Explain Freewill

[Socrastein]

Why do we push buttons that say: "Don't push this button."?

Maybe we're genetically predisposed toward insatiable curiousity? The reasons are far too complicated to accurately pin down, but that is not in any way evidence of it being random or "free will".

Oh, and is this what you're saying? It's what I've gathered from your statements so far:
1. A choice that is made randomly is not a choice.
2. A choice that is made for a reason (ie: not randomly) is not a choice.

Yes to 1, no to 2.

By random, I do not mean random as people commonly use it, like when someone says pick a number between 1 and 10 and you blurt out 8. Just because you weren't conciously aware of why you picked 8, doesn't mean there wasn't a reason for it. The state of your brain patterns, the way in which the question was asked, your past choices in such instances - any number of things could have made you do that, and it only seems random because like I said you aren't conciously aware of why your brain picked that number. The brain does a lot of things that our 'self' isn't aware of.

By random, I mean truly without cause - no cause whatsoever. I can't even give you an example of this, because everything we observe in everyday life has some sort of cause. All I am saying is that if your thoughts were like the roll of a dice (Technically not really random, but as close as I can get) then you would have no control over them, and how can you be choosing to do things if they are happening without your intent or will?

 

[Madcoil]

You're speaking of self-control? Or lack thereof?

 

[Socrastein]

You're speaking of self-control? Or lack thereof?

In a sense, yes. If you do not will your actions on any level then you cannot be said to have choice - and if your actions are completely random, then they certainly aren't the result of your will.

 

[Madcoil]

That IS interesting, especially since even if someone would choose, or seemingly choose if you will, to do something, even if that thing was completely unexpected or had disastrous consequences for the individual, it would still be because of some strange code in the back of their minds setting it up. Like a, a car pulling you down a road, heedless of your conscious will.
Here however I must confess that I grab onto a mental image of the sub-conscious as the great perpetrator, the stringpuller.

 

[mepalmer3]

1. Every choice is made for a reason (If we choose for no reason at all, that would hardly be a choice at all but rather random happenings)

A. Every choice may have a reason, but the reason does not necessarily cause the choice. A single reason may suggest some thousands of choices as well. There is no reason to suspect a 1 to 1 relationship between reason and choice.

B. I have observed having the ability to pick from a wide variety of choices, regardless of the situation, that I will in fact pick different choices by my own will. This evidence you've kindly regarded as illusional. *

2. Every reason for a choice must either have its own reason caused by another choice (I chose to ate the cake because I was hungry and I was hungry because I decided not to eat breakfast earlier) or be a factor outside the control of the choosing being.

C. False dichotemy. Reasons could also be uncaused.

3. If every reason for which we make a choice is the result of other reasons that were consequence of choice, then we get an infinite regress of choices which is not only logically absurd but also observably false.

D. Reasons don't necessarily go back forever, there may be uncaused reasons.
E. There could only be an infinite regress of choices if there is an infinite past. There is not an infinite past in this universe. Therefore, there is no infinite regress of choices.
F. If there were an infinite regress of choices, and the fact that it infinitely regressed made it logically absurd, then any infinite regress of effects would also be logically absurd. In effect, nature itself would be logically absurd if there is an infinite past.
G. We are ignoring what we observe since we have deemed what we observe to be illusions. (See B above)

4. If there can be no infinite regress of reasons that are choice-caused, then there must be reasons for which we do things that we have no control over, i.e. our genetic makeup, environmental factors, physical conditions of our body, etc.

Most items from 3. answer this one.

Conclusion: Therefore, our choices are actually determined and any concept of "free-will" is contradictory and logically non-sensical.

H. Obviously, if the premises are wrong, the conclusion does not follow.

My basic "free-will" definition will be : having the freedom of choice or self-determination -- given a situation, a person could have chosen differently then he did.

But -- as the supposed contradictions don't really exist because your argument isn't logical, any definition of free will would have done.

