the real issue

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think we can already explain most human actions and have found no evidence that they are not entirely dependent on natural laws.
Prediction is another matter. In fact the combination of chaos theory and the uncertainty principle guarantees that you cannot predict the future beyond a certain accuracy especially with chaotic systems like the weather or t ...[text shortened]... nts believe in S from N but could not actually find a single person who would admit as such.

I personally don't remember any atheist making a claim that he had no free will. WHITEY

But that's not what they would say. They would argue against free will intellectually but still claim it for themselves personally. You will find atheists saying that there is no such thing as free will in generic terms but no-one can live like that in their personal life.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So you don't believe we have free will then? I would presume that you would agree that random unpredictable actions are not the same as free choices? A truely free choice would have to be one free of causality and not determined by another cause , agree?

Please give a rigorous definition of free will as we seem to have different understandings on the term.
How does your "truly free choice would have to be one free of causality and not determined by another cause" not boil down to a random selection? Your brain or spirit or whatever else you may believe is doing the choosing either uses a causal mechanism to make choices or a random mechanism or a combination of both. You seem to be claiming that it is something else altogether so please explain.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please give a rigorous definition of free will as we seem to have different understandings on the term.
How does your "truly free choice would have to be one free of causality and not determined by another cause" not boil down to a random selection? Your brain or spirit or whatever else you may believe is doing the choosing either uses a causal mechanism ...[text shortened]... ation of both. You seem to be claiming that it is something else altogether so please explain.

Free will as I see it is a state where someone can make a choice on a course of action and both choice A and choice B are equally possible and not determined by any other influence "C". If I choose to be honest with someone over something it is only a free choice if I can equally choose to not be honest. It also needs to be me that makes that choice and not be determined by some evolutionary drive or cultural influence. It needs to be determined by me and be a conscious choice.
So if I choose to tell my friend that his wife flirted with me then to be a free choice I must be able to not tell him also. In a determinsitic world this is not possible because I will always only choose one choice over the other. If you throw in random effects then other choices are possible but it's not me that is doing the choosing , I am still at the whim of radom causes for my actions. I have no control.It's randomness that is doing the choosing not me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Free will as I see it is a state where someone can make a choice on a course of action and both choice A and choice B are equally possible and not determined by any other influence "C".

So you are effectively saying that the choice is random?

If I choose to be honest with someone over something it is only a free choice if I can equally choose to not be honest. It also needs to be me that makes that choice and not be determined by some evolutionary drive or cultural influence. It needs to be determined by me and be a conscious choice.
So if I choose to tell my friend that his wife flirted with me then to be a free choice I must be able to not tell him also. In a determinsitic world this is not possible because I will always only choose one choice over the other. If you throw in random effects then other choices are possible but it's not me that is doing the choosing , I am still at the whim of radom causes for my actions. I have no control.It's randomness that is doing the choosing not me.
What you appear to be saying is that a "you" exists which is independent of the universe and it is that "you" that makes choices. That "you" is not a human brain (as that is entirely physical) but some other entity that does not have any laws physical or otherwise by which it operates.
Or are you possibly playing the uncaused cause game where you regress the problem in the hope of hiding the fact that it just will not go away?
You are actually generating an external "brain" that makes the choice for the physical brain, thus allowing the physical brain to not be influenced solely by physical laws. But then you do not explain why your problem does not similarly apply to the external "brain" you have hypothesized.

Further you think that your claim somehow separates theists from atheists whereas that is not the case as the basic problem should also exist for theists the only possible difference being that theists may find it easier to use the "godunit" solution and simply blank out their mind to the problem.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are effectively saying that the choice is random?

[b]If I choose to be honest with someone over something it is only a free choice if I can equally choose to not be honest. It also needs to be me that makes that choice and not be determined by some evolutionary drive or cultural influence. It needs to be determined by me and be a conscious choic ...[text shortened]... sier to use the "godunit" solution and simply blank out their mind to the problem.

You are actually generating an external "brain" that makes the choice for the physical brain, thus allowing the physical brain to not be influenced solely by physical laws. But then you do not explain why your problem does not similarly apply to the external "brain" you have hypothesized. WHITEY

You are on the right lines and kind of understanding me. If all we are is the physical (brains, chemicals etc) then we must be determined by either randomness or physical laws. To have any meaningful free will there must be a role of some sort for a non-dependent entity or force which might enable us to make free choices. Before we address free will we need to ask "is anything in existence actually free of causality?" If there is nothing uncaused then everything is determined , thus no free will. God , being uncaused and free , can give us free will. How does he do this? By giving of himself his very nature of freedom (from determinism) . He places a bit of himself in us. If he doesn't how can we be anything other than bound by determinism? You need some uncaused free entity to make free will possible.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are on the right lines and kind of understanding me.

