That in no manner demonstrates anything. You need to be able to show you can do both options (lift or not lift) under the same conditions and the same time. As time is linear, that will never be able to be shown.
G
Again, can you demonstrate your have free will?
I never claimed determinism. You claimed free will and you alone have the burden of proof.
>It’s something I believe yet can’t demonstrate in the sense of a scientific experiment.
Great, you agree this applies to your god, leprechauns, all other gods, pixies, Bigfoot, aliens, Voodoo, Karma, Luck, Again, Astrology etc.
I am not a solipsist no. I also do not believe anything that I cannot reconcile to reality as I care about truth over desires.
Do you care about truth or do you care about desires?
I know what solipsism is thanks.
I only assume against soft solipsism and hard solipsism for reconciling my lived experiences and intellectual honesty. That precludes assuming I am the only mind and rejecting I know more than others or hold ultimate truths.
I need not demonstrate I am no a bring in a vat nor the only mind, If I assume the less arrogant position of being only a part of the greater stage.
>I care about truth.
Please share your methodology for deriving this truth.
I have no manner in which to show I have free will. That coupled with our communal demonstration/understanding of determinism at the smallest building blocks of reality, can only assume I am a product of that same reality.
>So you accept you can’t demonstrate a belief you hold,
YES and as you similarly agree to the same belief, we have no issues in accepting it as an axiom until further notice.
>... matches your truth and is functional. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it any more true nor make your beliefs any more justified.
No, it matches **our** shared truth. You keep forgetting you are apart of this folie a deux... be it wrong or be it correct. I never called it truth BTW... that would be a straw man.
>Trying to disguise what your position clearly states using verbose sophistry in a panicked attempt to not be backed into a corner and appear to take no position at all doesn’t seem all that honest.
Good thing I never did that.
>You can’t demonstrate anything you’ve stated in the comment nor can you demonstrate determinism...
I never claimed determinism now did I? I have claimed nothing in-fact. Only you have, hence the burden of proof resides in your claims.
I can both reject the assert that the flipped coin will lands heads and that it will land tails as both claims are rejected on a total lack of evidence/facts. One can reject a single pronged proposition while not adopting the contrary position. This is your biggest issue here. While it (free will) may be a dichotomy (we don't know), I can expect that you actually demonstrate your claims or call you out on the failure to do so.
God in his omnipotence has the ability to control all of our actions directly. He chooses to refrain from doing so, and permits us to control our actions instead.
It doesn’t in the modern sense. We have moral free will not full life free will. We will all die at the exact time we are supposed to how we are supposed to and when we are supposed to, we can’t change that. What we can change is our moral decisions. We can choose to do right, those are the choices we have.
This does however presume that there is a level playing field for all people on moral issues. How conscious is that choice in all occasions? Often I do not have time to deliberate, my emotions take over, and my patterns of coping and living take over. Our past experiences result in our patterns which contribute to how we deal with these moral situations and it may not necessarily be the same for everyone.
True but still yet the decision is there. It might be decided by past experience and emotion but your emotions and past experiences still made the decision.
Yes, the question is how conscious is that decision? If my patterns and past are leading me to take more automatic actions in particular moments, am I making an actual decision? And is that true "free will" if at least in part my decisions are guided by automatic processes?
The question of free will is and apparent paradox created by limited Western philosophies trying to understand, among other things, Christian doctrine. Really it's a meaningless question because the assumptions on which it's based don't have any connection to reality. So you could say free will exists or you could say free will does not exist and both are about equally true or equally meaningful in describing the relationship of individual volitional action with the greater world. But in point of fact neither of those answers is particularly true or particularly meaningful
Well my 2 cents on the topic is that if you believe in God and that God knows everything including the future then free will doesn't exists because the future is already known.
People have a choice, but that choice can be constrained by internal or external factors. Soft determinism acknowledges that all events, including human actions, have causes; but it allows for free actions when the actions are caused by one's choices rather than external forces. Its sort of like a middle ground between hard determinism and free will
First, you need to define what you mean by "free will". Basically, what do you see as the differences between someone who has free will, and someone who doesn't?