A problem with determinism is that if all things are determined by previous reasons such as environment, genetics, and things we have no control over, then rationality & reasoning and things we thought under our control is not a factor in our choices. We simply have genes, chemicals, and billions of years of evolution. If our reasoning is just a by-product of nature, there's no reason to believe that it's "correct" or some truth statement is being made. But determinism is trying to make a truth statement, and thus is self defeating.

This argument was full of holes and not very well defended.

 

[Socrastein]

A. Every choice may have a reason, but the reason does not necessarily cause the choice. A single reason may suggest some thousands of choices as well. There is no reason to suspect a 1 to 1 relationship between reason and choice.

If the reason did not cause the choice, then that choice was not made for that reason. This is found in the fundamental nature of the words. What you're saying is analogous to "That pool ball moved for a reason, but it wasn't necessarily caused by the stick hitting it".

B. I have observed having the ability to pick from a wide variety of choices, regardless of the situation, that I will in fact pick different choices by my own will. This evidence you've kindly regarded as illusional.

No, I've regarded it as to be expected within a deterministic universe. Perhaps you missed the multiple times I said that my argument does not preclude choice and will, it precludes "free choice" and "free will".

False dichotemy. Reasons could also be uncaused.

False use of false dichotomy. Of reasons for a choice, you have choices and you have non-choices. That is not a false-dichotomy, that is the law of excluded middle. Do yourself a favor and read up on some basic logic:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/6816

D. Reasons don't necessarily go back forever, there may be uncaused reasons.

That they don't go back forever was my whole point. And an uncaused reason for a choice cannot be another choice, because an uncaused choice is not a choice, so an uncaused non-choice would stop the chain as well as an caused non-choice - your point is irrelevent.

E. There could only be an infinite regress of choices if there is an infinite past. There is not an infinite past in this universe. Therefore, there is no infinite regress of choices.

Once again, you're saying what I already proved. Are you simply agreeing with me?

F. If there were an infinite regress of choices, and the fact that it infinitely regressed made it logically absurd, then any infinite regress of effects would also be logically absurd. In effect, nature itself would be logically absurd if there is an infinite past.

You mean 'unless' there is an infinite past, I believe. However, this does not effect my argument in any way.

G. We are ignoring what we observe since we have deemed what we observe to be illusions. (See B above)

The only illusion is that the will we experience is somehow "free", a nonsensical concept.

H. Obviously, if the premises are wrong, the conclusion does not follow.

Yes, I agree. But your attacks on my premises did not hold up at all - I didn't even have to ponder a single one of them for more than 5 seconds to see how they were invalid.

My basic "free-will" definition will be : having the freedom of choice or self-determination -- given a situation, a person could have chosen differently then he did.

I'm grateful that you actually gave me something substantial to work with. Now, let's examine your definition and see if it stands the test of logic.

Just a few minutes ago, I ate some vanilla cookies that part of me knew I shouldn't eat and a part of me didn't care cause they are so yummy. I chose to eat them.

By your definition though, if time was to rewind and all the conditions were the same, there's a chance that I would choose not to eat them, that the "health voice" would have one over my cravings.

However, there is a fatal flaw that I percieve in saying that under identical conditions two different choices can be made, and that is the fact that if NOTHING is different beside the choice, then the choice was completely unrelated to the conditions, i.e., it had no cause, i.e. it was random.

Now, how can you say that free-will is random choice that has no relation to the conditions in which it is made? Every time we rewind time and watch me at my moment of choice, my will has nothing to do with it, we're just flipping coins to see what happens.

Honestly, what kind of choice is that? This is what I mean by indeterminism destroying all notions of choice.

But -- as the supposed contradictions don't really exist because your argument isn't logical, any definition of free will would have done.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch buddy, your arguments didn't hold up for nothing.

A problem with determinism is that if all things are determined by previous reasons such as environment, genetics, and things we have no control over, then rationality & reasoning and things we thought under our control is not a factor in our choices.

That is not a problem with determinism actually, and even if it was, that does not discredit the idea of determinism. To say it is would be to commit the fallacy of appealing to consequence, which basically means "X is wrong because if it's right bad consequences result".

