Why we don't have free will using logic

[Kfox]

You are talking about your system of faith. I don't believe we have free will, so yourself not being able to choose what you have faith in makes perfect sense to me, but thinking it's because your system of faith is true with complete certainty is what I believe is an error in judgement.

Before I respond, how are you defining faith, and how are you defining free will?

 

[The Hammer]

Before I respond, how are you defining faith, and how are you defining free will?

1. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

2. A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.

 

[Kfox]

1. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

2. A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.

The reason I asked him that question is because he has this idea that not only do I use faith on a regular basis (despite the fact I told him I don't) but he is gonna insist I don't have free will. Do you share his sentiments?

 

[The Hammer]

The reason I asked him that question is because he has this idea that not only do I use faith on a regular basis (despite the fact I told him I don't) but he is gonna insist I don't have free will. Do you share his sentiments?

You do, whether or not you realize it.

And you don't, even if you don't realize it.

 

[Kfox]

You do, whether or not you realize it.

And you don't, even if you don't realize it.

You define free will as an unforced choice. So who or what is forcing me to make the choices I make? And give an example of me using faith.

 

[Echogem222]

Before I respond, how are you defining faith, and how are you defining free will?

McBell literally explained to you what I already said about faith not too long ago:
"From the OP:

It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence."

And you responded with this:
"We can believe we know things due to empirical evidence. The idea that if I stepped off a 1,000 foot bridge, gravity will pull me to Earth at such a speed that the impact will kill me is something I believe to be true due to empirical evidence. It doesn't require an act of faith to believe this."

So why are you even asking me about how I define faith?? (Note: I am the OP, because I am the [[Original Poster]] of this thread)

+++
As for free will:

In a state of true free will, when you act, those who know you well would say things like, "That's so like them," or "Only they would do that." They wouldn't say, "I understand why they did that, because I would have done the same in their place." The distinction lies in the fact that acting with true free will is an expression of yourself, not a response to external influences (In other words, something which is unique only to you is free will).

 

[The Hammer]

You define free will as an unforced choice. So who or what is forcing me to make the choices I make?

Your past actions. And the actions of other before you.

And give an example of me using faith.

This would depend on the type of society you live in.

 

[Kfox]

McBell literally explained to you what I already said about faith not too long ago:
"From the OP:

It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence."

And you responded with this:
"We can believe we know things due to empirical evidence. The idea that if I stepped off a 1,000 foot bridge, gravity will pull me to Earth at such a speed that the impact will kill me is something I believe to be true due to empirical evidence. It doesn't require an act of faith to believe this."

So why are you even asking me about how I define faith?? (Note: I am the OP, because I am the [[Original Poster]] of this thread)

Your OP was rather long, so I didn’t see where you gave that explanation. As far as McBell, I take what he says as his views not yours; that’s why I asked you.

The problem with your definition, is it doesn’t apply to me. I don’t always claim or even believe I know things without evidence.

+++
As for free will:

In a state of true free will, when you act, those who know you well would say things like, "That's so like them," or "Only they would do that."

Which happens all the time.

They wouldn't say, "I understand why they did that, because I would have done the same in their place."

Which happens all the time

The distinction lies in the fact that acting with true free will is an expression of yourself, not a response to external influences (In other words, something which is unique only to you is free will).

Sounds like what you are saying is that we do have free will, sometimes the will is free, other times it is impeded by outside influences; agree?

 

[Kfox]

Your past actions. And the actions of other before you.

My past actions are my own. How do actions of others impede all of my actions?

This would depend on the type of society you live in.

You don't know the type of society I live in? Sounds like you don't know enough about me to claim I use faith.

 

[Echogem222]

Your OP was rather long, so I didn’t see where you gave that explanation. As far as McBell, I take what he says as his views not yours; that’s why I asked you.

Wow... that is such a troll-like response.

The problem with your definition, is it doesn’t apply to me. I don’t always claim or even believe I know things without evidence.

It's like you can't be bothered to even listen to what I've been saying and given how you somehow think that my OP was long, yet you felt the need to comment, implies to me that yes, you are just trolling me.

Which happens all the time.

Just because we don't know why someone does something, does not mean we can't know, that it's truly just unique only to them. I'm saying that if someone does something by their own free will, we would then understand it to be unique only to them, that it's fully impossible for anyone else to do the same thing for the same reasons.

Which happens all the time

Sounds like what you are saying is that we do have free will, sometimes the will is free, other times it is impeded by outside influences; agree?

No, you don't get it at all.

 

[Kfox]

Wow... that is such a troll-like response.

No it’s not; that’s just how I do business. If a response or OP is too long, rather than read every word of it, I scan over it and call it good.

It's like you can't be bothered to even listen to what I've been saying and given how you somehow think that my OP was long, yet you felt the need to comment, implies to me that yes, you are just trolling me.

You said “as Faith is belief in something without evidence”. Those were your exact words. I’m denying I do this. If you disagree, provide evidence that this is what I do; otherwise your argument fails.

Just because we don't know why someone does something, does not mean we can't know, that it's truly just unique only to them. I'm saying that if someone does something by their own free will, we would then understand it to be unique only to them, that it's fully impossible for anyone else to do the same thing for the same reasons.

This has nothing to do with what I said. You made the claim that in a state of free will, people say things like “that’s so much like him” to which I responded happens all the time. How about addressing what I actually said?

