Do You Believe in Free Will?

[ChristianJon]

We are all a big bunch of atoms and cells organised to form our brains, we make choices because the million processes in our minds which occur outside of our consciousness every second compel us to. That is for some a reasonable argument to disprove free will, but I think, it is the fact that we have these millions of processes that gives us free will. Animals exist to survive and continue, we do much more, we have the power to commit suicide, waste time and resources which could be used to aid our survival on unnecessary things like art, we can daydream when we should be doing something else. If animals started admiring sunsets, it would be less time spent hunting for food and they would perish, we do not perish when we do things which go beyond our basic instincts and will to survive. That is my idea of free will anyway...its more about that fact we have choices, than why we choose them.

 

[logician]

So where did the eternal multiverse come from?

Eternal implies it always existed, i.e. the structure was always there.

 

[d3vaLL]

Eternal implies it always existed, i.e. the structure was always there.

I can't share the same faith as you, for the same reasons I don't with the religious.

 

[crystalonyx]

I can't share the same faith as you, for the same reasons I don't with the religious.

I can't share the same faith as you, for the same reasons I don't with the religious.

There's no faith here, in fact just the opposite. If one assumes "nothing" existed initially, then a creation event MUST have happened. That is the situation theists want to insist upon. Multiverse theories posit that "something" has always existed, thus NO creation event was ever needed, and no creator god.

 

[Willamena]

Eternal implies it always existed, i.e. the structure was always there.

So... "multiverse of the gaps".

 

[crystalonyx]

Eternal implies it always existed, i.e. the structure was always there.

Dawkins "The God Delusion" explains it nicely.

 

[Kungfuzed]

I, for one, welcome our new multiverse overlord.

But seriously, it's either going to turn out that something eternal and uncaused gave rise to our existence, or we will eternally regress back through time and never find a first cause.

 

[logician]

The real point is, we don't need a first cause, nor an intervening god, i.e. no god exists.

 

[McBell]

The real point is, we don't need a first cause, nor an intervening god, i.e. no god exists.

"Do not need" does NOT equate to "does not exist."

 

[d3vaLL]

There's no faith here, in fact just the opposite. If one assumes "nothing" existed initially, then a creation event MUST have happened. That is the situation theists want to insist upon. Multiverse theories posit that "something" has always existed, thus NO creation event was ever needed, and no creator god.

I'm well aware of the multiverse. I'm also aware that "always" implies time. I'm well aware that time is an illusion. I've asked the wrong question, sorry. I should say how does it exist? It is something that brutally frustrates me.

 

[logician]

"Do not need" does NOT equate to "does not exist."

Why would some god exist that does nothing? If such an entity did exist, it certainly is not worthy of worship, nor would it care about our existence.

 

[Willamena]

Why would some god exist that does nothing?

The same god, by default, would do everything. I think it's the everything-aspect that people generally worship.

 

[logician]

The same god, by default, would do everything. I think it's the everything-aspect that people generally worship.

I don't think so.

 

[McBell]

Why would some god exist that does nothing? If such an entity did exist, it certainly is not worthy of worship, nor would it care about our existence.

now you assume that "do not need" equates "did not happen that way"

 

[logician]

now you assume that "do not need" equates "did not happen that way"

DId not happen period is the best explanation.

 

[d3vaLL]

DId not happen period is the best explanation.

You assume a position based on the best explanation? That isn't faith?

 

[McBell]

DId not happen period is the best explanation.

You assume a position based on the best explanation? That isn't faith?

As a matter of fact, it is faith.

 

[Sententia]

Yes? No? Why or why not?

My inclination is to think that our choices are not entirely free. That is, we have a choice of A, B, and C in a given situation. Using reason, we can choose one course of action while rejecting the other two.

That is, I can choose one career path over another. etc

Thoughts?

James

Always a debate with myself... ultimately, right now... Im saying no. We don't have free will. Atleast I dont think we do. Not fact, my opinion... which could change... hehe.

But no... I think we don't.

 

[Willamena]

Always a debate with myself... ultimately, right now... Im saying no. We don't have free will. Atleast I dont think we do. Not fact, my opinion... which could change... hehe.

But no... I think we don't.

Maybe your idea of what "free will" is just needs to change.

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe your idea of what "free will" is just needs to change.

Maybe, but then you could say that about anything.