|
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. |
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
|
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
Why should there be a goal? I think that's the flaw of your reasoning. If free will is free, it should not be bound to anything. Goals are determined by needs, so you're pretty much lost in your circular reasoning.
"An agent who makes decisions based off need is not willful.
An agent who makes decisions randomly is not willful because decisions must be based off need."
???
Regarding the OP, I am confused. Is he saying that free will is a lie made up by religion? wtf. Religion itself, or at least Christianity, is antithetical to the idea of free will. There can be no human free will in the presence of an omniscient god. I got away from religion to choose my own fate, not be tied down by some pre-conceived notion of what destiny is, and now you guys are all telling me that I'm still not free. T_T
|
On March 07 2012 20:58 Nevermind86 wrote:
I don't understand why physic laws is a key element for people arguing against free will. Because since we are talking about 'we' as a biological being or thing (isn't it the same 'thing'), then it's biology as a science that will explain free will, of course as beings or things we are subject to physics but it is irrelevant.
Through history 'we' have explained unknown things through poetry or philosophy, because there was nothing better for us at hand, back in the days the earth was flat because through 'our' eyes it cannot be otherwise, the notion that we could live in the 'south' part of a sphere and not fall seemed impossible. In modern times with our knowledge of science, gravity, etc, we know better, the world is a sort of sphere.
The brain is a complex thing, certain animals do feel emotions because their brain allows them to, as long as those emotions are very basic. Because the brain is so complex maybe at some point for an evolutionary reason we ended up having free will. It is restricted by the environment but everything is restricted by the envionment, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and no, there is no need to bring a dual body/mind religious thing to support the notion of free will.
The brain is the complex structure that made possible for us to take complex choises, all that we have built is because the brain made it possible, 'creating' 'ideas' out of nothing created the technology possible to discuss these matters in this fashion. Evolution creating free will to take survival of the fittest to the next level seems like a good evolutionary tool, after all there is over 6 billions of us and we keep reproducing, isn't that the whole point of evolution? Have more offsprings than other species.
'Free will' just because it cannot be explained at the moment, doesn't mean it cannot exist. Biology one day will be able to explain what is it that causes free will to exist, maybe the brain got so complex at some point that all those things that long ago 'we' could only explain through philosophy, like ideas, creativity, free will, conscience, logic, morals will be explained. But look how all those concepts are good to our survival, actually is the difference between us as a superior species to the rest. Sheer brain complexity, honestly, made it all possible.
Determinism trying to explain the Mona Lisa, Jules Vernes, Michael Angelo and a bunch of other things is lacking, because at some point a decisition out of nothing was made. Out of their own choise.
The greeks argued that a minimum particle existed and that the whole world was made of it, I'm sure back then a lot of people argued that it didn't exist because it couldn't be proved. But the atom exists, it just took a long time for science to prove it. To them it made sense through simple observation that that particle existed, to us through observation makes sense for something like free will to exist. It is my decisition to move my leg, if "the brain took the decisition before... you moved... the leg..." I am my brain, since it is a part of my body.
I like this post, to me it seems more logical than just saying, Free Will does not exist because our current understanding of science cannot prove that it does.
I am still undecided in my belief though, I think I would have to read Sam Harris' book to completely form an opinion.
The story in the Sam Harris' blog to me does not disprove free will (I know it is not supposed to in itself, but I feel like putting down my opinion on what it means as far as free will is concerned), I only feel it shows how certain life experiences or neurological disorders can impact or limit ones ability to express free will. I agree that if I was exchanged atom for atom, experience for experience, I would have done the same as the two men, but I believe that if it was just my mind that was exchanged, keeping the experiences I have had, that I would have freedom of choice.
I don't quite understand how the laws of physics prevent free will from being possible, (again I would need to read the book or similar literature to form an opinion) but to me it just seems illogical, based on what I perceive from my own consciousness and decisions, that I do not have free will. If I do not have free will then what is the difference between the actions that my body takes when I am asleep compared to those that I "supposedly" decide to take when I am awake? Take scratching an itch for example, when you are awake and you feel an itch you can scratch it or you can choose not to, whereas when you are asleep there is no choice (as far as I know) your brain simply reacts and you scratch it, so what is in-between the itch and the scratch if it is not choice? Are you trying to claim that it is just another chemical reaction based on my genetics and past experiences? If I am understanding the OP correctly, physics as we know it cannot account for the so-called choice, but can it disprove it?
