I just want to sin!!!

[Polymath257]

I don’t see how that follows, if my wife chooses strawberries rather than apples 99.99% present of the time this statistic will let me infer that there is a 99.99% probability that she will choose strawberries.

If the statistic where 50% / 50% I would only have a degree of confidence of 50%

But how does my knowledge on this statistic affect her ability to freely choose between these 2 options?

If the probability is 99.99999%, then she is not really choosing. She is running on autopilot.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Correct. But that is not the philosophical problem of free will..

I think you'll find that it is.
I think that the vast majority of believers think that the legal profession would be correct in holding people responsible for their actions. That is the free-will we refer to.

And it opens up the issue of whether someone *should* be responsible for choices they could not have made any other way because they were pre-determined.

The word "pre-determined" is loaded.
If you mean that people have no choice in their actions, similar to some Calvinists profess, then I would have to agree that either Calvinist philosophy is wrong, or the legal profession is wrong [ I think not ].

If you mean "pre-detemined" in the sense that G-d knows by some mechanism not fully understood what we will choose i.e. we choose something because we want to choose something and not because we have to .. then it is our choices that determine the outcome, and not the other way round.

 

[Sheldon]

No, I'm asking why skeptics waste their time on religious forums.

The question makes no sense, it seems you think scepticism is a barrier to open minded scrutiny of ideas and beliefs , I suspect that is where you are going wrong. Also as has been explained many times, religions and theism exert a lot of influence on the world, and not all of it is innocuous, since atheists and sceptics must share the planet with theists and religions, it behoves us to understand them and what they believe as much as we can.

It seems to me a public debate forum is the perfect place for this.

 

[leroy]

If the probability is 99.99999%, then she is not really choosing. She is running on autopilot.

and what if the probability is 80% or 70% 0r 90%

at what point does it become a free choice and not "autopillot"


How does my knowledge of that statistic affect her ability to make choices?

or

How does this statistic implies that the choice is determined?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No at most they would refute the specific attribute of “God being all knowing”……… we already agree that God cant do stuff that is logically incoherent……….. so even if atheist show that there is real logical contradiction between knowledge and free will they would simply refute 1 atribute.

There is a problem there, I'm afraid.

It cannot be true that G-d could inspire somebody to author a scroll such as 'Revelation' or 'Daniel', if He was not omniscient

No. G-d is omniscient. He is aware of every leaf that has fallen and will fall. King of Kings .. and Lord of Lords .. Allelujah

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your Nostradamus reference is utterly wrong.

Then give an example. Except you can't. Nostradamus is vague and non-specific and just like the Bible people have read the same "prophecy" into multiple events.

 

[leroy]

There is a problem there, I'm afraid.

It cannot be true that G-d could inspire somebody to author a scroll such as 'Revelation' or 'Daniel', if He was not omniscient

No. G-d is omniscient. He is aware of every leaf that has fallen and will fall. King of Kings .. and Lord of Lords .. Allelujah

I would argue that given the resurrection, Christianity would still be true even if the bible is not inspired.

I don’t think there are good reasons to give up free will nor god being “all knowing” but even if this where the case, that would falsify Christianity

 

[Sheldon]

I would argue that given the resurrection, Christianity would still be true even if the bible is not inspired.

What resurrection?

 

[ppp]

I would argue that given the resurrection, Christianity would still be true even if the bible is not inspired.

The mere occurrence of a resurrection would not be sufficient to verify Christianity. You first have to demonstrate that there is a god to be a cause. And then you would have to demonstrate that it is your god.

 

[lukethethird]

I would argue that given the resurrection, Christianity would still be true even if the bible is not inspired.

Believing this ressurection story to be true on faith, a given, is not a basis for an argument. You don't have an argument, what you have is a faith belief, and I believe that you believe this ressurection story to be true, so there is no argument here to be made. I came here for an argument and all you have is faith, no reasoning, just faith. Very dissapointing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That the ultimate choice was known by someone and that we have free will are not mutually exclusive concepts (both can be true at the same time)

Have you noticed that nobody but Abrahamic theists makes that argument? Consult any other category of people by worldview, and you find that they do not take that position. Secular humanists don't. Buddhists don't. Hindus don't. Pagans don't. Can you account for that? I can.

Only Abrahamic theists are backed into the corner of having to defend the idea that omniscience and free will are compatible, because their religions teach them that, and that's hw faith-based thinking works. You pick something to believe not based on reason, and then make whatever specious argument you can to support it. People who approach the problem from the other direction - reason precedes and informs their beliefs consistently fail to agree with you.

Imagine that you today freely decided to eat hamburgers rather than hotdogs. Now pretend that a time traveler was silently observing you such that yesterday he knew about you free choice. How does the knowledge of the time traveler changes the fact that you made a free choice?

