Questions for those who believe in free will

[Rational Atheist]

I'm trying to understand the belief in free will. For those who believe in free will, do you believe that your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes or not? If you do, you're a determinist and do not believe in free choice, since you can't control the causes that took place before you were born. If you don't believe your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes, or don't believe that that causal chain extends to before your birth, then you believe that at some point before your action, an event occurred for no reason whatsoever (purely random). How could this possibly get you free will either? No combination of determinism nor indeterminism (randomness) gives you "free will" in the sense of authorship of and responsibility for your actions. How can you believe anyone is ultimately responsible for what they do?

[The Tanager]

It can certainly be a logical construct, just like something such as a non-pencil can be, but it has to have a truth value to be meaningful (both premises need to be true for a conclusion to be sound), and so far neither something such as a non-pencil nor the supernatural have any. Assemble your persuasive evidence for the truth of the supernatural and maybe then we can talk.

That is what this argument is. You seem to agree with the truth of premise 4 now, right? You already said premises 1-3 were fine. Do you have a response to what I said in support of premise 5? Do you also accept that as true or do you think self-causation is a logical possibility?

[Miles]

It can certainly be a logical construct, just like something such as a non-pencil can be, but it has to have a truth value to be meaningful (both premises need to be true for a conclusion to be sound), and so far neither something such as a non-pencil nor the supernatural have any. Assemble your persuasive evidence for the truth of the supernatural and maybe then we can talk.

That is what this argument is. You seem to agree with the truth of premise 4 now, right?

No, because until it's shown that the supernatural exists it has no truth value.

You already said premises 1-3 were fine. Do you have a response to what I said in support of premise 5?

I assume you mean your last comment:

In support of premise 5, as I've already said, for the cause of the natural universe to be, itself, natural would be self-causation, which is logically impossible since it requires something to exist prior to when it exists. Nothing can exist prior to when it exists.

How do you know? There have been quite a few hypotheses concerning the origin of our universe that posit pre- and co-existing states.

Those pre- or co-existing states are themselves natural, thus a part of the natural universe, should they exist. We are talking about the cause of the natural universe.

Fine. So how does this bear on (save) your supernatural universe?

And don't forget your conclusion (5) fails from lack of validity. As I've pointed out; the subject of the conclusion, "natural universe" in this case, can never be the subject of the major premise, which it is.

All M are P
No P is S (from P is not S)
__________
M is X

A big NO! NO!


.

[Miles]

Test reply 5/29/2021 2:49 PM

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 139

If something is eternal, then it can't have a cause for its existence because it never began to exist. Whether something eternal exists is another question. It comes in as a conclusion of an argument, though, not just thrown in there. If something eternal exists, then whether that eternal thing is God or not is another question. It comes in as a conclusion of an argument, though, not just thrown in there.

Regardless, the argument still turns on there being this sentient, mind having entity. All pertinent data suggests such only occurs in living beings (and maybe computers?).

So there's a special pleading going on. As I previously mentioned, our best data indactes the universe exists, and has always existed in one form or another. That's all. No sentient god-beings required.

Whether the Big Bang was the start of the natural universe or there was a prior state to the natural universe, even the big crunch, doesn't matter.
...

It does matter when folks are legislating based on their erroneously derived beliefs.

And it matters in this debate because some folks are trying to claim a sentient being has always existed, and thendata doesnt support such a claim.

There is scientific debate concerning that. I'm not saying the science proves one way or the other. This is the philosophical argument I think that supports the truth of premise 2:

A. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite
B. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition
C. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite

Now, obviously there is a lot to unpack there and discuss. To avoid the truth of premise 2 of the Kalam, the natural universe would have to be eternal. In the language of this argument in support, that means the series of events that make up the natural universe (whether the Big Bang is the start of that series or there are prior natural states and events) would have to be an actual infinite. Regardless of whether actual infinites can actually exist or not, they could not be formed by "adding" this series of events together. Thus, the series of events that make up the natural universe cannot be eternal. It must have had a beginning.

Yes, the data supports the Big Bang as a start to this phase of the universe's existence. It does not support the eternal existence of a sentient being.

The big crunch, if it was truly eternal, then we could never have reached the present moment in time because it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. You can never reach an actual infinite (which the series from the unbounded beginning of the big crunch would be) moving from one event in the series to the next, thus never reaching the present.

I make no claims regarding a big crunch.

I claim the data suggests the universe has always existed in one form or another.

I claim that sentient beings are the product of life forces, requiring physical brains, and associated support structures, negating claims of an eternally existing sentient being.

3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause

I think everyone agrees that 3 logically follows from the truth of 1 and 2. The question is whether those are true.

I don't.

Observation supports the bang theory, that's about it. We have, xurrently, no means to observe the universe prior to the big bang. Thus, the rational conclusion is that the universe existed in a prior form. As we think about eternity, we can't really say. But we can say that if a sentient being can exist eternally, then we can also conclude the universe to have existed eternally.