If our reasoning is just a by-product of nature, there's no reason to believe that it's "correct" or some truth statement is being made. But determinism is trying to make a truth statement, and thus is self defeating.

Truth is correspondence to reality, and since we can observe reality, we can compare statements to reality and determine if they're wrong. This does not require free-will. Once again, you're appealing to consequences - even if our reasoning is pointless, then so be it - that still doesn't make free-will less nonsensical.

This argument was full of holes and not very well defended.

Wow, pretty cocky to conclude that before you even see me defend it. Unfortunately for you, you need to read up on your basic logic and processes of deduction before you try to tell me my syllogism is fallacious.

 

[mepalmer3]

No, I've regarded it as to be expected within a deterministic universe. Perhaps you missed the multiple times I said that my argument does not preclude choice and will, it precludes "free choice" and "free will".

I regard a lack of "free choice" as being no choice at all. It's like saying a rock dropped from the top of a building has a choice to fall or to not fall. It's going to fall though, so it's not a free choice, nor does it have free will to avoid the necessary choice.

That they don't go back forever was my whole point. And an uncaused reason for a choice cannot be another choice, because an uncaused choice is not a choice, so an uncaused non-choice would stop the chain as well as an caused non-choice - your point is irrelevent.

Then your logic is still seems wrong at this point. Your 3rd premise:

3. If every reason for which we make a choice is the result of other reasons that were consequence of choice, then we get an infinite regress of choices which is not only logically absurd but also observably false.

We just agreed there is no infinite regress of anything. So even if choice is a function of reason or choice is a function of nature, neither results in an infinite regression. But in your 4th premise you decide to ignore the fact that there can't be an infinite regression of natural factors. We're just talking about how an actual infinite past is this universe is impossible.

Just a few minutes ago, I ate some vanilla cookies that part of me knew I shouldn't eat and a part of me didn't care cause they are so yummy. I chose to eat them.

By your definition though, if time was to rewind and all the conditions were the same, there's a chance that I would choose not to eat them, that the "health voice" would have one over my cravings.

However, there is a fatal flaw that I percieve in saying that under identical conditions two different choices can be made, and that is the fact that if NOTHING is different beside the choice, then the choice was completely unrelated to the conditions, i.e., it had no cause, i.e. it was random.

Now, how can you say that free-will is random choice that has no relation to the conditions in which it is made? Every time we rewind time and watch me at my moment of choice, my will has nothing to do with it, we're just flipping coins to see what happens.

Honestly, what kind of choice is that? This is what I mean by indeterminism destroying all notions of choice.

Ah... ok. let me rephrase then. I'm not advocating indeterminism. It is irrational I think to take the view that behavior is totally uncaused. What I'm questioning is the source of that reason. You say that being hungry forces us to eat. We eat because we are hungry, we're hungry because we didn't eat earlier, and so on... And I say that those reasons generally can't force us to act. An example perhaps of where the action/choice is more forced might be tourettes syndrome, or an epileptic seizure. But these don't impede a person's free will, they are simply effects on a person by the environment, with a person's body being part of the environment.

I think I've said that I advocate self determinism. Factors such as genetic makeup and environment do influence people's behaviors. But I deny that those factors cause a person's behavior. Reason and rationality are also factors that influence a person's behavior. People are able to direct their own actions. It's not the will of a person that makes a decision, but the person acting by means of his will. And since the person is the first cause of his acts, there is no cause that forces his actions.

This view seems to be the best agreement with all of reality & truth. Also, I'm not required to say that some empirical evidence is an illusion.

That is not a problem with determinism actually, and even if it was, that does not discredit the idea of determinism. To say it is would be to commit the fallacy of appealing to consequence, which basically means "X is wrong because if it's right bad consequences result".

Truth is correspondence to reality, and since we can observe reality, we can compare statements to reality and determine if they're wrong. This does not require free-will. Once again, you're appealing to consequences - even if our reasoning is pointless, then so be it - that still doesn't make free-will less nonsensical.