At the moment I feel the similarly about free will as I do about the existence of a God, if they can be disproven and proven to exist respectively, then I will believe, until then, I suppose I will just have to keep on as I always have been.
|
On March 08 2012 00:58 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance. Why should there be a goal? I think that's the flaw of your reasoning. If free will is free, it should not be bound to anything. Goals are determined by needs, so you're pretty much lost in your circular reasoning. "An agent who makes decisions based off need is not willful. An agent who makes decisions randomly is not willful because decisions must be based off need." ??? Regarding the OP, I am confused. Is he saying that free will is a lie made up by religion? wtf. Religion itself, or at least Christianity, is antithetical to the idea of free will. There can be no human free will in the presence of an omniscient god. I got away from religion to choose my own fate, not be tied down by some pre-conceived notion of what destiny is, and now you guys are all telling me that I'm still not free. T_T
You're saying, then, that free will could be random and purposeless?
|
it doesn't matter if free will exists or not. It is what people perceive our actions to be based on. The human brain is such a complex organ and the duality of mind/matter is another issue. We simply cannot even grasp how physical/chemical/biological phenomenons can lead to something insane like the consciousness.
Arguing about free will is largely a debate on semantics. Most people view free will as the ability to choose and make decisions. This is something pretty much universal to the human existence. If your definition of free will is something that must be free from any other influence, be it instinctual, a chemical processes, or something your friend said to you, of course you will deny its existence.
|
I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if GOD wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Well that relies on the belief+ Show Spoiler [wut?] +Read the introduction to Tim Keller's book "The Reason for GOD". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true".
Then you get into fun stuff like 'all truth is relative', where you're making a truth claim about that very statement, holding that the statement is absolutely true when the statement itself states there is no such thing as absolute truth
(: <3 silly relativists :>
But that isn't true for Quantum Phenomena, Heisenberg uncertainty principle bro! Schordinger's cat succinctly summarized:
Hav Cat in Box + 1 Radioactive nucleus that will decay eventually, and when it does will trigger toxic gas that will kill cat. Is cat alive or dead?
Life_State(cat) = Probability_Alive(Cat) + Probability_Dead(Cat)
The cat will only be one of them when we open de box (COLLAPSE OF ZE VWAVEFUuuUNCTIOooON!), probabilisticaly with enough dead\alive cats we can calculate the probability that the radioactive nucleus will decay (see: half-life), but it isn't deterministic, we can't say fo sho this one's done or not, it's just very likely to.
So enough physics. The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't.
So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in GOD's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Gospel?
|
On March 08 2012 02:31 bITt.mAN wrote:I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if GOD wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us." Well that relies on the belief + Show Spoiler [wut?] +Read the introduction to Tim Keller's book "The Reason for GOD". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true".
Then you get into fun stuff like 'all truth is relative', where you're making a truth claim about that very statement, holding that the statement is absolutely true when the statement itself states there is no such thing as absolute truth
(: <3 silly relativists :> of everything being completely and utterly deterministic in the Universe. If you know the momentum, position, velocity etc. all the data about a golf-ball, you can calculate it's exact future trajectory; it's completely deterministic. But that isn't true for Quantum Phenomena, Heisenberg uncertainty principle bro! Schordinger's cat succinctly summarized: Hav Cat in Box + 1 Radioactive nucleus that will decay eventually, and when it does will trigger toxic gas that will kill cat. Is cat alive or dead? Life_State(cat) = Probability_Alive(Cat) + Probability_Dead(Cat) The cat will only be one of them when we open de box (COLLAPSE OF ZE VWAVEFUuuUNCTIOooON!), probabilisticaly with enough dead\alive cats we can calculate the probability that the radioactive nucleus will decay (see: half-life), but it isn't deterministic, we can't say fo sho this one's done or not, it's just very likely to. So enough physics. The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't. So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in GOD's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Gospel?
