Free Will

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Calvin made it a big deal in saying that God create men to go to hell; and further making that a corner stone of faith instead of Jesus. >>>[/quote]You know literally nothing of the attitude or teaching of John Calvin. Not even his most vitriolic critics would make such a cosmically inaccurate statement in denial of the Christocentricity of every syllable that fell from Calvin’s lips. [quote]pat wrote:<<< Second of all resolving the issue into a paradox is not necessary, there are many ways of solving the issue without ending up in a paradox. >>>[/quote]Once again your Catholic brethren will read this, recognize the error and say nothing.
[/quote]

Of course you eliminate the part where I say we actually cannot know the mind of God or how he actually does this. The difference between the rest of Christianity is that we aren’t pretending we know the mind of God, you claim to know the mind of God. You claim to know that ‘this is the way He functions’ and you simply cannot know that, but pretend to know that.

I know two things about John Calvin, he was a heretic and a complicit murderer. Those two things are enough to completely dismiss him.
All sought the trappings of fame and power and he manipulated the word of God to get what he wanted and it worked.

Your faith will save you inspite of your theology.

242

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ALL reality is meaningless if even one particle of creation, physical or metaphysical, is defined outside of His all governing will. The fact that He decrees our sin does not mean He is the author of it. He makes holy and just use of it in it’s bringing Him glory.

You are saying that He saves based on our choice, no?

What I was referring to is that paradox is all over authoritative Catholic doctrine. Only it sides with man when incomprehensibility gets the best of us.[/quote]

Catholic doctrine merely postulates, it decrees nothing. It does not try to know the mind of God better than God himself. There is no way to actually know how God reconciles freewill with omniscience. You guys think you know, we know it can’t be known.

I am simply saying that if you are trying to solve the problem, you don’t have to make God not only the author of sin, but passes the buck of responsibility to man.

As a matter of fact, how ever God’s resolves the conflict, simple common sense should point out the fact that this ‘double predestination’ is the least likely scenario as it invalidates most of scripture and minimizes Christ’s sacrifice.

The further difference between us is that you hate and condemn us, while we simply disagree with your theology. We neither hate you, nor condemn you.

243

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ALL reality is meaningless if even one particle of creation, physical or metaphysical, is defined outside of His all governing will. The fact that He decrees our sin does not mean He is the author of it. He makes holy and just use of it in it’s bringing Him glory.
[/quote]
What?! The fact that he decrees our sin means exactly that he is the author of it…Words have meaning you can’t just make it up as you go along. It means exactly that he is the author of sin right up to Eve. You basically say the devil didn’t make her do it, God did. Which means God brought sin into the world, not Eve. That is the folly of your theology. That’s exactly where it goes horribly, horribly wrong.

[quote]
You are saying that He saves based on our choice, no?

What I was referring to is that paradox is all over authoritative Catholic doctrine. Only it sides with man when incomprehensibility gets the best of us.[/quote]

Correct, we either choose God or we refuse God. Not the other way around. If God chose or condemned us and we have no say so in the matter, what would be the point of worship at all.
If you love God because he made you love him, that’s not love at all. Actually that’s more like rape.

244

Ok Pat. Go in peace and be happy.

245

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ok Pat. Go in peace and be happy.[/quote]

Thank you I will, you too.

246

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Why?

What if his all governing will is that we come to him freely, without his decreeing it? >>>[/quote] Perhaps He could have done this hypothetically, but in the version of reality that He did in fact create it is not possible that one single subatomic particle move in independence of His all governing hand. I really will try to do this question justice when I can because it’s an outstanding one that deserves an answer, but my life is in total upheaval at the moment. This one cannot be done in a couple paragraphs. Elder Forlife gets a tip of the hat here too because he came up with this question first actually. [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I have provided loads of scriptural evidence to support this notion.>>>[/quote]No, you have provided loads of scriptural evidence that man is free and accountable with which I have continuously agreed. You have then proceeded to use that as evidence of the absence of the decree of God in that regard. Both unscriptural AND a non sequitur. [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< “Based on” sounds like you may be implying his saving grace is contingent upon our choice. But that’s not at all what I or anyone else here has been saying. First our ability to choose to accept or reject him is made available, then (not temporally speaking, but in terms of contingency) and only then are we able to make the choice. Again, this is something that seems pretty clear throughout the Bible, over and over. >>>[/quote] This is very wrong, but I can’t do it now. [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I think you are just not thinking big enough. God can do what he wants. >>>[/quote]Very VERY good. Clever slick tactic. I mean that actually. =]

247

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Why?

