The free will argument

[Altfish]

Premise 1 if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

Premise 2 there are creatures with free will

Therefore God exists


So if you are an Atheist, agnostic, non theist etc. Which premise would you deny 1 or 2?


*with free will I simply mean "the hability to descide" for example desciding between eating a healthy salad or a hamburger would be an example of free will.

Premise 1 if The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

Premise 2 there are creatures with free will

Therefore The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists

That's not an argument, it is poppycock

 

[Polymath257]

You can't see a definition. You can subjectively make sense of it. Learn to describe what you actually do.

How do I know that what I do is 'free will'?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How do I know that what I do is 'free will'?

You can't know if you have free will or not. You can believe in it or not. There are behaviors, which humans have, which can't be done as scientific behavior. Yes, science is a behavior and it relates to a certain type of behavior.

You are aware that scientists can be studied just like everything else and their behavior can be described and explained. Indeed if you study that, you will find that some of the behaviors, that scientist have, are subjective.

 

[Polymath257]

You can't know if you have free will or not. You can believe in it or not. There are behaviors, which humans have, which can't be done as scientific behavior. Yes, science is a behavior and it relates to a certain type of behavior.

Can you choose to believe? Or do you believe because you are convinced?

You are aware that scientists can be studied just like everything else and their behavior can be described and explained. Indeed if you study that, you will find that some of the behaviors, that scientist have, are subjective.

How does that relate to the question of free will?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you choose to believe? Or do you believe because you are convinced?

The latter, but it is still not science as such.

How does that relate to the question of free will?

You can't answer all questions to the effect of: Yes and No using science in the strong sense. You can't answer using science if humans have free will or not, because you can't observe neither.

 

[`mud]

The will to cry at birth
The will to succeed or not
The will to believe or not
The will to cry for death

I agree that it's not free at all

How many `gods` does one have to believe in ?
I think they would all fly away,
they're scaring my butterflies !

 

[cladking]

Premise 1 if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

Premise 2 there are creatures with free will

Therefore God exists

You have a very strong argument but like all arguments that can't be stated mathematically, it assumes the conclusion.

You have linked "God" with known reality in your first premise. ie there is no reason to presuppose that in a universe with no God that there is no life.

I still sympathize with your argument because it is apparent that free will (consciousness) is the basis of all individual life and there is an unknown "magic" each experience at being aware of itself and/ or surroundings. Those who choose to scoff at the word "magic" should work on inventing a definition for "consciousness" that can lay a foundation for its scientific study.

If we define "God" as an unknown force that may have created life and allows individuals to survive then the argument is stronger but becomes a virtual tautology.

 

[exchemist]

Premise 1 if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

Premise 2 there are creatures with free will

Therefore God exists


So if you are an Atheist, agnostic, non theist etc. Which premise would you deny 1 or 2?


*with free will I simply mean "the hability to descide" for example desciding between eating a healthy salad or a hamburger would be an example of free will.

Both.

 

[night912]

Premise 1 if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

Premise 2 there are creatures with free will

Therefore God exists


So if you are an Atheist, agnostic, non theist etc. Which premise would you deny 1 or 2?


*with free will I simply mean "the hability to descide" for example desciding between eating a healthy salad or a hamburger would be an example of free will.

There is another way one can go upon dismantling this argument. Premise 1, in fact does it easily just by reading it by itself.

If god doesn't exist, then the whole premise itself is not true. Think about it. Can a red ball be red if there is no red ball?

 

[Thief]

*with free will I simply mean "the hability to descide" for example desciding between eating a healthy salad or a hamburger would be an example of free will.

not sure if that line drawn is sufficiently decisive

free will is present in a moment of choice?
and if there are no secondary options.....no free will

I believe freewill is present at all times


but that may not be enough.....just saying so
I choose to think
I choose the item to think about
and I can even choose to be contrary.....just to say I can do so

but those are choices......too

 

[Thief]

but from a Creator's perspective

to say I AM!.....there should be something to show for it

He had no choice
but to create

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

there are creatures with free will

Probably not. What we have is the illusion of free will - the experience that we have an urge or desire that we can and do indulge.

But that is not free will. That is merely serving as the conscious overseer of a process that he did not initiate. Neural circuits measure the osmolality according to the degree of concentration or dilution of the blood (variation from normal), decide that it is too high, that the body needs water, and sends a signal to the consciousness to seek a drink. Assuming that there are no barriers to drinking, one gets a drink.

As far as we know, there is no free will there - just the illusion of same. You didn't choose to be thirsty. The conscious self is not the source of the will, merely a recipient of its instructions.

