Free Will

[Socrastein]

"the will is either determined or random". By allowing only those two options, you have denied the existence of free will

Exactly. Thing is, you can't logically interject another option. Voluntary means nothing, you are still bound to determined, or not determined. If it's not determined, it can happen differently every time under the exact same conditions - this is random in the purest sense. Running away to the land of metaphysics does not escape this, you only create a dual-deterministic setting, where the phyical and metaphysical jointly determined actions. Unless of course the metaphysical is random, and thus choices are indeterminate.

 

[Angel4Truth]

wow i guess i cant see a movie and know how it turns out , without affecting how it turns out ......... i didnt know that

 

[Socrastein]

I really hope you're not talking to me Angel. I specifically said my argument has NOTHING to do with divine foreknowledge.

But I'll take a bite at your argument anyway. Do movies have free will? Can they happen anymore than one way? Doesn't the fact that we know with absolute certainity exactly how they will happen and win, mean that they can never happen any other way? Where do you fit free will into "Can never diverge from one set course of action"?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I really hope you're not talking to me Angel. I specifically said my argument has NOTHING to do with divine foreknowledge.

But I'll take a bite at your argument anyway. Do movies have free will? Can they happen anymore than one way? Doesn't the fact that we know with absolute certainity exactly how they will happen and win, mean that they can never happen any other way? Where do you fit free will into "Can never diverge from one set course of action"?

The point was that God can know what we will choose without making the choice for us period .

 

[Socrastein]

The point was that God can know what we will choose without making the choice for us period

Well I never said he made the choice for us, and I haven't seen anyone else in this thread say that. It's not that I make the rock roll down the hill, but the fact is that I know it can only go one way, down the hill, and because this is known for certain, it has no freedom to act outside of it's determined course of action.

 

[joemaloy]

The point was that God can know what we will choose without making the choice for us period .

Which puts the argument back into "predetermined"

Because you will not be able to CHANGE your CHOICE without god knowing beforehand. Which means you dont have one.

 

[Sosorius]

Free will is a pleasant idea to entertain, but ultimately the creation of man's fear of random probability. On the other side of the spectrum, "fate" is simply a submissive belief used as an excuse for a given feeling of helplessness.

As a general rule, you have far less free will then most people enjoy accepting. Why? Well, if for no other reason, because everybody else has "free will." It is natural that in a world where choice is an adamant component, the choices of many will influence the actions of many, even if on a subtle scale. You are very minutely manipulated hundreds of times a day, every day, by the choices of others. Likewise your present stance in life is in large the end result of two ingredients: your own decisions of the past, and the decisions of others in existence who are somehow connected to your present state. Most people do not draw the connection between taking a little longer to enjoy a bowl of oatmeal in the morning and being the only key witness to a murder that night, but there is one. You may not draw a connection between deciding not to pass another driver on the highway and then getting caught in a large traffic jam some hours later, but there is one. None the less, if you suddenly "choose" with your free will that you should not be in that traffic jam, the situation will not chance. Why? Because the free will of others has interacted with nature to create this particular result of a probability, against the occurence of which you individually are helpless.

This of course brings into view the subject of nature-person interaction, wherein we may simply react to what probability throws at us. We can not decide to not be in a Tornado when it comes down upon us anymore than we can choose the exact time of our natural biological death. Your decisions are carefully shaped and weaved in a manner that you create the illusion of ultimate freedom of choice, but in reality there are only so many possible reactions to a given circumstance within the parameters set by nature. Those possibilities are then narrowed further by the possible choices of others, and the actions they consequently take. If two orbits cause collision, then the path can not be travelled.

Who, then, has free will? The man who controls his neighbor and nature simultaneously. Everyone else is the victim of circumstance.

 

[Lifesaver]

Exactly. Thing is, you can't logically interject another option. Voluntary means nothing, you are still bound to determined, or not determined. If it's not determined, it can happen differently every time under the exact same conditions - this is random in the purest sense. Running away to the land of metaphysics does not escape this, you only create a dual-deterministic setting, where the phyical and metaphysical jointly determined actions. Unless of course the metaphysical is random, and thus choices are indeterminate.