What if his all governing will is that we come to him freely, without his decreeing it? >>>[/quote] Perhaps He could have done this hypothetically, but in the version of reality that He did in fact create it is not possible that one single subatomic particle move in independence of His all governing hand. I really will try to do this question justice when I can because it’s an outstanding one that deserves an answer, but my life is in total upheaval at the moment. This one cannot be done in a couple paragraphs. Elder Forlife gets a tip of the hat here too because he came up with this question first actually. [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I have provided loads of scriptural evidence to support this notion.>>>[/quote]No, you have provided loads of scriptural evidence that man is free and accountable with which I have continuously agreed. You have then proceeded to use that as evidence of the absence of the decree of God in that regard. Both unscriptural AND a non sequitur.
[/quote]
Man cannot be both free and accountable and controlled by God. THAT is a non-sequiter. There is not a paradigm or realm of existence where this can even remotely be true. Either man’s love for God is controled by God, which both makes love ‘invalid’ and little more than a farce, or it is not, period. it cannot be both. It isn’t that God can’t do it, it’s that he decreed he did not do it that way. If he did then he would have to change reality from what it is currently.
It’s a square peg in a round hole. If I put a gun to your head and say ‘Love me and follow my commands’ you may say yes, but you don’t mean it.
If God makes us love him and follow his commands, it’s not us that loves him, it’s him loving himself.

No, Cortes is balls-on accurate here.

It’s true. You say that God is doing something you cannot possibly know is true. Scripture does not back up a puppet master God. He ‘elects’ hearer’s of the word, not followers of the word. He predestines certain people to be exposed to his grace to compel them to do certain things, he does not make them. Everybody can say no, including the Blessed Mother.
What’s interesting about that and I don’t think anybody has really asked this, but has God asked anybody else to bring the Messiah into the world and they, out of fear, said no instead of yes? I wonder.

Further Jesus was the lamb with out blemish because he had freewill. If he did not, he’d just be another lamb, not the sacrifice for all sins.

The implications of predestination is devastating to faith. If you have no choice you have no faith, love, mercy. You can do neither evil or good all you can do is what you are programmed to do. If you do what you are programmed to do, it is meaningless. Like a spark plug, you may do your job, but you have no value when your job is finished.

The retort of “Who are we to question God” is a non-sequitur. We’re not questioning God, we’re questioning what man says about God. Huge difference.

248

[quote]pat wrote:<<< The retort of “Who are we to question God” is a non-sequitur. We’re not questioning God, we’re questioning what man says about God. Huge difference.[/quote]Take it up with Paul and by extension God who are the ones who said “no, but WHO ARE YOU oh man who answers back to God” in the answer to the EXACT insolent objection you incessantly persist in proclaiming. "IF THERE’S NO FREE WILL (which is a misrepresentation anyway) THEN GOD WOULD BE UNJUST AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!! (Pat pulls hair out).

I can only quote Romans 9 again since YOU brought it up: [quote]14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, â??I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.â?? 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. <<<>>>
19 You will say to me then, â??Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?â?? 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, â??Why have you made me like this?â??[/quote] Then he goes on to talk about "vessels “prepared for destruction” just like the other vessels “prepared beforehand for glory”. Yes I have seen every possible, EVERY POSSIBLE desperate attempt of arrogant autonomous man to contort their way out of the unavoidable declaration of this passage which harmonizes beeeyoooootifully with all the rest of scripture once the mind and will are properly surrendered to the mind of God as revealed there.