But you are not understanding me. Even if you invent some external entity not bound by the laws of physics, the problem does not go away. The choice does not somehow become more 'free'. The fact is that the decision is either random or caused. Inventing new entities only serves to disguise that fact rather than solving it.
If I have to choose between A or B then my decision will either be based on past experience combined with reasoning or it will be based on random choice. Whether or not my thought processes are based on the laws of physics is quite irrelevant.
The other major problem with your ideas is that it is quite elementary to show that most thought processes including decision making can be heavily influenced by manipulating the brain which more or less proves that choice is not free of the influences of the physical world. ie your nonphysical choice engine can be shown to be a false hypothesis.

I think that any concept of the soul that posits thinking processes independent of the physical brain can be shown to be flawed. (In the light of modern studies of the brain).
It is actually a major difficulty in many religions as a key concept for them is an afterlife for the soul, but the definition of the soul tends to be extremely vague.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are not understanding me. Even if you invent some external entity not bound by the laws of physics, the problem does not go away. The choice does not somehow become more 'free'. The fact is that the decision is either random or caused. Inventing new entities only serves to disguise that fact rather than solving it.
If I have to choose between A o ...[text shortened]... them is an afterlife for the soul, but the definition of the soul tends to be extremely vague.

But you are not understanding me. Even if you invent some external entity not bound by the laws of physics, the problem does not go away. The choice does not somehow become more 'free'. The fact is that the decision is either random or caused. Inventing new entities only serves to disguise that fact rather than solving it. WHITEY

I agree , the problem does not go away just by such an entity existing. However , such an entity is not bound by the laws of physics and as such can make free choices not determined by anything. Now , imagine such an entity decided to share it's nature with us to enable us to do something similar. Such an entity would need put a bit of itself in us to enable us to be capable of freedom. This entity would need to enter into our world of determinism to do this , incarnate maybe. This story might start to sound familiar to you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I agree , the problem does not go away just by such an entity existing. However , such an entity is not bound by the laws of physics and as such can make free choices not determined by anything. Now , imagine such an entity decided to share it's nature with us to enable us to do something similar. Such an entity would need put a bit of itself in us to ...[text shortened]... d of determinism to do this , incarnate maybe. This story might start to sound familiar to you?

You still just don't get it do you?
I think the problem is that you have failed to actually articulate what you mean by free will. Do you mean random choice? Do you mean choice determined solely by the entity making the choice without any possible outside influence? Do you allow previous experience etc to influence said choice?

I cant seem to understand what separates you description of free will from a totally random system (I quote "not determined by anything" )
which to me is a stupid idea (I don't mean your idea is stupid, I mean that anyone who would invent a being that makes only random choices is stupid).

The laws of physics do not dictate a deterministic choice so if random choice is what you are looking for then there is no need to invent a non-physical entity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You still just don't get it do you?
I think the problem is that you have failed to actually articulate what you mean by free will. Do you mean random choice? Do you mean choice determined solely by the entity making the choice without any possible outside influence? Do you allow previous experience etc to influence said choice?

I cant seem to understa ...[text shortened]... om choice is what you are looking for then there is no need to invent a non-physical entity.

I think the problem is that you have failed to actually articulate what you mean by free will. Do you mean random choice? Do you mean choice determined solely by the entity making the choice without any possible outside influence? Do you allow previous experience etc to influence said choice? WHITEY

I do not mean random choice at all. Neither do I mean a choice made with no influences. An influence is not the same as a determined choice. Free will in the Christian sense means that if we really don't want to allow God to have control of our lives then we can resist him. We don't have to follow his ways or go to heaven. We can do evil if that is what we choose , and also good. It really is up to us , despite influences. God gives us the power to overcome temptation (for example) but he will not force us , we have to choose. We can choose to love or not love. This is free will to me, none of us will be able to say " I chose evil and hate , but it wasn't down to me , it was because I was fated by inner drives. The other option of love was never open to me , ever " With randon choices all you get is meaningless chaos and no moral judgement calls.

