Free will cannot be explained (ultimately)

If one could explain exactly how free will worked then one would have to explain a choice with reference to the cause for that choice. If one was to do this then it would prove that it would not be free will but some caused choice. So although one can explain the general principle of how we might have free will , there will always come a point where one says I chose A because I chose A.

This does not mean that there is no rationale behind choice A , but that the rationale was not sufficient to cause the choice or make the choice inevitable.

So , if I am caught between A and B I have reasons to choose either but no reason is compelling enough to cause me to choose. I still have to choose. So what is the explanation behind me choosing A? There is no explanation other than the fact that I made a selection. I am my own cause. If it could be explained then it would not be free , because a cause would have been found.

So explaining free will ultimately is like trying to explain why God exists. So why does God exist? The answer of course there is no why , he just IS. If there was a why he could not be God...the "why" would become God.

Disagree/ Agree?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Disagree/ Agree?

Most of your post is essentially saying that a free choice is a choice with a random component. I know you hate that word random but that is what you have described.
The last part is easily dealt with by pointing out that since God does not exist there is no need for a why.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one could explain exactly how free will worked then one would have to explain a choice with reference to the cause for that choice.

Why? If free will exists the choice must by definition exist outside of causality. If it doesn't exist, then the choice doesn't either, because it's causally predetermined. You seem to be mixing choice and cause inappropriately.

This does not mean that there is no rationale behind choice A , but that the rationale was not sufficient to cause the choice or make the choice inevitable.

Are you suggesting that rationale can exist outside of causality? How then can it be structured?

There is no explanation other than the fact that I made a selection. I am my own cause. If it could be explained then it would not be free , because a cause would have been found.

So you exist outside causality, how then can you be caused to do anything? Or are you denying you are caused to do things? Or do you only occasionally exist seperate from causality?

So explaining free will ultimately is like trying to explain why God exists. So why does God exist?

Yes

The answer of course there is no why , he just IS.

No, it's that people are confused, a little bit lonely, scarred about their place in the universe and have invented him.

Originally posted by Starrman
Are you suggesting that rationale can exist outside of causality? How then can it be structured?

No, he said that rationale is a causal system but that rationale was not casually sufficient to make his choices.
Essentially his choices contain a random component. His problem lies in the fact that a random choice appears to take the control away from him whereas he desperately wants to be responsible for his choices or his whole belief system collapses. (God would be unjust to send you to hell for a random choice and similarly unjust to send you to hell for a "decision" in which you had no choice.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, he said that rationale is a causal system but that rationale was not casually sufficient to make his choices.
Essentially his choices contain a random component. His problem lies in the fact that a random choice appears to take the control away from him whereas he desperately wants to be responsible for his choices or his whole belief system collapse ...[text shortened]... choice and similarly unjust to send you to hell for a "decision" in which you had no choice.)

Yes, I misread and inferred the next step.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one could explain exactly how free will worked then one would have to explain a choice with reference to the cause for that choice. If one was to do this then it would prove that it would not be free will but some caused choice. So although one can explain the general principle of how we might have free will , there will always come a point where on ...[text shortened]... IS. If there was a why he could not be God...the "why" would become God.

Disagree/ Agree?

More or less, yes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, he said that rationale is a causal system but that rationale was not casually sufficient to make his choices.
Essentially his choices contain a random component. His problem lies in the fact that a random choice appears to take the control away from him whereas he desperately wants to be responsible for his choices or his whole belief system collapse ...[text shortened]... choice and similarly unjust to send you to hell for a "decision" in which you had no choice.)

How are you ascertaining my deperation ? Have you secretly wired me up ?

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]If one could explain exactly how free will worked then one would have to explain a choice with reference to the cause for that choice.

Why? If free will exists the choice must by definition exist outside of causality. If it doesn't exist, then the choice doesn't either, because it's causally predetermin ...[text shortened]... fused, a little bit lonely, scarred about their place in the universe and have invented him.[/b]

Why? If free will exists the choice must by definition exist outside of causality. If it doesn't exist, then the choice doesn't either, because it's causally predetermined. You seem to be mixing choice and cause inappropriately. STARRMAN

Good man . This was the point I was making.

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]If one could explain exactly how free will worked then one would have to explain a choice with reference to the cause for that choice.

