• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Free will and determinism

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think it's time for someone to explain how they make decisions. I don't think that @Fervent is going to do it. So off you go. Explain the process point by point and we'll investigate it. I'll wait here while you think about it.
Nope, no plans to offer an explanation. It's a mystery, but it seems preferable to be honest enough to admit that it's a mystery than pretend to know something that I couldn't possibly know or defend. And it's pretty clear that neither side is going to budge at this point and we're just going to go round and round, so how about you answer why you would be so committed to denying the efficacy of your own agency and denying causal power to your will? What do you gain out of playing the word games to claim you have free will but not really?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,364
69
Pennsylvania
✟945,446.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
That's an awful lot of words to not say very much.
Yes, it is very complicated to try to accommodate your thinking so that you can understand the simple fact of causation.
Could have stopped with the first point, because you've stated a metaphysical thesis as if it were a self-evident truth.
Abstract thinking concerning physical principle does not imply metaphysical thesis. And yes, it is self-evident that causation drives all things subsequent to first cause. What is not self-evident, is the illogical notion that determinism rejects choice.
You admit you can't catalogue all of these supposed causes, so where do you gain knowledge of them?
Why use the nebulous term, "gain knowledge of"? Why should I need to be able to catalogue the myriad causes and long chains that result in the choice someone makes, in order to know that all effects are caused?

We see it all day every day! We even speak that way --"Why did Billy do THAT!? What in the world is WRONG with you, Billy???"
I'd like to see why you think it is metaphysics, but in the end, it doesn't matter. The question is irrelevant. That fact is that cause-and-effect is self-evident all around us. You have, for some reason, neither metaphysical nor physical support, but only happy-go-lucky ignoring of the obvious. Your position is maintained only by the consternation of "Determinism denies CHOICE!" Yet nobody has yet shown how that is so. It is only so far, in something like 148 pages of nearly 3000 posts, mere assertion.

But it has been fun!
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,053
15,664
72
Bondi
✟370,070.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Nope, no plans to offer an explanation. It's a mystery...
How you make a decision is a mystery? How on earth can that be? How can it possibly be that you don't know how you chose something? I'm not looking for some esoteric, hard to comprehend neurological process. I just want to know the steps that you go through to decide something. How you a make a choice. You can pick anything that you like. It can be an actual choice that you made or you can invent one. The job that you have. The place that you live. Where you last went on holiday and how you got there. Anything. Anything at all.

If you asked someone why they chose to live in NY or why they went to France for their holiday and they said 'Hey, it's a complete mystery to me', you'd think they were an idiot. So please, don't say that you don't know. Tell us what the process is that you go through.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, it is very complicated to try to accommodate your thinking so that you can understand the simple fact of causation.
Your model of causation is not a fact. And that's where this whole conversation breaks down, because you assert a simplistic model of causation as "fact" when it is anything but. You're talking about an overarching metaphysical "fact" that you believe in without being able to demonstrate, while I'm talking about a model of human behavior. What I'm saying is empirical, yours a construct of your thinking.
 
Reactions: CoreyD
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here you go again with what appears to be dishonesty, unless you genuinely have comprehension issues. It is a mystery how it is possible for me to make decisions, because I don't know everything that is involved in the process and don't pretend that I do. There are influences that I'm not always aware of, causes that I can't always track down, but ultimately the choice is at least partially in my hand. I won't pretend to understand how the universe works such that I am able to make decisions, though it seems unlikely that it is a fixed process with only one possible outcome. So because the best explanation for human behavior seems to be free will, and it seems that by definition free will is excluded on determinism, it seems likely that determinism is false.
You're claiming a lot more than that. If you asked that same person how a T-rex dying in Montana millions of years ago played into their decision they'd likely laugh in your face. Yet that's the kind of ridiculousness determinism asks us to believe. Having reasons for making decisions doesn't prove determinism, it just creates a dishonest distraction from the conversation.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,053
15,664
72
Bondi
✟370,070.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Your model of causation is not a fact.
If we ask 'Why did that happen?' we are looking for a cause of it happening. We are looking for the reason why it happened. What you are saying is that you make decisions for no reason. There was no cause for them being made.

Hence my request for you to give an example of a decision that you made so that we can examine it. And hence the reason why you will avoid doing so. It's not a mystery. That's a nonsensical excuse. You just haven't got an example that fits your position.