But...how could such a free will exist in our mechanistic universe? It's an impossibility because every action we did would always have some cause for which we could not be held responsible.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But...how could such a free will exist in our mechanistic universe? It's an impossibility because every action we did would always have some cause for which we could not be held responsible.

You are still skirting around the central issue and that is how is the choice made in your opinion?
It is either
1. Random
2. Caused.
If 2 then what are the causes? How do they differ from mechanistic causes? Why must you be held responsible for them?

Even in your imaginary non-mechanistic environment is my choice is made based on past experience or information at my disposal then I am a slave to the information. If I do something that God does not like then he is responsible as the choice was based entirely on the information he provided (or he gave me a broken choice machine).
Why in your opinion do people make the 'wrong' choice?
1. Random chance.
2. Incorrect information.
3. Faulty decision making machinery.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are still skirting around the central issue and that is how is the choice made in your opinion?
It is either
1. Random
2. Caused.
If 2 then what are the causes? How do they differ from mechanistic causes? Why must you be held responsible for them?

Even in your imaginary non-mechanistic environment is my choice is made based on past experience ...[text shortened]... g' choice?
1. Random chance.
2. Incorrect information.
3. Faulty decision making machinery.

First of all I do not accept there are only two options for choice as you present. To answer your question (I hope) , God places us in situations whereby the temptations to go one way are counterbalanced by the power he gives us to make and alternate choice. He then makes available to us the power to make the "right" choice if that is what we choose to do. For example , if we choose to love then God makes it possible for us to do that , but he won't force us to love. Love in this model is an act of will. The free choice is possible because God puts some of his freedom into us to give us that chance. It can only be truely free of determinism because God is also free of determinism and uncaused.

Originally posted by knightmeister
First of all I do not accept there are only two options for choice as you present. To answer your question (I hope) , God places us in situations whereby the temptations to go one way are counterbalanced by the power he gives us to make and alternate choice. He then makes available to us the power to make the "right" choice if that is what we choose to ...[text shortened]... can only be truely free of determinism because God is also free of determinism and uncaused.

Please think about it then answer the question properly.
How is the choice made?
You mention influences but make it clear that the influences do not determine the choice outcome. In fact you state that the choice is "free of determinism and uncaused". Surely that means random? Or do you not know what random means?
How does your brain /soul /whatever decide what choice to make in a given situation? If not random or deterministic then what? Surely the two are complements to each other ie random=~deterministic?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please think about it then answer the question properly.
How is the choice made?
You mention influences but make it clear that the influences do not determine the choice outcome. In fact you state that the choice is "free of determinism and uncaused". Surely that means random? Or do you not know what random means?
How does your brain /soul /whatever de ...[text shortened]... eterministic then what? Surely the two are complements to each other ie random=~deterministic?

It's basically the presence of God's spirit with us that makes it possible. Take God out of the equation then all you are left with is determinism or random factors.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's basically the presence of God's spirit with us that makes it possible. Take God out of the equation then all you are left with is determinism or random factors.

So God makes the decision? His spirit makes the decision? But that is deterministic.
Or do you just not have an answer?
You seem to be trying to avoid the real problem, an event is either random or deterministic there is no third choice even if you believe in the supernatural / Gods spirit etc etc.
Even a heavily influenced choice is a random choice with a reduced range of randomness or with a skewed probability graph, but essentially still random.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So God makes the decision? His spirit makes the decision? But that is deterministic.
Or do you just not have an answer?
You seem to be trying to avoid the real problem, an event is either random or deterministic there is no third choice even if you believe in the supernatural / Gods spirit etc etc.
Even a heavily influenced choice is a random choice wi ...[text shortened]... a reduced range of randomness or with a skewed probability graph, but essentially still random.

So God makes the decision? His spirit makes the decision? But that is deterministic.
Or do you just not have an answer? WHITEY


Now you are getting somewhat closer. This is good. Now what if God gives a little of his spirit to us or more accurately prompts our spirit into a decision making situation? Remember that many moral decisons often require an act of surrender (eg from a position of pride/ stubborness to love) . Making the wrong choice then becomes a matter of resisting or refusing and going our own way as opposed to surrendering/loss of self+ego. An act of love and compassion requires a letting go of ourselves to God and God then helps us/empowers us. But he does of course prompt us and encourage us to let go and surrender to his will , but this is not the same as forcing us (determinism)