You've described a universe without free will. You've described a deterministic universe in which there is only the illusion of free will. The difference between the two is that if free will existed, that under identical circumstances, you could have chosen differently. In a deterministic universe, the arrangement and motions of various pieces and parts of the physical universe that compel the apparent choice, which felt freely made, but was determined.

How would you test whether this universe, the one we're in contains free will or only determined will with the illusion of free will? The answer is to imagining going back in time to the exact same moment and circumstances, and making a different choice. You would have to see that happen to know whether your will was truly free and authored by you rather than imposed on you by the world around you. You're describing the universe where no matter how many times one returns to the past and sees what happens, it's always the same. It has to be for one to say that he can predict with certainty what will happen in that moment as it is relived.

Nothing stopped you from choosing hotdogs

There's the rub. You can't know that that choice wasn't deterministically imposed and thus not freely made even if it felt like it was unless you can demonstrate with time travel that under identical circumstances, the choice could have been different. The very definition of being stopped from choosing hotdogs is never choosing them as the moment is replayed time and time again.

What would it have looked like if your claim were wrong - that something did stop him from choosing hotdogs? It would look like the world you described, where you know in advance how that moment will evolve, a world where no free choices made. If that choice was determined the next fifty times you went back and relived the moment, it was determined the first time as well. And that's how that would be demonstrated. it's the only difference between a universe with free will and one that only contains the illusion of free will.

Here's why that argument won't convince you, but would somebody who has no stake in the outcome and is able to evaluate arguments dispassionately. He'll g where reason takes him. He'll consider the implications of being able to repeat a moment and either occasionally choosing otherwise, or never being able to choose otherwise, and realize that that is the difference between a world in which will is determined and one in which is free.

The theist who has committed himself to coming to no other conclusion than that free will and omniscience are compatible will never be convinced even by an argument that is compelling to open minds. It is believed by faith, and reason cannot modify it. That would require cooperation. And so, the Abrahamic monotheist is consigned to a future of simply denying reason and reasserting that gods can know everything, yet choices can be freely made.

And that is why only Abrahamic monotheists make your argument. They alone need to.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would argue that given the resurrection, Christianity would still be true even if the bible is not inspired.

I don’t think there are good reasons to give up free will nor god being “all knowing” but even if this where the case, that would falsify Christianity

Lots of Christians do and have rejected the idea of free will.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You've described a universe without free will. You've described a deterministic universe in which there is only the illusion of free will. The difference between the two is that if free will existed, that under identical circumstances, you could have chosen differently. In a deterministic universe, the arrangement and motions of various pieces and parts of the physical universe that compel the apparent choice, which felt freely made, but was determined.

You are in error. You talk about a "deterministic universe".

The universe has to be determined by something, whether somebody knows what happens tomorrow or not.

You are insisting that the future is determined by what is known, rather than our choices.
@Polymath257 says that it makes no difference whether we choose something because we want to or not.
I strongly disagree with that. The definition of free-will that makes sense, is one that is defined as whether we are free to choose an option if we want to choose it.
Clearly, if we are not able to choose what we want to choose, we have no free-will..

If you want to claim that somebody who drives a car down the road is not really making decisions. then who/what is?

You're describing the universe where no matter how many times one returns to the past and sees what happens, it's always the same. It has to be for one to say that he can predict with certainty what will happen in that moment as it is relived.

..and what does that prove?
Nothing at all. Looking at our past, it will always be the same. It doesn't tell us anything about whether we were free to choose or not.

There's the rub. You can't know that that choice wasn't deterministically imposed and thus not freely made..

Your idea of "deterministically imposed" is a false one.
What we need to know is what determines something. You have already decided that it is the person who knows what you will do.. why is that?

 

[leroy]

Have you noticed that nobody but Abrahamic theists makes that argument?

That is not true, Aristotle notices this "problem" and provided solutions to this problem

Also if one belives in the B theory of time he would have the same problem so if one whants to afirm both b -tjeory of time and free will he would likely suggest a similar solution. (Many non theist academics afirm both free will and b theory)

So you acausation is simply wrong

How would you test whether this universe, the one we're in contains free will or only determined will with the illusion of free will?

Impossible , even in principle its impossible to prove or disprove free will

The answer is to imagining going back in time to the exact same moment and circumstances, and making a different choice. You would have to see that happen to know whether your will was truly free and authored by you rather than imposed on you by the world around you. You're describing the universe where no matter how many times one returns to the past and sees what happens, it's always the same. It has to be for one to say that he can predict with certainty what will happen in that moment as it is relived.

The point that i made with the time traveler is that someone elses knowledge doest affect the fact that you have the ability choose.


You dont evrn have to be a time traveler or s God to have knowledge......if you know a person you can predict with a high degree of certainty what opition will he pick. ..this knowledge doest afect the fact that he was free to choose.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Impossible , even in principle its impossible to prove or disprove free will.