 

[Echogem222]

No it’s not; that’s just how I do business. If a response or OP is too long, rather than read every word of it, I scan over it and call it good.

You said “as Faith is belief in something without evidence”. Those were your exact words. I’m denying I do this. If you disagree, provide evidence that this is what I do; otherwise your argument fails.

This has nothing to do with what I said. You made the claim that in a state of free will, people say things like “that’s so much like him” to which I responded happens all the time. How about addressing what I actually said?

Yeah, you're clearly a troll, so I'm blocking you.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, you're clearly a troll, so I'm blocking you.

Your argument failed, so rather than admit you were wrong, you accuse me of being a troll.

 

[Ponder This]

Uh, no. I think therefore I am, is the assumption that having awareness means that you exist, but if awareness is not awareness, it may not have that effect, you must just think you exist but actually don't.

Descartes deliberately considered that you could doubt everything. The essential point is that it doesn't matter if your awareness is what you think it is or is not what you think it is. You seem to be claiming that it matters whether or not awareness is what it seems to be.

It doesn't matter that awareness is what it seems to be or is not what it seems to be.

 

[Ponder This]

What gives an aspect of free will is connected to humans thinking in terms of verbal/written language.

Some people don't think in terms of language.
Only 30–50% of People Have an Internal Monologue. Is It Really Possible for People to Not Have an Internal Monologue?

This notion that free will is connected to human thinking in terms of verbal/written language appears not to be the case. People's understanding of what a cat is isn't necessarily a consequence of having a word such as "cat" to describe it.

 

[Echogem222]

Descartes deliberately considered that you could doubt everything. The essential point is that it doesn't matter if your awareness is what you think it is or is not what you think it is. You seem to be claiming that it matters whether or not awareness is what it seems to be.

It doesn't matter that awareness is what it seems to be or is not what it seems to be.

Ok, you're making a claim right now, but you're not backing up that claim at all, that implies to me that you just think this is true, you don't actually understand why you think that.

 

[Ponder This]

Ok, you're making a claim right now, but you're not backing up that claim at all, that implies to me that you just think this is true, you don't actually understand why you think that.

We've identified a point upon which we disagree and upon which your argument depends, yes?

You are arguing that:

Our "awareness" may not actually be awareness at all; it could merely seem like awareness of the way things truly are. Even something as seemingly concrete as the math equation 1+1=2 could, in reality, equal 3, 500, or even 0, or perhaps something beyond our current comprehension. Just because we are not aware of it being anything else does not mean that no other possibilities exist. After all, we do not have full awareness of everything even if we know anything, as knowing everything would allow us to know if it's possible to be mistaken or not due to reality existing in a way that prevents our knowledge from being incorrect or correct.

Your argument is:

1. we cannot be certain that awareness is what it seems to be.
2. Therefore, we cannot have knowledge.

However, simply being uncertain that awareness is what it seems to be means that our awareness, such as it seems to be, seems to be, regardless of whether or not our awareness is what it seems to be. A lack of "full awareness" does not preclude us from a partial awareness; the contextualization of our awareness (or rather of what our awareness seems to be) is not prevented by our uncertainty of what our awareness is (or of what "full awareness" is).

 

[Echogem222]

We've identified a point upon which we disagree and upon which your argument depends, yes?

You are arguing that:

Your argument is:

1. we cannot be certain that awareness is what it seems to be.
2. Therefore, we cannot have knowledge.

However, simply being uncertain that awareness is what it seems to be means that our awareness, such as it seems to be, seems to be, regardless of whether or not our awareness is what it seems to be. A lack of "full awareness" does not preclude us from a partial awareness; the contextualization of our awareness (or rather of what our awareness seems to be) is not prevented by our uncertainty of what our awareness is (or of what "full awareness" is).

No, that is not my argument. This is my argument:
1. we cannot be certain that awareness is what is seems to be.
2. therefore we cannot be certain that our knowledge is truly knowledge

It could be that what we think is knowledge is truly knowledge, therefore the number 2 you provided does not follow from number 1.

 

[Ponder This]

No, that is not my argument. This is my argument:
1. we cannot be certain that awareness is what is seems to be.
2. therefore we cannot be certain that our knowledge is truly knowledge

It could be that what we think is knowledge is truly knowledge, therefore the number 2 you provided does not follow from number 1.

Isn't this a self-consuming reasoning? How do you keep your argument from breaking down in that your argument might only seem to be valid and/or sound rather than truly being valid and/or sound? How can you be certain that we cannot be certain that our knowledge is truly knowledge?

 

[Echogem222]

Isn't this a self-consuming reasoning? How do you keep your argument from breaking down in that your argument might only seem to be valid and/or sound rather than truly being valid and/or sound? How can you be certain that we cannot be certain that our knowledge is truly knowledge?

You keep making it sound like I'm saying that I know for certain that we cannot be certain about things, but that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying we cannot be certain about anything, not even about our lack of certainty.

Without having faith, a lack of certainty in even a lack of certainty (that self-consuming reasoning) does occur, preventing even thoughts from forming due to a lack of structure, but that's why I have faith. In other words, to even have this conversation with me, to even be thinking right now as you are requires faith, so therefore it requires faith to examine our faith because our foundation is faith based.