Does Free Will Exist?

[Skwim]

But who caused him to do that?

Not necessarily a who at all. It could very well be a "what," or a combination of the two. As for who or what it is, I have no idea. What I do know is that it had to be something. A chain of casual events that led up to the moment of doing, which determined the nature of the doing. For the "doing" to be other than what it was would require that something in the chain of casual events be different.

.

 

[Ancient Soul]

This 15 minute video, Why Free Will Doesn’t Exist, was posted to me by an atheist I have been posting to on another forum. I do not agree with him that we do not have free will. Below is the gist of his argument. The first two paragraphs below are a summary of what is in the video and the last paragraph is this atheist’s personal opinion.

What makes free will an illusion is that the choice you make will always be either the choice to do what you most want to do (even when it overrides your wanting to do something else) or the choice you don't want to make but are forced to make.

We like to think that we have free will, that we could make choices other than the ones we make. However, free will -- the ability to have acted differently -- is an illusion. No matter what choice you ever made, you never really had the ability to have chosen differently.

Since free will is an illusion, it's also nothing but a lame excuse for certain problems that theists run into, for example, why a good god would allow evil to exist.​

I got about half of the way thru the video and found it completely off base and terribly dishonest.

He totally ignores the free will used to DECIDE whatever course of action we all want to do. And it also ignores the fact that many people DECIDE to NOT do whatever someone is trying to force them to do.

But to me, the most dishonest part of his deceptive viewpoint is how he ignores the free will we all use to make us who "we" really are. Take his example of "wanting" vanilla ice cream. Somewhere along the line a free will decision was made to like vanilla ice cream over the other flavors. Whereas someone else made a free will decision to like strawberry ice cream over all the other flavors. The same for a "free will" decision to dress how we like to dress, what interests we like and what things we don't, how we picked our friends, the things we buy, etc. Without free will we would all be the same.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Of course. It's the only way the sin and salvation of Christianity makes sense, so the Christian must champion it to retain the validity of his religion.


Another illusion that doesn't exist: choosing/deciding. We come to the conclusion that X is right or wrong because we can do no differently. To do differently the causal events leading up to the conclusion would have to have been different. BUT THEY WEREN'T, hence our conclusion had to be what it was.

.

So according to your premise everyone HAS to come to the exact same conclusions as everyone else, got it!

I "got it" alright, but LOL "got it".

 

[LuisDantas]

To this day, no one ever presented to me a concept of free will that both made sense and was realistic.

To the best of my understanding, free will is indeed a fictional concept, created to attempt to appease theological contradictions and encouraged by certain neurological tendencies.

I have not seen the video in the OP, but @Trailblazer 's summary makes it sound just about correct, including of course the conclusion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Another illusion that doesn't exist: choosing/deciding. We come to the conclusion that X is right or wrong because we can do no differently. To do differently the causal events leading up to the conclusion would have to have been different. BUT THEY WEREN'T, hence our conclusion had to be what it was.

The video is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is responsibility and the ability to choose right from wrong.

 

[Skwim]

So according to your premise everyone HAS to come to the exact same conclusions as everyone else, got it!

Nope. I believe your ignorance is leading you astray. Let me put it as simply as I can.

Consider: For everyone to come to the exact same conclusions as everyone else, everyone would have to be physically, mentally, neurologically, emotionally, psychologically, etc. pretty much identical, AND all the antecedent events in everyone's life would have to be near identical.

Big Question: Were they?

Answer YES, then: theoretically,: Yes everyone HAS to come to the exact same conclusions as everyone else.
Answer NO, then: everyone does not HAVE to come to the exact same conclusions as everyone else.

There is only one correct answer, so don't be hasty. Take as much time as you need.


Have a good night.

.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not necessarily a who at all. It could very well be a "what," or a combination of the two. As for who or what it is, I have no idea. What I do know is that it had to be something. A chain of casual events that led up to the moment doing, which determined the nature of the doing. For the "doing" to be other than what it was would require that something in the chain of casual events be different..

That is true, something led up to it, but that person still made a choice.
How free it was is another matter. Free will is circumscribed by many factors.

 

[Skwim]

The video is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is responsibility and the ability to choose right from wrong.

Obviously then you have to reject my reasoning, which is too bad. I'm always hoping for a breakthrough.

.

 

[Trailblazer]

Without free will we would all be the same.

Without free will we would not be able to DO anything. Free will is circumscribed by many factors, so we cannot DO anything we want to DO. For example, I cannot be a doctor just because I want to be a doctor; I'd have to have the money for medical school and the intelligence.

But for a murderer to say he murdered his wife because he had no choice is abdication of responsibility and it is absurd. People are responsible for their moral choices unless they are mentally ill or mentally challenged.

 

[Skwim]

That is true, something led up to it, but that person still made a choice.

A choice entails concluding A is better, than concluding B is better, than concluding C is better, than concluding D is better, than concluding E is better . . . . . . . . which means there is something about A that is not true of other others. A is different, and it's this difference that necessarily caused you to conclude it is better. And, you concluded A was better because you could not have concluded otherwise. To do so, something in preceding chain of cause/events leading up to the "concluding event" would have to have been different. But there wasn't. Hence: A and not B, C, D . . . .

Free will is circumscribed by many factors.

Curious: what exculpatory factors might these be?

 

[Enoch07]

We have the freedom to make choices and accept the consequences of our choices. However, in me stating this, I'm not taking it a step further and implying I believe in the Christian concept of Hell.

It's ok I am a Christian and I don't believe in Dante's version of Hell either.

 

[osgart]

Nope. I believe your ignorance is leading you astray. Let me put it as simply as I can.