It means that we can only observe what nature makes us observe and further any "interpretation" is nature's interpretation -- not some sort of intellectual discovery. We have no control over it. We may think we're talking of truth and reality, but really we're just reacting to some previous chemical change in our heads. Any notion of truth is purely illusional.

 

[David Gould]

Mepalmer,

I asked a little while back, and you probably missed it due to the other discussion you are having, what precisely it is about naturalism that disallows free will and what precisely it is about supernaturalism that allows free will. I am very much interested in your answer to this.

 

[mepalmer3]

I asked a little while back, and you probably missed it due to the other discussion you are having, what precisely it is about naturalism that disallows free will and what precisely it is about supernaturalism that allows free will. I am very much interested in your answer to this.

Sorry. I did see that you asked that. Socrastein just kept suggesting that if I didn't answer his question fast enough than it was going to make his answer right so I wanted to address that first. Thanks for being patient.

Naturalism = No Free Will

If a person has no "spiritual" side, no soul, then all he is is a collection of molecules, atoms, etc... right? (I'm deliberately keeping this a bit simple). If the brain is made up of chemicals and other natural things, then just like everywhere else in nature, those chemicals must react to each other, and everything has normal cause/effects that we see in nature. The fact that these things collectively are found in the brain in an incredibly complex way is intriging for some, but still it would seem that it's just a blob of stuff that is forced to work with the natural laws that all other chemicals and molecules do everywhere else in the universe. So while this chemical reaction in my head happens to let me walk, there's no reason to think that *I* somehow decided that that chemical reaction should take place, as if I could decide if gravity should effect me or not. So when we reduce ourselves to purely a naturalistic self, there is no possible way (that I can see) that we could possibly stop nature from happening and change it's course to our own likening. Does that make sense? In MUCH simpler terms, a rock on a hill may think he's defying gravity by not rolling down the hill. It may also think he's freely deciding to roll down the hill if something happened to bump it. But it's just gravity and some other force working on it. That rock doesn't seem to have any other choice in the matter.

So not only do I strongly suspect that "free will" is possible if naturalism is true, but I also suspect that consciousness is also an illusion. Certainly a bunch of physical stuff has come together and it's all acting and reacting in neat ways, I walk, run, sing, frolic, yell, ... but my "thoughts", my dreams, hopes, my reasoning, my thoughts of existing, ... it's all just chemical reactions, reactions to the environment, reactions to genes. Spectacular, but completely unavoidable. It's like the swirl in the water when you run your hand through it.

I feel more strongly on the argument against free will then I do consciousness being an illusion. But the only reason is because it's such a huge illusion if that's the case.

One other note... I do grant the notion that naturalism could be true, free will possible, but that everyone freely chose to do exactly as nature would have predicted. But free will at that point would be completely undetectable. But I find that position highly unlikely.

Free Will = Naturalism is not true

Now, if we are more than chemicals and all the natural stuff, if we do have a spiritual side, if God exists and created us "in his image", then the situation is drastically different. If we have a non-physical side that is not bound by physical laws, then we are no longer under the control of the universe. The physical universe could and would still influence the body and thus the decisions that the spiritual side makes, but ultimately the spiritual side has "free will".

So those are my 2 basic arguments on free will and it's relationship to naturalism.

 

[David Gould]

Sorry. I did see that you asked that. Socrastein just kept suggesting that if I didn't answer his question fast enough than it was going to make his answer right so I wanted to address that first. Thanks for being patient.

Naturalism = No Free Will

If a person has no "spiritual" side, no soul, then all he is is a collection of molecules, atoms, etc... right? (I'm deliberately keeping this a bit simple). If the brain is made up of chemicals and other natural things, then just like everywhere else in nature, those chemicals must react to each other, and everything has normal cause/effects that we see in nature. The fact that these things collectively are found in the brain in an incredibly complex way is intriging for some, but still it would seem that it's just a blob of stuff that is forced to work with the natural laws that all other chemicals and molecules do everywhere else in the universe. So while this chemical reaction in my head happens to let me walk, there's no reason to think that *I* somehow decided that that chemical reaction should take place, as if I could decide if gravity should effect me or not. So when we reduce ourselves to purely a naturalistic self, there is no possible way (that I can see) that we could possibly stop nature from happening and change it's course to our own likening. Does that make sense? In MUCH simpler terms, a rock on a hill may think he's defying gravity by not rolling down the hill. It may also think he's freely deciding to roll down the hill if something happened to bump it. But it's just gravity and some other force working on it. That rock doesn't seem to have any other choice in the matter.