I like to choose my own path.
|
On March 08 2012 01:04 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 20:58 Nevermind86 wrote:
I don't understand why physic laws is a key element for people arguing against free will. Because since we are talking about 'we' as a biological being or thing (isn't it the same 'thing'), then it's biology as a science that will explain free will, of course as beings or things we are subject to physics but it is irrelevant.
Through history 'we' have explained unknown things through poetry or philosophy, because there was nothing better for us at hand, back in the days the earth was flat because through 'our' eyes it cannot be otherwise, the notion that we could live in the 'south' part of a sphere and not fall seemed impossible. In modern times with our knowledge of science, gravity, etc, we know better, the world is a sort of sphere.
The brain is a complex thing, certain animals do feel emotions because their brain allows them to, as long as those emotions are very basic. Because the brain is so complex maybe at some point for an evolutionary reason we ended up having free will. It is restricted by the environment but everything is restricted by the envionment, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and no, there is no need to bring a dual body/mind religious thing to support the notion of free will.
The brain is the complex structure that made possible for us to take complex choises, all that we have built is because the brain made it possible, 'creating' 'ideas' out of nothing created the technology possible to discuss these matters in this fashion. Evolution creating free will to take survival of the fittest to the next level seems like a good evolutionary tool, after all there is over 6 billions of us and we keep reproducing, isn't that the whole point of evolution? Have more offsprings than other species.
'Free will' just because it cannot be explained at the moment, doesn't mean it cannot exist. Biology one day will be able to explain what is it that causes free will to exist, maybe the brain got so complex at some point that all those things that long ago 'we' could only explain through philosophy, like ideas, creativity, free will, conscience, logic, morals will be explained. But look how all those concepts are good to our survival, actually is the difference between us as a superior species to the rest. Sheer brain complexity, honestly, made it all possible.
Determinism trying to explain the Mona Lisa, Jules Vernes, Michael Angelo and a bunch of other things is lacking, because at some point a decisition out of nothing was made. Out of their own choise.
The greeks argued that a minimum particle existed and that the whole world was made of it, I'm sure back then a lot of people argued that it didn't exist because it couldn't be proved. But the atom exists, it just took a long time for science to prove it. To them it made sense through simple observation that that particle existed, to us through observation makes sense for something like free will to exist. It is my decisition to move my leg, if "the brain took the decisition before... you moved... the leg..." I am my brain, since it is a part of my body. I like this post, to me it seems more logical than just saying, Free Will does not exist because our current understanding of science cannot prove that it does. I am still undecided in my belief though, I think I would have to read Sam Harris' book to completely form an opinion. The story in the Sam Harris' blog to me does not disprove free will (I know it is not supposed to in itself, but I feel like putting down my opinion on what it means as far as free will is concerned), I only feel it shows how certain life experiences or neurological disorders can impact or limit ones ability to express free will. I agree that if I was exchanged atom for atom, experience for experience, I would have done the same as the two men, but I believe that if it was just my mind that was exchanged, keeping the experiences I have had, that I would have freedom of choice. I don't quite understand how the laws of physics prevent free will from being possible, (again I would need to read the book or similar literature to form an opinion) but to me it just seems illogical, based on what I perceive from my own consciousness and decisions, that I do not have free will. If I do not have free will then what is the difference between the actions that my body takes when I am asleep compared to those that I "supposedly" decide to take when I am awake? Take scratching an itch for example, when you are awake and you feel an itch you can scratch it or you can choose not to, whereas when you are asleep there is no choice (as far as I know) your brain simply reacts and you scratch it, so what is in-between the itch and the scratch if it is not choice? Are you trying to claim that it is just another chemical reaction based on my genetics and past experiences? If I am understanding the OP correctly, physics as we know it cannot account for the so-called choice, but can it disprove it? At the moment I feel the similarly about free will as I do about the existence of a God, if they can be disproven and proven to exist respectively, then I will believe, until then, I suppose I will just have to keep on as I always have been. I like your post because you focus on how you think about it! A common thought concept is that if we don't seem to "know" something anything is reasonable. Problem is, that's not how understanding things and so called knowledge work.
