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?

[Bust Nak]

Regardless of whether actual infinites can actually exist or not, they could not be formed by "adding" this series of events together... 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...

Care to have a go at proving that? Possibly in this thread on infinite regression?

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.

What on Earth does "from the unbounded beginning" even mean when the whole point of an unbounded past is that there is no beginning at all? Is what you said here about reach "an actual infinite" still applicable to an scenario that does not have a beginning?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. What do you mean by "this universe"?

The one that begun with the big bang.

I'm talking about all natural states as a part of "the natural universe." I'm saying any natural cause must have a prior cause, ultimately, one that is not natural (to avoid self-causation and the inability of the natural universe from being eternal).

So the "big bounce" scenario would just be one eternal "natural universe" by your count? I can work with that, so lets focus on whether an natural universe can be eternal or not.

[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?

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

You said that (a) arguing for the supernatural cause of the natural universe and (b) arguing for the existence of the supernatural are two very different things. I'm saying that an argument that shows the natural universe needs a supernatural cause IS an argument for the existence of the supernatural. If the former argument goes through, then a supernatural thing exists. I don't see why you think one has nothing to do with the other.

Sorry, but I've run out of patience.

Have a nice day.

You too.

[The Tanager]

[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

Sure, by making an unsupported critique of my argument. I'm just asking if you want to support it or keep it as an unsupported critique.

[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?

I think it does for the reason I gave.

[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?

Of course not. Can you help me to see your problem with my claim? Here are the two premises:

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

Premise 4 splits reality into two possible categories (without assuming things exist in either one). Premise 5 is a claim about the irrationality of self-causation. I don't see why someone would think the truth of one has anything to do with the truth of the other. Why would something being natural or supernatural affect the irrationality of self-causation? Self-causation, by only looking at its definition, shows itself to be illogical. Or why would self-causation change whether something can be natural or supernatural?

[The Tanager]

Care to have a go at proving that? Possibly in this thread on infinite regression?

I'd be happy to share my thoughts and listen to those of others on that thread.

What on Earth does "from the unbounded beginning" even mean when the whole point of an unbounded past is that there is no beginning at all? Is what you said here about reach "an actual infinite" still applicable to an scenario that does not have a beginning?

It was a phrase used for lack of a better term. Yes, there would be no beginning in such a thing. Actual infinites can't have a beginning. Potential infinites have beginnings but actual infinites don't.

So the "big bounce" scenario would just be one eternal "natural universe" by your count? I can work with that, so lets focus on whether an natural universe can be eternal or not.

My understanding is that there are both eternal and non-eternal 'big bounce' possibilities discussed scientifically. But, yes, I think the focus should be on whether the natural universe could be eternal. I don't think it could, because that would require the series of events to be an actual infinite formed by successive addition, which I think is logically impossible.

[Seek]

Care to have a go at proving that? Possibly in this thread on infinite regression?

I'd be happy to share my thoughts and listen to those of others on that thread.

What on Earth does "from the unbounded beginning" even mean when the whole point of an unbounded past is that there is no beginning at all? Is what you said here about reach "an actual infinite" still applicable to an scenario that does not have a beginning?

It was a phrase used for lack of a better term. Yes, there would be no beginning in such a thing. Actual infinites can't have a beginning. Potential infinites have beginnings but actual infinites don't.

So the "big bounce" scenario would just be one eternal "natural universe" by your count? I can work with that, so lets focus on whether an natural universe can be eternal or not.

My understanding is that there are both eternal and non-eternal 'big bounce' possibilities discussed scientifically. But, yes, I think the focus should be on whether the natural universe could be eternal. I don't think it could, because that would require the series of events to be an actual infinite formed by successive addition, which I think is logically impossible.

A pragmatic argument for free will is that people who believe in free will are more inclined to do something about their own problems, because they think they have the conscious ability to change themselves. But all choice is an illusion. What we describe as choice is merely unexplained causes. No one is responsible for anything, including murder. People generally say there is free will, but when you get into serious situations with them they admit there is no choice. I don’t think people choose depression.

[William]

[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?

I think it does for the reason I gave.

What reason was that?

Can you help me to see your problem with my claim? Here are the two premises:

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

I read the whole list as premises built upon each other.

[The Tanager]

A pragmatic argument for free will is that people who believe in free will are more inclined to do something about their own problems, because they think they have the conscious ability to change themselves. But all choice is an illusion. What we describe as choice is merely unexplained causes. No one is responsible for anything, including murder.

Why think all choice is an illusion? Why think they are merely unexplained causes?

People generally say there is free will, but when you get into serious situations with them they admit there is no choice. I don’t think people choose depression.

That some 'decisions' aren't freely chosen does not mean all of them aren't.

[The Tanager]

I read the whole list as premises built upon each other.

That is not how they should be read. Premise 3 and 6 build on previous ones but the others stand or fall on their own.

What reason was that?

4. The cause of the natural universe can either be natural or supernatural

You said a third option would be a natural-supernatural hybrid (you used other words). A third option of what? Of being the cause of all natural things. I said the natural part of the hybrid is included in "all natural things," so it logically can't be the cause of all natural things unless the natural bit caused itself (the natural bit of the hybrid being) to exist. Self-causation is illogical. Thus, the supernatural bit would have to be the cause of the natural bit, if a hybrid being existed. Yet, to cause the natural bit, the supernatural bit, itself, already is a being.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #179]

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".

[Bust Nak]

I'd be happy to share my thoughts and listen to those of others on that thread.

Then lets move this talk of eternal universe over there.

As for the wider topic at hand re: free will, I am pragmatic: I experience free will, therefore I believe in free will. Whether free will is deterministic or not, I leave it to scientists to figure out. If it turns out to be deterministic, then great, my ability to act at my own discretion is determined by chains of prior causes; if it is non-deterministic, then great, my ability to act at my own discretion is random. Either way, I have free will.

I just don't see what the big deal is, my choices are already pretty much deterministic: I was born with a certain nature with zero control on my part, my upbringing filled out the rest of my character, I make decision based on my observation, beliefs and my character, which in turn are just processes in a meat computer. I don't really care whether the missing minute details are also deterministic or not. I hold inanimate objects responsible when I am inconvenienced by random events, e.g. I hate that pebble for chipping my windscreen; I have no problem holding people responsible for what they do. They did something without coercion? That's "ultimate" enough for me.

To those who would argue that my experience of free will is not the same thing as the concept of free will and hence my experience could be just an illusion of free will, I say meh! Change the concept of free will to fit the facts, not the other way round. The Greeks didn't discard the sun an illusion when they discovered that it's not Apollo's fiery chariot, they simply updated their concept of the sun.