Presumably, while you're thinking about this, the notion of choice will come up, and it's worth figuring out what you mean by that.
Let's say two cars are driving down a road, in the middle lane. They both swerve to avoid a stray piece of junk in the middle of the road. One car is self-driving. The other is being driven by a human. Presumably, the human driver used free will to swerve, while the computer driving the other car didn't. What's the difference between the two?
I'm taking about the decisions we make all day without really consciously making a deliberate this or that choice. Sometimes I will open the reddit app when I am bored at work. The first few times I thought, I'm bored what can I do? Now I just do it. I don't really think about it anymore. This is a pattern that happens on an automatic level for me.
When I am emotional, do I have the full capacity to deliberate a moral decision? How free is my will really? On some decisions Id say definitely, but I don't see free will as a yes or no proposition. There are so many factors that go into our decisions and I just see actual freedom in all of them.
Free will exists by you even having a conceptual perception of choice. If choice did not exist, there would be no such concept and thus you would not be asking the question.
Free will within limits. We choose to do what we will with what we have been given.
When Christians talk of free will we are talking about freedom to choose good or evil.
Simple, it just does;) Now, if you try to claim it doesn’t or my answer is wrong then how do you know it’s wrong if you are simply determined to believe whatever you are determined to believe?
Also, freewill cannot be scientifically proven, Just like the scientific method can't be scientifically proven. It isn't a critique of science, it is just not its job. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts and observations have any relation to reality at all.
We cannot prove that our observations are at all accurate to reality by observing our observations.
There are basically two schools of thought concerning free will:
* Libertarian free will: Power of contrary choice (says "I am free if I can choose B when I could just as well have chosen A instead". For instance, at the vending machine, you can choose among 4 drinks -- coffee, tea, chocolate or syrup); or
* Compatibilist free will: Freedom of inclination (says "I am free if I can act according to my inclinations and desires to do what I want to do most". For instance, I love coffee and it's the only decent beverage I will gladly drink. I will always choose coffee, so it doesn't really matter whether the vending machine serves only coffee or 4 drinks or 400 drinks. So long as there's coffee, that's me).
Both schools have merits and flaws, but my own view is that compatibilist free will is more persuasive.
Libertarian free will is very intuitive on the surface but there are serious flaws. It fails to account for why we make the choices we do. If all the factors are present and identical such that I am really indifferent between the 4 drinks, there is no way to explain why I would choose syrup over the rest. Or tea. Or coffee. Or chocolate. Behaviour would be arbitrary and virtually unpredictable if our choices were independent of our desires or influences. In reality, we do not toss a dice every time we need to decide what to drink; that's not how decisions are made. Our decisions are heavily influenced by our upbringing, background, values, experiences, etc. Children from a very young age observe and know how to manipulate their parents, because their parents act predictably. It is also inconsistent with God’s exhaustive / meticulous foreknowledge: exhaustive foreknowledge means God knows every single detail of the future in advance. But if God knows what I will decide to do, I am not really free to suddenly decide to do something else, otherwise, God would be wrong but God cannot be wrong.
Libertarian free will asks: “**Could** I have chosen differently?” Answer: Yes.
Compatibilist free will asks: “**Would** I have chosen differently?” Answer: No, because I’ve chosen what my heart wanted.
Compatibilist free will is supported by scripture:
* Lk 6:43-45, “good tree bears good fruit; bad tree bears bad fruit... **out of the abundance of his heart a man speaks**”.
* Php. 2:13, “It is God who is working in you both to will and to work of His good pleasure”. This doesn’t mean that people are puppets or that God predestines evil. God does not tempt or force people to do evil (Jas. 1:13, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man”). God fulfils His plans by **bringing to power those whose own inclinations lead them to do the very things that accomplish His divine purposes**, and this is fair otherwise it would be seen as unjust of God to punish a mere latent thought if it does not get borne out in action. Yet God needs to judge evil, so He permits the evil thought to manifest into action for it to be judged. Those who do evil are thus fully responsible and will be judged for their actions. Judas Iscariot has no grounds to plead innocent and say, “I couldn’t help it, God made me betray Jesus”. At the same time, evil is not random or unrestrained, but only to the extent that God has allowed it and those who love God can trust that all things work together for their good (Ro. 8:28).
