and therefore, I can trust my thoughts. But until atheism puts forth an argument that requires no thought, no use of my brain, I will remain a Christian.

 

[jonmichael818]

If atheism is true, then my brain was never meant to think. Thinking is just the effect of atoms in my head.

Even if thinking is the effect of atoms in the head, you are still thinking. I don't see how the existence of a god or not has anything to do with whether or not you have the ability to think.
As far as trusting in our ability to think, I think it has done a pretty good job thus far. At least if you allow yourself to think with the full capacity of the mind, and are not limiting yourself to what a particular text written in the distance past says.

 

[Gracchus]

If atheism is true, then my brain was never meant to think.

It would seem, even to a theist, that your brain was never meant to think.

Thinking is just the effect of atoms in my head. Therefore, I should not trust my own thoughts.

Having seen examples of your reasoning, I wouldn't trust your thoughts either.

As such, I should believe no argument for atheism that include thoughts, as thoughts cannot be trusted.

Atheism does not require an argument. The non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn do not require an argument either. Their existence does, since they have never been observed.

But in the belief of a god, the brain was meant for thinking, and therefore, I can trust my thoughts.

That makes one of you.

But until atheism puts forth an argument that requires no thought, no use of my brain, I will remain a Christian.

I am glad to see you know your limitations.

 

[quatona]

If atheism is true, then my brain was never meant to think.

And if atheism is true then gravity was never meant to work and the universe was never meant to exist.

Thinking is just the effect of atoms in my head. Therefore, I should not trust my own thoughts.

Doesn´t follow.

As such, I should believe no argument for atheism that include thoughts, as thoughts cannot be trusted. But in the belief of a god, the brain was meant for thinking, and therefore, I can trust my thoughts.

Well, if I were to follow your argument (which I don´t because the premise is already faulty) then god exists, and everyone - including atheists - can trust their thoughts.

But until atheism puts forth an argument that requires no thought, no use of my brain, I will remain a Christian.

How did you get from "a god" to the god of the Christian concept? I mean, the question you tried to answer was about believing the bible literally, not about the question whether a god or not exists.
Even if your continuous attempts to refute atheism were successful at some point - that still wouldn´t help making a case for biblegod, of all.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If theism is true, then God was never meant to create human brains ...

(Those are no sunglasses.)

 

[sandwiches]

If atheism is true, then my brain was never meant to think. Thinking is just the effect of atoms in my head. Therefore, I should not trust my own thoughts. As such, I should believe no argument for atheism that include thoughts, as thoughts cannot be trusted. But in the belief of a god, the brain was meant for thinking, and therefore, I can trust my thoughts. But until atheism puts forth an argument that requires no thought, no use of my brain, I will remain a Christian.

This is all great but this doesn't answer the question, in any way shape or form. You just reasoned why you don't want to be an atheist. I asked, "why do you trust the Bible above everything else?" I DIDN'T ask "Why aren't you an atheist?"

 

[Girder of Loins]

Gracchus, let me put this as nicely as possible. This is the last time I will ever respond to one of your "arguments" as they are simply mud-flinging. Goodbye.

As to my reasonable responders.

I gave a quote by C.S. Lewis, failed to memorize it, and gave a faulty version of it. Here ya go.

"Suppose there was no intelligence behind the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of atoms within my skull. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course, I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve God."
-C.S. Lewis
Using this, I have based my entire life on the notion of a Creator, weather a god or some metaphysical presence. I believe in God because it is the one that makes the most sense. Therefore, I believe in the Holy Bible.

 

[Chatter]

"Suppose there was no intelligence behind the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of atoms within my skull.

That's a pretty silly way to put it. Atoms in skulls are not sufficient to produce thought. The atoms in the skulls of dead people, for instance, are notoriously bad at it.