You are utterly enslaved Pat, shackled and bound to Aristotelean/thomistic logic which is the result of the fall of Adam declaring his independence. Only you embrace your chains with passion, clinging to them, checking the locks frequently to make sure there’s no danger of being freed anytime soon. I am unaware of a less “arrogant” way to say this. Oh how I do pray you spit out that gagging fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and take of the bread of life.

249

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< The retort of “Who are we to question God” is a non-sequitur. We’re not questioning God, we’re questioning what man says about God. Huge difference.[/quote]Take it up with Paul and by extension God who are the ones who said “no, but WHO ARE YOU oh man who answers back to God” in the answer to the EXACT insolent objection you incessantly persist in proclaiming. "IF THERE’S NO FREE WILL (which is a misrepresentation anyway) THEN GOD WOULD BE UNJUST AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!! (Pat pulls hair out).

I can only quote Romans 9 again since YOU brought it up: [quote]14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, Ã?¢??I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.Ã?¢?? 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. <<<>>>
19 You will say to me then, Ã?¢??Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?Ã?¢?? 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Ã?¢??Why have you made me like this?Ã?¢??[/quote] Then he goes on to talk about "vessels “prepared for destruction” just like the other vessels “prepared beforehand for glory”. Yes I have seen every possible, EVERY POSSIBLE desperate attempt of arrogant autonomous man to contort their way out of the unavoidable declaration of this passage which harmonizes beeeyoooootifully with all the rest of scripture once the mind and will are properly surrendered to the mind of God as revealed there.

You are utterly enslaved Pat, shackled and bound to Aristotelean/thomistic logic which is the result of the fall of Adam declaring his independence. Only you embrace your chains with passion, clinging to them, checking the locks frequently to make sure there’s no danger of being freed anytime soon. I am unaware of a less “arrogant” way to say this. Oh how I do pray you spit out that gagging fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and take of the bread of life.
[/quote]

If you want to talk to me you need to quit telling me what I follow and who I am enslaved to. You are enslaved to Calvin, a heretic and a murderer. I don’t listen to heretics and murders or false profits, so I am one up on you.
I don’t follow what you think I follow. I am my own man. So quit telling me I am what I am not.

Again, the elect are whom God chooses to reveal the word, the gospel to. Notwhom God forces to follow the gospel against God’s will. You simply misunderstand Paul in Romans. His whole point is explaining to the Jews that the Gentiles too, have been chosen by God to receive the word. That the jews are no more elect than the gentiles. This is the danger of taking things out of context in scripture, because you then can assign arbitrary meanings to the word of God. What Paul does not say is that God forces himself on people and makes them be evil or good. Show me where Paul says God makes men choose evil over good or good over evil.
And indeed, who are the Jews or anybody to question whom God reveals himself to. That’s a message to you tirib…Who are you to condemn those whom God has chosen, even if different than yourself? Why are you questioning God’s methods or putting words in his mouth he did not say?

You cannot deny Romans 5:24 “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”, for the sake of Romans 9. They go together not separate. ALL MEN means all men, you cannot make it other wise with out rewriting scripture and you damn well know it.

Take scripture as it is, don’t try to use it to make it say what you want it to. Indeed, who are you to question God if he wishes to extend his mercy to ALL MEN??

Again, why are you afraid to quote the whole post? Don’t fear truth.

250

[quote]pat wrote:<<< You simply misunderstand Paul in Romans. His whole point is explaining to the Jews that the Gentiles too, have been chosen by God to receive the word. That the jews are no more elect than the gentiles. >>>[/quote]He uses each to illustrate and fortify the other Pat. It’s God’s election or not of individuals like Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh that reinforces His election from among all the nations of the earth and vice versa. That’s the danger of letting a monolithic heresy machine do all your thinking for you.

You believe God justifies and saves ALL men then?

251

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< You simply misunderstand Paul in Romans. His whole point is explaining to the Jews that the Gentiles too, have been chosen by God to receive the word. That the jews are no more elect than the gentiles. >>>[/quote]He uses each to illustrate and fortify the other Pat. It’s God’s election or not of individuals like Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh that reinforces His election from among all the nations of the earth and vice versa. That’s the danger of letting a monolithic heresy machine do all your thinking for you.