That's kinda the problem with speculation - it can meet all criteria for rationality, and still be wrong.

4. The cause of the natural universe can either be natural or non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

You're still putting the cart before the horse.

You have zero, nada, zilch evidence to show the universe was 'caused' into existence. You can carry on about big bangs and big crunches til your fingers fall off, but you're never, ever, going to show the universe was caused into existence.

There it sits. That's the best we can do.

We aren't talking about all that exists in nature. We are talking about the cause of all that exists in nature. That cause must either be natural or non-natural. Those are logically exhaustive categories.

As before, I define all that is to be a part of the universe, and that the universe is nature, natural.

Your proposition here is logical, but it will never be shown that there's some non-natural goings on. All that exists in nature is a natural part of it.

But the natural 'bit' of this hybrid being is included in "all that exists in nature". From premise 2, the natural bit would need a cause. Thus, we are back to the cause of all that exists in nature being either natural (even the hybrid being's own natural bit) or non-natural (even the supernatural bit of the hybrid being).

If this entity exists in nature, then to do it's thinking, it must have a physical brain. If it has a physical brain, then it's part of the universe. How'd it survive the big bang?

Logic is only as valid as the assumptions we plug into it.

5. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural

Just calling it 'the natural universe', then demanding it must have been caused, and that cause must have been non-natural is just goofy thinking.

We observe the universe. We observe it expanding. We have no way of knowing if the universe was 'created', nor do we have any way of knowing some sentient entity was this unobservable, untestable 'cause'.

To propose such is really just intellectual folly. It's fun to bounce about, but it will never be shown to be truth.

Premise 5 is completely independent of premise 4. For premise 5 to be false, self-causation must be possible. It is a completely illogical concept. Nothing can exist prior to when it exists in order to cause itself to exist. This is true independent of whether the Big Bang was the start of the natural universe or there were other natural states prior to it or we live in a multi-verse.*

Note here that the multi-verse uses "universe" in a different way then we are. If a multi-verse exists, every "universe" is still a part of the natural universe. The natural universe encompasses all natural states.

While you exempt this sentient being from these rules. That's special pleading.


I also eschew the 'multiverse' language, while accepting there may well be other stuff out there that resembles a universe. I wish I knew a better word for it.

6. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

This seems to logically follow from premises 3-5.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Your line of thinking fails based on assumptions that can't be shown to be true, nor logical.


You demand this universe to have a cause, to have came into existence, while exempting your sentient entity from that demand.

The data shows that sentience is the product of a physical brain. So where did this sentient entity get this physical brain, if not from the universe?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #145]

The data shows that sentience is the product of a physical brain. So where did this sentient entity get this physical brain, if not from the universe?

It might well be that what we [so far] have seen of the Universe is essentially [an aspect of] The Creators brain/mind-works and Galaxies are like "fired neurons" [theoretically interconnected] which themselves produce 'things' [such as other sentient lifeforms at micro levels - our solar system as an example]

So we could then work on the idea of emergence theory at the universal level - did the universe as it formed,[in it's current incarnation/manifestation] bring about Creator Consciousness or visa versa or most more likely, what we 'see' presently as two "different" things [Creator and Creation] are really aspects of The One, Whole "Thing"?

[Seek]

I'm trying to understand the belief in free will. For those who believe in free will, do you believe that your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes or not? If you do, you're a determinist and do not believe in free choice, since you can't control the causes that took place before you were born. If you don't believe your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes, or don't believe that that causal chain extends to before your birth, then you believe that at some point before your action, an event occurred for no reason whatsoever (purely random). How could this possibly get you free will either? No combination of determinism nor indeterminism (randomness) gives you "free will" in the sense of authorship of and responsibility for your actions. How can you believe anyone is ultimately responsible for what they do?

I believe everything has a cause. That’s why we try to understand ourselves better. When we explain our actions socially we refer to assumptions that we use as motives. For example, ’I watch TV because I love TV’. We always reason as though there is a logical explanation for our actions. I also believe that had free will existed the world would have been a much more chaotic place.

[benchwarmer]

The big crunch, if it was truly eternal, then we could never have reached the present moment in time because it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. You can never reach an actual infinite (which the series from the unbounded beginning of the big crunch would be) moving from one event in the series to the next, thus never reaching the present.


3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause

I think everyone agrees that 3 logically follows from the truth of 1 and 2. The question is whether those are true.

I will simply restate what you are saying above and hopefully show how this shoots the initial argument down as well.

A god, if it was truly eternal, then could never have reached the present moment in time because it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. You can never reach an actual infinite (which the series from the unbounded beginning of a god would be) moving from one event in the series to the next, thus never reaching the present.


3. Therefore, the god has a cause

At this point I would throw the following into the ring as a hypothesis for the cause of a god:

- Humans rushing to explain things they don't yet understand, but want some kind of explanation because they are afraid to admit they don't know something.



