*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Shad]

Will you kindly explain?

The former is accepting self and reality as an axiom. This is different from a brain in a jar since reality is reality is a pickle jar thus even this interaction is a illusion.

 

[Shad]

Humans are willing agents, unless you want to claim you are not an agent. Prior causes does not mean prior influences such as experiences. Prior experiences nor memories of are not random

 

[outhouse]

It is the teleological cause where you might try to define as it means many things in or out of context

 

[Gambit]

It does not imply. The two are totally different. While it is TRUE that it implies that forces of the universe such as gravity, electromagnetism, fixed speed of light, ect and the things they govern such as orbits, trajectory of motion, speed ect all work independent of a will. They have nothing forcing them to do that.

I said "free will" (NOT the "laws of physics") implies a nonphysical and teleological cause.

However mental cognition the lies that humans have are not governed simply by this. The case has not been made that the cognitive decision making process is innately fixed. There are those that have supposed it but they do so with relatively little solid evidence.

And how exactly does this refute my argument that free will implies a nonphysical and teleological cause?

 

[Gambit]

Well if an all power god has a perfect plan and everything is according to his will then how could we ever have free will?

I have already stated what I mean by free will, namely, a cause that is nonphysical and teleological. Such a cause is incompatible with atheistic materialism.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I said "free will" (NOT the "laws of physics") implies a nonphysical and teleological cause.

Indeed. You have said this. You have not demonstrated this or linked it in any meaningful way. I took an inference that perhaps you meant the determinism argument would render free will invalid. This is a common argument but it isn't an atheist argument but a determinism argument.

And how exactly does this refute my argument that free will implies a nonphysical and teleological cause?

I can't refute something you haven't argued. You have merely stated something to be true and have yet to support it. I was explaining how free will can exist even if one looks through it with the glasses of atheism.

I have already stated what I mean by free will, namely, a cause that is nonphysical and teleological. Such a cause is incompatible with atheistic materialism.

I agree. A nonphysical teleological force would be incomparable with materialism. However free will does not mean that a teleological non physical force exists.

 

[Gambit]

It is the teleological cause where you might try to define as it means many things in or out of context

teleological cause = final cause

 

[Gambit]

Indeed. You have said this. You have not demonstrated this or linked it in any meaningful way.

I have cited several sources to support my claim.

I agree. A nonphysical teleological force would be incomparable with materialism.

Agreed.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I have cited several sources to support my claim.

You used a definition of free will that specifically narrows the definition to mean something cannot be explained naturally. I disagree with that definition of free will. I argue that the narrow version of free will has no evidence to exist. However cognitive reasoning and mental processes drive our decision making as it has been well recorded. So much so that we have even seen the formulation of a memory in the brain in actual time. I believe that this cognitive process gives us our consciousness and out of that consciousness I have the ability to "choose" what I do. I could just as easily take path 1 or path 2. Neither path is predetermined and that to me is Free will. Just because it comes from my brain doesn't make it any less free.

 

[ArtieE]

I could just as easily take path 1 or path 2. Neither path is predetermined and that to me is Free will.

So there is absolutely nothing that makes you favor one path over the other? Absolutely nothing? You are free to choose paths with absolutely nothing influencing your choice?

 

[Midnight Rain]

So there is absolutely nothing that makes you favor one path over the other? Absolutely nothing? You are free to choose paths with absolutely nothing influencing your choice?

Obviously cognitive function can only function with information. But lets say I'm in a maze and I reach a fork in the road. There is nothing that would make me prefer one to the other in this instance. Lets say I keep reaching forks on the road. Each time I have the ability to choose left or right. I can choose what to do.

Lets take a different approach. If I am in an abusive relationship I have the ability to choose if I leave that relationship or stay in it. I still have plenty of things that go into that but I ultimately have the choice to do what I want because nothing in physics say the future is set. In fact everything in physics states that the future is never fixed.

To me that is free will.

 

[ArtieE]

Obviously cognitive function can only function with information. But lets say I'm in a maze and I reach a fork in the road. There is nothing that would make me prefer one to the other in this instance. Lets say I keep reaching forks on the road. Each time I have the ability to choose left or right. I can choose what to do.

And why would you choose left or right? There must be some reason why you choose one over the other, simply because otherwise you are claiming that your brain works like a perfect random number generator and you have no choice anyway...

Lets take a different approach. If I am in an abusive relationship I have the ability to choose if I leave that relationship or stay in it.

But there will always be reasons for your choice determining which choice you make.

 

[Gambit]

You used a definition of free will that specifically narrows the definition to mean something cannot be explained naturally. I disagree with that definition of free will.

I used the definition of free will as it is commonly understood. And if you do not agree with that definition, then you do not agreed with the common definition.

I argue that the narrow version of free will has no evidence to exist. However cognitive reasoning and mental processes drive our decision making as it has been well recorded.

I never argued or implied that cognitive reasoning and mental processes do not play a vital role in our decision-making. So, I'm not sure what the relevance of this is.

So much so that we have even seen the formulation of a memory in the brain in actual time. I believe that this cognitive process gives us our consciousness and out of that consciousness I have the ability to "choose" what I do. I could just as easily take path 1 or path 2. Neither path is predetermined and that to me is Free will. Just because it comes from my brain doesn't make it any less free.

It is indeterminate because it is not completely determined by a prior cause. So, it would seem that you actually agree with the definition of free will I provided. (By the way, the definition of free will I provided is technically known as libertarian free will.)

 

[Midnight Rain]

And why would you choose left or right? There must be some reason why you choose one over the other, simply because otherwise you are claiming that your brain works like a perfect random number generator and you have no choice anyway...But there will always be reasons for your choice determining which choice you make.