..then in that case, any decision made by a law court is unsound.
No. Sometimes people just want to hide behind philosophy, and create illogical arguments, imo.

 

[Polymath257]

You are in error. You talk about a "deterministic universe".

The universe has to be determined by something, whether somebody knows what happens tomorrow or not.

And that is where I think you are wrong.

First, it may well be that at any point there is more than one possible future and that human choices determine which future will occur. But it may not be determined before that choice which future will occur.

In that case, no prior knowledge of the choice would be possible. This is required for there to be free will.

Second, in actual fact, there are many events that are not determined prior to what actually happens. This is the case of MOST quantum level events.

So, no, the universe does not *have* to be determined. And if it is, there can be no free will.

You are insisting that the future is determined by what is known, rather than our choices.

No, the claim is that if it is known, it is determined. And if it is determined, then there can be no free will.

@Polymath257 says that it makes no difference whether we choose something because we want to or not.

If what we want is not in our control (if it is also pre-determined), then there is no free will.

I strongly disagree with that. The definition of free-will that makes sense, is one that is defined as whether we are free to choose an option if we want to choose it.
Clearly, if we are not able to choose what we want to choose, we have no free-will..

And the key word here is 'freely'. If the decision is already determined, the decision is not freely made. If you are determined to want something, then the choice is not free.

If you want to claim that somebody who drives a car down the road is not really making decisions. then who/what is?

In a deterministic universe, there are no free decisions. There is only pre-programming.

..and what does that prove?
Nothing at all. Looking at our past, it will always be the same. It doesn't tell us anything about whether we were free to choose or not.

I'm not sure that is even 100% true. Is the past actually all determined? is it possible for things in the past to be indeterminate? A bit of study of history seems to say it is.

Your idea of "deterministically imposed" is a false one.
What we need to know is what determines something. You have already decided that it is the person who knows what you will do.. why is that?

And is the decision is known ahead of time, then the actual choice was determined ahead of time and hence not by the person making the decision.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are in error. You talk about a "deterministic universe". The universe has to be determined by something, whether somebody knows what happens tomorrow or not.

What error are you referring to?

I believe you've misunderstood my argument. Your response doesn't address it.

And your response isn't connected to mine. You appear to be saying that indeterminism is impossible. If so, there goes free will.

You are insisting that the future is determined by what is known, rather than our choices.

No, I am not. I am saying that choices are either determined or not, and the sine qua non of a process not constrained by the conditions of the previous moment is that in identical situations, different outcomes (choices) may occur. Would you like to address that?

@Polymath257 says that it makes no difference whether we choose something because we want to or not.
I strongly disagree with that.

I doubt that you have represented his opinion accurately. I also don't know why you introduced it. Is this a rebuttal to some comment I made, some part of my argument?

If you want to claim that somebody who drives a car down the road is not really making decisions. then who/what is?

I made no such claim. I wish you would stick to what is actually written. Closer to what I am saying is that if it is possible to predict perfectly what the driver will do before he does it, he had no choice. If he had free will, you could not predict what he would do. Once again, it would be nice to see these point actually rebutted if you disagree with them. Rebuttal is not merely saying, "You are in error," even if followed by straw men or a repeat of claims already rebutted.

Looking at our past, it will always be the same. It doesn't tell us anything about whether we were free to choose or not.

Agreed, but that was not the point. We look at the past from the present. If one can look at the past from the perspective of an even earlier time, he is looking at the future, not the past.

What we need to know is what determines something. You have already decided that it is the person who knows what you will do..

No, you are in error again. I've said nothing remotely resembling that.

But another point I made that you chose not to address was the claim that it is meaningful that only Abrahamics make the argument you make. The reason they make it is because it is dogma that both omniscience and free will exist in order that their deity that knows in advance who will fail and receive perdition, and that that punishment is just.

The reason nobody else makes it is because if one is free to follow reason rather than twist it to make it appear to support or at least not contradict that doctrine, which is everybody else, their thinking is different. This is meaningful to me, but apparently not to the people making that argument for the same reason. They're committed by faith to an incoherent and internally contradictory position, and therefore have no choice but to do what you and others here are doing - repeat claims already rebutted and without addressing the rebuttal.

To restore coherence to the faith-based position, it either has to jettison free will or a deity that can know all. It is logically possible that one has no free will - just the illusion of free will, that the future is entirely determined by physical processes, and is thus calculable before it occurs. It is also logically possible that some of it is uncaused by external physical constraints, and thus free will is possible. But not both. Free will is the wild card that makes the next moment after its expression unpredictable.

Do you see how this is a rebuttal to your claim that free will and omniscience are incompatible? Do you see that if I am right, that you are wrong, and that if you are right, you ought to be able to identify exactly where my argument becomes invalid.

