Do you Think we have Free Will

[The Hammer]

Then aren't you choosing to make that choice to not acknowledge your own free will?

Not quite.

"[Fate] is not one rigid path, there are a variety of multitudes within it. Our [Fates] have variance, but we'll end up adhering to it, whether we like it or not. Some choices make the path smoother, some rougher, you can even go outside the lines, but the further outside you go.... It's like an unbreakable elastic band - it will only stretch so far before it snaps back. The further it is stretched, the more violent the eventual correction. "

Imo

 

[Brian2]

Then God knew everything Adam, Eve and Cain were going to do. In other words God is responsible for the Original Sin and the Fall of humanity and his Creation.

Yes God knew all of that, He knew what they were going to freely choose to do, what they were going to be responsible for, and allows it to happen, allows them to choose.
God could have taken away their free will so that they would not be human.
God could have killed them, or not made them and they would not have done what is wrong.
I suppose, with your reasoning, that would make God responsible that billions of humans did not exist and so is some sort of murderer.

 

[Brian2]

What you just wrote is totally absurd and creates havoc in the Bible...

How so?

 

[danieldemol]

Dude, I don't even know what to say. You and I are both clearly old enough to have exercised all kinds of choices for years of our own free will. May as well be asking if people really breathe or think.

So it sounds like its an intuition that the will or choices made are free as opposed to being constrained by predetermined factors or random choices (that which is random is not any freer than the recieved outcome of the role of the dice in my view).

My experience with paranoid delusions and the accompanying medication which radically modified my thoughts through change of brain chemistry suggests to me that our minds are electrochemical machines which compute decisions based on such things as brain form and chemistry.

I believe that if your decisions can be changed through altering your brain chemistry and/or wiring so to speak then that will or choice is constrained (internally) and thus not "free".

In other words our choices in response to environmental inputs are no free-er than a computer making decisions in accordance with its programming the way I see it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes God knew all of that, He knew what they were going to freely choose to do, what they were going to be responsible for, and allows it to happen, allows them to choose.
God could have taken away their free will so that they would not be human.
God could have killed them, or not made them and they would not have done what is wrong.
I suppose, with your reasoning, that would make God responsible that billions of humans did not exist and so is some sort of murderer.

Nonetheless God is ultimately responsible for all the sin, suffering and death, and Adam and Eve are innocent being stup in a situation that could not have been avoided how bizarre.

 

[shunyadragon]

My point is we're living, thinking, feeling beings. Not Barbie dolls in a child's room. Not bees born into a hard-locked role. There's no guarantee of anything. Life is messy and a lot of it is up to chance, but it is what we make of it too.

I never intimated that we are like Barbie dolls, but you are being idealistic about Free Will and still neglecting the many limiting factors that limit out ability to make choices. Are you and advocate of Libertarian Free Will?

Again I do not advocate Hard Determinism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nonetheless God is ultimately responsible for all the sin, suffering and death, and Adam and Eve are innocent being stup in a situation that could not have been avoided how bizarre.

Not at all.
You seem to ignore the fact that G-d knew we were not perfect, and we would eventually err.

..and G-d knows what we don't know .. His wisdom is vast.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I believe that if your decisions can be changed through altering your brain chemistry and/or wiring so to speak then that will or choice is constrained (internally) and thus not "free"..

Well, yes .. mental illness is incapacitating.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not at all.
You seem to ignore the fact that G-d knew we were not perfect, and we would eventually err.

Yes, but Created humanity as humans are, and is responsible for everything in human history, Adam and Eve would be innocent of any fault in the outcome.

..and G-d knows what we don't know .. His wisdom is vast.

This is true, but the Genesis account is an ancient fallible human mythical belief in Creation handed down from Sumerian and Babylonian mythical accounts including Noah's flood,, and not remotely factual. It is not even considered remotely factual by most Jews,

In fact I believe God in his infinite wisdom Created our vast physical existence and the evolution of life as God Created Natural Laws in harmony with the witness of science. God does not Create the vast contradictions in ancient mythology in different cultures

The Pentateuch was compiled after about 600 BCE based on various mythical and traditional history and stories, There is absolutely no evidence or writing by Hebrews before this.

 

[Copernicus]

You did just thar

Not an excuse of misrepresenting me.