Regardless if there are reasons or not you have the ability to choose. Were it random guess, singing a song in your head, personal preference to go left but every now and then feel as if you want to switch it up by going right or vice versa, ect. you still get the choice to go left or right.

I used the definition of free will as it is commonly understood. And if you do not agree with that definition, then you do not agreed with the common definition.

False. The definition as it is most often used in the colloquial sense is
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Which boils down to being able to make your own choices. The additive that it must come from something other than your own brain and reason is the portion I disagree with and is NOT the commonly used version.

I never argued or implied that cognitive reasoning and mental processes do not play a vital role in our decision-making. So, I'm not sure what the relevance of this is.

Does it play a vital role in free will?

It is indeterminate because it is not completely determined by a prior cause. So, it would seem that you actually agree with the definition of free will I provided. (By the way, the definition of free will I provided is technically known as libertarian free will.)

I do not agree that it must come from an external source as your definition specified.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You cannot rationally justify a belief that the world has an ultimate purpose unless you adopt a theistic worldview. So, if you're an atheist, then you must accept the logical conclusion of your "disbelief," namely, that you view the world as ultimately devoid of any purpose and/or meaning. Such a view of the world is an absurd one by definition.

Can you define "ultimate purpose" and then explain why it is so important that we as atheists are less in not having it?

 

[ArtieE]

Regardless if there are reasons or not you have the ability to choose.

You don't have free will to choose whatever you like. Your choices will always be influenced by something.

Were it random guess,

There is no random guess, all your guesses are influenced by something your brain doesn't work like a random number generator.

singing a song in your head,

There's always a reason why you do that.

personal preference to go left but every now and then feel as if you want to switch it up by going right or vice versa, ect.

There are reasons why you feel like switching it up.

False. The definition as it is most often used in the colloquial sense is
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Which boils down to being able to make your own choices.

And there's always some reason why behind the choices you make. You can act at your own discretion but there's a reason why you act like you do.

The additive that it must come from something other than your own brain and reason is the portion I disagree with and is NOT the commonly used version.

I don't see why what's influencing your choices should come from something other than your own brain.

 

[Midnight Rain]

You don't have free will to choose whatever you like. Your choices will always be influenced by something.There is no random guess, all your guesses are influenced by something your brain doesn't work like a random number generator.There's always a reason why you do that.There are reasons why you feel like switching it up.And there's always some reason why behind the choices you make. You can act at your own discretion but there's a reason why you act like you do.I don't see why what's influencing your choices should come from something other than your own brain.

You are responding to both your and the other posters parts. The parts where you have responded to his portions don't really seem to make sense.


Do you or do you not have a choice? Are you predetermined to post exactly what you are about to post? Is the future pre-determined? If so I feel many QM physicists will have to take issue with that. If you do not believe that certain aspects of QM are pre-determined events then where is the line between pre-determined and non-per-determined events?

 

[ArtieE]

Do you or do you not have a choice?

You have a choice but there is always some reason why you make the choice you make so in practice your will is never free.

Are you predetermined to post exactly what you are about to post?

What I post is determined by what it is I am responding to and there is always a reason for what I post.

Is the future pre-determined?

On that scientists disagree. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/special_relativity.html

If so I feel many QM physicists will have to take issue with that. If you do not believe that certain aspects of QM are pre-determined events then where is the line between pre-determined and non-per-determined events?

Don't know enough about QM to say. Very few do.

If you say we have free will show me how you can make a choice where absolutely nothing influences your choice.

 

[Gambit]

False. The definition as it is most often used in the colloquial sense is
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

What do you think "necessity" means?

According to Merriam-Webster, something that happens of necessity is something that happens "in such a way that it cannot be otherwise."

Either our decision-making is a completely deterministic process or it is not. If it is, then the choices we make happen in such a way that they could not be otherwise. If it is not not, then our decision-making is (at least, partially) an indeterministic process.

Merriam-Webster defines indeterminism as (a) "a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes" and (b) "a theory that holds that not every event has a cause."

Now, let us return to Merriam-Webster's "simple" and "full" definitions of free will.

Merriam-Webster's simple definition of free will is as follows: "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God."

Merriam-Webster's full definition of free will is as follows: "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention."
The difference between the simple definition and the full definition is that the full definition is just more complete. Both the simple and the full definitions refer to libertarian free will. (This is the kind of free will most people believe they have.)

Which boils down to being able to make your own choices. The additive that it must come from something other than your own brain and reason is the portion I disagree with and is NOT the commonly used version.

To reiterate: Your decision-making is either a completely deterministic process or it is not. If it is not, then it is (at least, partially) an indeterministic one by default. (Those are the only two logical possibilities. So, if you believe that your "brain" can make choices that are not completely predetermined, then you must believe they are not completely determined by physical processes.)

Does it play a vital role in free will?

It plays a vital role in our decision-making. I never argued that our decision-making is a completely random process. That's why I specifically invoked a teleological explanation or final causality in speaking about free will.

I do not agree that it must come from an external source as your definition specified.

If you believe your choices are not completely predetermined (which you apparently do), then you must believe (for the sake of logical consistency) that something is happening in your decision-making that is "uncaused." (Atheistic or scientific materialism has trouble with "uncaused causes.")

 

[Gambit]

Can you define "ultimate purpose" and then explain why it is so important that we as atheists are less in not having it?

The ultimate purpose is the final cause. Also, I never argued that atheists are less for not having it. I simply argued that their view of world is absurd for not having it.

By the way, the argument I have made in the original post of this thread is essentially the same argument that atheist existentialists have made. So, I don't know why this is so controversial. I'm simply stating the obvious.