[Wootloops]

Free Will does not exist. There are only three conceivable options with regards to "choice": Choices are either determined, random, or a mix of those two concepts. None of those options amounts to Free Will. It is that simple.

And thus as a consequence, all religions which hold this idea of Free Will as core to their doctrine should come crumbling down.

[Godsnmbr1]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 05:30 AM, said:

Free Will does not exist. There are only three conceivable options with regards to "choice": Choices are either determined, random, or a mix of those two concepts. None of those options amounts to Free Will. It is that simple.

And thus as a consequence, all religions which hold this idea of Free Will as core to their doctrine should come crumbling down.

When is a choice ever predetermined? Are you talking about the limits of a choice? What about original choice--the choice simply to exist? No my friend, I think free will is alive and well, despite your use of bold.

[Wootloops]

Godsnmbr1, on 22 October 2009 - 01:07 AM, said:

When is a choice ever predetermined? Are you talking about the limits of a choice? What about original choice--the choice simply to exist? No my friend, I think free will is alive and well, despite your use of bold.

Predetermined as in determinism as in causally necessitated. For example, when you decide to eat, you do so because you are hungry. Your choice to eat was causally determined by your hunger. Now, you might say that you could have decided not to eat, but you didn't, and you would never have chosen otherwise unless the variables in the situation had changed. The very thoughts you are having right now in thinking about your free will were caused by you reading this.

The only alternative to this is randomness. Perhaps your choice to eat was entirely random, and had no cause which determined it, but even if this is so, it is no more your "free" choice to eat as the result of randomness as it is being the result of a causal chain. Your free will is an illusion, and does not exist and cannot exist.

[marabod]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 05:29 PM, said:

Predetermined as in determinism as in causally necessitated. For example, when you decide to eat, you do so because you are hungry. Your choice to eat was causally determined by your hunger. Now, you might say that you could have decided not to eat, but you didn't, and you would never have chosen otherwise unless the variables in the situation had changed. The very thoughts you are having right now in thinking about your free will were caused by you reading this.

The only alternative to this is randomness. Perhaps your choice to eat was entirely random, and had no cause which determined it, but even if this is so, it is no more your "free" choice to eat as the result of randomness as it is being the result of a causal chain. Your free will is an illusion, and does not exist and cannot exist.

This is wrong because you consider not an event itself separately, but a logical chain of the events. What we call "life" is only an infinitively short moment of "now" which immediately becomes "past", being replaced by a new "now" - your reasoning belong to another reference frame, which includes the past only, in which someone was hungry and decided to eat. Time is irreversible, but only when the events are already in the past. When you are at the current "now" you have free will to make your reasonings.

Moreover, you are not talking "free will" in religious sense, as you only consider the choice between several options - but in this case what is the difference between us and the animals? A bird has a free choice, which worm to eat, a mad dog has a choice to run right or left way. But the religions say they do not have free will. This means religions do not see a simple choice of action as a manifestation of free will.

We acquired free will together with the knowledge of Good and Evil, this is what the Bible says. From this it follows that free will is not just a choice, but a MORAL CHOICE between good and evil we are intended to make to someone else. Free will is what makes us different from the animals, and the absence of free will is what makes the animals innocent, as they cannot do evil deliberately, knowing they are doing evil, so they cannot commit a sin. This was known 2000 years ago!

[Paranormalcy]

This is a zero-sum, circular argument, much like your signature. While you cannot make a case for predestination due to the fact you pointed out that you can "choose" NOT to eat even if you're hungry, you can then say that the reason you chose not to eat is totally random, not a matter of choice, but that you chose what you did "just because", or even because other things requiring your attention were going on (again, NEEDED to do something else).

This same fallacious template can be applied to any and all things in existence - either it is destined to snow or it is random; if it snowed, it is because it was meant to, if it did not, even though it looked like it, it could be because it was random. People do things either because they have to, or because they randomly choose to. Okay.

If you look at things from this angle, this case is inarguable, but, by contrast, irrelevant, and is more a philosophical debate than anything having to do with spiritualism, as it makes no more difference if my choice to see movie A instead of B is "random", any more than how "everything" was created - both make no practical difference and it changes nothing knowing that, because we cannot measure or predict randomness or predestination.

