Atheistic Materialism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will

[Yoda]

To believe in no Higher Power of any sort necessitates that you also believe there is no such thing as Free Will, and that the choices you make each day were inevitably going to be made that way. As such, to be an Atheist you must logically concede that everything had to happen exactly the way it did, and that any choice anyone thinks they have is an illusion.

That is all. :)

[The Silver Bullet]

I don't even know what you just said.

[r3port3r66]

Ah, but you can change your mind within your own destiny.

Love is a strange thing because in it's process, in order to know true love, you must always think back about decisions you made in the relationship with some regret. You then must decide what changes to make. This enables you to move on to the next one with a greater promise of success. Or strengthen the one you already have. Love is the higher power, and we all believe in it, even if we don't call it God.

[LordSlaytan]

Let’s first take a look at a definition of free will.

Freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

The great thinkers throughout history have puzzled with the paradox of destiny versus free will. Calvinism versus Arminianism being the most famous.

Calvinism teaches (1) the total depravity of man, (2) God's unconditional election (or predestination) of certain ones to saved and certain others to be lost, (3) that Christ died only for the elect, not for every person, (4) that God's saving grace toward the elect cannot be resisted, and (5) that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation.
Arminianism teaches something different on each of these points: (1) Though born a sinner, mankind is given a spark of divine grace that enables him to respond positively to God. (2) God does not arbitrarily consign some people to eternal damnation; their willful rejection of God's salvation makes them responsible. (3) Christ died for every person, even though some refuse to accept the provision for their salvation. (4) No person is forced against his or her will to become a Christian (5) One's salvation can be lost through willful disobedience.

It was stated by Boethius (one such theologian), "There seems to be an hopeless conflict between divine foreknowledge of all things and freedom of human will. For if God sees everything in advance and cannot be deceived in any way, whatever his Providence foresees will happen, must happen. Therefore, if God foreknows eternally not only the acts of men, but also their plans and wishes, there cannot be freedom of will."

This theory states that free will does not exist within the belief of God. That it cannot exist, because God himself predestines our lives. Yet within the texts of the Bible are passages that state that we have a choice to choose God as our savior; hence the above ancient arguments, and an absolute paradox that can only be dispelled by personal faith. Fortunately for all humans, faith is not exclusive to only the believers. I have faith that someday I will die. Of course you could say that it is an obvious fact that I will, but I’m not dead, so I have faith that ultimately that will be my fate. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, of course we all know that it will, yet a catastrophic change could happen to alter that obvious outcome. To say that there is, without a doubt, freedom of will within or without God, would be like proving that our reality is just that, and not a dream. Although any proof of it’s reality could come from within the dream itself. It takes faith.

According to Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, "Scripture nowhere says that we are 'free' in the sense of being outside of God's control or of being able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. (This is the sense in which many people seem to assume we must be free.) Nor does it say we are 'free' in the sense of being able to do right on our own apart from God's power. But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free--we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make willing choices. On the other hand, the kind of freedom that is demanded by those who deny God's providential control of all things, a freedom to be outside of God's sustaining and controlling activity, would be impossible if Jesus Christ is indeed 'continually carrying along things by his word of power.' If this is true, then to be outside of that providential control would simply be not to exist! An absolute "freedom," totally free of God's control, is simply not possible in a world providentially sustained and directed by God himself."

The verses supporting predestination are very explicit: they all say that no man can choose God unless God enables them to; or they say that God has chosen certain people to respond to His call:
Man in his fallen, sinful state, cannot receive God's spirit, nor can he understand God's truth, unless God elects him. (1 Cor 2:14) Those who are chosen by God will surely come to him (John 6:37).
On the other hand there are obvious scriptures stating that only our choices will have an effect on our after death outcome. That we choose to give our will and our lives over to the graces of God, letting His will be done. But then we would lose our free will at the point of being saved.

This is an argument as old as the scriptures, only personal interpretations and faith can give anyone an answer that will make them feel moderately assured of salvation. As far as the unbelievers are concerned, it is not a valid argument in their lives. Because without the belief in God, there is no argument whether there is predestination or free will, there is nothing or no one to manipulate our lives, therefore there is nothing left but our own free will.

This is really a topic with no definitive and clear answer. Each of our interpretations of what free will can and probably will be different from one another’s. I doubt that within this forum, we will beat out all the ancient thinkers from so many diverse cultures, and come to a conclusion that is either right or wrong.

[The Silver Bullet]

I find it hard to believe that someone would so openly make a comment like the one Chris made, knowing full well that redunant argument will spring up between two equally pig headed groups.

That being said, Slay, I have to tell you, that what you just wrote was excellent. We're not going to work it out. It will be redundant argument [as I mentioned]. But thanks for pointing out the theory that there is no free will within belief of God. I had never thought of it in that way [that being said I really never thought about there being no free will without a belief in God] before, and it was definitely an interesting thought to entertain.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Oh, God ["Oh, Nothing" - this message has closed captioning for the holy impaired], another deity vs. atheism thread. Oh, my lord ["Oh, myself"].

[LordSlaytan]

Thank you Silver, I appreciate that. I must point out that I have no answer, and that my post was, "just an argument". I used it to only stress that no human being in ages past, times of the present, or into the fathomless future, will ever be able to have an absolute garauntee of knowing the truth. At least I have faith that that will be the case. ;D

[The Silver Bullet]

I especially liked the part that stressed that no discussion on a forum about movies is going to really bring us any closer to any truths. I quite enjoyed that part.

And I would just like to say to Chris, as much as I love you Chingo, that just hurling comments like this one out into the void is the biggest turn off in regards to believing in God, those who believe in God, and dare I even say it, yourself. It reads smugly, arrogantly and is just ack [oh, yes, dammit: ack!].

I know you'll take this the right way, because you do indeed know that I think you're wonderful. Just...just ack, man.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
hurling comments like this one out into the void is the biggest turn off in regards to believing in God, those who believe in God, and dare I even say it, yourself.

Actually, you're wrong. There happens to be a nun registered here, and she just PMed me. This is what she said:

Chris turns me on with his anti-atheism remarks. He makes me strip off my habit. Hail Mary!

[The Silver Bullet]

:rotfl:

Why is it that any member who may or may not be horny for other members always makes a point of sending you a personal message about it?!

[Sexy Celebrity]

Blame whoever wrote "For a good time, PM Sexy Celebrity" on the MoFo bathroom stalls.

[LordSlaytan]

I think God told whomever did that, to do it. I doubt it was really any kind of free will. ;D

[Piddzilla]

Atheist or a theist, that is the question.... :D

I just think religion mostly sucks, and I say that totally out of free will. So, that must mean I am not an atheist - which I have never believed I was anyway.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Yoda
To believe in no Higher Power of any sort necessitates that you also believe there is no such thing as Free Will, and that the choices you make each day were inevitably going to be made that way. As such, to be an Atheist you must logically concede that everything had to happen exactly the way it did, and that any choice anyone thinks they have is an illusion.

That is all. :)

You make two conclusions to start this message, and you don't explain how you came to them. Why do you say that atheists believe there is no such thing as free will and that their choices were inevitable? Did you read another book from some wacked out apologetic? :)

[The Silver Bullet]

And before you call him smug, Chris, he did end his message with the same smilie as yourself. I got the same vibe as I did from you. So I advise that you don't take that course, not that you would, of course. Both posts [and this one, too!] are all to be read in the same part arrogant/part sarcastic tone of voice.

Oh. And to think that I nearly forgot:

:)

[Yoda]

Slaytan: as far as our minds can perceive, yes, God's utter omniscience and our own Free Will logically conflict. There are a few possibilities:

1 - He willingly gave up utter omniscience by creating begins with Free Will. I've always felt sentience and a Will of our own was what was meant by the idea of being created "in His image." Naturally, known all things present and past, He's still one heck of a prognosticator.

2 - We don't have Free Will.

3 - They do NOT conflict, but our minds cannot yet grasp why. Which is a possibility, you must admit. If God exists, it stands to reason that there are some things about Him we wouldn't be able to understand just now.


Originally posted by firegod
You make two conclusions to start this message, and you don't explain how you came to them. Why do you say that atheists believe there is no such thing as free will and that their choices were inevitable? Did you read another book from some wacked out apologetic? :)
No. No book. No apologetic (wacked out or otherwise).

Think about it: if a leaf falls from a tree, the cells it is made up of are going to react to the weather conditions around it. The wind and temperature will "hit" the cells and the cells will react accordingly, so to speak. The leaf has no choice in reacting the way it does; it is totally a victim of circumstance. It lands wherever cause-and-effect say it MUST land. Every cell reacts a certain way to certain conditions. It doesn't choose to react to it. It must. It's simply following a number of Universal Laws.

So, I ask you: why are the cells and chemicals that make up human beings exempt from this? Is it just because we happen to have a LOT of them? When you break us down, aren't we made of the same bits and pieces as everything else? What key ingredient sparks us with choice? What part of our body is isolated from cause-and-effect so as to allow us to have a Will of our own?


Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
And I would just like to say to Chris, as much as I love you Chingo, that just hurling comments like this one out into the void is the biggest turn off in regards to believing in God, those who believe in God, and dare I even say it, yourself. It reads smugly, arrogantly and is just ack [oh, yes, dammit: ack!].
If a simple, relatively polite, straightforward claim about a logical inevitability in regards to Atheism is a "turn off" to you, then I'm not sure quite what to say. Any smugness or arrogance you picked up on was injected, and not inherent.

I can tell you, however, that always, always, always dropping into such a discussion to remind us all of how much time we're wasting is a much bigger "turn off." We're all well aware, I'm sure, of the likelihood of convincing another party...but that's not why we discuss it. Maybe you're trying to serve as some mediator or voice of reason, but I don't think it's necessary.

[The Silver Bullet]

Any smugness or arrogance you picked up on was injected, and not inherent.

Yeah, don't worry, I know.

I can tell you, however, that always, always, always dropping into such a discussion to remind us all of how much time we're wasting is a much bigger "turn off."

To you.

...but I don't think it's necessary.

I do.

And I don't think I'm being a voice of reason. Just a voice. Consider me a drink of scotch for those who need it. Without me everyone may just die of boredom....

:)

[Naisy]

Ive read this ENTIRE thread, and all i can come up with to reply is (delicatly put):

ZUH?

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Naisy
Ive read this ENTIRE thread, and all i can come up with to reply is (delicatly put):

ZUH?
This explains the claim (http://www.movieforums.net/showthread.php?postid=71310#post71310).

[Naisy]

well dont i feel like a ripe and royal idiot, righty-o im off to prepare MY arguement, prepare to meet thy match

[Fugitive]

I've just read this thread and not sure whether you are trying to define atheism or free will. Definitions can be formed in your own minds too. Isn't it all 'free will' to decide the existence or the non-existence of a higher being? I claim to be agnostic, which is different to being an atheist:

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Some imagine that agnosticism represents an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.

The term "agnosticism" itself was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876.
For Huxley, agnosticism was a position which rejected the knowledge claims of both "strong" atheism and traditional theism. More importantly, agnosticism for him was a method of doing things. In 1889 he wrote in Agnosticism:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Agnosticism, then, involves not concluding that a god does or does not exist when we do not have any good reasons to do so.
So, if a person cannot claim to know, or know for sure, if any gods exist, then they may properly use the term "agnostic" to describe themselves.

[Yoda]

I've just read this thread and not sure whether you are trying to define atheism or free will. Definitions can be formed in your own minds too. Isn't it all 'free will' to decide the existence or the non-existence of a higher being?
That's sorta the point: that if we have no Soul (or something similar)...if we are merely a mass of miscellaneous cosmic crap, there's absolutely no logical basis for the idea that we have any choice whatsoever. We're just stuff reacting to other stuff.

When I say that Atheism entails this, it simply means that the concept of any Free Will whatsoever is completely reliant on mankind being more than the sum of its biological parts, period.


Agnosticism, then, involves not concluding that a god does or does not exist when we do not have any good reasons to do so.
So, if a person cannot claim to know, or know for sure, if any gods exist, then they may properly use the term "agnostic" to describe themselves.
Right. Though it should be noted that Agnosticism is not just "God could exist, but I don't personally think so," for the most part. It usually represents the "I don't think we have enough information to go on" viewpoint. Both Atheists and Theists alike have come to a verdict...Agnostics are the hung jury of the theological world.

That said, I agree with basically everything you said. Though, forgive me for being so blunt: what's your point? It seems to have become chic, in this thread, to write posts that, while very well-written and insightful, don't really address the subject matter directly. 'Sup with that?

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda
That's sorta the point: that if we have no Soul (or something similar)...if we are merely a mass of miscellaneous cosmic crap, there's absolutely no logical basis for the idea that we have any choice whatsoever. We're just stuff reacting to other stuff.

When I say that Atheism entails this, it simply means that the concept of any Free Will whatsoever is completely reliant on mankind being more than the sum of its biological parts, period.

That said, I agree with basically everything you said. Though, forgive me for being so blunt: what's your point? It seems to have become chic, in this thread, to write posts that, while very well-written and insightful, don't really address the subject matter directly. 'Sup with that?

Wow, really coy. It's funny that you say this Yoda, because your original post didn't. You start a post in a way that is so obscure from your point that it is unlikely that anyone could respond to what is really on your mind. Your original statement didn't say anything about our molecular structure and the cause and effect theory. It simply stated that you believed that if I didn't believe in God, then I must logically accept, and agree with you of course, that I have no free will. It's really hard to stick to the point when your point is so masqueraded as something else. Not only that, I think I remember seeing some awfully long posts on other subjects out there written by you.

You anger me, that’s why I hate your threads. You seem so damn condescending. If you want to have a valid debate from now on, quit with the trickery that you used for this thread. Make it clear what you want to debate. Don’t say one thing, wait for responses, then make it seem like we’re all a bunch of idiots for not sticking to your “hidden” subject.

JERK!

[Sir Toose]

Think about it: if a leaf falls from a tree, the cells it is made up of are going to react to the weather conditions around it. The wind and temperature will "hit" the cells and the cells will react accordingly, so to speak...................................................

So, I ask you: why are the cells and chemicals that make up human beings exempt from this? Is it just because we happen to have a LOT of them? When you break us down, aren't we made of the same bits and pieces as everything else? What key ingredient sparks us with choice? What part of our body is isolated from cause-and-effect so as to allow us to have a Will of our own?


You a-holes are baking my noodle.

Chris:
just out of curiosity, what if you were to substitute 'Tiger' for leaf in the above example?

Don't animals have free will, yet are ignorant of God? Do animals possess a brain complex enough to understand will?

I'm just curious about where you'd place them here. My dog makes a free will decision not to come to me when I call the idiotic thing... I know she understands that she has a choice.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Originally posted by Yoda
Think about it: if a leaf falls from a tree, the cells it is made up of are going to react to the weather conditions around it. The wind and temperature will "hit" the cells and the cells will react accordingly, so to speak. The leaf has no choice in reacting the way it does; it is totally a victim of circumstance. It lands wherever cause-and-effect say it MUST land. Every cell reacts a certain way to certain conditions. It doesn't choose to react to it. It must. It's simply following a number of Universal Laws.

So, I ask you: why are the cells and chemicals that make up human beings exempt from this? Is it just because we happen to have a LOT of them? When you break us down, aren't we made of the same bits and pieces as everything else? What key ingredient sparks us with choice? What part of our body is isolated from cause-and-effect so as to allow us to have a Will of our own?

Okay -- first, a leaf falls from a tree. The weather affects its cells, the leaf has no choice in reacting the way it does. It lands wherever, etc. You want to know why the cells and chemicals that make up human beings are exempt from this?

They're not.

We're talking about something physical here. We have no choice if we fall down a flight of stairs and break our leg. Now, if there's a God and he intervenes, or if it's predestined by the divine that the fall won't hurt us, then the choice is up to God and we don't get hurt. But if we do get hurt, that's only natural. We are susceptible to nature. Obviously, our cells slowly die off as we age and we LOOK OLDER, just as the weather will cause a leaf to rot, change color, etc.

Free will is if we decide to jump off a twenty foot tall building and commit suicide. By nature, we'll fall, land on pavement, kill ourselves, and our cells will die and our body decomposes. Now, if God happens to intervene, maybe they'll be someone there to save you. Or, you could decide - "Hey! I'm not gonna commit suicide! I'm gonna keep on living!"

Now the leaves can fall and the feathers can fly on by Forrest Gump as much as they want. That is their nature. And they're going to die just like we are.

What part of our body is isolated from cause and effect? Our mind. We DO have free will - we may not however have free will as to where our lives go. Maybe that's predestined. But you have to be a theist to believe that. Atheists don't believe that. But we have some kind of free will, whether we realize it or not. In the end, we could find out that our lives were just like the leaves on the trees and the cells in our body subjected to the world - all under control - but that is to be seen.

Atheists believe in free will -- LordSlayton here can choose to find you and kill you if he wishes, since he thinks you're a jerk, or he can choose to not kill you. Now if LordSlayton or someone else has a major chemical imbalance/mental illness.... well, they have less free will than us because of their illness, and they can't help but do something like that. Look at sleepwalkers who get up in the middle of the night and kill somebody or fall off something and die. But if you believe in God, then maybe you see everything happening for a reason - that, for now, is subjective.

[The Silver Bullet]

If a tiger falls out of a tree in the woods and no God is around to have made it so did it really choose to fall at all?

Two words. Twilight. Zone.

[r3port3r66]

An unborn fetus has no Free Will.
It also has no interpretation of a higher power or atheism.

Therefore, if it's aborted it is niether an action of its own free will, nor is it a Devine Intervention (most religions shun abortion).

What is it then?

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Sexy Celebrity
LordSlayton here can choose to find you and kill you if he wishes, since he thinks you're a jerk, or he can choose to not kill you. Now if LordSlayton or someone else has a major chemical imbalance/mental illness.... well, they have less free will than us because of their illness, and they can't help but do something like that.

I just got pissed because I spent some considerable time and effort to make sure I had my facts straight for a good debate. Just to have him question why people think it's "chic" to post lengthy and pointless posts. If he wanted to debate whether we are victims of cause and effect and whether we are in any way in control of it, then he should have said that. But he didn't. I wasted my time and wound up looking foolish. I have a right to call him a Jerk. As far as being unstable...

[Sexy Celebrity]

Okay, but don't take what I said personally. Just coming up with an example.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Originally posted by r3port3r66
An unborn fetus has no Free Will.
It also has no interpretation of a higher power or atheism.

Therefore, if it's aborted it is niether an action of its own free will, nor is it a Devine Intervention (most religions shun abortion).

What is it then?

Well, if it's aborted, the mother had the free will to decide to abort it. It's an unborn fetus. It could have been divine intervention keeping it from being born at the same time. No soul in the fetus, perhaps. What I'm saying is - everything could be meant to happen, even when we think we're making our own choices here. But that's only if you believe in that.

[g0dzer0]

i don't believe in god, i'm a fatalist, i believe basically things happen because a chain of events leads to a moment where whatever happened was possible, and any break in that chain would have not caused that specific result. so essentially i belive in free will because i have control over the outcome, even though in some situations something is uncontrollable and what i thought to be the way to go about doing things was in fact the wrong way. but none the less, if i don't smoke cigarettes, i'm not going to get cancer from smoking cigarettes. that is a decision based on free will, and cancer will never manifest itself inside my body from smoking cigarettes. thats just an example. but to say because your athiest that automatically disqualifies free will, thats an outrageous statement.

[firegod]

Chris,

You know humans have free will. You know this, not because you read your bible, or because religious people you have followed taught you to, but because you know that you are capable of making decisions on your own. I thought your first post was pretty out there, but your response to me was even worse. How am I different than a leaf? You've got to be kidding me.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Maybe he meant somebody named Leif? :shrugs:

[The Silver Bullet]

Heinrich Leif.

The German man who keeps falling from trees and getting swept away by the wind...

[Yoda]

Slaytan: I wrote a long, detailed response, but instead, I'll just say this: you may say I'm a jerk, but I think you're a better man than that. I think you're a good, kind man at heart. I just think that the things I have a tendency to do happen to be the things which have a tendency to push your buttons. And vice versa. But I can get past that if you can.


Originally posted by firegod
You know humans have free will. You know this, not because you read your bible, or because religious people you have followed taught you to, but because you know that you are capable of making decisions on your own. I thought your first post was pretty out there, but your response to me was even worse. How am I different than a leaf? You've got to be kidding me.
Sounds nutty, eh? But if it is, you should have no problem telling me just why. Of course you're different from a leaf; you know quite well I'm not claiming otherwise...but what basis do you have for believing that the chemical and biological reactions in your body are under a different set of guidelines than any other group of cells and chemicals? Why do you think the stuff humans are made out of is special compared to the stuff other things are?

It's one thing to say "this is crazy," but if it really is, you should be able to then elaborate on WHY it is crazy. So far your reasoning seems to be that we have free will because we "know that we are capable of making decisions on our own." But I think you can agree that, from any objective standpoint, that isn't a logical basis to make your objection on.

Now, you may say that you can feel yourself weighing options and coming to conclusions; and you're right. What I'm saying is that, assuming we're just a mass of stuff, you were inevitably going to weigh the options in the exact way you did, and you were inevitably going to then reach the conclusion you did. I think I've mapped out just why pretty well, and I'd be curious as to your thoughts on the matter. Why do you think humans consist of some special biological phenomenon which is for some reason exempt from the same cause-and-effect? Surely it can't be just because our chemicals and cells are woven together more intricately than most others.


Originally posted by Toose
Chris:
just out of curiosity, what if you were to substitute 'Tiger' for leaf in the above example?

Don't animals have free will, yet are ignorant of God? Do animals possess a brain complex enough to understand will?

I'm just curious about where you'd place them here. My dog makes a free will decision not to come to me when I call the idiotic thing... I know she understands that she has a choice.
Good question. I do think they have Free Will, yes. Just not sentience in the way we do, really. Regardless, even if I were to substitute "Tiger" for "leaf," my point would remain the same: for man to have any true choices, he (or she) must be more than the some of their parts.



Originally posted by r3port3r66
An unborn fetus has no Free Will.
It also has no interpretation of a higher power or atheism.

Therefore, if it's aborted it is niether an action of its own free will, nor is it a Devine Intervention (most religions shun abortion).

What is it then?
Are you asking if a fetus has any default religious affiliation?

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda
Slaytan: I wrote a long, detailed response, but instead, I'll just say this: you may say I'm a jerk, but I think you're a better man than that. I think you're a good, kind man at heart. I just think that the things I have a tendency to do happen to be the things which have a tendency to push your buttons. And vice versa. But I can get past that if you can.

Nah, I'm really a violent man, I'd knock your teeth out if I had the chance.

Okay, not really.

Yes, you push my buttons. Yes, I push yours. How do we manage to not do this? I don't know the answer to that. If we follow your logic, then it is inevitable that we don’t get along. There is nothing that we can do about it other than accept the fact, but is that acceptance by choice?

To say that we are nothing more than atoms, leads to a fatalistic viewpoint. Why bother if there is nothing more to our lives than predestination? Our ancestors needed more than that, as do we. But that still does not lead to any kind of an answer.

You asked the question, “What key ingredient sparks us with choice?”. The way I see it, it must be our brains. Yes, all living and non-living organisms that live on, and make up, the planet Earth consist of the same make-up. But not all of the “creations” are made the same. It’s like a potato, there’s a gratins, mashed, baked, and fried. Of course they’re all potato’s, but they’re all different in flavor, texture, and appearance. The difference between me and your leaf, is that my cells make up another organism that can act independently from it’s nature. My brain cancels out pure cause and effect, wherein all choice is implausible. If the wind blows me to the right, I can hold onto the tree and not go right. Of course by doing that, I have started another scenario of cause and effect. May hap’s by my grabbing the tree I knock off another leaf that has no will to deny the wind it’s desire. But cause and effect is inescapable. We initiate cause and effect as well as fall victim to it. We initiate it with our choices and free will. A leaf cannot share this distinction with sentient beings.

As far as your comment, “It seems to have become chic, in this thread, to write posts that, while very well-written and insightful, don't really address the subject matter directly.” It made me angry with you because when I wrote my post, you had not changed the topic of discussion yet. Your comment felt belittling and patronizing, not to mention rude and very antagonistic. Please be more clear with what your threads are “really” about from here on out. I would appreciate that a great deal. I apologize about calling you a jerk, you know I like you just fine, but like you said, you push my buttons quite well.

Peace, Brian.


BTW Sexy, I didn't take what you posted personally, I just felt the need to justify my anger. I still believe that I was justified with my feelings, just not in the way I presented them.

[firegod]

If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. - Lyall Watson

This whole "atheists don't believe in free will" claim is absolutely ridiculous. I've had discussions with literally hundreds of atheists, and perhaps 3 or 4 of them have given me the impression that they believe everything is fated, all mapped out, that no one really makes choices with free will. I would take a WILD STAB IN THE DARK, and say that most atheists believe they have free will. You are trying to put words in atheists mouths, something you don't do a very accurate job of.

Originally posted by Yoda
Sounds nutty, eh? But if it is, you should have no problem telling me just why. Of course you're different from a leaf; you know quite well I'm not claiming otherwise...but what basis do you have for believing that the chemical and biological reactions in your body are under a different set of guidelines than any other group of cells and chemicals? Why do you think the stuff humans are made out of is special compared to the stuff other things are?

I never said anything like the stuff humans are made up of is special. You are grasping so hard in this thread, that one would think your arms are a mile long.

It's one thing to say "this is crazy," but if it really is, you should be able to then elaborate on WHY it is crazy. So far your reasoning seems to be that we have free will because we "know that we are capable of making decisions on our own." But I think you can agree that, from any objective standpoint, that isn't a logical basis to make your objection on.

I don't know about CRAZY; that's your word, not mine. But your claims in this thread don't make any sense. You throw them out there like they are fact, and give nothing to back them up. Your attitude seems to be that if I can't explain how humans are different than leaves when it comes to fate, then your claims are correct. Nonsense. You are the one making the assertions; back them up. Just because I don't know how the human brain works, doesn't prove your point in the slightest way.

Now, you may say that you can feel yourself weighing options and coming to conclusions; and you're right. What I'm saying is that, assuming we're just a mass of stuff, you were inevitably going to weigh the options in the exact way you did, and you were inevitably going to then reach the conclusion you did. I think I've mapped out just why pretty well, and I'd be curious as to your thoughts on the matter.Why do you think humans consist of some special biological phenomenon which is for some reason exempt from the same cause-and-effect? Surely it can't be just because our chemicals and cells are woven together more intricately than most others.

Where do you get this?? How do you make the leap from someone not believing in a god to the things they do being inevitable? You have not explained this; you just expect us to buy it. I don't believe in fate, Chris. Please explain to me how everything is mapped out just because I don't have a belief in any deities?

[The Silver Bullet]

I'm your commentator Mr. M. J. Clayfield and welcome to the most talked about thread on MoFo for the entire length of time that I've been here. And I really do mean talked about.

It is one thing to have a widely and wildly used thread [Ups and Downs Tab, for example], with a lot of posts, but it is another [and an amazing rarity] to have a thread that inspires discussions about it on AIM, Yahoo, MSN and via email and the PM system, all with different people, all within a mere twenty-our hours or so of it being opened. Never has a thread exploded with such verocity onto the MoFanic Scene [add that to the glossary with the meaning: the MoFo related community that operates off the main boards between members].

Let's watch in anticipation, shall we?

[Piddzilla]

I've been paying very close attention to this thread but I haven't posted anything (except for one post) because the existence or non-existence of god is something I think about just as much as the existence or non-existence of the Loch Ness monster. In short, I don't think very much about it. But you guys make me do it! :eek:

You all seem to be so well oriented in this area - I'm actually very impressed - and I wouldn't stand a chance in this debate. I don't even know if I would fall into the category of atheist or not. I mean, I don't really believe in the bible even though I think Jesus and the message of love is cool. He was a true revolutionary. :D And I don't believe that there is an interventionous God or that the biblical God created the Universe. I don't need that to understand that we have to treat each other and our one and only mother nature with much much deeper respect and carefulness or everything will go to hell within a close future.

Anyway, I would like to say that I agree with LordSlaytan when he says that he doesn't get what this topic is about anymore. I read what Yoda writes and it's all very well formulated with falling leaves and everything is made out of the same matter and so on. But how does that prove that atheists are different from believers in God when it comes to Free Will? I don't even know whether I'm an atheist or not. And I don't care. But I'm pretty sure I have my free will intact. What I think Yoda is saying is that those hardcore atheists, the 3 or 4 people Firegod mentioned, they are so trapped under the belief of the existance of nothing and everything is bound to happen. No use in trying to affect things. Nihilists, really. But... How is that really different from hardcore "God worshippers"? "God only knows", "God will lead the way", "God will tell me what to do", "May God's will be done". Where's the Free Will in that?

I personally believe that God is only in our minds. This discussion is a proof of that. As my signature says: it's a concept.

[The Silver Bullet]

...and I wouldn't stand a chance in this debate.

Exactly. That is the very same reason I don't even try to partake it in also. If I gave any of it a second thought, I might, but I don't. I'm too busy living my life to worry about what is going to happen to me when it ends.

I think Jesus and the message of love is cool.

Likewise. I believe Jesus existed and that he was cool. I think the only thing that needs to be taken as Gospel in the Gospel is the vibe of it. Treat one another as you would like to be treated and all that jazz. That is what it is all about for me. The question of there being a God is the least important part of the thing for me.

And also, I wouldn't mention John Lennon either! After all, one of my most defining moments on this site is when Chris wrote Imagine off as:

Liberal/atheist crap, as usual.

:rotfl:

[Piddzilla]

:laugh: Yeah, well... Lennon's probably spinning a couple of times in his grave every time someone's calling him "liberal".

Imagine there's no heaven... :eek:

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
If a tiger falls out of a tree in the woods and no God is around to have made it so did it really choose to fall at all?

Two words. Twilight. Zone.

