The free will argument

[leroy]

Both.

If you deny freewill (as I defined it) then why did you make a big deal out of naturalism in the other post?

The "massive bias towards naturalism" of course is what makes science science. The success of this "bias" (i.e. science) is abundantly clear.

If there is no free will then everything that scientists say including their naturalistic conclutions is fully determined by the electrical impulses and the position of neurons in their brains, under your view scientist say that the earth is old and moreless spherical because they happened to have a given combination and order of neurons in their brains,that force them to belive and to say such things

If they would have had neurons in some other position they would have said something different (for example that the earth is flat or that the earth is young)

And given that the position of the neurons was fully determined since the big bang, why should we trust scientists and their naturalistic conclusions? After all if the initial conditions at the big bang would have been different scientists would have had a different pattern of neurons, and they would have been saying something different about the earth.

 

[leroy]

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?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.

What about historical truths (like the claim alexander the great was born in Macedonia) or morality (it wrong to kill innocent people for fun) or personal experiences (today I had a dream where I couldn’t find my dog) or logic (you can’t have a married bachelor)

none of these can be tested by science but they are still part of our knowledge.
And hopefully you would agree that it’s rational to accept truths on the basis of history, morality, logic, personal experiences etc.

 

[leroy]

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

I don’t grant that statement.

Pretend that today I freely choose between a healthy salad and a hamburger,

Now pretend that a time traveler quietly observed my decision ¿in what way would this time traveler change the fact that I freely choose between a salad and a hamburger.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t know, you can call it will, free will or give it an other name, I already defined what I mean, feel free to label that definition however you want.

So what you're calling "free will" could include compelled or forced will? Weird, but okay.

In that case, your second statement seems trivially true and your first statement seems to just be an unfounded assertion.

 

[ratiocinator]

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 was going to say 2 until your loose definition of "free will" (a chess computer can decide between moves, and so has "free will", according to that definition), in which case I'd deny 1, but on further consideration, premiss 1 is all but meaningless anyway, without a definition of "God". The whole thing isn't even coherent enough to be considered an argument.

ETA: "Free will" is often defined as the ability to have done differently, which would imply randomness, not will, so with that definition, "free will" isn't even a self-consistent concept - with or without some undefined notion of "God".

 

[Nakosis]

I don’t grant that statement.

Pretend that today I freely choose between a healthy salad and a hamburger,

Now pretend that a time traveler quietly observed my decision ¿in what way would this time traveler change the fact that I freely choose between a salad and a hamburger.

Being a time traveler is not quite the same as being omniscient.

They would have to know what you would eat before you made a choice.

 

[leroy]

So what you're calling "free will" could include compelled or forced will? Weird, but okay.

In that case, your second statement seems trivially true and your first statement seems to just be an unfounded assertion.

I don’t know, I have no idea what you mean by will or “forced will, “ I told you what I mean by free will, if you what to give it another name feel free to do so as long as you don’t change the definition.

 

[leroy]

I was going to say 2 until your loose definition of "free will" (a chess computer can decide between moves, and so has "free will", according to that definition), in which case I'd deny 1, but on further consideration, premiss 1 is all but meaningless anyway, without a definition of "God". The whole thing isn't even coherent enough to be considered an argument.

ETA: "Free will" is often defined as the ability to have done differently, which would imply randomness, not will, so with that definition, "free will" isn't even a self-consistent concept - with or without some undefined notion of "God".

A chess computer I fully determined by an algorithm, a computer doesn’t have free will. ……..would you say that the human brain is analogous to a chess computer? Or would you say that we truly decide without being fully constrained by electric impulses in our brain.

 

[leroy]

Being a time traveler is not quite the same as being omniscient.

They would have to know what you would eat before you made a choice.

Granted, a time traveler observed me making the choice long before I was born…in what way does that invalidate the claim that I made a free choice?

 

[Nakosis]

Granted, a time traveler observed me making the choice long before I was born…in what way does that invalidate the claim that I made a free choice?

