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?

[Miles]

If we somehow make decisions that could have been made differently, then how?

We can't. We do what we do because previous events led us to do it rather than that. We had no choice in the matter.

Why did I choose option A over B? Choices require preferences. How can I choose what I prefer?

As I say, there's no such thing as choice, choosing, deciding, etc.. We may think we do, but it's all an illusion.

There are, as I see it, two arguments in favor of free will:
1. We feel free in our choices

Perhaps, but why should our feelings determine reality? I sometimes feel someone is walking right behind me, but upon checking no one is there. Feelings are a very unreliable means for establishing truth.

2. We are conscious beings, so we are aware of everything and can control what we do

Thing is, no one really has any control over what they do. What we do is determined by all the various causes and effects around us and in our lives that led up to the time of doing. There is no such thing as ever being able to have done differently---one of the common definitions of free will.


.

[Seek]

If we somehow make decisions that could have been made differently, then how?

We can't. We do what we do because previous events led us to do it rather than that. We had no choice in the matter.

Why did I choose option A over B? Choices require preferences. How can I choose what I prefer?

As I say, there's no such thing as choice, choosing, deciding, etc.. We may think we do, but it's all an illusion.

There are, as I see it, two arguments in favor of free will:
1. We feel free in our choices

Perhaps, but why should our feelings determine reality? I sometimes feel someone is walking right behind me, but upon checking no one is there. Feelings are a very unreliable means for establishing truth.

2. We are conscious beings, so we are aware of everything and can control what we do

Thing is, no one really has any control over what they do. What we do is determined by all the various causes and effects around us and in our lives that led up to the time of doing. There is no such thing as ever being able to have done differently---one of the common definitions of free will.


.

Yes, and that’s basically my stance on free will. It’s inconveivable and logically impossible.

[William]

Why think that the decision was made in time? At most, making the decision would be the start of time not a product of a temporal series of events.

I think the decision would have to be made in time or it would not be a decision. A decision requires weighing more than one option and choosing one.

Circling back to the initial argument, another issue is:

2. The natural universe began to exist

Sure, but the material the natural universe came from may have always existed, thus the current natural universe may just be the present manifestation of whatever (energy?) has always existed.

You cannot logically argue a supernatural entity has always existed if you can't allow for a natural entity to have also always existed.

Point 2 is attempting to hide what may really have happened. i.e.

2. The current state of whatever makes up the universe can be traced back to a point in our timeline when our universe started expanding.

Point 2 is trying to claim that what makes up the universe, let's call it X, also had to begin to exist. We have no clue if X began to exist or not or was always there. Positing a non-natural cause is, IMHO, just pushing the problem space somewhere else and creating something else to be explained. Why have 2 unknowns when one is simpler? Making something up and saying it must be there is not helpful or needed.

We don't know what happened prior to the expansion of our current known universe. Attempting to create philosophical arguments that include positing non-observed entities does not magically make the non-observed entity a necessity.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The natural universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause
4. the cause of the natural universe can either be natural or non-natural (i.e., supernatural)
5. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
6. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

[2] is not entirely established so should not be a premise.
[3] is faulty because of [2]
[4] Assumes that the [so called] "Natural Universe" has to be either/or "Natural" or "Supernatural" which is faulty and should also not be a premise.
[5] is faulty because of [4]
[6] Therefore is also faulty because it is based upon faulty pre-premises.

That leaves us with [1] which is true because we know that lightbulbs [for example] are not created [brought into existence] simply by pulling them out of a thought bubble and into the physical world.

We can say with some certainty that the light bulb started off as a thought [word and image] based upon prior information which allowed for it to become a thought...because happenstance [science/engineering] made it's invention somewhat inevitable.

We also know that to create the lightbulb [and subsequently improve on its design] available materials had to be mined and various other processes which altogether make true premise [1].

But at what point can we say that the lightbulb 'began to exist'?

We could say that the point was in the thought which then lead up to the eventual making of.
Or we could say that it began with the mining of the raw materials or we could say that it began with the actual engineering of the raw materials into forms which altogether then produced a whole working lightbulb...and perhaps all 'points' are valid beginnings...but surely the first point of the process is where the lightbulb truly began, but did not come into existence until the last point of the process.

So it this how the process is with the Universe? Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

{a}Is it possible that a thought [thinking] preceded [pre-seeded] the eventual [and ongoing] manifestation of the construction [unfolding] of the Universe?

{b} Furthermore, IF it is the case THEN is it possible that the Universe only exists as something within the mind of [whatever] created it and it is all about thought?

Perhaps.

But then there is the problem with calling the universe "natural" and then allocating a "supernatural" cause.

Because IF {a} and {b} are true, then either The Creator is "natural" and therefore so too is the Universe OR The Creator is "Supernatural" and therefore so too, is the Universe.

There appears to be no need for the additional "supernatural" as to add that, it makes "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" also an incomplete premise.

This is not to say that there is no "Creator-Cause" for the universe. What it really means is that we do not separate creator from creation by calling one "Supernatural" and the other "Natural".

The best word to use in both case would simply be "Natural".

The six premises appear to be based on the assumption that The Creator is wholly separate from the creation, and these would change if that assumption were removed.

[The Tanager]

I think the decision would have to be made in time or it would not be a decision. A decision requires weighing more than one option and choosing one.

Why think weighing an option must be a temporal experience?

Circling back to the initial argument, another issue is:

2. The natural universe began to exist

Sure, but the material the natural universe came from may have always existed, thus the current natural universe may just be the present manifestation of whatever (energy?) has always existed.

What do you understand by the "natural universe"? I think the material this current stage of the natural universe (should there have been one earlier) is still a part of the "natural universe."

You cannot logically argue a supernatural entity has always existed if you can't allow for a natural entity to have also always existed.

