free will

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think I understand now. You do not have a mind, but are controlled by chemical reactions in your brain. Okay, I get it.

where did i suggest that? t'wood seem you are putting words into my mouth r.j. which makes a pleasant change from what you usually try to stick there on our camping trips.

Originally posted by Agerg
Hypothetically speaking I may well be able to choose X or ¬X with it being the case that "God" infallibly knows what I will choose - and still have freewill. The defence theists use to force through this argument is that "God" supposedly exists independent of our own timeline (and so from our perspective there exists an entity who has seen our entire pasts and ...[text shortened]... hoices it saw us make without coerscion). I see this defence as valid (in theory at least)

This does however tell us something about the nature of our universe. ie if it is possible for there to exist an entity that knows all past and present then it tells us something about physics.
Further, I find it very hard to reconcile an entity that exists outside of time yet interacts with time. Any interaction would in effect change the future. So not only is there an issue with God creating the universe, but also all his interactions with the universe. ie he not only knows what he will do in future, but is responsible for all effects his actions have.
It would also contradict quite significantly much of the Old Testament which portrays a God that keeps getting it wrong and wanting to start over.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This does however tell us something about the nature of our universe. ie if it is possible for there to exist an entity that knows all past and present then it tells us something about physics.
Further, I find it very hard to reconcile an entity that exists outside of time yet interacts with time. Any interaction would in effect change the future. So not ...[text shortened]... of the Old Testament which portrays a God that keeps getting it wrong and wanting to start over.

I see it as man being portrayed as getting it wrong and God having to keep fixing it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you may think of all the options available when you imagine a scenario, but when it gets to the actual moment you can only make one decision, that decision would always be the same no mater how many times you could replay that moment, which means you only really had one decision that you were capable of making. if you only have one true possibility then ...[text shortened]... the confines of our mind.

prove to me otherwise. give me a practical example of free will.

you may think of all the options available when you imagine a scenario, but when it gets to the actual moment you can only make one decision, that decision would always be the same no mater how many times you could replay that moment, which means you only really had one decision that you were capable of making. if you only have one true possibility then you only have one path which means you do not have the biblical idea of a free will.

at what point in the thought process is their an option to bypass the brains chemical based decision process. everything we do is limited by the confines of our mind.

prove to me otherwise. give me a practical example of free will.

I'm in a good mood today. I feel like losing an argument.

You WIN !!

Okay, Seriously. If God knows that you have a free will, that is also His foreknowledge. Right ?

If God knows that you are not free to choose, then He knows beforehand that you are not free. But if God knows that you ARE free to decide for yourself, that is also foreknowledge.

So you see, His knowing, is not necessarily your predestination.

Say you decide today something. God knew.
Say tomorrow you change your mind. God knew.
Say the next day you change back again. Well, God knew.
Say you vasilate back and forth not sure which you choose. Well, God knew that.

Now if you are free to choose God knows that you are free to choose. Which ever way you choose freely - He knew that by foreknowledge, you were free.

So I think the "God has programmed me" argument is self defeating somewhere down there.

But, granted, this matter has been debated by more able thinkers for many many centries.

Do you FEEL forced by God ? You simply have to accept the awesomeness of your own will to choose. Perhaps it is the greatest power in the universe, your free choice.

I think you would have to agree that if God knows what you will choose, He has not told you are anyone else. Maybe He knows. But YOU don't know. So simply excercise your awesome will, and decide.

Now if you choose to let Jesus Christ become your Lord and Savior, you will not be free to NOT be eventually conformed to the image of the Son of God. You will become like Jesus Christ and share His glorious destiny.

"Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers.

And those whom He predestinated, these He also called; and those whom He called, these He also justified; and those whom He justified, these he also glorified." (ROm. 8:29,30)

I think this means that once you decide to be in the realm of God's Son, in that sphere you will inherit His own glorious eternal future as a co-heir.

My opinion is that this is what deep inside everyone wants. That is to be like Christ. What higher human fulfillment could there be other than to be like Jesus Christ ?