You believe God justifies and saves ALL men then?
[/quote]

No, for instance he elected the house of Jacob, Israel to be his people and he made an unbreakable covenant with them, this did not stop the house of Israel to stop rejecting him or sinning against him. What it did do was that God never broke his promise to them even when they did evil and rejected him. He did not automatically save all of the house of Jacob to the damning of all others, he chose them to bring his son in to the world inspite of themselves. God chose first the Jews then the Gentiles to reveal the Good News and to propagate his church (the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, btw…Just sayin’ Calvin wasn’t in mind then). He did not choose people to go to heaven or go to hell. You have election backwards. He elected certain groups and certain people to do his will on earth, not to save some in lieu of others. He never meant that even a little. I am pretty sure Paul would projectile vomit if he heard how his words got twisted like a pretzel to make the divine sacrifice of look like a colossal waste of time.

All men can be justified and saved if they accept Christ’s sacrifice, give their lives to God and live in faith. It’s clear that not all men have, it seems that many today have no intention of doing so as well. It doesn’t mean it’s not available, it means, by their own will they reject God. Salvation is available to all men to either accept or reject.

252

[quote]Cortes wrote:

  1. Where does free will originate?

  2. How does one resolve the paradox of free will within a seemingly deterministic universe (if one is atheist), or its existence in a universe every subatomic particle of which has been created by an omniscient, omnipotent God?
    [/quote]

The reason I am bumping this thread is because I just realized something. I don’t know if I missed it so maybe I should go back through it again, but it seems like none of the atheists were willing to try and tackle either of the questions posed.

I’m going to skim through again so apologies in advance if I just forgot or miss it, but I think the thread turned into a solely Christian debate, and I’d like to hear how an atheist feel about the topic.

So, are we all just wet robots, responding to stimuli, or is there something more, some spark of specialness, that allows us to act independent of our origins?

253

Ahh crap. I just saw that forlife and kamui were, indeed, weighing in. Sorry guys.

254

Not sure what I said earlier, but to me there are 4 possibilities:

  1. If you’ve always existed, nobody is responsible for your choices but you. Mormons believe people have always existed, but I’m not aware of other theologies that claim this.

  2. If god created you, then god created all of you, including the part of you that makes choices. So god is ultimately responsible, and there is no free will.

  3. If the universe created you, then the universe created all of you, including the part of you that makes choices. So the universe is ultimately responsible, and there is no free will.

  4. If god is all powerful, then he should be able to create something free of making its own choices, without god actually being responsible for those choices. Sort of like programming a random number generator, where the seed itself is also random. In that case, randomness is ultimately responsible, and there is still no free will.

So unfortunately, the only scenario where I can envision true free will is the scenario where people have always existed.

OMG, maybe Mormonism is true after all?!? :wink:

255

I considered myself a determanist for a while, but now I’m not so sure. I woke up one morning hungry, but I also just wanted to stay in bed. I wanted to stay in bed more, I was aware of this, but I also realized that I could just as easily gone and had something to eat then go back to bed if I wanted. It wouldn’t even be a matter of proving a point. I was looking at both the things my body wanted at the time and decide if, when and what order I would do them in. It was an outside-in perspective.

Now, that will probably sound rather unimpressive to most of you, but I think there’s more to us than our physical bodies.

256

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I considered myself a determanist for a while, but now I’m not so sure. I woke up one morning hungry, but I also just wanted to stay in bed. I wanted to stay in bed more, I was aware of this, but I also realized that I could just as easily gone and had something to eat then go back to bed if I wanted. It wouldn’t even be a matter of proving a point. I was looking at both the things my body wanted at the time and decide if, when and what order I would do them in. It was an outside-in perspective.

Now, that will probably sound rather unimpressive to most of you, but I think there’s more to us than our physical bodies.[/quote]

Most things are determined…Actually all things are but one, will. Will is the only thing not bound by the conditions around it. Only beings posses will, but very few. What you have to understand about will is that it’s not a physical thing, it’s a metaphysical thing. All physical things are bound to their metaphysical counter part but not the other way around…It’s a one way trust. And it’s kind of the cross roads where metaphysics, religion and science kind of meet. Will is the most powerful force on earth. Will is strong enough to destroy the earth. In fact it’s potential is at the tip of obama’s finger tips, his sheer act of will can still all life on this planet. Freaky 'eh? Einsteins will was what give obama this potential. All he has to do is want to, really that’s it. That’s all that’s stopping him is his will not to.

