Does free will exist?

[AHJE]

Which is to say, it is not real, but a fantasy.

Based on what do you propose that reality is constituted of matter and matter alone?

--AHJE

 

[Tinker Grey]

Based on what do you propose that reality is constituted of matter and matter alone?

--AHJE

If no there is no evidence of anything other than matter/energy, there is no reason to either propose or accept that there is anything else.

 

[AHJE]

If no there is no evidence of anything other than matter/energy, there is no reason to either propose or accept that there is anything else.

(1) WHY is there something rather than nothing?

(2) You mean empirical evidence, evidence based on your 5 senses.

(3) Even the world of the senses show that there is more than just energy or matter. There is a little thing called ... BEAUTY. There is clear evidence that we cannot lie to ourselves about ... there is order and design in the universe.

(4) We know that all things visible/seen had a beginning.



Peace be with you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

(1) WHY is there something rather than nothing?

The fact that we don't know an answer isn't a reason to invent an explanation for which there is no evidence.

(2) You mean empirical evidence, evidence based on your 5 senses.

What else is there?

(3) Even the world of the senses show that there is more than just energy or matter. There is a little thing called ... BEAUTY. There is clear evidence that we cannot lie to ourselves about ... there is order and design in the universe.

Beauty is an idea, a concept. It isn't a thing in and of itself. It is merely a label we apply to what we see.

(4) We know that all things visible/seen had a beginning.

Do we? We know that the universe in its current iteration began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. But we don't know that it didn't exist before that in some form (or even that 'before' even means anything).

 

[AHJE]

The fact that we don't know an answer isn't a reason to invent an explanation for which there is no evidence.

Well, ... let us look at two possible explanations:

Either there is a Supreme Being Who brought all things into existence,

OR all things just ... poof!! ... came to be by pure chance and random happenstance.

Can you think of any other alternative? (I can't).

What else is there?

How about forensic evidence, ... the testimony of others? Many people have not seen an eagle but they believe that eagles exist by the testimony of others.

St. Thomas, the Holy Apostle, could not accept forensic evidence (the testimony of his brother Apostles who had seen the Lord) ... he had to see the Lord and put his hands in his wounds so that by touching he would believe that the same Jesus Who had been crucified and buried ... had RISEN!

Beauty is an idea, a concept. It isn't a thing in and of itself. It is merely a label we apply to what we see.

I disagree. There is objective beauty, ... order, proportion, design etc. which show that an Intelligent Being is responsible for the nature of things.

Do we? We know that the universe in its current iteration began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. But we don't know that it didn't exist before that in some form (or even that 'before' even means anything).

... "its current iteration" ? ? ? What does this mean? (Please explain.)

What is the likelihood that one will find a watch or clock in the desert and that someone will conclude that it was produced by chance (and not by an intelligent being)?

God bless you.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, ... let us look at two possible explanations:

Either there is a Supreme Being Who brought all things into existence,

OR all things just ... poof!! ... came to be by pure chance and random happenstance.

Can you think of any other alternative? (I can't).

I can; how about “matter” has always existed in one form or another and evolved into what we have now.

How about forensic evidence, ... the testimony of others? Many people have not seen an eagle but they believe that eagles exist by the testimony of others.

That’s because the testimonial by others concerning eagles are consistent. The same can’t be said about testimonial concerning your God; everybody disagrees on what he did, wants, or expects of us.

[/font]I disagree. There is objective beauty, ... order, proportion, design etc. which show that an Intelligent Being is responsible for the nature of things.

How do you know it didn’t always exist that way?

... "its current iteration" ? ? ? What does this mean? (Please explain.)

It’s current state. Before the Big Bang it was different.

[What is the likelihood that one will find a watch or clock in the desert and that someone will conclude that it was produced by chance (and not by an intelligent being)?

God bless you.

If that someone were familiar with human constructs they will know it’s origin. If not they would probably look at the details of a leaf and the details of a dollar bill and assume they came from the same source.

Ken

 

[quatona]

What is the likelihood that one will find a watch or clock in the desert and that someone will conclude that it was produced by chance (and not by an intelligent being)?

The problem starts when they will conclude that the desert was designed by an intelligent being.
You are appealing to our ability to distinguish between stuff that´s intelligently designed and stuff that´s not - this doesn´t make a good argument for the idea that everything is intelligently designed (which eliminates the very distinction you are appealing to).

 

[quatona]

How about forensic evidence, ... the testimony of others? Many people have not seen an eagle but they believe that eagles exist by the testimony of others.

There´s nothing exceptional about the claim that you have seen a certain sort of bird.
It´s a little different from claiming that you have e.g. seen something that is defined as invisible.

