Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you saying all persons are predisposed to believe in free will and are determined to do so?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that if we don't have free will, then the question of how we ought to behave is moot, since the question of how we behave will have been decided for us.

That's an argument from silence (we must be predetermined to believe differently than reality) used to prove a negative (free will is nonexistent).

No; that's poor reading comprehension on your part.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The fact that belief in free will is universal across all cultures proves or implies nothing?

No. Appeals to popularity prove nothing except how popular something is.

Healthy person = free will person

Free will has not been determined to exist, and neither bodily or mental health acknowledge free will as a necessity for health.

You said you had a relationship with Jesus. This Jesus, you say, made you feel condemned and uncomfortable. I'm asking if you're sure it was the relationship with Jesus that caused the pain or the issues with parents and abusive church members who caused you pain?

As I said some pages ago, my issues are things said specifically in the Bible.

 

[JustWondering]

I'll ask you, therefore, why a person has never successfully used GodDidIt or MechanismDidIt as a successful murder defense. You can have a "not in the right mind" defense which is akin to "unable to exercise free will successfully defense".

Cheat on a partner and say, "I cannot help myself, I have no free will in this matter" and see if "all is forgiven".

Free will is real.

You completely ignored my questions! If you where raised in a different country with a different religion that had nothing to do with the Abrahamic god, where is your free will to accept Christ as your savior? The ability to analyze the stimuli we are exposed to in life is beyond our control yes? You do not choose what foods taste good to you, they either taste good or not to you, correct?

The Bible commands that one should not eat pork or shrimp but what if that is all there is to eat? Does it automatically make you a bad person because you used your "free will" to eat pork and shrimp to survive? Why does god continue to create things he doesn't like? How does that make sense?

Free will is not considered in murder trials. What is mostly considered is proving whether someone committed the crime or not and their motive.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. Appeals to popularity prove nothing except how popular something is.

Free will has not been determined to exist, and neither bodily or mental health acknowledge free will as a necessity for health.

As I said some pages ago, my issues are things said specifically in the Bible.

I'm not making an appeal to popularity. A universal means "100%" not most or many or popular. 100%!

If free will has not been determined to exist, as you wrote, why does 100% of international jurisprudence and law lean upon it? Note: Not popular or most, 100%, always, ever, now, everywhere.

If neither bodily nor mental health professionals acknowledge free will as a necessity for health, why, as you've already commented upon, do courts find that people lack free will only when they are under extreme mental and/or physical stress or duress (unwell)?

I understand you have issues with the Bible. For example, no matter what past abuse I have experienced or you have experienced, the Bible states 1) we have free will 2) we will be judged based on choices made of our free will.

Skeptics love to say free will doesn't exist because free will implies moral accountability and the existence of a divine author of free will.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You completely ignored my questions! If you where raised in a different country with a different religion that had nothing to do with the Abrahamic god, where is your free will to accept Christ as your savior? The ability to analyze the stimuli we are exposed to in life is beyond our control yes? You do not choose what foods taste good to you, they either taste good or not to you, correct?

The Bible commands that one should not eat pork or shrimp but what if that is all there is to eat? Does it automatically make you a bad person because you used your "free will" to eat pork and shrimp to survive? Why does god continue to create things he doesn't like? How does that make sense?

Free will is not considered in murder trials. What is mostly considered is proving whether someone committed the crime or not and their motive.

Good questions/thoughts:

1. Those raised without information about the Christ have free will to accept or reject the promptings of God in their lives and consciences.

2. Jewish people were to assert their free will to a) love God b) love people c) love God's Law. You are currently using your free will to speak against two of those three stances. Does that make you a bad person? Answer that and then you'll know the answer regarding pork and shellfish.

3. God continues to make good things He likes. God continues to judge. Judgment is not for blue skies or tigers or lions but humans--because they use their free will for sin.

4. Free will is not often considered in murder trials, but its assumed existence is axiomatic to ALL trials of motive and crime. Indeed, someone may be exonerated from a violent act they have committed because under mental or other duress, they were considered to have been unable to exercise free will:

a) Committing a crime via one's free will equals guilty b) responding without "thinking about it" or "because of long abuse that crushed the free will emotional state" equals acquittal.