I mean, isn't it slightly better than being like Brittany Spears or Bill O'Reilly ?


"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (Rev. 21:7)

Sons and daughters are mentioned in (Second Corinthians 6:18). Here sons does not mean "males". It means having the same life as God, ie. in the Divine Family, so to speak.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This does however tell us something about the nature of our universe. ie if it is possible for there to exist an entity that knows all past and present then it tells us something about physics.
Further, I find it very hard to reconcile an entity that exists outside of time yet interacts with time. Any interaction would in effect change the future. So not ...[text shortened]... of the Old Testament which portrays a God that keeps getting it wrong and wanting to start over.

This does however tell us something about the nature of our universe. ie if it is possible for there to exist an entity that knows all past and present then it tells us something about physics.
Perhaps (though I'm not entirely sure what it must necessarily tell us beyond the idea that the laws of physics in some extended universe (housing "God" ) permit a universe for which some entity exterior can know everything about it)...but then the existence of an entity that can overturn the laws of physics and perform magic also tells us something about the nature of our universe!

Further, I find it very hard to reconcile an entity that exists outside of time yet interacts with time. Any interaction would in effect change the future. So not only is there an issue with God creating the universe, but also all his interactions with the universe. ie he not only knows what he will do in future, but is responsible for all effects his actions have.
I suppose one could attempt to reconcile an entity existing outside of our time and interacting with it by positing that "Gods'" supposed temporal space (and I'm sure a theist will conjure as many dimensions here as they require) isn't orthogonal to ours. As for "God" actually changing the future, I agree that one's a problem if we're trying to cling onto infallible knowledge + free-will (and I don't see too many theists taking it on). In particular it raises the question about "God"'s own free-will: If it infallibly knows (on it's own time"line" ) it will perform X on our timeline to ensure Y happens, does it have a choice of not doing X!?

It would also contradict quite significantly much of the Old Testament which portrays a God that keeps getting it wrong and wanting to start over.
I agree, but then I don't think anyone needs to go so far to find the old testament straining credibility!

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it's really quiet simple. if our though process is contained fully within the physical universe, then we have no free will since it's all a bunch of particles bumping into each other. it would only be apparent free will due to the astonishingly large number of variables at work.

if however, our real "self" is located somewhere outside of the universe ...[text shortened]... ll as long as the link to the 'self' is maintained (ie. no brain damage or alteration).

I realize you are "iffing" here. I don't see how positing an extra-physical seat of thought necessarily allows for or explains free will. It would just add another variable of unknown character WRT free will, and "it's unknown" does not imply "it's possible."

The above is not an argument for or against free will.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] you may think of all the options available when you imagine a scenario, but when it gets to the actual moment you can only make one decision, that decision would always be the same no mater how many times you could replay that moment, which means you only really had one decision that you were capable of making. if you only have one true possibility ...[text shortened]... ales". It means having the same life as God, ie. in the Divine Family, so to speak.

god is pretty much irrelevant in this debate, what he knows are doesnt known and how he knows or doesnt know is pure speculation and does not detract from the key points about free will. look at the examples ive given you. you know your brain makes decisions and will always make the same decision given the same variables. which means only one decision can be made in every decision. which means you only ever had one choice. so regardless of god being real or not we know that free will is a myth.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
god is pretty much irrelevant in this debate, what he knows are doesnt known and how he knows or doesnt know is pure speculation and does not detract from the key points about free will. look at the examples ive given you. you know your brain makes decisions and will always make the same decision given the same variables. which means only one decision c ...[text shortened]... ly ever had one choice. so regardless of god being real or not we know that free will is a myth.

That may be the final conclusion of the total naturalist.

But if it is the case then why are you so upset about the evils done by anyone ?

Say, if the killing of Matthew Shepherd by some vehement anti-gay thugs was only the non-chosen result of chemical movements in the gray matter of the brain, then why are you incensed at the " homophobic " bigotry which lead to this murder ?

I think you lose ground in the moral universe when you assert no one has any free choice.

