Does Free Will Exist?

[Trailblazer]

I think it is possible for those choices to have some level of determinism involved with them though since humans can't choose what they want.

I think some things are predetermined by God but we can still make choices. We choose what God knows we will choose but God does not make us choose it.

We cannot choose to do anything we want to but we can choose between different options that are available to us. We think, we apply our will, and then we act. It is our thoughts that determine what we will do at any given time. Our emotions also affect how we will act.

 

[osgart]

Hmm, antecedent causes, i am caused solely by prior existing things. A billion dominoes fall in the universe and they all decide that i am to have tacos for dinner. I wanted just a salad but some strange twist of opportunity landed me on tacos. The Big Bang made me do it. And we all know there is only one way of that. If it could have, it would have ,and it didnt so there is no possibility of if. If is an unuseable word. There is only do. Dobedobedoo!

The words consideration and if have no real meaning.

Let's see i just made up something that did not exist prior to me making it up. Does that mean it is outside of my will to act on this thing?

Useless words for non free willers:

Choice,
If,
Consideration,
Option,
Freedom,
Judgment
Restraint

Blah!

All these driving forces pushing all my yes/no responses. And none of it has to do with me.

Blah!





​

 

[Skwim]

"wind back the clock in any situation"

Go ahead. Do it! Wind the clock back right now to the point before I posted this reply! C'mon. What are you waiting for?



Still waiting for you to turn back time... still hasn't happened yet. Hmm.

My sympathies for your lack of understanding.

He didn't say the other definitions that people use are "better".

YOU: "I have pointed out the better definition for Free Will (a definition he acknowledges that people use)."

Now, if the only way you can explain yourself is to quibble about semantics, have a good day.

But he did the proper thing and gave a definition at the start of the video before arguments take place, despite there being a variety of different definitions to 'choose' from. That was very important: definition up front.

Re-watched the beginning and saw no such thing. The first definition he uses is "Free will is the ability to have acted differently."

But... eventually...
He breaks down Free Will into one of two options: being forced or doing what you want and basically this is the point where he has presented the popular definition of Free Will.

Not at all. He breaks down DOING into two possibilities: because you Wanted to, OR because you were Forced to. Being forced to do something, which would be in contradiction to your wants, has nothing to do with your will, be it free or not.

He goes on to present a clip of Matt Dillahunty where Matt presents the difference between jumping off stage and being pushed off stage. This is what I mean by his acknowledgement of other definitions for Free Will.

So just how does this other definition read? All Dillahunty did was give an example of doing something ones self and somebody else doing something. This hardly amounts to a definition of free will. It's like saying "eating" is defined as putting food in one's mouth or someone else putting food in your mouth. Is that how you would define "eating"? Of course not. It's dumb.

.

.

 

[Skwim]

Hmm, antecedent causes, i am caused solely by prior existing things. A billion dominoes fall in the universe and they all decide that i am to have tacos for dinner.​

No, they decided you'd want tacos, which is why you would have them for dinner.

I wanted just a salad but some strange twist of opportunity landed me on tacos.

If you r e a l l y wanted a salad instead of tacos then that's what you'd have. But you r e a l l y didn't want a salad. You r e a l l y wanted tacos. Next time you want a salad it better be a stronger "want" than wanting tacos.

​

 

[ecco]

Since free will is an illusion, it's also nothing but a lame excuse for certain problems that theists run into, for example, why a good god would allow evil to exist.

Free Will is not an illusion. For those who skimmed the video, sometimes I choose vanilla, sometimes chocolate.
Free Will has no bearing on why or why not a god would allow evil to exist.

In short, Alex's premise is nonsensical.

 

[osgart]

No, they decided you'd want tacos, which is why you would have them for dinner.


If you r e a l l y wanted a salad instead of tacos then that's what you'd have. But you r e a l l y didn't want a salad. You r e a l l y wanted tacos. Next time you want a salad it better be a stronger "want" than wanting tacos.

​

Sometimes you settle for what you do not want to fix the need.

 

[Skwim]

Sometimes you settle for what you do not want to fix the need.