A simple way to describe the thought process behind knowledge is that it's a huge net of probability calculations. If you want to travel to the south pole how do you know it exists to begin with? The sum of all reasons why you think the south pole exists should be that to you it probably exists.
We are used to everything being predictable with enough understanding, all technology is based on it for example. The pixels on the computer monitors form exact patterns instead of a random mess of colors because we figured a bunch of things out well enough to make what appears to be perfectly predictable computer monitors.
When something goes wrong we assume it can be explained, not that something mysterious happened. The reason for that is we learned from past experiences that's how it always seem to be which gives the former a status of - very probable.
Apply this thought process, that all of us use every day to "free will". I can break it down in a simplistic way.
1) Existence: Are there any indications it exists?
2) Need: Should we be able to explain everything we might assign to free will, like emotions and actions with enough understanding of how humans work?
As with everything else, the sum of the answers to those questions should be that you think something is more probable than something else.
|
On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote:
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. ... It would be an evil act regardless.
Evil is not a concept in physics. It doesn't exist in OP's hard deterministic world.
The real world is much more than just what we currently understand about physics.
Just because we can not conceive of something deterministically, doesn't prove that it doesn't exist IMO.
P.S. just because Envy is back in town doesn't make it not over
|
On March 08 2012 02:31 bITt.mAN wrote:
I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if GOD wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Well that relies on the belief[spoiler=wut?]Read the introduction to Tim Keller's book "The Reason for GOD". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true".
The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't.
So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in GOD's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Gospel?
I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if ALLAH wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Well that relies on the belief[spoiler=wut?]Read the introduction to Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi's book "An introduction to Islam". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true".
The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't.
So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in ALLAH's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Five Pillars?
|
On March 08 2012 12:20 Rodimus Prime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 02:31 bITt.mAN wrote:
I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if GOD wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Well that relies on the belief[spoiler=wut?]Read the introduction to Tim Keller's book "The Reason for GOD". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true".
The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't.
So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in GOD's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Gospel? I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if ALLAH wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us." Well that relies on the belief[spoiler=wut?]Read the introduction to Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi's book "An introduction to Islam". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true". The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't. So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in ALLAH's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Five Pillars?
I heard the jews have a pretty sweet religion too. Catharsism's kinda exotic.
I actually love the ending; "Would you rather live in the actual world... or a fairy tale?" (alternatively read as "something else"). I'm pretty sure the real world exists, I'm pretty sure there are too many fairy tales to believe them all. Therefore, I'll go with the real world.
Edit: I would love to express my thoughts on the concept of free will but honestly I haven't come to a conclusion worth sharing. What I will say is that, for me, if everything is determined it will change nothing for me personally. This is, as has been pointed out, most relevant for legal systems and placing focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution. Luckily this is already the case in Sweden.
|
On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 23:12 seppolevne wrote:On March 07 2012 21:11 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 11:06 gyth wrote:On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote:
So what exactly is free will? The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions. A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms? Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will. A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil. I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will... Do you mind to explain why? No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
|
On March 06 2012 15:36 shinyA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote:Some further thoughts. Why do christians argue that their god wants free will? 1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth. 2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful. 3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known. Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
God created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them. God is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of God as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but God - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that God would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward. As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without God ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing. For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter. It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove God's existence in your argument trying to refute it. EDIT - and on a side note, if God is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
Lord Brahma created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them.
Lord Brahma is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of Lord Brahma as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but Lord Brahma - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that Lord Brahma would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward.
As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without Lord Brahma ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If Lord Brahma came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
It reminds me of something like this:
1.If there is no Lord Brahma then there is no absolute morality
2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative
3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist
4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil
So in a way you prove Lord Brahma's existence in your argument trying to refute it.
EDIT - and on a side note, if Lord Brahma is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
I fully expect you to go and read the Hindu scriptures now and believe in Lord Brahma, as I have provided a perfect argument proving evidence of Lord Brahma's existence. You cannot argue with my logic.
