Do we have free will?

[Majikthise]

The biblical response would be that . . . Man does have a will . . . but that it is enslaved to sin. A person cannot do anything contrary to that "enslaved will" . . . therefore it takes God to remove the chains of that enslavement.

So god made me an atheist?

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, what the author is saying is that something as magnificent as the Taj Mahal can be created by putting together pre-existing elements and influences in a unique and abstract way.

Sounds like "copy" to me.

BTW, what's wrong with pathos??? You seem to need to avoid it.

Pathos is good!

 

[TheGreaterGame]

So god made me an atheist?

If their be a God, He certainly made you and everybody in the world. You have to remember that your will- is held captive to sin (if you belive in the doctrine of original sin). In your rebellion you have traded in the glory of God to worship . . . man . . . beast . . . ideas. You can only stop being an unbeliver if God in His mercy chooses to give you sight.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You can only stop being an unbeliver if God in His mercy chooses to give you sight.

Actually, God tries to give EVERYONE sight. In humility, you have to choose to seek God.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

Actually, God tries to give EVERYONE sight. In humility, you have to choose to seek God.

The Bible doesn't portray a God who . . . just tries . . . the Bible portrays a God who has created everything . . . who has complete creative control over all things. If God gave everyone eyes to see . . . then all would see . . . that is what makes Grace- Grace.

 

[Scuba Pete]

who has complete creative control over all things.

We must be reading different scriptures.

II Timothy 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. NIV

God does not force himself on us. Love cannot be compelled.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sounds like "copy" to me.

Okay.

BTW, what's wrong with pathos??? You seem to need to avoid it.

Pathos is good!

Only if your argument lacks merit, i.m.o.

If you don't mind, earlier you said I was "putting words in their mouths". Please explain what words, exactly, I put, and in whose mouth(s).

 

[capthowdy]

Wow....how did this become an art lesson?....the debate was free will.....my arguement was that even though outside occurences may influence the number of choices in a decision you still choose, no matter what the choices may be you still choose, wrong or right. That is free will, not magic nothing mystical, just choice........from whether you decide to go to work, take a **** (pardon my swahili) everything you do is based on choice. Though the choices may be limited by outside influences they are still choices, you make them, you take responsibility for them.............to say it is predetermined would be like saying this man mudered this woman, but hey it was just predetermined it was "something he ate" no he made a choice that is free will, the consequences he suffers are because of his choices (that is another imposing their will unto others) I apologize for no ones' weakness or non ability to excercise their will......I say this take responsibility........free will does exsist we do choose........stand up to those choices.....don't make excuses.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

capthowdy-- I agree with you that people should accept responsibility for their actions, not make excuses, etc etc. I think people should do that because it will make them happier, it will mean less crime, and it will mean a more orderly and safe society for everyone.

However, that does not mean that people really are ultimately responsible for their own actions, or that there is such a thing as free will. It's important in this discussion (and in many others) to distinguish between
A) The effects of belief
and
B) The validity of the belief (in terms of its correspondance to reality)

So for example, it may be a good thing for children to believe that Santa is watching their behavior, whether or not that belief is valid.

 

[Tawn]

Agree with all Spikles has been saying..

Art by the way, is more about the process than the end result. I study Architecture and when I do a design project I have to demonstrate a process of ideas and developments which cannot at any point by arbitary. There has to be a valid reason for every move I make, be they practical or abstract in nature. There is no room for free will - to make haphazard choices based on nothing - this is a rigourous process. I think youll find all art follows a similar process.. there are always ideas and influences behind pieces of art.

 

[Fluffy]

Wow....how did this become an art lesson?....the debate was free will.....my arguement was that even though outside occurences may influence the number of choices in a decision you still choose, no matter what the choices may be you still choose, wrong or right. That is free will, not magic nothing mystical, just choice........from whether you decide to go to work, take a **** (pardon my swahili) everything you do is based on choice. Though the choices may be limited by outside influences they are still choices, you make them, you take responsibility for them.............to say it is predetermined would be like saying this man mudered this woman, but hey it was just predetermined it was "something he ate" no he made a choice that is free will, the consequences he suffers are because of his choices (that is another imposing their will unto others) I apologize for no ones' weakness or non ability to excercise their will......I say this take responsibility........free will does exsist we do choose........stand up to those choices.....don't make excuses.

Which is fine BUT you must do one of the following 2 things:
1) Assume that your choice as a cause
2) Assume that your choice has no cause

If 1) then your choice is not actually a choice (since it is caused) and therefore freewill does not exist

If 2) then you are denying the laws of cause and effect. Which is fine. But why you would wish to expound such a belief as logical when it is actually totally illogical and irrational is beyond me. Im all for believing such a thing but surely people can see that it is pointless to try and debate such a belief and therefore if you hold it then the most you can do is tell people that you hold it... not why you hold it which is an ingredient necessary for debate.

