Does the idea of 'free will' defeat the Epicurean Paradox?

[Quagmire]

That's alright =)

I could choose either strawberry or blueberry yogurt. Is one of those choices good and the other evil?[/QUOTE]

Of course not, but I'm not sure how that relates to choice needing evil as an Abrahamic might argue. Do you mind clarifying please?[/QUOTE]

No idea how an Abrahamic might argue this. I would imagine that as many followers of Abrahamic religious as there are they would be liable to argue the point in any number of ways.

What I'm saying is that "Evil" doesn't need to exist in order for choices to exist.

edit: hey man, looks like something went haywire with the quotes at some point. Would you mind if I went back through the last cpl of posts and fixed it?

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Ha ha, of course not, no- responding to your edit. I agree with you evil doesn't need to exist for choice. I meant to engage with that particular view.

 

[columbus]

OK, guess I can use this after all:

I did not have a cheeseburger for lunch. I could have.

No, you could not have.
For reasons even you don't understand, something else seemed like the best thing to eat. So you ate that instead.
You could imagine eating a cheese burger, which gave you the illusion of free will. But you were not free to eat one because something else was the best choice, according to your limited understanding and perception and options.

You could only imagine the cheese burger, it never even existed. So you couldn't have eaten it.
Tom

 

[Quagmire]

Ha ha, of course not, no- responding to your edit.

Looks like the system won't let me fix it. It's tempormental.

 

[Quagmire]

No, you could not have.
For reasons even you don't understand, something else seemed like the best thing to eat. So you ate that instead.
You could imagine eating a cheese burger, which gave you the illusion of free will. But you were not free to eat one because something else was the best choice, according to your limited understanding and perception and options.

You could only imagine the cheese burger, it never even existed. So you couldn't have eaten it.
Tom

But the egg salad, that was real, right?

 

[Skwim]

Didn't we see a prime example of free will in Miami?

Nope.

Isn't choice an example of free will.

Yes it is, but that doesn't make free will true. Just as saying isn't a horse with one long horn sprouting from its nose bridge a unicorn? Sure, but that doesn't make unicorns real.

I choose not to harm people because I don't want to.
I choose to help others because I want to.

You only have the illusion of choosing.

I think there is limitation in free will, but yes, I think it exists. Epicurus is actually who made me first consider there is free will in some degree. He thought knowledge is what enables us to escape animal determinism.

So, you don't think animals choose to do this or that? Look left or look right like humans do?---just checking.

Today I chose to plant a garden.

Okay. Why? Why did you choose to plant a garden and not do something else? Whatever your answer, it can be challenged by another "why," and so on all the way back to an "I don't know why." Thing is, you had no true choice in doing what you did. Way back in the genesis of the linage of your "because . . ." answers to the "why" lie all the cause/effect events that determined you would plant a garden and not do something else. In order to not plant a garden something along the history of cause/effect events that lead up to the moment of doing would have to be different. But there wasn't anything different---it was what it was---so you had to plant a garden, or at least leave you with the impression that you chose to do so. (Whether or not you actually go ahead and plant your garden is determined by additional cause/effect factors.)


.

 

[jeager106]

Skwim:
STOP IT!
Yer a messin' wiff me head.
Now I have a hateache..............er I mean a headache.
Recall ever trying to s'plain something to a little kid who asked "why" to every
answer?
I ended up saying "CAUSE I SAID SO!

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Skiwm I think animals with a certain degree of sentience and knowledge have limited will, just as humans. I do not however think that makes determinism false. I think that humans being capable of flight is proof that knowledge enables escape from basic animal determinism, otherwise we could not fly if we wanted to. We would then be bound by our natures solely, and in ignorance. I believe our impulses are deterministic.