We evolved, so the evolutionist tells us, and that means thinking is an adaptation to an ecological niche. That does give us plenty of pause, since it means that our thinking might well be heavily prejudiced by the circumstances in which we evolved. It ain't trustworthy. The atheist get-out at this point is to claim that this isn't a systematic problem, that our brains get things mostly right, or that with enough critical thinking, we can overcome the most pernicious of our cognitive frailties.

Have fun arguing that one. I'm more likely to point out that even if I realise my brain isn't trustworthy, I still manage to eat when I'm hungry.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Suppose there was no intelligence behind the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of atoms within my skull. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?

Argument from ignorance - "I can't come up with my own explanation as to how a thinking brain can naturally arise, therefore a thinking brain can't naturally arise". It's entirely possible that humans are thinking and rational without the brain being so designed.

But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course, I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve God."
-C.S. Lewis

Non sequitur. The only argument that leads to atheism is, "There is no good reason to be a theist; therefore, one defaults to atheism", which isn't even a real argument - it's a definition.

That is, the crucial step in his argument, "I can't trust my thoughts unless I believe in God", is invalid.

Using this, I have based my entire life on the notion of a Creator, weather a god or some metaphysical presence. I believe in God because it is the one that makes the most sense. Therefore, I believe in the Holy Bible.

Non sequitur. Even if Lewis' argument works (I don't believe it does), it at best provides at most single reason to believe in at least a being which designed our brains for thinking.

Why do you think that means such a being really did/does exist?
Why do you equate that being with the Creator of the universe (even though this second being hasn't been demonstrated)?
And, most pertinently, how did you jump to the Bible? Islam, for instance, also follows from Lewis' argument, no?

It's also amusing to see someone (Lewis) attempt to use logic and reason to disprove logic and reason.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's a pretty silly way to put it. Atoms in skulls are not sufficient to produce thought. The atoms in the skulls of dead people, for instance, are notoriously bad at it.

We evolved, so the evolutionist tells us, and that means thinking is an adaptation to an ecological niche. That does give us plenty of pause, since it means that our thinking might well be heavily prejudiced by the circumstances in which we evolved. It ain't trustworthy. The atheist get-out at this point is to claim that this isn't a systematic problem, that our brains get things mostly right, or that with enough critical thinking, we can overcome the most pernicious of our cognitive frailties.

Have fun arguing that one. I'm more likely to point out that even if I realise my brain isn't trustworthy, I still manage to eat when I'm hungry.

Heh, you put it better than me We can trust our thoughts because they work, I suppose.

Welcome to CF!

 

[brightlights]

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.

Yes. Free will exists and persons have free will.

Free will exists because for any decision, it's possible for another decision to have been made and free will exists because the person is ultimately responsible for the decision.

Free will exists because event (or physical) causation is not the only type of causation that exists. There's also mental causation and (in this case) agent causation. Here's the relevant distinction between event causation and agent causation:

Event causation is the idea that every event is caused by another event.
Agent causation is the idea that some events are caused by agents.

Questions?

 

[Girder of Loins]

Why do you think that means such a being really did/does exist?
Why do you equate that being with the Creator of the universe (even though this second being hasn't been demonstrated)?
And, most pertinently, how did you jump to the Bible? Islam, for instance, also follows from Lewis' argument, no?

If my brain had no thought behind it, how can i trust that what i think is what is true? Why can't we all be unified psychopaths? If evolution were true, then this is a logical argument. Just because someone sees the world one way and pronounces it to be true, then gives biased information on something, then promotes that biased information as truth, then does it make it true? or is it the bandwagon effect?

It makes sense that a logical being of infinite proportions and infinite knowledge made an intrinsic and detailed universe.