:D

[Yoda]

Okay, first thing's first. There's been a misunderstanding...one that I'm quite surprised at, really. I'll go in alphabetical order:

firegod

This whole "atheists don't believe in free will" claim is absolutely ridiculous. I've had discussions with literally hundreds of atheists, and perhaps 3 or 4 of them have given me the impression that they believe everything is fated, all mapped out, that no one really makes choices with free will. I would take a WILD STAB IN THE DARK, and say that most atheists believe they have free will. You are trying to put words in atheists mouths, something you don't do a very accurate job of.
This paragraph tells me that you've got my claim all wrong. I'm not saying that Atheists don't believe in Free Will. I'm saying they have no logical reason to. It's similar to saying that if you believe in an omniscient God, you can't believe in Free Will either. That's not to say there are not people who DO, in fact, believe in both Free Will and God's omniscience...but the point is that they have no sound basis for that belief.

I'm sure most Atheists do, in fact, believe in Free Will. I just don't see how it make sense, is all. I hope that clears this up a tad.


I never said anything like the stuff humans are made up of is special. You are grasping so hard in this thread, that one would think your arms are a mile long.
I think grasping would be more easily defined as not having an answer, but assuming there is one. Allow me to be blunt (I mean this with all respect): I don't see any counter-argument of substance here.


I don't know about CRAZY; that's your word, not mine. But your claims in this thread don't make any sense. You throw them out there like they are fact, and give nothing to back them up. Your attitude seems to be that if I can't explain how humans are different than leaves when it comes to fate, then your claims are correct. Nonsense. You are the one making the assertions; back them up. Just because I don't know how the human brain works, doesn't prove your point in the slightest way.
I throw them out there because anyone can clearly deduce that they are fact.

We DO know how the human brain works, at least enough to know there's nothing magical about it as it appears to us: it produces electrical impulses which travel through our body. Electricity, man. That's pretty much what it consists of. There's some chemicals thrown in for good measure, I believe. Nothing we haven't analyzed before.

Let me ask everyone here something: what happens when you make a choice? Well, we know an electrical impulse of sorts travels through a certain part of your brain to another part of your brain, which transmits that signal to some part of your body, which obeys, if it is able, the command. So at what point is the choice really made?


Where do you get this?? How do you make the leap from someone not believing in a god to the things they do being inevitable? You have not explained this; you just expect us to buy it. I don't believe in fate, Chris. Please explain to me how everything is mapped out just because I don't have a belief in any deities?
I know you don't believe in fate, and for the most part, I don't either. Again: I'm not saying fate exists because you don't believe in God. I'm saying that if mankind is nothing more than the sum of its parts, it is merely more stuff reacting to other stuff. Can you name me one part of the brain's decision-making process which does not involve mere reaction? I don't see why you believe the chemicals that we are made of to be outside of the laws of physics and chemistry.

The only thing we have is the appearance of choice because no one can weigh all the circumstances fast enough to predetermine the outcome.

Think of a computer: electrical signals sent throughout, similar to a brain. Yet it has no choice at all. What do we have which a computer does not to give us genuine choice that is not predetermined by present and past circumstances?


LordSlaytan

Yes, you push my buttons. Yes, I push yours. How do we manage to not do this? I don't know the answer to that. If we follow your logic, then it is inevitable that we don’t get along.
Actually, by my logic, God exists and we have Souls and, therefore, have every reason to believe in Free Will. But I really have no major problems with you. Like I said: I know you're a good man. I like to think I know bad men when I come into contact with them. And I don't think you're one of them.


You asked the question, “What key ingredient sparks us with choice?”. The way I see it, it must be our brains. Yes, all living and non-living organisms that live on, and make up, the planet Earth consist of the same make-up. But not all of the “creations” are made the same. It’s like a potato, there’s a gratins, mashed, baked, and fried. Of course they’re all potato’s, but they’re all different in flavor, texture, and appearance.
But what makes our brains so special?


The difference between me and your leaf, is that my cells make up another organism that can act independently from it’s nature.
How can any creature act independently from its nature if we're merely a mass of stuff? Wouldn't our nature be however it is we act? Our nature isn't really defined as what makes sense...when we observe any consistency among animals, we don't attempt to rationalize; we chalk it up to being their "nature." So isn't the fact that we do things like hold onto trees when it's windy merely part of our nature, too?


We initiate cause and effect as well as fall victim to it. We initiate it with our choices and free will. A leaf cannot share this distinction with sentient beings.
If our brain is what sets us apart, what is it that sets it apart? We can analyze signals the brain sends internally, and unless I'm misremembering horribly, there's never appeared to be anything special about that.

Or, put another way: no matter how elaborate the domino structure is, when you push that first one, they're all goin' down. Complexity does not equal exemption from that. It just means more cause-and-effect on a more specific, intricate level is involved in events where our brain takes part.


Please be more clear with what your threads are “really” about from here on out. I would appreciate that a great deal.
I was hoping to see how people reacted, first. In hindsight, 'twas a bad choice. That said, I don't think your post looked "stupid" at all, as I believe you called it. As I said earlier, I thought it was well-written and insightful, and actually, it seems to have branched off into the issue of Free Will WITH God, as well, which is quite welcome.


Pidzilla

But you guys make me do it!
I think fire and I would agree that that's a very good thing. :)


How is that really different from hardcore "God worshippers"? "God only knows", "God will lead the way", "God will tell me what to do", "May God's will be done". Where's the Free Will in that?
There isn't any there, as far as I can see, which is one of the reasons I've never been one to say "It's all part of God's plan." In a sense, I'm sure it is, in the sense that God's plan is contingent on Free Will and therefore, inevitably, suffering.


I personally believe that God is only in our minds. This discussion is a proof of that. As my signature says: it's a concept.
In a sense you're almost right. He is in our minds; because it's the best place for Him to show Himself. In a backdoor of sorts. Through things like our moral instinct and our belief in our own ability to choose. Those sorts of things logically imply something beyond the physical world around us.

FYI: concerning the whole "Jesus ain't God, but He's cool" stuff: I don't think that makes much sense. The evidence we have suggests that He was quite clear about His claims: I'm the Son of God. So, if you don't believe He was, either He was lying, or He was insane. Neither one would make a good moral leader, if you ask me.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda
Pidzilla


I think fire and I would agree that that's a very good thing. :)

Well, that's nice to know! :)



There isn't any there, as far as I can see, which is one of the reasons I've never been one to say "It's all part of God's plan." In a sense, I'm sure it is, in the sense that God's plan is contingent on Free Will and therefore, inevitably, suffering.

Well, if the Boss isn't even involved in his own company, then what's the point worshipping him or praying to him (or her... or it...)? What's the point of thanking God for our daily bread if he didn't give it to us? If all he did was to create this planet (which he didn't) and then just sodded off, then what the hell is religion all about? Gratitude for been given a world to screw up? Or is it all really just about "doing right" according to the bible (or any holy scripture of free choice) so we come to heaven when we die? Or reach nirvana? Or get to sit by Oden's side in Valhalla?



In a sense you're almost right. He is in our minds; because it's the best place for Him to show Himself. In a backdoor of sorts. Through things like our moral instinct and our belief in our own ability to choose. Those sorts of things logically imply something beyond the physical world around us.

I don't think that specific example suggests that there's something beyond the physical world around us. But sure, I believe in worlds beyond or after this one. But since our intelligence isn't sophisticated enough to comprehend those worlds or dimensions or whatever, we have created God to explain the unexplainable. He is simply a product of our minds. An old school UFO, if you will.

FYI: concerning the whole "Jesus ain't God, but He's cool" stuff: I don't think that makes much sense. The evidence we have suggests that He was quite clear about His claims: I'm the Son of God. So, if you don't believe He was, either He was lying, or He was insane. Neither one would make a good moral leader, if you ask me.

The line between geniality and insanity is, as we all know, very thin.

But anyway... Maybe he was lying or maybe he was insane. If I had to choose I would have to bet on the latter alternative. But does it really matter? If he is the son of God or not shouldn't matter, only his views on how to improve humanity and the conditions for the people. Those veiws are pretty far before its time. That's what I think is "cool" about Jesus.

[Sir Toose]

Yoda:
We DO know how the human brain works, at least enough to know there's nothing magical about it as it appears to us: it produces electrical impulses which travel through our body. Electricity, man. That's pretty much what it consists of. There's some chemicals thrown in for good measure, I believe. Nothing we haven't analyzed before.
I don't like this statement. I have nothing to back it up... I just tend to think of humans as 'special'... you know, God's chosen ones. If you can believe in miracles, burning bushes, reanimation at the hand of God then what's wrong with a little magic? I don't believe in humans having magical powers i.e. Harry Potter, but there is something like magic about us.

PS If we DID know how the human brain worked we'd be able to duplicate one, wouldn't we?

Yoda:
Think of a computer: electrical signals sent throughout, similar to a brain. Yet it has no choice at all. What do we have which a computer does not to give us genuine choice that is not predetermined by present and past circumstances?

I DO like this one. Great argument...

Piddy:
Well, if the Boss isn't even involved in his own company, then what's the point worshipping him or praying to him (or her... or it...)? What's the point of thanking God for our daily bread if he didn't give it to us?

And this one cracked me up. Genuinely...great turn of phrase. I'm not sure I'm with you on the rest of it but that was funny as hell.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Toose
And this one cracked me up. Genuinely...great turn of phrase. I'm not sure I'm with you on the rest of it but that was funny as hell.

Toose, you're with me all the way and you know it... :cool:

[firegod]

Originally posted by Yoda
I'm saying that if mankind is nothing more than the sum of its parts, it is merely more stuff reacting to other stuff. Can you name me one part of the brain's decision-making process which does not involve mere reaction?

No. I don't believe we are capable of understanding exactly how the brain works, or exactly how evolution created intelligent brains, or why you feel that us not knowing the answers to these questions of yours in any way proves your preposterous assertions in this thread. :)

I don't see why you believe the chemicals that we are made of to be outside of the laws of physics and chemistry.


Another huge leap of an assumption. I never suggested anything like that. Please illustrate to us how believing that humans have free will while not having a belief in any gods in any way suggests that humans are not compatible with physics and chemistry.

[The Silver Bullet]

The way I see it:

If Chris is right and a God exists and we have free will then that is excellent. We have free will. Hoorah.

But if there is no God and we don't have free will because we're like leaves falling of the trees and subject to cause and effect, then cause and effect has made it so our cells react in a way that at the very least gives us the misconception of free will, and while we might not actually have it, we believe we do, and ignorance is bliss.

Thus: let us get on with our pitiful little lives. There is nothing we can do to change the fact that we're just leaves. So let us live in bliss, ignorance and enjoy the ride, dammit.

[LordSlaytan]

Good one Silver. :yup:

[r3port3r66]

ditto Silver :yup:

[The Silver Bullet]

Thankyou. I know I'm great.

[Yoda]

Sorry for the delay.

Pidzilla

Well, if the Boss isn't even involved in his own company, then what's the point worshipping him or praying to him (or her... or it...)? What's the point of thanking God for our daily bread if he didn't give it to us?
You're implying that we should not thank God for our "daily bread" because all he did was supply us with the materials to make the bread as well as the ability to turn it into bread? :skeptical:


If all he did was to create this planet (which he didn't) and then just sodded off, then what the hell is religion all about? Gratitude for been given a world to screw up?
It's all based on one simple principle: existence is a gift.

As for "which he didn't" -- I find that to be unreasonably bold and probably lacking much solid evidence. For a skeptic, you don't seem all that skeptical of your own views.


I don't think that specific example suggests that there's something beyond the physical world around us. But sure, I believe in worlds beyond or after this one. But since our intelligence isn't sophisticated enough to comprehend those worlds or dimensions or whatever, we have created God to explain the unexplainable. He is simply a product of our minds. An old school UFO, if you will.
We haven't created God; clearly the idea of God is either inherent in us as beings, or inherent in the world around us.


But anyway... Maybe he was lying or maybe he was insane. If I had to choose I would have to bet on the latter alternative. But does it really matter? If he is the son of God or not shouldn't matter, only his views on how to improve humanity and the conditions for the people. Those veiws are pretty far before its time. That's what I think is "cool" about Jesus.
What does it matter? How many people do you think exist today that are simultaneously wise and completely insane?


Toose

I don't like this statement. I have nothing to back it up... I just tend to think of humans as 'special'... you know, God's chosen ones. If you can believe in miracles, burning bushes, reanimation at the hand of God then what's wrong with a little magic? I don't believe in humans having magical powers i.e. Harry Potter, but there is something like magic about us.
There's nothing hard to believe about it. I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm saying that you have to believe in something supernatural to believe in what we call Free Will. I'm arguing in a devil's advocate sort of way; naturally I, too, believe we are "special."


PS If we DID know how the human brain worked we'd be able to duplicate one, wouldn't we?
Right. We don't know everything about it. But we have looked at it...chopped it up. It's all made up of veins and meat, to put it crudely. Even if we don't understand every nuance, we DO understand that it is a purely physical device from where we're standing. And that's really all I need to make my point.


fire

No. I don't believe we are capable of understanding exactly how the brain works, or exactly how evolution created intelligent brains, or why you feel that us not knowing the answers to these questions of yours in any way proves your preposterous assertions in this thread. :)
Right, we don't know just how it works. So let's go into hypotheticals: are you saying you believe in a purely physical phenomenon inside the part of our body called the brain that somehow stands outside the ol' tangible cause-and-effect all matter is subject to?

We can trace a thought, so to speak. We can see chemicals react and impulses travel. So, are you saying that one of those impulses is special somehow? Is one of those puddles of chemical doing MORE than just reacting? If so, how is that possible?


Another huge leap of an assumption. I never suggested anything like that. Please illustrate to us how believing that humans have free will while not having a belief in any gods in any way suggests that humans are not compatible with physics and chemistry.
Well, the belief in God is sort of apart from the point: it's more the denial of anything supernatural (like a Soul)...though naturally the two are roughly akin.

Humans are made up of cells and chemicals. That's IT. Every single cell in this Universe, including those in our own body, reacts to its environment outside of its own control. Give me one good reason as to why the bits and pieces that we're made up of should have choice, while all the other bits and pieces in this world are just reacting?


Silver
Maybe we don't have Free Will. I'm not really claiming that we definitely do. Just that Free Will is an illusion without something beyond the physical, logically.

[Sir Toose]

Right. We don't know everything about it. But we have looked at it...chopped it up. It's all made up of veins and meat, to put it crudely. Even if we don't understand every nuance, we DO understand that it is a purely physical device from where we're standing. And that's really all I need to make my point.



Hmmmm, maybe. Would you discard the theory that what we 'see' with our eyes are veins and meat but the 'glue' which holds it together is what we call 'supernatural' or 'soul'? How can we be sure we even have the equipment to see everything that comprises something else? I can't hear the dog whistle but the sound it produces is real as hell to my dog... see what I'm driving at?

That's a tangent maybe you didn't want to examine here, and I'm admittedly off point but would like to hear your ideas on this sometime...

[Sexy Celebrity]

Originally posted by Yoda
We haven't created God; clearly the idea of God is either inherent in us as beings, or inherent in the world around us.

Yes -- if the concept of God came from just our creativity for explaining life after death, why did some human long ago think that? How did it come to our minds? When I was two years old, I started calling my mom "the new mommy", and I told her that I was from New Mexico, that I had died once before, and I even had a name for myself. How did I come up with this? I can't remember it all (some), but that's what my mom always talks about. That's why I believe in reincarnation.

And maybe in my next life, I'll be two years old and calling myself "Sexy Celebrity". :)

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Sexy Celebrity


Yes -- if the concept of God came from just our creativity for explaining life after death, why did some human long ago think that? How did it come to our minds? When I was two years old, I started calling my mom "the new mommy", and I told her that I was from New Mexico, that I had died once before, and I even had a name for myself. How did I come up with this? I can't remember it all (some), but that's what my mom always talks about. That's why I believe in reincarnation.

And maybe in my next life, I'll be two years old and calling myself "Sexy Celebrity". :)

And that's supposed to be a sign of God's existance? Give me a break...

Take an antropological class and you'll be able to encounter 100 different creation myths. Tell the believers of those myths the biblical one and if they didn't believe you were from Mars before that they sure will then. How do you think all those people "found"out about their myths? They made them up! And if you think the biblical tale is different you're very arrogant.

I don't question life after death, or reincarnation, or other dimensions or worlds or even some form of higher power or powers. What I question, or even strongly disbelief, is the big religions. Believe in God - I am so fine with that, maybe I even believe in him/her/they/it myself.

[Sir Toose]

I don't question life after death, or reincarnation, or other dimensions or worlds or even some form of higher power or powers.

Because you know now that I exist. You were lost, now you're found in that you've uncovered the way of the right and just. Like the cockroach who gazes upon the sun for the first time, you want to run and hide but the heat and warmth and purity is undeniable.



How did it come to our minds? When I was two years old, I started calling my mom "the new mommy", and I told her that I was from New Mexico, that I had died once before, and I even had a name for myself. How did I come up with this? I can't remember it all (some), but that's what my mom always talks about. That's why I believe in reincarnation.


That's a pretty cool story there, SC. My kids used to say wacked out stuff all the time when they first started talking. With my first I wrote it off to babbling... with the second I wasn't so sure.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
And if you think the biblical tale is different you're very arrogant.

Well, that's a very arrogant accusation coming from you. :sick:

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Toose


Because you know now that I exist. You were lost, now you're found in that you've uncovered the way of the right and just. Like the cockroach who gazes upon the sun for the first time, you want to run and hide but the heat and warmth and purity is undeniable.

I fart on you, evil doer!

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Sexy Celebrity


Well, that's a very arrogant accusation coming from you. :sick:

Well, at least I view all major religions equally.

By the way, do you mean that it was an arrogant accusation coming from me period or an arrogant accusation even for coming from me? Look, I don't look down on people because of their religious belief. My girlfriend is a very strong believer in God and a catholic too. :eek: But I think it's arrogant to believe that your own religion is better than all the rest and that it is like the religion. There lies the whole problem with religion, if you ask me. Which I'm sure you will not do... ;)

Don't feel :sick: - feel :love:!!!

[Sexy Celebrity]

Hello! I never talked about religions and I certainly didn't discriminate any of them. That is why I say you're arrogant! God can be anything -- all religions follow the same path, basically. Don't you dare accuse me of these beliefs you're pulling out of your ass about me. The only thing I talked about that's not in some religions is reincarnation -- that's MY personal belief.

:sick: :sick: :sick:

[Piddzilla]

Sorry. I was editing my last post when I had to go away from the pc for a while and I forgot all about it.

Originally posted by Sexy Celebrity
Hello! I never talked about religions and I certainly didn't discriminate any of them. That is why I say you're arrogant! God can be anything -- all religions follow the same path, basically. Don't you dare accuse me of these beliefs you're pulling out of your ass about me. The only thing I talked about that's not in some religions is reincarnation -- that's MY personal belief.

:sick: :sick: :sick:

Well hello hello! Damn, someone is getting really :sick: around here.

Here's something else from my ass: hinduism is a great deal about reincarnation... Check it out!

I think you take my posts too personal. I used your childhood story as an example of a bad evidence of the biblical God's existance. Then I went on to tell about my views about religion in general.

[The Silver Bullet]

Oh, how I hate this thread. And no. I will not stop saying it!

And Chris! Why could you not let it die? Or at least bring it back to life with more talking to me. I finally joined in and you give me a stupid little backhand of a reply. Thanks!

Jerk!

:D

[Sexy Celebrity]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
Here's something else from my ass: hinduism is a great deal about reincarnation... Check it out!

Your ass or Hinduism?

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Sexy Celebrity


Your ass or Hinduism?

Well now... My ass has a dedicated crowd of followers, sure. But I doubt if it is capable of reincarnation.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I'll worship it anyway. :licklips:

[Piddzilla]

Okay, but only as a shirne, mind you. :suspicious:

[Sexy Celebrity]

You've got it, dude. ;)

[Sir Toose]

Oh God the twisty turny roads in here are so unpredictable.

Hey Silver, did you know that God spelled backwards is Dog? Is the credo of the dog backwards from that of the bible?

[The Silver Bullet]

What? Don't attack me, man! I was made a post that sucked up to both sides of the argument! I want you to love me! Lo-ove. Me-e...

I do not understand said question. I do not understand these mind games. Hate crime! Hate crime! Love me! Not war me! Not war on me, man! Not war on me! War on you and both your houses.

The answer to your question, Jimmy, is apostle.

[Travis_Bickle]

To answer Yoda's original question.:confused: I'm not sure If I am writing the same thing as anyone else, I only skimed through the reply's.

Well, an athiest is somebody who does not believe in God. Therefore, his or her life is in their own hands. They have complete free will.

An athiest to God, is like an anarchist to the government.

If you are a thiest, that means, well... the opposite. It means that you believe that no matter what, God is in control of your life. If you decide to do something bad... ie beat your wife, that means God did it for a reason.

In regards to a further post.

Hinduism is not a religion, there is no God. It is simply a way of life. What they worship is the Earth. They do this, because this is what they can be sure they were born from. They do not follow a book, and a god not seen (Though It does not bother me if you do. Whatever brings happiness to your life.)

I believe, that if I was not Agnostic, I would be a Hindu. Hindu was the main religion of the east. It spawned Buddhism, Taoism, Zen etc.

On the topic of religion, isn't it funny that Jews and Muslims were both born from the same father... Abraham? Abraham had two sons "Isaac and Ishmael" Isaac became the father of Jews, Ishmael of Arabs (Arabs later got their own religion from Muhhamad.

Oh well.

[Yoda]

I'll reply to the rest later, but for now...

Originally posted by Travis_Bickle
Well, an athiest is somebody who does not believe in God. Therefore, his or her life is in their own hands. They have complete free will.
Logically, they don't. You need to believe in the supernatural to believe in Free Will. See my previous posts for an elaboration.


Originally posted by Travis_Bickle
If you are a thiest, that means, well... the opposite. It means that you believe that no matter what, God is in control of your life. If you decide to do something bad... if beat your wife, that means God did it for a reason.
False. Why is a Theist allegedly bound to accept a highly specific, unavoidable Divine Plan? Are you confusing Theists with Fundamentalist Christians?

Oh, one more thing:


Originally posted by Travis_Bickle
An athiest to God, is like an anarchist to the government.
More like a rebellious child, I'd say. And as we know, the only way a child can possibly compete with it's parent is to yell something like "you're not my real father!" Hence, my personal slogan when it comes to Atheism: how can you fight God but to pretend He doesn't exist?

[Travis_Bickle]

Originally posted by Yoda
False. Why is a Theist allegedly bound to accept a highly specific, unavoidable Divine Plan? Are you confusing Theists with Fundamentalist Christians?


It may of been an overstatement. You know, like saying your moms spagetti tastes like ****. It may not really taste that bad. But pretty damn bad.

Yes, a bit of a stereotype to all thiests, but a major number of them do in fact fit into my description. Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and a number more.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Originally posted by Travis_Bickle
You know, like saying your moms spagetti tastes like ****. It may not really taste that bad. But pretty damn bad.

You talkin' bout my mama? :furious:

Your mama's so FAT, she went to the movies and saw EVERYTHING!

[Travis_Bickle]

Your mama's so stupid, she sat on the t.v to watch the couch.

Your mama's so stupid, she climbed a glass wall to see what was on the other side.

Your mama's so fat, she uses a mattress for a maxi pad.

-Don't get me started on the mama jokes... you will go down crying.:mad:

[Monkeypunch]

Originally posted by Yoda
You need to believe in the supernatural to believe in Free Will. See my previous posts for an elaboration.


but isn't choosing to be an atheist an act of free will, just as choosing to worship the God of your choice is?

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Toose
Hmmmm, maybe. Would you discard the theory that what we 'see' with our eyes are veins and meat but the 'glue' which holds it together is what we call 'supernatural' or 'soul'? How can we be sure we even have the equipment to see everything that comprises something else? I can't hear the dog whistle but the sound it produces is real as hell to my dog... see what I'm driving at?
Actually, that's, in a sense, exactly what I believe. I believe our Souls are the sound waves and our body is the radio; you can damage the radio, and the waves won't come through as clearly, but they're there, seperate overall but still connected. To destroy the radio is not to destory the signal...except from your perspective, because you won't be able to hear it anymore.

Remember, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here: I DO believe in a Soul...I DO believe in Free Will. But the two sort of go together, is what I'm saying. There's no logical reason to believe in Free Will without something supernatural, and the fact that "we don't understand the brain" and "c'mon, you KNOW we have free will because you can feel it" are the only real counter-arguments so far, I'd say I've made my point, whether fire concedes it or not. ;)


Originally posted by Travis_Bickle
It may of been an overstatement. You know, like saying your moms spagetti tastes like ****. It may not really taste that bad. But pretty damn bad.

Yes, a bit of a stereotype to all thiests, but a major number of them do in fact fit into my description. Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and a number more.
It's not an overstatement, because it's wrong at the core. To say "this tastes like s**t" is exaggeration, because it tastes bad. To say all Theists believe so-and-so, in this case, is not an exaggeration; it's false in its very base form. There is no way to scale it back to make it true. You have to fundamentally change it. It really doesn't matter, though. I just felt the need to point out the erroneousness of the original comment.


Originally posted by Monkeypunch
but isn't choosing to be an atheist an act of free will, just as choosing to worship the God of your choice is?
No, it's not. If were are nothing more than physical beings, we have no Free Will whatsoever, as I've already detailed extensively. Unless you think we have a magical Free Will gland in our brains which is not subject to physical laws of cause-and-effect.


Originally posted by Piddzilla
And that's supposed to be a sign of God's existance? Give me a break...
There are plenty of signs of God's existence.


Originally posted by Piddzilla
Take an antropological class and you'll be able to encounter 100 different creation myths. Tell the believers of those myths the biblical one and if they didn't believe you were from Mars before that they sure will then. How do you think all those people "found"out about their myths? They made them up! And if you think the biblical tale is different you're very arrogant.
Did you know there are multiple flood stories in various cultures? I believe the Chinese word for "boat" originally meant something like "vessel carrying eight people." And yes, The Ark contained eight people. The Bible also refers, if memory serves (in the original translation, that is) to the world as a "sphere." Far beyond its time in terms of science. Are these coincidences?


Originally posted by Piddzilla
I don't question life after death, or reincarnation, or other dimensions or worlds or even some form of higher power or powers. What I question, or even strongly disbelief, is the big religions.
If God were real, why wouldn't His religion be one of the big ones? Or for that matter, the biggest? Questioning the big religions just because they're big doesn't jibe.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Yoda

"c'mon, you KNOW we have free will because you can feel it" are the only real counter-arguments so far, I'd say I've made my point, whether fire concedes it or not. ;)



Of course...

I just like phucking with you.

:laugh:

[LordSlaytan]

No, it's not. If were are nothing more than physical beings, we have no Free Will whatsoever, as I've already detailed extensively.

This is exactly why I'm not a fan of debating with you, my friend. You haven't detailed anything but your personal theory. Because of the belief of your own omnipotent idealisms, it turns your theory's into fact in your eyes. This is a subject that doesn't have any physical, metaphysical, or any difinitive proof what so ever. There is no way to "prove" your theory Chris. It will always remain a valid, well though out, and completely arguable...theory. Kudo's on the way your mind works Chris, you obsess about some very deep, yet pointless, ideas. But at least you're always asking the "why" questions.

I won't say whether you're right or wrong, that would be to presumptous on my part. I will say that I feel that you're wrong. I just don't buy it. But I may be wrong. But, please, quit saying how right you are because of your detailed analysis of the subject. Because you may be wrong no matter how logical and simple your theory may appear to you.

No harm, no foul...see??? I'm not evil...I'm not evil!!!! :D

[Yoda]

This is exactly why I'm not a fan of debating with you, my friend. You haven't detailed anything but your personal theory. Because of the belief of your own omnipotent idealisms, it turns your theory's into fact in your eyes.
I don't believe myself anywhere near omnipotent. But I do usually know logic when I see it...and I think you do, too. And seeing as how none of us have anything but our own perceptions and logic to go by, I don't see what's wrong with following them where they happen to lead us. Following logic and reason hasn't really led us astray yet, as far as I can recall.

I don't deny the possibility that what I'm saying could be wrong. I deny the idea that there's any valid reason for believing it is without tossing logic out the window.


Kudo's on the way your mind works Chris, you obsess about some very deep, yet pointless, ideas. But at least you're always asking the "why" questions.
I honestly don't think questions about our basic natures and the origins of them (and the Universe) are anywhere near pointless. But to each their own.


But, please, quit saying how right you are because of your detailed analysis of the subject. Because you may be wrong no matter how logical and simple your theory may appear to you.
Please, consider this: what you are saying could just as validly be applied to the "theory" of gravity. There's not really a way to prove it exactly, but if we sit down and think about it, the alternatives make no sense, and the theory fits perfectly. So, it is generally regarded as fact. And, if not fact, it is certainly not DENIED as being the most likely explanation.

If someone said to me "I'm skeptical, but I realize that logic dictates what you're saying, and it's the only thing that makes sense," I'd be as happy as a clam. I'd have nothing ill to say about them at all. In all honesty, Slay, can you really tell me you find it reasonable to deny something that makes logical sense on the basis that it could possibly, potentially, TECHNICALLY be incorrect, even if you can'd possibly see how? I think you'd probably agree that neither you, nor fire, nor anyone here applies that level of skepticism to any of their other core beliefs.

Would you rail on me for being arrogant and "treating my opinion as fact" by telling you 2 + 2 equaled 4?

[LordSlaytan]

I'm skeptical, but I realize that logic dictates what you're saying, and it's the only thing that makes sense, well at least a modicum of sense.

(You said you might be wrong, I thought it warranted my mild relenting :) )

[Yoda]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
I'm skeptical, but I realize that logic dictates what you're saying, and it's the only thing that makes sense, well at least a modicum of sense.

(You said you might be wrong, I thought it warranted my mild relenting :) )
You've got me beat when it comes to diplomacy, man. I must give you that. :) I guess my nature is to say that if it makes sense, and if the alternatives do not, and if everything I currently know to be logical dictates it, and if no one I talk to seems to be able to find flaw with it, well hell, I'm gonna believe it. But I honestly can appreciate the skeptical view of things.

