It's been done, but not by me: FREE WILL

[inchristalone221]

Combatalism is illogical.

We are either wholy free, or wholy determined. If we are even a little bit determined, or determined probabilistically, then we are still determined and not free.

You misunderstand compatabilism. Compatabilism is simply the belief that humans make decisions in the context of being determined in their choices. In short, it is that the human makes the choice they had to make, but they still make the choice.

You need to suggest reasons for 2. I would agrue that this claim is unfounded, making your argument less solid.

It's the same claim that determinism is founded upon. Each occurence is pre-determined by the preceding occurences. God, being the initiator of the first occurences, would be utterly sovereign, having in context of omniscience selected that from which history inevitably flows.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

You misunderstand compatabilism. Compatabilism is simply the belief that humans make decisions in the context of being determined in their choices. In short, it is that the human makes the choice they had to make, but they still make the choice.



It's the same claim that determinism is founded upon. Each occurence is pre-determined by the preceding occurences. God, being the initiator of the first occurences, would be utterly sovereign, having in context of omniscience selected that from which history inevitably flows.

Combatabilism, in the commonly used philisophical sense, under which I am opperating, holds that portions of both sides are correct, in that people's actions are partly determined and partly free. It is illogical, what you are speaking about is something different.

There is no reason to describe God as the first cause, or even believe the universe has a first cause. As of yet, both ideas are beyound our ability to know with certainty.

 

[inchristalone221]

Combatabilism, in the commonly used philisophical sense, under which I am opperating, holds that portions of both sides are correct, in that people's actions are partly determined and partly free. It is illogical, what you are speaking about is something different.

Ah, my apologies, I had not heard that characterization. If that is what you meant then I agree with you, it's illogical.

There is no reason to describe God as the first cause, or even believe the universe has a first cause. As of yet, both ideas are beyound our ability to know with certainty.

This is a topic for another day. But I'd be glad to discuss it, just start a new thread or pm me.

 

[FreezBee]

....
Conclusion: We have no free will.

It's all fairly straightforward and basic, and that, I think, is the strength of this argument. For those of you that are not determinist, this should give you something to push against.

Is determinism and free will at all related?

I'm aware that Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan declared the "free will" to just be our ignorance of the causes of our actions, but things are not necessarily that simple.

When I make a cup of tea, I can choose freely from among my tea-bags, no problem. It may be fully determined which tea-bag I choose, but I still can choose freely in a legalistic sense.

Thomas Hobbes was accused of atheism, because if there is no free will, then there is no sin, and then there is no original sin, and then there is no salvation, and so on.

The present does not depend on the past, it's the past that depends on the present. For Lutherans there is no free will, still we accept sin. Luther wrote: Sin bravely!

The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, who as a stoic accepted determinism, once punished a slave by beating him. The slave defended himself by claiming that he had been determined to do his offense. Marcus Aurelius responded by saying that he had been determined to beat the slave.

Arguing for determinism is pointless. If people are determined to become determinists, they will become determinists, and if they are determined to not become determinists, they will not become determinists. In return not arguing for determinism is equally pointless, because if your determined to argue for determinism, you will argue for determinism, and if you are determined to not argue for determinism, you will not argue for determinism.

Ok, just my 0.02$


- FreezBee

 

[Code-Monkey]

An Argument in defense of Hard Determinism.

1. All events have causes
2. Our actions are events.
3. all caused events are determined by the past
____________________________
4. Our actions are determined by the past
5. If our actions are determined by the past, then we have no power to act other than we do indeed act.
_______________________________
6. We have no power to act other than we do indeed act.
7. If we have no power to act other than we do indeed act, then we have no free will.
_________________________________
Conclusion: We have no free will.

A good topic. I like that you started the thread by offering a formal argument rather than making people try to decipher your logic.

I would contend #3 is wrong (or unproven). I would suggest that some of our actions are caused by our decisions or our personal will. We of course are limited only to a set of possible actions (ie, I cannot jump over the moon). So I take more of a self-determinism stand.