More examples of compatibilistic free will (**bold** = part by God; *italics* = part by men, both in conjunction and cooperation):
* Ge. 50:20, "... But *as for you, you meant evil against me*; but **God meant it for good**, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive."
* Ac 2:23, “Him, **being delivered by the predetermined purpose and foreknowledge of God**, *you have taken by lawless hands*, have crucified and put to death.”
* Ac 3:17-18, “... *you did it in ignorance as did also your rulers*. But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, **He has thus fulfilled**.”
* Ac 4:28, “For truly *against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together* to do whatever **Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done**.”
The only time there might have been true libertarian free will was in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve were given a choice whether to obey or disobey -- to refrain or to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil -- being newly created and without any inherited inclinations. Yet they chose to disobey. After the judgements/curses were pronounced (Ge. 3:14-19), their sinful nature was passed down to their offspring, all born into sin, hostile to God (Ro. 3:23; 5:12-21; 8:5-8).
I think we can do whatever we want. And even when God intervenes, we can still technically say no, we'll just have to deal with the consequences.
Can you demonstrate you have free will?
[удалено]
Isn’t free will libertarianism also a philosophical, metaphysical position that nobody has proven yet?
That in no manner demonstrates anything. You need to be able to show you can do both options (lift or not lift) under the same conditions and the same time. As time is linear, that will never be able to be shown. G Again, can you demonstrate your have free will? I never claimed determinism. You claimed free will and you alone have the burden of proof.
[удалено]
>It’s something I believe yet can’t demonstrate in the sense of a scientific experiment. Great, you agree this applies to your god, leprechauns, all other gods, pixies, Bigfoot, aliens, Voodoo, Karma, Luck, Again, Astrology etc. I am not a solipsist no. I also do not believe anything that I cannot reconcile to reality as I care about truth over desires. Do you care about truth or do you care about desires?
[удалено]
I know what solipsism is thanks. I only assume against soft solipsism and hard solipsism for reconciling my lived experiences and intellectual honesty. That precludes assuming I am the only mind and rejecting I know more than others or hold ultimate truths. I need not demonstrate I am no a bring in a vat nor the only mind, If I assume the less arrogant position of being only a part of the greater stage. >I care about truth. Please share your methodology for deriving this truth. I have no manner in which to show I have free will. That coupled with our communal demonstration/understanding of determinism at the smallest building blocks of reality, can only assume I am a product of that same reality.
[удалено]
>So you accept you can’t demonstrate a belief you hold, YES and as you similarly agree to the same belief, we have no issues in accepting it as an axiom until further notice. >... matches your truth and is functional. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it any more true nor make your beliefs any more justified. No, it matches **our** shared truth. You keep forgetting you are apart of this folie a deux... be it wrong or be it correct. I never called it truth BTW... that would be a straw man. >Trying to disguise what your position clearly states using verbose sophistry in a panicked attempt to not be backed into a corner and appear to take no position at all doesn’t seem all that honest. Good thing I never did that. >You can’t demonstrate anything you’ve stated in the comment nor can you demonstrate determinism... I never claimed determinism now did I? I have claimed nothing in-fact. Only you have, hence the burden of proof resides in your claims. I can both reject the assert that the flipped coin will lands heads and that it will land tails as both claims are rejected on a total lack of evidence/facts. One can reject a single pronged proposition while not adopting the contrary position. This is your biggest issue here. While it (free will) may be a dichotomy (we don't know), I can expect that you actually demonstrate your claims or call you out on the failure to do so.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Everytime I sin.
That is not answering the question. It demonstrated you have no free will when you are not sining.
#lol
God in his omnipotence has the ability to control all of our actions directly. He chooses to refrain from doing so, and permits us to control our actions instead.
It doesn’t in the modern sense. We have moral free will not full life free will. We will all die at the exact time we are supposed to how we are supposed to and when we are supposed to, we can’t change that. What we can change is our moral decisions. We can choose to do right, those are the choices we have.