Oh, I did not apologize for misrepresenting you. My position has been consistently that I did not understand you and needed you to clarify your position. So I honestly do not know whether I misrepresented you. I apologized, if you feel I misrepresented you. Perhaps you thought you were being sufficiently clear about what you believe. I was unable to come to agreement with you on that point.

Compatibilism considers the appearance of freedom of choice from the human perspective is in reality an illusion, and our choices are in reality determined as defined by my previous references, The concept of Potential Free Will actually does acknowledge that humans do potentially have a limited freedom of choices, but in a limited constrained perspective...

No, compatibilism only maintains that the everyday concept of what "free will" means is fully compatible with a deterministic chaotic reality. Human beings are basically "moist robots", to use a facetious metaphor. It does not maintain that free will is an illusion except when it is construed as freedom from causal determinism. That would be the antithesis of compatibilism.

The basis for developing Compatibilism is to answer the question of Moral Responsibility. The problem of Moral responsibility is from the Theist and philosophical perspective. From the scientific perspective Moral Responsibility is not a problem

I don't understand why you think that any branch of science, let alone scientific methodology, has anything of substance to say about "moral responsibility". That is a subject for philosophy, I think, and compatibilism implies that we are morally responsible for the consequences of our actions. Compatibilism itself has no essential connection with theism or theology, although some theists may subscribe to compatibilism. Dennett, a very well-known compatibilist, is a famous "new atheist"--one of the so-called four horsemen of atheism.

Free Will and Moral Responsibility

by John M. Frame There are two theories of free will that are often discussed in relation to ethical responsibility. The first is usually called “libertarianism,” and it is typic…

frame-poythress.org

There are two theories of free will that are often discussed in relation to ethical responsibility. The first is usually called “libertarianism,” and it is typical of Arminian theology. Many philosophers have also argued for it, from Epicurus in ancient times to C. A. Campbell, H. D. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga and many others recently. Indeed, it seems to be something of a consensus among Christian philosophers today that one cannot do justice to moral responsibility without presupposing a libertarian view of freedom.​

​

The libertarian view states that some human decisions and actions, particularly moral and religious decisions, are strictly uncaused. In the most sophisticated forms of libertarianism, these decisions are not even caused by our desires or character. They are very insistent on this: a truly free act is not an act which carries out our strongest desire; it rather, typically, goes against our strongest desire. The libertarian is aware, of course, that our desires are largely a function of our heredity, environment, past decisions and so on. If free decisions are based on desires, he thinks, they are not fully free. They are not in this case wholly uncaused.​

​

The libertarian argues that such a view is essential to moral responsibility. For no one is responsible for an act unless he “could have done otherwise.” If I am strapped to a robotic machine which, using my arms, robs a bank, I am not to blame for robbing the bank. I “could not have done otherwise.” Such is the libertarian argument."​

I find it annoying that you continue to be unable to set off quoted material in order to distinguish is from your own contribution to the discussion. There are many ways to do that. You can use a quote box or just put the text in italics and indent it, as I have done in modifying the above quote from your post. Readers have a right to know that you are using quoted material rather than you own words, even if you agree with everything in that quoted material. Technically, it comes off as plagiarism, although you do cite the source. I just bothered to check how much of the material came from this blogger that you referenced.

Now, regarding that material that you quoted from that blog, the authors are advocates for libertarian free will, which is rejected by most compatibilists. Again, I think that this is just evidence that you really don't understand compatibilism and its difference from other competing positions in the philosophical debates over free will.

...Our choices are extremely limited because our chaotic environment is not fully predictable, and that is what makes agentive free will central to the survival of organisms such as ourselves that need to navigate the chaos...

Chaos Theory has nothing to do with the bold. Our world or environment is not as chaotic as you describe. You apparently do not understand Chaos Theory. No your virtually incoherent,

Potential freedom of choice refers to the ability of humans to have freedom of choice given the limits of deterministic factors, but only some will make the choice,

I think that you would consider the bolded material and its context relevant, if you actually had a good grasp of what chaos theory and compatibilism are about. I continue to believe that you don't know what you are talking about when you insert "chaos theory" into this discussion. I have no idea how you think it has anything to do with "free will" here except insofar as it is about chaotic deterministic systems. If free will is compatible with determinism, it is most certainly compatible with chaotic determinism.