Here is a starting point for you:
http://www.iloveindia.com/spirituality/gods/brahma.html
![[image loading]](http://www.iloveindia.com/spirituality/gods/gifs/brahma-hindu-god.jpg)
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 07 2012 20:45 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 09:20 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:48 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 22:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:08 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 20:24 sigma_x wrote:On March 06 2012 18:11 somatic wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will. "If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?" As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested. "Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? " If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible. Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned. If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it. ***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will". The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all. Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen. Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism. "Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen." I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved. If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen. As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense. Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will. Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now. Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden. Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy. You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier. The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist. Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general. One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you. In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read. You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament. To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor. And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science? Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely. I said free will contradicts our current understanding of the universe. This is simply true in the sense that if free will exists, everything we know about the universe would be wrong. It would imply that the human brain can bend the laws of physics and can rearrange the of motions of particles according to whatever we will. Therefore, such a discovery would fundamentally contradict and rewrite all we know about physics. It is not a stretch to say that the free will I talked about in the OP is unscientific, unproven, and as false as fairies and gods. Think about what sort of physics is needed to be consistent with free will, one possible wonky explanation could be that there is a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist. Another possibility is that the universe isn't governed by laws at all, so you do have free will as it wouldn't violate the nonexistent laws of physics. This seems a bit harder to sell. You say that our current understanding of the universe isn't sufficient for me to so confidently claim that free will does not exist. Our science also isn't sufficiently advanced to rule out fairies. That's why my argument is that free will almost certainly does not exist because it is inconsistent with what we know about the universe, the same argument that is used to rule out the existence of fairies. Show nested quote +The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) .
Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are
1. A LOT of prophecies
2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21).
Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head
3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity. You've essentially cherry-picked certain parts of the Bible while ignoring the parts that do not conform to your worldview. In the process you've made many seriously false claims. Saying that the barbaric rhetoric in the Old Testament is to show us what not to do today is simply delusional. The Old Testament calls for the killing of homosexuals, the repression and mistreatment of women and the mass-murder of people. Nowhere does it say in the Bible: "oh, by the way, where it says to kill all the unbelievers, we really put that in to show you that that's what you shouldn't do". You can find references for all these evils I mentioned in the Old Testament here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/641920-the-god-of-the-old-testamentAlso, you've just made that up. It is not the mainstream view of the Church that the Old Testament was written to tell us what not to do. The Old Testament was written by men thousands of years before our time, and it's a direct reflection of the cruel and misogynistic social attitudes of the time. You've essentially cherry-picked the parts which expresses social attitudes that you agree with and classified the others as not to be taken at face value. Moreover, the vilification of homosexuals in modern society is led proudly by the Church and it's homophobic followers. Therefore, this reserve-psychology strategy is not only untrue, but utterly failing too. Your defense of the Genesis creation is absolutely unscientific. You claim that Genesis says the earth was created in 7 equal lengths of time, but this is completely erroneous. Here's some real science for you, the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago and the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago, not over 7 equal lengths of time. Indeed, Genesis goes further to claim that God created light on the first day, and divided the water from the skies on the second day. There was no Earth at that point in time for the universe to be divided into water and sky. On the fourth day he creates the Sun. So where did the light on Earth on the first day come from? On the 5th day he makes living creatures and birds. What about evolution? These ideas are utter and completely unscientific. Furthermore, they are in direct contradiction with rigorously