So not only do I strongly suspect that "free will" is possible if naturalism is true, but I also suspect that consciousness is also an illusion. Certainly a bunch of physical stuff has come together and it's all acting and reacting in neat ways, I walk, run, sing, frolic, yell, ... but my "thoughts", my dreams, hopes, my reasoning, my thoughts of existing, ... it's all just chemical reactions, reactions to the environment, reactions to genes. Spectacular, but completely unavoidable. It's like the swirl in the water when you run your hand through it.

I feel more strongly on the argument against free will then I do consciousness being an illusion. But the only reason is because it's such a huge illusion if that's the case.

One other note... I do grant the notion that naturalism could be true, free will possible, but that everyone freely chose to do exactly as nature would have predicted. But free will at that point would be completely undetectable. But I find that position highly unlikely.

I pretty much agree with what you have written here. I do, in fact, believe that consciousness is an illusion, along with the self and so on.

Free Will = Naturalism is not true

Now, if we are more than chemicals and all the natural stuff, if we do have a spiritual side, if God exists and created us "in his image", then the situation is drastically different. If we have a non-physical side that is not bound by physical laws, then we are no longer under the control of the universe. The physical universe could and would still influence the body and thus the decisions that the spiritual side makes, but ultimately the spiritual side has "free will".

So those are my 2 basic arguments on free will and it's relationship to naturalism.

Okay. I agree that if there was a spiritual (or supernatural) dimension to this then the physical would not be the final answer.

But don't you think that you are simply adding more rules? I mean, presumably there are spiritual laws as much as there are physical ones. If there were no spiritual rules it would seem to me that it would be impossible for anything to happen at all. Can humans use their free will to circumvent these spiritual rules? How? Wouldn't they need an even higher level of being to do so?

In other words, you need a spiritual nature to overcome physical rules - if all you had was a physical nature it would be necessarily bound by those physical rules. But your spiritual nature would be bound by spiritual rules and would be unable to overcome them.

The only way round this is arguing that there are not any spiritual rules at all, and I do not think that that is a possibility.

 

[mepalmer3]

I pretty much agree with what you have written here. I do, in fact, believe that consciousness is an illusion, along with the self and so on.

I'm glad I stated that viewpoint well then. I think I remember you saying that. I of course reject the notion that all of it's an illusion. It's just too much for me.

Okay. I agree that if there was a spiritual (or supernatural) dimension to this then the physical would not be the final answer.

But don't you think that you are simply adding more rules? I mean, presumably there are spiritual laws as much as there are physical ones. If there were no spiritual rules it would seem to me that it would be impossible for anything to happen at all. Can humans use their free will to circumvent these spiritual rules? How? Wouldn't they need an even higher level of being to do so?

In other words, you need a spiritual nature to overcome physical rules - if all you had was a physical nature it would be necessarily bound by those physical rules. But your spiritual nature would be bound by spiritual rules and would be unable to overcome them.

The only way round this is arguing that there are not any spiritual rules at all, and I do not think that that is a possibility.

That's a great question. I DO in fact think that there are spiritual influences. Let's go back to the rock and gravity analogy. We see the rock rolling down the hill. We think gravity is the only thing moving that rock. But we don't know if that rock is really getting "commands" or "suggestions" from anywhere else. We couldn't possibly know, because those commands or suggestions aren't for us, they're for the rock. We have the dilemma with all of the stuff around us, except for us. If there is a spiritual side, and if there are spiritual laws or forces, then the only place we would expect to see them is within ourselves. And we do. At least a great number of people claim we do. And those spiritual forces come in the guise of commands/suggestions to do things that are "right". Give a helping hand to your friend, don't kill that man, be honest in your dealings with other people, etc... So in the one and only place we might expect to find some evidence of a god, we do. There's no reason why a bunch of chemical reactions should make me think, "it's wrong to eat my neighbor". But there is a lot of reason to suspect that some spiritual being, especially a spiritual being that would have created the physical universe, would be telling me to take care of it and stuff in it.