[Wootloops]

marabod, on 22 October 2009 - 01:45 AM, said:

This is wrong because you consider not an event itself separately, but a logical chain of the events. What we call "life" is only an infinitively short moment of "now" which immediately becomes "past", being replaced by a new "now" - your reasoning belong to another reference frame, which includes the past only, in which someone was hungry and decided to eat. Time is irreversible, but only when the events are already in the past. When you are at the current "now" you have free will to make your reasonings.

No, you don't have free will in the "now", because the choices you will make in the now will be the direct result of the past. In order to have free will in the sense religious people use the term, your will must be outside of causation and randomness, which is not possible.

marabod, on 22 October 2009 - 01:45 AM, said:

Moreover, you are not talking "free will" in religious sense, as you only consider the choice between several options - but in this case what is the difference between us and the animals? A bird has a free choice, which worm to eat, a mad dog has a choice to run right or left way. But the religions say they do not have free will. This means religions do not see a simple choice of action as a manifestation of free will.

We acquired free will together with the knowledge of Good and Evil, this is what the Bible says. From this it follows that free will is not just a choice, but a MORAL CHOICE between good and evil we are intended to make to someone else. Free will is what makes us different from the animals, and the absence of free will is what makes the animals innocent, as they cannot do evil deliberately, knowing they are doing evil, so they cannot commit a sin. This was known 2000 years ago!

The only difference between us and the animals is that our brains are more complex. A choice by definition is between several options, that's what a choice is. Adam and Eve had free will before they had the knowledge of good and evil, this is the entire basis for them being able to "choose" to eat from the tree. But either way, it makes no difference at all. Your normal choices and your moral choices will all be the result of causation or randomness.

You do not do evil deliberately, you are caused to do evil.

[Wootloops]

Paranormalcy, on 22 October 2009 - 01:53 AM, said:

This is a zero-sum, circular argument, much like your signature. While you cannot make a case for predestination due to the fact you pointed out that you can "choose" NOT to eat even if you're hungry, you can then say that the reason you chose not to eat is totally random, not a matter of choice, but that you chose what you did "just because", or even because other things requiring your attention were going on (again, NEEDED to do something else).

This same fallacious template can be applied to any and all things in existence - either it is destined to snow or it is random; if it snowed, it is because it was meant to, if it did not, even though it looked like it, it could be because it was random. People do things either because they have to, or because they randomly choose to. Okay.

If you look at things from this angle, this case is inarguable, but, by contrast, irrelevant, and is more a philosophical debate than anything having to do with spiritualism, as it makes no more difference if my choice to see movie A instead of B is "random", any more than how "everything" was created - both make no practical difference and it changes nothing knowing that, because we cannot measure or predict randomness or predestination.

It has to do with spiritualism in that every single Christian and Muslim and Jew believes in Free Will, which as you seem to agree by your concession that things are either determined or random, does not exist. I fail to see what part of this argument is circular.

[marabod]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 06:07 PM, said:

No, you don't have free will in the "now", because the choices you will make in the now will be the direct result of the past. In order to have free will in the sense religious people use the term, your will must be outside of causation and randomness, which is not possible.

Choices reflect the past, but they are made being directed to the future. A human does not just repeat some past patterns bu tries to manage the life toward its improvement. You are not using "free will" in the same sense as the religions do use it - for start you may take time talking to some catholic priest, they have this all issue studied centuries ago, so he may illuminate you.

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 06:07 PM, said:

The only difference between us and the animals is that our brains are more complex. A choice by definition is between several options, that's what a choice is. Adam and Eve had free will before they had the knowledge of good and evil, this is the entire basis for them being able to "choose" to eat from the tree. But either way, it makes no difference at all. Your normal choices and your moral choices will all be the result of causation or randomness.

You do not do evil deliberately, you are caused to do evil.

Did you understand what I said in the post, to which you respond? There is a difference between the choice of physical actions and between their INTENTIONS, which the animals do not take into account. They simply act, and this their type of action you are trying to assign to humans. Of course, if you choose to ignore this part, as well as the well-known fact that the religions consider the animals "innocent", then of course I would leave you to continue your line, but if you posted this with the purpose to find out the truth as a result of discussion, then I have to remind you, that moral choices, humans make are of much more complex nature, than you are trying to present. For example, a human can make a choice which contradicts its own interests or even the instinct of self-preservation - say, to sacrifice own life for some cause, which this human sees a superior to own well-being. Animals cannot do this - go and die deliberately for the cause, for the Principle. Because animals do not have free will.

[Wootloops]

marabod, on 22 October 2009 - 02:21 AM, said:

Choices reflect the past, but they are made being directed to the future. A human does not just repeat some past patterns bu tries to manage the life toward its improvement.