Doing 2) would be similar to me walking up to a Christian and getting into a debate over whose god was real, theirs or mine. Totally pointless and a non-debate.

 

[Tawn]

This is interesting fluffy, because those who believe in free will do understand cause and effect on people.. but I think their contention is that it just makes them more likely to choose one than the other.. however I cannot quite see how that is resolved..

 

[Tawn]

The way I see it, when a person makes a decision, they weight up the consequences of each action. Perhaps their feelings and state of mind have some influence too.
Now if someones decision is being entirely decided by consequences and thoughts and feelings.. then there is no free will - you are just 'reacting' to the information and stimulus you are recieving.
Free will would be when you can make a totally non-reactionary decision. Random if you will. Yet again if this does happen it is not even choice, it is instead chaos occasionally having an effect upon your decision making process.

To the supporters of free will:
What is choice? When you make a choice are there reasons for that choice? Or is it a chaotic decision which ignores all reason?

 

[Fluffy]

This is interesting fluffy, because those who believe in free will do understand cause and effect on people.. but I think their contention is that it just makes them more likely to choose one than the other.. however I cannot quite see how that is resolved..

I agree and I think this is the end result of the inability of the brain to categorise and analyse all of the millions of causes that effect a given action. Obviously if you only look at 99% of these effects then you will have 1% of the action unexplained and therefore this gives free will some ability to exist. Free will proponents often fail to acknowledge this, however.

 

[Tawn]

Just seems to me that if you make a choice (supposedly by free will) then you normally have a reason for making that choice. There are of course reasons to support all alternative choices, but your decision will be based on what you, at that moment in time, decide to be the better reasons. Your perception of what may be the better reasons will be determined by your perspective.. the information you have available, your personality in the main.
Now a free will proponent may argue that it within someones capabilities to choose the choice that they knowingly hold to have the poorer reasons supporting that choice, yet still, there must be a reason for approaching the decision making process in a backwards manner.
Any diversion from this methodology is essentially random. Chaotic. I cannot see how a chaotic decision (if one indeed exists) would make the person making a decision any more to blame for their action than one who acts on the information available.
Is this starting to get confusing?

 

[Fluffy]

Just seems to me that if you make a choice (supposedly by free will) then you normally have a reason for making that choice. There are of course reasons to support all alternative choices, but your decision will be based on what you, at that moment in time, decide to be the better reasons. Your perception of what may be the better reasons will be determined by your perspective.. the information you have available, your personality in the main.
Now a free will proponent may argue that it within someones capabilities to choose the choice that they knowingly hold to have the poorer reasons supporting that choice, yet still, there must be a reason for approaching the decision making process in a backwards manner.
Any diversion from this methodology is essentially random. Chaotic. I cannot see how a chaotic decision (if one indeed exists) would make the person making a decision any more to blame for their action than one who acts on the information available.
Is this starting to get confusing?

lol just a little bit . But it makes sense to me. I am starting to think that because of the complexity of the idea, and how it goes against what is ingrained into us by society, that people actually encounter walls within their own head which prevent them from accepting such an idea. I remember that I had a great deal of trouble when I was first introduced to the idea of a lack of free will, to the extent of an attempted suicide on my part, but now I relish the idea completely and cannot understand the opposing idea at all!

It makes me wonder how much of the opposing argument is based on fact and logic and how much is based on a simple inability to accept such an idea, not their fault you understand, but simply because of the way the mind works.

 

[Tawn]

It makes me wonder how much of the opposing argument is based on fact and logic and how much is based on a simple inability to accept such an idea, not their fault you understand, but simply because of the way the mind works.

Yes, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.. just because we think were right doesnt make us right.. I do find though that people dont tend to take the suggestion of no free will very seriously..

eg:

exercising free will simply means making a desission, using your own mind to make choices. it is not a difficult thing and i can't believe that this is something that is up for debate. this is the most beautiful gift god has given us.

I agree, there like a wall between people and this idea. They consider it obvious that there must be free will.. now I dont begrudge anyone who genuinely considers whether there is free will or not.. and concludes that there is.. but I dont think people honestly consider this.. even the non-believers out there..

 

[Scuba Pete]

I do believe that you can "lose" your free will... the Bible is quite clear on that. But, that's your choice to do so. It's also your choice to get it back.

 

[Malus 12:9]

To the supporters of free will:
What is choice? When you make a choice are there reasons for that choice? Or is it a chaotic decision which ignores all reason?

It is sometimes defined as something done without rationalisation,
without thinking. The person making the choice "decides" it is right,
whether it is or not, and will generally not want to hear or be told otherwise.

 

[Tawn]

It is sometimes defined as something done without rationalisation,
without thinking. The person making the choice "decides" it is right,
whether it is or not, and will generally not want to hear or be told otherwise.

And how does this happen? Im sorry if I dont understand but when you say without rationalisation do you mean the decision is not a rational one?