Let's dig a little deeper here. We are arguing free will because skeptics love to deny the existence of free will--free will implies moral accountability and people designed for moral exercise an moral judgment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If free will has not been determined to exist, as you wrote, why does 100% of international jurisprudence and law lean upon it? Note: Not popular or most, 100%, always, ever, now, everywhere.

That doesn't prove it true though.

If free will has not been determined to exist, as you wrote, why does 100% of international jurisprudence and law lean upon it? Note: Not popular or most, 100%, always, ever, now, everywhere.

Have you ever thought that no one really wants to see that can of worms opened?

I'm not making an appeal to popularity.

What you are doing, it's called making an appeal to popularity. The only thing it proves is how popular something is.

Skeptics love to say free will doesn't exist because free will implies moral accountability and the existence of a divine author of free will.

No, it wouldn't imply that, but rather that somehow though we can predict how people will behave well enough to make marketing a vastly profitable venture, we somehow still that all these things we are seeing that imply free will does not suggest are somehow wrong and there is something we are not currently aware of. You would love at the chance to insert god, but I would rather remain honest and just admit I don't know.

1. Those raised without information about the Christ have free will to accept or reject the promptings of God in their lives and consciences.

What if they never hear of this information?

I understand you have issues with the Bible. For example, no matter what past abuse I have experienced or you have experienced, the Bible states 1) we have free will 2) we will be judged based on choices made of our free will.

You've gotten so caught up in free will you don't even remember what you're trying to argue with this series.

 

[blü 2]

Skeptics love to say free will doesn't exist because free will implies moral accountability and the existence of a divine author of free will.

I've never understood how any thought process could make a decision that was 'free' in any sense but random.

As it stands, we know our thought processes are the result of enormously complex chains of cause and effect as our neurons do their thing.

What process does religious freewill use to make decisions that are not random?

A footnote: if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, then you don't have freewill anyway. He knew back before he made the universe exactly what you'd think say and do throughout your life, down to the last atom. His knowledge, they say, is perfect. Therefore you can never depart from what he foresaw even in the tiniest particular. If you can, then he isn't omniscient and he isn't perfect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll ask you, therefore, why a person has never successfully used GodDidIt or MechanismDidIt as a successful murder defense.

IMO, the law takes as given that God does not exist, or at least does nothing if he does exist. This is why "God did it" isn't a defense and why spectral evidence is inadmissible. It's also why trying to get someone murdered is a crime if you try to arrange the murder with a person, but isn't a crime if you just pray for God to kill your intended victim.

 

[BilliardsBall]

IMO, the law takes as given that God does not exist, or at least does nothing if he does exist. This is why "God did it" isn't a defense and why spectral evidence is inadmissible. It's also why trying to get someone murdered is a crime if you try to arrange the murder with a person, but isn't a crime if you just pray for God to kill your intended victim.

I live in a country with a constitution claiming inalienable rights under a God who exists. If you are in the U.S. and on trial for a crime, you may waive a number of rights so that you are being less assumptive in your life about the existence of God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That doesn't prove it true though.

Have you ever thought that no one really wants to see that can of worms opened?

What you are doing, it's called making an appeal to popularity. The only thing it proves is how popular something is.

No, it wouldn't imply that, but rather that somehow though we can predict how people will behave well enough to make marketing a vastly profitable venture, we somehow still that all these things we are seeing that imply free will does not suggest are somehow wrong and there is something we are not currently aware of. You would love at the chance to insert god, but I would rather remain honest and just admit I don't know.

What if they never hear of this information?

You've gotten so caught up in free will you don't even remember what you're trying to argue with this series.

Your statement "Have you ever thought that no one really wants to see that can of worms opened?" sounds like you are implying that the entire world, and all cultures since the beginnings of history and law and jurisprudence, have been intertwined in a conspiracy to uphold free will--a conspiracy that has put millions in prisons to date--because the world is uncomfortable with evolution-did-it and god-did-it.

Is that your argument against the existence of free will? That all of human society has no free will but is in an unspoken conspiracy to run society based on the illusion of free will?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've never understood how any thought process could make a decision that was 'free' in any sense but random.

As it stands, we know our thought processes are the result of enormously complex chains of cause and effect as our neurons do their thing.

What process does religious freewill use to make decisions that are not random?