 

[Gracchus]

The problem starts when they will conclude that the desert was designed by an intelligent being.
You are appealing to our ability to distinguish between stuff that´s intelligently designed and stuff that´s not - this doesn´t make a good argument for the idea that everything is intelligently designed (which eliminates the very distinction you are appealing to).

This point has been raised countless times. It is invariably ignored by those whose minds have been severely damaged by religion.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, ... let us look at two possible explanations:

Either there is a Supreme Being Who brought all things into existence,

OR all things just ... poof!! ... came to be by pure chance and random happenstance.

Can you think of any other alternative? (I can't).

Yes, an uncaring non-supreme being created the universe and then left.
A group of supreme beings brought some things into existence - others are eternal.
All of this is an illusion so nothing needs to be created at all.

Sure, none of these make sense, which puts them right at the level of the other options you've listed.

How about forensic evidence, ... the testimony of others? Many people have not seen an eagle but they believe that eagles exist by the testimony of others.

Many people also claim to have been abducted by aliens. We tend not to believe them since extraordinary claims require quite a bit more evidence than mundane ones.

St. Thomas, the Holy Apostle, could not accept forensic evidence (the testimony of his brother Apostles who had seen the Lord) ... he had to see the Lord and put his hands in his wounds so that by touching he would believe that the same Jesus Who had been crucified and buried ... had RISEN!

Too bad we don't get the same evidence. Why has Jesus given up on us?

I disagree. There is objective beauty, ... order, proportion, design etc. which show that an Intelligent Being is responsible for the nature of things.

You'll need to show your work here.

... "its current iteration" ? ? ? What does this mean? (Please explain.)

Big Crunch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the likelihood that one will find a watch or clock in the desert and that someone will conclude that it was produced by chance (and not by an intelligent being)?

What's the likelihood that animals who excel at pattern matching will find apparent patterns even when none exist?

 

[AHJE]

The problem starts when they will conclude that the desert was designed by an intelligent being.
You are appealing to our ability to distinguish between stuff that´s intelligently designed and stuff that´s not - this doesn´t make a good argument for the idea that everything is intelligently designed (which eliminates the very distinction you are appealing to).

But I am not saying that the desert is NOT intelligently designed.

The desert seems like a formless wasteland ... and one is walking ... and then all of a sudden finds a mechanical watch on the sand!

Did it get there by random CHANCE?

OR

Did an intelligent being create it with intention?


Peace be with you.

 

[AHJE]

As for the Big Crunch hypothesis or THEORY ... of an expanding and then contracting universe ... isn't this based on the relativity THEORY?

And isn't the theory of relativity based on the presupposition that there is NO CENTER of the universe?

Did you know that the greatest scientists cannot SHOW (despite how much they have tried to) that the earth is moving in space?

Peace be with you.

 

[Gracchus]

But I am not saying that the desert is NOT intelligently designed.

Are you saying it is? If so, for what purpose? Design implies purpose.

Moreover, you bring your knowledge to the problem of the watch. If God designed the desert, then the watch stands out because it's designer was human, and you are familiar with human designs, which are usually quite different from the "natural" world.

The desert seems like a formless wasteland ... and one is walking ... and then all of a sudden finds a mechanical watch on the sand!

You aren't very familiar with deserts if you think they are "formless wastelands". They are complex ecosystems.

Did it get there by random CHANCE? OR Did an intelligent being create it with intention?

You are posing a false dichotomy. There are other explanations than "Designed by a creator god" and "Random chance".
The "Argument from Design" was one of several advanced by Thomas Aquinas, and it has been as thoroughly refuted as all his other "proofs". To posit such a feeble argument, in this day, is to expose aphilosophical ignorance of vast dimensions, as wide as it is deep.

 

[The Engineer]

But I am not saying that the desert is NOT intelligently designed.

The desert seems like a formless wasteland ... and one is walking ... and then all of a sudden finds a mechanical watch on the sand!

Did you just make this scenario up, or did it actually happen?

Did it get there by random CHANCE?

Probably yes.

Did an intelligent being create it with intention?

Probably yes.

Actually, what you have written is not just a false dichotomy; actually, it's not a dichotomy at all. An intelligent being (human) could have designed the watch and then, by random chance, left it in the desert.

The watchmaker-analogy is a very weak argument. It flat-out ignores the fact that we know a dozen different mechanisms that can create functioning systems without relying on any intelligence whatsoever, and similar arguments with premises that are as valid as the ones of the watchmaker-argument can be used to support any conclusion, however bizarre:
(1) Life has a function.
(2) Watches have a function.
(3) Life has been shaped by natural selection.
(4) Therefore, watches are shaped by natural selection.

