-->
@FLRW
What do you mean by kingsman?
Free will contradicts theism
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@Benjamin
Factually speaking, a criminal is nothing more than a human with a smaller og bigger problem;
Why is it a fact that pedophiles or rapists have a problem? If animals are sexual creatures by evolutionary nature, isn't it possible that non-rapists could be considered by a society to be the humans with a "problem" instead?
and they certainly didn't all consciously chose to become criminal.
What does it mean to consciously choose to be a criminal?
-->
@Benjamin
See; Kingsman: The Secret Service
There are some other ones here, they are zedvictor4, oromagi, RationalMadman,3RU7AL, Lunar108, Stephen and of course, myself.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
There is no clear definition I am afraid. But nobody would contest that a homeless boy in India pickpocketing tourists in order to survive, or a depressed suicidal drug adict in prison, are both examples of criminals actually being the victim of unfortunate circumstances. School shooters on the other hand have already made a decision to massacre before comming to School. Chosing to be a criminal means planning out an immoral act rather than getting progressively forced into a lifestyle by external circumstances. Such a criminal might not as easily regret their crime as they certainly justified the act beforehand and thus rejects the moral standards of society. To put it simply, some people have such a twisted mind that they want to become criminals and then chose to commit terrible crimes.
Now onto morals.
Behaviour that prevents the well-being of humans is undeniably a problem for human society. This is the core fact we must consider. Criminals exhibit this behaviour, but they are not themselves the problem. Determining what is objectively a problem requires moral reasoning. Logical scrutiny often exposes traditional standards and valued as flawed and inconsistent. Whenever this happens, society progresses. Whenever moral nonsense is fabricated, or read from old dusty books, groups of people suffer. Generally speaking, freedom and tolerance are good indicators of a moral society. Persecution and oppression of minorities indicate the opposite. Any moral standard that encourages oppression is at ods with the core idea of morality: that everyone be better off because of your actions. Invoking evolution to moraly justify rape is to misunderstand morality. Society's goal is the survival and prospering of not just the fittest but everyone else as well. A culture which doesn't value this end goal I would not call moral.
When we see a despicable man we see evil traits. Determinism tells us that the person couldn't have ended up differently, but it provides no reason as to why we should accept this trait existing. Defeating evil is still a good thing to do in a determinstic world, and your choice to fight for what's right is equally real. Determinism doesn't remove personal responsibility or justify evil. If anything, the notion that our actions directly controll the future should amplify our desire for virtue.
-->
@Benjamin
School shooters on the other hand have already made a decision to massacre before comming to School.
Could the school shooter have chosen to do otherwise based on your previous statements about the cause of human actions?
The whole problem is you seem to deny that there is any semblance of human will that can actually choose between two options in a way that is not inevitably determined by natural processes outside the individual's control.
-->
@Benjamin
If anything, the notion that our actions directly controll the future should amplify our desire for virtue.
Again, here is the inconsistency. If you are saying that your actions now directly control the future, then it follows that someone else's past actions directly control your present actions. Trace that all the way back to some cosmic beginning, and everything is ultimately the inevitable product of the Big Bang, and you are powerless to change that trajectory without defying the laws of physics.
I've boiled free will down to ( TWINS )
A women can give birth to twins. not meaning the she has no choice to it.
Its just.
( TWINS )
Its because twins exists thus making everything is BORING OLD everything is as it seems.
Basic.
EVERYTHING boils down to ( TWINS ) and or ( ARCHITECTURE )
life is all about one of these things.
Also i have noticed.
There is No , NONE what so ever things thats explained " easy " followed by another two more more straight forward things so to speak.
But that dont mean shit,
And now i don't know where I'm going to go from hear .
UNFORTUNATELY.
I'm not allowed to think about to think about ( free will )
PASS
Good game.
Good game.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
A Zedku for Fruit_Inspector
The Laws of Physics were,
And the Laws of Physics are,
And the Laws of Physics will be.
Even if defied,
The ability to defy the Laws of Physics,
Would be a Law of Physics.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You seem to deny that there is any semblance of human will that can actually choose between two options in a way that is not inevitably determined by natural processes outside the individual's control.
All forces in the universe but gravity are understood as effects of particle interactions. As a sidenote, the laws of physics have been different in the past due to different physical conditions that changed the forms energy took on. The laws of physics should be viewed as just our mathematical description of how things behave, observations, rather than some external entity or law. When I say your brain can't break the laws of physics, what I am really saying is that the atoms in your brain aren't magical, they behave just as any other atom would do. Your choices are dependent upon the excact state of your brain, for the simple reason that it is the brain which makes decisions. Combining these ideas shows us that the physical laws only describe the choices we make and why we make them, they don't really controll them, as they aren't real laws.