Consider: For everyone to come to the exact same conclusions as everyone else, everyone would have to be physically, mentally, neurologically, emotionally, psychologically, etc. identical, AND all the antecedent events in everyone's life would have to be identical.

Big Question: Were they?

Answer YES, then: theoretically,: Yes everyone HAS to come to the exact same conclusions as everyone else.
Answer NO, then: everyone does not HAVE to come to the exact same conclusions as everyone else.

There is only one correct answer, so don't be hasty. Take as much time as you need.


Have a good night.

.

How do you explain the differences in human beings?

We are all different because we choose differently then one another.

Its like your saying you have never made a choice in your life.

Suppose you had the option of picking between two things you had no physical, emotional, nor mental interest in whatsoever. What choice do you make A or B?

Have you ever been neutral about any argument whatsoever?

What then is objectivity?

Are you saying a change of heart is impossible?

Do you think free will is supposed to be predictable, or unpredictable?

Do you think free will is having no mental, physical, emotional attachment to a decision whatsoever?

Free will is exactly free from what?

Have you considered that change based on understanding can happen?

Have you considered that the person of virtue is free within their path of virtue because it is who they are and have no desire to change to the contrary?

Iow, a person that is content in their will with who they are and has no desire to change or do otherwise that is a freedom.

Predictable will is not slavery. Often its a freedom.

There is no freedom in vice.

 

[Enoch07]

To this day, no one ever presented to me a concept of free will that both made sense and was realistic.

You are exercising your free will now.

Unless someone else forced you to make that post.

This road of doubting free will has very dangerous implications.

If ever it should become mainstream thought (no free will). You run the risk of people committing crimes then saying they had to do it, they had no choice, it was their destiny. And since the idea of free will no longer exist, you can't hold somebody responsible for something they had no control over.

All because "I had no choice your honor" "it was just something I had to do".

 

[Trailblazer]

A choice entails concluding A is better, than concluding B is better, than concluding C is better, than concluding D is better, than concluding E is better . . . . . . . . which means there is something about A that is not true of other others. A is different, and it's this difference that necessarily caused you to conclude it is better. And, you concluded A was better because you could not have concluded otherwise. To do so, something in preceding chain of cause/events leading up to the "concluding event" would have to have been different. But there wasn't. Hence: A.

Regardless of the thought process involved people are responsible for their moral choices.
They could have concluded otherwise than to rape or murder someone if they had morals.
Morals come from religion. Without religion, humanity is lost.
Of course people have to follow the teachings for it to be of any value.

Curious: what exculpatory factors might these be?

The human will is the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action. Clearly we have a will because if we had no will we would not be able to do anything at all. To will something is to intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen. How we use that will to believe or act is another matter. I do not think that we can believe or do “anything” we want to do. The choices we make are constrained by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. These all affect how we think and how we think affects how we act.

 

[osgart]

When someone has total contentment and total peace with their own full will that is free will.

Another free will is having absolutely no attachment to a choice one can make either way.

Both kinds do exist completely.

 

[syo]

that we could make choices other than the ones we make.

Isn't that greedy? Our current choices are not enough??? That's greedy.

 

[Skwim]

How do you explain the differences in human beings?

Nature and nurture.

Its like your saying you have never made a choice in your life.

BINGO!

Suppose you had the option of picking between two things you had no physical, emotional, nor mental interest in whatsoever. What choice do you make A or B?

Please read my previous posts.

Have you ever been neutral about any argument whatsoever?

I suppose so. I would have had no choice in the matter.

What then is objectivity?

ob·jec·tiv·i·ty
/ˌäbjekˈtivədē/
noun
noun: objectivity
the quality of being objective.​

Are you saying a change of heart is impossible?

No.

Do you think free will is supposed to be predictable, or unpredictable?

As an Illusion, I don't give it many qualities.

Do you think free will is having no mental, physical, emotional attachment to a decision whatsoever?

Free will is an illusion.

Free will is exactly free from what?

Controlling influences

Have you considered that change based on understanding can happen?

Yes.

Have you considered that the person of virtue is free within their path of virtue because it is who they are and have no desire to change to the contrary?

Don't know what you mean by "free within their path of virtue."

Iow, a person that is content in their will with who they are and has no desire to change or do otherwise that is a freedom.

This makes no sense. Please rephrase.

.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You are exercising your free will now.

Agree.

This road of doubting free will has very dangerous implications.

If ever it should become mainstream thought (no free will). You run the risk of people committing crimes then saying they had to do it, they had no choice, it was their destiny. And since the idea of free will no longer exist, you can't hold somebody responsible for something they had no control over.

All because "I had no choice your honor" "it was just something I had to do".

I believe that's an Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, though. Since I can reject everything about free will except admitting that we seem to have at least a small amount of it.

 

[Enoch07]

I believe that's an Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, though.

It doesn't change the fact of how dangerous it is to rid people of responsibility though.

Take away free will.

Take away responsibilty for your actions.

Equals chaos.

 

[Skwim]

Regardless of the thought process involved people are responsible for their moral choices.

So society has decided.

They could have concluded otherwise than to rape or murder someone if they had morals.

If a moral component was part of the chain of cause-effect that led up to the "concluding event."

Morals come from religion. Without religion, humanity is lost.

I disagree. From what I've seen empathy can be substantial basis of morality.

The human will is the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.

And I would say the will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

Clearly we have a will because if we had no will we would not be able to do anything at all.

Why not?



By the by, how about addressing my previous question.

You: Free will is circumscribed by many factors.
Me: Curious: what exculpatory factors might these be?​

.