Irrelevant. It's still either the result of causation or randomness, and so it's not Free Will.

marabod, on 22 October 2009 - 02:21 AM, said:

You are not using "free will" in the same sense as the religions do use it - for start you may take time talking to some catholic priest, they have this all issue studied centuries ago, so he may illuminate you.

The entire basis for the philosophical position of Idealism was to escape the deterministic nature of materialism. The reason religious people hate materialism is because of determinism. They think that people can't be morally responsible if they are casually determined. The same goes for randomness. If I talked to a catholic priest, he would be an idealist, and he would say that human actions are outside of causation and randomness, and that this is what free will is. But this isn't possible.

marabod, on 22 October 2009 - 02:21 AM, said:

Did you understand what I said in the post, to which you respond? There is a difference between the choice of physical actions and between their INTENTIONS, which the animals do not take into account. They simply act, and this their type of action you are trying to assign to humans.

Animals don't just act. They take into account different courses of actions, and choose between them, just on a less complex level as humans.

marabod, on 22 October 2009 - 02:21 AM, said:

Of course, if you choose to ignore this part, as well as the well-known fact that the religions consider the animals "innocent", then of course I would leave you to continue your line, but if you posted this with the purpose to find out the truth as a result of discussion, then I have to remind you, that moral choices, humans make are of much more complex nature, than you are trying to present.

It doesn't matter how complex any choice is, it is still either the result of randomness or causation. That's the point.

marabod, on 22 October 2009 - 02:21 AM, said:

For example, a human can make a choice which contradicts its own interests or even the instinct of self-preservation - say, to sacrifice own life for some cause, which this human sees a superior to own well-being. Animals cannot do this - go and die deliberately for the cause, for the Principle. Because animals do not have free will.

It is impossible for a human to act outside of self-interest. You can't do something you don't want to do, and everything you do is because you want to do it, because you think that is the best choice. When a person sacrifices his life, it is in his own interests that he does it.

A person who dies in the name of a cause is no different than an animal who dies in a pack fight when he could have fled. Both could have fled, and both didn't because they thought it was in their best interests to fight or die.

----------

The definition of Free Will that most religious people use, as vague as it is, necessitates at least that human choices are outside of causation and randomness. If you have a different definition, I'm not talking to you.

This post has been edited by Wootloops: 22 October 2009 - 07:01 AM

[marabod]

OK then

[Jor-el]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 05:30 AM, said:

Free Will does not exist. There are only three conceivable options with regards to "choice": Choices are either determined, random, or a mix of those two concepts. None of those options amounts to Free Will. It is that simple.

And thus as a consequence, all religions which hold this idea of Free Will as core to their doctrine should come crumbling down.

Maybe then you can answer that one elusive question...

What is Free will?

Everybody talks of it, maybe you can be the one who actually defines it.

[The Silver Thong]

Godsnmbr1, on 21 October 2009 - 11:07 PM, said:

When is a choice ever predetermined? Are you talking about the limits of a choice? What about original choice--the choice simply to exist? No my friend, I think free will is alive and well, despite your use of bold.

"What about original choice--the choice simply to exist?"


Not sure what you mean here but I don't think any of use choose to be born. I must be reading that wrong lol

[questionmark]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 09:07 AM, said:

You do not do evil deliberately, you are caused to do evil.

Sounds like a 4 year old justifying being caught with the hand in the cookie box.

[Beckys_Mom]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 05:30 AM, said:

Free Will does not exist..

Yes it does..........

IE..................If ome mad religious mad man took my kid...and held a knife to her throat, saying I better convert to his faith or she gets it.......then I would say and do anyrthing to have her set free...and convert AGAINST my own free will


It would be against my free will as converting is NOT what I ever desired..I don't believe in it...but to save a life..against my own free will..I then give in


its not rocket science to understand what free will is

and NOOO free will is not like walking into a shop and wondering...should I get a 6 pack or beer or 12 pack?? ..

[Wootloops]

Jor-el, on 22 October 2009 - 03:26 PM, said:

Maybe then you can answer that one elusive question...

What is Free will?

Everybody talks of it, maybe you can be the one who actually defines it.

Free Will is the ability to make choices outside of causation or randomness. This shouldn't be an elusive question for someone who is religious such as yourself. Free Will is core to your religion, and so if you're not even able to define it, you have a problem.