[Travis_Bickle]

Communism and Nazism were two seperate, yet eventually presumed equal things.

Nazism was created as an evil thing. Communism was innocent enough in the beginning, specifically when Marx and Lenin used it. It was only tainted by Stalin (who teamed up with Hitler, in the original "AXIS of evil").

I'm no Communist, but I believe it would certainly be a good thing for America at this time. Russian Communism is certainly better than American Capitalism.
When I imagine America now, the old picture of the snake eating its own tail comes to mind; yet remember, self mutilation is not a perpetual thing. If you give yourself enouph paper cuts, eventually you will die.

America is like the old empires- Rome, Turkey, Egypt, Macaedonia etc... and where are they now?

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Travis_Bickle
Communism and Nazism were two seperate, yet eventually presumed equal things.

Nazism was created as an evil thing. Communism was innocent enough in the beginning, specifically when Marx and Lenin used it. It was only tainted by Stalin (who teamed up with Hitler, in the original "AXIS of evil").

I'm no Communist, but I believe it would certainly be a good thing for America at this time. Russian Communism is certainly better than American Capitalism.
When I imagine America now, the old picture of the snake eating its own tail comes to mind; yet remember, self mutilation is not a perpetual thing. If you give yourself enouph paper cuts, eventually you will die.

America is like the old empires- Rome, Turkey, Egypt, Macaedonia etc... and where are they now?

Now, hold your horses, Travis.

Yes, it's true that communism looks a whole lot better than nazism on the paper. But you can't get around the fact that it's undemocratic. And I tell you... Lenin wasn't always Mr Nice Guy. Compared to Stalin he's Dalai Lama, but Lenin too sent a lot of people to Sibiria and murdered people with different views. And we have to remember that after the revolution there was a democratic and more moderate socialist coallition in power - but Lenin and the bolsheviks would not have it. Then of course he did a lot of good things to modernize and intellectualize Russia, but then Stalin came and it all went to hell.

It's also known that communists and nazis/fascists worked together against socialdemocrats and liberals around Europe. The communists loathed democracy then and communists stll do. You can't have a democratic society totally without capitalism. What we don't need is hypercapitalism.

Well, this is a very interesting issue to discuss but it's totally off-topic here. :yup: Better not get me started... lol..

[Yoda]

Travis.

Communism was innocent enough in the beginning, specifically when Marx and Lenin used it. It was only tainted by Stalin (who teamed up with Hitler, in the original "AXIS of evil")
Eh, they weren't exactly stand-up guys themselves in all things, from what I've heard.


I'm no Communist, but I believe it would certainly be a good thing for America at this time. Russian Communism is certainly better than American Capitalism.
Why?


America is like the old empires- Rome, Turkey, Egypt, Macaedonia etc... and where are they now?
Where are ANY of the old empires or countries? What you're saying here sounds roughly akin to the famous Simpson quip "If he's so smart, how come he's dead?"

[Travis_Bickle]

Originally posted by Yoda
Eh, they weren't exactly stand-up guys themselves in all things, from what I've heard.

Never said they were. Just pointing out a fact.

Why?

With the cut-throat way America works in its pursuit of capital, a large sum of Americas population is being left to die. Check the unemployment rate. it gets bigger and bigger by the year. The harsh reality of someone not being able to provide for his family, makes him turn to the bottle or the needle.
Families quarrel, and eventually that drives them to expensive medicines for their depression (after all, health care isn't exactly in a great state there).
If they can't afford medicines, the depression turns to violence towards family members, sending them to jail, leaving the poor family poorer.

Now you're going to mention some empty promises that Bush declared in his State of the Union. Go back to any other SOTU, and you will notice that nil to nothing was achieved.


Where are ANY of the old empires or countries? What you're saying here sounds roughly akin to the famous Simpson quip "If he's so smart, how come he's dead?"

The thing that those empires had in common was... they all became greedy. They ruled the world, and they wanted more. Eventually they tried to steal what little possessions a country less wealthy, but with more heart had... and they became HISTORY chapter 4. I'm not saying I want America to fall, I'm just pointing out the inevitable. It's the perpetual mistake of greed.

[firegod]

Yoda,

As I've indicated before, you are basically throwing these outrageous theories out there, with no explanations for them other than the idea that if we can't explain how the brain works well enough to prove that we have free will, then you've proven your point. I'm sorry, but that's not logical. You are the one making the claims; come up with something to back up the conslusions other than our ignorance of the human brain. If you can't, you haven't made a good point at all.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Yoda
The Bible also refers, if memory serves (in the original translation, that is) to the world as a "sphere." Far beyond its time in terms of science.

This is not the first time you've claimed this. I should have spoken up sooner. Some (a small minority) of translations of some bible texts use the word "sphere" as an adjective when describing the sky, heavens, or whatever word that particular version uses for the sky. Never does The Holy Bible, in ANY translation, refer to the earth as spherical. It does, however, describe the earth as flat.

Daniel 4:11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Assuming that these things could happen at all, they certainly couldn't happen on a spherical world. Sure, you can take a word or two from some translations of the bible and make the bible look like all kinds of things that it's not; but this is argumentation worthy of Christian apologetics and creationists, not someone who thinks as logically as you usually do.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by firegod
As I've indicated before, you are basically throwing these outrageous theories out there, with no explanations for them other than the idea that if we can't explain how the brain works well enough to prove that we have free will, then you've proven your point. I'm sorry, but that's not logical. You are the one making the claims; come up with something to back up the conslusions other than our ignorance of the human brain. If you can't, you haven't made a good point at all.
Rest assured that I understand precisely what you're getting at. In fact, I've already replied to it:

"Right, we don't know just how it works. So let's go into hypotheticals: are you saying you believe in a purely physical phenomenon inside the part of our body called the brain that somehow stands outside the ol' tangible cause-and-effect all matter is subject to?

We can trace a thought, so to speak. We can see chemicals react and impulses travel. So, are you saying that one of those impulses is special somehow? Is one of those puddles of chemical doing MORE than just reacting? If so, how is that possible?"

If you pointed out a blatant contradiction in The Bible, and my only response to it was "if God exists, we can't possibly hope to fully understand Him" (which is, I'm sure you'll agree, true), you'd roast me for giving you a cop-out answer, and rightly so.

[firegod]

If someone claimed that everything in the bible is true, and I pointed out contradictions, then the answer you referred to would be a cop-out, yes. But I'm not making a claim that is being disproven. You are using the absence of proof to prove your side, and it isn't logical at all.

Originally posted by Yoda
"Right, we don't know just how it works. So let's go into hypotheticals: are you saying you believe in a purely physical phenomenon inside the part of our body called the brain that somehow stands outside the ol' tangible cause-and-effect all matter is subject to?
Nope. I'm not sayiing anything of the kind. I don't see the point of using hypotheticals here.

We can trace a thought, so to speak. We can see chemicals react and impulses travel. So, are you saying that one of those impulses is special somehow? Is one of those puddles of chemical doing MORE than just reacting? If so, how is that possible?"

I don't know the answers Yoda. Would you like me to now make a bunch of wacky speculations, ask you questions I know you can't answer and then claim that I have mapped out and proven my wacky speculations?

Edit: I edited this a bunch of times, because I was being distracted while trying to write it. If you read some of the old stuff that isn't there anymore, please disregard. Thanks.

[Yoda]

If someone claimed that everything in the bible is true, and I pointed out contradictions, then the answer you referred to would be a cop-out, yes. But I'm not making a claim that is being disproven. You are using the absence of proof to prove your side, and it isn't logical at all.
This is where the heart of the matter lies: I am not using absence of proof on my end to prove anything. It is you that has an abscence of proof. Everything we know currently points solely in ONE direction. The only way your stance could be validated is through some utterly unforseeable and borderline supernatural revelation into the very nature of physical matter.

I'm making a claim that is supported by all human knowledge of physical matter and how it behaves. How could you possibly then conclude that, when you oppose this claim, the burden of proof lies with anyone other than you?


Nope. I'm not sayiing anything of the kind. I don't see the point of using hypotheticals here.
Hypotheticals are the only way for you to make your case, as clearly the brain is a wholly physical device. It boils down to one simple question: why is the physical matter that constitutes our brain fundamentally different from any other matter? It is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that there's something beyond our comprehension, but it's ridiculous to ASSUME it's there, which is precisely what you're doing.

FYI: I'll get back to you on the matter of the word "sphere" shortly. Thanks for waiting. :) I'll try to make it quick.

[firegod]

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense at all. Atheism simply means not having a belief in any deities. How do you make the leap from there not being any good answers to your questions about the brain to the conclusion that not having a belief in any deities excludes the possibility of free will? The absence of evidence of free will coming from nature does NOT prove that it came from a god. If you aren't saying that, then how in the world are atheists being contraditory if they believe in free will?

Edit: The only possible way you could be making a good point here is if all atheists who believe in free will are claiming that it is a FACT that we have free will, and that it CAN'T come from a god. Obviously, that isn't anywhere near the truth.

[Yoda]

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense at all. Atheism simply means not having a belief in any deities. How do you make the leap from there not being any good answers to your questions about the brain to the conclusion that not having a belief in any deities excludes the possibility of free will? The absence of evidence of free will coming from nature does NOT prove that it came from a god. If you aren't saying that, then how in the world are atheists being contraditory if they believe in free will?
As I said a bit earlier, it's not so much Atheism really, as denial of a supernatural force in regards to us. A Soul, or something. It's just that the two almost always go together. I think what you might be getting hung up on is the assumption that I'm saying you must believe in God if you believe in Free Will. I'm not, really, though you certainly have to believe in something supernatural (unless you're ready to take some major leap in logic which contradicts all scientific reason and understanding thus far in human history).

This matter is more of a "if you want to throw the concept of God/the Soul out, hey, fine, but know that you're sort of a fatalist if you do." I know Atheists and Agnostics who believe, based on the principles I've described, that there is no God, and that they have no Free Will. That's perfectly possible; but, as is evident from your arguments, you're very reluctant to concede that you aren't, in fact, making your own choices, even though your other beliefs logically dictate it.

For what it's worth, this is really my contention with your stance in a nutshell (taken from my last post). It sums my argument up rather well: you're basing your belief in Free Will on an unfounded and unsupported assumption that we will not only have a major scientific breakthrough in regards to the brain in the future to validate your stance, but that said breakthrough will also fly in the face of the very nature of the way we have concluded that matter interacts with each other. And yes, that's probably a run-on sentence. The bolded sentence is key.

"Hypotheticals are the only way for you to make your case, as clearly the brain is a wholly physical device. It boils down to one simple question: why is the physical matter that constitutes our brain fundamentally different from any other matter? It is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that there's something beyond our comprehension, but it's ridiculous to ASSUME it's there, which is precisely what you're doing."

[Yoda]

Hehe. Ah, the life of a geek.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Yoda
"Hypotheticals are the only way for you to make your case, as clearly the brain is a wholly physical device. It boils down to one simple question: why is the physical matter that constitutes our brain fundamentally different from any other matter? It is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that there's something beyond our comprehension, but it's ridiculous to ASSUME it's there, which is precisely what you're doing."


Since you are so fond of repeating yourself...

"The only possible way you could be making a good point here is if all atheists who believe in free will are claiming that it is a FACT that we have free will, and that it CAN'T come from a god. Obviously, that isn't anywhere near the truth."

and...

"If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't." - Lyall Watson

[firegod]

Yoda,

Let me show you how silly you sound to people who have found no good reason to believe religions are anything other than a bunch of stories and concepts made up by humans.

I believe that The Matrix is real, and that it is the explanation to why we have déjà vu. If you don't have a belief that The Matrix (or something very similar to it) is real, and can't answer my questions about how déjà vu can exist in brains, when science tends to show us that it doesn't exist in any other physical things, then it is inconsistent for you to believe in déjà vu.

[The Silver Bullet]

:rotfl:

Standing ovation from Matt.

[Yoda]

Since you are so fond of repeating yourself...
...only when I don't get answers.


"The only possible way you could be making a good point here is if all atheists who believe in free will are claiming that it is a FACT that we have free will, and that it CAN'T come from a god. Obviously, that isn't anywhere near the truth."
I already addressed this:

"It is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that there's something beyond our comprehension, but it's ridiculous to ASSUME it's there, which is precisely what you're doing."

It's really quite simple. Tell me where the weak link in my chain of logic is:

1. We have brains. 2. They are made of matter, and nothing more. 3. The matter that makes up our brains is not particularly special or different from the matter in many inanimate or unintelligent things. 4. We have never, ever found any evidence to suggest it is anything more than physical. 5. We have also never, ever found any matter that defied cause-and-effect for no discernable reason.

The thing is, if you reply to a paragraph like this with "we don't understand the brain yet," you're ignoring what I've already said, which is that, yes, we've still more to learn, but what's on trial is the basis you have for believing in Free Will; which amounts to, well, diddly squat. I'm not arguing with you about whether or not it is possible, because it's POSSIBLE we could have the way matter works all messed up, and it's POSSIBLE that JFK was murdered by aliens; but for you to EXPECT the fundamental behavior we've observed for all of human history to be somehow turned on its head in a future experiment, and believe in Free Will based on THAT, is absurd, and I think you most definitely know it.


I believe that The Matrix is real, and that it is the explanation to why we have déjà vu. If you don't have a belief that The Matrix (or something very similar to it) is real, and can't answer my questions about how déjà vu can exist in brains, when science tends to show us that it doesn't exist in any other physical things, then it is inconsistent for you to believe in déjà vu.
Invalid parody: for your satire to stand, you would need to produce empirical evidence that déjà vu defied physical behavior as we know it. Which it does not.

[firegod]

...only when I don't get answers.
I've answered the other questions, and there is no difference between those and the one I didn't answer. You're not asking REAL questions; you're asking questions that you know can't be legitimately answered with anything other than something that amounts to "I don't know", and expect everyone to applaud as if you've made a good point. You haven't. The fact that I can't prove how free will can work in a brain, when we think it can't work in anything else we observe, would only win you points if I were claiming that free will is a fact. I'm not.

I already addressed this:

"It is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that there's something beyond our comprehension, but it's ridiculous to ASSUME it's there, which is precisely what you're doing."

It's really quite simple. Tell me where the weak link in my chain of logic is:

1. We have brains. 2. They are made of matter, and nothing more. 3. The matter that makes up our brains is not particularly special or different from the matter in many inanimate or unintelligent things. 4. We have never, ever found any evidence to suggest it is anything more than physical. 5. We have also never, ever found any matter that defied cause-and-effect for no discernable reason.
Again, this would be a good argument to refute the claim that free will is a "FACT". That would be the case whether the person making that claim was a theist or an atheist. Otherwise, a theist could make ANY valid claim at all, just by saying "god made it so". However, since you are claiming that not having a belief in a god disqualifies the belief in free will, the above does nothing at all to prove your point. Do you get it yet? You are the one making the assertions. You need to prove them, with something other than questions that can't really be answered, in order for me to agree with you.

The thing is, if you reply to a paragraph like this with "we don't understand the brain yet," you're ignoring what I've already said, which is that, yes, we've still more to learn, but what's on trial is the basis you have for believing in Free Will; which amounts to, well, diddly squat. I'm not arguing with you about whether or not it is possible, because it's POSSIBLE we could have the way matter works all messed up, and it's POSSIBLE that JFK was murdered by aliens; but for you to EXPECT the fundamental behavior we've observed for all of human history to be somehow turned on its head in a future experiment, and believe in Free Will based on THAT, is absurd, and I think you most definitely know it.
One thing you keep assuming is that I believe we will one day understand exactly how the human brain works. No way. I don't believe that we will understand exactly how the most advanced and complicated thing we know of works. Perhaps you could explain to me how our brains could be both simple enough for us to understand, and yet intelligent enough to enable us to understand them?

Invalid parody: for your satire to stand, you would need to produce empirical evidence that déjà vu defied physical behavior as we know it. Which it does not
Are you saying that you would concede my point if I used free will rather than déjà vu (I would obviously have to use something other than The Matrix, maybe a religion that doesn't have anything to do with a god of any kind?)? Of course you wouldn't, because you aren't really going on facts and logic here; you are only going on your personal speculation and belief that there really is a god, whether you admit that or not. The rest is just pseudoscientific nonsense you use to try to make people believe in a god.

[Yoda]

The fact that I can't prove how free will can work in a brain, when we think it can't work in anything else we observe, would only win you points if I were claiming that free will is a fact. I'm not.
From your second post:

"You know humans have free will. You know this, not because you read your bible, or because religious people you have followed taught you to, but because you know that you are capable of making decisions on your own."

From your third post:

"I don't believe in fate, Chris."

If you're not claiming it as a "FACT," you're sure as hell claiming it as a belief. Neither claim holds up.


One thing you keep assuming is that I believe we will one day understand exactly how the human brain works. No way. I don't believe that we will understand exactly how the most advanced and complicated thing we know of works.
I'm not assuming that at all. But, by stating that you believe in Free Will, you are logically bound to also believe that we will discover something about the brain which contradicts our current knowledge that it is a purely physical device. Either that, or we'll have to discover that physical matter works on all sorts of wacky levels that would in today's world be considered metaphysical.


Are you saying that you would concede my point if I used free will rather than déjà vu (I would obviously have to use something other than The Matrix, maybe a religion that doesn't have anything to do with a god of any kind?)?
What? I didn't even imply that. I said your parody was not comparable because the concept of a piece of our brain which somehow allows us to process and spit out decisions independent of our circumstances is wholly unsupported and contradicted by all scientific knowledge to date. Déjà vu does not have those same contradictions. Hence, invalid comparison.


Of course you wouldn't, because you aren't really going on facts and logic here; you are only going on your personal speculation and belief that there really is a god, whether you admit that or not. The rest is just pseudoscientific nonsense you use to try to make people believe in a god.
Highly rhetorical paragraph. We're not having a discussion about the motivation for my claims, but rather, their validity.

[Yoda]

FYI: I'm fortunate enough to have a Hebrew scholar as a friend (yay), so I've got some info on the "sphere" translation, but it's a tad late and I've got a weird sort of headache, so I'll reply to that, and any other new posts tomorrow.

You have a lovely night...not that you have a choice. ;D

[firegod]

Originally posted by Yoda
why is the physical matter that constitutes our brain fundamentally different from any other matter?
I don't know, and neither do you. Now, maybe you could answer my question:

Perhaps you could explain to me how our brains could be both simple enough for us to understand, and yet intelligent enough to enable us to understand them?

And maybe you can also explain to me that if it is valid for a theist to believe in free will, but not for an atheist to believe in free will, that it is not valid for a theist to believe ANYTHING at all, just by explaning to us that her god made it so.

I'm going to bed, so maybe I'll spar with you some more tomorrow. :)

[Yoda]

I don't know, and neither do you.
Right. So, seeing as how we have no evidence to support the idea that the brain's matter IS in fact different, what makes more logical sense? The stance that it's not different (backed by all we know as to the matter), or the stance that it is (backed by a future revelation which may or may not exist and would turn current knowledge on its head, considerably)?


Perhaps you could explain to me how our brains could be both simple enough for us to understand, and yet intelligent enough to enable us to understand them?
Well, for starters, there is no phsyical law that says something needs to be more complex than something else to understand it. You seem to be making that assumption based on a quote that you happen to fancy. Don't get me wrong: it's a fine quote. It's clever. Just not necessarily true.

A computer's processor is, in many ways, more complex than our brains. Yet we not only understand it, but build it, and improve it constantly. Again: why wouldn't the brain be able to potentially understand itself? Not that it necessarily will, but you seem to be treating it as an established fact that such a feat is inherently impossible based on some maxim that you dig on.


And maybe you can also explain to me that if it is valid for a theist to believe in free will, but not for an atheist to believe in free will, that it is not valid for a theist to believe ANYTHING at all, just by explaning to us that her god made it so.
That depends on whether or not they've got a good reason for believing in God in the first place, which is obviously the topic of much debate. One key difference, however, is that God is consistent: God is, by His very nature, necessarily OUTSIDE of the physical Universe (you can't be inside a house until after you build it, so naturally God must not be contained within the physical Universe; simple logic dictates that), and thus need not adhere to physical laws.

On the flip side, a materialist who believes in Free Will, is biting the scientific hand that feeds them, intellectually. Isn't your philosophy "I don't need a reason to not have a belief that something exists; I need a reason to have a belief that something does exist"? If so, there's an inherent contradiction when you deny a Soul/supernatural force, and affirm Free Will. Which is what you've done, as demonstrated in quoting your posts earlier in this thread.

And if you say that your reason for believing in Free Will is that you feel it somehow, then congratulations, you're now using the same criteria for one of your core beliefs as many Theists use for believing in God; they "feel it."

[Naisy]

I have a question....Do you EVER give up :D?

still good agruements from by both sides...keep going, your dead level you two

[firegod]

Originally posted by Naisy
I have a question....Do you EVER give up :D?

Yup. I do, anyways. Usually because I want to spend what little MoFo time I have on other things, (like movies!) and these debates often take too long for me. Anyways, I never expect to win any of these things, as I find Yoda to be the best debater I've ever gone up against, and I've gone up against quite a few. I just give it my best shot.

[Yoda]

Yeah, I give up sometimes, so to speak. Not in a "I surrender, you're right!" sort of way (let's be honest: how often do ANY of us do that?), but sometimes in a "I don't know enough to form a real conclusion yet" sort of way, or simply because some sort of impasse has been reached.

Anyway, 'tis fun.

[Yoda]

Okay then, debate with Piddy shifted to its own thread. If you wanna pick up where we left off, fire, feel free. I'm always game. If not, no big deal. It's been fun. :)

[Yoda]

This was one of the site's better debates, I think. Very enthralling.

[LordSlaytan]

Sigh...I miss 2003.

[Monkeypunch]

Sigh...I miss 2003.

I do too.

[r3port3r66]

And me, I just miss firegod.

[LordSlaytan]

Yeah, I also miss bullet posting regularly. But, oh well, change is good, I guess. :)

There are quite a few newer members that are pretty cool.

[Garrett]

He still comes here on a regular basis, I think he might be fed up with the riffraff though. :p

[LordSlaytan]

He doesn't post much though. Movie tab doesn't count. He was a daily participant before...but he is in film school now and is busy, plus he got sick of the retardation of the site. We all did.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I felt like resurrecting this thread since all the other "Atheism" threads are back at full force again. This one didn't wanna be left out.

I'm kinda depressed. I'm thinking that free will must be an illusion. That everything we do is merely an illusion of choice to a degree. This upsets me greatly. Never in my life before have I felt so much like a true atheist. It's just all making sense to me now that there's probably not a God. This is kind of a bummer to someone who, even though I might have always considered God wasn't there, I still had hope and I still assumed that there was probably *something* above us, beyond us, outside of us, that would keep us from becoming nothing when we die.

It's hard for me to understand why there should even be life if there's nothing, though. I know it's possible that there could still be nothing, but I dunno, even if life is just a game of survival of the fittest and mating and such, it all still seems kinda silly and pointless to me. What is nature getting out of it? I suppose you could imagine nature is indifferent to whatever we experience. Still, it's kinda strange considering how unique and advanced I think we seem.

Can anyone help me out with answers/philosophy/understanding/advice? I still haven't finished the Mere Christianity book, as recommended by Chris, although interestingly enough, a C.S. Lewis DVD - title I forget the name of - fell into my possessions today. I just need to watch it.

[will.15]

Thanks a lot, another thread for Planet News to mumbo jumbo in.

The meaning of life is life. That is all there is to it and what's wrong with that? We are here for a while. We love (or not), have a few jollies, maybe spread our seed, get sick and die. That's life.

Foget about that C.S. Lewis book. Read this instead if you are looking for a reason to believe in God. It is much shorter and to the point.

http://www.independent-baptists.com/how-to-get-to-heaven.html

[wintertriangles]

I find people look into religion far too much for answers, atheism as one of them, and no free will as one of its answers. There's this:
The meaning of life is life. That is all there is to it and what's wrong with that? We are here for a while. We love (or not), have a few jollies, maybe spread our seed, get sick and die. That's life.

And then in conjunction there's understanding a certain futility of questioning your own purpose, whether it be in terms of free will, the existence of a god, or whatever, because regardless of how cosmically unimportant you are, you still feel when your decisions have an impact, otherwise you're just wasting your time. It's not that important if that decision was unequivocally based in your brain, everything influences everything, we see that in our art, and it's even less important whether or not you believe in a god or gods because it's healthier for you and others to live for yourself in the first place.

[planet news]

I'm kinda depressed. I'm thinking that free will must be an illusion. That everything we do is merely an illusion of choice to a degree. This upsets me greatly. Never in my life before have I felt so much like a true atheist. It's just all making sense to me now that there's probably not a God. This is kind of a bummer to someone who, even though I might have always considered God wasn't there, I still had hope and I still assumed that there was probably *something* above us, beyond us, outside of us, that would keep us from becoming nothing when we die.Finish Mere Christianity. Finish it so you understand Christianity, because after finishing it I felt for the first time that I'd found a guide for a fair assessment of a competent mainstream Christianity (not esoteric, albeit highly advanced / convincing theology or the fundamentalist straw-man perpetuated by Dawkins et. al) even if Lewis is not the most profound theologian or careful analyst. Afterwards, I think I good companion would be Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. As I've said before, Nietzsche's entire project is to, in a Sexy Celebrity-centric way, to answer your questions! And perhaps not to sooth your feelings but to reframe the doubts upon which they are based. To question the very terms by which you are positing the very questions at hand.

I am currently working on an essay now based off of Mere Christianity. It has been a long time since I read anything Christian that was good---the last being Chesterton's Orthodoxy. For the first time in partnership with Deleuze and Nietzsche, I realized a lot of things about what Christianity is through the book. I don't want to say too much undeveloped right now except to say that it is true.

It's hard for me to understand why there should even be life if there's nothing, though. I know it's possible that there could still be nothing, but I dunno, even if life is just a game of survival of the fittest and mating and such, it all still seems kinda silly and pointless to me. What is nature getting out of it? I suppose you could imagine nature is indifferent to whatever we experience. Still, it's kinda strange considering how unique and advanced I think we seem.My God. Please, please read Nietzsche. I want to say stuff, but sometimes I think it's best just to hear it from the man himself and his astounding Lewis-like confidence.

He answers your questions. All of them. But more importantly is how he does this: by reframing them. By showing how they are, how you are as a self-aware subjectivity built from language, entirely contingent upon a certain set of arbitrary linguistic properties such as cause/effect, free will/non-free will, and maybe most importantly for Christianity good/evil.

Nature contends to none of these, she holds no referents such as these. There is only Will to Power as the pure expression of the universe through your body---a body animated by the intensities of the universe. Our will often feels free to us, yes. But our will is also material substance, as is the subject. Nietzsche argues that you should take responsibility but not in the way of a freed will; rather, in the way of Will to Power---an authentic ownership and fidelity to the body you are in and world that surrounds you. You should exert your power---your subjective ownership---over your utterly determined body: to fully become the Body without Organs. This is an "effort" in itself and a non-nihilistic way of life.

Let us not be philosophers, he says. Let us not deal solely with the logic or words but the logic of the world in its infinitely differentiated, simultaneous becoming of which you have the chance to be a part of.

Can anyone help me out with answers/philosophy/understanding/advice? I still haven't finished the Mere Christianity book, as recommended by Chris, although interestingly enough, a C.S. Lewis DVD - title I forget the name of - fell into my possessions today. I just need to watch it.First, read Lewis' book. If you start a thread on it, perhaps Yoda and others might want to debate its merits.

Christianity is a singular construct in the history of man, and I think it too can answer your questions, because it is---how should I put it---wise beyond its years. ^_^

1) Mere Christainity
2) Beyond Good and Evil / Twilight of the Idols

[Sexy Celebrity]

That's funny, Planet News. I went looking for Nietzsche books but didn't buy any because I didn't know which one was the best and if I'd like them and they were all around $20. I went to a used book store and they only had ONE book there, for dirt cheap, but I didn't get it because someone had written all in it.

It was Beyond Good and Evil. I think, at least. That sounds pretty familiar. I'll have to go back and get it now.

[will.15]

You can go to the library and look at it for free for two weeks.

[Sexy Celebrity]

No thanks. I picked it up just now - Beyond Good and Evil - for only $2.67. Used. Can you believe the only Nietzsche book the used book store had was the one Planet News recommended? And for dirt cheap. It must be fate or something.

Anyway, I'll read it and Mere Christianity. I'm more interested in getting started with Nietzsche, though.

Will.15, what's your philosophy in life?

[will.15]

I have no philosohy. I am here. I exist. I'll be here until I croak.

[Sexy Celebrity]

First of all, I'll start by saying that I recently read this article I came across:

Why You Don't Really Have Free Will (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-01/free-will-science-religion/52317624/1)

Now here's why I'm bringing this up again: I think it's probably true.

I don't think we have free will.

And frankly, I'm sick of hearing about how God plays into the question of whether or not we have free will. By that I mean that there's just too much focus and fixation on God. At least, that is what I'm seeing, especially in this thread.

This is a really great thread. I commend Yoda for starting it and saying what he did years ago. This is a great thread because I think it leads into a serious, probably truthful, and absolutely shocking major revelation about mankind: That we're not in control of ourselves. That we're no different than other animals who have always appeared to us as being more instinctual and having no knowledge of what they're really doing.

We are robots. We are organic robots. Our choices, our decisions, our thoughts, our actions ... we make them, but we're not really in control of doing that. We are running on automatic. We are machines. Everything is a physical process. Destiny is in the making, but not by our hands. We are not really in control of our destiny -- destiny is in control of us.