Which is what you wanted all along: Settling for tacos instead of fighting for your secondary want; a salad.


.

 

[osgart]

Which is what you wanted all along: Settling for tacos instead of fighting for your secondary want; a salad.


.

Yesterday i wanted tacos, but i settled for ham sandwich. I ate it, not out of want, but to curb the want i had. And it did it.

Starving wants can be painful, but nonetheless it is manageable. Although i may have to appeal to a higher motive to do it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Free Will is not an illusion. For those who skimmed the video, sometimes I choose vanilla, sometimes chocolate.

It is not me who thinks free will is an illusion, it is Alex who made the video and the atheist who posted the video to me on another forum.

And since you can choose vanilla or chocolate that means you must have free will to choose. That guy in the video totally missed that not so subtle nuance.

Free Will has no bearing on why or why not a god would allow evil to exist.

In short, Alex's premise is nonsensical.

Of course free will has no bearing on why God allows evil to exist, but it exists because humans have free will and they commit evil acts. What is God supposed to do, stop everyone from doing evil? Why should God intervene that way? What would happen if God took peoples' choices away?

The atheist who posted the video says....

Since free will is an illusion, it's also nothing but a lame excuse for certain problems that theists run into, for example, why a good god would allow evil to exist.

Another reason I'm pretty sure why you cling to it is because free will becomes a handy, albeit lame, excuse when it comes to questions such as why an all-good god who could prevent evil would allow evil to exist. ​

I have been posting to this atheist for five years on several forums so I know his premises and conclusions. He does not think that anyone is responsible for their actions because nobody has free will. He says we are accountable in courts of law because the justice system is based upon the false premise that we have free will. He admits murderers have to be put in prison for the good of society, but he does not think they are responsible for their choices.

He says that murderers are not responsible for committing murders because the circumstances that led them to murder are responsible. Circumstances are a factor that predispose people to murder, but circumstances do not commit murder, people do.

The reason he clings to the belief that we have no free will is because that would mean that humans are responsible for evil rather than God. He thinks that God is responsible for evil because God is omnipotent God so God could and thus should prevent all the evil in the world. A more childlike atheist I have never met. The fact that most atheists do not agree with him does not matter to him, he believes this and he will never change.

You do not know how many times I have invited him to this forum so he could see how rational atheists think, but he tells me I am just lying about what atheists say here. I think I have finally come to the end of the road with him because I have left the Christian forum we were on and he won't post to me anywhere else but where he feels comfortable.

 

[samtonga43]

There would be a reason you picked mango over strawberry, and in effect that reason said to your will "don't pick strawberry, pick mango." And you have no control over how that reasoning works. It's determined by antecedent casual factors.

You won't choose. Choosing is an illusion.

.

If the ice-creams are both mango, and if I want a mango ice-cream, surely i'll have to choose.

 

[Skwim]

He says that murderers are not responsible for committing murders because the circumstances that led them to murder are responsible. Why then do other people NOT commit murder under the same set of circumstances? He has no answer to that.

Because they're NOT, NOT the same set of circumstances. Sheesh! Other people bring with them other backgrounds that impinge on them differently, making their backgrounds NOT the same. And if he has no answer my suspicion is that he's tired of trying to get it through to you and has given up. I know i sure would.

 

[Skwim]

If the ice-creams are both mango, and if I want a mango ice-cream, surely i'll have to choose.

If they're both the same what is it you're "choosing"?

.

 

[samtonga43]

If they're both the same what is it you're "choosing"?

.

One of the mango ice-creams.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because they're NOT, NOT the same set of circumstances. Sheesh! Other people bring with them other backgrounds that impinge on them differently, making their backgrounds NOT the same. And if he has no answer my suspicion is that he's tired of trying to get it through to you and has given up. I know i sure would.

You are right about that, they are not the same set of circumstances, and I almost declined to post that because I knew that.

But you are still wrong that a murderer did not have a choice. Everyone has a choice how to react no matter HOW BAD their childhood was....
What about a premeditated murder for insurance money? Are you going to say they had no choice? Gimmie a break.... Not all murderers had a difficult childhood, some were just selfish and greedy. What a cop-out. The only extenuating circumstances are if they are mentally ill or mentally challenged.