I have recently come up with this hair-brained idea that will is what moves us between dimensions. So if you want to marry string theory to the idea, when we make a choice, we’re not merely choosing, we’re moving our consciousness between dimensions.

If you want to bring religion into it, Jesus said with the faith of a mustard seed we can pickup a mountain and toss it in to the sea. He wasn’t speaking about just faith, faith is an act of will. With this will we can take a mountain and reduce it to nothing. As a matter of fact we have done those very things…Ever seen a strip mine? It’s the result of will. People think religion is hocus pocus, but that’s not it at all. It’s really an act of will. You want to move a mountain, you can, if you believe you can. You may need a few bulldozers and earth movers to do it, but it can be done. And it’s not such an outrageous prospect when you think of it that way…

257

I don’t believe in free will in the purest, strictest sense of the word. To me, “true” free will is being able to consider all variables, without outside influence, and make a decision. I think that our bodies Biology alone disproves free will. For example, girls are naturally disposed to liking characteristics associated with higher testosterone. Deeper voice, dominance, confidence, lower fat content, etc.

Meaning that individuals are going to make the decision to go with what their biology tells them, in which case it isn’t “free will”. Damn near EVERYTHING can affect our judgment, as color oriented psychological studies will show. Recently in my Social Psychology class we talked about wearing white instead of black to a trial can improve the verdict, in your favor.

Things like this help illustrate my point of view: 6 Ways Your Sense of Smell Is Secretly Controlling Your Mind | Cracked.com
(Not the best source I know.)

The way information is presented to you can influence your decision, how things are worded. “Impulse purchases” “Sex sells” and all the other ways advertisements try to manipulate you is further proof, IMO. It is the advertisers will for you to buy their products, therefore there is no free will on your part. Now there is hardly ever a 100% success rate for influence, but you can certainly sway people in a way that makes them feel in control, when you had already chosen for them.

There are too many variables we aren’t aware of, and we are all being influenced by so much, (IMO) you can’t conclude a will that is truly yours.

Another little thing I would like to add, but am unsure I totally agree with, is that free will implies randomness. I don’t believe in true randomness. The only way that I have thought of to “prove” free will, at least to me, would be to have a sort of parallel universes. You would take the same individual, present them with the EXACT same factors, for their ENTIRE life. I’m talking completely alike, everything the same from the big bang to present time. And at the present time you would present with them a choice, say a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, or peanut butter and honey.

If the individual can choose either both, none, one, or the other, and choose differently from his mirror universe, then I will concede and admit defeat and agree that free will exist. Now ideally I would like this scenario to be duplicated 1000s of times, and have no mathematical formula be able to predict the outcome, with all variables possible accounted for (hence randomness comment). Obviously this isn’t possible so for now I’ll stick with my opinion that free will doesn’t exist, until something better comes along.

Just thoughts that I have thought quite a few times before bed, thought I’d share. Not looking to debate or defend my position, but if someone feels they can change my opinion, they can certainly post links and the like and I’ll read through them :smiley:

258

[quote]thesupreme1 wrote:
I don’t believe in free will in the purest, strictest sense of the word. To me, “true” free will is being able to consider all variables, without outside influence, and make a decision. I think that our bodies Biology alone disproves free will. For example, girls are naturally disposed to liking characteristics associated with higher testosterone. Deeper voice, dominance, confidence, lower fat content, etc.

Meaning that individuals are going to make the decision to go with what their biology tells them, in which case it isn’t “free will”. Damn near EVERYTHING can affect our judgment, as color oriented psychological studies will show. Recently in my Social Psychology class we talked about wearing white instead of black to a trial can improve the verdict, in your favor.

Things like this help illustrate my point of view: 6 Ways Your Sense of Smell Is Secretly Controlling Your Mind | Cracked.com
(Not the best source I know.)