Not at all. You are accepting, without any reason, that an event is either randomic or determined, as these are the kinds of events observed in non-animated entities (rocks, particles, etc).
For a long time many people believed "randomic" didn't mean anything, as it was contrary to their pressupositions of how the universe worked. Today it seems that randomness in events is possible, even if restricted to fields with little relevance to our life.
Yours is a circular reasoning, assuming voluntary choice not to exist only to conclude it doesn't exist.
A, therefore A.

A valid argument, no doubt, but unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with it.

You experience choice every single day of your life, and you know how you could have acted differently, and how you have reasons for all your actions and possible actions. Yet, you conclude that this thing you experience is something that cannot (according to you) logically exist; and this in itself is another problem to your theory, because it is impossible to experience something whose existence is logically impossible.
You have completely disregarded the will and constructed an argument based on physical observation (and the will is necessarily and demonstrably non-physical), and applied its conclusion to the will.

 

[Socrastein]

You are accepting, without any reason, that an event is either randomic or determined, as these are the kinds of events observed in non-animated entities (rocks, particles, etc).

It's called the Law of Excluded Middle. For every proposition P, it is true that either P is true or P is false. Let P mean "Choices are causally determined". So it is true that either choices are causally determined or they are not causally determined. If they are not causally determined, then they are random as I have demonstrated.

So logically the only two options are Determined or Random.

Yours is a circular reasoning, assuming voluntary choice not to exist only to conclude it doesn't exist.
A, therefore A.

Um, no it's not. Either you didn't actually read/understand my argument, or you have no idea what circular reasoning actually means.

A valid argument, no doubt, but unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with it.

Actually if I was using circular reasoning my argument would be invalid. But I am not using circular reasoning.

You experience choice every single day of your life, and you know how you could have acted differently, and how you have reasons for all your actions and possible actions. Yet, you conclude that this thing you experience is something that cannot (according to you) logically exist; and this in itself is another problem to your theory, because it is impossible to experience something whose existence is logically impossible.

Yes, of course I experience choice every day of my life. But I don't experience free choice. And appealing to feelings and intuition in spite of solid logic to the contrary is a poor way to make an argument. I have undeniable and precise logical reasoning the disproves the notion that a choice can be objectively free, and I'm supposed to throw logic, the fundamental structure of reality, out the window cause you FEEL like I'm wrong?

 

[Lifesaver]

It's called the Law of Excluded Middle. For every proposition P, it is true that either P is true or P is false. Let P mean "Choices are causally determined". So it is true that either choices are causally determined or they are not causally determined.

Up to here you are absolutely correct.

If they are not causally determined, then they are random as I have demonstrated.

You haven't demonstrated this at all; you have stated it.

So logically the only two options are Determined or Random.

Your assumption.

Actually if I was using circular reasoning my argument would be invalid. But I am not using circular reasoning.

False. A valid argument is one in which it is impossible for the premisses to be true and the conclusion false.
In the argument A, therefore A, it is impossible for the premiss to be true (A) and the conclusion to be false (A). Thus it is valid; A follows logically from A. But not persuasive.

Yes, of course I experience choice every day of my life. But I don't experience free choice. And appealing to feelings and intuition in spite of solid logic to the contrary is a poor way to make an argument. I have undeniable and precise logical reasoning the disproves the notion that a choice can be objectively free, and I'm supposed to throw logic, the fundamental structure of reality, out the window cause you FEEL like I'm wrong?

It is not a question of feelings versus logic; you are misconstructing the argument, and attacking the misconstruction instead of the original version.
Take an illogical concept: a circular square.
It is impossible to experience a circular square (to see or imagine one). It is impossible to experience what is inherently illogical, as you claim free will to be.
However, it is possible, and it happens in fact, to experience free will; so much that almost everyone say they have it.

 

[Socrastein]

You haven't demonstrated this at all; you have stated it.

Perhaps you never read my post where I discussed the fact that if every single variable is the same, but the outcome is different, then the outcome does not follow from the variables. If the outcome does not follow from the variables, then there is no reason, no cause for it to occur. So if it happens without regard to circumstance, having no cause or reason, how is that not random? Unless you're using the word random to mean "Puppy dogs" then yes, an indetermined action is most definitely not puppy dogs.