I think that - first and foremost - we need to come to grips with the fact that we're not in charge of our lives. Choice is an illusion. We cannot help what happens to us. Just like how we are born into life with bodies that we had no choice in having, with families we had no choice in being connected to, with locations that we are born into, etc. etc. -- we also have no choice in how the rest of our lives play out. We are never separated from "no choice." We feel free -- humanity has always believed it's been free -- but it's not. We may be smarter than animals and we may be self aware, but we are still not free. We are bound to our bodies and to the world around us. Our bodies include our mind and what we learn, as well as our instincts, genes, hormones, etc. Our minds expand and learn, but we are not free. Our choices are confined to what our bodies can do, and that includes what we know, and everything we know is bound to whatever we've been fortunate to pick up. Religion and ideas based around God, including morality, are all based on ideas that we pick up from other human beings, as well as possibly our instincts. It is possible that believing in God is instinctual and part of our human nature. Believing in God and having religions and such has been beneficial to mankind, I think.

But, I think that ultimately freedom in life is an illusion. Free will is not real.

This doesn't have to be a reason to despair, though -- nor, I think, a reason to stop believing in God. For if you have faith in God, and an afterlife and all that... then you believe that what I am saying is wrong. And that could be good for you. Afterall, why live unhappily if it's not what you truly feel or want? Besides, if there is no free will, you can't control it anyway.

I don't think there's free will, though. Granted, this is what I'm currently thinking -- but that's a point to be made. It's what I currently am thinking. Meaning I could change my mind. But if I do... I don't believe it will be a choice I willed into being. It would ultimately be a choice I made and couldn't help. We could always decide on either going left or right, but I don't believe we make that choice based on freedom. We make choices because some form of logic -- even if it appears to be irrational logic -- agrees with us. And there is no freedom in that. If we make the wrong choice -- too bad. You were destined to do it. And that's a destiny that is always in the making. But nothing is ever free. Every move is determined by something else. There are chess games within chess games. People who believe in free will are seeing only one chess game.

Life is huge and vast and full of many splendid things -- but that doesn't mean we are free. We are no different than the rest of the universe, which appears to be quite lifeless (or, at least, inactive/not human), yet full of remarkable things and beauty. We are all just existing. I have no choice in what I'm doing right now. I could have done something else besides typing all of this out, but I didn't. It's a choice I made that I cannot really regret because ultimately, I was helpless. The moment was right for this. The pieces were in the right place. Everything clicked. BOOM. The Big Bang. Every moment is one.

This is all, of course, my view right now, and I'm sure (unfortunately) that some of you will disagree with it, but I dare say that I think I'm right about this. And I have a good track record of being right (I guessed the Top 6 MoFo Movies of the Millennium, afterall).

I, of course, am not all of the mysteries of life and I have no way of knowing for sure, but I strongly theorize right now that there is no free will, that we are not in charge of our choices, that we are ultimately robots, etc. etc. I think this is probably the nature of human life, and probably all life, and if this is true, I wish it could be accepted by mankind as truth. But, of course, if I'm right, then that can only happen under the right circumstances. If it is possible to be largely accepted. I think if it was, then many things would be different. For science to come out and say that nobody is really in charge of what happens in their life... for it to be a mainstream belief... I dunno if life would necessarily be better, but I imagine it'd be different. Connecting the dots and seeing that the choices of all humans is ultimately accidental, even if under the veil of purpose.

We are all on the road, but we are all passengers, not drivers.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Disappointed that there were no comments about my post (and no positive rep!) Was what I said that mind blowing?

Here is a great essay I found that explains what I said in another way:

Living Without Free Will (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1691-living-without-free-will.html)

Also, I want to add that I think - even if there is no such thing as free will - I personally am still not convinced that means something like God isn't real. Or rather, something, I guess, "paranormal". Meaning I think no free will and mystical experiences or whatever can co-exist. Not sure about life after death, though. But maybe.

For all I know, we might not understand a damn thing yet about what's going on.

But this no free will stuff... I think I believe in that, as of now. But I don't think it means you need to be an atheist, either. As I said, we are passengers on the road, but not the driver. No free will deals with the passenger aspect. The driver aspect, though... that, I think, is more mysterious.

[Cobpyth]

Interesting view. I'm a little bit too hungover to react on it right now, but it's certainly something to think about.

[will.15]

I want to neg rep SC for shamelessly begging for positive rep.

Even though he still didn't get any.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I want to neg rep SC for shamelessly begging for positive rep.

Even though he still didn't get any.

You're supposed to be talking about your lack of free will, Will, and the fact that everything in your life has been accidental and random and beyond your control. You're a robot, Will.15. You are not free! What you do tomorrow is out of your control. The fact that you hang out in the Shoutbox ALL DAY LONG, every day, is out of your control. You can't help it.

[Sexy Celebrity]

As an example of us not having free will, it's like what the characters on MoFo Beach are talking about. Sort of. Watch this one for an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYFhUXJI-8k

When John starts breaking the fourth wall (3:00) he acknowledges that Sexy Celebrity (me) is writing everything that he is saying. John, Yoda, Austruck, and all of the other people on MoFo Beach, are aware that they are merely characters on a crazy cartoon show. The MoFo Beach version of Austruck particularly hates it, but she is just a character being written by somebody else. What she does -- whether it's getting pregnant by John, eaten by a shark, turning into a zombie or a Crash Test Dummy, or turning into Uhura from Star Trek and going to outer space with Yoda (who has become Spock), is out of her control, yet she is most definitely living out those scenarios on the show. The MoFo Beach characters are living in their own MoFo Beach world, but they are aware that they have no free will. I, Sexy Celebrity, am in charge of what they do and say.

We are not on a TV show, but we are like those MoFo Beach characters in a way. We are not in control. There is no free will. Our lives are being scripted, in a way.

For all I know, there could be another version of me somewhere that's writing me right now, and writing Yoda, John, Austruck, and everyone else, too, in their real lives.

[Yoda]

If we don't have free will, then we can't control whether or not we react to what you say. So you can't get mad at us. Except you can't control whether you do.

[Sexy Celebrity]

If we don't have free will, then we can't control whether or not we react to what you say. So you can't get mad at us. Except you can't control whether you do.

That's right. Don't think I haven't already considered all of that -- my non-free will made me.

The best I can do is manipulate people to respond and hope it works.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I have been giving this more thought... (without your input).

A decade ago, I believed strongly that everything happens for a reason. I had read new age spiritual beliefs and such that claimed that our lives were "charted" and everything that happened to you was meant to happen because it was like in God's big book or something. There were even claims that your soul made your own plans for all that happened in your life before you even entered life -- before you were born. Many New Age believers believe this.

As the years went by, though... I got jaded. And I lost my faith in that stuff. Slowly I started to not believe in God. Yet, something always pulled at me -- something like, "Atheism is not the answer." Maybe I just didn't want it to be. But I knew I didn't see the possibility of God and the afterlife the same way anymore.

Now I'm thinking about all I've heard about no free will and how real it sounds.

If there is no free will, and if life is running on automatic... is there destiny? Does everything really happen for a reason?

Could everything that happens to you -- no matter how awful -- just be your destiny and something you have no choice but to experience? That was something I was taught years ago by stupid New Age books, but it was all under the idea that there was a God in charge of it -- a kind, loving God, who cared about every soul and such.

But could this idea of fate still exist even without the mercy of this loving God? I think it can. But now I wonder... what exactly is in charge? What is going on? Where are the laws of nature taking everybody towards?

The laws of nature are responsible for creating the planets and for bringing us all here right now, right? Something is operating in nature that is making things happen. Something out of our control is causing everything to be created, including our futures.

I'm starting to believe again that life has meaning and purpose, even if we don't have free will. If there's nothing you can really control, then you're on a ride, and something else is controlling you. Something that you can say is giving you purpose. If you attach meaning and spirituality to your random, out-of-control journey, then you can believe that you're here for a reason and feel a "will" to go along with all the twists and turns. Bad things may happen -- even bad things that bring you down and make you feel hopeless. That's an uncontrollable fact of being human. To be human is to experience a wide range of emotions and thoughts and feelings.

Anyway, I am just really starting to think again that life has meaning, even if it doesn't feel like it. There is no free will, but you're a part of the show and everything happens for a reason. No matter what happens to you, it was MEANT to happen. That is a law of nature.

[Yoda]

I'd respond more to this, but what's there to respond to? You're just describing how you feel. There's not a lot to say to someone who says "It just feels like BLANK."

I don't know if it's wise or not to base this sort of thing on feeling, but if you want to, I'd think the most conspicuous feeling is the feeling that we have choices.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I'd respond more to this, but what's there to respond to? You're just describing how you feel. There's not a lot to say to someone who says "It just feels like BLANK."

What are you talking about? That sounds condescending. I'm just describing how I feel? I've given this actual thought.

I don't know if it's wise or not to base this sort of thing on feeling

It's NOT based on a feeling.

but if you want to, I'd think the most conspicuous feeling is the feeling that we have choices.

No. That's an illusion.

All of our choices are determined by other factors. I believe that even the smallest of choices (or the biggest) can even be determined by deeper reactions within us -- all stuff that is "unconscious" as they say.

We are being pulled by strings that we don't see -- the majority of them, if not all of them, are in our own mind.

Here's an example.

Think of a city.

*pauses while you think of a city*

State out loud the name of the city you thought of.

*pauses while you state this city name*

The name of that city came to you in your head, right?

But you know the names of lots of cities, don't you?

Why didn't your head think of a different city name?

I'll tell you why -- because there are unconscious processes within you that didn't make you think of it. These processes could be determined by all sorts of things, from the way you're dressed, to how you're sitting, to what you ate, to what you watched on TV, to how you feel, etc.

We don't give birth to our choices. Consciousness is only the surface of our mind. Our mind is something bigger and more chaotic than our surface thinking.

Every action - every thought - is created in our head by biological processes.

You are a biological entity. Who you are as a person to the world is based on what's in your head and body. Your choices are out of your control. You can certainly WORK on improving yourself, as everyone does, but ultimately, that can only happen if you have changed as a person to do that.

Believing that we are a soul is just a belief. It's a biological process. You're certainly welcome to believe that you're a soul, but you very well could be wrong. I think that, even if there is a mystical side to life, which there might be, we should always think about nature and biology first.

I'm pretty damn well convinced now that free will isn't real. I think it's a fact of life.

[mark f]

But you're a robot, a constantly-changing (on this site) robot. :)

[Sexy Celebrity]

But you're a robot, a constantly-changing (on this site) robot. :)

We are all constantly changing robots.

[Yoda]

What are you talking about? That sounds condescending. I'm just describing how I feel? I've given this actual thought.
I believe you. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

It's NOT based on a feeling.
What I mean by that is that it's not being presented as an argument, or a syllogism. This isn't a criticism, just an observation. You're saying that you think free will is an illusion, but you're not listing reasons that present a contradiction or problem for people who think otherwise. Which means there isn't necessarily a lot to say to it.

No. That's an illusion.

All of our choices are determined by other factors. I believe that even the smallest of choices (or the biggest) can even be determined by deeper reactions within us -- all stuff that is "unconscious" as they say.

We are being pulled by strings that we don't see -- the majority of them, if not all of them, are in our own mind.

Here's an example.

Think of a city.

*pauses while you think of a city*

State out loud the name of the city you thought of.

*pauses while you state this city name*

The name of that city came to you in your head, right?

But you know the names of lots of cities, don't you?

Why didn't your head think of a different city name?

I'll tell you why -- because there are unconscious processes within you that didn't make you think of it. These processes could be determined by all sorts of things, from the way you're dressed, to how you're sitting, to what you ate, to what you watched on TV, to how you feel, etc.
I agree that there is such a thing as unconscious thought, but I don't think that poses a problem for free will. Heck, even how we react in many situations is largely a product of the habits we've chosen to reinforce over time. Reflexes are often the manifestation of your previous choices, cumulatively.

Every action - every thought - is created in our head by biological processes.

You are a biological entity. Who you are as a person to the world is based on what's in your head and body. Your choices are out of your control. You can certainly WORK on improving yourself, as everyone does, but ultimately, that can only happen if you have changed as a person to do that.

Believing that we are a soul is just a belief. It's a biological process. You're certainly welcome to believe that you're a soul, but you very well could be wrong. I think that, even if there is a mystical side to life, which there might be, we should always think about nature and biology first.

I'm pretty damn well convinced now that free will isn't real. I think it's a fact of life.
The idea that free will requires a supernatural component is, of course, the thought behind this entire thread, so you know I agree with you there. :) But I believe in it.

There's really no way to put material considerations ("nature and biology") first, though. The act of thinking about anything and believing that thought to be coherent requires any number of metaphysical assumptions.

[Sexy Celebrity]

What I mean by that is that it's not being presented as an argument, or a syllogism. This isn't a criticism, just an observation. You're saying that you think free will is an illusion, but you're not listing reasons that present a contradiction or problem for people who think otherwise. Which means there isn't necessarily a lot to say to it.

I'm not here to play Debate Club. I'm here to tell you how it is. In my Debate Club, I'm automatically the winner.

You'll either go with me or you won't. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

If someone else wants to satisfy your hunger for a more thorough argument, PLEASE, whoever you are, speak up now and feed the beast who probably won't change his mind anyway.

Afterall, I'm limited. I can only write what I know and feel like writing right now. But that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It might mean that I'm unconvincing, but, all in good time, I think. Eventually this will probably pick up at some point in time, even if it's not here. Eventually it will be more known. For now, though, I'm okay with it being my own thing. I'm quite content with knowing and believing something that other people don't wanna accept. I like being first. FIRST!

I agree that there is such a thing as unconscious thought, but I don't think that poses a problem for free will. Heck, even how we react in many situations is largely a product of the habits we've chosen to reinforce over time. Reflexes are often the manifestation of your previous choices, cumulatively.

It isn't just reflexes, Yoda. Every second, you are adapting to change. Every day, you begin life as a changed person, and by night you are more changed. Even when you sleep and dream, you are changing.

These changes will determine your future. By reading this post of mine, you will change in some way. Looking at reflexes is still just seeing one chess game. There are more secret chess games being played. Reflexes are like judging what words you use to speak, what your favorite color is, etc.

You don't choose to reinforce habits. If you change your habits, something came into your life that made you do it. If you don't change your habits, then probably something didn't come into your life to make you change. You are affected by things and if you choose to change, it's because there are various factors in your head that made you change. If those factors aren't there or if they're not right, you won't change. Everything accidentally happens.

The idea that free will requires a supernatural component is, of course, the thought behind this entire thread, so you know I agree with you there. :) But I believe in it.

My belief is -- and this is, I feel, a shakier belief than the belief in no free will, meaning I'm not so sure of it -- there's something in nature itself that appears as supernatural to us.

I think there's probably a guiding force operating in nature. I believe this because I believe in synchronicity -- strange coincidences that seem too coincidental to be true. Like thinking about a person you haven't spoken to in years and all of a sudden they call. I have seen a lot of this in my life. For awhile, I almost gave up believing in it, but I had a few of these things happen recently, so now I'm back on that train.

Pure atheists will say that people who believe in synchronicity are deluded and not thinking about chances and such. You could even say my non-free will makes me believe in synchronicity and that's true. But, I have faith in synchronicity and I think it's something in nature itself that is more powerful than us and leading us to places and perhaps inspiring hope in people. It is possible that the ideas of religion and such are instinctual -- probably to guide us along the ride and make us do whatever nature wants us to do.

The idea of free will helps people believe that their lives are meaningful because they make all the choices.

But I don't think there's really any free will. Thus, when a synchronicity happens, it was meant to happen. Many people take synchronicity as a sign that you are on the right path and I used to believe this, too. But now I think... maybe there's no choice but to be on a certain path, and a synchronicity is just another push of some kind, a way to change our behavior and direct the future. A message from the driver, while we are still the passenger.

If there IS free will, then I think it's only possible if we don't fully understand nature and ourselves yet -- which is totally possible. Thus, religion can still proliferate. The depths of the human mind and all that is unconscious could be the soul or something. But that, I think, is harder to make sense of, unless of course you are religious. But then it could all be a delusion. Perhaps one that nature is enforcing and hoping we'll buy into. And many people have.

There's really no way to put material considerations ("nature and biology") first, though. The act of thinking about anything and believing that thought to be coherent requires any number of metaphysical assumptions.

What do you mean about that? You'll have to explain further - I've basically had my say and am getting tired at the moment.

[Yoda]

I'm not here to play Debate Club. I'm here to tell you how it is. In my Debate Club, I'm automatically the winner.
But in my Debate Club, I am. :eek:

I guess we can never play Debate Club together. :(

You'll either go with me or you won't. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

If someone else wants to satisfy your hunger for a more thorough argument, PLEASE, whoever you are, speak up now and feed the beast who probably won't change his mind anyway.

Afterall, I'm limited. I can only write what I know and feel like writing right now. But that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It might mean that I'm unconvincing, but, all in good time, I think. Eventually this will probably pick up at some point in time, even if it's not here. Eventually it will be more known. For now, though, I'm okay with it being my own thing. I'm quite content with knowing and believing something that other people don't wanna accept. I like being first. FIRST!
Correct, it does not mean you're wrong. :)

It isn't just reflexes, Yoda. Every second, you are adapting to change. Every day, you begin life as a changed person, and by night you are more changed. Even when you sleep and dream, you are changing.

These changes will determine your future. By reading this post of mine, you will change in some way. Looking at reflexes is still just seeing one chess game. There are more secret chess games being played. Reflexes are like judging what words you use to speak, what your favorite color is, etc.

You don't choose to reinforce habits. If you change your habits, something came into your life that made you do it. If you don't change your habits, then probably something didn't come into your life to make you change. You are affected by things and if you choose to change, it's because there are various factors in your head that made you change. If those factors aren't there or if they're not right, you won't change. Everything accidentally happens.
Sure you do. There are any number of ways in which you reinforce habits, or not. You may say that that isn't a choice, either, but that's the thing we're discussing. The point I'm making is that the things we think of as reflexes are not always as unconscious as they seem. A soldier will have different "reflexes" when faced with a dangerous situation than a child will, and it's not because they're just born differently. It's because they've spent time building up habits that allow them to remain clear-headed in those sorts of situations.

A useful analogy I like to use is one of marital fidelity, too. Lots of people will say "it just happened" or talk about how you can't choose who you fall in love with. But when you look at those sorts of incidents in greater detail, there are usually thousands of smaller choices that made it possible. You choose to flirt a little more often, to see them more often, to indulge the possibility, etc. Lots of major decisions are made in advance, or at least weighted heavily in advance, by the cumulative heft of a thousand earlier decisions.

My belief is -- and this is, I feel, a shakier belief than the belief in no free will, meaning I'm not so sure of it -- there's something in nature itself that appears as supernatural to us.

I think there's probably a guiding force operating in nature. I believe this because I believe in synchronicity -- strange coincidences that seem too coincidental to be true. Like thinking about a person you haven't spoken to in years and all of a sudden they call. I have seen a lot of this in my life. For awhile, I almost gave up believing in it, but I had a few of these things happen recently, so now I'm back on that train.

Pure atheists will say that people who believe in synchronicity are deluded and not thinking about chances and such. You could even say my non-free will makes me believe in synchronicity and that's true. But, I have faith in synchronicity and I think it's something in nature itself that is more powerful than us and leading us to places and perhaps inspiring hope in people. It is possible that the ideas of religion and such are instinctual -- probably to guide us along the ride and make us do whatever nature wants us to do.
I think that part is definitely true. I think even an atheist would have to concede, if they're being remotely honest with themselves, that humanity clearly has an innate tendency to believe in God, whether they think it rational or not.

I'm not sure I follow the rest, though. Are you saying the universe actually has this synchronicity? What you're describing sounds an awful lot like some kind of intelligence.

The idea of free will helps people believe that their lives are meaningful because they make all the choices.

But I don't think there's really any free will. Thus, when a synchronicity happens, it was meant to happen. Many people take synchronicity as a sign that you are on the right path and I used to believe this, too. But now I think... maybe there's no choice but to be on a certain path, and a synchronicity is just another push of some kind, a way to change our behavior and direct the future. A message from the driver, while we are still the passenger.
Who's the driver?

If there IS free will, then I think it's only possible if we don't fully understand nature and ourselves yet -- which is totally possible. Thus, religion can still proliferate. The depths of the human mind and all that is unconscious could be the soul or something. But that, I think, is harder to make sense of, unless of course you are religious. But then it could all be a delusion. Perhaps one that nature is enforcing and hoping we'll buy into. And many people have.
One of the more interesting arguments about God I've come across is dramatized at the end of Lewis' The Silver Chair. I won't give too much away, but the basic idea is that even if people doubt that certain things are true, there are certain things that are the only things worth believing in. To argue for an impersonal universe is to win a Pyrrhic victory, because in an impersonal universe, truth has no inherent value, anyway. I believe in meaning and purpose and truth and morality, yes...but I also believe the alternatives aren't worth believing in. They are all self-defeating.

What do you mean about that? You'll have to explain further - I've basically had my say and am getting tired at the moment.
I mean that there is no argument for putting any faith in reason or logic that is not either a) metaphysical or b) self-justifying. A lot of materialists like to take rationality for granted, but they can't.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Sure you do. There are any number of ways in which you reinforce habits, or not. You may say that that isn't a choice, either, but that's the thing we're discussing. The point I'm making is that the things we think of as reflexes are not always as unconscious as they seem. A soldier will have different "reflexes" when faced with a dangerous situation than a child will, and it's not because they're just born differently. It's because they've spent time building up habits that allow them to remain clear-headed in those sorts of situations.

A useful analogy I like to use is one of marital fidelity, too. Lots of people will say "it just happened" or talk about how you can't choose who you fall in love with. But when you look at those sorts of incidents in greater detail, there are usually thousands of smaller choices that made it possible. You choose to flirt a little more often, to see them more often, to indulge the possibility, etc. Lots of major decisions are made in advance, or at least weighted heavily in advance, by the cumulative heft of a thousand earlier decisions.

Absolutely. Lots of major events happen because of smaller things that took place in the past.

But you still DON'T choose those smaller events or the big event.

(And of course a soldier will respond differently to a dangerous event than a child will.)

Look - we're not in control. Period. A person is fated to either cheat on their spouse or not. Those choices to flirt a little more, see them more often, indulge the possibility, etc. -- you, ultimately, cannot help that you did those things. You have been brought up and you adapted to be a cheater.

This is what I think is great about the knowledge that nobody has free will -- we can FORGIVE people easier. Sure, it might absolutely be hard to do such a thing if we're cheated on, but if the right person knew that nobody had free will and they were accustomed to be more forgiving, it might easily roll off their shoulders and this whole big, dramatic thing of cheating would be nothing.

We're biological creatures. We're programmed to mate. We're naturally attracted to people. It can happen. It's religion that shames us for making "the wrong choice." And if not religion, then other moral ideas, which may not be unreasonable.

But many people will still screw up no matter what they know.

People with healthy brains are no different at what control they have over choices than people with sick, damaged, mentally ill brains. We hear all the time that mentally sick individuals "just couldn't help it." HEALTHY individuals can't help it, either. We can't help how we act, even if we act morally responsible.

I think that part is definitely true. I think even an atheist would have to concede, if they're being remotely honest with themselves, that humanity clearly has an innate tendency to believe in God, whether they think it rational or not.

God probably started because when we were all less intelligent about the nature of life, we came up with the idea of God to describe acts of nature that were happening and to fight it off. To tell a woman not to sleep with another man because God will put her to death is to frighten that woman and her biology into not doing it. It was manipulative and it has thrived for a long time.

I'm not sure I follow the rest, though. Are you saying the universe actually has this synchronicity? What you're describing sounds an awful lot like some kind of intelligence.

I think the universe gives us synchronicities. I can't say for sure why. Not everyone sees them or believes in them. I could be totally wrong about this, but for now, it is my own personal faith system, I guess.

There might very well be an intelligence in nature. In fact, there probably is. I suspect something's driving everything somewhere. Everything is being fashioned by something else, something operating in nature. But when you hear the saying "intelligence in nature", you're probably thinking of God, probably the Christian God. I'm not. I mean, it's possible that it could be, but I'm skeptical.

But I can see why people think that God punishes people because bad things DO happen to people all the time. And they might even happen to people for reasons they don't understand and can't control. Someone could be born with a doomed fate. It's a harsh possibility that I think -- actually, that I BELIEVE is true. Since we have no free will, we are not in control of the events of our lives. We are not in control of who we are. In fact, I dare say we're not even ourselves, in some sense. We have an illusion of self. We're like robots.

And I know this all might sound pretty crazy, but I think that is the story of mankind.

Who's the driver?

The driver is the mysterious force of nature that makes everything exist. It is nature itself. The God that makes us run however He wants us to.

One of the more interesting arguments about God I've come across is dramatized at the end of Lewis' The Silver Chair. I won't give too much away, but the basic idea is that even if people doubt that certain things are true, there are certain things that are the only things worth believing in. To argue for an impersonal universe is to win a Pyrrhic victory, because in an impersonal universe, truth has no inherent value, anyway. I believe in meaning and purpose and truth and morality, yes...but I also believe the alternatives aren't worth believing in. They are all self-defeating.

I think it may be hard or impossible for all of life to work without people who believe in the alternatives.

Nature is probably asserting itself by making sure people stay within the illusion.

But not everyone believes in the illusion and there is probably some purpose for that.

[will.15]

Nothing in life is free, not even free will.

[Sedai]

I love Free Will - it's a great Rush song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74

[Sexy Celebrity]

Nothing in life is free, not even free will.

Very true. Nothing in life is free. Even to be born, a woman has to pay the price of having sex and giving birth to you, as well as your parents have to meet, the sperm has to be the right one, etc.

And to die, you have to pay by giving up everything you know.

[will.15]

If astrology is true there is no free will because our time of birth determines who we are.

[will.15]

I don't know Yoda's sign, but using astrology I would say he is an air sign

[Sexy Celebrity]

I don't know Yoda's sign, but using astrology I would say he is an air sign

No, he's a fire sign. Leo.

[earlsmoviepicks]

Like Dylan said, "ya gotta serve somebody"

[will.15]

All I know is To Serve Man is a cookbook.

[planet news]

I gave an answer a while ago to this question. I've been thinking it over, and I think it's the right answer. I'm gonna give it again briefly.

First of all, no one will claim that we are utterly free at every moment. No one will try to argue that every action or thought that passes through our bodies and minds is totally up to a free subject. The counterexamples are just too numerous. I'm talking about strong phenomenological counterexamples: waking up, being drunk -- emotions in general... also the idea that we are in a society and a language and both have rules that we grow up following. We are constantly affected by things that are beyond the control of what could be called choice in very strong ways -- and very often at the level of where choices take place.

All that ever can be argued for is the position that, in certain situations -- rare situations -- when the human (in our case) concentrates enough, a subject emerges that enables her to make a real choice. But these are rare moments. I think a paradigmatic example for me is this scene of torture. Where someone has his entire body screaming to do what the torturers want, yet, almost always for /ideological/ reasons (reasons stemming from ideas), something inside him allows him to resist. How is this kind of situation possible?

Now, for my answer. This is in the briefest, most intuitive possible terms.

There are two levels at work in a free act.

1) the world
2) the subject

Both are /things/ in what we can call 'reality.' But, basically, all you have to say is that every world has holes and that those holes are filled in by subjects. Whenever a subject encounters a hole or gap in the world, he is permitted to act freely. It is not all the time, and it is rare occurrence, but it happens every once in a while, and we notice it when it happens, because it is extraordinary. To make real choices, moral and otherwise, is a big deal. God didn't care what change of clothes Abraham wore but what he would do on top of the mountain. It's a big choice with an unclear answer. This unclarity and need for some kind of radical choice (based on an idea -- for example faith in god) is when you've essentially spotted a hole in the world. That's when choice really happens.

So, again, the world has holes in it that subjects (us, sometimes) fill in. Furthermore, we 'fill in' the world's holes precisely with our choices. All that needs to be argued to forward this view is that this picture is how reality is.

Lastly, it is atheistic, because we can simply say that reality is this way -- with holes. There can be no outside of the world when the world is not even fully closed.

This is rough but also potentially very precise. Regardless, it is at the level of exegesis appropriate for a post like this in a forum like this.

[will.15]

Planet news, is free will the same as free willy?

[planet news]

i think when they freed willy, that's not the kind of freedom we're talking about. simply giving willy more room is a kind of physical freedom, sure. but choice isn't involved. because as yoda might say willy is still determined to do what willy is programmed to do by the world -- just in a larger place. it's like throwing a bouncy ball into a larger room.

free will or choice -- a better term even is decision -- is always a kind of imperceptible change.

i never saw the film though.

[Sexy Celebrity]

All that ever can be argued for is the position that, in certain situations -- rare situations -- when the human (in our case) concentrates enough, a subject emerges that enables her to make a real choice. But these are rare moments. I think a paradigmatic example for me is this scene of torture. Where someone has his entire body screaming to do what the torturers want, yet, almost always for /ideological/ reasons (reasons stemming from ideas), something inside him allows him to resist. How is this kind of situation possible?

Because forces in that person's brain is making them resist. No matter what happens to us, we are subjected to whatever goes on in our brains. Everything you do is a calculation of your brain -- even if your brain calculates up some f**ked up decisions. Or even if your brain calculates the right ones.

You are subjected to your own physicality. If you suddenly find yourself trapped by torturers, it's just you and what you know. If you choose to resist, it isn't because you've hit some kind of random hole that allows you an opportunity of freedom -- you are still bound by your own laws. Whether you get out alive depends on your brain and the brains of your torturers. A move like not resisting them is totally possible and not out of the ordinary -- your brain has decided that that is gonna be your move. If you resist and the torturers kill you for it, that's the story of your life. If they don't, you lucked out. Choice is still an illusion even in extreme situations.

We're nothing special. Choices are not sometimes extraordinary. They are just things that happen. Choices depend on what you can do, what you want to do and what you know. But what HAPPENS is out of your control, for your choices are controlled by your biology, and your mind is part of that biology. You certainly have the appearance of making a choice, but that's all it is -- an appearance. Underneath that appearance lies a vast sea of human nature -- a storm that includes everything you know, all of your motivations, all of your desires, etc. That storm plays out in your brain. My storm plays the game of "Sexy Celebrity" and makes Sexy Celebrity do his thing, but I am not in charge of that storm, for I am not really real. I am a human being that's alive and is conscious and has had experiences, learned stuff, lived in certain environments, met certain people, done certain things, etc. But it's all accidental and so are basically any choices I make. I might make very reasonable, sound choices (and let's face it - I hardly do) but I am not free for any of it. I am a robot. And you're a robot. We are organic robots. I will compute whatever I'm gonna compute. Beep, beep, beep.