Analogies just don't make for good arguments, period.

 

[AHJE]

Are you saying it is? If so, for what purpose? Design implies purpose.

I think I can give a few:

(1) So that the people of Israel can wander in it for 40 years while God shows His wonders to them in the desert's emptiness.

(2) So that the Son of God Incarnate can be led by the Holy Spirit into the desert for 40 days and 40 nights ... to be tempted by the devil.

(3) For the silence and solitude of the monastics.

Moreover, you bring your knowledge to the problem of the watch. If God designed the desert, then the watch stands out because it's designer was human, and you are familiar with human designs, which are usually quite different from the "natural" world.

The planets and the stars and the sun do appear to the human eye to have a regular pattern of rising and setting ... just as the watch has a regular and consistent pattern as well ... aren't they similar in that respect?

The point is of course that the watch doesn't grow out of the apparent nothingness of the desert. It was guided by an intelligent being into production.

You aren't very familiar with deserts if you think they are "formless wastelands". They are complex ecosystems.

I believe I used the word "seems".

You are posing a false dichotomy. There are other explanations than "Designed by a creator god" and "Random chance".

If you think that I am posing a false dichotomy then you should have no problem introducing a third alternative. Where is it?

The "Argument from Design" was one of several advanced by Thomas Aquinas, and it has been as thoroughly refuted as all his other "proofs". To posit such a feeble argument, in this day, is to expose aphilosophical ignorance of vast dimensions, as wide as it is deep.

Oh ... you mean "thorough refutations" in quotation marks ... I see. One cannot refute reality my friend and the words which correspond to it.

May God bless you.

 

[The Engineer]

If you think that I am posing a false dichotomy then you should have no problem introducing a third alternative. Where is it?

As I pointed out, your dichotomy doesn't even work as a false dichotomy, because one can accept both options you posted at the same time without any contradiction.

Oh ... you mean "thorough refutations" in quotation marks ... I see. One cannot refute reality my friend and the words which correspond to it.

Actually, he just meant thorough refutations, without the quotation marks.

One can refute an argument even if its conclusion is consistent with reality if the argument itself is illogical. For example:
(1) Trees are red.
(2) Watches have been made by humans.
(3) Therefore, cats are not dogs.

The conclusion is true, but the argument to support it is wrong. Premise one is false and even if it wasn't, the argument would be one, big non sequitur.

Of course, there are other, logical arguments to support the conclusion that cats are not dogs, but I have yet to find a logical argument that supports the existence of God.

Whether God exists or not, though, the watchmaker-analogy doesn't work, nor does any analogy work as a solid argument.

 

[AHJE]

As I pointed out, your dichotomy doesn't even work as a false dichotomy, because one can accept both options you posted at the same time without any contradiction.

Not really when you consider the bigger question with respect to the universe (of which the mechanical watch is a figure).

Did the universe come to be or appear by pure random chance?

OR

Was the universe created by an intelligent Being with Intention?

Actually, he just meant thorough refutations, without the quotation marks.

Yes, ... I know ... this was my way of saying that such refutations do not really exist.

One can refute an argument even if its conclusion is consistent with reality if the argument itself is illogical. For example:
(1) Trees are red.
(2) Watches have been made by humans.
(3) Therefore, cats are not dogs.

The conclusion is true, but the argument to support it is wrong. Premise one is false and even if it wasn't, the argument would be one, big non sequitur.

You can't seriously entertain that St. Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelic Doctor", does not know the philosophical rules of making a sound argument. Or can you?

Of course, there are other, logical arguments to support the conclusion that cats are not dogs, but I have yet to find a logical argument that supports the existence of God.

I have yet to find a logical argument that God does not exist. BTW I used to be an agnostic before the grace of FAITH was given to me from above.

Whether God exists or not, though, the watchmaker-analogy doesn't work, nor does any analogy work as a solid argument.

Can you explain to me why you think that it doesn't work?

Why is there order and consistency in the universe?
Why are there regular patterns and seasons?
Why do other planets (not the Earth) move in space?
Why is there beauty?
Why is there life?
Why is there intelligent life?
Why are there human beings with personality?
Why is there love in relationships between or among persons?
Why is there wickedness and lawlessness among humans?
Why is there holiness and sanctity as heroic as that of Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta or Saint Francis of Assisi?
Why are there a multitude of miracles which are beyond the scope of scientific explanation?

And the greatest of all ... why did Jesus Christ RISE from the dead on the third day?

And there is one more ... why did St. Thomas come to believe?