As for stating, you're simply stating that I'm wrong, you have not actually argued it. So please tell me how an event with no regard to variables or causes can be called a choice. A choice is not a choice unless it's made for reasons, but if it is indetermined, there is no reason for it.

False. A valid argument is one in which it is impossible for the premisses to be true and the conclusion false.
In the argument A, therefore A, it is impossible for the premiss to be true (A) and the conclusion to be false (A). Thus it is valid; A follows logically from A. But not persuasive.

A valid argument is only valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. A circular argument is NOT valid, because the conclusion does follow from anything, it is simply a subtle way of saying "Therefore X" without any logical deduction. The Law of Identity is not a logical syllogism, it is simply an axiom. So saying that the Law of Identity is a valid argument is incorrect. And that's what you're talking about, "X therefore X". All that is saying is X=X. This is not an argument, it is not a deduction, it is not a syllogism. It's an axiom.

It is not a question of feelings versus logic; you are misconstructing the argument, and attacking the misconstruction instead of the original version.
Take an illogical concept: a circular square.
It is impossible to experience a circular square (to see or imagine one). It is impossible to experience what is inherently illogical, as you claim free will to be.
However, it is possible, and it happens in fact, to experience free will; so much that almost everyone say they have it.

I'm not misconstruing anything, and this is obvious to me since you proved my very point with this paragaph.

It is impossible to experience what is inherently illogical, as you claim free will to be.
However, it is possible, and it happens in fact, to experience free will; so much that almost everyone say they have it.

Rather than refute my argument that free will is illogical, you try to invalidate the logic by saying that your feelings trump it. How is that not feelings over logic? If my feelings tell me one thing, and a sound logical argument that I cannot refute tells me another thing, I'd be an idiot to forsake logic and side with my feelings. If you are not doing this, then don't even bother to mention your feelings, cause they're irrelevent. And appealing to majority shows even more how weak your position is. If you want to show me you're not just appealing to what you "feel" is true, then soundly refute my argument.

 

[Lifesaver]

Perhaps you never read my post where I discussed the fact that if every single variable is the same, but the outcome is different, then the outcome does not follow from the variables. If the outcome does not follow from the variables, then there is no reason, no cause for it to occur. So if it happens without regard to circumstance, having no cause or reason, how is that not random?

That's exactly your mistake. Based on how the physical world works you have concluded the only way causation works is like that.
You have disregarded that the outcome may depend on the variables but not be determined by them; that the rational soul may choose based on the variables, which are also influenced by the will, besides having their part in determining it. And it is from this interaction that free will arises; the possibility of acting like a man, and doing what is rational, or doing evil, that is, an irrational action.

So please tell me how an event with no regard to variables or causes can be called a choice.

Just because something is not determined by variables does not mean it is an event with no regard to them.

A choice is not a choice unless it's made for reasons, but if it is indetermined, there is no reason for it.

And having contrary reasons, the agent may choose between them; he chooses the one he values the most; and his values can also be influenced by his will.
Ultimately, before all variables and volitions of the will, there is God's grace influencing man to do what is right (what is rational).

A valid argument is only valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises.

Exactly.
And a valid argument is always valid.

Rather than refute my argument that free will is illogical, you try to invalidate the logic by saying that your feelings trump it. How is that not feelings over logic? If my feelings tell me one thing, and a sound logical argument that I cannot refute tells me another thing, I'd be an idiot to forsake logic and side with my feelings.

Again the misconstruction.
I'm not saying "you must believe because you feel it". This would be the position you are attacking.
My position is:
you argue that free will is illogical. Illogical concepts cannot ever be experienced in any way, even in our imagination. We experience free will. Therefore, it is not illogical.
It is a logical argument, of which one of the premises is that we experience free will.
I also made no appeal to majority, either. I further substantiated the premise "we experience free will" with the evidence "people believe they have free will".

Anger and attempts at atacking the strawman will not make your position any less shaky.

 

[Socrastein]

That's exactly your mistake. Based on how the physical world works you have concluded the only way causation works is like that.
You have disregarded that the outcome may depend on the variables but not be determined by them; that the rational soul may choose based on the variables, which are also influenced by the will, besides having their part in determining it. And it is from this interaction that free will arises; the possibility of acting like a man, and doing what is rational, or doing evil, that is, an irrational action.