 

[Socrastein]

Once again Mepalmer, let me point out to you that whether or not an infinite regress of nature is possible has nothing to do with my argument. I am arguing that there cannot be an infinite regress of choices, to which you have agreed, and that is all that is pertinent to the matter at hand. It is for another thread to discuss infinite regress in nature itself, but it has no effect on my argument in this thread - so stop acting like it does and stick to the issue at hand.

Also, you unwittingly made a huge mistake in that last post of yours by specifically saying what I have been suspecting and waiting for all along. You don't even realize it because of your inability so far to grasp the issue at hand properly, so I'm going to point it out to you very clearly.

I'm not advocating indeterminism.

You seem to miss the deceptively simple point that unless you contend to completely violate one of the most fundamental rules of logic, the Law of Excluded Middle, that you have just assented to determinism.

Determinism says everything is causal.
Indeterminism says not everything is causal.

Indeterminism is simply ~determinism. The squiggly means "Not" in case you didn't know. And determinism simply means ~indeterminism. They are two contradictory propositions, and only one of them can be true as says the Law of Noncontradiction. So to say that you do not advocate indeterminism, is to say that you do advocate determinism - this is a necessary consequence of the nature of these propositions.

The fact is, neither indeterminism or determinism has any room for notions of "free will". Either the will is random, or the will is causally determined: there is no other option. Causality and randomness are contradictory and only one can be true - if everything is random, there isn't even choice - if everything is determined, there is choice, allbeit "forced" choice. Neither option has room for "freedom".

By erroneously postulating the existence of a spirit world, you only move the determinism up a notch - you do not solve the problem as you seem to assume. If the will isn't determined in the physical reality, then it is determined in the spiritual reality. If it isn't determined there, then it's determined in the second spiritual reality. Not there? Well then the 3rd. You cannot escape the problem of determinism and the nonsensical nature of "free will" - you can only arbitrarily complicate the situation in a foolish and ignorant attempt to solve it.

The situation does NOT become "drastically different" as you so zealously wish to believe. The situation is the same - either our actions are random, or they are causal. Whether they're random or causal in the spirit realm or not does NOT help your case. You have blinded yourself with your DESIRE to believe this, and are ignoring and/or failing to understand that there is no REASON to believe this.

All you have done is created a dualism between physical and mental/spiritual in which thoughts all relate to each other causally, which reaches down and causes effects in a physical world. What you get from this physical/spiritual or mind/body dualism is nothing more than a more complicated form of determinism: two-world determinism, in which the two realities combine to be deterministic but the physical reality by itself is not deterministic.

You've pushed back determinism another level, that is all. You have not resolved the issue in any meaningful way. If you are not doing this, then you must assent to indetermnism, and argue that our thoughts are not caused - so my choices and desires just spring into existence with no cause whatsoever. Either choices are caused, or they are not - there is no "half-causing" there is no "mere influence" as you keep prattling about.

You say that there is no freedom in naturalism because everything is determined, but how do you propose that there IS freedom in your dualistic determinism, your two-level determinism? You've simply added another half and together your dualistic combines into one large deterministic universe.

This is what I am getting at when I say that not only do we not have "free will", the concept itself doesn't even make any sense. There is no imaginable scenario where there is a meaningful notion of 'freedom'. This is why I said over and over that my argument does NOT rest on the assumption of naturalism, because my argument applies to your frivolous conjecturing of a spirit world too - it renders it just as erroneous and deterministic as a monistic naturalism.

You are playing a game, you seem to be arguing with sleight of hand, hiding the problem I have presented of determinism in your spirit realm. I say that freedom is incomapatible with determinism, and you say "Now you see it... now you don't!" and hide the determinism behind your back, in the "spirit world".

