Doing God's will.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

It's illogical to think that God is ever not spending time with you. 

He's God. 

And individually, he always makes his will known.

 

 

You are choosing to believe that he is, which is not the same as “he”actually is. 

You are using your free will to believe that it is illogical as a human to not believe that god is not ever spending time with you.

You are giving us a snap shot into your beliefs and what being human means to you.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Sherapy

[XenoFish]

Free will or not, I'm going to live my life as I damn well please.

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Free will or not, I'm going to live my life as I damn well please.

Are you? 

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Free will or not, I'm going to live my life as I damn well please.

And that's what free will is all about, Charlie Brown.

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Are you? 

 

Yes. Because I fully acknowledge and accept the choices I make. 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Yes. Because I fully acknowledge and accept the choices I make. 

Just wondered how you would answer, more than anything. Lol 

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Just wondered how you would answer, more than anything. Lol 

Why though? 

[+Sherapy]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Why though? 

Curious as to how you would respond. And, you did in Xeno with a Sarte flair.. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Sherapy

[XenoFish]

People arguing over the existence/nonexistence of free will are no different than those arguing over god. Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter, just live your life. 

If it sucks, change it. If it's going good, ride the wave. 

[XenoFish]

Every time I look at my new avatar I think skeltor. Anyone else do the same?

[+Sherapy]

Just now, XenoFish said:

People arguing over the existence/nonexistence of free will are no different than those arguing over god. Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter, just live your life. 

If it sucks, change it. If it's going good, ride the wave. 

I conclude similar to Sarte, myself. But yeah, who knows, who cares. 

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I conclude similar to Sarte, myself. But yeah, who knows, who cares. 

Which is the reason I've kinda stayed away from this section. It's repetitive. All discussions devolve into the same arguments out of habit. Every single time. It's easy to fall backing to the "I'm right, you're wrong." over and over. I'm honestly tired of it. Because it seems so pointless. 

[XenoFish]

If you've decided to live intentionally, then you've taken the wheel. If you've chosen to run on auto pilot, it's all habits. 

[Horta]

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm very skeptical of that as free will seems to have the same issues as god, and perhaps more of them.  The issue I have with free will is that there doesn't seem to be a way to theoretically state what we would expect if it did exist.  We have reduced the sphere of influence for God, agreed, it does not appear that God creates species for instance, however we can never disprove it and there isn't anything in evolution that conflicts necessarily with a god creating species, except those gods who are proposed to be creating species ex nihilo.  If we have souls, then similarly all bets on free will are off no matter what the study of the brain shows us ultimately.

I agree those are not compelling arguments for either, we're drifting close to the bottom foundation of 'can't rule out the Matrix/we're just brains in vats dreaming this reality' which is a last resort.  The difference to me is that in theory if a god exists it's easily provable, we just need them to just show up and do their god things.  But I don't see how I can do that for free will. 

I just made a free will choice to type this sentence; how can we even in theory show that?  What evidence can we possibly have?  Sure we may some day be able to analyze what parts of our brain are being used to make a decision and determine that if we do have free will it doesn't work how we expect, but without being able even in theory to define a circumstance where a free will choice could ever be identifiable, then it seems we have an unfalsifiable claim lurking in there somewhere.

The reason why free will itself can't be demonstrated, is for obvious reasons. It can't logically be reconciled with reality to begin with, it's a paranormal concept that defies logic and requires a paranormal origin (a soul?). A universe where it exists is difficult to imagine (but not impossible), as it would require one particular biological structure that has a naturalistic cause like everything else, to not be subject to naturalistic cause and effect in the way it operates, and able to give contra causal outcomes. That's why we see philosophers trying to redefine it in hopes of rescuing it, rather than accept the obvious. 

It's becoming popularly accepted amongst neuroscientists that it doesn't exist, which is only going to be further demonstrated as technology increases. Eventually it will be considered a fact, just like evolution. Neuroscience is already being considered more and more in certain areas of society, though the implications are not what people might think. The general public aren't letting go of the little homunculus idea any time soon though. For similar reasons the ancients were sure the sun revolved around the earth...it sure looks/feels that way. 

It should be easy to demonstrate free will. Libet type experiments showing that will precedes the brains decisions would at least be evidence that it exists. If that happened I would be open to the possibility that both free will and the "soul" could exist. "Conscious free will" and the "soul" seem synonymous, they amount to the same thing. It's curious that even atheists who decry the paranormal are usually sure they have a thing called a "consciousness" that somehow possesses this "free will" as this seems quite a paranormal claim in itself. What they really seem to have is a physical structure (brain) that runs on cause and effect and is prone to illusions.

In a universe where it really did exist and the "will" wasn't simply an extension of biology, why wouldn't we see tourettes sufferers simply use there "free will" to stop having tourettes? Or long term depression, multiple personality disorder, ocd, schizophrenia? Simply stopping these things should be easy, if the mind is not reliant on cause and effect and dictated by biology?  How believers reconcile this, who knows. Perhaps it's only some people who have free will, some of the time lol?

A man can do as he wills, but not will what he wills.

 

[Horta]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

People arguing over the existence/nonexistence of free will are no different than those arguing over god. Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter, just live your life. 

If it sucks, change it. If it's going good, ride the wave. 

That's true for most people. Free will or not, you still have to wipe your backside lol.

It does have implications in areas of jurisprudence and ethics though. Not necessarily the way people fear, as it won't change things too much and it won't bypass responsibility, but some of our systems do need to be more aligned with reality.

ps. One of the main problems with it seems to be in areas of research into what "consciousness" itself is. There are lots of assumptions accepted about it (that it has free will for instance) that are holding us back. Lots of time and effort has been wasted looking something consistent with these assumptions, rather than trying to objectively study and understand what is.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Horta

[XenoFish]

Guess no one should be held accountable for anything. No free will, no choice, no responsibility. 

