• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The free will argument

Thief

Rogue Theologian
All our actions are conditioned or they are by randomness/probability. There is no free-will, though we feel we have it.
Why? Some power was dictating it? He certainly did not prove it convincingly. So many people disbelieve.
well.....I have heard an expression that sounded like....
controlling the dumb masses

some power?......His Power?

some other Self?

pick any Name you CHOOSE to

it will always be spelled.....Almighty
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
No, in this context with God I mean any metaphysical reality, it could be the Christian god, the Muslim god, Einstein’s God, or “Mystical new age energy”
does that God have a mind and emotional heart?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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?
The whole thing seems like kind of a mess, frankly.

For me to say which part is false, it would need to be coherent.

*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.
How is that sort of "free will" different from just "will?"
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
No, you can't really define subjectivity in objective terms, so that science can study it.
I do not believe in anything which cannot be objectively defined, and science can investigate these things. I differ with you. One must have control over his/her words and must know the subject clearly. Don't we now understand relativity and some of Quantum Mechanics?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I do not believe in anything which cannot be objectively defined, and science can investigate these things. I differ with you. One must have control over his/her words and must know the subject clearly. Don't we now understand relativity and some of Quantum Mechanics?

Yeah, now do everything as you stated above in objective terms. You can't in practice, you can just subjectively deny that you are subjective.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
and did someone twist your arm and force that denial?
I tried to explain why we sometimes fail to mention the problem clearly and correctly. Confusion leads to questions like in this OP. What is it that cannot be checked with science?
But physics is not everything.
Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Anthropology, Paleontology, we have put these artificial barriers. Basically the whole of it is just knowledge, science. Even the existence of God and his messengers (prophets / sons / manifestations / mahdis) should be checked with science. People do not do it, because it hurts their cultural and religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
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.

Actually, free will can't exist if a god that knows the future exists. Free will is only possible in an godless universe.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I would attack both premises. So, let's start with the first.

Let us assume that creatures with free will (whose definition and scope we assume known) exist,
how do you infer from that fact that God exists?

Ciao

- viole
people like @shunyadragon and @Polymath257 made a similar point


Free will can be defined as the ability to make choices, so if your decision to eat a healthy salad rather than a burger was not 100% constrained by your molecules, electric impulses, the environment, advertisements, etc. you can say that you freely decided to eat that salad. And other way to put it is that you could have chosen differently given the same circumstances. … is there any question on what I mean by free will?

The argument would for premise 1 be:

1 If the material world is all there is then your “choices” will be fully dependent on material stuff like electric impulses, the position of your neurons, molecules in your body etc.

2 material stuff like electric impulses in your brain are fully determined by the laws of nature

Therefore your choices would fully determined by the laws of nature.


So please explain your points of disagreement ¿do you grant that electric impulses in your brain are fully determined by the deterministic (or random) laws of nature? yes or no Do you grant that decisions are fully determined by those electric impulses in your brain (+other material deterministic or random stuff) yes or no


Reed more…

Jerry A. Coyne: You Don't Have Free Will
 
Last edited:
Top