[planet news]

well, that's the view i'm trying to resist. you put quite well exactly the view that i want to move beyond by introducing the possibility of 'holes.' but once holes are introduced, that view takes the back seat. holes are a possible solution to the 'problem' of free will. i'm proposing them. so the real question becomes: are there really holes? if you're interested in rehabilitating the will, then this is something to explore. if you're not, then the 'hole' view also has a place for you. because i admit the vast majority of our day to day activities are most likely determined almost completely by bodies and languages. every once in a while though... i want to say, there are holes. and if there are, then maybe there is a space for freedom.

again, it all starts with the intuition that there is something different about ordinary choices on a day to day level and the choice to commit to an idea. in other words, you're right that it is the body making the choice of which shirt to wear is the same as the body that persists in the face of torture for an idea. you're right about this. but i claim the latter goes beyond the former in some substantial way. and, at least intuitively, it is possible that, on a metaphysical level, the two are qualitatively different and not just as a matter of degree.

finally, it is to say that holes are /in/ reality. and they 'automatically' get filled in. this is why there is no need for a god. a religious picture is maybe similar but inverted. god stands outside the world and punctures holes in it deliberately. but i'm saying the holes are already there -- and, furthermore, as a matter of fact they are there. reality, simply being what it is, contains holes. thus, there is no need for a god to intervene. freedom is part of reality. this is what we would want if we are interested in maintaining an atheistic free will thesis. maybe you are not interested. that is okay.

[Sexy Celebrity]

well, that's the view i'm trying to resist. you put quite well exactly the view that i want to move beyond by introducing the possibility of 'holes.' but once holes are introduced, that view takes the back seat. holes are a possible solution to the 'problem' of free will. i'm proposing them. so the real question becomes: are there really holes? if you're interested in rehabilitating the will, then this is something to explore. if you're not, then the 'hole' view also has a place for you. because i admit the vast majority of our day to day activities are most likely determined almost completely by bodies and languages. every once in a while though... i want to say, there are holes. and if there are, then maybe there is a space for freedom.

again, it all starts with the intuition that there is something different about ordinary choices on a day to day level and the choice to commit to an idea. in other words, you're right that it is the body making the choice of which shirt to wear is the same as the body that persists in the face of torture for an idea. you're right about this. but i claim the latter goes beyond the former in some substantial way. and, at least intuitively, it is possible that, on a metaphysical level, the two are qualitatively different and not just as a matter of degree.

finally, it is to say that holes are /in/ reality. and they 'automatically' get filled in. this is why there is no need for a god. a religious picture is maybe similar but inverted. god stands outside the world and punctures holes in it deliberately. but i'm saying the holes are already there -- and, furthermore, as a matter of fact they are there. reality, simply being what it is, contains holes. thus, there is no need for a god to intervene. freedom is part of reality. this is what we would want if we are interested in maintaining an atheistic free will thesis. maybe you are not interested. that is okay.

Well, I recently came off being ... I hate using the word "atheist", even now, but I was atheistic and still believed in a free will.

I *think* I get what you're saying about holes. Do you mean that these holes and the choices we make affect how the world then continues to play out?

I don't know if they're truly there. I think there's nothing but no free will. As I said in earlier posts recently, I have a mystical belief in something operating in nature that is guiding us along the ride of life. I think everything that happens is supposed to happen and that there are no holes... but I used to believe in that sort of idea and also believed that there were points where you had free will, as well. I no longer believe that that's the case.

However, if you want to believe in it, okay. I think it requires faith. But if it's true, then I think more than just random, certain moments could also be determined by free will, and if they are, why not everything?

My view is harsh... and once upon a time, I never would have believed in it. I would have openly fought it. But I've changed. I could always still change, of course. Who knows? I don't believe in free will currently, so whatever happens, happens.

[planet news]

the holes, if they exist, would not be random but specific. in general, they would seem to be inaugurated by some commitment to an idea that is capable of revealing the hole.

as for the grounds for believing that they're there, it's nothing i've argued for -- at least not in this thread, i don't think. there are grounds for thinking in terms of holes though.

for one, it's a possible solution to the problem of free will. free will is not the kind of problem that will go away easily. today, even with all that we know about bodies and languages, I still do not think it's adequate to simply declare that free will is an illusion and move on. one must ultimately determine the source of the illusion. the fact that the illusion exists, regardless of the actual metaphysical status of free will, is a fact that further implies the existence of an explanation of the appearance of the fact. in other words, the fact that there is a problem suggests that there is a tension within reality itself. the tension might be the tension of an illusion with reality, god's intervention with reality, or, in my case, the tension created by the existence of holes.

it at least makes sense to me that you consider any such movement in thought requiring of faith, because you don't seem to deal much in the reasons for one view over another. from what i've known of you, which is not inconsiderable, you like to explain certain positions. but you don't like much to engage them with each other. but really, the movement from one position to another is always in some way facilitated by an elaboration of grounds or reasons.

in both yours and my views, the real reason you or I believe most of the things we do is because those beliefs are determined by factors essentially beyond our control. that is most likely the real reason. but that doesn't mean we can't break down what those beliefs end up meaning and examine them for what they seem to be. some people think that, because something is determined this way, beliefs are meaningless -- indeed, an illusion -- or that they stand for precisely the process of determination that lead to their appearance.

lastly, i think characterizing yourself as 'harsh' has rhetorical weight. maybe suggesting some kind of uncompromising wisdom in the face of more perhaps emotionally appealing avenues... regardless, whether or not your view is harsh has little or not import as to whether or not it's correct. maybe there is free will. it might be /harsh/ and /wise/ to simply deny it and move on -- an attitude that basically defines will.15 as a person from what i can tell, but apart from a 'tough-guy' persona, it doesn't seem to attach to any kind of ground.

[will.15]

No, he's a fire sign. Leo.
Fire would have been my second guess.

[Sexy Celebrity]

the holes, if they exist, would not be random but specific. in general, they would seem to be inaugurated by some commitment to an idea that is capable of revealing the hole.

as for the grounds for believing that they're there, it's nothing i've argued for -- at least not in this thread, i don't think. there are grounds for thinking in terms of holes though.

for one, it's a possible solution to the problem of free will. free will is not the kind of problem that will go away easily. today, even with all that we know about bodies and languages, I still do not think it's adequate to simply declare that free will is an illusion and move on. one must ultimately determine the source of the illusion. the fact that the illusion exists, regardless of the actual metaphysical status of free will, is a fact that further implies the existence of an explanation of the appearance of the fact. in other words, the fact that there is a problem suggests that there is a tension within reality itself. the tension might be the tension of an illusion with reality, god's intervention with reality, or, in my case, the tension created by the existence of holes.

it at least makes sense to me that you consider any such movement in thought requiring of faith, because you don't seem to deal much in the reasons for one view over another. from what i've known of you, which is not inconsiderable, you like to explain certain positions. but you don't like much to engage them with each other. but really, the movement from one position to another is always in some way facilitated by an elaboration of grounds or reasons.

in both yours and my views, the real reason you or I believe most of the things we do is because those beliefs are determined by factors essentially beyond our control. that is most likely the real reason. but that doesn't mean we can't break down what those beliefs end up meaning and examine them for what they seem to be. some people think that, because something is determined this way, beliefs are meaningless -- indeed, an illusion -- or that they stand for precisely the process of determination that lead to their appearance.

lastly, i think characterizing yourself as 'harsh' has rhetorical weight. maybe suggesting some kind of uncompromising wisdom in the face of more perhaps emotionally appealing avenues... regardless, whether or not your view is harsh has little or not import as to whether or not it's correct. maybe there is free will. it might be /harsh/ and /wise/ to simply deny it and move on -- an attitude that basically defines will.15 as a person from what i can tell, but apart from a 'tough-guy' persona, it doesn't seem to attach to any kind of ground.

Well, I'm not saying that I'm harsh, but I think that, compared to free will, no free will is a harsh concept. The idea that we're ultimately not in control of our lives and destiny is harsh against the idea that we are -- at least, that is how it is in modern life.

Most life -- most culture, I think, revolves around the idea that we have free will. Otherwise, I think a lot more stuff would be considered if most people didn't believe in it. I think the world would basically change drastically if it was the norm to accept the idea of no free will. A lot that goes on is grounded on the notion that people are in charge of their lives, that we are all responsible for our actions.

I think it's primitive to believe that, frankly. And I think religion has been largely responsible for our free will attitudes. I think we need to reexamine ourselves and our nature. I think there's room for change.

Now, I don't know how much better it would be, though. Considering the idea of free will, we might lose a lot that we have. We might gain stuff, though. I'm not sure exactly what. But things would have to change... there would definitely be an impact to look at everyone around you and think that, they can't help themselves. Which is what I think means for everybody if there's no free will. As I said in my first post, we are born into random situations -- random family, random place of birth, random body, etc. -- and I don't think the randomness ends there. We have random experiences. Random knowledge that we acquire. Random people we meet. Random everything.

You might think, so what? We'll live the same as we do now. But I don't know for sure and I doubt it. I'm not saying it would be better -- I'm not optimistic like that at all.

But, like, for me already, since believing in no free will, I'm already feeling a change and trying to think harder and more open with people. For awhile, I was thinking, okay, f**k people. Don't forgive anybody. You'll only hurt yourself. And you might, but now I actually think, well, they can't help it. That is something I do believe now -- that people can't help it.

[planet news]

i think you're right in the realm of ordinary life, lackaday routines and so forth. i think we have no real free will there for the most part. because we depend on some much that isn't under our control. and yes, i do think we're lied to in this ordinary realm that we have real choice when we don't. and i'd really side with any anti-humanist or materialistic who would want to show how we as bodies are not free at all.

i'm not sure how many people would argue that in day to day life all the time we have utter free will. i think it's close to just plain silly to even entertain this idea, because there are so many counterexamples of how we are trapped into doing pretty much everything we end up doing expect for a very few things.

i accept all that i think, though, but in the end, i also see holes. holes maybe that appear in our daily routines. when we are thrust into an extraordinary situation. that is what i am saying with the holes.

to deny the holes is to opt for a totalitarian view of power structures. not just social but also 'physical'... that objects of our knowledge really enclose all possibilities... i think this is a very strong and difficult view to opt for. that the world is in fact closed very tightly. i don't make much sense of it anymore. i see holes everywhere. not just holes 'in our knowledge,' but metaphysical holes /in/ reality. all you have to do is start seeing things in a certain way and stop smoothing over the holes that are basically everywhere.

for me, the very fact that we 'smooth over' holes is a result of how we are dominated by determinist factors. but it is like a force that tries to trap us. in the end, reality is incapable of being closed off in such a way. this is a essence of what i think.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Well, I've said what I think. I don't see these holes you speak of. I just see you writing "holes" over and over again.

[planet news]

diggin up ho-oles

[will.15]

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/holes2.jpg

[wintertriangles]

Well, I've said what I think. I don't see these holes you speak of.How do you see a hole? You feel them.

[Deadite]

Any mechanistic system-derived explanation of "free will" (vague itself) is bound to be dissatisfying. It can also be demoralizing but that's not relevant if your primary concern is truth.

Absolute free will doesn't observably exist, anyway. Everything is limited one way or another. We may imagine ourselves as humans to be mentally more free than other sentients due to our recursive awareness & intellect... but we can't objectively experience their perceptions.

My own feeble human intuition insists that free will exists, that I have it, to an extent, and that it is possible to become both more or less free depending on my choices and outside influence.

This line of inquiry could easily be tied into Yoda's math thread as it pertains to questions of the nature of reality and perception, how they relate, Godel's "decidedly undecidables" within information aggregates, how quantum "events" resolve into a specifiable hierarchy of repeatable physics, ect.

[Sexy Celebrity]

This line of inquiry could easily be tied into Yoda's math thread as it pertains to questions of the nature of reality and perception, how they relate, Godel's "decidedly undecidables" within information aggregates, how quantum "events" resolve into a specifiable hierarchy of repeatable physics, ect.

Well, I don't know what all that is, but frankly, I don't trust Yoda's opinions. Sorry!

To me, this "no free will" thing really does seem like the answer. And I honestly can't believe that I never really realized it, or, at least, bought into it before. I guess it's simply difficult to think that all of your actions are going on without you actually being in control of them. Even during my most atheist of moments, I still thought that I was basically me. Ya know? I had a sense of being SC. I felt like I was this unique being... and I AM... but... I think that I'm really just a thing. Even now, I still have trouble believing it, but I know where that is coming from -- I have been trained, for years and years, to believe that I am a SOUL.

And really, if there IS free will, doesn't that mean we are souls, then? It means there's a ghost in the machine. A soul. And if there's a soul, there must be more to life, which means we'll survive death.

I realize I might sound like I'm being simplistic about all of this, and not caring much about alternatives, but frankly, I'm sick of the alternatives. THIS makes the most sense to me. Everything else looks like hope, wishes, fantasies, etc. Anything to deny that we're robots. Anything to deny that we spend every day -- we have spent every day -- and we going to spend the rest of our days -- basically being a machine that we can't control.

It's a horrific concept if you think about it. It's like being in a trap. But I think that's what it is. Living is a trap. It's a trap you can certainly enjoy -- and if you don't, the only alternative is death -- but it's a trap. It has to be.

HELLO FROM THE TRAP!

How's your traps, guys?

Planet News thinks he's found a hole out of his trap. Ha! There is no escape.

[will.15]

I think I am too frigging complicated and you also to merely be a machine.

I don't think free will is dependent on a human soul in a metaphysical sense.

[planet news]

I realize I might sound like I'm being simplistic about all of this, and not caring much about alternatives, but frankly, I'm sick of the alternatives.No, what you're saying is probably the typical interpretation of what's going on. And even if you grant that we aren't determined by our bodies, which is something basically no one would grant, there is still the aspect of the societal body in which we are embedded and the determining factors there. So the way we are determined is at least two-leveled.

The trouble is this kind of thing...

THIS makes the most sense to me. Everything else looks like hope, wishes, fantasies, etc. Anything to deny that we're robots. Anything to deny that we spend every day -- we have spent every day -- and we going to spend the rest of our days -- basically being a machine that we can't control.It draws its strength by playing at a kind of 'harsh wisdom.' A putting away of childish things sort of attitude.

The problem with this kind of rhetoric is that it can be used with anything. It's inconsistent depending on what view is desired for what situation. Some people might find it wishful to think that we are not free. For example, me. I think there is something wishful in thinking that we have no real choice in our lives. Thinking that way envelopes us in a world we can call home. But for me there are choices that can be made that we won't make as a matter of a choice that exists, and we use the excuse of determinism to escape /that/ possibility.

Is it wishful to desire a god? Maybe it is. I often hear that argument used against god -- an appeal to the harshness of reality again the religious 'fairy tale.' But also maybe it isn't. Maybe being judged by a god is a great burden. Maybe it is a nightmare to really believe in god. So exactly what is wishful and childish and pleasant isn't so clear. But there is some kind of appeal to this position that you are willing to accept the 'harsh' option. However, i don't think it really works as a reason. Something basically happened in your life to where that idea works better for you. I don't know what, but it wasn't based in reasons. When I was interested in Deleuze, I thought this too. And I looked for ways of conceiving of a positive vision of that view. In the end, I changed because I don't think it works ultimately. Nothing really changed in my life otherwise.

[Sexy Celebrity]

There's absolutely reasons for why my view changed. There's absolutely reasons for why it now works for me. Obviously, as I've stated, in the past, this way of thinking wouldn't have clicked with me. It would have been too ... hard to accept. Depressing. Life destroying, maybe. Would have driven me insane to believe it every day.

That still doesn't mean I'm wrong, though. I could believe my whole life that if I rode a roller coaster, I would be killed during the ride. Then things could change and I could believe that the roller coaster ride wouldn't kill me - and then I'd ride one and manage to survive the ride. Not really a good example because I'm sure a roller coaster ride actually WOULD kill me (I hate them) but, most likely, it wouldn't. The point is, you can change your beliefs and turn out to be correct.

Now, I think I see what you're saying -- I could be wrong about this no free will thing. And I might be. But should I really spend the rest of my life pondering that and maybe try to adjust to the possibility of free will even more?

It would be a lot better, I think, if there was free will. Because to not have it is, I think, horrendous. But if it's true (that there's no free will), I could imagine humanity adopting a comforting system for people so that they wouldn't turn to despair -- something like, "You never know what amazing things life will bring you. :)" We already have systems like that, in fact, but they often -- at least to me -- aren't against a background of something that's trying to say, "Be happy FOR LIFE IS NOTHING BUT CHAOS!!!" So, maybe the idea of no free will could be adopted to be something positive. Then maybe it wouldn't be so horrendous.

I like the idea of freedom -- but I think it also comes with its own complications, too. I've spent thirty years believing in freedom. But I think it failed me. Had I always never believed in freedom... my life, I'm sure ('cause I believe in no free will now) would be different. Don't know if it would have been better.

But I also take a metaphysical approach to this idea of no free will right now, too, which I'm absolutely not gonna try to convince to everyone is correct, though I could share it (and I have). My faith -- which I absolutely admit might be something I just need right now, but it could be true -- is that everything happens for a reason, basically. That the universe directs our lives. That the universe directs everything. Thus, I'm here right now believing in all of this for a reason. Thus, you're here discussing it with me right now -- strangely out of the blue, it seems, since you haven't been posting here in awhile. I think there's a purpose for this.

Maybe free will or no free will ultimately don't even matter. We could all be... cosmic creators of the universe or something weird like that. Maybe the "harshness" you speak of is taking it too extreme. Maybe there's an extra, unknown layer of reality of something hard to explain like that. Something that gives reason for the seemingly random. I don't know.

But the "no free will" thing -- I say it doesn't have to be so harsh. And of course, you see, I've brought my own little bag of metaphysical items to attach to it. I used to believe in our lives being fated before -- but with an actual God involved. And with a lot of hope that great things would come my way. And believing in this stuff was WONDERFUL. Wonderful.

Now, I think I can sort of believe in it all again. It's a little harder to feel wonderful about it, but I tell you, the other day, before I made my first post in this thread, I was thinking about it and I was suddenly overcome by such joy that I hadn't really felt in a long time. That inspired me, probably, to post all of this stuff here. Things *clicked*. I'm sure it's not gonna click with everybody. In fact, maybe I should stop before I drive everyone to despair, because probably not everyone could handle this like I can now. But I felt the need to share. And, maybe I was meant to.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I still say I'm right, though. There is no free will.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I think I am too frigging complicated and you also to merely be a machine.

I don't think free will is dependent on a human soul in a metaphysical sense.

You're glamorizing the idea of being too complicated to be a machine. We very well could just be machines. All living creatures could be.

Just because you think we're too complicated doesn't mean we can't just be machines. What if a super intelligent alien that could do extraordinary things came to Earth and told us that he knew we were all basically robotic and that we had no free will? You'd realize you're more inferior and less special than you thought.

We have these gifts that nature has bestowed upon us to make us basically rule the world and create this giant civilization, but we could all just be machines doing it. We could all just be nature's toys and robots.

[Used Future]

Where's this nonsense thread been all my life?

Nowhere...because it's bollocks.

Love the site but the initial post might well be the reason Yoda abolished negative rep. Madness.

Not interested in a protracted argument either.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Well, that was a pretty pointless post, Used Future, but I forgive you because you had no choice in posting it.

[Used Future]

:shrug:Sometimes an mad impetuous fool has gotta do what what a mad impetuous fool has gotta do.

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

I was gonna make a good post here, but my lack of free will caused me to make this one.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I was gonna make a good post here, but my lack of free will cause me to make this one.

:yup:

[Yoda]

Where's this nonsense thread been all my life?

Nowhere...because it's bollocks.

Love the site but the initial post might well be the reason Yoda abolished negative rep. Madness.

Not interested in a protracted argument either.
Well, whether or not you want to actually argue with it is up to you. But I think the logic is very straightforward, and if there's a real counterargument, I haven't heard it yet.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Well, whether or not you want to actually argue with it is up to you.

:nope: Wrong.

[Sexy Celebrity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

Here is a lecture by Sam Harris, author of Free Will, the guy who helped bring this insight to me and who is a firm believer in no free will.

WATCH IT.

[will.15]

I listened to him. He didn't convince me. In fact, the reasoning is pretty weaK.

I looked at Yoda's earlier posts. His logic is unconvincing also.

I believe in limited free wiil.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I listened to him. He didn't convince me. In fact, the reasoning is pretty weaK.

Why?

[Redux]

All I know is that something had the power to exist first.

[will.15]

All of it. Take the serial killer thing. Why is it possible for two people born in the same family with the same experiences to grow up differently, one has a normal life and the other a killer?

[Sexy Celebrity]

All of it. Take the serial killer thing. Why is it possible for two people born in the same family with the same experiences to grow up differently, one has a normal life and the other a killer?

Siblings do not have the same experiences! And they don't even get all of the same genes. Oh, please. Not to mention gender differences if one is male and the other is female.

Even if they mostly experience the same things, their mental lives would be different.

[will.15]

The guy's reasoning is completely lame. he said if he was born in that family he would be a killer also, and then he added, with his identicle brain. Well, duh. Then you are not you. You are that other person. How can you take that joker seriously after he says something like that?

[Sexy Celebrity]

The guy's reasoning is completely lame. he said if he was born in that family he would be a killer also, and then he added, with his identicle brain. Well, duh. Then you are not you. You are that other person.

YES. If he traded bodies and experiences with that other person -- if he essentially grew up as that person instead of Sam Harris -- he could not help being a killer. It would have been his fate.

He's saying that if he had been unlucky enough to have been born as that killer, and experienced all of the things that killer did -- if he gone through life as that killer -- he would be that killer. He wouldn't be able to help being a killer.

That's all he's basically saying. Just like if I was you, right now, I couldn't help being you. Just like I can't help being myself right now.

He's saying we can't help being who we are. He can't help being Sam Harris and doing what he's doing. You can't help being Will.15 and doing what you're doing. I can't help being myself.

If there was a machine that could switch the consciousnesses between us, Will, so that you suddenly appeared in my body and I appeared in your body -- neither of us would notice it, because we would just pick up from where we left off. Only YOU -- if there even is such a thing -- would be in my body and my mind, and I would be in your body and your mind, but we wouldn't even notice it. Well, wait, actually -- no, we would notice it if we both were doing a machine experiment together. But once we were in each others bodies, you couldn't help living out your time as me, based on my brain and my past and my genes and such, and I couldn't help but be you. Which means I'd take to The Shoutbox everyday, as you do, and you'd be making the next MoFo Beach show and dreaming about Jake Gyllenhaal and so forth.

[will.15]

It is just not he had the same experiences. He also had the same identicle brain. That is not trading places. He has his brain, so he isn't himself anymore. In fact he is him. That is the stupidest argument I ever heard.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Actually we can do this consciousness changing experiment right here, right now, without the help of a futuristic consciousness changing machine.

Get ready to be amazed Will.15. We are about to switch bodies.

On the count of three, I am going to be in your body and mind, and you are going to be in mine.

Ready?

1...2...3!!!

There. Hi, it's me, Will.15. I'm in Sexy Celebrity's body.

Sexy Celebrity is in my body.

There. We just changed bodies.

[Sexy Celebrity]

It is just not he had the same experiences. He also had the same identicle brain. That is not trading places. He has his brain, so he isn't himself anymore. In fact he is him. That is the stupidest argument I ever heard.

You might think it's stupid, but he has a point.

We can't help being who we are. We are subjected to our brain, our body and our experiences.

If they put my brain in your body, I would still be me but in your body and I would be subjected to being myself in your body. My life would depend on those things.

[planet news]

the reasoning is probably correct. but the premises are the problem. and he has a whole wealth of wrong premises assumed basically before he can even start up his position.

but it should disturb any atheist that he essentially holds the same premises as yoda's original post.

and furthermore that the reasoning in both cases are pretty much the same.

it was years ago, but maybe you remember when i was interested in deleuze and foucault and their master nietzsche. and that i suggested to SC at one point to read nietzsche. you also might remember SC refused to read nietzsche. well, basically those are just more advanced versions of this same doctrine. considerably more advanced if you ask me. but what they all, nietzschians and harris (though the philosophy here is his friend daniel dennet and his book 'Freedom Evolves'), have in common is a desire to 'own' the result of yoda's original argument. to make it into something that can adequately describe our daily lives and to revalue it in terms of a new kind of virtue -- namely that of will to power.

i recall all that just to point out that i still think the large portion of what deleuze thought about reality was okay, but with one very important exception: holes, gaps, or inconsistencies in the very fabric of what we know as reality.

[will.15]

You might think it's stupid, but he has a point.

We can't help being who we are. We are subjected to our brain, our body and our experiences.

If they put my brain in your body, I would still be me but in your body and I would be subjected to being myself in your body. My life would depend on those things.
Which doesn't by itself invalidate free will.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I still have two Nietzsche books in my possession. One of these days (maybe - I don't know, of course.)

I commend Yoda for thinking of this TEN YEARS AGO. A genius mind. But one that is confused, I think.

[planet news]

You might think it's stupid, but he has a point.

We can't help being who we are. We are subjected to our brain, our body and our experiences.

If they put my brain in your body, I would still be me but in your body and I would be subjected to being myself in your body. My life would depend on those things.i think this is a very trivial and uninteresting point that almost everyone understands.

i think you can accept all that, again, as pretty much everyone that has ever lived does, and still not have talked at all about holes. holes, being the key counterargument to the one made at the beginning of the thread.

[will.15]

Is that your new avatar, PN? That's hilarious. That is why you received now meaningless positve rep. I haven't read it yet.

[planet news]

I commend Yoda for thinking of this TEN YEARS AGO. A genius mind. But one that is confused, I think.it's not confused at all, because it is right according to your own standards.

it's only confused if you accept something like holes. then you can really resist it.

the crucial flaw in your whole view is that there are no moments of free will whatsoever. and that is what yoda really rests on, because in fact i think there are and so does he. but for you, these moments don't exist. and you can easily shut them down by sealing off the universe ad hoc, but i don't think it's right on an abstract level or even in our experience. i do not think "choosing" to go to sleep when you are tired is the same as really choosing to not give in to torture or to pursue a life based on a cause. so, you, SC, can shut them down... but if you can't convince yourself they are really shut down, then immediately you must resort to mystical measures, and you are in Yoda's position.

so there is no confusion there whatsoever. i really do not see you and Yoda as being any different. both of you are my enemies.

[will.15]

so there is no confusion there whatsoever. I really do not see you and yoda as being any different. Both of you are my enemies.
alright!

[planet news]

But I think the logic is very straightforward, and if there's a real counterargument, I haven't heard it yet.there is no counterargument and the logic is sound given the premises.

the problem is, as i tried to argue months ago, i think you are, to put it simply, straw manning atheism. there are many views that claim to be atheist, but i think only one really works. finally, i think the one that works takes freedom as its very basis. in other words, the view i hold is at least two things of interest: 1) the only view that can completely eradicate any trace of a god, and 2) a view that can be said to take absolute freedom as its very starting point. this is not so much a 'problem' for your view as it is a way to mark our views as equals in the realm of inquiry inaugurated by the original question. in other words, given my view, i don't think your view has any purchase on this issue.

whereas, for the kind of atheism you're arguing against, i think it does much more, because it allows a certain experience of freedom whereas people like harris have to find ways of shutting it down. ways that are sometimes simple and which i accept mostly (like the fact that our childhood shapes who we are), but also in ways that are often not so simple and not generally convincing at all.

someone's gotta clean up this town

[Sexy Celebrity]

Which doesn't by itself invalidate free will.

Trading brains doesn't invalidate free will. Correct. But being subjected to what's in our brains does. If I throw you down a flight of stairs and make you bonk your head severely that you end up mentally retarded, your new law in life would be living as a mentally retarded person. You couldn't change that - at all. And you'd be subject to new experiences as a mentally retarded person, too. THAT WOULD CHANGE EVERYTHING, Will.15.

Well, you're no different even as a healthy brained guy. Your life and everything you do is still determined by the health of your brain and how the rest of your life has played out.

How could there possibly be free will? What exactly does that mean -- free will? Freedom from what?

Doesn't the very idea of free will sound like it's completely based on religious ideas or something like that? Everyone believing in free will sounds like everyone is just open to the idea that they could have changed their choices in life -- perhaps to do BETTER. Perhaps to do good. Or the right thing. Or something.

You can't change what happened to you. What happens - HAPPENS. We are out of control. We are as out of control as out of control as internal functions of our bodies. We make blood, grow hair, make sh*t and piss, etc. -- all without controlling it. Women menstruate without controlling it. Unless they take a pill, of course -- but that's like when we take pills to change our brain chemistry.

OUR MINDS WORK WITHOUT US CONTROLLING IT.

We are running on automatic, just like everything else in our bodies.

And our minds are subject to what we experience. Our minds adjust to those things. Grow from experiences.

You can't help the way you experience your life.

You have no power. NONE. You might do things in life that look powerful, but you're not really in control of those things. They either happen to you or they don't happen. You can't do anything about it. Whether or not you have a great life or not IS OUT OF YOUR CONTROL.

LIFE IS OUT OF YOUR CONTROL.