Why not? This isn't special pleading. I'm arguing a natural entity cannot have always existed because of the very nature of matter and energy, being temporal things. The cause of space-time, logically, could not be temporal.

2. The current state of whatever makes up the universe can be traced back to a point in our timeline when our universe started expanding.

Point 2 is trying to claim that what makes up the universe, let's call it X, also had to begin to exist. We have no clue if X began to exist or not or was always there.

We do know that matter and energy, as temporal things, did begin to exist or not. It is logically impossible for it to have always been.

Positing a non-natural cause is, IMHO, just pushing the problem space somewhere else and creating something else to be explained. Why have 2 unknowns when one is simpler? Making something up and saying it must be there is not helpful or needed.

Nor is it what I am doing. Positing a non-natural cause follows the logic of the spatio-temporal nature of matter. This isn't leading to two unknowns.

[The Tanager]

No it isn't. It's for the supernatural cause of the natural universe, not the existence of the supernatural, which are two very different things.

How can a cause be supernatural if there is no such thing as a supernatural thing?

Nope. What I'm saying is that "until it's shown the supernatural exists [premise 4] has no truth value." Premise 4 is worthless.

Premise 4 is part of the argument for the existence of the supernatural. Premise 4 does not argue that the supernatural exists. It simply states that there are two categories things can fall under: natural and supernatural. Premise 5 does not argue that the supernatural exists. It simply argues that the cause of the natural universe can't be natural. Premise 6 states that the supernatural exists and logically follows if premises 4 and 5 are true.

2. The form of the argument, i.e. how M, P, and S** are arranged, must be valid,

...

Sorry, but the rules of syllogistic logic say you're wrong. The subject of the major premise, "M" (or in your case here, "C"), cannot be the subject of the conclusion. It's just that simple.

C must be either N or S
C cannot be N
_____________
C is S

This is a disjunctive syllogism.

P v Q
~P
______
Q

You can understand it this way:

P = the cause of the natural universe is natural
Q = the cause of the natural universe is supernatural

1. Both of its premises (major and minor) must be true.

Since the argument is logically valid, you need to believe one of the premises false. Which is it? That the cause of the universe can be something other than the logically exhaustive categories of natural or supernatural (premise 4)? Or that self-causation is logically possible (premise 5)?

[The Tanager]

[2] is not entirely established so should not be a premise.

Do you have comments on the support I gave for it?

[4] Assumes that the [so called] "Natural Universe" has to be either/or "Natural" or "Supernatural" which is faulty and should also not be a premise.

I've responded to this. Do you have a response to that?

[5] is faulty because of [4]

The truth of 5 has nothing to do with the truth of 4; they are independent of each other.

[Miles]

No it isn't. It's for the supernatural cause of the natural universe, not the existence of the supernatural, which are two very different things.

How can a cause be supernatural if there is no such thing as a supernatural thing?

There can't be, but that's what you are saying.

Nope. What I'm saying is that "until it's shown the supernatural exists [premise 4] has no truth value." Premise 4 is worthless.

Premise 4 is part of the argument for the existence of the supernatural. Premise 4 does not argue that the supernatural exists. It simply states that there are two categories things can fall under: natural and supernatural. Premise 5 does not argue that the supernatural exists. It simply argues that the cause of the natural universe can't be natural. Premise 6 states that the supernatural exists and logically follows if premises 4 and 5 are true.

2. The form of the argument, i.e. how M, P, and S** are arranged, must be valid,

...

Sorry, but the rules of syllogistic logic say you're wrong. The subject of the major premise, "M" (or in your case here, "C"), cannot be the subject of the conclusion. It's just that simple.

C must be either N or S
C cannot be N
_____________
C is S

This is a disjunctive syllogism.

P v Q
~P
______
Q

You can understand it this way:

P = the cause of the natural universe is natural
Q = the cause of the natural universe is supernatural

1. Both of its premises (major and minor) must be true.

Since the argument is logically valid, you need to believe one of the premises false. Which is it? That the cause of the universe can be something other than the logically exhaustive categories of natural or supernatural (premise 4)? Or that self-causation is logically possible (premise 5)?
[/quote]


Sorry, but I've run out of patience.

Have a nice day.


.

[Seek]

If we somehow make decisions that could have been made differently, then how?

We can't. We do what we do because previous events led us to do it rather than that. We had no choice in the matter.

Why did I choose option A over B? Choices require preferences. How can I choose what I prefer?

As I say, there's no such thing as choice, choosing, deciding, etc.. We may think we do, but it's all an illusion.

There are, as I see it, two arguments in favor of free will:
1. We feel free in our choices

Perhaps, but why should our feelings determine reality? I sometimes feel someone is walking right behind me, but upon checking no one is there. Feelings are a very unreliable means for establishing truth.

2. We are conscious beings, so we are aware of everything and can control what we do

Thing is, no one really has any control over what they do. What we do is determined by all the various causes and effects around us and in our lives that led up to the time of doing. There is no such thing as ever being able to have done differently---one of the common definitions of free will.


.

If you can explain something, you’ve proved there is a cause. Everything has a cause, no exception.

[Seek]

And why would people choose depression, suicide, alocohol or money abuse etc?

[William]

[2] is not entirely established so should not be a premise.

Do you have comments on the support I gave for it?

Nope. I was specifically answering a post by benchwarmer

[4] Assumes that the [so called] "Natural Universe" has to be either/or "Natural" or "Supernatural" which is faulty and should also not be a premise.

I've responded to this. Do you have a response to that?[

Nope. Does your response debunk my observations?

[5] is faulty because of [4]

The truth of 5 has nothing to do with the truth of 4; they are independent of each other.

Well you say...should I simply take your word for that?