You won't because you can't. All you have at your disposal is to simply disagree and reassert your successfully rebutted faith-based belief. Maybe you'd like to try to rebut that if you disagree. Explain why it's wrong if you think it is. Show me why the rebuttal wasn't successful if you think it was flawed. Show why you think that it is flawed rather than merely assert or imply so if you can. I think you can't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is not true, Aristotle notices this "problem" and provided solutions to this problem. Also if one believes in the B theory of time he would have the same problem so if one wants to affirm both b -theory of time and free will he would likely suggest a similar solution. (Many non theist academics affirm both free will and b theory) So your acausation is simply wrong

I don't know what my "acausation is simply wrong" means.

My comment was, "Have you noticed that nobody but Abrahamic theists makes that argument? Consult any other category of people by worldview, and you find that they do not take that position. Secular humanists don't. Buddhists don't. Hindus don't. Pagans don't. Can you account for that? I can." Perhaps I should have worded it, "no other kind of people." Finding a few outliers doesn't change my central point, which was not that you could not find anybody in history that wasn't an Abrahamic monotheist that took your position, but that posters in these discussions that claim that free will and a perfectly predictable universe are compatible are virtually always (no exceptions in my experience) people that have accepted that doctrine on faith, and those that weigh in from outside that tradition virtually always (again, always without exception in my experience) come to the opposite conclusion. On this thread, you saw it most recently from Sheldon, Shadow Wolf, Polymath, and me, all atheists I believe, with you and muhammad_isa, both Abrahamic theists, defending doctrine, and no cross-over.

I say that that's a meaningful correlation. It tells us something about how religious faith affects reasoning. It's not a coincidence that the Abrahamic theists are all aligned together and those not constrained by religious doctrine declaring that omniscience and free will are compatible don't come to that conclusion. Did you want to address that? Why is that? I've already given my answer. Do you disagree that the reason that these two types of people seem to agree with one another within their groups, but the two groups disagree completely, is because one begins with a faith-based belief that is incoherent, and that the other is able to see that incoherence because employing a different way of thinking? If so, can you rebut the claim? It is supported by evidence (the various posters cited, their status as an Abrahamic theist or otherwise).

The point that i made with the time traveler is that someone else's knowledge doesn't affect the fact that you have the ability choose.

The claim that was made is that if the outcome of a situation can be predicted before it occurs, there is no choice being made by the conscious agent. Would you address that and not make comments like that one that do not address the claim? It's not about that foreordained knowledge being the cause. It's not even that such knowledge exists, but rather, what the implications of it existing are for free will.

 

[leroy]

..then in that case, any decision made by a law court is unsound.
No. Sometimes people just want to hide behind philosophy, and create illogical arguments, imo.

That is my point, free will is grounded on common sense, intuition and the absurdity of a world without free will.

So unless someone provides conclusive evidence against free will, we have enough reasons to accept the truth of free will.

As an analogy you can’t prove ether that we live in physical world (and not in the Matrix) all we have is common sense, intuition and the absurdity of living inside the Matrix…………….but until someone provides conclusive e evidence that we live in the matrix, I think it is rational to assume that we don’t

 

[muhammad_isa]

And that is where I think you are wrong.

First, it may well be that at any point there is more than one possible future and that human choices determine which future will occur. But it may not be determined before that choice which future will occur.

True, in the sense of "before" in our frame of reference.
Knowing something about the future, and actually setting the future are two different concepts.
In other words, you are assuming that time is an absolute phenomena, and our perception of "before it has happened" has a universal meaning. It doesn't.

So, no, the universe does not *have* to be determined. And if it is, there can be no free will.

Was the past determined?
I say yes .. even if the future cannot be known.
If it wasn't determined, we would not be able to remember it.

No, the claim is that if it is known, it is determined.

It is determined if it is not known as well.
You suggest that it could be a lot of different outcomes if it is unknown. If it is known, then it can only be one.
In reality it CAN only be one regardless. It is just that you don't know what it is.

If what we want is not in our control (if it is also pre-determined), then there is no free will.

That is true of course, but I say that what we want IS in our control to a big extent [ the decisions we make ], and the law agrees. The law is not unreasonable.
Only criminals and dreamy philosophers think otherwise.

And the key word here is 'freely'. If the decision is already determined, the decision is not freely made. If you are determined to want something, then the choice is not free.

..but it is NOT already determined in our frame of reference.

ME: If you want to claim that somebody who drives a car down the road is not really making decisions. then who/what is?
YOU: In a deterministic universe, there are no free decisions. There is only pre-programming.

A non-answer.

And is the decision is known ahead of time, then the actual choice was determined ahead of time and hence not by the person making the decision.

No. You are assuming that something that is determined in our frame of reference, cannot be known by another.

While intuition from our perception might suggest that, it cannot be proved that our frame of reference is somehow "universal".