[will.15]

http://socialprofiles.zenfs.com/images/61b585126b9b3f7046ac8a0154eb6900_48.jpg (http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=AsRe4_o5YlotydoByym_mK2GxQt.;_ylv=3?show=P4sD3eXqaa)by Mysterium Inq. (http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=AtBte7yNfI0UYX0GzD1l.myGxQt.;_ylv=3?show=P4sD3eXqaa) Member since: August 09, 2008 Total points: 2,641 (Level 4)

Add Contact (https://login.yahoo.com/?.done=http%3A%2F%2Fanswers.yahoo.com%2Fquestion%2Findex%3Fqid%3D20090527214429AAmDtGH&.src=knowsrch&.intl=us)
Block (https://login.yahoo.com/?.done=http%3A%2F%2Fanswers.yahoo.com%2Fquestion%2Findex%3Fqid%3D20090527214429AAmDtGH&.src=knowsrch&.intl=us)

<LI class=best>Best answer 23%
385 answers
Member Since: August 09, 2008 Total Points: 2,641 (Level 4) Points earned this week: 2

Add Contact (https://login.yahoo.com/?.done=http%3A%2F%2Fanswers.yahoo.com%2Fquestion%2Findex%3Fqid%3D20090527214429AAmDtGH&.src=knowsrch&.intl=us)
Block (https://login.yahoo.com/?.done=http%3A%2F%2Fanswers.yahoo.com%2Fquestion%2Findex%3Fqid%3D20090527214429AAmDtGH&.src=knowsrch&.intl=us)



I think the better question is, how can we have free will and believe in God? If the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, than He both knows what we are going to do before we do it, and can manipulate our world to his suiting.
1. God has a plan and as His creation is part of that plan
2. We all have a destiny
3. Therefore, we do not have free will because we have a destiny.

On our inherited freewill: To quote Dostoyevsky, "If God is dead, then anything is permitted, anything is possible." On the surface, this appears accurate because it seems that without God, there are no absolutes. Therefore, we are absolutely free and absolutely alone, just thrown into the world and must go forth to create our own essence.
This, however, presents another problem that Sartre addresses and I summarize as "man inherits man". In other words, if we are ultimately free, then we are ultimately responsible (that is the essence of free will).

[Sexy Celebrity]

Planet News, frankly, nothing you say about these "holes" sounds convincing to me.

[planet news]

i haven't argued for them at all. i'm not trying to convince you of them. i wouldn't try anything like that with you. i've known you long enough to doubt that you really care about holding real views let alone discussing them.

the most i can do is point out how you haven't covered all the bases.

it's clear to me that you're not interested at this point in your life of living a life based in pure choice. and as i said earlier, it's okay if you're not interested. but if you're interested, then one way to go about bringing choice back is to appeal to holes. i'm just letting you know there are other options.

but i'm not going to argue with you if you're not even interested. if you don't even want free will, i wouldn't even know where to start with convincing you of that. i don't care about convincing you to be interested in certain discussions. there are lots of people who don't give a damn about any of this. i wouldn't spend my time convincing them to be concerned, because there are enough people who are and between us is where the real thinking gets done.

[planet news]

I think the better question is, how can we have free will and believe in God? If the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, than He both knows what we are going to do before we do it, and can manipulate our world to his suiting.
1. God has a plan and as His creation is part of that plan
2. We all have a destiny
3. Therefore, we do not have free will because we have a destiny.

On our inherited freewill: To quote Dostoyevsky, "If God is dead, then anything is permitted, anything is possible." On the surface, this appears accurate because it seems that without God, there are no absolutes. Therefore, we are absolutely free and absolutely alone, just thrown into the world and must go forth to create our own essence.
This, however, presents another problem that Sartre addresses and I summarize as "man inherits man". In other words, if we are ultimately free, then we are ultimately responsible (that is the essence of free will).i think this is basically what i'm saying... i think, quite to the contrary of what is commonly thought (and how atheism is presented in this thread), true atheism comes 'automatically' with freedom and it is religion that struggles to attain it through mystical means.

[Sexy Celebrity]

i haven't argued for them at all. i'm not trying to convince you of them. i wouldn't try anything like that with you. i've known you long enough to doubt that you really care about holding real views let alone discussing them.

You don't know me at all. And you're wrong.

it's clear to me that you're not interested at this point in your life of living a life based in pure choice.

I will live my life making choices based on the illusion of choice. And I'm very interested in it.

and as i said earlier, it's okay if you're not interested. but if you're interested, then one way to go about bringing choice back is to appeal to holes. i'm just letting you know there are other options.

But you aren't really explaining them and convincing me that holes are a better alternative to no free will. Why don't you make your case for them? Lay out everything for these holes so I can judge it.

but i'm not going to argue with you if you're not even interested.

I'm interested! No matter what you make up about me, I'm interested.

I may end up not finding it interesting, but let's see first.

if you don't even want free will, i wouldn't even know where to start with convincing you of that.

If you think holes are real, then they are deserving of serious consideration. Even by me.

i don't care about convincing you to be interested in certain discussions.

Alright. Then I'll stick to my own beliefs that I have right now. Don't wanna convince me? I can't make you.

there are lots of people who don't give a damn about any of this.

Well, why not? Have you explained it to these people? Have they denounced it?

i wouldn't spend my time convincing them to be concerned, because there are enough people who are and between us is where the real thinking gets done.

You sound like a cult leader.

[will.15]

This one says believing in God disqualifies free will also.

Do We Really Have "Free Will?"
Lorraine Day, M.D.

Most Christians - and non-Christians - believe that human beings have "free will." They reason that if we don't have free will then we must embrace the doctrine of fatalism, meaning, there's nothing we can do about anything anyway because it's all worked out ahead of time - as in the doctrine of predestination. Because this issue has an important bearing on the character of God, we must find out what the Bible teaches.

God's word does not support the doctrine of "free will", nor does it support the concept of fatalism. The Bible does speak of "free will" offerings, but on the other hand, God says He is operating ALL in accord with the counsel of His own will." (Eph 1:11, Rom 8:28) But these two doctrines, though seemingly opposites, can be harmonized. One doctrine happens to be the divine viewpoint and the other, the human viewpoint.

If God "is operating ALL in accord with the counsel of His OWN WILL," then everything must be pre-arranged. "If everything is pre-arranged, then what is the use of doing anything?" you may ask. How can God be running EVERYTHING, and yet human beings also have "free will"?

We must understand that man does not have "free will" even when he thinks he does. Why do corporations pay a million dollars per minute to advertise during the Super Bowl game? Because it works! Why does it work? Because if you repeat something often enough, people will respond to it and do what you want them to do -- buy your product. They will be influenced consciously or subconsciously, to change their mind and do something they hadn't intended to do. Their "free will" has been manipulated by someone else!

Sophisticated research has been carried out for many decades to develop methods to change peoples minds about a product or an issue, political or religious. We make our decisions based on a combination of what we see and experience as well as what is in our subconscious. Yet we have very little control over what is in our subconscious. Many circumstances in our lives are not under our control, yet these same circumstances, in conjunction with our subconscious mind, are a large part of our ultimate decision-making.

Many persons imagine that they are carrying out their own free will when, in fact, they are really carrying out the will of another who has a subtler intellect than their own.

Here's an illustration. Americans think we live in a free country. However, you are "free" only as long as you remain politically correct, you pay your income taxes, you don't speak about a bomb as you go through airport security, and many other restrictions of "freedom" we have learned to accept. We have accepted these restrictions, and the loss of many rights, yet we still consider ourselves "free."

Man's will is a product of heredity and environment. We were all born sinners. None of us has the freedom "not to sin." Therefore, we are NOT truly free! The Bible says, "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

When a man makes up his mind, his will, he subconsciously considers his own ego, the contacts he has made in the world about him, the psychology of the moment, including at times, the state of his stomach, and the condition of his finances. If you are wise enough, you could probably make up his mind for him.

In fact, wise men have always acted on this principle. They do not attempt to capture the will of others by a frontal attack. They know that "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." So they execute a flank movement around the side. They seek to change or modify one or more of the factors which compose man's will. If a child will not eat healthful food, then let it go hungry for a while. If a child refuses to give up a sharp knife with which it might cut itself, then you offer it a more desirable plaything.

Few men and women ever attain maturity in such matters as these, and all people may be made to change their mind by the very factors which have formed it in the first place.

God is in control of everything that takes place in the universe. If He were not in control, the universe would be a madhouse. Throughout the Word of God, man's will is always subordinated to the will of God. Temporarily man's will appears to oppose God and is contrary to God's revelation in the Bible, but ultimately man's will works God's way. The Bible says that God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 9:12) to do exactly the opposite of what God appeared to want done. This is the way God works. God provides opposition to His Word in order to manifest Himself.

In order for God to reveal Himself to His creatures, it is God's will that His revealed will be opposed. In other words, God gave us the 10 Commandments, knowing that we would not be able to keep them, knowing that our carnal nature would be in opposition to this revealed will of His.

Have you ever wondered why God, Himself, put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil right in the middle of the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve couldn't possibly avoid it? Where they would be repeatedly enticed into eating from it? Where their temptation would be overwhelming?

If we don't want a little child to handle, and possibly break, fragile glass objects, we don't place those objects in easy reach of the child. We put them in a closet or on a high shelf where they will not be tempting to the little child. Yet God did exactly the opposite with Adam and Eve. He placed the forbidden tree right in the middle of the Garden, where they couldn't possibly avoid it. Then He told them "Don't eat of it." What was God's motive?

Think about this. We are told the Lamb (Jesus) was "slain from the foundation of the world," (Rev. 13:8) meaning that the Plan of Salvation, including Jesus' death for sinners, was planned BEFORE man was ever created. The Plan of Salvation REQUIRED that Jesus die on the cross. Therefore, Jesus had to come in the form of being that had the "ability" to die. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were incapable of dying. They did not become subject to death until after they had sinned. If Adam and Eve, or their offspring had not sinned, neither they, nor Jesus would have been subject to death. Jesus could not have died and no one would have needed a Saviour anyway.

Therefore, sin and death had to have been an integral part of the Plan of Salvation.

God plants impulses in the human heart and surrounds men with influences that impel men to oppose God's revelation, just like God did with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It is imperative that God should clash with His creatures. It is essential that their wills withstand His will. Men imagine that they are in control of their own will and that no one can break their resolution, not even God. But this is foolishness. Men have no greater control over their will than the captain of a sailing vessel has over the set of the sails. If the captain is not demented, he will set his sails to suit his course, and that is determined by the wind.

To suggest that God has created a world of little gods, with absolute wills, is to dethrone God. However, God does give mankind the consciousness that he has self-determination. It is essential to God's purpose that His creatures should be oblivious of the power which impels them, for their response must be without conscious constraint.

God, is the only Being in the universe who is unhampered by the chains of circumstance. God CREATES the circumstances in the lives of all of us. It is by this method that we walk in the steps which He has created for us before we were born. (Eph. 2:10) The highest and most powerful of earth's leaders play the part that God assigns them, though they don't know it.

Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will."

There is only one independent "free" will in the universe, and that is the will of God. In order to bring about His purpose, men must not be aware that they "live and move and have their being" in Him. The false "free will" that men believe they have, is the result of man being oblivious to God's ways. God provides opposition to His truth in order to make Himself known. Men imagine that their will is independent of God's will. Since they are unable to understand the intricacies that make up their own decisions, they delude themselves into thinking that their will is independent.

The story of Joseph and his brothers is a perfect example of God's way of working in our lives. Joseph's brothers were opposing the "will of God" by selling Joseph into slavery. They broke several of the Commandments, including "Thou shalt not kill" as Jesus said hating your brother in your heart is the same as murder. In addition, they lied to their father about what had happened to Joseph. But by resisting "God's will" they actually fulfilled God's ultimate INTENTION! For by selling their brother Joseph into slavery, they eventually produced their own earthly "saviour", who saved them from death by famine and who protected and nurtured the very origin of God's fledgling nation, Israel. Joseph, after he became the leader of Egypt under Pharaoh, was able to sustain his entire family by providing food for them and by providing a fertile area for them to live in, to multiply and begin the entire nation of Israel.

When the whole episode was over and their father Jacob had died, the brothers then thought Joseph would take revenge, and they pleaded for their lives. They went before him and fell before his face, terrified that he would now have them killed. But we are told in Genesis 50:19,20 that Joseph said unto them, "Fear not, for am I in the place of God? But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."

There's the answer. That's the way God works. He sets us up against Him, and our sin ultimately leads to our salvation. God always brings good out of bad. The more we resist Him and the farther down we go, the more we will realize our ultimate need to depend entirely on Him.

Throughout this story of Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery, we can see that their own evil against Joseph ultimately led to their own conversion, repentance and salvation. It was a hard struggle and a lifetime of grief and guilt, but the entire family was saved and God had worked out His ultimate intention.

To summarize, we CAN resist God's will as revealed in the Bible (The 10 Commandments), but we CANNOT resist His ultimate intention, which is to save us all.

One way to understand this whole issue is to study the WORD of God -- The WORDS of God! The specific words in the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures are very meaningful and have, in many places, been mistranslated in the King James Version of the Bible, and in many other versions as well. In Paul's letter to Timothy (2 Tim 1:13) he tells Timothy "to have a pattern of SOUND words."

For instance, God's "will" is often watered down to a mere "wish" or changed to only a "desire." These mistranslations assure us that God does NOT "WILL" that all mankind be saved (1 Tim 2:4) but that He merely "desires" it. And since man WILLS otherwise, God is apparently powerless and impotent in the face of this "superior force" of man's human determination. How absurd!

Yet Philippians 2:13 says that "it is God who is operating in us to WILL and to DO HIS good pleasure."

Let us look at the original Greek words.

Will is thelo or thelema

Wish is euchomai

Desire is epithumia, and has to do with feelings, rather than with determination.

To be disposed is phroneo, and expresses the bent or bias.

Intend or intention is boulomai.

Each word has a specific meaning, yet the Bible translators have translated these words as they chose, rather than as to their true meaning. The exact meaning of each word can be understood by studying EVERY place in the Bible that the specific word is used, then making sure that the same English translation is used in EVERY instance that the specific Greek word is used.

But mistranslations abound. For instance, The word will is mistranslated into counsel, opinion, wish, about, eagerness, delight, accord and voluntary.

The word "wish" is euchomai, which lacks entirely the sense of determination that is essential to the word "will", as is shown by this word's occurrences in the following texts:

Acts 27:29 (KJV): When Paul was on the ship, right before it was going to be shipwrecked, we read the following: "Then fearing lest we should have fallen upon rocks, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished (euchomai) for the day (daybreak)."

Romans 9:3 (KJV): "For I would wish (euchomai) that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh."

3 John 2 (KJV): "Beloved, I wish (euchomai) above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth."

We can see that when the Bible wants to say wish, it has a special word for wish, and that is euchomai. The word will, which is the Greek word thelo or the derivative thelema is a totally different word from the word wish, which is euchomai. Thelo or thelema means will - it does NOT mean "wish", although the Bible translators take improper literary license to make it so.

The words intend and intention (from the Greek word boulomai) have a more far-reaching significance. They come from the verb "to plan", which means to look beyond the immediate action to the ultimate result. This is very important in the passages where it occurs, such as in the following texts:

Acts 27:42,43 (KJV): " And the soldiers' plan (counsel or intention = boule, from boulomai) was to kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim out, and escape." "But the centurion, willing (bouloma, which means intending - yet the margin actually reduces the word to "wanting") to save Paul, kept them from their purpose (boulomai = intention)."

In the literal translation from the Greek, the word is actually boulomai, which means intention or intending. It shows the ultimate result and the determination. And this is how verse 43 actually reads: "Yet the centurion intending to bring Paul safely through, prevents them from their intention."

Romans 9:19 (KJV): "Thou wilt say then unto me, why does He (God) yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

A direct translation from the Greek reads as follows: "Why then is He (God) still blaming? For who hath withstood His intention?"

As we can see, the word for will is thelo or thelema, the word for intention, is boulomai. These are both very different from the word for "wish", which is euchomai! Again, it is no wonder Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 1:13 that we should "have a pattern of sound words" when we are dealing with Scriptures.

It is obviously impossible to understand God's mind through man's mistranslations. Confusion with these terms has arisen on all sides. As a result, each one interprets to suit his own system of theology.

Translators tend to define the word thelo as will when it is used to describe man, and then to define the same word, thelo, as wish when it is used to describe God. Men are determined to have their own "will" and they deny that God is entitled to anything more than a "desire"! This is a direct result of man's inclination to exalt himself and to degrade God.



Do We Really Have "Free Will?" cont'd

If you study all of the occurrences of the Greek word thelema, or will, you will find that out of about 60 occurrences, at least 50 of them speak of the will of God! Man's will is not very important, according to the Scriptures.

Christ's whole mission is found in the text. "For He came to do the WILL of God." (Heb 10:7,9). In John 5:30 He says, "I am NOT seeking My will, but the will of Him who sends Me." It is NEVER found in the Bible that Jesus exercised His own will, except when it was in complete accord with His Father's will. Jesus did NOT do His own will, He did His Father's will. We do not need vigorous determination in the crisis of our lives, but we need strength to acquiesce to God's will for us.

If we want to see where OUR "free will" leads us, look to the crucifixion. Whenever you hear human determination exalted, let your ears hear that cry of 2000 years ago, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him." This was the "will" of God's supposed church of the time, those who had God's revelation, the religious nation of the Jews, who had been trained by the law and knew the "will" (Romans 2:18).

We have NO will of our own. If we haven't acquiesced to the will of God, we are controlled by the will of Satan. There is NOTHING in between! Most human beings are controlled by their wants and senses, and find their wills powerless to resist their carnal desires. The main purpose of this "earth walk" journey of ours is to allow us, with God's help, to understand and overcome our fleshly nature. It's called the process of sanctification. If we don't overcome our fleshly nature and learn to live like Jesus, we are not fit to live forever with the Lord.

In Romans 9:9-18, Paul informs us that "It is NOT of him who is WILLING, nor of him who is RACING (running), BUT OF GOD THE MERCIFUL." "It is a sad sign of the times that the perversity of mankind persists in injecting passages on other subjects in order to nullify this very decisive declaration of God. In Revelation 22:17 it says 'Whosoever will' are invited to take the Water of Life freely. The use of this phrase in preaching the Gospel is a most flagrant perversion. Also, to reason that because some will not come to Christ (John 5:40), therefore only those who WILL are saved, is only one more instance of the depravity of the human intellect. In truth ALL men will NOT come to Christ. There "WILL" prevents them. Only the superior power of God's will actually brings men to Him. Remember Jesus said "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him." (John 6:44) Philippians 2:13 says, "It is GOD Who is operating in you TO WILL as well as to work for the sake of His delight." By means of God's Spirit and God's Word, our own "will" is superseded by God's determination." (1)

"But there are those who cry out greatly against making puppets, or mere automatons, out of men. At all hazards, we are told, we must maintain human individuality and the godlike attribute of "free will." What is the meaning of this? It is nothing less than a revolt of the creature against the Creator, the desire to be as God, even though it is always presented under the guise of religion. This doctrine of "free will" is found nowhere in the Scriptures, but it is the basis of most interpretations of the Bible...In their proud repudiation of the position of puppets, men are acting merely as phonographs, for they repeat a well worn record made by the spirit that is operating in the 'sons of stubbornness' before man imagined he had a 'free will' in the Garden of Eden, "You shall be as God." Satan provides the record - and Satan turns the handle - and man speaks! What a wonderful little god he is!" (2)

Few of us understand what it is to be a creature, a created being. If we have so much "free will" why weren't we consulted when we were born, regarding our place of birth, our nationality, who our parents would be, our face, our body build. All of these were forced on us. Even our body functions are involuntary. They are not controlled by our "will." We eat our food, and it is digested and the nutrients sent to the proper place in the body without us being able to exert any influence over the digestive and assimilation process. We breathe in the air, almost unconsciously. We may want to be tall, but we are small. No one can "add a cubit to his height."

But just because the Scriptures clearly teach us that a man has no free will does not prove that man cannot be judged by God for his actions. Rom 3:9-19 says that ALL are subject to His just verdict. We are not discussing man's relation to God's judgement, but God's absolute will to save all of His lost creatures. Because of God's WILL, no creature has any jurisdiction over his own destiny, in order to be lost eternally. Look at the story of the Potter and the clay in Romans 9:16-21:
"So then it is NOT of him that willeth, NOR of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. (Comment: It is NOT our will that is in charge, but it is of ALL of God!)

"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." (Comment: God raised Pharaoh up precisely for God to show His own power.)

"Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens. (Comment: God decides on whom He will have mercy and whose heart He will harden.)

"You will say then to me, 'Why does He (God) find fault? (Comment: The question asked here is "How can God hold US responsible, if He is the one doing it?") For who has resisted His will?

"But who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing that is formed say to Him that formed it, 'Why have you made me so?

"Has not the potter power over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

God says He makes one vessel for honor and one for dishonor and no one has a right to tell Him what to do because He is the Creator. God, and ONLY God, is in charge!

The theory of man's "free will" actually elevates man ABOVE God!

There is NO question about God. He WILLS that ALL men be saved (1 Tim 2:4), but, according to Christian theology, He is impotent to carry out His will. Yet, on the other hand, when man wills NOT to be saved, he apparently is omnipotent, and God Himself can do nothing! This is deification of man and dethronement of God!

God can manage even the greatest of men with ease as seen in Revelation 17:17. Everyone today knows how difficult it is to get the rulers of various nations to agree. Yet the ten kings are led by God Himself in their opposition to His will! "God imparts to their hearts to form His opinion," and to be unanimous in it. If God can do that with ten world powers at the zenith of their might, it will be nothing at all for Him to turn human hearts toward Himself. Undoubtedly, the ten kings will pride themselves on carrying out their own "free will." No man is conscious of what is put in his heart. It is God Who "locks all up together in stubbornness" (Romans 11:32). He Who locks, can also unlock.

"The case of Pharaoh is the classic example of the gulf between God's will and God's intention. God's revealed will was very plain. He said, "Let My people go!" Eventually, Israel was liberated. But the account clearly shows that God's intention included more than His revealed will, and that it also involved opposition to His will. God's revealed will, what Israel understood, was limited to the release of Israel. But His intention was to display His own power and glorify His Name in all the earth through the process. This is given to us as an example of God's complete purpose - and of the process by which He will attain it. God uses both ignoranceof, and opposition to, His will, to bring about His final object.

"But it is obvious that God could not have revealed His intention. He could not tell Pharaoh that while He asked him to let the people go, he really did not want him to comply, but desired to use him as a foil for the revelation of God's power. This would actually make a mere machine out of Pharaoh. Instead, it was the ignorance of God's ultimate object, which made the whole procedure real to the actors in it. They did not by any means feel or act as mere puppets. Notwithstanding that each and every one was doing precisely what was needed to accomplish God's final goal." (3)

The highest expression of God's wisdom lies in His ability to transform every effort against Him into that which is not only favorable to His plan, but absolutely essential to His purpose. Truth needs opposition for its development and dissemination.

God always brings something good out of something bad. When all is over, there will be a perfected universe. We will not be worrying about our past sins, but we will be overwhelmed with God's wisdom and love in their vindication. He will bring good out of every sinful act. In absolute reality, every sin will be justified by God turning it into something good. This is true "Justification."

This teaching gives us stability, and a calm confidence in the face of chaotic conditions that surround us. But we are not worried as we once were by the awful opposition to God's will. We know that God will fulfill His purpose. The deluge of evil and sin, however contrary it may be to His will, is essential and indispensable to His ultimate intention.

God is a Deity infinite in power, matchless in wisdom, limitless in His affections, Who is "operating ALL in accord with the counsel of His OWN WILL." (Eph 1:11)

In Old Testament times, "God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Ex 10:20). So also today, "whom He is willing, He is hardening." (Rom 9:17,18)

God's ultimate intention is to become ALL in His creatures. (1 Cor 15:28) Will He accomplish this by giving each person an independent "will" so that they may be His rivals in the regulation of the universe? Is total chaos the end that God has in view? Of course not. That's why every creature in creation now "lives and moves and has their being in God!" (Acts 17:28)

God created every one of us. He is responsible for us, just as parents are responsible for the children they bring into the world. We had no choice to be anything but a sinner. God's plan is to reconcile ALL to Him (Col 1:20)

When parents give birth to children, it is their obligation to take care of them. By the same reasoning, God created us and He knew we would all be sinners, surrounded by darkness. He too, has an obligation to care for us, just as we have an obligation to care for our children.

It would be cruel for God to give us total free will, to allow us to be completely on our own when He knows we are incapable of running our lives. We don't know what's going to happen in the next year, in the next day, nor even in the next hour. But God does. To leave us on our own would be the same as taking our 7 year old child to the center of New York City, leaving him there and saying, "You're on your own!" No responsible parent would do that. Neither would God leave us in a similar situation.

How comforting to know that God cares so much for us that He is not willing to let us drift through life with our own "free will." Instead He is in control. He is operating ALL in accord with the counsel of HIS OWN WILL" (Eph 1:11) and His WILL is that NONE should perish, but ALL should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

God will eventually lead EVERY ONE He has created, back to Him.

There is room for ONLY ONE "WILL" in this world. God WILL be ALL in ALL (1 Cor 15:28). His WILL alone, is irresistible. His will is the ONLY will that will prevail. Jesus said, "If I be lifted up, I WILL DRAW ALL unto Me." (John 12:32).
(1)(2)(3) Knoch, A.E. The Problem of Evil...the Judgments of God. Concordant Publishing Concern

[will.15]

Well, I looked up that Lorraine Day, not to be confused with the actress, she is a real doctor, although this one based on her pictures is also a very attractive woman, and I musr admit she is a complete kook in her other views. But her point of view on this subject is interesting. So we ain't got free will if you believe in God according to her and and we don't have free wiil if we don't believe in him according to Yoda.

As far as I am concerned it is all a load of crap.

Our laws are based on the assumption we have free will under most circumstances and we live our lives based on the idea we have at least some control of it. That means we have free will even if that will comes from chemicals in our brains. If free will is an illusion, it is still a more convincing illusion than the concept of God.

[will.15]

By the way, Ayn Rand was an atheist and she believed in free will. What SC has been posting here about not having control of our lives is what Gail Wynand says in The Fountainhead almost verbatim.

[Yoda]

I listened to him. He didn't convince me. In fact, the reasoning is pretty weaK.

I looked at Yoda's earlier posts. His logic is unconvincing also.
The logic is sound, but whether or not you allow it to convince you is another matter. You sure didn't present anything like a coherent counterargument, though. You can see the last post here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=824512). It ended when you linked to something you said explained how the concept could work, even though it actually said the opposite.

All of it. Take the serial killer thing. Why is it possible for two people born in the same family with the same experiences to grow up differently, one has a normal life and the other a killer?
Because a) they're not remotely identical on a molecular level and b) they don't literally have the same experiences.

[will.15]

The logic is sound, but whether or not you allow it to convince you is another matter. You sure didn't present anything like a coherent counterargument, though. You can see the last post here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=824512). It ended when you linked to something you said explained how the concept could work, even though it actually said the opposite.

It is logical to you.

it is illogical to me.


Because a) they're not remotely identical on a molecular level and b) they don't literally have the same experiences.
What about identicle twins?

But this is all going around in circles.

Tell Ayn Rand atheism is inconsistent with free will. She certainly thought the opposite.

Tell that whacky Lorraine Day M.D. God gave us free will.

I say if we think we have free will, we have it, and it can exist separate from a soul and the existence of God. And even if a God created man and gave him free will it doesn't mean he is anything like the God in any of the faiths man created to believe in. The ultimate truth in free will is our society is based on the assumption we have it. That makes it de facto real even if you want to argue because it is this and that molecule it is actual illusory. And ultimately a free will given to us by God is inconsistent with biblical prophecies of the end time. if we have true free will, why all this stuff about the return of Christ, the Anti Christ, all the people disapearing from the Earth, etc. Sounds like a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo for humanity whose lives are based on free will. Free will seems a lot more real to me than all that stuff, which many bible scholars have predicted should already have happened. I can't say for certain there is not a God of some sort that created us. But I am certain those prophecies are man created and will never happen and there is no Devil so no Anti Christ. The struggle in this world is man based good and evil, mankind's attempt to fight off his baser instinct, not a war for humanity going on between two supernatural polar opposites. It is the free will of man that created new type of ways to govern and an evolutionary attempt to create a more just and humane world. If we have free will given to us by our Creator, why did God give Moses laws? Why didn't he let Moses or some other Jew or Jews create them on their own? It is pretty much what we have been doing ever since. With our own free wll.

[will.15]

What is the relationship between brain and soul? What are the implications for the brain-injured?


Question:

My question is about the relationship between brain and soul, and how damage to the brain can damage the soul. Say if I am a careful Christian who does everything the Bible asks of me and takes all its lessons to heart. But say if I have an accident that damages my brain and disrupts my brain chemistry which also would change my personality. And what if the personality it changes to is sinful and blasphemous and comits violent deeds or some such things. Then what would happen to me? Because it is not my fault I am acting that way because of the change in my bchemistry. Basically would I go to hell or heaven considering the sins that I have commited were out of my control? And also what makes me, me? Is it my brain that can easily be manipulated to change what "me" is, or the soul which is me for all eternity?
Answer:


I believe you raise a very important question. You are a dualist, not a monist, in that you understand that there is more to a human being than just a bunch of chemicals moving around and neurons firing in our brain. We are not just a purely physical being, entirely explained by natural laws. We have a soul and a spirit. This raises a very interesting question. What is the relationship between body and soul? Can what happens to the body affect the soul of a person? What about brain chemistry diseases such as schizophrenia and manic depression? Is a person responsible before God for things done, not because of an evil will but because of a genetically-produced brain disfunction? What about personality changes wrought by traumatic injury to the brain? Does one lose one’s salvation because personality changes due to chemical imbalance or brain injury leads one to behave in a sinful way? This is not just a question of the abstract. If one is a Christian long enough, one will come across real situations like this. I certainly have. I have known disciples of Jesus who suffer from diagnosable depression, manic depression and schizophrinia. I have also been close to Christians who became senile and whose behavior became decidedly non-Christian-like because of these physical changes to the brain.
I am afraid that as human beings we will have to do a lot of trusting in God on these issues. I do not think that we, as humans, have a right to simply say it is OK to do wrong just because a person has a brain injury. I believe it is our job in such a situation to show patience, mercy and love, but not to give "permission" for a person to behave badly. It is not our job to decide who is saved. I believe God is just and he can take care of such difficult questions as where our volition leaves off and where causes outside our control such as brain injury or senilitiy or chemical imbalance gives us an acceptable reason for child-like or other sinful behavior.
You will have to forgive me for ducking significant parts of this question. It may seem rather convenient to punt on the question and just say "It is in God’s hands," but I believe this is the primary place where we ought to leave such questions. Let us never just make excuse for bad behavior. Even for those who have suffered from brain injury or who have major brain chemistry problems, let us hold up biblical standards of behavior. But, let us try to be as much like God as we can, with our limited human understanding. Let us show more grace, support and understanding to those who, through no fault of their own, have brains which clearly do not function in a normal way.
What makes you, you? You have a brain but you are not principally your brain. Your brain is a physical instrument through which your soul and your spirit communicates with the physical world. The brain is a God-experiencing maching of wonderful complexity. Proof of this fact (that you are not your brain) is the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. There will be a resurrection one day. You will outlive your body. Your body is temporary, but "You" are not defined by your body.
I wish this was an easy question, but it is not. Bottom line, let us trust in the wisdom, love and justice of God.
By the way, there is some material at my web site from a lesson given by John Beggs, a physics professor at Indiana University titled "Neuroscience: Room for the Soul?" You might want to check this out (just do a search).
John Oakes, PhD

[Yoda]

It is logical to you.

it is illogical to me.
Except this isn't how logic works. If you say something is illogical, then you can explain why, using logic. No such explanation has been forthcoming to this point. Your previous attempt to argue with the idea basically came down to "hey, the brain's really complicated, so maybe that explains it somehow." That, and you just feel like you have it. Which, amusingly, makes your belief in free will purely a matter of faith.