The way information is presented to you can influence your decision, how things are worded. “Impulse purchases” “Sex sells” and all the other ways advertisements try to manipulate you is further proof, IMO. It is the advertisers will for you to buy their products, therefore there is no free will on your part. Now there is hardly ever a 100% success rate for influence, but you can certainly sway people in a way that makes them feel in control, when you had already chosen for them.

There are too many variables we aren’t aware of, and we are all being influenced by so much, (IMO) you can’t conclude a will that is truly yours.

Another little thing I would like to add, but am unsure I totally agree with, is that free will implies randomness. I don’t believe in true randomness. The only way that I have thought of to “prove” free will, at least to me, would be to have a sort of parallel universes. You would take the same individual, present them with the EXACT same factors, for their ENTIRE life. I’m talking completely alike, everything the same from the big bang to present time. And at the present time you would present with them a choice, say a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, or peanut butter and honey.

If the individual can choose either both, none, one, or the other, and choose differently from his mirror universe, then I will concede and admit defeat and agree that free will exist. Now ideally I would like this scenario to be duplicated 1000s of times, and have no mathematical formula be able to predict the outcome, with all variables possible accounted for (hence randomness comment). Obviously this isn’t possible so for now I’ll stick with my opinion that free will doesn’t exist, until something better comes along.

Just thoughts that I have thought quite a few times before bed, thought I’d share. Not looking to debate or defend my position, but if someone feels they can change my opinion, they can certainly post links and the like and I’ll read through them :smiley: [/quote]

Everyone believes in free will. Well almost everyone. Or at the very least they certainly act as if they do. Philosophically its a concept that is debated to determine if people have any moral responsibility for their actions. It makes no claim there are no reasons for decisions. If there is no free will clearly they do not have any moral responsibility for their actions. Almost no one behaves in a fashion that shows they seriously consider it a possibility. People discipline their kids. People believe in some sort of justice system etc.

259

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]thesupreme1 wrote:
I don’t believe in free will in the purest, strictest sense of the word. To me, “true” free will is being able to consider all variables, without outside influence, and make a decision. I think that our bodies Biology alone disproves free will. For example, girls are naturally disposed to liking characteristics associated with higher testosterone. Deeper voice, dominance, confidence, lower fat content, etc.

Meaning that individuals are going to make the decision to go with what their biology tells them, in which case it isn’t “free will”. Damn near EVERYTHING can affect our judgment, as color oriented psychological studies will show. Recently in my Social Psychology class we talked about wearing white instead of black to a trial can improve the verdict, in your favor.

Things like this help illustrate my point of view: 6 Ways Your Sense of Smell Is Secretly Controlling Your Mind | Cracked.com
(Not the best source I know.)

The way information is presented to you can influence your decision, how things are worded. “Impulse purchases” “Sex sells” and all the other ways advertisements try to manipulate you is further proof, IMO. It is the advertisers will for you to buy their products, therefore there is no free will on your part. Now there is hardly ever a 100% success rate for influence, but you can certainly sway people in a way that makes them feel in control, when you had already chosen for them.

There are too many variables we aren’t aware of, and we are all being influenced by so much, (IMO) you can’t conclude a will that is truly yours.

Another little thing I would like to add, but am unsure I totally agree with, is that free will implies randomness. I don’t believe in true randomness. The only way that I have thought of to “prove” free will, at least to me, would be to have a sort of parallel universes. You would take the same individual, present them with the EXACT same factors, for their ENTIRE life. I’m talking completely alike, everything the same from the big bang to present time. And at the present time you would present with them a choice, say a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, or peanut butter and honey.

If the individual can choose either both, none, one, or the other, and choose differently from his mirror universe, then I will concede and admit defeat and agree that free will exist. Now ideally I would like this scenario to be duplicated 1000s of times, and have no mathematical formula be able to predict the outcome, with all variables possible accounted for (hence randomness comment). Obviously this isn’t possible so for now I’ll stick with my opinion that free will doesn’t exist, until something better comes along.