Unfortunately for you, your trick does not work, and even more unfortunately for you, I don't even think that YOU realize it doesn't work.

 

[mepalmer3]

Socrastein,

Such as simple thing to grasp, and yet so hard for you in this case.

I said I advocated self-determinism, where a person is the source for the reason. There is no other reason that forces the will to act. It does so on it's own. To deny that is to assume a complete illusion. There can't be an infinite regression of reasons for why things happen. We already agreed to this. This itself is proof of something that by it's own nature caused something to happen. Acting on one's own nature is not random.

The will isn't determined by other factors in the spiritual world, it itself determines what it will do. Without it's ability to freely decide, all reason/logic are merely illusions. You do realize this right? You MUST accept that every bit of your logic, every bit of your reasoning ability, everything you rely on for truth and understanding, is an illusion in order for your theory to be correct. Man, I just don't have as much faith as you do.

It's the free will theory against the illusion theory. We have evidence of free will, you throw your hands up and yell illusion so that you can avoid real evidence of a god. I do understand why you're fighting this so hard. Free will is a very scary idea for the non-believer.

 

[Socrastein]

Once again you resort to nothing more than sarcastic remarks, rather than reasonable arguments.

Self-determinism can only mean one of two things. The will is subject to its own determinism, in that every thought is a consequence of another thought, but whoops we run into infinite regress again.

Or...

There is no other reason that forces the will to act

Yeah, like I said in my last post. If the thoughts aren't caused, then they're just springing into existence uncaused - the very definition of random.

"No, that building didn't randomly appear, but it wasn't caused by construction either - it self-built itself into existence".

What an incredible argument.

And I suggest you stop appealing to consequences in your posts, its getting tiresome.

 

[David Gould]

There is actually significant evidence that free will is an illusion. I highly recommend, 'The Illusion of Conscious Will' by Daniel Wegner. You also read, 'Freedom Evolves' by Daniel Dennett for a look at how compatabilists think (a compatabilist is someone who believes in determinism but also believes in free will) and 'The Blank Slate' by Steven Pinker, which looks at issues on the periphery of the argument.

You are mistaken about the notion of free will being scary to an atheist. I was an atheist long before my belief in free will dissappeared. It is the other way round, actually. The lack of free will would disprove Arminian Christianity; the presence of free will would not be evidence for deity.

 

[thomas100]

The main consequence of determinism is of course that my choices "will be" whatever it is that they will be, and nothing will change that. However, I do not know what "will be", and thus I am 'free' to attempt to influence my environment and other people in whatever way I believe will be beneficial.

So, you appear to yourself to be free but conclude logically that you are not in fact free, right ?

 

[Socrastein]

So, you appear to yourself to be free but conclude logically that you are not in fact free, right ?

Yes, exactly. I realize that my apparent, subjective freedom is to be expected within the parameters of a concious being that cannot possibly understand all the factors of its decisions.

 

[thomas100]

Yes, exactly. I realize that my apparent, subjective freedom is to be expected within the parameters of a concious being that cannot possibly understand all the factors of its decisions.

Yeh, I think that "apparent, subjective freedom within the parameters of a concious being" will do me fine as a definition of free-will.

 

[David Gould]

Yeh, I think that "apparent, subjective freedom within the parameters of a concious being" will do me fine as a definition of free-will.

Fair enough. This definition means that you are accepting that it is an illusion but operating as if it is real, though. Is that really the kind of 'free will' that you mean when you talk about free will, or do when you talk about free will do you mean real free will - the ability to have done otherwise?

 

[Jehovarapha]

Those things you say bind you causing you to make certain decisions are called "generational curses". I recommend that you do a bible study on that. Jesus freed us from all curses and you must believe that because the bible is clear. You, if saved by the blood of Jesus are no longer bound by any curse. He broke the curse of sin and death off your life as well as generational curses passed down by family or other influences. Claim that for your life today in Jesus name. God bless you all!