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.
If I understand you correctly, you are a compatibilist; someone who recognizes that "decisions" cannot be other than what they are. That the will is NOT free of cause. That there is no such thing as an uninfluenced or undetermined "choice." But that in many cases your decisions are simply not coerced.elman said:When I use the term free will I am saying I have some ability to control what I do. I am not saying I have unlimited ability to do anything I can think of; nor am I saying what I do and what I decide is free from all influences from the environment and other factors.
It does not appear you understand what I am saying. I recognize my decisions could have been different if I simply chose to decide differently.=Washington;43618616]If I understand you correctly, you are a compatibilist; someone who recognizes that "decisions" cannot be other than what they are.
If a decision is entirly coerced then it is not a decision, unless it is a decision of the entity doing the coercing. So in all cases my decisions are not entirely coerced even though in all cases they are influenced. They are never made in a vacume.That the will is NOT free of cause. That there is no such thing as an uninfluenced or undetermined "choice." But that in many cases your decisions are simply not coerced.
Good. Having cleared that up I'll proceed.It does not appear you understand what I am saying. I recognize my decisions could have been different if I simply chose to decide differently.
I have said this many times and it remains ignored. My decisions are caused and one of those causes is me deciding to do what I do.
Very well, though I can't take credit for development. Around here, I know David Gould has used a form of it before.
1. An event is either caused or uncaused.
2. A caused event is determined; an uncaused event is random.
3. A decision is an event.
4. Therefore, a decision is either determined or random.
That is a supremely superficial analysis. Philosophers haven't been concerned with such triviality for more than 500 years.
What is "I"? How does it make decisions?
What do you expect? You have barely progressed beyond a rudimentary understanding of terminology, let alone causality.
And this is NotreDame's basic problem, thinking that as long as he can paste a label such as "I," " my brain," or "myself" on the carrier of free will that he has addressed the issue. Heck, I could use the same argument, "I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate to me something other than determinism has made a decision to act." Pretty lame argument. No need to explain the nature of determinism: how it works and when, or its logic. No evidence needed. Just say "I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate . . . . "
I don't know, but that does not prove I had nothing to do with the election of the reason that became the reason upon which a decision was based.=Washington;43621550]
But, what does it mean to say "one of the causes is me"? It's like saying that one of the causes of being able to fly is airplanes. But what causes an airplane to fly? I agree that in a broad sense one of the causes of your decisions is you, but what causes you to make a decision? You claim it is a will free of cause. That your will does what it does free of any determinants. But what form of "deciding" operation takes place that is completely free of cause? Do your decisions unexpectedly pop out of thin air, completely unbidden? There has to be some reason you "decided" to do A rather than B. And whatever that reason is functions as the cause of your decision. Then the question becomes one of, what configured that reason? Do your reasons simply pop out of thin air? Something had to cause your reasoning to take the shape it did instead of some other shape. So what caused that "something" rather than another "something"?
Yes they have a cause. I decide that way and that is the cause.Obviously the regression continues to an almost infinite regress. Unless you concede events (decisions) simply pop into existence, they must have a cause.
Like me wanting them to be different? Anytime I decide in favor of A over B, I could have helped it. I could have decided I don't care what explerience indicates is the consequences of this action, I am going to do it the other way, chose B and live with those consequences.They must be determined. You cannot help but "decide" in favor of A over B because the chain of cause/effect inexorably led you to it. In order for B to occur something in the chain would have to be different. (If it wasn't different then B would not be possible.) And that "different" could only have arisen if the one or more of the determinants were different. And why would any of the determinants be different? They could only be different if something caused them to be different.
But you want to eliminate me from the chain and I insist on being one of the cogs in the chain.---a cog I created and not a cog that was forced on me by previous events.And what would be the cause of this "something"? As you can see we're right back to the chain of cause and effect.
You believe that but you have not proven that and your reasoning above does not prove that.So, unless you want to bring utter randomness into the equation, you're stuck with the chain of cause/effect as the reason for your decisions. Your decisions are determined by all the preceding factors that inexorably led to it.
Again this is mere assertion, not proven fact.You could not do any differently than you did.
But observable and it can be experienced.Free will is a comforting notion, but aside from a function of utter randomness, it's ungrounded.
Again the problem with this logic is you assume the decision was caused by a reason, when I assume it was only influenced by that reason and there were contrary reasons that were not chosen at the time of the decision that could have been chosen. Sometimes by the way, the choice between the reasons is made at random or without a particular reason to chose one reason over another, as in deciding if a coin is going to come up heads or tails.Things happen and "decisions" occur for reasons, and those reasons are caused, and these causes have causes, which themselves are caused, which . . . . . . .
Sorry, but there's no escaping the nature of the beast. Things are what they are because they cannot be otherwise. If they could be they would.
elman said:I don't know, but that does not prove I had nothing to do with the election of the reason . . . . . . . .