I "jumped" to the Bible first as I was grown up in a christian household. But in time I started to question God. Was He real? Why couldn't Islam be true? I didn't want to jump in the bandwagon with the rest of Christianity. So I thought about it. I used Lewis' quote. I used morality. personally, a lot of things Islam believes, doesn't make sense. Flaming horses came down and brought Muhammed up into heaven! oooooh! And Muhamed will judge you at the end(typical to put himself into a power position)! And then there are the slip-ups by Muhammed(who was a prophet, and therefore should have been moral and follow the rules, right?). He loved one wife more than the others. He had more than four wives. He said that the act of azl(which is removing the male sex organ out before that "happy time" when having intercourse with slaves) was false and can be ignored. i also don't like the fact that i can hit my wife. Thats completely uncourteous and degrades women. Whih I am not about to do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If my brain had no thought behind it, how can i trust that what i think is what is true? Why can't we all be unified psychopaths? If evolution were true, then this is a logical argument.

It's not an argument, it's a complaint: "I don't understand how X could be true if Y could be true. Therefore, Y can't be true!". It's a classic fallacy.

Besides, it doesn't prove that God exists. If it works, it's like Pascal's Wager: it argues that we should believe because it's useful, not because it's necessarily true. And regardless, evolution works, is useful, and has overwhelming evidence that it is true. Its consequences are irrelevant: truth must be held paramount.

It makes sense that a logical being of infinite proportions and infinite knowledge made an intrinsic and detailed universe.

Perhaps. But this universe is neither intrinsic nor detailed: everything we know about the universe points to natural processes twirling under the gaze of mathematical laws. There's nothing I'm aware of that suggests the universe was consciously designed.

I "jumped" to the Bible first as I was grown up in a christian household. But in time I started to question God. Was He real? Why couldn't Islam be true? I didn't want to jump in the bandwagon with the rest of Christianity. So I thought about it. I used Lewis' quote. I used morality. personally, a lot of things Islam believes, doesn't make sense. Flaming horses came down and brought Muhammed up into heaven! oooooh!

Have you read the Bible? There're all sorts of nonsensicle things. Talking snakes and donkeys and bushes, a global flood, four horsemen, angels blowing on trumpets, people living for nearly a thousand years, giants, Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt, the ten plagues of Egypt...

Yea, the Qu'ran isn't any more fanciful than the Bible.

And Muhamed will judge you at the end(typical to put himself into a power position)!

Jesus did much the same thing, did he not?

And then there are the slip-ups by Muhammed(who was a prophet, and therefore should have been moral and follow the rules, right?). He loved one wife more than the others. He had more than four wives. He said that the act of azl(which is removing the male sex organ out before that "happy time" when having intercourse with slaves) was false and can be ignored.

Why are these slip-ups? And why do they mean Islam is false?

i also don't like the fact that i can hit my wife. Thats completely uncourteous and degrades women. Whih I am not about to do.

Really? You're objecting to Islam because it's sexist? Whereas the Bible has these gems:

"And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved." - 1 Corinthians 11:5

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." - 1 Corinthians 14:34-3

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" - 1 Timothy 2:9

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes. Free will exists and persons have free will.

Free will exists because for any decision, it's possible for another decision to have been made and free will exists because the person is ultimately responsible for the decision.

Free will exists because event (or physical) causation is not the only type of causation that exists. There's also mental causation and (in this case) agent causation. Here's the relevant distinction between event causation and agent causation:

Event causation is the idea that every event is caused by another event.
Agent causation is the idea that some events are caused by agents.

Questions?

Yes:
You say that free will exists because, for any decision, it's possible for another decision to have been made. How do you know?

 

[dawiyd]

And Muhamed will judge you at the end(typical to put himself into a power position)!

How did you work that one out then?

 

[brightlights]

Yes:
You say that free will exists because, for any decision, it's possible for another decision to have been made. How do you know?

I know this intuitively. That is, based only on experience and on the internal perspective of the decision maker, it seems to be overwhelmingly true that there are alternate possibilities. It's why we struggle making decisions, feel guilty about certain decisions, praise ourselves for others, etc...

A strong case has to be made in order to convince me to deny this intuition and I've not yet seen one.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I know this intuitively. That is, based only on experience and on the internal perspective of the decision maker, it seems to be overwhelmingly true that there are alternate possibilities. It's why we struggle making decisions, feel guilty about certain decisions, praise ourselves for others, etc...