I would also offer this counter-argument:

P1. If we are forced into how we think by non-intelligent forces, then we are not intelligently thinking.
P2. We are intelligent thinkers (my assumption)
C. Therefore we are not forced into how we think by non-intelligent forces.

In an environment without the ability to objectively think (ie, not forced to think X) I don't believe we have the ability of intelligence. My computer programs are not themselves intelligent even though they return intelligent results. This is clear when I have a bug and they return gibberish. The program doesn't know the difference -- it can't know the difference.

An interesting side effect of No Free Will is that everyone's decision is made by natural forces. So your thought that X is true and my thought that X is false are both things forced on us by natural forces. We are more or less shaking a magic 8 ball and parroting the answer it gives in our claims. If natural forces results in all answers possible, then why would we think any one answer is any more correct than another? At that point we are mostly puppets of nature. Does anyone actually think a puppet intelligent because the puppet master moves it's mouth and says intelligent things at the same time?

 

[AphraB]

Paul's Answer:

Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Why should Paul's word be accepted as correct? His writings are not Scripture. They are merely his opinion.

Another thought:

Do you really wish for God to judge evil? If God judged every single evil deed ever commited right now, what situation would you find yourself in? So perhaps His tolerance is rooted in His benevolence.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

If one accepts the premise that the Christian deity created everything in the Universe it follows that this same deity created evil and that raises the philosophical question "How can something that is wholly good create evil?" More to the point, why did this deity create evil when it knew in advance the suffering that its creation would entail? This then raises a further question. Why does this deity allow evil to exist when it has the power (being an omnipotent being) to remove evil and prevent suffering?

 

[inchristalone221]

If one accepts the premise that the Christian deity created everything in the Universe it follows that this same deity created evil and that raises the philosophical question "How can something that is wholly good create evil?" More to the point, why did this deity create evil when it knew in advance the suffering that its creation would entail? This then raises a further question. Why does this deity allow evil to exist when it has the power (being an omnipotent being) to remove evil and prevent suffering?

Evil does not exist anymore than cold exists. Cold is merely the absence of heat (likewise darkness is the absence of light), and evil is nothing more than a lack of good. Since our estimation of "good" must come from an objective standard, it seems that the existence of evil can be used as an argument FOR God.

As for God's hand in the existence of evil, consider this imperfect illustration: If the sun moved away from the Earth, the Earth would be cold. Would the Earth be cold simply by its own nature or would the sun have caused it to be cold. Both would be true.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Evil does not exist anymore than cold exists. Cold is merely the absence of heat (likewise darkness is the absence of light), and evil is nothing more than a lack of good. Since our estimation of "good" must come from an objective standard, it seems that the existence of evil can be used as an argument FOR God.

Our "estimation of 'good'" must do no such thing.

As for God's hand in the existence of evil, consider this imperfect illustration: If the sun moved away from the Earth, the Earth would be cold. Would the Earth be cold simply by its own nature or would the sun have caused it to be cold. Both would be true.

The Earth would be cold only in the case that there is some entity capable of distinguishing temperature who judges the sunless Earth in relation to some familiar standard.

Consider extremophile bacteria. Our labeling of their environment "extreme" is wholly anthropocentric. To the bacteria it is perfectly ordinary.

 

[SpaceMan]

I have so many thoughts—this is such a complex subject—that I’m at a bit of a loss as to where to start… Let me try to step into this, delicately…

I think whether you consider yourself as being closer towards the pure “free-will” camp, or the “pre-determined” camp, all of us will agree that every person on this planet makes choices…right? But, what if we were to set-aside the issue of whether or not choices are made from a place of free-will, or Divine determinism…and just focus on the WHY that lies behind any choice? To quote an observation from one of my favorite fictional characters: “We can never see past the choices that we don’t understand.” And, to my line of thinking, therein lies the key: understanding our choices, so that we can eventually see past them…and, from there, into the realm of enlightenment.

Are human choices nothing but endless strings of cause & effect responses? Do we follow set (by “God,” I suppose) destinies, like boats being guided down a river of strategically-placed barriers & passage ways? Or is it, perhaps, about absolute free-will?