 

[Brian2]

Nonetheless God is ultimately responsible for all the sin, suffering and death, and Adam and Eve are innocent being stup in a situation that could not have been avoided how bizarre.

Potential evil just exists as a possibility when goodness exists.
So also the consequences of evil exist, the consequences of sin is death, which is moving away from God, the source of our life.
Adam and Eve could have trusted God and have done what He told them, not eat the fruit, but you blame God for what they did.
God knew they would do it and God allowed them to do it, it had to be their choice, with God not forcing them to eat and not forcing them to not eat,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but you blame God for what they did.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, but Created humanity as humans are, and is responsible for everything in human history, Adam and Eve would be innocent of any fault in the outcome..

Well, 'the blame game' is childish..
In any case, I believe that G-d forgave Adam & Eve (and others), who are guilty of sin & repent.
i.e. 'original sin' is false doctrine

This is true, but the Genesis account is an ancient fallible human mythical belief in Creation handed down from Sumerian and Babylonian mythical accounts including Noah's flood,, and not remotely factual..

Yes .. ancient scriptures cannot be relied upon for accuracy.
Nevertheless, the OT is based on truth.

In fact I believe God in his infinite wisdom Created our vast physical existence and the evolution of life as God Created Natural Laws in harmony with the witness of science.

As do I..

God does not Create the vast contradictions in ancient mythology in different cultures..

As I say, not reliable.

 

[shunyadragon]

Potential evil just exists as a possibility when goodness exists.
So also the consequences of evil exist, the consequences of sin is death, which is moving away from God, the source of our life.
Adam and Eve could have trusted God and have done what He told them, not eat the fruit, but you blame God for what they did.
God knew they would do it and God allowed them to do it, it had to be their choice, with God not forcing them to eat and not forcing them to not eat,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but you blame God for what they did.

Yes I do blame God in mythical scenario, because God is responsible in this myth for Creating Adam and Eve as they are and knowing in advance what would happen. In this scenario Adam and Eve were set up to fail in God knowing advance what wa going to happen. God need not force them to do anything he knew what was going to happen.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, 'the blame game' is childish..
In any case, I believe that G-d forgave Adam & Eve (and others), who are guilty of sin & repent.
i.e. 'original sin' is false doctrine.

The responsibility of God since God knew exactly what would happen in advance, That is part of reason this is very human mythical account of Creation. God knew in advance what Adam and Eve did they were set up to fail, and no based on the text he did not forgive them and punished all future humans and his Creation based on their "Original Sin.'

Yes .. ancient scriptures cannot be relied upon for accuracy.
Nevertheless, the OT is based on truth.

. . . but you reject the sciences of evolution based objectively on the Laws of Nature that God Created consistently, The universe, earth and the evolved life on earth is billions of years old based on the objective verifiable evidence of Natural Laws Created by God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, I did not apologize for misrepresenting you. My position has been consistently that I did not understand you and needed you to clarify your position. So I honestly do not know whether I misrepresented you. I apologized, if you feel I misrepresented you. Perhaps you thought you were being sufficiently clear about what you believe. I was unable to come to agreement with you on that point.

I was clear and specific on my view of evolution and Dennett and you misrepresented me. Your failure to apologize is understandable considering your erratic, inconsistent nature of your posts.

No, compatibilism only maintains that the everyday concept of what "free will" means is fully compatible with a deterministic chaotic reality. Human beings are basically "moist robots", to use a facetious metaphor. It does not maintain that free will is an illusion except when it is construed as freedom from causal determinism. That would be the antithesis of compatibilism.




I don't understand why you think that any branch of science, let alone scientific methodology, has anything of substance to say about "moral responsibility". That is a subject for philosophy, I think, and compatibilism implies that we are morally responsible for the consequences of our actions. Compatibilism itself has no essential connection with theism or theology, although some theists may subscribe to compatibilism. Dennett, a very well-known compatibilist, is a famous "new atheist"--one of the so-called four horsemen of atheism.




I find it annoying that you continue to be unable to set off quoted material in order to distinguish is from your own contribution to the discussion. There are many ways to do that. You can use a quote box or just put the text in italics and indent it, as I have done in modifying the above quote from your post. Readers have a right to know that you are using quoted material rather than you own words, even if you agree with everything in that quoted material. Technically, it comes off as plagiarism, although you do cite the source. I just bothered to check how much of the material came from this blogger that you referenced.