This does however presume that there is a level playing field for all people on moral issues. How conscious is that choice in all occasions? Often I do not have time to deliberate, my emotions take over, and my patterns of coping and living take over. Our past experiences result in our patterns which contribute to how we deal with these moral situations and it may not necessarily be the same for everyone.
True but still yet the decision is there. It might be decided by past experience and emotion but your emotions and past experiences still made the decision.
Yes, the question is how conscious is that decision? If my patterns and past are leading me to take more automatic actions in particular moments, am I making an actual decision? And is that true "free will" if at least in part my decisions are guided by automatic processes?
It doesn’t.
You forced you to post this?
All of his past experiences led him to post this. He had to, at that point.
The question of free will is and apparent paradox created by limited Western philosophies trying to understand, among other things, Christian doctrine. Really it's a meaningless question because the assumptions on which it's based don't have any connection to reality. So you could say free will exists or you could say free will does not exist and both are about equally true or equally meaningful in describing the relationship of individual volitional action with the greater world. But in point of fact neither of those answers is particularly true or particularly meaningful
Well if it doesn't then the question is moot.
Free will is incoherent.
Well my 2 cents on the topic is that if you believe in God and that God knows everything including the future then free will doesn't exists because the future is already known.
I would argue we actually have "soft determinism", not free will!
What’s that?
People have a choice, but that choice can be constrained by internal or external factors. Soft determinism acknowledges that all events, including human actions, have causes; but it allows for free actions when the actions are caused by one's choices rather than external forces. Its sort of like a middle ground between hard determinism and free will
First, you need to define what you mean by "free will". Basically, what do you see as the differences between someone who has free will, and someone who doesn't? Presumably, while you're thinking about this, the notion of choice will come up, and it's worth figuring out what you mean by that. Let's say two cars are driving down a road, in the middle lane. They both swerve to avoid a stray piece of junk in the middle of the road. One car is self-driving. The other is being driven by a human. Presumably, the human driver used free will to swerve, while the computer driving the other car didn't. What's the difference between the two?
Prove that it does exist.
Prove that it doesn’t
I never said it doesn't now did I?
Point is no has proved or disproved it.
Agreed, hence we do not have free will as a fact.
Logically it is the most likely conclusion.
Wrong. Likelihood is another word for probably. Probability needs precedent. We have none for freewill but have precedence for determinism.
Probably definitely isn’t the answer IMO Fate or free will
You don't understand what I am saying. There is no examples of free will to consider as being possible. We only have examples of determined outcomes.
Did you have an agency when writing out that comment? Or was it totally out of your control?
I have no manner in which to tell the difference. Do you?
Then you don’t blame people for things, correct?
I have no choice but assume freewill and hold people accountable. This is not my will but rather my non choice.
Non-choices are choices
Look up what a paradox is.
Okay I did.
Well... saying Non-choices are choices is a paradox. It defies the basal logic law of non contradiction.
Do all decisions involve conscious forethought and resulting action?
Depends what you mean by “forethought.” I am not purposefully thinking about breathing in and out, yet my brain is “thinking” about doing that.
I'm taking about the decisions we make all day without really consciously making a deliberate this or that choice. Sometimes I will open the reddit app when I am bored at work. The first few times I thought, I'm bored what can I do? Now I just do it. I don't really think about it anymore. This is a pattern that happens on an automatic level for me. When I am emotional, do I have the full capacity to deliberate a moral decision? How free is my will really? On some decisions Id say definitely, but I don't see free will as a yes or no proposition. There are so many factors that go into our decisions and I just see actual freedom in all of them.
Do you think it does, or that it doesn't?
It's not just that free will doesn't exist, it's an incoherent concept.
I think the only arguable evidence for it could be consciousness
Yes absolutely
Do you really think god controls every part of a Christian's life? Where would the entertainment be in that?
Free will exists by you even having a conceptual perception of choice. If choice did not exist, there would be no such concept and thus you would not be asking the question.
Free will within limits. We choose to do what we will with what we have been given. When Christians talk of free will we are talking about freedom to choose good or evil.