More consicely: you are not "controlled" by physical processes. You are in fact a physical process yourself, one called life.
Could the school shooter have chosen to do otherwise based on your previous statements about the cause of human actions?
The problem with classical free will is that it assumes merely rewinding history without changing anything leads to a different outcome; thus invoking randomness into human decisions. I believe a school shooter's brain isn't random, meaning the decision to commit mass murder is caused by the mess going on up in his mind. To clarify: I am saying that any two different choices would have had to be made by different states of mind. Had a school shooters brain been different he would have made different choices --- not because he was forced to but because he would have been different as a person. The ability to chose otherwise is only actualised by having a different state of mind. Society has a moral responsibility to cultivate good states of mind, before and after the fact. Prevention and rehabilitation.
Here is the inconsistency . Trace that back to some cosmic beginning, and everything is ultimately the inevitable product of the Big Bang. You are powerless to change that trajectory.
The big bang is the furthest past our universe, so it logically follows that changes to this time period would produce a different contemporary world. The same could be said about any other time period, including yesterday. Yes, it is impossible for humans to change the trajectory of the universe --- the reason being that we are inside it. Whatever we do is already a part of the universe's trajectory, so our actions changing it makes no logical sense. I fail to see how merely describing determnism is an effective rebuttal, or why this view is incosistent. Regarding morality: Our actions do change the trajectory of other people, and that is ultimately what matters.
-->
@Benjamin
You said:
Whatever we do is already a part of the universe's trajectory, so our actions changing it makes no logical sense.
And then you said:
Our actions do change the trajectory of other people, and that is ultimately what matters.
How can our actions be the predetermined results of the universe's trajectory that we have no ability to change, yet our actions can change the trajectory of other people (who are also a part of the predetermined trajectory of the universe)?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Our predetermined choices do matter and definately affect other people. A person saved from drowning lives on instead of dying, that's a clear difference. Whether or not the rescue mission was destined to succed does not change the outcome. If you only looked at the drowning person you would have no clue about his fortunate survival, but if you observed the whole universe you would know about the rescue mission far in advance. The only additional element in a deterministic world is that the universal observer could know with absolute certainty that the rescue mission would succeed.
How can our actions be the predetermined results of the universe's trajectory that we have no ability to change, yet our actions can change the trajectory of other people
Your implied critique of my statements is that a part of a predetermined universe must also be predetermined, so when we affect other people we aren't causing "real" change. The perspective here is very important. When I say we change a persons trajectory, I am saying that person A affect person B for better or for worse. From person B's perspective this interaction came as a surprise and led to a change in life course through the butterfly effect. A universal observer already knew this interaction would happen.
The trajectory of individuals is their life, while the trajectory of the universe is history. Neither violates strict deterministic causality, but only the latter is changed by external forces. That is to say, the universe is a closed system, while everything inside of it are open systems, subject to change by external forces. Still, the only indeterminism a person experiences is the predetermined interactions with external systems. The concepts of luck, free will and chance are illusions made from the limited perspective of human individuals.
When we change the trajectory of other humans, we are really just affecting their lives and their experiences --- we aren't violating determinism.
What I do have to admit is that determinism only applies to closed systems. If you define freedom as the effects of a system being open, then I would have to agree with you.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I have answered all your questions, now could you explain your own view.
- Do you believe in free will, if so, could you define it and provide evidence for it?
- How do you reconsile free will with belief in an omnicient creator God?
- There are very strong and clear arguments for free will being an illusion regardless of whether or not God exists. Do you ignore these or do you have rebutalls?
Free Will is contradictory an omniscient God and it's contradictory to life in general whether and omniscient God exists. Freedom is one thing. Free Will is another entirely. If we had free will then we could make whatever choices we want and follow through on them. We can't for all sorts of reasons money, attitude, upbringing, place of birth, type of government in our country. There's a reason psychology exist because people are predictable animals. We rarely if ever change and we really with ever step outside our comfort zone. You're freedom lets you to make choices in regards to what you eat, who you marry, if you have kids, in some way where you live and what you do. Free will to make any choice you want to, at any time, no matter what, does not exist. We are slaves to nature and nurture.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well stated.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
While your topic was more about free will itself being unfeasible in this reality than about it being held against God's omnipotence, I enjoyed reading that paragraph. It was very well put together.