Now, regarding that material that you quoted from that blog, the authors are advocates for libertarian free will, which is rejected by most compatibilists. Again, I think that this is just evidence that you really don't understand compatibilism and its difference from other competing positions in the philosophical debates over free will.



I think that you would consider the bolded material and its context relevant, if you actually had a good grasp of what chaos theory and compatibilism are about. I continue to believe that you don't know what you are talking about when you insert "chaos theory" into this discussion. I have no idea how you think it has anything to do with "free will" here except insofar as it is about chaotic deterministic systems. If free will is compatible with determinism, it is most certainly compatible with chaotic determinism.

Again not worthy of responding tr. More misrepresentation of my view. I am not the one that proposed humans were "moist robots."

 

[muhammad_isa]

. . . but you reject the sciences of evolution based objectively on the Laws of Nature that God Created..

False .. I have already explained that "sciences of evolution" is meaningless without further
qualification.
It could be referring to dozens of different beliefs.

The universe, earth and the evolved life on earth is billions of years old based on the objective verifiable evidence..

Fine .. but the only way we can "measure" time-elapsed is by present observations of the universe.
In other words, it is more-or-less left to the imagination as to what 'billions of years' represents.

I don't expect you to understand this really, as you seem to be a person who takes the 'passing of time'
at face value.
i.e. our perception of time = reality

 

[shunyadragon]

False .. I have already explained that "sciences of evolution" is meaningless without further
qualification.
It could be referring to dozens of different beliefs.

No further qualification needed. It ONLY refers to the sciences of evolution and NOT dozens of different beliefs. It is understood that you reject the sciences of evolution based on an ancient religious agenda and not science

Fine .. but the only way we can "measure" time-elapsed is by present observations of the universe.
In other words, it is more-or-less left to the imagination as to what 'billions of years' represents.

Again your rejection of science based on an ancient religious agenda and not an unbiased view of science.

I don't expect you to understand this really, as you seem to be a person who takes the 'passing of time'
at face value.
i.e. our perception of time = reality

I take science, not at face value, but based on actual science supported by 95%+ of all scientists, and every major academic university. It is not a coincidance that ONLY those with a fundamentalist Christian and Islamic ancient religious agenda rejects science, and it represents only a small minority of Christian and Islamic scientists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No further qualification needed. It ONLY refers to the sciences of evolution and NOT dozens of different beliefs. It is understood that you reject the sciences of evolution based on an ancient religious agenda and not science.

Perhaps you are a relative of the famous Darwin?
You know that he was a 'sick man', and became confused as he got older don't you?

You seem to have a "black & white" mentality .. all or nothing.
"ancient religious agenda" is about the sum total of your vocabulary.

I take science, not at face value, but based on actual science supported by 95%+ of all scientists, and every major academic university..

Well, so do I .. but you are too busy harping on about my "ancient religious agenda" to see it !

It is not a coincidance that only those with a fundamentalist Christian and Islamic ancient religious agenda rejects science..

Oh, come on .. stop the tittle-tattle, and show us your "evidenced science".

 

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps you are a relative of the famous Darwin?
You know that he was a 'sick man', and became confused as he got older don't you?

Well a relative possibly, but he was a number of Naturalists of the time that developed the sciences of evolution as well as thousands of scientists since facing the ignorance and "sickness" of ancient mythical world views.

You seem to have a "black & white" mentality .. all or nothing.

No, just simply science. You are the one believing in the "all or nothing" of ancient mythology.

"ancient religious agenda" is about the sum total of your vocabulary.

Bo the objective verifiable evidence of science is basis of my vocabulary. Your is clinging to an ancient religious agenda based on mythology without any objective verifiable evidence to support it.

Well, so do I .. but you are too busy harping on about my "ancient religious agenda" to see it !

I will continue to bring out the physical reality of contemporary science the basis of our civilization in the face of ancient ignorance and mythology. It is obvious that your rejection of the sciences of evolution extends past to the contemporary Physics and Cosmology of contemporary science.

Oh, come on .. stop the tittle-tattle, and show us your "evidenced science".

The objective verifiable evidence of science is what represents the physical reality of the world in the face ancient ignorance.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The objective verifiable evidence of science is what represents the physical reality of the world in the face ancient ignorance.

Repeating the word "evidence" over and over again is only evidence of your inability to
support your position.