A footnote: if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, then you don't have freewill anyway. He knew back before he made the universe exactly what you'd think say and do throughout your life, down to the last atom. His knowledge, they say, is perfect. Therefore you can never depart from what he foresaw even in the tiniest particular. If you can, then he isn't omniscient and he isn't perfect.

I have good news for you!

Never again worry or take more than seconds over any decision, because all our decision-making is an illusion. The next time someone presents you with a choice and says, "Now, why don't you take some time and really closely consider your choices," you can just make an instant decision!

Also, if you commit any crime, moral or legal, you need not any longer feel any conviction or guilt, as those feelings are biological imperatives you can willfully ignore. And when a person kills a loved one of yours in a violent crime or otherwise molests you or a family member, you need not feel any anger in your heart--they just couldn't help it!

When man enslaves his fellow man or forces thousands or millions into sex slavery, it's all predetermined. Never again need you protest anything. It was further predetermined that Trump win the recent election, that 1% of persons should hold 50% of wealth, that most people should live in totalitarian and authoritarian nations, etc.

Wow, I'm relieved. I was worried over a lot of nothing!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I live in a country with a constitution claiming inalienable rights under a God who exists.

Not if you're living in the US, you don't. Do you have the Declaration of Independence confused with the Constitution?

If you were in Canada, your constitution would actually mention God (the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms starts "whereas Canada is founded on the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."), but in practice, our law acts as if God doesn't exist, too.

If you are in the U.S. and on trial for a crime, you may waive a number of rights so that you are being less assumptive in your life about the existence of God.

Rights under the law have nothing to do with God.

 

[JustWondering]

Good questions/thoughts:

1. Those raised without information about the Christ have free will to accept or reject the promptings of God in their lives and consciences.

2. Jewish people were to assert their free will to a) love God b) love people c) love God's Law. You are currently using your free will to speak against two of those three stances. Does that make you a bad person? Answer that and then you'll know the answer regarding pork and shellfish.

3. God continues to make good things He likes. God continues to judge. Judgment is not for blue skies or tigers or lions but humans--because they use their free will for sin.

4. Free will is not often considered in murder trials, but its assumed existence is axiomatic to ALL trials of motive and crime. Indeed, someone may be exonerated from a violent act they have committed because under mental or other duress, they were considered to have been unable to exercise free will:

a) Committing a crime via one's free will equals guilty b) responding without "thinking about it" or "because of long abuse that crushed the free will emotional state" equals acquittal.

Let's dig a little deeper here. We are arguing free will because skeptics love to deny the existence of free will--free will implies moral accountability and people designed for moral exercise an moral judgment.

So you think free will is a magical attribute where human beings are somehow completely free of cause and effect? Apparently you prefer magical thinking over logic and reason. I (as well as others in this thread) have clearly articulated how free will in a cause and effect universe is an illusion. The ability to think and make choices is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on countless variables we have absolutely no control over. Adding a god only adds more variables to the mix making your version of "free will" even LESS likely. Since you are dedicated to purposely not understanding our completely logical and evidenced arguments, further discussion about this topic with you is pointless. Have a nice day.

 

[JustWondering]

I've never understood how any thought process could make a decision that was 'free' in any sense but random.

As it stands, we know our thought processes are the result of enormously complex chains of cause and effect as our neurons do their thing.

What process does religious freewill use to make decisions that are not random?

A footnote: if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, then you don't have freewill anyway. He knew back before he made the universe exactly what you'd think say and do throughout your life, down to the last atom. His knowledge, they say, is perfect. Therefore you can never depart from what he foresaw even in the tiniest particular. If you can, then he isn't omniscient and he isn't perfect.

Your wasting your time. Billardsball thinks that free will is magically unattached to the rest of the cause and effect universe we live in. He has also shown that he is unable and unwilling to understand how cause/effect and biology work. He prefers to live in a universe run by magic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is that your argument against the existence of free will?

This strongly indicates you haven't been reading or paying attention, because I've given arguments against free will, and that was not one of them, but something many have acknowledged and that is even without free will, there still must be punishments for theft, rape, and murder. The way our current system is, because so many people believe firmly in free will and cling to it tightly, our legal system is set up around the idea of free will and cannot function without it, because then there is really no one but fate to hold accountable.