What about identicle twins?
I was talking about identical twins: they're not identical on a molecular level, nor are their experiences the same.

I say if we think we have free will, we have it, and it can exist separate from a soul and the existence of God.
But not apart from something metaphysical. Whether or not you want to posit a soul or God, specifically, is another matter. The key point is that, to create room for choice, you need to posit some portion of reality where normal physical laws do not apply. You need to posit a point of molecular interaction that you not only exist outside of, but can actively control. There's simply no way around this.

And even if a God created man and gave him free will it doesn't mean he is anything like the God in any of the faiths man created to believe in. The ultimate truth in free will is our society is based on the assumption we have it. That makes it de facto real even if you want to argue because it is this and that molecule it is actual illusory. And ultimately a free will given to us by God is inconsistent with biblical prophecies of the end time. if we have true free will, why all this stuff about the return of Christ, the Anti Christ, all the people disapearing from the Earth, etc. [/B][B]Sounds like a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo for humanity whose lives are based on free will. Free will seems a lot more real to me than all that stuff, which many bible scholars have predicted should already have happened. I can't say for certain there is not a God of some sort that created us. But I am certain those prophecies are man created and will never happen and there is no Devil so no Anti Christ. The struggle in this world is man based good and evil, mankind's attempt to fight off his baser instinct, not a war for humanity going on between two supernatural polar opposites. It is the free will of man that created new type of ways to govern and an evolutionary attempt to create a more just and humane world.
Most of this doesn't really have anything to do with the topic. I'd be more than glad to have a discussion about whether or not free will is potentially consistent with the common conceptions of God. But it's a very challenging, abstract, philosophical question, and I've never known you to have the slightest interest in such things. To the contrary, you usually like to interrupt other people trying to have them to tell them that they should stop. And more importantly, it doesn't do anything to reconcile materialism and free will.

If we have free will given to us by our Creator, why did God give Moses laws? Why didn't he let Moses or some other Jew or Jews create them on their own? It is pretty much what we have been doing ever since. With our own free wll.
I have no idea what this question even means. There's no mutual exclusivity between giving people free will and still trying to teach them things.

[will.15]

Except this isn't how logic works. If you say something is illogical, then you can explain why, using logic. No such explanation has been forthcoming to this point. Your previous attempt to argue with the idea basically came down to "hey, the brain's really complicated, so maybe that explains it somehow." That, and you just feel like you have it. Which, amusingly, makes your belief in free will purely a matter of faith.

That's right. Your personality is your free will. Which is perfectly logical to me and more logical than you saying the ability to make a decision independent of programmed impulses in the brain can only come from God. It is ultimately up to the individual to determine if an argument is logical or not. I say your attempted proof free will can only come from God is illogical. The only way you can argue otherwise is to take a poll and see if a majority of those polled agree with your conclusions. it is not absolute proof, but without hard, convincing evidence, which you don't have, it is the only way you can show your argument is more persuasive.


I was talking about identical twins: they're not identical on a molecular level, nor are their experiences the same.

Which proves, what? That two different people that grow up in the same environment and share so many similarities, can emerge quite different? It would seem to be an argument for free will.


But not apart from something metaphysical. Whether or not you want to posit a soul or God, specifically, is another matter. The key point is that, to create room for choice, you need to posit some portion of reality where normal physical laws do not apply. You need to posit a point of molecular interaction that you not only exist outside of, but can actively control. There's simply no way around this.

There is no way around not all is explainable. Our science still cannot explain everything. The answer to what we cannot explain using known scientific logic is not automatically God. Other earlier God explanations for the universe have been refuted with science. Someday an explanation for how we can have independent thought based on moleculule interaction may be deveoped that satisfies you. But I doubt you would accept it if there was.


Most of this doesn't really have anything to do with the topic. I'd be more than glad to have a discussion about whether or not free will is potentially consistent with the common conceptions of God. But it's a very challenging, abstract, philosophical question, and I've never known you to have the slightest interest in such things. To the contrary, you usually like to interrupt other people trying to have them to tell them that they should stop. And more importantly, it doesn't do anything to reconcile materialism and free will.

It has everything to do with the topic because ultimately the conversation about God and free will is about God as most people understand him. And the God in the Old Testament is a manipulative, controlling God inconsistent with one who thought it important to give Man free will.


I have no idea what this question even means. There's no mutual exclusivity between giving people free will and still trying to teach them things.
Teach them things? That is what Jesus did. God didn't teach Moses about the importance of making good laws. He gave them to him by dictation. That is inconsistent with a God that wants man to work out his fate through free will. Biblical free will is a cop-out. It is an attempt to explain why God does not seem active in the contemporary world, although according to the Bible He was once an interfering busy-body.

[Yoda]

That's right. Your personality is your free will. Which is perfectly logical to me and more logical than you saying the ability to make a decision independent of programmed impulses in the brain can only come from God. It is ultimately up to the individual to determine if an argument is logical or not. I say your attempted proof free will can only come from God is illogical. The only way you can argue otherwise is to take a poll and see if a majority of those polled agree with your conclusions. it is not absolute proof, but without hard, convincing evidence, which you don't have, it is the only way you can show your argument is more persuasive.
Ugh. This is just unbridled nonsense. Logic is not a personal preference, nor is it determined by vote.

And it isn't rhetoric, either, which can be more or less persuasive in light of other factors. Logic is binary: it is either sound or not. To dispute a logical claim, you either have to show a flaw in the logic, or dispute one of the premises.

Which proves, what? That two different people that grow up in the same environment and share so many similarities, can emerge quite different? It would seem to be an argument for free will.
It isn't. It's widely understood that minute differences in any physical system can produce massively different effects down the line, IE: the butterfly effect. This isn't a controversial idea.

There is no way around not all is explainable. Our science still cannot explain everything.
Translation: you believe it on faith. You have exactly as much empirical evidence for your belief as someone who believes in God because they can "feel" His presence.

The answer to what we cannot explain using known scientific logic is not automatically God. Other earlier God explanations for the universe have been refuted with science. Someday an explanation for how we can have independent thought based on moleculule interaction may be deveoped that satisfies you. But I doubt you would accept it if there was.
This is a pretty ironic argument, given that you're the one proposing a faith-based explanation for something you have absolutely no empirical evidence for.

Also, I strongly suspect the phrase "scientific logic" is indicative of some serious confusion. When I combine it with your logic-is-relative stuff above and your repeated suggestion that scientific discovery can even potentially explain away what I'm describing, it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that you're not even clear on what these terms mean.

It has everything to do with the topic because ultimately the conversation about God and free will is about God as most people understand him. And the God in the Old Testament is a manipulative, controlling God inconsistent with one who thought it important to give Man free will.
I can't figure out why you think this has anything to do with what I said. I didn't question the way you depicted God. Not at all. What I said was that whether or not free will is consistent with God doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it's consistent with materialism, because of a third possibility--that neither is consistent with it. So your position is in no way defended by any of this.

Teach them things? That is what Jesus did. God didn't teach Moses about the importance of making good laws. He gave them to him by dictation. That is inconsistent with a God that wants man to work out his fate through free will.
Not by a long shot. It'd be false if his "laws" were edicts you were literally forced to follow. When they're simply instruction that we can choose to accept or ignore, they don't present any contradiction with free will. Free will does not require a God that has no opinion of our behavior and/or never conveys that opinion.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Free will may not require a God, but people believing in free will established God, and thus I think that keeping the idea of free will going, when it's not true, will only keep the doors open for false ideas about God. I can understand how human beings would easily naturally believe that their choices are made by their own decisions, which appear free. Thus, I think, the idea of Gods probably came from this illusion -- if you aren't intelligence enough to understand that there is no free will, then you can invent ideas that are untrue to suit your understanding of the world. Therefore, your actions can be assigned as either "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of a God.

And people are not born with the knowledge that there is no free will. Someone has to figure it out by studying nature.

But if you take away free will and come to terms with the fact that everything is out of our control, the idea of God has to change. You can't believe in a judgemental God, unless you want to believe that God is sitting outside of nature and is judging the actions of nature itself. Thus, if there is a soul somewhere in us, our soul cannot help what our bodies do. Thus, the Christian God could send people to Hell even though those people did not make their choices -- their bodies did. There's no reason to punish the soul.

Believing in free will and being an atheist at the same time is completely silly. If you don't believe that there are any Gods, what's the point in sticking to the old idea that we are free to make our own choices? If it's a fact that free will does not exist and that we are not in control of ourselves, and you don't believe in God, why should you still believe in free will? Usually, it seems, atheists are the most open to scientific breakthroughs, so not following the scientific stance that there is no free will isn't being smart about the human condition. It's rebellious. It might not be bad to be rebellious, but it doesn't mean you're going to turn out right. To me, not believing in God but believing in free will sounds like not believing in Santa Claus, but you still believe that all of your Christmas gifts come from the North Pole at Santa's factory.

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

This is a really complicated issue, and I really don't stand on either side. I guess I'm kind of in the middle for now. Yes, you have no free will over things that have already occurred, and you never will again. However, at the time, you could choose to do it or not do it, usually. I could have chosen not to type this, but since I already have, there's nothing I can do. There is no reality in this universe where I didn't type this. It's done. In that sense, I don't have free will. But if I didn't want to type this, I didn't have to. I could have just moved on to a different thread and not replied. If I had done that, there would be no reality in this universe where I typed this, and there would be nothing I could do about it. It was still my choice at the time, and I made it. In the present, I have free will, but the present passes every second, and once it's gone, that piece of free will is gone as well. I could stand up and do jumping jacks right now, or I could not. It's my choice. I probably won't, but I could. I could do so of my own free will, or I could not do so of my own free will. Either way, I will make a choice and have to stick with it for the rest of my life. After I make the choice, I could say that I technically didn't have a choice in doing so, but I probably did. I can only do one thing at a time, and once I do it, I can't do the other thing, because I technically didn't have any free will to do so. If I had wanted to, though, I could do the other one. There's no way to prove that you don't have free will, and there's no way to prove that you don't, because either way you're just theorizing that you either could've changed your life by making another choice, or you had no choice in the matter because your life is mapped out in front of you. You can't go back in time, and you can't see into the future. It's impossible to prove.

It really has nothing to do with whether you believe in God, or if you're an atheist. I'm an atheist, so I don't think there is any divine power controlling me or the things around me, so I am essentially free to do what I want. If I believed in God, I would probably believe that God had a hand in what I did, therefore I wouldn't have free will, but I think what I wrote up there basically applies either way.

I hope this made sense. I kind of confused myself writing it, but I already did, so I really never had a choice in making it differently. ;)

[Sexy Celebrity]

This is a really complicated issue, and I really don't stand on either side. I guess I'm kind of in the middle for now. Yes, you have no free will over things that have already occurred, and you never will again. However, at the time, you could choose to do it or not do it, usually.

No you don't. That's what people like Sam Harris are saying. You do NOT really choose what you do. Watch Sam Harris' lecture that I posted in this thread. You will understand it all better if you pay attention.

I could have chosen not to type this, but since I already have, there's nothing I can do. There is no reality in this universe where I didn't type this. It's done. In that sense, I don't have free will. But if I didn't want to type this, I didn't have to.But you don't choose whether you want to type it or not. That's the thing.

It was still my choice at the time, and I made it.No you didn't. Determinism made it for you.

In the present, I have free will, but the present passes every second, and once it's gone, that piece of free will is gone as well.Free will has never existed in your life. It is not in the present and it never will be.

I could stand up and do jumping jacks right now, or I could not. It's my choice.It will seem that way, but it isn't.

I'm gonna stop here because I'll just be going on and on saying that you don't have free will.

Study the arguments for no free will. Then think about it. Then, I hope, your non free will will convince you that it's correct.

Pay no attention to Planet News and Yoda and Will.15 and practically everyone else who believes in free will. They're bad for your health.

[will.15]

Ugh. This is just unbridled nonsense. Logic is not a personal preference, nor is it determined by vote.


Then how? By proof? You have none. Because you decide it is more logical? That is not the way it works either. Popular vote seems to be the best alternative in this case.

Logic is either sound or not? Who decides that? You? The absence of scientific proof there is free will means if it exist it comes from God? How have you proven the logic of that? The actual evidence there is a God seems much more illusory than the existence of free will. The evidence of God only exists in faith. The evidence of free will exists at least in a process that strongly suggests man has a decsion making ability. The counter argument that it is random comes from a certain element in the atheist community who tries to rationalize everything. But if we were to take the two approaches, either free will exists or not, and it can only exist if there is a God, then there is no free will because the existence of God as fact rather than faith is completely non existent. But I reject the either/or approach.

And it isn't rhetoric, either, which can be more or less persuasive in light of other factors. Logic is binary: it is either sound or not. To dispute a logical claim, you either have to show a flaw in the logic, or dispute one of the premises.

See above.



It isn't. It's widely understood that minute differences in any physical system can produce massively different effects down the line, IE: the butterfly effect. This isn't a controversial idea.

Can create. So identicle twins live in the same environment and one becomes a pillar of the community and the other is a serial killer and there is no free will, no choices made in their lives. It is all due to different random molecules in their brain. If that is so why is the criminal the aberration in our society? If it is so random, the evil among us should be at closer to fifty/fifty.


Translation: you believe it on faith. You have exactly as much empirical evidence for your belief as someone who believes in God because they can "feel" His presence.

Perhaps, except the concept the thinking process where we make our decsions is entirely preordained by our brains seems far fetched. The scientific explanation for creation doesn't fit the complexity of the human brain. So we must have some sort of free will. And if we cannot provide a scientific explanation we got it from God? ThAT IS YOUR IDEA OF LOGIC? FIRST YOU WOULD NEED TO PROVE THERE IS REAL EVIDENCE OF GOD BEFORE WE ASSUME THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR FREE WILL COMES FROM HIM.


This is a pretty ironic argument, given that you're the one proposing a faith-based explanation for something you have absolutely no empirical evidence for.

Also, I strongly suspect the phrase "scientific logic" is indicative of some serious confusion. When I combine it with your logic-is-relative stuff above and your repeated suggestion that scientific discovery can even potentially explain away what I'm describing, it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that you're not even clear on what these terms mean.

Logic is relative because your logic is relative. Scientific proof is real proof. Your logic has nothing to do with the scientific method. The absence of something is not proof of something else if you can't prove that something else even exists. What you are really doing following your own logic is proving free will doesn't exist, which I know you don't believe. Because there is zero evidence God exists. But the explanation free will doesn't exist is unconvincing. It unconvionces you. You actually want to say free will is obvious and thus proof God exists and gave it to Man. I say our knowledge is incomplete about so much about the creation of the universe. How free will came about, and it is in a limited form based on our mental capacity, I cannot say for sure, Maybe it came from a creator, a greater intelligence than us. but it sure didn't come from the man manufactured God in the Bible who is too much of a control freak to let us use the free will he supposedly gave us.


I can't figure out why you think this has anything to do with what I said. I didn't question the way you depicted God. Not at all. What I said was that whether or not free will is consistent with God doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it's consistent with materialism, because of a third possibility--that neither is consistent with it. So your position is in no way defended by any of this.

Materialism?


Not by a long shot. It'd be false if his "laws" were edicts you were literally forced to follow. When they're simply instruction that we can choose to accept or ignore, they don't present any contradiction with free will. Free will does not require a God that has no opinion of our behavior and/or never conveys that opinion.
You gotta be kidding me. So you actually believe it is logical God actually dictated to Moses ten commandments? Is there any evidence in this world that is how God operates? Isn't it more logical, if we assume the story is even true, Moses prayed to God on that mountain for guidance in reaction to the chaos and blasphemy he saw around him and eventually came up with the laws on his own? In his mind it came from God, but the thinking process was actually his. That is how God (maybe) operates in this world and logic tells us (which you can reject) is how it worked in Moses' time. So either the rules came about through free will or divine intervention, which is not free will, or random chemicals in Moses' head and he had no choice in thinking them up so no free will. I go with free will.

[will.15]

I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. I don't believe in the god of the Bible. He strikes me as the simplistic God man would make up to explain his existence, a God that created man in his own image, and later walked among us (or sent his son, I never got that straight) to deliver his message.

SC, I remember you saying you rejected the idea that gay people were made that way, that they had no choice in the matter. Have you changed your mind?

[CelluloidChild]

What does it say about this forum that the threads that generate the most discussion and heat have nothing to do with movies?

[will.15]

It is true of all movie forums.

[CelluloidChild]

It is true of all movie forums.

Ah....but we have free will to rise above the others....

[will.15]

This may be the only movie forum where it is the owner usually starting the heated threads that have nothing to do with movies.

[CelluloidChild]

Maybe the owner's under the influence of the dark side....May have to reboot Yoda

[Sexy Celebrity]

SC, I remember you saying you rejected the idea that gay people were made that way, that they had no choice in the matter. Have you changed your mind?

I'm not convinced that you're genetically born gay and will always have to be gay in life. I never said gay people were becoming gay by choice, though, because I know from experience that it didn't feel like a choice to me. I argued that deep psychological influences that start in childhood can cause someone to be gay, such as having no father and a strong mother figure might lead to a boy becoming gay. I believe that because I've seen it happen with a lot of gay guys I know. So I think the "old wives tale" of the domineering mother has some real weight to it, and claims that it's untrue are being tossed around largely, I think, by the politically correct crowd. Gays who are trying to make homosexuality look like it can't be a choice - and are using the gay gene theory - so that they will have more acceptance in society. Harvey Fierstein, who I mentioned last night in the Shoutbox, is such a person. As he put it to Barbara Walters, who asked the same question - "Is it caused by a strong mother?" - he was like, "Oh, that's gotta be garbage!"

But I think there probably is psychological reasons for being gay. Psychology is an aspect of the mind -- and the mind is out of our control. Events happen that causes a mind to be shaped a certain way. If a boy loses his father early in life and he ends up being raised by just a mother, he might end up gay, because psychologically, his mind is gonna want to find his father and feel that love and bonding that he missed out on. People think that idea is silly now, but I know that personally my father wasn't there for me much when I was growing up, and my mom was a strong figure, and I know other guys who experienced the same thing. I dated a guy whose father left him and his mom when he was only 2 or something like that and my ex-boyfriend was completely obsessed with older men - daddies, as he called them. Which is why our relationship didn't last -- I wasn't a daddy.

My gay cousin didn't have a father. He was raised by a stern mother. Ended up gay. I've heard that lesbians have issues with their mothers.

Now, there might be something genetic within people that makes it more likely that they would be gay -- hence, why I have a gay cousin. And a rumored gay uncle, too (whom I know nothing about, really.) But I still believe it's largely a psychological thing. One that is hard to or possibly impossible to change. I think it's possible that a gay person could turn bisexual, though. At least, to a degree. But that, of course, requires an open mind and experimentation and such.

[Yoda]

Then how? By proof? You have none. Because you decide it is more logical? That is not the way it works either. Popular vote seems to be the best alternative in this case.
Yes, it is proof. You're drawing an imaginary distinction between different types of proof, even though they're fundamentally inseparable. Every proof is ultimately a logical proof; you have to apply it to any set of facts in order to draw conclusions from them. That's what the scientific process is: logical proofs that use the results of experiments as their premises.

And it's difficult to overstate just how jaw-droppingly ignorant that last sentence is.

Logic is either sound or not? Who decides that? You?
The same people who decide that something can't be moving both up and down, or that something can't be both alive and not alive. You're questioning sheer rationality. You're questioning the same logical principles that every single argument you've ever made has rested on.

If you want to question first principles, Rene, be my guest, but at that point you're no longer invalidating my argument: you're invalidating the entire basis for coherent thought.

The absence of scientific proof there is free will means if it exist it comes from God? How have you proven the logic of that?
No, free will requires something metaphysical/supernatural. Not any specific conception of God. I've been abundantly clear on this point, but you keep repeating it back incorrectly.

The logic, which I guess I'm about to explain yet again, is pretty straightforward: to believe in both materialism and free will, you have to believe that the matter that makes up your brain is somehow exempt from the laws of cause and effect, of action and reaction, that govern the universe. You have to think that there's essentially a magic space in your head that you control free of the influence of the physical universe.

When I point this out, you evade and demur, because you know how silly it sounds. And because you have precisely zero evidence for it, making it an article of faith.

Can create. So identicle twins live in the same environment and one becomes a pillar of the community and the other is a serial killer and there is no free will, no choices made in their lives. It is all due to different random molecules in their brain. If that is so why is the criminal the aberration in our society? If it is so random, the evil among us should be at closer to fifty/fifty.
No, no, no. Predetermined does not mean random. When you drop a rock on a hill, it has no say in where it ends up. But where it ends up is not random, either: it is predetermined by the conditions on the hill and how the other objects around it exhibit force on it.

The scientific explanation for creation doesn't fit the complexity of the human brain.
Oh, so you believe that if something is complex enough it fundamentally alters how molecules in it react to one another?

So we must have some sort of free will.
Why is the word "must" here? You haven't demonstrated that we must have it. You just said you found the alternative "far fetched" and said the brain was complex. You haven't created a syllogism.

And if we cannot provide a scientific explanation we got it from God? ThAT IS YOUR IDEA OF LOGIC? FIRST YOU WOULD NEED TO PROVE THERE IS REAL EVIDENCE OF GOD BEFORE WE ASSUME THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR FREE WILL COMES FROM HIM.
No, I don't. I don't have to present any alternative theory to demonstrate that two beliefs are inconsistent with one another.

Logic is relative because your logic is relative.
This is gibberish.

Materialism?
Yes, materialism. The belief that the material universe is all there is.

You gotta be kidding me. So you actually believe it is logical God actually dictated to Moses ten commandments? Is there any evidence in this world that is how God operates? Isn't it more logical, if we assume the story is even true, Moses prayed to God on that mountain for guidance in reaction to the chaos and blaphsemy he saw around him and eventually came up with the laws on his own? In his mind it came from God, but the thinking process was actually his. That is how God (maybe) operates in this world and logic tells us (which you can reject) is how it worked in Moses' time. So either the rules came about through free will or divine intervention, which is not free will, or random chemicals in Moses' head and he had no choice in thinking them up so no free will. I go with free will.
What on earth do you think this has to do with the topic? You suggested that it's inconsistent with free will to dictate moral rules. To which I point out that it isn't: it's only inconsistent if you force people to adhere to them. You're now making an entirely different argument about the behavior of the Biblical God, which has nothing to do with what you were saying before. You're just bouncing all over the place.

[Yoda]

This may be the only movie forum where it is the owner usually starting the heated threads that have nothing to do with movies.
It's been a very long time since I started any thread like this. The overwhelming majority of the discussions are either started by others, or else resurrected from, like, a decade ago.

[CelluloidChild]

It's been a very long time since I started any thread like this. The overwhelming majority of the discussions are either started by others, or else resurrected from, like, a decade ago.

Yoda, I think it's generally a very good forum and, in the short time I've been here, it's helped broaden my horizons a lot.

You're doing a good job! :cool:

I just sometimes wish that people would put even half the thought, debate etc into the threads about movies that they do in threads like this one.

[Yoda]

It's cool, I wasn't offended by the statement or anything. :) Just pointing out that I don't go out of my way to start these conversations any more. I respond to whatever I happen to see if I think it needs responding to.

Anyway, in my experience, it's actually not too rare for the "Miscellaneous" forum to have as many or more posts than most (or all) of the others. Obviously, people take the big questions in life more seriously--and defend them more fervently--than they do the movies they prefer.

That said, it's certainly a fair observation, and I certainly agree.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Where's my praise?! I've been trying to convince everyone of the most amazing thing you'll ever hear -- that there's NO free will -- and people are just throwing snakes at me.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=10400&stc=1&d=1365119841
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=10401&stc=1&d=1365119907http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=10402&stc=1&d=1365120104

[planet news]

Yes, materialism. The belief that the material universe is all there is.this is all you can and should say about materialism.

but what you do is go a step further. you want to say that materialism holds that molecules, atoms, etc. are the stuff of being. in fact it does no such thing. no matter how expedient this device is to your argument, it can't be allowed to continue being said.

i qualify nothing here. i make no compromises or concessions. it's just plain not acceptable to say this about materialism -- now, then, or ever. those things are objects belonging to certain scientific discourses. and there are many, many scientific realms each with unique and irreducible objects. you are straw-manning materialism in a way where the straw argument itself makes no sense.

just what do you think 'science' (as if it were this monolithic thing) has to say about brains, stars, quarks, and pigs? exactly what picture of the universe do you think 'science' upholds? the fact that this question is essentially unanswerable is the most blatant sign that your 'version' of materialism is a nonsense.

materialism founds itself on a rejection of what could generally be called teleology.

lastly, the fact that you cling to this abstract and unsustainable notion of 'molecules' despite my insistence months ago that this could not and should not be done seems to be an artifact of a practiced rhetoric you've experienced success with, but despite how well it might have worked in the past, i'm telling you that it no longer has anything to do with what is true.

[will.15]

Yes, it is proof. You're drawing an imaginary distinction between different types of proof, even though they're fundamentally inseparable. Every proof is ultimately a logical proof; you have to apply it to any set of facts in order to draw conclusions from them. That's what the scientific process is: logical proofs that use the results of experiments as their premises.

And it's difficult to overstate just how jaw-droppingly ignorant that last sentence is.

Because you make a statement you deem tio be logical does not make it proof.

our knowledge of the universe is limited by what we know. There is a lot we don't know. There is a lot we can't explain. The way the human mind works contradicts the notion every thought we have is predetermined. This may be what the purely scientific mind requires because he needs a rational explanation for everything even when there are real gaps in that knowledge and prevailing theories are often challenged by new evidence that contradicts it.


The same people who decide that something can't be moving both up and down, or that something can't be both alive and not alive. You're questioning sheer rationality. You're questioning the same logical principles that every single argument you've ever made has rested on.

I am not questioning sheer rationality. I am questioning your logic, the notion free will has to be god created, that it cannot exist in a rational world.

If you want to question first principles, Rene, be my guest, but at that point you're no longer invalidating my argument: you're invalidating the entire basis for coherent thought.

Well, you have declared it coherent thought, allthough nothing you said is universally accepted as coherent.


No, free will requires something metaphysical/supernatural. Not any specific conception of God. I've been abundantly clear on this point, but you keep repeating it back incorrectly.

The title is atheism disqualifies free will. Atheists don't believe in God. So you are not just talking about the metaphysical, you are talking about God. If you want ro argue the metaphysical can exist without God, that would be an entirely different discussion.

The logic, which I guess I'm about to explain yet again, is pretty straightforward: to believe in both materialism and free will, you have to believe that the matter that makes up your brain is somehow exempt from the laws of cause and effect, of action and reaction, that govern the universe. You have to think that there's essentially a magic space in your head that you control free of the influence of the physical universe.

The formation of human life is a different process than the formation of rocks and plants. The laws are narrower and the cause and effect narrower. What you are calling free will has also been called the moral sense, the ability to understand right from wrong, which is what is suppose to distinguish us from animals. The moral sense consists oi impulses in our brain? Why do we have it and not animals?




No, no, no. Predetermined does not mean random. When you drop a rock on a hill, it has no say in where it ends up. But where it ends up is not random, either: it is predetermined by the conditions on the hill and how the other objects around it exhibit force on it.

Alright, but that still doesn't explain why criminals are a decided minority in our society. It is predtermined a small segment of society will operate outside of the law? It would seem cause and effect would have to create clear and detectable circumstances to cause such an aberration. But a criminal mind can emerge in circumstances identicle to one that creates a law abiding one. If we cannot identify the molecules that creates a criminal, and we can't, how can you say for certain molecules created them? Your cause and effect theory with regard to human deveopment is thus incomplete.


Oh, so you believe that if something is complex enough it fundamentally alters how molecules in it react to one another?

Sure, because it has not been proven that is how it works with intelligent life. It is a lot easier to disuss the formation of molecules in rocks and trees. Our scientific knowlege is, again, imcomplete, we understand in a general way a process among inaminate objects and simple life. To apply those principles and how they work with far greater complexity is beyond our current knowledge.


Why is the word "must" here? You haven't demonstrated that we must have it. You just said you found the alternative "far fetched" and said the brain was complex. You haven't created a syllogism.

Neither have you.


No, I don't. I don't have to present any alternative theory to demonstrate that two beliefs are inconsistent with one another.

If your conclusion is atheists must disdain free will and believe then free will is not logical and thus supernatural /God based, you do.


This is gibberish.

Your logic is based on broad principles only vaguely understood when applied to the human brain. Real proof can only come when we can actually understand the exact process that creates the brain and understand how the different factors that make unique influences occur. Without it you just have nothing in your analysis that is very credible.Cetainly not enough to draw the conclusions you do.