-->
@Benjamin
Do you believe in free will, if so, could you define it and provide evidence for it?
No. At least not in the sense of a libertarian free will that can act outside of God's sovereign decree.
How do you reconsile free will with belief in an omnicient creator God?
n/a
There are very strong and clear arguments for free will being an illusion regardless of whether or not God exists. Do you ignore these or do you have rebutalls?
While humans may not have a libertarian free will, humans are moral agents capable of making decisions and being responsible for those decisions. This means that our decisions are not merely an illusion, nor are they strictly the product of brain states. Both Scripture and experience tell us that we make choices.
The question then is whether our presuppositions match our view of both determinism and moral agency.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Free Will is contradictory an omniscient God and it's contradictory to life in general whether and omniscient God exists. Freedom is one thing. Free Will is another entirely. If we had free will then we could make whatever choices we want and follow through on them. We can't for all sorts of reasons money, attitude, upbringing, place of birth, type of government in our country. There's a reason psychology exist because people are predictable animals. We rarely if ever change and we really with ever step outside our comfort zone. You're freedom lets you to make choices in regards to what you eat, who you marry, if you have kids, in some way where you live and what you do. Free will to make any choice you want to, at any time, no matter what, does not exist. We are slaves to nature and nurture.
100% THIS
The irony of everyone here posting to their own will supporting the most ridiculous notion that they have no will is hilarious. The stupidity is astounding, and the obliviousness to the reality that their conscious soul exists independent of their physical body is even more amusing. They have no recollection that what their body needs and what their will decides are two distinct factors, though one influences the other the one is only observing what the other is asking for. The will remains intact regardless of what conditions arise. Oh well, I shouldn't expect too much from a silly public forum. Oh! did I just write this? shame on me....oh wait, there is no shame it was already preordained! lol.
-->
@EtrnlVw
The irony of everyone here posting to their own will supporting the most ridiculous notion that they have no will is hilarious.
To be fair, I never said humans don't have a will at all. But there is a distinction between a will that can make conscious moral decisions, and a libertarian free will that can act independently from the will of God.
You may disagree on the coherence of this position, but we would at least agree that the "choice is an illusion" crowd are denying the reality of their own existence.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Your answers are far too ambigous. You seem to imply that free will is subject God's decree, and that freedom from said decree is only a requirement for "libertarian" free will. What is the difference between libertarian free will and normal free will, would you profess acceptance for the latter idea?
humans are moral agents capable of making decisions and being responsible for those decisions.
This is a truism. When a human decides to act a certain way, x happens. That person is then responsible for x.
This means that our decisions are not merely an illusion, nor are they strictly the product of brain states. Both Scripture and experience tell us that we make choices.
Our decisions are proven scientifically. MRI scans reveal them as bursts of brain activity leading up to a made conclusion. We can directly observe the existence of choices this way, and also infer it from human behavior. If humans did not make choices, we wouldn't be able to move or talk to each other. You apparently reject scientific evidence showing that choice is an emergent feature of the physical brain. Why is that? Considering the fact that choices must come from somewhere, it seems irrational to dismiss the evidence and scientific consensus by denying that choice is controlled by brain states.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
- We are discussing whether or not human will is free.
- Free will demands non-determinism, lest it can't be called free.
- Choice cannot violate physical determinism or the determinism of a creator's will.
- You agree with the latter claim, and believe in a creator God.
- Meanswhile, all scientific evidence supports the former claim.
- If we are to trust scientific evidence, (or your own statement), human will cannot be free.
Could you please provide an unambigous answer to the coming question? How free do you believe our will is, and what evidence supports your view.
-->
@Benjamin
Free will contradicts theism because a creator God necesarily prohibits free will.P1: An omniscient God knows the complete history of every possible universe; (by necesity including all choices made every universe)P2: A creator God decided which of the possible universes to createC: God literally decided how history would turn out and what choices people would make
- Although the arguments is badly formulated, it rings truth. Free Will -in the Christian sense- is nonsense, of course. It's a square-circle.
There is no way around this conclusion. God decided to create a universe where Adam and Eve would eat from the fruit of knowledge. God decided that Adam and Eve would sin, because literally nothing is outside his controll. By definition, nothing happens that conflict with God's decisions. Adam and Eve did not have free will; their choice was no more free than a clock is to show the correct time or not. The creator of the watch is responsible for the watch dysfunctioning, not the watch istself. Blaming a human for a crime is like blaming a gun for a murder --- sure it was the gun who shot the bullet, but the gun was controlled by someone else. This is just an analogy of course, but the point is important.