Depends on the variables but is not determined by them huh? You want to elaborate on this idea?

As for this soul factor that you are magically placing into the equation to make your argument (Occam's razor is of no meaning to you is it?) my logic still applies - does the soul make it's choice for reasons, or is it indetermined? And if it can choose different ways under the EXACT same circumstances, then WHY does it choose different ways? Obviously not because of the variables, because if they remained the same, the reasons would remain the same, and thus the outcome would remain the same.

You're basically trying to tell me that 2+2 = *Something different every time*. Even worse, you're trying to say that there's nothing wrong with that, it's not random, it's just the soul at work.

Just because something is not determined by variables does not mean it is an event with no regard to them.

Expound on this idea. What does it mean to be semi-determined?

And having contrary reasons, the agent may choose between them; he chooses the one he values the most; and his values can also be influenced by his will.
Ultimately, before all variables and volitions of the will, there is God's grace influencing man to do what is right (what is rational).

Exactly, he chooses the one he values most. And choices are made because of what we value. So how can we choose what we value? We would need different values to make that choice. And if we choose THOSE values, we need even more seperate values to make that choice. Ad infinitum. This is obviously nonsensical.

Therefore we cannot choose the reasons we make choices, and thus if variables remain constant, we will make one and only one choice - that which is dictated by the reasons for our choice.

And a valid argument is always valid.

Yeah no duh. Is there a point to your tautology?

I'm not saying "you must believe because you feel it". This would be the position you are attacking.

Wow Lifesaver, using straw men attacks to try and make it look like I'm making straw men attacks. Can anything possibly be more ironic? I said that you dismiss my argument because your feelings tell you otherwise. And that's exactly what you've done. You sure as hell haven't refuted my argument. You've simply denied it, and you've said that it must be wrong because everyone feels like they are free.

My position is:
you argue that free will is illogical. Illogical concepts cannot ever be experienced in any way, even in our imagination. We experience free will. Therefore, it is not illogical.
It is a logical argument, of which one of the premises is that we experience free will.
I also made no appeal to majority, either. I further substantiated the premise "we experience free will" with the evidence "people believe they have free will".

Yeah, like I said. You don't actually refute my argument, you just say it must be wrong because your feelings tell you otherwise.

Also, what does it mean to "experience free will"? How is this possible? How can a human being ever know if they could have chosen otherwise? Do you have people with time machines making you repeat decisions unaware and then later telling you the results?

Anger and attempts at atacking the strawman will not make your position any less shaky.

I don't know what makes you think I am angry. Are you just trying to demonize me or something? Also, like I pointed out, you're using strawmen to accuse me of using strawmen. You might want to reconsider your method of debate.

 

[kedaman]

Is life predetermined or do you have free will.
Considering that the bible has lots of things about prophecy.. ie"Life Predetermined"
Then you have the "Choice" of accepting Christ as you savior.
I cant see how you can have both.
Did Christ know from his birth that he was going to be Crucified, and if not when DID he know. or was Going on the cross a "plan B" sence the Jews didnt accept him.
He knew that Judas was going to betray him. -Predetermined-
At this Point Im leaning toward life being Predetermined.

Oh. And whatever you do, DONT come on here and say just have faith,cause to me thats just a copout.

I don't think they are incompatible:
determinism connects events in time, so that the prior event (or events) makes the latter necessary. Free will is trasncendent and is thus not an event in time.

 

[Lifesaver]

Depends on the variables but is not determined by them huh? You want to elaborate on this idea?

Surely. A man is on dilemma regarding his action. He has reasons he considers good to do a number of different things.

As for this soul factor that you are magically placing into the equation to make your argument (Occam's razor is of no meaning to you is it?) my logic still applies - does the soul make it's choice for reasons, or is it indetermined? And if it can choose different ways under the EXACT same circumstances, then WHY does it choose different ways? Obviously not because of the variables, because if they remained the same, the reasons would remain the same, and thus the outcome would remain the same.

First, the existence of the soul is demonstrable; to deny it is to be irrational.
The soul makes choices for reasons; and yet, it can make more than one choice in a given scenario.