If backgrounds were acceptable as an excuse it would be used in a court of law. Sometimes childhood background enters into the evidence but the fact remains that not everyone with a difficult childhood CHOOSES to commit murder.

 

[Ancient Soul]

That all depends upon how you define free will and soul.

Dogs are probably more like humans than cats are.
I would not go so far as to say that dogs are more intelligent than cats, but.....
Some of the dog rescues are just amazing.
Dogs are probably more selfless than most humans.

What?

I'm disappointed. I was hoping for a good discussion of the issue with you as you have been more articulate than most. But here we are some ways into the discussion and now you seem uncertain as to what "free will" and "soul" even means??!!

So ok, here:

free will
n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

And I will admit that the term "soul" is frequently misused, but from what God has taught me about the soul I will use this definition, although I altered it somewhat by taking out the wording of "humans" as I know that ALL living creatures have a soul or they would not be living at all.

soul
(soʊl)

n.
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body; the spiritual part of living creatures as distinct from the physical.

So with these definitions in mind, can we go back to your statement of:

"No, animals do not have free will because they operate on instinct. Humans have free will because we have a rational mind, which is associated with the soul. Animals do not have a soul, they have an animal spirit."

Now I know that in science class they tried to brainwash us kids with the silly notion that humans were mentally superior to the "lowly animals", so is that where you got that notion from, or is there some other reason for making that statement?

And as to the soul issue, I'm curious as to where you got that belief from?

 

[Ancient Soul]

I do consciously compare things. But I don't get to choose which I like the most. Suppose, for example, that you were to ask me whether I am taller than my sister. I would certainly consciously compare my height with my sister's, but this assessment wouldn't involve any choice. The same applies when you ask me what ice cream flavor I prefer.



I am sorry but I see no contradiction. Can you point out where you see it exactly ?

LOL!

I'm looking for more intelligent conversations/debates, moving on...

 

[Koldo]

LOL!

I'm looking for more intelligent conversations/debates, moving on...

Likewise my friend. Likewise.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Yes, all those actions, freely taken, add up to becoming a Doctor. But "want" isn't sufficient to get one there.

But while there may be "physical constraints" or "reality checks" on the execution of someone's "wanting" to do something, that does not negate anyone's free will.

Many people have used their free will to decide that they can fly off a cliff by flapping their arms fast enough, even though it didn't turn out at all as expected, that was apart from their "free will" decision to do it anyway.

 

[KelseyR]

From my post on this topic:

The best argument for freedom of will is that we, as part of our surroundings have claim to a portion of its sum power. This idea is reinforced by empirically noting the human brain and a need to ascribe some valid function to the intelligence it permits. Free will perfectly fits the bill. Our awareness is not limited to helplessly watching!

Refutation is worthless- for it will necessarily begin with two admissions:
(1) That there was no intent to do so
(2) That it was devoid of intelligence

 

[Trailblazer]

So with these definitions in mind, can we go back to your statement of:

"No, animals do not have free will because they operate on instinct. Humans have free will because we have a rational mind, which is associated with the soul. Animals do not have a soul, they have an animal spirit."

Now I know that in science class they tried to brainwash us kids with the silly notion that humans were mentally superior to the "lowly animals", so is that where you got that notion from, or is there some other reason for making that statement?

You don’t think that humans’ mental abilities are superior to those of animals? When is the last time an animal invented something like an airplane or a cure for cancer?

And as to the soul issue, I'm curious as to where you got that belief from?

I get my beliefs from my religion, the Baha’i Faith. I believe that only humans have a rational soul and other animals have an animal spirit. The rational soul continues to exist in the spiritual world after the body dies, but I do not know if the animal spirit continues to exist in the spiritual world. There are differing opinions among those of my religion regarding this.

I sure hope that animals continue to exist in the spiritual world but there is no way to know.
Since I LIVE for the cats, an afterlife without my cats would be no life at all.

What do you believe?