God bless you.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Yes I believe in free will, but not libertarian free will. I believe in conditional free will. Basically a being is free to act according to its nature. A dog can't choose to become a cat. A sinner can't choose anything but sin.

An unregenerate sinner is free to do all kinds of things, he can choose to eat cocoa puffs or cinnamon toast crunch in the morning. He can choose to sleep with his girlfriend or sleep with a new girl every night. He can choose to be an atheist or go to church. However he can't choose God because he hates God, by nature of being an unregenerate sinner. God must change his nature, aka regeneration, in order for a sinner to genuinely desire to come to Christ for salvation.

Our free will is indeed real, but it is contingent upon our fundamental nature. We can't choose to levitate or breathe underwater unaided by technology. Doesn't mean we're not free. Humans are free contingent upon their humanness, sinners are free contingent upon their sinfulness, believers are free contingent upon their nature as regenerated redeemed souls stuck in unredeemed sinful flesh.

Rather than talking about 'free will', which breeds all sorts of confusion, i'd rather refer to it as freedom. We act in accordance with our greatest desire at any given moment. This is a free action, no one is forcing you to do it. However it is free within the limitation of nature, which determines what it actually is we seek in the first place. If that makes sense.

inherent nature ---- desires ------ free choice ------ action

Libertarian free will, that most Arminians seem to affirm, would place free choice at the front of that diagram.

 

[The Engineer]

Not really when you consider the bigger question with respect to the universe (of which the mechanical watch is a figure).

Did the universe come to be or appear by pure random chance?

OR

Was the universe created by an intelligent Being with Intention?

If you want to talk about randomness, you first have to talk about probability. Considering we don't know the probability of a universe like ours to exist, talking about it is futile.

Yes, ... I know ... this was my way of saying that such refutations do not really exist.

Too bad this isn't about refuting reality, it's about refuting your arguments.

You can't seriously entertain that St. Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelic Doctor", does not know the philosophical rules of making a sound argument. Or can you?

Argument from authority. That's a formal fallacy, you know that?

I have yet to find a logical argument that God does not exist.

Non-existence can't be proven, that's why non-existence is automatically assumed in the absence of evidence.

BTW I used to be an agnostic before the grace of FAITH was given to me from above.

That's cool.

Can you explain to me why you think that it doesn't work?

Because as long as you point out two legitimate similarities between two objects, you can use an analogy to arbitrarily establish other similarities, even if they are completely and provably absurd. I gave you examples for this, if I recall correctly.

Why is there order and consistency in the universe?

Because order can arise spontaneously, and consistency is assumed by default, in every case, because without this assumption, the very process of thinking would be futile.

Why are there regular patterns and seasons?

Regular patterns arise from consistency, and seasons have something to do with the tilt of the earth's rotational axis.

Why do other planets (not the Earth) move in space?

Because they have momentum.

Why is there beauty?

Our brain prefers certain patterns. We call them beautiful.

Why is there life?

Because the existence of self-replicating molecules is, by their very nature, persistent.

Why is there intelligent life?

Because intelligence is a beneficial trait, and beneficial traits usually persist and advance in a population.

Why are there human beings with personality?

Because every brain is different.

Why is there love in relationships between or among persons?

Love is a beneficial trait for species that have to rely on other members of the group to survive.

Why is there wickedness and lawlessness among humans?

Because our brains didn't evolve to function in societies with more than 150 members.

Why is there holiness and sanctity as heroic as that of Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta or Saint Francis of Assisi?

Holiness and sanctity are properties that have been designed by humans. They are not cosmic constants.

Why are there a multitude of miracles which are beyond the scope of scientific explanation?

There aren't.

And the greatest of all ... why did Jesus Christ RISE from the dead on the third day?

He didn't.

And there is one more ... why did St. Thomas come to believe?

There are many reasons why people start to believe. One of them is that our brain has the tendency to get false-positive results when pattern-matching.

 

[AHJE]

If you want to talk about randomness, you first have to talk about probability. Considering we don't know the probability of a universe like ours to exist, talking about it is futile.

But do you agree that if the proposition is not true that "An Intelligent Being created the universe with Intention" then all that we see around us (the whole universe) came to be or appear by pure random chance? Even if you do not know the probability of such a thing do you see that this is the only alternative in general?

Too bad this isn't about refuting reality, it's about refuting your arguments.



Argument from authority. That's a formal fallacy, you know that?

Show me where St. Thomas committed this fallacy in his 5 proofs of God's existence. Aristotle was not a Christian and he reasoned that there must be a Prime Mover. This would be the unmoved Mover.

Non-existence can't be proven, that's why non-existence is automatically assumed in the absence of evidence.

Here you are committing the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

God bless you.