You're basically trying to tell me that 2+2 = *Something different every time*. Even worse, you're trying to say that there's nothing wrong with that, it's not random, it's just the soul at work.

You are crazy...

Exactly, he chooses the one he values most. And choices are made because of what we value. So how can we choose what we value? We would need different values to make that choice. And if we choose THOSE values, we need even more seperate values to make that choice. Ad infinitum.

Now you are getting somewhere; you have already understood that, even though the intellect determines the will, this determination is decided by the effect of the will on the intellect.
Surely, though, as you point out, it is absurd to think that our mind works in an infinite loop. Ultimately, there must be some external principle superior to the human mind; and that is the will of God, God's providence (always prompting the human will to the good ends), without which it would be impossible for free will even to exist.

Therefore we cannot choose the reasons we make choices, and thus if variables remain constant, we will make one and only one choice - that which is dictated by the reasons for our choice.

And here you once again fall into your old error, for even though the intellect has a great power over the will, the will too influences the intellect.

Yeah no duh. Is there a point to your tautology?

Just correcting your previous statement.

Wow Lifesaver, using straw men attacks to try and make it look like I'm making straw men attacks. Can anything possibly be more ironic? I said that you dismiss my argument because your feelings tell you otherwise. And that's exactly what you've done. You sure as hell haven't refuted my argument. You've simply denied it, and you've said that it must be wrong because everyone feels like they are free.

Sure, sure... I'll try to show you one last time how I am not making the strawman you construed, though I suspect the fault here lies not in your understanding but in your will.

you just say it must be wrong because your feelings tell you otherwise.

Once again you are attacking the strawman; an argument I never used.
Let me repeat it, and see whether you understand it this time.

Premisses:
-it is impossible to experience illogical concepts.
-people experience free will.
Conclusion:
-therefore, free will is not an illogical concept.

Notice that "my feelings" are not even a part of the argument, so your strawman has been exposed and is undeniable.

Also, what does it mean to "experience free will"? How is this possible? How can a human being ever know if they could have chosen otherwise? Do you have people with time machines making you repeat decisions unaware and then later telling you the results?

Just because you can't be sure there's a computer screen in front of you doesn't mean you are not experiencing, through your senses, a computer screen. Were a computer screen an inherently illogical concept, it would be impossible to experience it even as a hallucation.
This argument does not seek to prove the existence of free will. It seeks to prove that free will is not illogical, as is your claim.

I don't know what makes you think I am angry. Are you just trying to demonize me or something? Also, like I pointed out, you're using strawmen to accuse me of using strawmen. You might want to reconsider your method of debate.

I did not misconstrue any argument of yours; had I, you would have showed where I did it, and what the true argument was. Since you didn't, I can only assume you are using this as a means not to adress the argument I used, and turn this into an exchange of accusations.

I hope you will refrain from the refuted attempts of making the strawman, accusing me of making a strawman and accusing me of arguing ad populum. Besides those and some instances of needless teasing and nitpicking, you are making good points.

 

[Socrastein]

Surely. A man is on dilemma regarding his action. He has reasons he considers good to do a number of different things.

Yeah, and computer AI has plenty of options that it picks from for various reasons. Therefore AI has free will?

First, the existence of the soul is demonstrable; to deny it is to be irrational.
The soul makes choices for reasons; and yet, it can make more than one choice in a given scenario.

So you say it's demonstratable, so much that denying it is irrational. Yet you don't offer a single piece of evidence or a shred of support.

You are crazy..

Perhaps, but that isn't a very good rebuttal.

Surely, though, as you point out, it is absurd to think that our mind works in an infinite loop. Ultimately, there must be some external principle superior to the human mind; and that is the will of God, God's providence (always prompting the human will to the good ends), without which it would be impossible for free will even to exist.

Ah, so without God free will is possible. Well then, please prove that God exists, and then prove that God influences us with his will and providence. Otherwise, you're just throwing in factors to make your argument. I can say that there are magical squid that float around Saturn, and because they exist, free will is impossible. But that's a pretty ridiculous argument unless and I first prove these squid exist, and secondly explain how and prove that they make free will impossible.

And here you once again fall into your old error, for even though the intellect has a great power over the will, the will too influences the intellect.