This shines the light on the special pleading fallacy used in the initial argument. The thing which supposedly caused the universe is somehow immune from the exact same argument. The thing doing the causing must have at some point decided (if it's sentient as proponents of this argument clearly are hoping) to create the universe. That requires an event in time. Not necessarily in our space/time but in some time. At that point the entire house of cards falls apart unless we invoke logical fallacies.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #145]

The data shows that sentience is the product of a physical brain. So where did this sentient entity get this physical brain, if not from the universe?

It might well be that what we [so far] have seen of the Universe is essentially [an aspect of] The Creators brain/mind-works and Galaxies are like "fired neurons" [theoretically interconnected] which themselves produce 'things' [such as other sentient lifeforms at micro levels - our solar system as an example]

So we could then work on the idea of emergence theory at the universal level - did the universe as it formed,[in it's current incarnation/manifestation] bring about Creator Consciousness or visa versa or most more likely, what we 'see' presently as two "different" things [Creator and Creation] are really aspects of The One, Whole "Thing"?

I like how we can input an idea into that big brain of yours, and it comes back out after taking a 90 degree turn somewhere along the way, coming up with new, interesting ways of thinking. I've taken my time replying because you twisted my brain in a knot

I would think your notion here doesn't adress how come we can't just read each other's minds (with reliability beyond random chance), or read the minds of rocks.

There's also the issue of calling this a 'creator', which sound suspiciously like 'God'.

It still insists this entity existed prior to the universe, with all the unprovable assumptions thereof.

Regarding something existing 'eternally', I say our most reasonable, logical conclusion is that the universe always existed in one form or another, and that consciousness is the product of a physical brain.

[Seek]

Computers are deterministic systems, in the sense that for any given input it produces exactly one result.

If a computer were somehow to produce a different result the next time it receives the same input, that would indicate free will. However a determinist would either say ”the state of the computer was different”, ”the quantum particles in the machine were different” or ”no situation is identical to a previous situation; time has changed”.

One could reason similarly about human behavior. Are any two situations absolutely identical? Are there explanations which we dont understand?

[JoeyKnothead]

The big crunch, if it was truly eternal, then we could never have reached the present moment in time because it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. You can never reach an actual infinite (which the series from the unbounded beginning of the big crunch would be) moving from one event in the series to the next, thus never reaching the present.


3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause

I think everyone agrees that 3 logically follows from the truth of 1 and 2. The question is whether those are true.

I will simply restate what you are saying above and hopefully show how this shoots the initial argument down as well.

A god, if it was truly eternal, then could never have reached the present moment in time because it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. You can never reach an actual infinite (which the series from the unbounded beginning of a god would be) moving from one event in the series to the next, thus never reaching the present.


3. Therefore, the god has a cause

At this point I would throw the following into the ring as a hypothesis for the cause of a god:

- Humans rushing to explain things they don't yet understand, but want some kind of explanation because they are afraid to admit they don't know something.

This shines the light on the special pleading fallacy used in the initial argument. The thing which supposedly caused the universe is somehow immune from the exact same argument. The thing doing the causing must have at some point decided (if it's sentient as proponents of this argument clearly are hoping) to create the universe. That requires an event in time. Not necessarily in our space/time but in some time. At that point the entire house of cards falls apart unless we invoke logical fallacies.

My hypothesis is that the god concept is a sort of comfort mechanism.

I'm reminded of the anxiety I feel when the pretty thing fetches me into the house "to have us a talk". What'd I do this time? What lie can I tell to keep from having to sleep in the barn? When come to find out we need us new living room furniture because as everyone knows, ya gotta replace it every other year. Why? Because ya gotta replace it every other year, and I'm getting tired of this conversation, off to the barn with you.

We observe that often folks will guess at an answer, whether on a game show, an important test, oor in other aspects of life. It seems humans don't like not knowing - which indicates a certain survival aspect.

So what do when the philosophical questions come up? "Why are we here? What's our purpose?" There's no real answer beyond the biological, but folks tend to think there's more to it than that. They can't seem to find any comfort in the mundane answers... "Biological processes, and your mom, that's how come you are. Your purpose is to find you one."

So gods are created. Gods not so suspiciously anthropomorphic - gods "like me", who understand my fears and questions. Gods who comfort me when no answers seem fitting to the deep, philosophical queries of life.

Gods are never shown to be anything but imaginary friends, only brought into adulthood. God belief is not immediately a bad thing, when it helps us understand right and wrong, or comforts us on the rollercoaster that is life.

The problem comes when god belief starts overtaking our thinking and actions to the point we kinda lose our personalities 'unto' this god. Then it becomes not unlike the schizophrenic, hearing voices and acting in ways detrimental to one's health and even freedoms, as well as how it may negatively impact the health and freedoms of others.

So we see that some humans will hold onto fallacious, illogical god claims - because the underlying issues of unanswerable questions demand an answer.

And how that's how we get, "God always existed, and how dare you think the universe couldn't do it the same!"