Was Jesus’ life a pre-destined path, intended to lead him into fulfilling a specific destiny? Or, were his choices (up to a point, at least) as “blind” as any choice made by any other person?

 

[Mandevar]

The importance of this idea is that if indeed we have no free will, and people do not act in a manner of their own choosing, then we cannot rightfully make any moral judgements, since all traditional moral theories rely upon the idea that mankind freely chooses their actions.

One of the problems here, which you hit upon, is that this argument does create a causal chain, suggesting that the universe is iether itself uncaused, or otherwise has no cause and no begining.

If you believe that "everything was caused by an event determined by the past" then you would be a determinist. That statement (and the belief behind it) imply at least a weak determinism.

I do believe mankind freely chooses their actions... what we choose is determined by our past experience... and I believe we can make moral judgements.

If the universe is uncaused, this idea wouldnt work? If it has no cause and no beginning then this couldnt work either? Because there would need to be this chain? So how do determinists believe started the chain... but there has to be an infinite loop... but then there cant be because every event would have to have a past.... =( my head hurts.

 

[Patzak]

The importance of this idea is that if indeed we have no free will, and people do not act in a manner of their own choosing, then we cannot rightfully make any moral judgements, since all traditional moral theories rely upon the idea that mankind freely chooses their actions.

A-ha! But the argument goes both ways! If indeed we have no free will we are no more morally responsible for judging people as if they had free will than they were morally responsible for the actions you're saying we shouldn't judge!

If there's a God or someone else who is exempt from this (and thus has free will), then I agree - they shouldn't judge us poor automatons. But as long as you keep within the realm of the natural, I think the question of free will (when considering its moral implications) is quite irrelevant: we either have it and are therefore perfectly justified in passing moral judgment; or we don't have it and the concept of justification becomes meaningless, so we're not particularly justified in refraining from moral judgments either.

 

[EverlastingMan]

I dont know if anyone has said this but if all our descions are determined by the past then how did we decide our first descion, when we had no past?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I dont know if anyone has said this but if all our descions are determined by the past then how did we decide our first descion, when we had no past?

Our decisions are determined not self-determined.

 

[FreezBee]

Evil does not exist anymore than cold exists. Cold is merely the absence of heat (likewise darkness is the absence of light), and evil is nothing more than a lack of good. Since our estimation of "good" must come from an objective standard, it seems that the existence of evil can be used as an argument FOR God.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

As for God's hand in the existence of evil, consider this imperfect illustration: If the sun moved away from the Earth, the Earth would be cold. Would the Earth be cold simply by its own nature or would the sun have caused it to be cold. Both would be true.

If we should speak Aristotelian, then, yes, the earth would be cold by its own nature - the presence of the sun made the earth warm, but without the sun, the earth returns to its natural state of coldness.


- FreezBee

 

[EverlastingMan]

Our decisions are determined not self-determined.

So what then determined the first decision? If the past determines it for us then what about when there was no past?

 

[TeddyKGB]

So what then determined the first decision? If the past determines it for us then what about when there was no past?

Dunno. Perhaps the speculated uncaused quantum event that allegedly produced the big bang.

 

[inchristalone221]

Dunno. Perhaps the speculated uncaused quantum event that allegedly produced the big bang.

This is an issue to discuss next, now that we've dealt pretty well with determinism.

 

[EverlastingMan]

Dunno. Perhaps the speculated uncaused quantum event that allegedly produced the big bang.

Perhaps but there must be some ultimate cause because I could be annoying and ask well then what caused that? But I won't. IF the big bang was the big bang is to some extent a god. Because the unmoved first mover is one of the criteria for being a god.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Perhaps but there must be some ultimate cause because I could be annoying and ask well then what caused that? But I won't.

Good. If we reject an infinite regress of causes, we are left with an uncaused event.

IF the big bang was the big bang is to some extent a god. Because the unmoved first mover is one of the criteria for being a god.

I think this is called a category mistake.

All gods are unmoved movers but not all unmoved movers are gods.

 

[EverlastingMan]

But there arent really any unmoved movers, besides the gods/god. Everything in nature has a cause somewhere. At least as far as I understand nature my physics is lacking.