Once again you fail to refute my argument, you simply state I'm wrong and state you're right. All you're saying here is "No, we have free will".

Once again you are attacking the strawman; an argument I never used.
Let me repeat it, and see whether you understand it this time.

Premisses:
-it is impossible to experience illogical concepts.
-people experience free will.
Conclusion:
-therefore, free will is not an illogical concept.

Notice that "my feelings" are not even a part of the argument, so your strawman has been exposed and is undeniable.

One of the definitions of "feelings" is an awareness or impression. So it's quite accurate to say that you're appealing to your feelings when you say that because we supposedly "experience free will" the logic of my argument is somehow magically debunked.

Once again, you try to say I'm using straw men, and then your explanation turns out to be exactly what I was saying in the first place.

Just because you can't be sure there's a computer screen in front of you doesn't mean you are not experiencing, through your senses, a computer screen. Were a computer screen an inherently illogical concept, it would be impossible to experience it even as a hallucation.
This argument does not seek to prove the existence of free will. It seeks to prove that free will is not illogical, as is your claim.

You claim we experience free will. I asked you how we experience free will, more importantly, how can you even know you are experiencing free will? You've not answered this. Your attempt at debunking my logic through appealing to your feelings is already bad enough, but when you can't even justify these feelings, you've really got nothing.

I did not misconstrue any argument of yours; had I, you would have showed where I did it, and what the true argument was. Since you didn't, I can only assume you are using this as a means not to adress the argument I used, and turn this into an exchange of accusations.

Yes, you did misconstrue an argument of mine, and yes, I did show where you did it, and yes, I did show what the true argument was. Are you actually being serious?

I'm not saying "you must believe because you feel it". This would be the position you are attacking.

Wow Lifesaver, using straw men attacks to try and make it look like I'm making straw men attacks. Can anything possibly be more ironic? I said that you dismiss my argument because your feelings tell you otherwise. And that's exactly what you've done. You sure as hell haven't refuted my argument. You've simply denied it, and you've said that it must be wrong because everyone feels like they are free.

 

[Lifesaver]

Yeah, and computer AI has plenty of options that it picks from for various reasons. Therefore AI has free will?

Of course not; the computer has no soul, much less a rational one.

So you say it's demonstratable, so much that denying it is irrational. Yet you don't offer a single piece of evidence or a shred of support.

You have thoughts and experiences. These thoughts and experiences are not identical to the brain states which probably correspond to them.
Someone may observe your brain states and yet have no idea of what your experiences and thoughts are; we have access to someone's brain states but not to their thoughts and experiences.
Therefore, they are not the same.
Thoughts, experiences, volitions of will, are all necessarily non-physical; they are powers of what is today called the mind, but is traditionally called the soul.

Perhaps, but that isn't a very good rebuttal.

There was nothing to rebut to.

Ah, so without God free will is possible. Well then, please prove that God exists, and then prove that God influences us with his will and providence. Otherwise, you're just throwing in factors to make your argument. I can say that there are magical squid that float around Saturn, and because they exist, free will is impossible. But that's a pretty ridiculous argument unless and I first prove these squid exist, and secondly explain how and prove that they make free will impossible.

I will prove the existence of God, though I needn't, in this argument.
Afterall, I am only countering your position that free will is an impossibility; not trying to prove it in fact exists.
But very well:

Things move in the universe. Every movement needs a cause. It is absurd to imagine an infinite regression of causes (nothing would ever take place), thus there is a first cause. It is this first cause that we call God.
Movement can only be initiated (not merely transfered) by the volition of a will. Since movement cannot have always existed, as proved above, it must have been willed by the first cause. Then, all that happens is the result of the First Cause's will, also called Providence.

Once again you fail to refute my argument, you simply state I'm wrong and state you're right. All you're saying here is "No, we have free will".

Yes, because all you are saying is "no, we don't have free will".

One of the definitions of "feelings" is an awareness or impression. So it's quite accurate to say that you're appealing to your feelings when you say that because we supposedly "experience free will" the logic of my argument is somehow magically debunked.

No, Socrastein, it is not; and the reason lies not in whether feelings are a synonym to experiences.
But since you don't want to adress it, I see nothing else I can do, except repeat it.