Maybe @CoreyD will try.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,053
15,664
72
Bondi
✟370,070.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, I just want what you do know. That keeps it simple. Tell me the reasons that you know about as regards any decision you have ever made. No need to involve dinosaurs.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If we ask 'Why did that happen?' we are looking for a cause of it happening. We are looking for the reason why it happened. What you are saying is that you make decisions for no reason. There was no cause for them being made.
You're twisting words around here relying on multiple meanings of "cause." I may have several reasons for doing something, all separately causing the same behavior. But that doesn't work in determinism, which requires that the decision have a sufficient historical cause. It is not enough that there are contemporaneous causes that lead me to make a decision, as reasons would be. If you truly wished to defend determinism, you wouldn't be resorting to these word games. And since you've been called out on it multiple times and persist with these sorts of "arguments" I must conclude you are intellectually dishonest, whether it is simply fooling yourself or trying to fool others is the only question.
Yeah, your repetition of the same "argument" doesn't make it any better. You divert from the real issues with determinism and refuse to answer questions of why you defend such a thesis even though it requires you to engage in this sort of sophistry in order to have some semblance of defense.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, I just want what you do know. That keeps it simple. Tell me the reasons that you know about as regards any decision you have ever made. No need to involve dinosaurs.
For word games that you've been called out on multiple times by multiple users. Since you're arguing against a position no one holds, while conflating multiple meanings of the same word in order to give a smoke screen "defense" that doesn't actually fit with determinism, since you're calling contemporaneous "causes" antecedents, but I'm willing to bet you believe that physical causation is the heart of determinism, which would mean these "causes" you speak of(reasons, desires, etc) are not causally involved...since the sufficient cause of any action would be physical structures. You're conflating a metaphysical hypothesis with an explanation of human behavior, and giving undue priority to the metaphysical hypothesis.
 
Reactions: CoreyD
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,053
15,664
72
Bondi
✟370,070.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I may have several reasons for doing something, all separately causing the same behavior.
Now your position was that you could make a decision that wasn't caused by anything. Now you've just said that there are reasons why you did something and they caused the decision. Maybe you can be specific about what it was so we can look at what it was that was 'causing the same behaviour.'

At the moment you are describing what I've been explaining to you. So there must be something that you are missing. Please continue.
 
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,364
69
Pennsylvania
✟945,446.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Fervent said:
Nope, no plans to offer an explanation. It's a mystery...
@Fervent if how your thesis works is a mystery, you have no basis for rejecting determinism. You have to show how you can make decisions uncaused.
 
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,053
15,664
72
Bondi
✟370,070.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
For word games that you've been called out on multiple times by multiple users. Since you're arguing against a position no one holds...
Your position is that decisions can be made that are uncaused. I'm arguing against that. We're looking for examples from you. We're looking for the process that you go through in making a decision so we can examine it (you said it was a mystery but then almost immediately said that there are reasons for making a choice - and that's part of the process).
...since you're calling contemporaneous "causes" antecedents...
Yes, we'll keep this simple. You might argue that a T Rex has nothing to do with where you go on holiday, so we'll skip that. But your position is not that dinosaurs have nothing to do with causation in regards to your decisions. Your position is that a decision can be made where nothing is the cause.

So please, carry on describing your process (using contemporaneous information that you know about).
 
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Aaron112

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2022
5,342
1,345
TULSA
✟114,551.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Silence may be Gold. Video Biblical advice how to stop arguing with bad spirits.
"I needed this. I live with a friend temporarily and she misunderstands me a lot and twist my words. I will be quiet. Let go and Let God."
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,364
69
Pennsylvania
✟945,446.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Silence may be Gold. Video Biblical advice how to stop arguing with bad spirits.
"I needed this. I live with a friend temporarily and she misunderstands me a lot and twist my words. I will be quiet. Let go and Let God."
relevance?
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,053
15,664
72
Bondi
✟370,070.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Silence may be Gold. Video Biblical advice how to stop arguing with bad spirits.
Maybe you're unaware of the cosmological argument. It's one of the 'proofs' for God. That every event has a cause. Therefore we can take that cause and effect back to the very beginning and we could say that there must have been, right at the start, an uncaused cause. And that is God.

Now I don't agree with the conclusion. But the premise, put forward by no less than Thomas Aquinas, is actually determinism. It's a well know theological argument. It hardly springs from 'bad spirits'. I am absolutely certain that if I had put Iit forward as such then those now arguing against it would be agreeing with it.

Maybe you should investigate it.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Which includes capacity for reasoning....or in other words, the ability to create reasons, not merely preferences, for a choice.

Free will.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

The simple logic of causation?