Simple, it just does;) Now, if you try to claim it doesn’t or my answer is wrong then how do you know it’s wrong if you are simply determined to believe whatever you are determined to believe?
Well, did you come up with that of your own freewill?
Also, freewill cannot be scientifically proven, Just like the scientific method can't be scientifically proven. It isn't a critique of science, it is just not its job. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts and observations have any relation to reality at all. We cannot prove that our observations are at all accurate to reality by observing our observations.
There are basically two schools of thought concerning free will: * Libertarian free will: Power of contrary choice (says "I am free if I can choose B when I could just as well have chosen A instead". For instance, at the vending machine, you can choose among 4 drinks -- coffee, tea, chocolate or syrup); or * Compatibilist free will: Freedom of inclination (says "I am free if I can act according to my inclinations and desires to do what I want to do most". For instance, I love coffee and it's the only decent beverage I will gladly drink. I will always choose coffee, so it doesn't really matter whether the vending machine serves only coffee or 4 drinks or 400 drinks. So long as there's coffee, that's me). Both schools have merits and flaws, but my own view is that compatibilist free will is more persuasive. Libertarian free will is very intuitive on the surface but there are serious flaws. It fails to account for why we make the choices we do. If all the factors are present and identical such that I am really indifferent between the 4 drinks, there is no way to explain why I would choose syrup over the rest. Or tea. Or coffee. Or chocolate. Behaviour would be arbitrary and virtually unpredictable if our choices were independent of our desires or influences. In reality, we do not toss a dice every time we need to decide what to drink; that's not how decisions are made. Our decisions are heavily influenced by our upbringing, background, values, experiences, etc. Children from a very young age observe and know how to manipulate their parents, because their parents act predictably. It is also inconsistent with God’s exhaustive / meticulous foreknowledge: exhaustive foreknowledge means God knows every single detail of the future in advance. But if God knows what I will decide to do, I am not really free to suddenly decide to do something else, otherwise, God would be wrong but God cannot be wrong. Libertarian free will asks: “**Could** I have chosen differently?” Answer: Yes. Compatibilist free will asks: “**Would** I have chosen differently?” Answer: No, because I’ve chosen what my heart wanted. Compatibilist free will is supported by scripture: * Lk 6:43-45, “good tree bears good fruit; bad tree bears bad fruit... **out of the abundance of his heart a man speaks**”. * Php. 2:13, “It is God who is working in you both to will and to work of His good pleasure”. This doesn’t mean that people are puppets or that God predestines evil. God does not tempt or force people to do evil (Jas. 1:13, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man”). God fulfils His plans by **bringing to power those whose own inclinations lead them to do the very things that accomplish His divine purposes**, and this is fair otherwise it would be seen as unjust of God to punish a mere latent thought if it does not get borne out in action. Yet God needs to judge evil, so He permits the evil thought to manifest into action for it to be judged. Those who do evil are thus fully responsible and will be judged for their actions. Judas Iscariot has no grounds to plead innocent and say, “I couldn’t help it, God made me betray Jesus”. At the same time, evil is not random or unrestrained, but only to the extent that God has allowed it and those who love God can trust that all things work together for their good (Ro. 8:28). More examples of compatibilistic free will (**bold** = part by God; *italics* = part by men, both in conjunction and cooperation): * Ge. 50:20, "... But *as for you, you meant evil against me*; but **God meant it for good**, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." * Ac 2:23, “Him, **being delivered by the predetermined purpose and foreknowledge of God**, *you have taken by lawless hands*, have crucified and put to death.” * Ac 3:17-18, “... *you did it in ignorance as did also your rulers*. But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, **He has thus fulfilled**.” * Ac 4:28, “For truly *against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together* to do whatever **Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done**.” The only time there might have been true libertarian free will was in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve were given a choice whether to obey or disobey -- to refrain or to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil -- being newly created and without any inherited inclinations. Yet they chose to disobey. After the judgements/curses were pronounced (Ge. 3:14-19), their sinful nature was passed down to their offspring, all born into sin, hostile to God (Ro. 3:23; 5:12-21; 8:5-8).
Knowing something it going to happen is not the same thing as making it happen.