-it is impossible to experience illogical concepts.
-people experience free will.
therefore, free will is not an illogical concept.

Notice that I'm not saying free will exists because I or anyone else experiences it. I am showing it is not an illogical concept because it can be experienced.

You claim we experience free will. I asked you how we experience free will, more importantly, how can you even know you are experiencing free will? You've not answered this.

Even you, if honest enough, will admit that you experience your life as if you could have chosen differently than you did. That is what free will is. Whether or not this feeling is illusory or not does not matter, as has already been shown.

 

[Socrastein]

You have thoughts and experiences. These thoughts and experiences are not identical to the brain states which probably correspond to them.
Someone may observe your brain states and yet have no idea of what your experiences and thoughts are; we have access to someone's brain states but not to their thoughts and experiences.
Therefore, they are not the same.
Thoughts, experiences, volitions of will, are all necessarily non-physical; they are powers of what is today called the mind, but is traditionally called the soul.

Brain states are called such because we are referring to a third party observation. Of course observing brain states from the 'outside' isn't the same as experiencing the brain state itself. Our experiences, our qualia, is what it's like to be a brain, what it's like to be brain states. An outside observer sees electrons and neurons, because it is not privy to those actual patterns. However, the brain itself IS those electrons and neurons and patterns, and thus from a 1st person perspective, so to speak, it isn't merely outside observation, it's experience.

You say that pattern X isn't the same as experiencing the color red. However, this is only true if you are referring to what I mentioned above. Of course observing someone experiencing the color red isn't the same as experiencing it - that's not a profound statement, and that's certainly not proof of a soul. If you could be the brain with said pattern, you would be experiencing the color red - they are the same in that sense. To postulate anything more is erroneous and once again a bad violation of parsimony.

I will prove the existence of God, though I needn't, in this argument.
Afterall, I am only countering your position that free will is an impossibility; not trying to prove it in fact exists.

You really have a terrible memory don't you. You said yourself that free will is impossible without God. So if you wish to deny that it's impossible as I say it is, you must prove that God exists.

Things move in the universe. Every movement needs a cause. It is absurd to imagine an infinite regression of causes (nothing would ever take place), thus there is a first cause. It is this first cause that we call God.
Movement can only be initiated (not merely transfered) by the volition of a will. Since movement cannot have always existed, as proved above, it must have been willed by the first cause. Then, all that happens is the result of the First Cause's will, also called Providence.

You can't be serious. Do you have any clue how outdated your (Well not really YOUR arguments) are? The first bolded section is completely unsubstantiated, and it is not self-evident nor absolute. Quantum mechanics already has plenty of evidence to challenge this, as well as theoretical physics. Causality only appears to be a macroscopic phenomenon. Also, there is nothing inherently indicative of causality between event A and event B - we put the connection there. For all we know, events could all happen without regard to one another, and we are programmed to see causality among them.

Your second bold is again completely unsubstantiated. Small violations of the conservation of energy due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principles accomodate uncaused actions, energy from nothing, and various other counter-intuitive but theoretically and experimentally accurate concepts.

These arguments may have made sense back around the time of the Summa Theologica and St. Thomas Aquinas, but they are both logically and emperically flawed these days.

Notice that I'm not saying free will exists because I or anyone else experiences it. I am showing it is not an illogical concept because it can be experienced.

Yeah. And you would do well to notice that I am saying that if you have a logical argument on one hand, and your feelings on the other hand, you're a fool to side with your feelings without refutation of the logic. The rational person would assume that there feelings were mistaken, until they saw reason to believe the logic was invalid. You have not disproven my logic in the least. You have denied it however, saying that I couldn't have possibly proven free will illogical, because you feel like you have it! Go ahead and repeat yourself and say you're not saying that, and then say it again. It may still be amusing for a couple rounds more.

Even you, if honest enough, will admit that you experience your life as if you could have chosen differently than you did. That is what free will is. Whether or not this feeling is illusory or not does not matter, as has already been shown.