I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend the essence of the issue. And because I'm a bit weary of trying to get it across and have serious doubts I ever could, I'm going to simply call it a day.LOL...you have a lot to learn and I doubt you will do so anytime soon but anyway....
First, TeddyKGB's argument is a little more advanced than your own. He actually provided a reasoned argument, something you have failed to do. I do not have any burden because I am not asserting free will exists. You keep diverting the attention from you to me because you do not want to and cannot meet your burden of proof.
You made the claim there is a cause for our decisions and the free moral agent known as a "human being" is not the cause. Consequently, it is your burden to demonstrate the "cause." Stop with the red herring of, "Well NotreDame, you have not provided any logic/evidence free will exists," yes but I never said we did, I have merely been asking YOU for EVIDENCE/REASONING to support your claim, something you have demonstrated over and over again you cannot do.
Even if I made the assertion free will exists, my failure to provide any evidence/reasoning for the veracity of my claim does nothing to validate your own.
Your basic problem is your reasoning is littered with fallacies and you do not even know it.
Not at all. It's a method used by most everyone when confronted by an unsubstantiated claim: "Show me the beef." Where is your evidence that free will exists.
Even if I cared to, what would it prove?
The difference is that the free will advocate has yet to produce any e v i d e n c e it exists. And until that happens the default position necessarily consists only of determinism and randomness. So far they are the only operants found to exist in the universe. EVERY event can be attributed to one or the other, so there's no need to postulate free will---no more need than to postulate invisible faeries---other than the fact that most religions require it. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.
Would you agree that besides determinism, randomness, and free will, that invisible faeries were also behind events? Assuming you would not then you should understand the logic in not granting free will, also a concept without evidence, consideration. As I've said, determinism and randomness are the only two operants supported by evidence. Free will is not. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.
See above. And if you have evidence free will exists please share.
Don't equivocate. Just show us the evidence that free will exists. It's YOUR claim, so the burden is yours to back it up.
Washington is heard Laughing at his desk and thinking to himself, "Boy if that sorry excuse for a retort isn't given a quick burial pretty soon it's going to become the mantra of everyone who can't come up with a reasonable reply. ''well, I don't think peanut butter is good for you!' ' STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!' 'But your tie doesn't go with that shirt dear.' ' STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!' 'But I'm not old enough to vote.' 'STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!'"Please---give it a break.That's the "standard characterization of determinism" is it. Something I assume you've determine after carefully comparing a slew of such "characterizations." Please excuse me if I question your certitude. Of course, if it WAS the "standard characterization of determinism" just think how many have got it wrong, because, as quantum physics has shown us, not every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events.
I know your position. There are billions of operants in the universe: determinism, randomness, and 6.6 billion others on earth just like yourself. What I find telling is that you're still unable to explain what this free will thing is. All you can do is label what it is: the person. "Free will is a person doing stuff." Not very scientific or even philosophical, is it. And this is what you expect me and everyone else to put on the same level as determinism and randomness: two operants that HAVE been shown to exists and have been explained. Sorry, but your free will just doesn't measure up. However, IF you have e v i d e n c e, I'm willing to listen.
So if I told you that flying pink elephants existed you'd take that as a serious claim worthy of such possibility that it would be perverse to say they did not. Therefore, you're obviously ready to admit the real possibility of anything I or anyone else suggests: even that Jesus had green skin and twelve toes. I understand. In the face of a lack of concrete evidence you're willing to grant any absurdity possible existence. Gotcha.
Even if I cared to, what would it prove?
The difference is that the free will advocate has yet to produce any e v i d e n c e it exists. And until that happens the default position necessarily consists only of determinism and randomness.
So far they are the only operants found to exist in the universe. EVERY event can be attributed to one or the other, so there's no need to postulate free will---no more need than to postulate invisible faeries---other than the fact that most religions require it. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.
As I've said, determinism and randomness are the only two operants supported by evidence. Free will is not. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.
Don't equivocate. Just show us the evidence that free will exists. It's YOUR claim, so the burden is yours to back it up.
That's the "standard characterization of determinism" is it. Something I assume you've determine after carefully comparing a slew of such "characterizations." Please excuse me if I question your certitude. Of course, if it WAS the "standard characterization of determinism" just think how many have got it wrong, because, as quantum physics has shown us, not every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events.
I know your position. There are billions of operants in the universe: determinism, randomness, and 6.6 billion others on earth just like yourself. What I find telling is that you're still unable to explain what this free will thing is
"Free will is a person doing stuff."
Not very scientific or even philosophical, is it.
However, IF you have e v i d e n c e, I'm willing to listen.
I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend the essence of the issue. And because I'm a bit weary of trying to get it across and have serious doubts I ever could, I'm going to simply call it a day.
Take care.
Is this Bizarro-Philosophy? I distinctly remember you telling me that "I" is a cause, and then me asking you what "I" is.There is really only one thing I want from TeddyKGB and Washington.