Just thoughts that I have thought quite a few times before bed, thought I’d share. Not looking to debate or defend my position, but if someone feels they can change my opinion, they can certainly post links and the like and I’ll read through them :smiley: [/quote]

Everyone believes in free will. Well almost everyone. Or at the very least they certainly act as if they do. Philosophically its a concept that is debated to determine if people have any moral responsibility for their actions. It makes no claim there are no reasons for decisions. If there is no free will clearly they do not have any moral responsibility for their actions. Almost no one behaves in a fashion that shows they seriously consider it a possibility. People discipline their kids. People believe in some sort of justice system etc.
[/quote]

Well if you believe in determinism, the discipline is as determined as the action requiring it.

260

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]thesupreme1 wrote:
I don’t believe in free will in the purest, strictest sense of the word. To me, “true” free will is being able to consider all variables, without outside influence, and make a decision. I think that our bodies Biology alone disproves free will. For example, girls are naturally disposed to liking characteristics associated with higher testosterone. Deeper voice, dominance, confidence, lower fat content, etc.

Meaning that individuals are going to make the decision to go with what their biology tells them, in which case it isn’t “free will”. Damn near EVERYTHING can affect our judgment, as color oriented psychological studies will show. Recently in my Social Psychology class we talked about wearing white instead of black to a trial can improve the verdict, in your favor.

Things like this help illustrate my point of view: 6 Ways Your Sense of Smell Is Secretly Controlling Your Mind | Cracked.com
(Not the best source I know.)

The way information is presented to you can influence your decision, how things are worded. “Impulse purchases” “Sex sells” and all the other ways advertisements try to manipulate you is further proof, IMO. It is the advertisers will for you to buy their products, therefore there is no free will on your part. Now there is hardly ever a 100% success rate for influence, but you can certainly sway people in a way that makes them feel in control, when you had already chosen for them.

There are too many variables we aren’t aware of, and we are all being influenced by so much, (IMO) you can’t conclude a will that is truly yours.

Another little thing I would like to add, but am unsure I totally agree with, is that free will implies randomness. I don’t believe in true randomness. The only way that I have thought of to “prove” free will, at least to me, would be to have a sort of parallel universes. You would take the same individual, present them with the EXACT same factors, for their ENTIRE life. I’m talking completely alike, everything the same from the big bang to present time. And at the present time you would present with them a choice, say a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, or peanut butter and honey.

If the individual can choose either both, none, one, or the other, and choose differently from his mirror universe, then I will concede and admit defeat and agree that free will exist. Now ideally I would like this scenario to be duplicated 1000s of times, and have no mathematical formula be able to predict the outcome, with all variables possible accounted for (hence randomness comment). Obviously this isn’t possible so for now I’ll stick with my opinion that free will doesn’t exist, until something better comes along.

Just thoughts that I have thought quite a few times before bed, thought I’d share. Not looking to debate or defend my position, but if someone feels they can change my opinion, they can certainly post links and the like and I’ll read through them :smiley: [/quote]

Everyone believes in free will. Well almost everyone. Or at the very least they certainly act as if they do. Philosophically its a concept that is debated to determine if people have any moral responsibility for their actions. It makes no claim there are no reasons for decisions. If there is no free will clearly they do not have any moral responsibility for their actions. Almost no one behaves in a fashion that shows they seriously consider it a possibility. People discipline their kids. People believe in some sort of justice system etc.
[/quote]

Well if you believe in determinism, the discipline is as determined as the action requiring it.[/quote]
Sure but then this just makes it a meaningless argument as there is absolutely no difference in the way someone who believes in free will and someone who doesn’t would behave since its all determined.

I would say that I think libertarian free will is correct, but obviously there is no agreement on this with vastly more philosophers being somewhere on the compatabilist side of things.

More I was trying to say that it doesn’t mean anything like what the poster I quoted thinks it means its merely used as s philosophical idea for the establishment of moral responsibility. And that pretty much anyone who does agree with the idea there is moral responsibility is at least defacto subscribing to a belief in free will which certainly could be incorrect if the determinist and incompatibilist view is correct, but still thinking and acting if it is true nonetheless.