No, I do not experience my life as though I could have chosen differently. This sort of idea comes from a lack of reflection. If I choose between an apple and a cookie, I will choose one or the other based on my desires, cravings, discipline, mindset, mood, etc. These things would all come together to result in my choice. If time were rewound and I were faced with the exact same choice again, I have no belief or feeling that I would choose otherwise - I think the notion is quite frankly stupid. I would always choose the way I chose, for to choose otherwise would mean that my choices are just arbitrary events that are not dependent on reason or circumstance.

No Lifesaver, both logically and intuitionistically I am fully aware that I am bound by my desires and my circumstances to act the way I act, and to act no other possible way. This is quite obvious to me through reflection and rational consideration.

 

[mepalmer3]

Ahh... the good old days of discussing free will.

It should be noted my argument has nothing to do with God, for God has no effect whatsoever on my argument. With or without a God, with or without omniscience, with or without a divine will, the logic of my argument still applies, and choices are still either causally determined or random.

Let me first say that hearing "random" at first seems bad to most people. But the more you look at it, the more it seems probable. I think it first sounds bad though because we might mistakenly assume some other things along with it, such as:

1. Randomness does not imply that intelligence cannot be used. In fact in game programming I quite often will have an computer-piece generate X different possible GOOD moves and then randomly pick one of the good ones. It's not absolutely random, but the analogy still works. But this simply isn't true.

2. Just because all of the variables do not cause the ultimate decision, it in no way means that they can't be factored in. I can see someone threaten a person in the park and the deterministic universe is telling me to bolt and run. However, I could still take the lesser of the options, which is to stop and help the person in need.

3. Randomness doesn't mean that people somehow don't have any control over their actions. It fact if we were talking of "control", then we have a few different situations:
A. The universe determines our actions and our thoughts. We might say we control them, but since the universe controls us, we're basically doing what nature is forcing us to do and couldn't have done anything different. In this sense we have no control ourselves, rather we are nature's puppet. This is what Socrastein is advocating.
B. Nature doesn't force us to do anything, and we have no control. Stuff just sort of happens. This is what I think most people think when they first hear "random". People act, but they don't act according to their own nature. It's just sort of a "magic" thing that happens.
C. We do have control over our actions and thoughts (at least to some degree) and thus the universe still plays a role, it still gives us our instincts, which can be very powerful. However, we can ignore our instincts and choose something different, something unpredicted, something that appears as random to the outside viewer. The seemingly only way this is possible is if a person somehow can escape the laws of nature, (ie, they are in part spiritual beings as well). Then the often cried claim is that spiritual laws work just like natural laws. But at that point we can all realize that this is mere assertion. If you ask for evidence, they can only point to natural laws.

As for evidence of randomness: I can stand up right now and say "The monkey says he likes to eat elephants." It's seemingly a completely random thing to say. If you were to stand up and say the same thing, and you believe in causal determinism, then you would believe that my typing that phrase on this forum has caused you to say that.

One other thing to note... as Socrastein said, his argument had nothing to do with a god. But if we consider God as Christians and other theists believe, then God would exist in a complete lack of an "environment". Rather it is purely God that exists, and that's it. So in this same sort of way we would call ANYTHING God does as "random" in that his actions are not caused. But then either God can act according to his own nature/essence, or he can act according to know nature/essence at all. Most theists take the "God can act according to his own nature" route. In that way God's actions could be considered self-determined. But he is necessarily free from being determined by outside events. And he would still have the full capacity to take those external events into consideration, but ultimately he must act according to his own nature. And thus what God does is really a reflection of who God is.

If God created us, then there's no reason to suspect that he couldn't have given us this same sort of ability, the ability to be self-determining creatures, or to be logical creatures, or to be good creatures, and so forth.

 

[chocolate1000]

I think we often have a presumption that free wills are absolute and in my opinion that's wrong. If God is creator and we are creatures, then there's really nothing about us that's absolute. The question of free will then becomes whether we can exercise that free will with integrity. I reckon that answer is yes given that we can make real choices with real consequences. I was given this example by my pastor. It's like a child being given $20 to spend on whatever he likes! The limit is $20 but that doesn't mean that they can't make real choices with real consequences. If he spends $16 he has $4 left. Most of us go through life not being able to afford million dollar yachts but we don't consider that an infringement on the integrity of our free will. There are real limits to our free will but doesn't throw the integrity of our free will into doubt.