What is the "CAUSE" for some event/decision? Both of you say there is a "cause" but repeatedly fail, time after time, after time, after time, to tell me or anyone else the "cause."
Washington, you mockingly talk about "fairies" in terms of characterizing the free will argument. Well, your argument relies upon magical fairies because in post, after post, after post, after post you have failed to tell me or Elman the "cause." You just assert there is a "cause." Well great! What is the "cause"? You fail to identify, even given an example, of the "cause" and consequently, this makes one wonder if you even have any evidence to support your claim, as you boast in each boast you do but fail to disclose it. You do not even provide an example of what you are talking about! It seems to me you are relying upon magical fairies.
Teddy, the above remarks apply to your own argument. Do not tell me there is a cause, what is the cause?
Both of your arguments are parallel to the following example.
Person X says, "There is a cause for the existence and disappearance of dinosaurs." Y inquires, "What is the cause for the existence and disappearance of dinosaurs?" Person X replies, "Well, quite simpy there is a cause, I am not going to tell you the cause, but I can tell you what you think is the "cause" is wrong." Person Y retorts, "Okay, well if my cause is wrong, and there is a cause, then what is the cause?" Person X responds, "There is a cause, period! Your cause is wrong but there is a cause." WHAT IS THE CAUSE???
Both Teddy and Washington represent person X who are insistent there is a cause but fail, repeatedly, to disclose to me or anyone else the "cause." They cannot even provide an example. Thus, in the end, it is their argument which apparently relies upon magical fairies, a mysterious, unidentified, flying object, oh, I mean unidentified "cause."
Idea said:I do not believe the Bible teaches predestination… Predestined would mean no free agency, God loves only a select few, sets the ground of a man’s hope of salvation entirely outside himself.
I do believe in foreordination. allotted, planned, and fore-approve. Heavenly Father knows what will happen, but does not cause it to happen.
Sure you want to stick with that?
foreordain:
____________________________________________________
to dispose or appoint in advance : predestine
(Merriam=Webster)
____________________________________________________
determine future events: to arrange or determine an event in advance of its happening
(MSN Encarta)
____________________________________________________
To predestine or preordain
(Wiktionary)
____________________________________________________
Inflected forms: fore·or·dained, fore·or·dain·ing,
fore·or·dains
To determine or appoint beforehand; predestine.
(The American Heritage)
_____________________________________________________
to predestine; predetermine.
(Infoplease Dictionary)
______________________________________________________
To ordain or appoint beforehand; to preordain; to predestinate; to predetermine.
(Online Plain Text English Dictionary)
______________________________________________________
. to appoint or determine beforehand; predestine.
(The Wordsmyth English Dictionary)
______________________________________________________
Fine. Let's say god doesn't force you to do anything. He simply sits on his hands and watches what goes on. And one of the things he sees while sitting on his hands watching is you and what you are going to be doing next week. He sees you eating curds and whey for breakfast. Now, because god sees the true future it is inevitable that you will eat curds and whey for breakfast. So the question is, could you do any differently when next week rolls around? Could you actually decide not to eat curds and whey? No, because it's a forgone conclusion that is what you have to do. If you say, "Yes, I can decide to not eat curds and whey," then in what sense does "decide" have meaning? You cannot decide not to eat curds and whey because god has already seen what you will do: You absolutely will, without question, eat curds and whey. It is impossible to "decide" any differently. If you could---if you had a will free to choose not to eat curds and whey, and did---then god would not have really seen the future.There are many definitions of words the point is, God knows what we will do, but does not force us to do it.Whatever word you would like to use that shows that He knows everything use whatever word you would like. God does not control our actions He could, but He chooses not to, we have free will - Satan wants to take that away from us, God teaches us how to keep it - how to keep all our options open.
We are here proving to ourself who we are - not proving anything to God. We learn, and grow, and experience, and are tested here - He knows how it will all turn out for us, we still need to actually go through it though. Our life is for us to find ourself, to refine ourself hopefully, to prove to ourself who we are... not for Him to find us...
Fine. Let's say god doesn't force you to do anything. He simply sits on his hands and watches what goes on. And one of the things he sees while sitting on his hands watching is you and what you are going to be doing next week. He sees you eating curds and whey for breakfast. Now, because god sees the true future it is inevitable that you will eat curds and whey for breakfast. So the question is, could you do any differently when next week rolls around? Could you actually decide not to eat curds and whey? No, because it's a forgone conclusion that is what you have to do. If you say, "Yes, I can decide to not eat curds and whey," then in what sense does "decide" have meaning? You cannot decide not to eat curds and whey because god has already seen what you will do: You absolutely will, without question, eat curds and whey. It is impossible to "decide" any differently. If you could---if you had a will free to choose not to eat curds and whey, and did---then god would not have really seen the future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?