You might say, "Ah, but yes, I can choose not to drink." Not without a second, more powerful and conflicting message delivered to the conscious self that one wants to refrain from drinking for whatever reason - perhaps to "prove" to himself that he has free will.

What most people mean by free will is that the conscious self is the author of its desires and choices rather than being a passive recipient of and conduit for unseen neural circuits connecting desire to action, that is, that these desires and choices are uncaused by material neurological mechanisms and have no prior cause originating outside of consciousness.

That's impossible. No conscious experience is uncaused, and the source of any sensation, thought, feeling, or urge is always outside of consciousness, precedes consciousness, and informs consciousness.

if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

You haven't defined what you mean by free will, which is likely what I have called the illusion of free will, where one doesn't realize that the self, by which I mean the observer in the theater of consciousness distinct from brain functions informing that self through conscious phenomena, are not the source of one's will or decisions.

 

[night912]

There is another way one can go upon dismantling this argument. Premise 1, in fact does it easily just by reading it by itself.

If god doesn't exist, then the whole premise itself is not true. Think about it. Can a red ball be red if there is no red ball?

This is why in logic, it's illogical to think that nonexistent "things" require evidence to support its nonexistence. It's only the things that exist and/or being proposed, are required to have evidence to support its existence.

So for all you theists out there that are making excuses and crying about atheists just wanting the easy way out by not having to give evidence, you're an illogical thinker in regards to the (non)existence of god. So face it, atheists are given an easy way out whether they want it or not. And just to give you another slap in the face again for the fun of it, even those theists who you might have called, "fake" theists, also agree with this regarding this specific issue. They do still have some ind of logical thinking in regarding wh

 

[Polymath257]

The latter, but it is still not science as such.

You can't answer all questions to the effect of: Yes and No using science in the strong sense. You can't answer using science if humans have free will or not, because you can't observe neither.

I'd say that we can't answer it through science because it isn't well enough defined to be precisely studied. In those situations where it *can* be defined, science *can* study it (and has, witness the link to neurosciences above).

 

[Aupmanyav]

All our actions are conditioned or they are by randomness/probability. There is no free-will, though we feel we have it.

He had no choice
but to create

Why? Some power was dictating it? He certainly did not prove it convincingly. So many people disbelieve.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd say that we can't answer it through science because it isn't well enough defined to be precisely studied. In those situations where it *can* be defined, science *can* study it (and has, witness the link to neurosciences above).

No, you can't really define subjectivity in objective terms, so that science can study it. You can cheat and be subjective without realizing it and claim that you are doing science.

Your subjective rule is that all words can be defined objectively or that is irreverent(and you gloss over that it is irrelvant to you based on your subjective cognition). You haven't tested that, because the test is philosophical and not scientific. So in effect you answer with another form of philosophy and don't realize that it is subjective and you declare victory, because subjectively makes sense to you and my version is subjectively nonsense to you. You don't realize that makes sense and nonsense as you do it, are neither science. We are playing philosophy.

 

[questfortruth]

if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

Better to say: if miracles don't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

 

[Polymath257]

No, you can't really define subjectivity in objective terms, so that science can study it. You can cheat and be subjective without realizing it and claim that you are doing science.

Your subjective rule is that all words can be defined objectively or that is irreverent(and you gloss over that it is irrelvant to you based on your subjective cognition). You haven't tested that, because the test is philosophical and not scientific. So in effect you answer with another form of philosophy and don't realize that it is subjective and you declare victory, because subjectively makes sense to you and my version is subjectively nonsense to you. You don't realize that makes sense and nonsense as you do it, are neither science. We are playing philosophy.

Well, as far as I can determine, 'free will' has something to do with choices not being 'previously determined' by some sort of 'causality'.

Now, the only place where I have seen a good definition of the concept of 'causality' is in a scientific context. And, while I make choices, it is far from clear to me what the causal links are between those choices and other events. Furthermore, the very term 'free will' suggests that *I* am a causal factor that determines what happens one way or another, so it must be possible to have more than one future when the choice is made. I don't know what *that* even means outside of some predictive model.

 

[`mud]

causality...the source of all the `free` stuff,
our `will` included, from the true cause...
reach in and get some, it's all free you know !

 

[Nakosis]

Premise 1 if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

Premise 2 there are creatures with free will

Therefore God exists


So if you are an Atheist, agnostic, non theist etc. Which premise would you deny 1 or 2?


*with free will I simply mean "the hability to descide" for example desciding between eating a healthy salad or a hamburger would be an example of free will.

I think you would need to define God and God's attributes. In the case of a God who is omniscient, free will may not be a possibility.

Using "God" in a premise is not very definitive.