Originally posted by Agerg
In particular it raises the question about "God"'s own free-will: If it infallibly knows (on it's own time"line" ) it will perform X on our timeline to ensure Y happens, does it have a choice of not doing X!?

That is not a problem because God is in a different time frame. So from our perspective he is a static unchanging entity and from his perspective we are a static unchanging entity.
So he doesn't decide to do things in the same sequence we see them but rather he has made all decisions prior to instantiation our universe, and essentially instantiates our universe in its entirety, past, present and future.

Its like us interacting with a computer program for which we feed in all the input data prior to running it. All decisions are made before executing the code. There is no other way to correctly predict the outputs. The code will run the same way whenever it is run with those inputs. Essentially the program is on a different timeline from us and is static to us and we are static to it.

Originally posted by jaywill
That may be the final conclusion of the total naturalist.

But if it is the case then why are you so upset about the evils done by anyone ?

Say, if the killing of Matthew Shepherd by some vehement anti-gay thugs was only the non-chosen result of chemical movements in the gray matter of the brain, then why are you incensed at the " homophobic " big ...[text shortened]...

I think you lose ground in the moral universe when you assert no one has any free choice.

So God is not all powerful then, you cannot have your cake and eat it, maybe god was omnipotent but gave it up to see where his creation would take itself.

Theists by definition do not exercise free will, they presumably follow the rules laid down for them in their given religions holy book. They only exercised free will when they were atheists and decided to become theists who follow a particular religion.

What about those that were born into a religion, did they all still have their epiphany, or have they never exercised free will, If God gave us free will could it be argued that only atheists are adhering to gods prime directive.

Originally posted by jaywill
That may be the final conclusion of the total naturalist.

But if it is the case then why are you so upset about the evils done by anyone ?

Say, if the killing of Matthew Shepherd by some vehement anti-gay thugs was only the non-chosen result of chemical movements in the gray matter of the brain, then why are you incensed at the " homophobic " big ...[text shortened]...

I think you lose ground in the moral universe when you assert no one has any free choice.

why am i upset about evils done by any one? is a ridiculous question, have i given you the impression somewhere in my posts that i do not have emotions?

i think part of who we are and what we think develops because of the world around us effecting our development. i think a bigot can be changed, if critical mass is reached and they learn their attitudes are not acceptable, they may change.

i dont loose ground. not having free choice doesnt effect your moral attitude. your morals are there in your brain, effecting every decision you make. your morals are constructed as you grow, effected by your genes and your life experiences, hence why most people share very similar morals as their parents.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
why am i upset about evils done by any one? is a ridiculous question, have i given you the impression somewhere in my posts that i do not have emotions?

i think part of who we are and what we think develops because of the world around us effecting our development. i think a bigot can be changed, if critical mass is reached and they learn their attit ...[text shortened]... nes and your life experiences, hence why most people share very similar morals as their parents.

why am i upset about evils done by any one? is a ridiculous question, have i given you the impression somewhere in my posts that i do not have emotions?

It seems rediculous to you because though you deny it, you do have a sense of the abslute moral rightness and wrongness of human actions.

But your philosophy of total materialism takes away your basis for absolute moral standard logically. You cannot really live with the consequences of your own world view.

In your philosophy there is no love, only atoms.
There is no wrong bigotry or right tolerance. There is only chemical compositions. Material particles are not responsible for morality. At best you can only say that the thugs who terribly mistreated Matthew Shepherd the gay man just had bad molecules.

The reason you don't accept the implications of your own world philosophy is that you really don't believe it perhaps. It is only good for a tool to try to stave off God and man made in God's image, a absolute moral law.

"Human thoughts and transcendent moral laws are not material things any more that the laws of logic and mathematics are material things. They are immaterial entities that cannot be weighed or physically measured. As a result, they can't be explained in material terms by natural selection or any other atheistic means." [Giesler & Turek)

You want to reduce decisions of the human will to physical entities interacting in the physical world. But you don't consider the price tag of such a total materialism. I think you lose ground for asserting that survival is a "good" thing in some universal sense or that bigotry is a really "evil" thing.

i think part of who we are and what we think develops because of the world around us effecting our development.