 

[jeager106]

I remain a gardener, a conservative, a voter, a gun owner/hunter, because I want
to.
I choose to remain sober because booze will kill me.
I CHOOSE to avoid those consequences.
Aren't those choices?
I shoot insulin because if I don't I'll likely die.
Isn't that a choice to avoid sickness and death. Consequences.
I have a gun handy as I don't want to be caught in a situation where being unarmed
would be very dangerous. I would CHOSE to run away if possible.
( retired cop. seen things that shouldn't that happen that happened anyway.)
Inquiring minds don'cha'know.
I love responses even if I don't agree as I can learn another worldview.
Just as I learn here on this site about different denominations and religious views.
Isn't that also a choice?

 

[Sunstone]

I am of the opinion that the idea of free will has problems to begin with. That said, Abrahamics often claim that evil needs to exist for free will, and thereby they believe the problem of evil is nullified. I do not believe it is. I would put forth that an omnipotent deity who could not create choice without evil is in fact not omnipotent.

That's enough to get this discussion rolling. Let's chat friends

Depends on what you mean by "evil". There are plenty of "evils" in the world that have nothing to do with whether or not people have free will. I would suggest that the Epicurean Paradox takes those sorts of "evils" into account. Diseases, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and even common but fatal accidents.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

That's true Sunstone. I thought I was specific in my original post in saying it is certain monotheists that appeal to the choice argument. Certainly I wouldn't disagree with you.

 

[idav]

I am of the opinion that the idea of free will has problems to begin with. That said, Abrahamics often claim that evil needs to exist for free will, and thereby they believe the problem of evil is nullified. I do not believe it is. I would put forth that an omnipotent deity who could not create choice without evil is in fact not omnipotent.

That's enough to get this discussion rolling. Let's chat friends

I think something like, evil is a subjective term that can only exist in the light of a dualistic view type where good must also exit and one cannot be without the other. Sayng one can exist without the other is imposing a dichotomy and then trying to take one out and still call it a dichotomy.

"dichotomy - a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different."

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

I think something like, evil is a subjective term that can only exist in the light of a dualistic view type where good must also exit and one cannot be without the other. Sayng one can exist without the other is imposing a dichotomy and then trying to take one out and still call it a dichotomy.

"dichotomy - a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different."

That is true, which is why Taoists don't believe in good and evil. As Tao Te Ching 2 says, good and evil define one another, and all defined duality humans create. Be that as it may, this debate is addressed to a dualistic worldview.

 

[idav]

That is true, which is why Taoists don't believe in good and evil. As Tao Te Ching 2 says, good and evil define one another, and all defined duality humans create. Be that as it may, this debate is addressed to a dualistic worldview.

OK. Here your saying good and evil don't exist but the OP says evil can't be nullified.

 

[idav]

Ha ha, of course not, no- responding to your edit. I agree with you evil doesn't need to exist for choice. I meant to engage with that particular view.

Oh I see.

 

[idav]

In a way actually god giving humans free will is relinquishing or sharing some of his power.

Perhaps he could still be god, god could still just smite us if we get to close to his cookies.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

In a way actually god giving humans free will is relinquishing or sharing some of his power.

Perhaps he could still be god, god could still just smite us if we get to close to his cookies.

Do you as a Pantheist believe in a personal god with an identity and being?

 

[idav]

Do you as a Pantheist believe in a personal god with an identity and being?

Sort of yes because oneness kinda lends to an idea of inherent intelligence.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Sort of yes because oneness kinda lends to an idea of inherent intelligence.

Do you think oneness requires a deity as that inherent consciousness? Could it not as easily involve the movement of atoms or such, as some Greek philosophers thought? Do you have an opinion on that?

 

[idav]

Do you think oneness requires a deity as that inherent consciousness? Could it not as easily involve the movement of atoms or such, as some Greek philosophers thought? Do you have an opinion on that?

Sure, the "movement" of atoms as you put it is a lot more complex than basic newtonian physics. Greek philosophy I'm aware of like Plato take a dualistic approach to the mind body problem.