A strong case has to be made in order to convince me to deny this intuition and I've not yet seen one.

You are likely confusing counterfactual and actual alternates. That is, you might be confusing
"It could have been different if ..." with "It could have been different. Period."

(The former is found in compatibilist free will. The latter is randomness.)

 

[.Iona.]

Yes, free will exists. I can go out today and do whatever I want. I might be punished for some of it, but I can still go and do it. I can also believe what I want. Perhaps some might think religion would limit ones will - but if you love someone, and they ask you not to do certain things - why would you even want to go out and do them?

If by free will you mean doing anything you like with no consequences - then no that kind doesn't exist. With good reason.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes, free will exists. I can go out today and do whatever I want. I might be punished for some of it, but I can still go and do it. I can also believe what I want. Perhaps some might think religion would limit ones will - but if you love someone, and they ask you not to do certain things - why would you even want to go out and do them?

Sounds like a picture perfect case for compatibilist free will to me.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Besides, it doesn't prove that God exists. If it works, it's like Pascal's Wager: it argues that we should believe because it's useful, not because it's necessarily true. And regardless, evolution works, is useful, and has overwhelming evidence that it is true. Its consequences are irrelevant: truth must be held paramount.


Perhaps. But this universe is neither intrinsic nor detailed: everything we know about the universe points to natural processes twirling under the gaze of mathematical laws. There's nothing I'm aware of that suggests the universe was consciously designed.


Have you read the Bible? There're all sorts of nonsensicle things. Talking snakes and donkeys and bushes, a global flood, four horsemen, angels blowing on trumpets, people living for nearly a thousand years, giants, Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt, the ten plagues of Egypt...

Yea, the Qu'ran isn't any more fanciful than the Bible.


Jesus did much the same thing, did he not?


Why are these slip-ups? And why do they mean Islam is false?


Really? You're objecting to Islam because it's sexist? Whereas the Bible has these gems:

"And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved." - 1 Corinthians 11:5

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." - 1 Corinthians 14:34-3

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" - 1 Timothy 2:9

Okay, what evidence is there that evolution is true? What scientific gathered evidence is there that evolution is true? What unshakeable proof that evolution is true is here? I don't want some crappy answer like,"look at all the species and how similiar they are" as that is an observation of traits and gives no proof that evolution is true.

There is evidence of a Great World Flood. Fossils, oil, the Cambrian Explosion, etc... And people lived longer as there was more oxygen in the air, pre-flood wise. Many theories have been put forth, but I'm not much into that stuff as it cannot be proven scientifically(I am actually very scientific in my thoughts and what i believe in, I have no blind faith)

Jesus was fully God and fully man. Therefore, He is already in that position. Muhammed is not God, yet He gets to judge us.

If a leader goes against his own religion, then why should I believe in his religion? Actions speak louder than words.

I Cor. 11:5 If you were to go on in the verse, you would see that it also says that men are not independent of women as men are born of women. Therefore, we are still to respect them, just as Jesus did. And if you read before this verse, you would see that we(men) are disgraced if we cover our heads.

I Cor. 14:34-35 This verse has been a controversial verse. But you have to realize who it was written to. The Corinthians were very loudmouthed and bold. Women more so(think women's rights extremists) than men. So Paul wanted them to be more submissive to their husbands. Submission is hugely misinterpreted as doing whatever the hubby wants. But thats not it. Its respecting the hubby's decision, but can still make arguments against the decision. Just as we follow Jesus. women are to follow their hubby's. But don't forget, people are actually encouraged to not marry at all(including women). But unfortunitely, not all of us are strong enough.

1 Timothy 2:9 Men aren't supposed to be flamboyantly dressed either. Paul's talking about gaudy and showy stuff just so that they draw attention for themselves. I have no problem with a women dressing nice, but not so much that it takes away from other's worship experience. It was also a fight against legalism. Many had started to think they needed to dress nice to please God. I wear jeans and a t-shirt. My sister does as well. You're not required to dress up.