I too believe in a God who is a Supreme Being who is uncaused and who caused all things
And how this thread played out actually has convinced me I do have free-will, which I (obviously) somewhat doubted
-
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!
we have no free will - prove me wrong!
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
I too believe in a God who is a Supreme Being who is uncaused and who caused all things
And how this thread played out actually has convinced me I do have free-will, which I (obviously) somewhat doubted
I believe it is given by God, the possibility to choose freely what I want.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
How much of "us" and our behaviors and personality are free of external influences?
Precisely an amount equal to influences by god, fate, and random chance.
The context for influences that make will "free" are those that direct our selves despite us.
Curious George
Veteran Member
You mean you wpuld have to choose to test?
And that choice might well be determined.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Then that is no choice at all, but I digress.
What to we hope to attain from this testing in order to conclude that the switch did in fact cause your car to start and stop?
Is it probability? I can already offer that prior to turning the switch the probability of the car starting once the switch was turned was 100% and the probability of it stopping was 100%. So is there a causal connection?
For a sample size of n=2? No conclusion is possible. Testing causality isn't so simple. As you know, correlation doesn't imply causation.
But it seems you want to make a similar claim: we feel like we make a free choice and then we do something. We think the choice was, in fact, free, and the cause of the action.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Yes for that sample size. I gave you the probability. You can assume it is true. What more is needed for causality?
To what degree of certainty? As you know, the confidence intervals go down as the reciprocal of the square root on n.
Curious George
Veteran Member
We needn't worry about that. We have 100% certainty. I am asking what more do you need.
Under determinism it cpuld not have occurred any other way and it was going to occur the way it did. I am asking how we can find cause.
Well, A type of event, A, causes another type of even, if, whenever an event of type A happens as an initial condition, the laws of physics determine that an event of type B will occur later.
We establish laws of physics by the typical scientific method: observation, hypothesis formulation, prediction, testing, etc.
In this case, we have far too little to formulate a law of nature government this scenario.
In particular, if events A always are correlated with events B, then it is possible that they are both caused by some other, previous type of event C. To establish causality, that possibility has to be investigated and discounted. In particular, operative physical laws need to be considered to see if any might apply to any of A, B, or potential C's.
In your scenario, we have established a perfect correlation, so causality is a good hypothesis. Possible counters would be other common causes, which should be enumerated and sought.
In the case of consciousness and neural activity (that's where you are going, right?), no other testable hypotheses have been formulated that account for the data currently available. Because of that, causality is a reasonable conclusion.
Skwim
Veteran Member
.
When one gets down to the nitty-gritty of free will, no matter what is asserted its advocates are still stuck with the question of "why."
Why did you freely choose A rather than B?
If there is no reason then the choosing event is utterly random, which amounts to no choosing at all.
However, If C is the reason one chose A then C is the cause that also determined you would not choose B. But what if C never appeared on the scene, but rather D. Couldn't D then be responsible for you choosing B? Perhaps, but this hardly gets one out of the hole. No matter what caused you to "freely" choose either A or B at the choosing event, be it C or D, they only arose because they themselves would have been caused to appear. C was the reason A and not B was chosen. F was the reason C and not D appeared. J was the reason F and not G or H appeared. So it's turtles all the way down.
Cause 1 begets event 1 / event 1 causes event 2 / event 2 causes event 3 / event 3 causes event 4 / event 4 causes . . . . .you to chooses A.
In effect, there is no real free choice; no free will, just the illusion.
When one gets down to the nitty-gritty of free will, no matter what is asserted its advocates are still stuck with the question of "why."
Why did you freely choose A rather than B?
If there is no reason then the choosing event is utterly random, which amounts to no choosing at all.
However, If C is the reason one chose A then C is the cause that also determined you would not choose B. But what if C never appeared on the scene, but rather D. Couldn't D then be responsible for you choosing B? Perhaps, but this hardly gets one out of the hole. No matter what caused you to "freely" choose either A or B at the choosing event, be it C or D, they only arose because they themselves would have been caused to appear. C was the reason A and not B was chosen. F was the reason C and not D appeared. J was the reason F and not G or H appeared. So it's turtles all the way down.
Cause 1 begets event 1 / event 1 causes event 2 / event 2 causes event 3 / event 3 causes event 4 / event 4 causes . . . . .you to chooses A.
In effect, there is no real free choice; no free will, just the illusion.
.
Last edited:
BubbaGumps
Member
This entire argument is premised on the axiom that all events must have a cause. There is no way to deductively prove this and hence it is an axiom that is assumed factually correct based on our accumulative observation and intuitive ideas about how the world behaves. But axioms often have been demonstrated to be false at later periods in history.
E.G..Euclid's postulates and axioms---for example: two parallel lines will never meet if extended out to infinity. This is only true on a flat Euclidean surface with a Euclidean metric. Draw two lines on a spherical surface such as a globe and they will eventually meet. They will only appear to be parallel locally. Extending this argument out, Euclid axioms are demonstrably false given our factual current knowledge about the nature of spacetime. Sometimes future discoveries throw you a curve ball.
The axiom that all events must have a cause is also an axiom that is accepted to be true. But only an an inductive sense and not a deductive one. I am not saying that Free Will is or is not an illusions. What I am saying is you cannot deductively prove that Free Will is an illusion. You can only start with axioms which are assumed to be true and use that to deduce conclusions. You are creating an argument rather than a deductive truth.
E.G..Euclid's postulates and axioms---for example: two parallel lines will never meet if extended out to infinity. This is only true on a flat Euclidean surface with a Euclidean metric. Draw two lines on a spherical surface such as a globe and they will eventually meet. They will only appear to be parallel locally. Extending this argument out, Euclid axioms are demonstrably false given our factual current knowledge about the nature of spacetime. Sometimes future discoveries throw you a curve ball.
The axiom that all events must have a cause is also an axiom that is accepted to be true. But only an an inductive sense and not a deductive one. I am not saying that Free Will is or is not an illusions. What I am saying is you cannot deductively prove that Free Will is an illusion. You can only start with axioms which are assumed to be true and use that to deduce conclusions. You are creating an argument rather than a deductive truth.
Last edited:
Silly. It was Z. There's no alphabet further than that.
Why do parallel lines on a globe have to meet? Are you saying all latitudes will eventually be one?
Latitude 'lines' aren't the paths of shortest distance on a sphere--great circles are. And every pair of great circles intersects in two points.
BubbaGumps
Member
The locus of points of latitude and longitude form great circles, not lines. A line is a locus of points having 0 curvature—I.e. it is ‘straght’ and does not curve. A circle has positive curvature. It also intersects itself. It is impossible to define a locus of points with 0 curvature on a sphere. The circles of latitude do not intersect but they are NOT lines. They are circles.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Not at all. For one thing, the Big Bang has yet to be shown to necessarily have a cause. For another, some subatomic events at the quantum level have been asserted to be utterly uncaused.
In any case, if one wants to posit that some mental events are uncaused, fine, but it certainly doesn't help the free will argument. As the free will position stands, the will operates
1) at the mercy of determinism. OR
2) utterly randomly. OR
3) a combination of the two.
Whatever operation one chose it still doesn't save free will. The free will claim is bankrupt.
The only "locus of points of latitude" that form a great circle are those that fall on the equator.
As far as a rigorous definition in plane geometry goes, yes. But then, what do you call these?
.
Last edited: