Do Atheists believe in free-will?

[Skwim]

What exactly is the "classical notion of free will"?

From Wikidpedia.

"Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The opposing positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist."
​

 

[Sum1sGruj]

To say we don't have free will is to go against physics and/or say that a supreme deity created the universe and made it so.
The notion is double-edged.

 

[ninerbuff]

Of course I do. I can choose from chocolate, banana or vanilla pudding.

 

[jarofthoughts]

To say we don't have free will is to go against physics and/or say that a supreme deity created the universe and made it so.
The notion is double-edged.

How is it against physics?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Of course I do. I can choose from chocolate, banana or vanilla pudding.

And what makes you choose one over the other?

 

[waitasec]

To say we don't have free will is to go against physics and/or say that a supreme deity created the universe and made it so.
The notion is double-edged.

explain how inclinations, innate senses and preference
are a part of free will...
and i too wonder what you mean by it going against physics

 

[Sum1sGruj]

'Cause and effect' and 'randomness' cannot co-exist universally. Sure, the quantum world seems random, but that is because we have yet to figure out the seemingly spontaneous atomic world.
If everything is random, then free will certainly exists because otherwise we would be so sporadic that nothing would be purposeful.
But this is not the case because we see cause and effect all the time. It exists everywhere.
So we can rule out random.

Cause and effect. If we go back 13 billion years ago, there was a cause. This is the effect.
Everything that happens through time is part of that original 'cause'. We are in a singularity, meaning all movement and matter are the same manifestations of the 'beginning'.

If the universe was caused by it's own accord, then it has free will, and since we are literally the universe, we have it as well.
If the universe was created by an omnipotent being, then free will cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[waitasec]

If the universe was caused by it's own accord, then it has free will, and since we are literally the universe, we have it as well.

here you imply intention...do the laws of physics imply premeditation?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

here you imply intention...do the laws of physics imply premeditation?

If there is no movement or force (cause), there is nothing. But if there is, then it was of the universe creating itself of it's own accord. And therefore, we have free will because we are part of the universe.

 

[Skwim]

'Cause and effect' and 'randomness' cannot co-exist universally. Sure, the quantum world seems random, but that is because we have yet to figure out the seemingly spontaneous atomic world.

Perhaps. The question is still being debated among physicists.
(I'm unable to directly link to an article that deals with this, but by typing "quantum randomness may not be random" into Google and selecting the first option, "Quantum randomness may not be random - alt.philosophy | Google Groups' you can read it.)

If everything is random, then free will certainly exists because otherwise we would be so sporadic that nothing would be purposeful.
But this is not the case because we see cause and effect all the time. It exists everywhere.
So we can rule out random.

It was never up for consideration.

We are in a singularity, meaning all movement and matter are the same manifestations of the 'beginning'.

Sounds nice, but essentially meaningless.

If the universe was caused by it's own accord, then it has free will, and since we are literally the universe, we have it as well.

But only sentient beings can have will, so this is a moot point.

If the universe was created by an omnipotent being, then free will cannot be proven or disproven.

Why?

 

[waitasec]

If there is no movement or force (cause), there is nothing. But if there is, then it was of the universe creating itself of it's own accord. And therefore, we have free will because we are part of the universe.

but cause doesn't mean intent

 

[Sum1sGruj]

but cause doesn't mean intent

The universe intended to form. Otherwise, how did it if there was no cause?

 

[waitasec]

The universe intended to form.

the universe is sentient?

Otherwise, how did it if there was no cause?

how can we possibly know....

 

[Sum1sGruj]

But only sentient beings can have will, so this is a moot point.

That's an anomaly in your belief, actually.

You have to be very careful when going about philosophy.
For example, there is much philosophy on agnostic theism- But when it comes down to it, all that philosophy becomes obsolete.
An agnostic theist is synonymous with a general gnostic.
See, the same thing occurs with free will. All this philosophy about how we don't have it- but when it comes down to it, free will is synonymous with will itself. The things affecting your judgement is you. Your idea separates self from self. Think about it. Your brain is you, not a separate system dictating you.

But everything is the same material (atoms, energy), a system according to the idea of no free will. That's why I am bringing up physics, because 'cause an effect' and 'random' cannot co-exist. So whatever started the universe is proof that free will is not only of sentient beings, but a law of all physical reality- because there cannot be 'cause' when there is nothing.
Sentient beings are just able to act on it.

 

[Skwim]

That's an anomaly in your belief, actually.

You have to be very careful when going about philosophy.
For example, there is much philosophy on agnostic theism- But when it comes down to it, all that philosophy becomes obsolete.
An agnostic theist is synonymous with a general gnostic.
See, the same thing occurs with free will. All this philosophy about how we don't have it- but when it comes down to it, free will is synonymous with will itself. The things affecting your judgement is you. Your idea separates self from self. Think about it. Your brain is you, not a separate system dictating you.

But everything is the same material (atoms, energy), a system according to the idea of no free will. That's why I am bringing up physics, because 'cause an effect' and 'random' cannot co-exist. So whatever started the universe is proof that free will is not only of sentient beings, but a law of all physical reality- because there cannot be 'cause' when there is nothing.
Sentient beings are just able to act on it.

"It," being the will and defined as

"a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action:"
​

which you say only sentient beings can act on, then the universe is not choosing anything, in effect not exercising its will at all, which therefore means it's a worthless, meaningless character of the universe. And just where does this mental faculty, which you imply the universe has, reside?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

"It," being the will and defined as

"a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action:"
​

which you say only sentient beings can act on, then the universe is not choosing anything, in effect not exercising its will at all, which therefore means it's a worthless, meaningless character of the universe. And just where does this mental faculty, which you imply the universe has, reside?

Imagine the universe as a row a dominoes.
One tips over and so they all fall. How did that first domino fall?
Will. Fundamentally, there is no effect without cause, and no cause without will.

The universe deliberately chose to 'become'. Therefore, the universe has will. Since we are literally part of the universe, we to have will.
The universe 'became' as a 'zero point' singularity and expanded immediately, complete with all the laws and knowledge of the universe and ourselves as everything was crammed into one.
Since the singularity expanded and matter is no longer crammed in the 'zero point', it is now only sentient beings that can act on will.

Cause and will is a duality. If you think about it, we are literally the ones that created the universe, if not a divine being.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Imagine the universe as a row a dominoes.
One tips over and so they all fall. How did that first domino fall?
Will. Fundamentally, there is no effect without cause, and no cause without will.

The universe deliberately chose to 'become'. Therefore, the universe has will.

Leaving the Quantum Physics and Cosmology, that you are misrepresenting by the way, out of it, I assume you have evidence for this claim?

Or is this your version of 'the god of the gaps'?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Leaving the Quantum Physics and Cosmology, that you are misrepresenting by the way, out of it, I assume you have evidence for this claim?

Or is this your version of 'the god of the gaps'?

Nope. This is a Sum1sGruj original

And I would love to see you show that I am misrepresenting physics.
Physics is my main science, you better be prepared lol.

 

[Skwim]

Nope. This is a Sum1sGruj original

And I would love to see you show that I am misrepresenting physics.
Physics is my main science, you better be prepared lol.

So you got what, a B or maybe an A in it?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

So you got what, a B or maybe an A in it?

Why doesn't somebody try me and find out? It saves a whole lot of trouble.

Seriously, I just gave a very good philosophy on free will, and the only thing in return is this. I was fully correct in the ideas of physics, that is how I already know I am superior to certain others about it.
It's amazing how hypocritical some people are. Some of you speak of theists being in denial, and you can't even discuss a topic without trying to insult someones intelligence and refusal to venture upon an idea.
It leaves me in the position in saying I have come up with something a whole helluva lot better contrary to your idea, and now you and others can tell me how I am a 'legend in my own mind'.

Whatever. I'm done here.