verified and tested science. And yet you claim this old tome to be a work of perfection. No, it's a heap of falsified nonsense. You've also latched onto an ambiguous passage about the earth being round, even though another poster has already shown that to be an inaccurate interpretation. If it was known in the Bible the earth was round so many years ago, then why wasn't it explicitly and zealously preached in the text of the Bible, as opposed to being merely referenced in one obscure and ambiguous line? You further assert that there is archeological proof of events in the Bible. But this again is cherry-picking what there is and isn't proof of. There's proof that the person Jesus existed. But there's no proof that his birth was immaculate, no proof that he walked on water, no proof he rose from the dead. There's no proof because these claims are absurd and would contradict all of modern science. There's archeological proof of dinosaurs. Where's that in the Bible? It's not in the Bible because the writers thousands of years ago weren't aware of the extinction of the dinosaurs. The fingerprints of unlearned men from an ancient era are all over the morally reprehensible, unscientific nonsense that is spouted in the Bible. The most disingenuous of your arguments is that the immaculate conception of Jesus is a miracle and therefore doesn't need proof. This just goes to show that your personal quest for scientific explanations of biblical claims is a dishonest sham. You accept what can be explained away with wishful thinking, such as the Fall of Man due to free will (although I've shown why this is false), while dismissing what can't be explained as a miracle, thereby needing no further explanation. You search for interpretations of the Bible to make them conform with each other and with the world around us, or at least in your mind. You've done it here, and you've done it in the "bugs with 4 legs" argument. It is truely insulting that you do this, yet claim to be rational and scientifically minded. This is the antithesis of science. Science makes hypothesis, verifies or falsifies it by experimentation, and then refines it. Science does not deduce truth by semantically interpreting and reinterpreting debunked texts to suit the worldview we want. Of course, there are far more flaws, intolerance, and scientific untruths in the Bible than merely what you have alluded to in the quote and subsequent posts. The homo sapein race has been on Earth for 200,000 years, in the first 198,000 years before the Bible, when our ancestors were murdering each other with stone tools, dying in child birth, worshiping hundreds of different false gods, what did God do? Where was he during this 99% span of human existence? He was a no show because he didn't exist, the Abrahamic God was invented a few thousand years ago and the evidence for this is reflected in the simple-minded and archaic myths of earlier generations.
I gotta give credit to your tenacity  i'll wrap up my posts here because this informal discussion is warranting too much time to continue and i can see my purpose here will not be fulfilled, had the discussion been met with a more sincere attitude i suppose i would of continued.
I've not ignored or disowned any parts of the bible in my discussions yet, probably most people you have encountered in your past discussions of bible will have done so, so please do not lump me as subscribing to the same philosophies as the rest and then pre-counter an argument i haven't made yet. I should have demonstrated clearly through my posts so far about my opinion of popular christianity so your argument that my point does not fit in with what mainstream christianity believes is a bit confusing. Its like your saying im wrong because i dont believe what the churches teach, who themselves are also wrong in your view...
As for the list of points on the dawkins website I will quickly throw an answer back for the first point which is along the lines of God is unpleasant because of: [insert supporting scripture out of context] (2 chronicles15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.")
not my own words here
'Asa is thereafter met by the prophet Azariah, who reminds him: “Jehovah is with you as long as you prove to be with him,” and “if you leave him he will leave you.” He calls to mind the destructive strife the nation experienced when alienated from Jehovah and urges Asa to continue his activity courageously on behalf of pure worship. (2Ch 15:1-7) Asa’s ready response and strengthening of the nation in true service to Jehovah results in a great number of persons from the northern kingdom abandoning that region to join in a grand assembly at Jerusalem in Asa’s 15th year of rule (963 B.C.E.), at which assembly a covenant is made declaring the people’s determination to seek Jehovah and providing the death penalty for those not keeping this covenant'
note that no one was forcing the people from the northern kingdom to agree to this covenant, if they wanted to be a part of Jehovahs people at that time and live under His protection they had to abide by His rules....anyway thats my take on it seeing that scripture for the first time there is a lot of other stuff probably going on at that time that i dont know about so hopefully thats the right idea.
Having a scientific mind im sure you are aware of what extrapolation is. Carbon dating takes a trend that applies over a couple of centuries and assumes it stays true for billions of years, till the dawn of the universe even. Stating such dates as fact is poor scientific technique. Its funny how some things take off and others dont. Its almost as if our thoughts and 'wills' are subject to some sort of external influence that we don't know about....
This sort of logic applies to the real topic of this thread i think also. I think one can only properly subscribe to the possibility there is no such thing as free will given a much greater detail of how our brain works, or in specific how our thoughts develop. I would say that as animals we are bound to our environment and all the inputs we get are a result of it therefore it heavily guides what our will is. So in a sense its not absolute freedom.