I agree that environment plays a part. But we cannot take that beyond a certain point. You need to consider the price tag to all of the handy tools you grasp at to help rationalize your atheism. You do not carefully consider the by-products of your weapons.

i think a bigot can be changed, if critical mass is reached and they learn their attitudes are not acceptable, they may change.

Based on what you have been arguing, I have to assume by "critical mass" you really mean some kind of material "critical mass" perhaps of bad molecules or bad chemicals.

i dont loose ground. not having free choice doesnt effect your moral attitude. your morals are there in your brain, effecting every decision you make. your morals are constructed as you grow, effected by your genes and your life experiences, hence why most people share very similar morals as their parents.

The question is this: Does Moralty exist independently of how we know it, discover it, invent it, or arrive at it ? Does Moral Good exist before the atoms mass together to make an organism make a moral decision ?

Is there a Good and and Evil transcendent to the physical development of my brain ? I believe that your philosophy of is that there is NOT such a transcendent Moral Law. There is only, to your total naturalism, the "good" created by certain chemical reactions.

This is the Godless world you want. Learn to live in it. What happened to the poor gay man Matthew Shepherd wasn't really wrong or evil in any absolute sense. The thugs just had bad chemical reactions in their brains that day.

And like Adolf Eichman said of himself, they too will jump into their graves laughing and what they supposedly got away with. For there is no absolute Moral Judge to call them to account for their deed.

This is your world stellspalfie. A nice comfortable existence free of any transcendent Moral God of absolute moral righteousness. Live in it.

Originally posted by JS357
I realize you are "iffing" here. I don't see how positing an extra-physical seat of thought necessarily allows for or explains free will. It would just add another variable of unknown character WRT free will, and "it's unknown" does not imply "it's possible."

The above is not an argument for or against free will.

it's a speculation of a condition that would allow for the existence of free will. to be more specific than my previous post, i'm positing the seat of thought to be located in a place where there are no cause and effect rules. only then could thoughts be creatively originated.

while there is uncertainty in that speculation, there is no uncertainty concerning the absence of free will if the seat of thought is located in the physical universe (as in fully contained within the human brain).

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
to be more specific than my previous post, i'm positing the seat of thought to be located in a place where there are no cause and effect rules. only then could thoughts be creatively originated.

Except then the decisions become random.

There really are only three choices:
1. Entirely deterministic decisions.
2. Partly deterministic and partly random decisions.
3. Entirely random decisions.

Keep in mind in this discussion that 'free will' means different things to different people and most of us haven't really thought it through.
For me, free will means that any given free will decision is immediately, largely as a result of the state of my brain at the time. That the state of my brain is largely a result of the environment and various past inputs (learning experiences), analysis of those inputs etc does not take away the free will. Having said that however, I think complexity in decision making is important as I would shy away from describing a clearly deterministic computer program as having 'free will' despite it meeting my conditions above.

Originally posted by jaywill

why am i upset about evils done by any one? is a ridiculous question, have i given you the impression somewhere in my posts that i do not have emotions?

It seems rediculous to you because though you deny it, you do have a sense of the abslute moral rightness and wrongness of human actions.

But your philosophy of total materialis ...[text shortened]... ee of any transcendent Moral God of absolute moral righteousness. Live in it.

"In your philosophy there is no love, only atoms.
There is no wrong bigotry or right tolerance. There is only chemical compositions. Material particles are not responsible for morality. At best you can only say that the thugs who terribly mistreated Matthew Shepherd the gay man just had bad molecules."


love is a name we give to a set of emotions and way of thinking. i think the biblical 'love' as one magical feeling is too simplistic. there should really be many different words for it because the way we feel about our partners is completely different to how we feel for parents and how we feel for our children is totally different again. that is because our brain and body uses different parts of the brain and releases different chemicals for what we need to feel for that relationship to work. with children i feel an immense sense of protectiveness and responsibility, with my wife lots of endorphines are released for obvious reasons. all the types of love you feel for your family and for god are all created in the human body, we know this because we can measure it, we know each and every chemical that mixes, we know which parts of the brain fire to create 'love'. where in this chemical mix and chain of biological events does god step in and what would be the point of him or his magic being involved when the human body is doing a the job.