In which case you couldn't have chosen otherwise. IOW you were not free to make a choice in the sense that you could have chosen either.

 

[ratiocinator]

A chess computer I fully determined by an algorithm, a computer doesn’t have free will.

It does by the definition you gave in the OP, it makes choices between available options.

……..would you say that the human brain is analogous to a chess computer?

Very, very loosely.

Or would you say that we truly decide without being fully constrained by electric impulses in our brain.

Either we decide entirely deterministically, or there is randomness involved (whether our minds are entirely physical or not). If we could literally rewind time and make the same choice, in exactly the same circumstances (both state of mind and external circumstances) again, then either we couldn't do differently (determinism), or we could. If we could, there could be no possible reason for the difference (everything would be exactly the same), so we have a random element.

Free will in the sense that we could do differently but it still be meaningful or purposeful, rather than just random, isn't even a self-consistent concept.

 

[leroy]

It does by the definition you gave in the OP, it makes choices between available options

The computer doesn’t make choices, given the algorithm, and the position of the keyboard, the computer would necessarily make “that” specific move.

Free will in the sense that we could do differently but it still be meaningful or purposeful, rather than just random, isn't even a self-consistent concept.

Yes, that is my point, as a “non-theist” you are forced to take that view…..if matter is determinist (or perhaps random according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics) why would human brains be different.

But if we are more than just matter (as theist would sometimes say) then at least the door is open to the possibility that we might be capable of things that go beyond what matter can do. (free will being one example)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The computer doesn’t make choices, given the algorithm, and the position of the keyboard, the computer would necessarily make “that” specific move.



Yes, that is my point, as a “non-theist” you are forced to take that view…..if matter is determinist (or perhaps random according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics) why would human brains be different.

But if we are more than just matter (as theist would sometimes say) then at least the door is open to the possibility that we might be capable of things that go beyond what matter can do. (free will being one example)

Yeah and you could be religious and still not believe in free will as nothing other than a belief, you have faith in and thus nothing else.

 

[leroy]

Yeah and you could be religious and still not believe in free will as nothing other than a belief, you have faith in and thus nothing else.

Yeah and you could be religious and still not believe in free will as nothing other than a belief, you have faith in and thus nothing else.

I have “faith” in free will in the same sense I have faith that I’m awake and not dreaming or living inside the matrix.

It simply feels as if I have free will in the same way it feels that I am not dreaming and unless you provide evidence to the contrary I think I am being rational in accepting both claims as real…….would you disagree?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have “faith” in free will in the same sense I have faith that I’m awake and not dreaming or living inside the matrix.

It simply feels as if I have free will in the same way it feels that I am not dreaming and unless you provide evidence to the contrary I think I am being rational in accepting both claims as real…….would you disagree?

No, I agree. That is also how I do faith and not just "faith".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A chess computer I fully determined by an algorithm, a computer doesn’t have free will.

By your definition in the OP, a computer does have free will.

 

[leroy]

By your definition in the OP, a computer does have free will.

how so?

 

[Gandalf]

I believe in a single god yet do not believe in free will. I am whole heartedly a determinist in every single sense of the word so as to how this is even relevant confuses me. Not just the premise and conclusion are wrong but the presumption of the quantifiers and even the semantics is entirely wrong.

Why does free will become inherent upon the existence of a deity? What type of deity make that an ontological reality? Etc.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don’t grant that statement.

Pretend that today I freely choose between a healthy salad and a hamburger,

Now pretend that a time traveler quietly observed my decision ¿in what way would this time traveler change the fact that I freely choose between a salad and a hamburger.

If an omnipotent god already knows what you're gonna choose, I'd say that your choice, while it "feels" free, is actually not free--the sense of freedom is illusory. But I suppose whether it is really free or not depends on your definition of "free will." I always thought free will meant having the power to change your fate or the future, which, if a god exists, by definition cannot exist because the future already exists in the mind of God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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 have reason to believe that creatures with free will exist, but there is absolutely zero verifiable evidence that some god being is requires for creatures to have free will.