I gave you an example of a situation where it would be extremely difficult to find a unique cause for a unique choice....and you simply asserted it must be there.

That's faith, not logic, not evidence. You can claim whatever you like without any shred of evidence....but there's nothing remotely logical about it.



 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

You can abstract from the known possible choices to unknown possible choices or synthesis of existing possible choices into new possible choices.

Obviously.


There's nothing magical about deciding what you prefer.

Preference doesn't seem to have much to do with the prospect of reasoning. I may prefer to call in sick but go to work anyway.

They're not 'arbitrary' decisions.

Some must be arbitrary. When potential differences between definitely unique choices are made out necessity without any clear understanding of differences....your idea of cause seems to entirely disappear in any explanatory power.

That's because the only distinguishing factor between cause and effect is the relationship between them. When I choose to get a soda from the fridge....the cause is always because I wanted a soda from the fridge. It's doesn't matter which one is chosen because I have to choose one, so the idea that a unique cause made me choose one is absurd.
This occurs in exactly the same way if free will exists or not.

Then determinism explains nothing at all. It's nonsense masked as intellectualism. You're so far removed from your previous claims you now believe determinism and free will are the same thing....literally.

Congratulations, you've played yourself. A theory that unprovable (and it is) and unfalsifiable (and it is if this is what you're now claiming) is a useless theory.


No, the metaphysical concept is dualism. This mysterious manner in which one can make choices that aren't determined by anything.

What could you possibly be choosing from if you aren't at least limited by the choices you can consider? Not determined by anything makes no sense....where am I where completely unknown choices are only possible and still considered choices? Outside a universe lol?

Your attempt to redefine free will in nonsense....and determinism doesn't attack dualism.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,248
6,240
Montreal, Quebec
✟302,186.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I would like to address the matter of whether determinism excludes the possibility of making decisions. I maintain that it is relatively self-evident that it does not. A computer program, which I assume we will agree is completely deterministic, can make decisions - based on input and the logic of the program and the data it is fed, it may produce different outputs that, in turn, can affect the world (for example, if the program is inside a robot). Are these not decisions?

On the other hand, if you define a decision as necessarily entailing free will or some element of indeterminism, that's another story. But to me, that would be arguing circularly.

I suggest that a decision occurs anytime processing of information produces an impact on the world. I see no case that decisions cannot occur in a fully deterministic world.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

Jo555

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2024
1,030
250
59
Daytona
✟32,801.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If i understand you correctly, i agree to an extent.

As a Christian from what i know of freewill, or the ability to choose, before conversion, is an illusion ... But i can elaborate more on your thoughts because i think we are kinda on the same page there. And excuse me if I'm not fully understanding you. I feel like I'm struggling in French class all over again.

Merci Beaucoup.

The apostle Paul covers this in the book of Romans, chapter 7:

14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. 15 I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. 17 So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[d] I want to do what is right, but I can’t. 19 I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. 20 But if I do what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

21 I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22 I love God’s law with all my heart. 23 But there is another power[e] within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24 Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? 25 Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God’s law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.
---------
In this chapter, and elsewhere in the book, Paul is speaking of the ineffectiveness of the law to change us because of spiritual properties at work. These spiritual properties are greater than our knowledge of good and evil and wanting to choose good over evil. This is the state of man before faith in Christ. More to it that i can go into later, but yes, prior faith the ability to choose is illusionary. The point of bringing choice in, and the law, was never to redeem us, but to show us our inability of our own.

As i like to tell others, you can test it. Life itself confirms these things.

Like i used to smoke. I tried to quit, but i just kept going back to it because knowing it wasn't good for me and just telling myself not to smoke just made the desire for a cigarette even greater. This is how partaking if the knowledge of good and evil works, or the law. It doesn't change you within; doesn't change the spiritual property at work. In other words, it doesn't change the heart.

It was brought in as a temporary measure to show us ourselves apart from the Lord's Spirit, given to those who believe in Father's God's work through Christ. Additionally, it is also like the police, who are representatives of the law. It helps restrain human behavior out of fear of consequences, but has no power to change the heart / spiritual property.

Whether you believe in God or not, it is hard to deny the depth of wisdom in there regarding human nature and properties at work.

So i would say that prior to faith, you premise is correct. I don't necessarily believe that is the case after faith, but not sure how affectively i can debate that because I'm still learning your language.

Can say more on it, but not sure if I'm on the same page regarding your thoughts and takes time to going into it more, so may need to return another day.

I ended up dropping french. Hopefully i can do better here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0