Why? If free will exists the choice must by definition exist outside of causality. If it doesn't exist, then the choice doesn't either, because it's causally predetermin ...[text shortened]... fused, a little bit lonely, scarred about their place in the universe and have invented him.[/b]

This does not mean that there is no rationale behind choice A , but that the rationale was not sufficient to cause the choice or make the choice inevitable. KM

Are you suggesting that rationale can exist outside of causality? How then can it be structured?STAR

...No , I am suggesting that if I make a free choice then I can justify that choice using reason. I can explain the choice , but that reasoning is not sufficient to force the choice only influence it. This is a common experience for most of us , we chose first and then explain the rationale for the choice without any implication that it was a forced or determined choice.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This does not mean that there is no rationale behind choice A , but that the rationale was not sufficient to cause the choice or make the choice inevitable. KM

Are you suggesting that rationale can exist outside of causality? How then can it be structured?STAR

...No , I am suggesting that if I make a free choice then I can justify that choice usi ...[text shortened]... the rationale for the choice without any implication that it was a forced or determined choice.

See twitehead's post above.

Originally posted by Starrman
See twitehead's post above.

So do you , like whitey, see no other option than randomness or determinism (or a bit of both)? If so then fine , but notice that Whitey implies that under this belief system it is impossible to hold men morally accountable.
So if you and whitey subscribe to it then logically you must let go of the idea that men are morally responsible for their actions or you must resign yourself to living under the illusion that they are when you don't really believe that they are.
So whitey has made a great point but unfortunately it just creates a further problem for him because it is he that would like to hold onto the idea that the illusion of free will actually is free will so he can think he is really in control of his actions.

What you are both missing is that believing in free will and not believing in it have pros and cons both ways. The question is who is being more consistent. I believe in free will and this is entirely consistent with my belief that men are morally responsible . Are you and whitey being consistent? Its a simple question.

There is no free-will, just agency

Originally posted by Serendipity
There is no free-will, just agency

Sounds consistent , slightly thin on argument though

Originally posted by knightmeister
So do you , like whitey, see no other option than randomness or determinism (or a bit of both)? If so then fine , but notice that Whitey implies that under this belief system it is impossible to hold men morally accountable.
So if you and whitey subscribe to it then logically you must let go of the idea that men are morally responsible for their acti that men are morally responsible . Are you and whitey being consistent? Its a simple question.

As you well know from previous discussion, I believe in a purely materialistic world, from which it logically follows that free will is an illusion. Discussions on the state of moral accountability are only possible in an arena in which we accept the illusion and consider the topic to be bound inside it and to its rules. I am more than happy to do this, in fact, as I have explained before, everything I discuss here is assumed under such a banner.

Originally posted by Starrman
As you well know from previous discussion, I believe in a purely materialistic world, from which it logically follows that free will is an illusion. Discussions on the state of moral accountability are only possible in an arena in which we accept the illusion and consider the topic to be bound inside it and to its rules. I am more than happy to do this, in fact, as I have explained before, everything I discuss here is assumed under such a banner.

As you well know from previous discussion, I believe in a purely materialistic world, from which it logically follows that free will is an illusion. Discussions on the state of moral accountability are only possible in an arena in which we accept the illusion and consider the topic to be bound inside it and to its rules. I am more than happy to do this, in fact, as I have explained before, everything I discuss here is assumed under such a banner.STARRMAN

So what you are saying is that you are a bit like the guy in the matrix who betrays keanu reeves and his friends because he wants the chance to return to the matrix and forget that he is not really in a bubble of goo. He says at one point in the film something like "I know this steak isn't real and it's just a computer generated steak but (as he bites into it) you know, I don't care"

Now your position here is fine but would you accept that it would be hypocritical of you to criticise any Christian would said " Maybe God is an illusion and it makes no sense , but I don't care the illusion is real to me"

The problem is that if you debate under the banner that we can and should accept as real those some things which we know to be illusionary then you have forfeited your rights to debate whether certain things like God should be accepted as real or illusionary. You have also forfeited your rights to claim for yourself a rational position since you do not live by said rationality , you are only rational when it suits.

Of course you would be more than happy to accept the illusion of free will because like in the matrix film , the rational reality (or alternative) is very disturbing. Authenticity is sometimes very uncomfortble.