[Horta]

9 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Guess no one should be held accountable for anything. No free will, no choice, no responsibility. 

Thats facile xeno. Surely you're capable of a bit deeper thought than that?

Actions have consequences, whether there is free will or not. Why wouldn't people be held accountable?

If your car has faulty brakes, you take it off the road because it is dangerous. You wouldn't continue driving it because you feel sorry for it, as it has no free will. If it has enough wrong and can't be repaired, maybe you scrap it. Similar principle. What you wouldn't do, is hate it or consider it evil. You might even spend lots of time trying to understand the fault for future reference.

All it will change is the retributive nature of the systems we now have. It will remove the need for moral condemnation and render the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" sentiment as baseless. It removes justification for further suffering and hatred. It will open up the possibility of learning in ways that are now not usually considered. It will never mean no one is accountable.

[Horta]

@XenoFish

I should also add, that your personal emotional reaction to something or that you might not like its consequences, has no bearing on whether there is truth to it. 

[XenoFish]

Here's something to think about. You're a teen, never drove before. Dad hands you the keys and tells you to drive. You fumble at first, mess up a lot. Eventually you learn. You being to drive more and more, it all becomes easier, eventually you reach a point where little to no thought is involved. Everything becomes for the most part automatic. 

Learning would be a conscious and intentional act, correct? 

[+Sherapy]

39 minutes ago, Horta said:

The reason why free will itself can't be demonstrated, is for obvious reasons. It can't logically be reconciled with reality to begin with, it's a paranormal concept that defies logic and requires a paranormal origin (a soul?). A universe where it exists is difficult to imagine (but not impossible), as it would require one particular biological structure that has a naturalistic cause like everything else, to not be subject to naturalistic cause and effect in the way it operates, and able to give contra causal outcomes. That's why we see philosophers trying to redefine it in hopes of rescuing it, rather than accept the obvious. 

It's becoming popularly accepted amongst neuroscientists that it doesn't exist, which is only going to be further demonstrated as technology increases. Eventually it will be considered a fact, just like evolution. Neuroscience is already being considered more and more in certain areas of society, though the implications are not what people might think. The general public aren't letting go of the little homunculus idea any time soon though. For similar reasons the ancients were sure the sun revolved around the earth...it sure looks/feels that way. 

It should be easy to demonstrate free will. Libet type experiments showing that will precedes the brains decisions would at least be evidence that it exists. If that happened I would be open to the possibility that both free will and the "soul" could exist. "Conscious free will" and the "soul" seem synonymous, they amount to the same thing. It's curious that even atheists who decry the paranormal are usually sure they have a thing called a "consciousness" that somehow possesses this "free will" as this seems quite a paranormal claim in itself. What they really seem to have is a physical structure (brain) that runs on cause and effect and is prone to illusions.

In a universe where it really did exist and the "will" wasn't simply an extension of biology, why wouldn't we see tourettes sufferers simply use there "free will" to stop having tourettes? Or long term depression, multiple personality disorder, ocd, schizophrenia? Simply stopping these things should be easy, if the mind is not reliant on cause and effect and dictated by biology?  How believers reconcile this, who knows. Perhaps it's only some people who have free will, some of the time lol?

A man can do as he wills, but not will what he wills.

 

I agree!

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Horta said:

@XenoFish

I should also add, that your personal emotional reaction to something or that you might not like its consequences, has no bearing on whether there is truth to it. 

Believing something is, has no bearing on what it might be either. 

I often see the excuse of no free will tacked right onto no personal responsibility, and no personal autonomy. Might as well just say, no free will only God's will. Because you're just a meat puppet. 

[XenoFish]

Perhaps the issue is absolute free will vs. free choice. 

The argument seems to come down to.

1)I can choose everything.

2)I can choose nothing.

So, does a middle ground exist? 

Is there a stance where I've made a choice, and made the same choice enough to become a habit. Does such a thing exist? Where acting intentionally till it's a habitual act. 

[Horta]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Believing something is, has no bearing on what it might be either. 

I often see the excuse of no free will tacked right onto no personal responsibility, and no personal autonomy. Might as well just say, no free will only God's will. Because you're just a meat puppet. 

Yeah right...unless it's supported in principle by every observation we have ever made about our universe, and also supported by neuroscientific research and direct experiments lol.

So far you've offered an "appeal to adverse consequences" fallacy and now a strawman fallacy.

You don't have to believe it, you can go on thinking that there is something "magical" happening inside your brain. That's up to you. Surely if your going to argue though, you would base arguments on more than that?

[XenoFish]

Just now, Horta said:

Yeah right...unless it's supported in principle by every observation we have ever made about our universe, and also supported by neuroscientific research and direct experiments lol.

So far you've offered an "appeal to adverse consequences" fallacy and now a strawman fallacy.

You don't have to believe it, you can go on thinking that there is something "magical" happening inside your brain. That's up to you. Surely if your going to argue though, you would base arguments on more than that?

Figured I'd get this response. Just trying to find a middle ground. Apparently that's a fools errand. 

A man chooses, a slave obeys.

Believe what you will. Not that you ever had a choice in the matter.

[Horta]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Perhaps the issue is absolute free will vs. free choice. 

What separates "absolute free will" from garden variety free will? How do you define "free choice"?

Quote

The argument seems to come down to.

1)I can choose everything.

2)I can choose nothing.

So, does a middle ground exist? 

I don't see these as being relevant. Humans do nothing if not make choices. This issue is whether these choices themselves are the result of cause and effect...or not.

Quote

Is there a stance where I've made a choice, and made the same choice enough to become a habit. Does such a thing exist? Where acting intentionally till it's a habitual act. 

Of course habits exist.