- Omnipotence necessarily entails Omniscience, & vise-versa. Omnipotence is the power over All Things (to bring into or take out of existence), which implies the knowledge over All Things, what is not known can not be brought into existence. Contrarily, Omniscience, as the knowledge over All Things, implies knowledge of all that is brought into existence & otherwise, which implies the impossibility of non-existence to all things which are known to be brought to existence, hence the power to bring all things to existence, thus Omnipotence. An All-Knowing being is also necessarily an All-Powerful being.
- A being that isn't omnipotent can not be God, for God is the necessary being, on which All Things are contingent. A being that isn't omniscient (All-Knowing) is not omnipotent either, for these are necessarily equivalent, hence can not be God. A god that does not know something is a god that does have the knowledge of All Things, this a non-omniscient being, therefore not God.
- The existence of Free Will, as in the will to act in the world without God's knowledge & will, entails a non-existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent being, thus the non-existence of God.
The problem of evil is so often dismissed without further elaboration by pointing to free will, and that humans (and/or demons), not God, cause evil and suffering in this world. When used to solve the problem of evil free will is nothing short of magic being invoked to dodge the disturbing implications of God's magic.
- The Problem of Evil is a Christian problem.
If we remove the "magic" from the equation we can confidently say that all humans have choice --- but that CHOISE IS NOT FREE FROM EXTERNAL CONTROLL AND CAUSALITY
- This is better than Free Will, yes.
-->
@EtrnlVw
The irony of everyone here posting to their own will supporting the most ridiculous notion that they have no will is hilarious.
this comment is 100% UNCAUSED
-->
@Yassine
The existence of Free Will, as in the will to act in the world without God's knowledge & will, entails a non-existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent being, thus the non-existence of God.
Excactly.
-->
@Yassine
A square is a circle with corners.
-->
@zedvictor4
A square is a circle with corners.
- LOL!
-->
@Yassine
It's good that you appreciate the intended humour of my reflection.
It did just strike me that a square was a circle with corners.
Anything with a perimeter can be circulated.
Otherwise...Free will contradicts theism, is just more of the same.
And can be dipped into and out of, at leisure.
I would suggest that we are all inspired to be more than we originally were.
-->
@Benjamin
- We are discussing whether or not human will is free.
We are also discussing whether humans even have a will or if it is just an illusion - something that doesn't actually exist.
- Choice cannot violate physical determinism or the determinism of a creator's will.
Assuming I understand what you are saying correctly, I would agree. The difference is that choice doesn't even exist if physical determinism is true, so it is somewhat meaningless to even talk about it. The same cannot necessarily be said when talking about a theistic system. Our choices may not violate the will of God, but that does not mean choice does not exist. You have spoken much about the choices and decisions of humans being determined, but you have no justification to even use such language. If human action is nothing more than a predetermined chemical reaction that causes something to happen, then humans don't have a will because they aren't actually choosing anything. If you disagree, I would simply ask you clearly explain what human will is.
How free do you believe our will is, and what evidence supports your view.
I believe humans have a will that is free to make choices, but it is not free to make spontaneous choices free from any prior desires or inclinations. We choose according to our strongest desire at the moment of the choice. What type of evidence are you looking for?
Will is the ability to have priorities and make choices with future results in mind. Any conscious lifeform should have some form of will, but intelligent beings especially.
We choose according to our strongest desire at the moment of the choice.
True. And that desire comes from biological inclination and prior experience. This is just a simpler way of saying that the physical brain choses which neurons to fire based on how it has been molded by neuroplasticity. But none of these flashy science words affect the evergreen argument that your molded self controls choice.
choice doesn't even exist if physical determinism is true
Choice is to pick between options. The brain processed information and makes a conclusion on which action to take by sending out neurological signals to the rest of the body, the muscles in the particular. Chosing between juice and milk just involves the brain selecting the prefered option and activating the consumption of it. The whole process is deterministic yet the two cups were still there, in reach. Obviously, choice can be deterministic, unless you bake "free" into it's very definiton.
I believe humans have a will that is free to make choices, but it is not free to make spontaneous choices free from any prior desires or inclinations.
Then we pretty much agree that choice is bound by what preceeded it. Any such choice is by definition deterministic unless it's random.