Yes, materialism. The belief that the material universe is all there is.

What exactly is the material universe? Information about that is still in flux and changing.


What on earth do you think this has to do with the topic? You suggested that it's inconsistent with free will to dictate moral rules. To which I point out that it isn't: it's only inconsistent if you force people to adhere to them. You're now making an entirely different argument about the behavior of the Biblical God, which has nothing to do with what you were saying before. You're just bouncing all over the place.
The biblical God is in conflict with free will. Why does a God who has given us free will have to dictate moral rules? The Judeo Christian God, in fact, does not give us true free will. He often creates situations that test man in ways that makes the outcome predictable, thus diminishing free choice and creating situations that are predestined by their inevitability.

[planet news]

i think one way to explain yoda's mistake is this: he wants to make materialism into a kind of alternative religion, where instead of god there are molecules, which would play the role of a god. it's always been clear that a 'mechanistic' view of reality/being has been utterly consistent and possibly inspired by the religious point of view. the birth of modern science might in some ways be said to be in opposition to the church but by no means were the figures who ushered in the first post-Aristotelian physics atheists.

in fact, atheism has an utterly different conception of things than religion, and hence the division between them. atheism is not just another religion. the difference between atheism and Christianity for example is a far far more radical difference than that between Christianity and Judaism. really, the atheist/religious difference renders all discrepancies between theisms trivial. atheism says no such thing that there are molecules and atoms and those determine everything absolutely. that is something like what a religious person might say. really, it takes a religious mind to believe that anything like determinism is possible.

[Yoda]

i think one way to explain yoda's mistake is this: he wants to make materialism into a kind of alternative religion, where instead of god there are molecules, which would play the role of a god. it's always been clear that a 'mechanistic' view of reality/being has been utterly consistent and possibly inspired by the religious point of view. the birth of modern science might in some ways be said to be in opposition to the church but by no means were the figures who ushered in the first post-Aristotelian physics atheists.

in fact, atheism has an utterly different conception of things than religion, and hence the differences. it truly takes a religious person to believe that anything like determinism is possible.
You do realize you're arguing against something completely different than will, right? He's not going to find what you're saying any more agreeable than what I'm saying, ultimately. You're trying to have a completely different conversation here.

[planet news]

maybe so, maybe not. it's all ultimately the same conversation because there is a correct version of atheism and there are false versions.

for whatever reason, will still insists on free will. that's more than i can say for SC, who is now hopelessly enamored with the nietzschian orientation and probably will be for a long time.

also i don't think it's coincidence that the things he's arguing and bringing up are at least superficially in line with what i'm saying. i don't think it's a superficial connection either.

atheists willing to save free will are the only true atheists i think. that's enough for me to argue with him

[planet news]

this thread has gone on long enough... it's time to take action. we need a classical logic here. not-not-friend = friend.

[Yoda]

Because you make a statement you deem tio be logical does not make it proof.
At a certain point it gets really conspicuous when you say "just because you say it's logical..." without ever actually being able to explain why it isn't. If it's not logical, then you need to explain how the logic is faulty, or which of the premises you dispute. If you can't, then you have no basis from which to dispute it. It's that simple.

The way the human mind works contradicts the notion every thought we have is predetermined.
This is a fancier way of saying you just feel like you have it.

This may be what the purely scientific mind requires because he needs a rational explanation for everything even when there are real gaps in that knowledge and prevailing theories are often challenged by new evidence that contradicts it.
Using this logic, you could decide to believe in absolutely any ridiculous thing and defend it on the basis of some kind of scientific IOU that you blindly believed would vindicate you later. If you want to believe that, be my guest, but it's not an argument. It's not evidence. It's just blind faith.

I am not questioning sheer rationality. I am questioning your logic, the notion free will has to be god created, that it cannot exist in a rational world.
Actually you did question sheer rationality, when you asked why logic is either sound or unsound.

And you haven't questioned my logic, either: you've simply denied it. You've given no reason. And given how many times you've refused to give a reason, it's abundantly clear to me that you don't have one. You just know you don't like the conclusion.

The title is atheism disqualifies free will. Atheists don't believe in God. So you are not just talking about the metaphysical, you are talking about God. If you want ro argue the metaphysical can exist without God, that would be an entirely different discussion.
I clarified that I was referring specifically to materialistic atheism (seeing as how they almost always go hand in hand) many, many times, including the last time we had this discussion. Moreover, none of the arguments you've made up until this point have had anything to do with this distinction, either. I can point you to probably half a dozen examples of me saying this to you directly, and you responding to it.

The formation of human life is a different process than the formation of rocks and plants. The laws are narrower and the cause and effect narrower.
The laws of cause and effect are "narrower" inside some types of matter? Since when? Please elaborate.

What you are calling free will has also been called the moral sense, the ability to understand right from wrong, which is what is suppose to distinguish us from animals. The moral sense consists oi impulses in our brain? Why do we have it and not animals?
Higher intelligence, which manifests instincts in more nuanced ways. All you're describing is the fact that we have some kind of emergent consciousness, which obviously isn't under dispute.

Alright, but that still doesn't explain why criminals are a decided minority in our society.
That doesn't require any explanation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

It is predtermined a small segment of society will operate outside of the law? It would seem cause and effect would have to create clear and detectable circumstances to cause such an aberration.
Um, why? I see absolutely no reason why determinacy implies that we ought to be able to detect it. We don't have anywhere near the capability.

But a criminal mind can emerge in circumstances identicle to one that creates a law abiding one. If we cannot identify the molecules that creates a criminal, and we can't, how can you say for certain molecules created them? Your cause and effect theory with regard to human deveopment is thus incomplete.
Er, it's not my theory, it's Newton's laws of motion, guy. And the logic here is seriously mangled: it's kind of like saying if you don't know exactly which drop of water caused the lake to overrun, you can't say that any of them actually increased the amount of water in it.

Sure, because it has not been proven that is how it works with intelligent life. It is a lot easier to disuss the formation of molecules in rocks and trees. Our scientific knowlege is, again, imcomplete, we understand in a general way a process among inaminate objects and simple life. To apply those principles and how they work with far greater complexity is beyond our current knowledge.
To confirm: you believe your brain is made up of special matter inside of which the normal laws of physics do not apply, correct? And you believe that there is some part of you that exists outside of the physical world and can manipulate the molecules and chemicals within your brain independent of the matter around it, yes? And you have no empirical evidence for this whatsoever, but believe it because you feel it, right? Please confirm these statements, and if they're not representative, please explain why.


Neither have you.
Yeah, actually I have. Quite often, in fact. And every time, your response is just to say "yeah, well, the brain's complex." For all the words you've expended, that's pretty much the only thing you've said.


If your conclusion is atheists must disdain free will and believe then free will is not logical and thus supernatural /God based, you do.
No, I don't. I'm pointing out a common ideological contradiction. Whether or not you can reconcile that contradiction has nothing at all to do with whatever alternative I might propose.

Your logic is based on broad principles only vaguely understood when applied to the human brain. Real proof can only come when we can actually understand the exact process that creates the brain and understand how the different factors that make unique influences occur. Without it you just have nothing in your analysis that is very credible.Cetainly not enough to draw the conclusions you do.
Except that even if this happened, based on your logic I could just say "yeah, we think we understand the brain, but it's really complex. Maybe someday we'll learn something ELSE that flips it back again." And I could use that speculation to believe whatever I wanted, apparently, without having to present any argument or evidence for it.

What exactly is the material universe? Information about that is still in flux and changing.
So you won't mind giving me an example of a piece of information we have discovered that has altered our definition of the material universe, then, right?


The biblical God is in conflict with free will. Why does a God who has given us free will have to dictate moral rules? The Judeo Christian God, in fact, does not give us true free will. He often creates situations that test man in ways that makes the outcome predictable, thus diminishing free choice and creating situations that are predestined by their inevitability.[/B]
You're just talking right past what I said. I disagree with all this, but it's a complete change in topic. As I said before:

"You suggested that it's inconsistent with free will to dictate moral rules. To which I point out that it isn't: it's only inconsistent if you force people to adhere to them. You're now making an entirely different argument about the behavior of the Biblical God, which has nothing to do with what you were saying before."

[Yoda]

maybe so, maybe not. it's all ultimately the same conversation because there is a correct version of atheism and there are false versions.

for whatever reason, will still insists on free will. that's more than i can say for SC, who is now hopelessly enamored with the nietzschian orientation and probably will be for a long time.

also i don't think it's coincidence that the things he's arguing and bringing up are at least superficially in line with what i'm saying. i don't think it's a superficial connection either.

atheists willing to save free will are the only true atheists i think. that's enough for me to argue with him
Honestly, I don't know what to do with posts like this. I don't agree that what you're saying has any useful parallel to what will's trying to say. And it's kind of impossible to reply to this stuff as it is, because it's all too dense. There are too many unexplained terms and claims already filled to the brim with unstated assumptions that would need to be unpacked to be examined. I'm not really sure what you expect me or anyone else to do with these sort of introductory and mid-level salvos.

[planet news]

maybe nothing for now. respond with objections whenever you feel able. or say nothing. but maybe keep them in mind as you argue. maybe it will get you to consider your own assumptions. and really that is all i am saying with those. that you are assuming things that are false.

in some sense that is a good enough argument for now if you trust i'm not just messing with you. you know i have something to say, and that's enough for me. that you know that the question is not settled. whereas two years ago i might've said it was more than settled.

what are your assumptions about materialism? because really, it is a problem for you. if you think materialism is one thing and it isn't...

and yet i suspect that you are closer to your version of materialism than I am.

[will.15]

I thought he was sort of agreeing with some things I said. Of course, I am never quite sure exactly what he is saying.

I have been repping him.

I don't see any big disagreements even if his approach is different.

[planet news]

What exactly is the material universe? Information about that is still in flux and changing.So you won't mind giving me an example of a piece of information we have discovered that has altered our definition of the material universe, then, right?
also we're not so far apart if you're asking this kind of question in response to what will said.

precisely what i am telling you is that your definition of the material universe is wrong.

will said precisely the right thing. our knowledge is constantly changing. atoms and molecules are artifacts of knowledge.

they are not materials. knowledge is not materials. knowledge itself is a material.

i told you what materialism is is a rejection of teleology. it is not anything to do with atoms and molecules. in fact, neither atoms nor molecules are even considered by the majority of theoretical physicists to be truly explanatory... and this movement is a part of knowledge. it's this kind of thing that's the problem for you

[Sexy Celebrity]

Can I just say that the guy who wrote Free Will and did that lecture and also wrote other atheist books -- Sam Harris -- is a TOTAL stud.

Look at this creature:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=10403&stc=1&d=1365138079
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=10404&stc=1&d=1365138111
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=10405&stc=1&d=1365138207
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=10406&stc=1&d=1365138261

He's like Jake Gyllenhaal in his 40's.

Knowing someone this gorgeous also doesn't believe in free will makes not believing in free will a lot easier. Try it.

And no, I'm not believing in no free will just because of him, but he certainly helps.

[will.15]

He looks like Paul Ryan.

[Sexy Celebrity]

He looks like Paul Ryan.

Cuter, though.

[will.15]

So you won't mind giving me an example of a piece of information we have discovered that has altered our definition of the material universe, then, right?

Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes


18:21 27 July 2006 by David Shiga (http://www.movieforums.com/search?rbauthors=David+Shiga)
A controversial alternative to black hole theory has been bolstered by observations of an object in the distant universe, researchers say. If their interpretation is correct, it might mean black holes do not exist and are in fact bizarre and compact balls of plasma called MECOs.
Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, led a team that observed a quasar situated 9 billion light years from Earth. A quasar is a very bright, compact object, whose radiation is usually thought to be generated by a giant black hole devouring its surrounding matter.
A rare cosmological coincidence allowed Schild and his colleagues to probe the structure of the quasar in much finer detail than is normally possible. Those details suggest that the central object is not a black hole. "The structure of the quasar is not at all what had been theorised," Schild told New Scientist.
A black hole, as traditionally understood, is an object with such a powerful gravitational field that even light is not fast enough to escape it. Anything that gets within a certain distance of the black hole's centre, called the event horizon, will be trapped.
A well accepted property of black holes is that they cannot sustain a magnetic field of their own. But observations of quasar Q0957+561 indicate that the object powering it does have a magnetic field, Schild's team says. For this reason, they believe that rather than a black hole, this quasar contains something called a magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO). If so, it would be best evidence yet for such an object.
Flickering clues

The researchers used gravitational lensing to make their close observation of the quasar. This technique exploits rare coincidences that can occur when a galaxy sits directly between a distant object and observers on Earth.
The gravity of the intervening galaxy acts like a lens. As the intervening galaxy's individual stars pass in front of the quasar, this bending varies, making the quasar appear to flicker.
Carefully scrutinising this flickering allowed the researchers to probe fine details of the quasar's structure that are normally far too small to be resolved by even the most powerful telescopes.
Magnetic sweep

The researchers found that the disc of material surrounding the central object has a hole in it with a width of about 4000 Astronomical Units (1 AU is the distance between the Earth and the Sun). This gap suggests that material has been swept out by magnetic forces from the central object, the researchers say, and must therefore be a MECO, not a black hole.
"I believe this is the first evidence that the whole black hole paradigm is incorrect," says Darryl Leiter of the Marwood Astrophysics Research Center in Charottesville, Virginia, US, who co-authored the study. He says that where astronomers think they see black holes, they are actually looking at MECOs.
According to the MECO theory, objects in our universe can never actually collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.
Extremely complex

But Chris Reynolds of the University of Maryland, in College Park, US, says the evidence for a MECO inside this quasar is not convincing. The apparent hole in the disc could be filled with very hot, tenuous gas, which would not radiate much and would be hard to see, he says. "Especially if you're looking with an optical telescope, which is how these observations were made, you wouldn't see that gas at all," he told New Scientist.
Leiter says this scenario would leave other things unexplained, however. The observations show that a small ring at the inner edge of the disc is glowing, which is a sign that it has been heated by a strong magnetic field, he says. In Reynolds's scenario, one would expect a much broader section of the disc to be heated, he says.
In any case, says Reynolds, it is difficult to draw conclusions from the team's detailed comparisons of their observations with models of black holes because those models are far from definitive. "We know the accretion of gas into black holes is an extremely complex phenomenon," he says. "We don't know precisely what that would look like."
"It would be truly exciting if there was compelling evidence found for a non-black-hole object in these quasars," Reynolds adds. "I just don't think that this fits."
Journal reference: The Astronomical Journal (vol 132, p 420) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/504898)

[Sexy Celebrity]

atheists willing to save free will are the only true atheists i think.

I can see how that might be true because I think no free will opens doors to new interpretations of religion, God, and various other mystical things. Like some higher power is controlling us. But, that's all they might be -- interpretations. No free will can be -- and probably is, in my opinion -- still a true fact of life.

God, whatever that may be, could be a true fact of life, as well.

[planet news]

harris is a terrible philosopher

[planet news]

I can see how that might be true because I think no free will opens doors to new interpretations of religion, God, and various other mystical things. Like some higher power is controlling us. But, that's all they might be -- interpretations. No free will can be -- and probably is, in my opinion -- still a true fact of life.

God, whatever that may be, could be a true fact of life, as well.well you can have whatever opinions you want... and for whatever reasons you want... but unless they're rooted in some kind of rational grounding, i'm not sure why you expect anyone else to agree with you.

and basically no one will disagree with you. because in fact what you're saying is not of interest. i'm not sure you even understand what it means to not have free will. the cases harris talks about aren't even illuminating.

no one thinks that we act independent of circumstances... like what else are you saying besides that? that we live in a world and we exist in circumstances? the question of free will is always beyond that. it is to say, given all that, we can still choose beyond that... you don't even get that, so it's pretty much impossible to take your inordinate enthusiasm seriously

[Sexy Celebrity]

well you can have whatever opinions you want... and for whatever reasons you want... but unless they're rooted in some kind of rational grounding, i'm not sure why you expect anyone else to agree with you.

and basically no one will disagree with you. because in fact what you're saying is not of interest. i'm not sure you even understand what it means to not have free will. the cases harris talks about aren't even illuminating.


Well, maybe not to you, but there are lots of other people out there who agree with it. I'd like to see you take on all of them. Personally, I'm not that interested anymore in continuing to discuss it, at least with you. I've had my say.

[Yoda]

So you won't mind giving me an example of a piece of information we have discovered that has altered our definition of the material universe, then, right?

Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes
You're confusing simple scientific taxonomy with radical redefinition. It's like the difference between saying there might be dragons (and we'd all just say "oh, another animal to classify") and saying there might be dragons that can fly up and down simultaneously. The former, improbable though it may be, still fits easily into our core understanding of the world. The latter demolishes it. You can't just make some hazy reference to scientific progress to decide you have the ability to suspend Newton's third law with your mind. Which is literally what you're claiming, by the way.

And think of the larger implications, too. You're adopting a burden of proof so mild that it doesn't really restrict what you believe at all. You can believe any random, ridiculous thing and just write another intellectual IOU and expect "SCIENCE" to pay it off in some far-flung future. And if that's not damning enough, even if that actually happened, someone could use the exact same reasoning to deny it, assuming that some other far-flung future will turn things back again. It's a self-defeating standard.

You're talking about an article of faith. And you are quite welcome to believe it based on faith. But why the crap would you pretend it's an argument?

[will.15]

I didn't say radical definition. i said we are learning new things all the time and there was a lot we don't know, like how dark energy works. And I don't see an understanding of how human life is conceived a radical redefinition because we really don't know how something so complex as the human mind is conceived. Molecules bouncing around creating sentient life is not the same thing as the interaction that creates human life. And it stands to reaon if there is a God and he created the universe, he chose to do so through scientific principles, he wouldn't suddenly go, for humans I'll toss in a little magic. There is my logic for you. Is it credible the only thing in this universe supernatural is us? There is also the enormous overwhelming evidence that THIS UNIVERSE IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND ONLY THAT. WHERE IS THE SUPERNATURAL? WHERE ARE THE GHOSTS? THERE IS ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF HAUNTED HOUSES. SO EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE EXCEPT THE WAY WE THINK? THE NOTION OUR FATE IS PREORDAINED STRIKES ME AS AN ABSURDITY. THE RATIONAL THING TO ASSUME IS WE DO HAVE INDEED HAVE LIMITED FREE CHOICE. THAT HARRIS GUY SC POSTED WAS TOTALLY UNCOnVINCING. AND YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNCONVINCING ALSO WITH YOU EITHER/OR LOGIC. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THIS WORLD OPERATES, BLACK AND WHITE, THE BELIEF IS IF IT ISN'T ONE THING, IT MUST BE THE OTHER. WE CAN'T RATIONALLY MAKE THE LEAP OF LOGIC YOU MAKE WITHOUT MORE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW INTELLIGENT LIFE IS CREATED.

[Yoda]

I'd like it if you would please respond to some of what I said, rather than merely reiterating your position. For example, I pointed out that...

...your standard of evidence could be used against itself, by assuming even further scientific revolution.
...your standard of evidence places almost no restrictions on what you can believe.
...you're advancing a claim that is ultimately an article of faith as if it were an argument.

I didn't say radical definition. i said we are learning new things all the time and there was a lot we don't know, like how dark energy works. And I don't see an understanding of how human life is conceived a radical redefinition because we really don't know how something so complex as the human mind is conceived. Molecules bouncing around creating sentient life is not the same thing as the interaction that creates human life. And it stands to reaon if there is a God and he created the universe, he chose to do so through scientific principles, he wouldn't suddenly go, for humans I'll toss in a little magic. There is my logic for you. Is it credible the only thing in this universe supernatural is us?
The question itself is confused. Supernatural phenomena is, by definition, outside of the physical universe in some way. So things like miracles can't be "in" the universe to begin with.

But skipping over that, I don't really see what's supposed to be logical about this. Why is it unlikely that we'd be the only supernatural things with a consistent presence? What kind of measure of probability could you possibly use to make this kind of declaration? It sounds like you're trying to pass gut instinct off as logic.

There is also the enormous overwhelming evidence that THIS UNIVERSE IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND ONLY THAT. WHERE IS THE SUPERNATURAL? WHERE ARE THE GHOSTS? THERE IS ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF HAUNTED HOUSES. SO EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE EXCEPT THE WAY WE THINK?
You do realize this is pretty much the exact argument I've been presenting to you, right?

THE NOTION OUR FATE IS PREORDAINED STRIKES ME AS AN ABSURDITY. THE RATIONAL THING TO ASSUME IS WE DO HAVE INDEED HAVE LIMITED FREE CHOICE.
The notion of "limited free choice" makes even less sense. Now you're suggesting that parts of our mind are subject to causality, but not others? Or that it's sometime subject to causality, but other times it isn't? So not only do you believe in some kind of Free Will Zone inside our heads, but you think it turns off and on of its own accord?

THAT IS NOT THE WAY THIS WORLD OPERATES, BLACK AND WHITE, THE BELIEF IS IF IT ISN'T ONE THING, IT MUST BE THE OTHER.
Yes, actually, that's how quite a bit of the world works. Depending on what you ask, lots of things are binary. You can't say "if there's a God, it's Gaia," because there are other possible Gods. But you can say "either there is a God, or there isn't." And you can say "either we're completely subject to causality, or we're not." Assuming you're not questioning the very foundations of logic any more.

[will.15]

I'd like it if you would please respond to some of what I said, rather than merely reiterating your position. For example, I pointed out that...


...your standard of evidence could be used against itself, by assuming even further scientific revolution.
I don't get your point.

...your standard of evidence places almost no restrictions on what you can believe.
What are you talking about? It is your standard of evidence that is overreaching, applying a very fuzzy knowledge about how the physical universe was created to himan life.

...you're advancing a claim that is ultimately an article of faith as if it were an argument.
That is somwhat so, but only because the argument and evidence that everything we say or decide is predestined strikes as indredibly unconvincing and free will more credibele, But I don't see any evidence of supernatural in this world so i can't believe it can be responsible for free will. So I conclude free will has to be scientifically based like everything else we know about the universe even if we don't yet understand how it was conceived, which I find more logical than your conclusion that if we can't use our limited knowledge to explain it, then it must be the work of God or demons or Mandrake the Magician.


The question itself is confused. Supernatural phenomena is, by definition, outside of the physical universe in some way. So things like miracles can't be "in" the universe to begin with.

No, it isn't. Supernatural phenomena if it exists could be glimpsed in the physical universe. Where are the ghosts or vampires? Miracles would be in the universe. I suppose there are a few that have been called that are still unexplained, most BE EITHER FRAUDS OR HAVE RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS. I SUPPOSE YOUR LOGIC WOULD BE THE ONES WITH NO EASY EXPLANATION ARE TRUE MIRACLES, while the scientific approach would be we don't have enough information to draw any conclusions. If supernatural phenomena is totally separate from the physical worls then we can't have free will that comes from thatd

But skipping over that, I don't really see what's supposed to be logical about this. Why is it unlikely that we'd be the only supernatural things with a consistent presence? What kind of measure of probability could you possibly use to make this kind of declaration? It sounds like you're trying to pass gut instinct off as logic.

It sounds a lot more logical than what you are saying. Everything in this universe is scientifically based except us? And your evidence is...free will?


You do realize this is pretty much the exact argument I've been presenting to you, right?

You present it without my question mark, which means I was presenting your argument as far-fetched.

Also, a supernatual being doesn't use magic to create the world, but science, but free will is magic? Doesn't it make more sense if free will exists, it would be based on scientific principles, even if current knowlege doesn't understand the process?


The notion of "limited free choice" makes even less sense. Now you're suggesting that parts of our mind are subject to causality, but not others? Or that it's sometime subject to causality, but other times it isn't? So not only do you believe in some kind of Free Will Zone inside our heads, but you think it turns off and on of its own accord?

Nobody, not even your side, argues free will is unlimited. It is limited by our physical bodies and our physical limitations. Yes, we are a product of our gene pool. Some of us are handsome and some of us are not. Some of us are geniuses, and some of us are not too bright. We don't get to choose our parents. We don't have any control of this. This puts restrictions on our choices. But to go from there to saying everything is predestined is an incredible stretch. When I wake up, after that everything I do is predestined, I have absolutely no choice in the matter? My brain is pre programmed? You really believe the human mind, your mind, works that way? That you cannot even conceive or understand limited choice, which is hardly a radical idea, shows plainly the weakness in your argument. I have mentioned limited free choice before several times and this is the first time you challenged it.


Yes, actually, that's how quite a bit of the world works. Depending on what you ask, lots of things are binary. You can't say "if there's a God, it's Gaia," because there are other possible Gods. But you can say "either there is a God, or there isn't." And you can say "either we're completely subject to causality, or we're not." Assuming you're not questioning the very foundations of logic any more.
No, you can't say we're either subject to casualty or not because all of us are subject to casualty to some extent. We are none of us total masters of our destiny because we don't completely control what happens in our lives, but we can still make decsions based on what happens to us through external forces. Cause and effect is all around us. If a hurricane destroys your house, you have no control over that. Your free will can't make the hurricane change direction.

[will.15]

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Free-Will-Determinism.htm

[Yoda]

I don't get your point.
The point is that if you can believe in something just because something might come along to explain it later, someone can disbelieve in it for the exact same reason. Imagine everything you're saying amazingly comes true, and our understanding of the universe is completely turned on its head. What's to stop someone else from saying "no, we don't have free will, and you can't say we do because some other scientific knowledge might be discovered that contradicts you"? Nothing. And it'd be just as valid as what you're saying now.

What are you talking about? It is your standard of evidence that is overreaching, applying a very fuzzy knowledge about how the physical universe was created to himan life.
The "fuzzy knowledge" is every single time a human being has ever observed the behavior of matter. That's a clear, evidentiary standard. Saying "maybe someone will come up with a way to prove me right someday" is not. That standard is completely free of any evidentiary burden, and thus allows you to believe anything.

That is somwhat so, but only because the argument and evidence that everything we say or decide is predestined strikes as indredibly unconvincing and free will more credibele
How something "strikes" you might be reason enough for you, but I'm not sure why you think of it as an argument that should persuade others.

But I don't see any evidence of supernatural in this world so i can't believe it can be responsible for free will.
Take a closer look at this and tell me if you see a problem.

So I conclude free will has to be scientifically based like everything else we know about the universe even if we don't yet understand how it was conceived, which I find more logical than your conclusion that if we can't use our limited knowledge to explain it, then it must be the work of God or demons or Mandrake the Magician.
I'm pretty sure this is called "projecting." You're literally telling me that your brain is Special Matter that doesn't react like other matter does, except sometimes it does, or just does a little bit, and you know don't why, can't explain how it works, and have no empirical evidence to support the idea. But please, tell me more about how the alternative is magical thinking.

No, it isn't. Supernatural phenomena if it exists could be glimpsed in the physical universe. Where are the ghosts or vampires? Miracles would be in the universe. I suppose there are a few that have been called that are still unexplained, most BE EITHER FRAUDS OR HAVE RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS. I SUPPOSE YOUR LOGIC WOULD BE THE ONES WITH NO EASY EXPLANATION ARE TRUE MIRACLES, while the scientific approach would be we don't have enough information to draw any conclusions. If supernatural phenomena is totally separate from the physical worls then we can't have free will that comes from thatd
You misunderstand. Yes, miracles have to take place "in" the universe, but they don't stay there. If God turns water into wine, there is no trace of this after the fact. There's just wine. And, you know, some happier people.

Your question was why we're the only miracles. But there's no reason to assume we are. Perhaps countless miracles have already been performed; how would you know? And maybe animals have free will, too. There's really no reason at all to assume we're the lone example of this.

It sounds a lot more logical than what you are saying. Everything in this universe is scientifically based except us? And your evidence is...free will?
My evidence is that all matter we've ever directly observed adheres to the same basic principles of motion, actually.

Also, a supernatual being doesn't use magic to create the world, but science, but free will is magic? Doesn't it make more sense if free will exists, it would be based on scientific principles, even if current knowlege doesn't understand the process?
No, in fact it makes zero sense, because it contradicts itself. You can't say that if God were going to make a world of predictable laws He wouldn't make us an exception, because if we weren't the exception we would be predictable, too. But we can't be predictable and have choice. The very act of giving beings free will means they cannot be subject to physical laws. The alternative is literally impossible.

Nobody, not even your side, argues free will is unlimited. It is limited by our physical bodies and our physical limitations. Yes, we are a product of our gene pool. Some of us are handsome and some of us are not. Some of us are geniuses, and some of us are not too bright. We don't get to choose our parents. We don't have any control of this. This puts restrictions on our choices. But to go from there to saying everything is predestined is an incredible stretch. When I wake up, after that everything I do is predestined, I have absolutely no choice in the matter? My brain is pre programmed? You really believe the human mind, your mind, works that way? That you cannot even conceive or understand limited choice, which is hardly a radical idea, shows plainly the weakness in your argument. I have mentioned limited free choice before several times and this is the first time you challenged it.
The absurdity didn't occur to me before. And no, I don't believe the human mind works that way, but it's the logical implication of your beliefs.

The problem is that, in order to continue holding these contradictory ideas, you've had to Frankenstein a mangled set of rules with ad hoc exceptions. So now you're defending the idea that your brain is Special Matter that you can protect from outside forces, but only sometimes, or only partially. It's getting more convoluted and arbitrary as we go.

No, you can't say we're either subject to casualty or not because all of us are subject to casualty to some extent. We are none of us total masters of our destiny because we don't completely control what happens in our lives, but we can still make decsions based on what happens to us through external forces. Cause and effect is all around us. If a hurricane destroys your house, you have no control over that. Your free will can't make the hurricane change direction.
This is why I used the word "completely." And it's a stone cold bummer that after all this, you think a hurricane destroying your house would somehow invalidate free will.

[Yoda]

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Free-Will-Determinism.htm
That's 3,600 words. Please quote whatever part of it you think explains how free will can exist in a materialistic universe. I assume this will be easy, because I know you'd never be so cavalier as to post a link based only on its title without having read and understood it first.