"the gay man just had bad molecules"

aah!! reducing things down to simplistic terminology to try and make things seem ridiculous, nice try. the truth however is the violent mans behavior is probably the result of bad childhood experiences, leading to a dysfunctional adult life, his brain has developed in such a way that violence is an acceptable action. there is no 'bad' molecules, i believe over time and after being put in the right environment this mans way of think could and i stress 'could' be changed.

"The reason you don't accept the implications of your own world philosophy is that you really don't believe it perhaps. It is only good for a tool to try to stave off God and man made in God's image, a absolute moral law.

i accept the implications of my world philosophy. its not really a philosophy, its exactly what happens. you cannot disagree that decisions are made by the brain or that emotions are created by chemicals released by glands. can you?

"Human thoughts and transcendent moral laws are not material things any more that the laws of logic and mathematics are material things. They are immaterial entities that cannot be weighed or physically measured. As a result, they can't be explained in material terms by natural selection or any other atheistic means." [Giesler & Turek)

giesler and turek are christians, they would say that as would you, it doesnt deal with facts. human thoughts are material, we know because we can see them and measure them.

You want to reduce decisions of the human will to physical entities interacting in the physical world. But you don't consider the price tag of such a total materialism. I think you lose ground for asserting that survival is a "good" thing in some universal sense or that bigotry is a really "evil" thing.

i dont think its reducing humans, i think the complexity of the chemistry, biology, physics, sociology and physiology is amazing, i find it beautiful, i wish i had the time (and intellect) to learn each facet inside out.
for me, putting everything down to god and calling us sinners is reducing humanity, suggesting we need saving and gods the only thing that can do it is reducing humanity, saying we all want enternal love from jesus is reducing humanity.

i didnt say survival is 'good' and bigotry is 'evil'???
what is the price tag and by products of my materialistic weaponry?


"The question is this: Does Moralty exist [b]independently of how we know it, discover it, invent it, or arrive at it ? Does Moral Good exist before the atoms mass together to make an organism make a moral decision ?"[/b]

morality does not exist independently it is a word we use to describe the way we individually and collectively think we should behave towards each other. morality can be seen in the animal kingdom, it can be measured in the brain and through the body.

there is no such thing as good and evil outside of the the brain. they are words we use to rate or rank human behavior.

This is the Godless world you want. Learn to live in it. What happened to the poor gay man Matthew Shepherd wasn't really wrong or evil in any absolute sense. The thugs just had bad chemical reactions in their brains that day.

i didnt say i wanted a godless world, im just pretty sure it is a godless world, i dont need to learn to live in it, i already live in it as do you. what happened to matthew shepherd was bad, in accordance to the moral code in which humans have developed to ensure we live in a beneficial society it was bad, very bad and the attacker should be punished/rehabilitated.

calling it a 'bad chemical reaction in their brains that day' seems a rather churlish way to reduce the complex reasons why the attacker did what he did to a simplistic sentence with the aim of misrepresenting the truth to make it look silly.

" This is your world stellspalfie. A nice comfortable existence free of any transcendent Moral God of absolute moral righteousness. Live in it

i do live in it as do you. my world is full of morals and ethics. in fact after talking with christians on here i would say my world has a higher level of morality than your idea of gods world. my moral code does not accept letting people burn in hell, it doesnt accept killing millions in a flood no mater how bad they were, my moral code does not allow sexism, homophobia, calling people sinners, punishing children because of their parents actions. see, no god in my world does not lead to mankind going crazy raping and murdering. in my world humans are taking responsibility for their own actions and striving for better and although christians like to pretend the world is getting worse the truth is through us striving for better the world is a much better place now than it ever was.