As for my most disingenuous of arguments- the miraculous birth of Jesus, i just meant that acquiring any proof of it is likely impossible so why waste time trying to prove or disprove it.. time is better spent looking for answers elsewhere. I was not saying that it was above scrutiny and one must blindly take it as truth, as you would have people believe.
What we know from science so far is so little compared to everything that we could know, 'the more we know the more we know we dont know as the saying goes' to try and subscribe to these big over arching theories as if they were fact is foolishness. It sure is fun the think about these things and learn from them but really we're just scratching the surface.
|
On March 08 2012 14:40 Rodimus Prime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 15:36 shinyA wrote:On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote:Some further thoughts. Why do christians argue that their god wants free will? 1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth. 2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful. 3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known. Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
God created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them. God is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of God as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but God - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that God would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward. As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without God ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing. For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter. It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove God's existence in your argument trying to refute it. EDIT - and on a side note, if God is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word. Lord Brahma created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them. Lord Brahma is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of Lord Brahma as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but Lord Brahma - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that Lord Brahma would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward. As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without Lord Brahma ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing. For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If Lord Brahma came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter. It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no Lord Brahma then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove Lord Brahma's existence in your argument trying to refute it. EDIT - and on a side note, if Lord Brahma is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word. I fully expect you to go and read the Hindu scriptures now and believe in Lord Brahma, as I have provided a perfect argument proving evidence of Lord Brahma's existence. You cannot argue with my logic. Here is a starting point for you: http://www.iloveindia.com/spirituality/gods/brahma.html
Nice try. You've totally and completely refuted my post in a coherent and logical way!
Except my post had very little to do about God, more to do with the logic behind the creator of a Universe. You really didn't change my post much, a more accurate edit would be to replace God with 'creator'. I'm not really sure what your post is implying or trying to accomplish. You end up looking like an immature and ignorant child.
|
Good and evil are human constructs to begin with. There is biological pain, the electrical process that's sent from our brains throughout our nervous system, and then there is emotional pain. I try my best to reduce the amount of pain I cause myself and others. You don't need a creator to understand that.
|
On March 08 2012 14:40 Rodimus Prime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 15:36 shinyA wrote:On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote:Some further thoughts. Why do christians argue that their god wants free will? 1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth. 2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful. 3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known. Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
God created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them. God is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of God as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but God - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that God would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward. As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without God ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing. For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter. It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove God's existence in your argument trying to refute it. EDIT - and on a side note, if God is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word. Lord Brahma created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them. Lord Brahma is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of Lord Brahma as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but Lord Brahma - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that Lord Brahma would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward... + Show Spoiler +As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without Lord Brahma ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing. For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If Lord Brahma came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter. It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no Lord Brahma then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove Lord Brahma's existence in your argument trying to refute it. EDIT - and on a side note, if Lord Brahma is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word. I fully expect you to go and read the Hindu scriptures now and believe in Lord Brahma, as I have provided a perfect argument proving evidence of Lord Brahma's existence. You cannot argue with my logic. Here is a starting point for you: http://www.iloveindia.com/spirituality/gods/brahma.html
Will you stop it already? You're clogging up the thread for no good reason.
|
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
|
On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision. There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it. Why? Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions? I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes? Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not? Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why? If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
Yeah I have to agree with you here, the main problem I have though is whether this is the correct definition of free will. I know he just said that is what free will means to him so I wont be too critical. Personally I think that free will is the capacity to make decisions despite influencing factors, not without any influencing factors, otherwise free will is an impossible concept right?
|
On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
More the opposite. A person in the same body can show a change in behavior after a change to the brain.
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
Exactly. Determinism is probably true in the really real sense. But it is a deeply dissatisfying answer to the question because it seems to dispel concepts like free will and good/evil. Concepts which seem intrinsically meaningful, but lack a truly objective basis.
Holding ourselves to a subjective standard is possibly a necessary step in coming together under a social contract. That this standard can not be uniquely determined means that we are socially obligated to believe things we can no longer prove. You could negatively frame that as brainwashing, but IEM is starting and my brain stopped working... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