 

[blü 2]

I have good news for you!

Never again worry or take more than seconds over any decision, because all our decision-making is an illusion.

You forgot to tell me how your version of 'freewill' works, how you say minds make 'free' decisions independently of their neurons, raising the suspicion that you don't know.

Which is disappointing, since I don't know either and I need it explained clearly to me.

And disappointing because if in fact you don't know then you don't know what you're talking about.

If the aim of this thread is to derive true (ie accurate) statements about reality, then you need to fill in this blank in your argument.

If it isn't, please say so clearly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you think free will is a magical attribute where human beings are somehow completely free of cause and effect? Apparently you prefer magical thinking over logic and reason. I (as well as others in this thread) have clearly articulated how free will in a cause and effect universe is an illusion. The ability to think and make choices is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on countless variables we have absolutely no control over. Adding a god only adds more variables to the mix making your version of "free will" even LESS likely. Since you are dedicated to purposely not understanding our completely logical and evidenced arguments, further discussion about this topic with you is pointless. Have a nice day.

Free will -- one of the most difficult of all philosophical subjects, especially when we're trying to cope with ideas like "determinism."

Not going to give a long dissertation here -- I've read the material, Dennett and Harris (they disagree with one another), Blackmore and Frankfurt (they do, too). Benjamin Libbett did show that decisions are made before we are conscious of them, and many people take that to mean that we have no free will.

But they forget something incredibly important!!---that once a decision is made and acted upon, it is fed back into the system, and then we get to react to it! And part of that reaction is to adjust the brain that's acted and reacted! We've all been doing that since before we first breathed the air, and have done it every moment of our lives -- waking and sleeping.

So think about this for a moment -- how we respond to any decision (or, if you wish, how we "exercise free will") is to a great extent dependent upon how we have modified our own behaviourally self-modified brains. In at least one respect, then, there is a measure of free will -- if at a (very) slight remove.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've never understood how any thought process could make a decision that was 'free' in any sense but random.

As it stands, we know our thought processes are the result of enormously complex chains of cause and effect as our neurons do their thing.

What process does religious freewill use to make decisions that are not random?

A footnote: if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, then you don't have freewill anyway. He knew back before he made the universe exactly what you'd think say and do throughout your life, down to the last atom. His knowledge, they say, is perfect. Therefore you can never depart from what he foresaw even in the tiniest particular. If you can, then he isn't omniscient and he isn't perfect.

Please provide your evidence that God is omniscient and perfect so I can address this statement of yours.

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You forgot to tell me how your version of 'freewill' works, how you say minds make 'free' decisions independently of their neurons, raising the suspicion that you don't know.

Which is disappointing, since I don't know either and I need it explained clearly to me.

And disappointing because if in fact you don't know then you don't know what you're talking about.

If the aim of this thread is to derive true (ie accurate) statements about reality, then you need to fill in this blank in your argument.

If it isn't, please say so clearly.

You are given a Bible by a good friend, as a gift.

You take some time to contemplate whether you should politely return it in the mail with your letter thanking the giver but explaining your anti-Bible stance or whether you should simply burn it or discard it.

Emotions and thoughts whirl in your mind. Suddenly, you are inspired to donate the Bible to a library.

You have wrestled over the following biological imperatives:

1. Doing what feels good--giving vent to your intense rage and burning the Bible.

2. Doing what feels altruistic--gifting the Bible to a library.

3. Doing what may cause future conflict with a friend--returning the Bible with your letter.

4. Doing what is time consuming and energy consuming, writing a letter.

5. Doing what is money consuming, mailing the Bible or driving to your local library.

6. Dealing with the library staff.

7. Etc.

Please provide here your proof that a Christian would embrace and enjoy the Bible and you would discard the Bible because it was predetermined that all Christians love Bibles and all skeptics dislike Bibles.

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

IMO, the law takes as given that God does not exist, or at least does nothing if he does exist. This is why "God did it" isn't a defense and why spectral evidence is inadmissible. It's also why trying to get someone murdered is a crime if you try to arrange the murder with a person, but isn't a crime if you just pray for God to kill your intended victim.

If the law takes it that God does not exist, then you would acknowledge also that the law takes it that free will does exist?