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?

[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"?

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

Ideas function in that manner when expressed - I recognize that we all bounce these around which in turn create more. It is one of the reasons that I participate in interactions such as these.

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

We are not within forms which allow for this.

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

That is not something which need be an 'issue'. "God" - as is understood today - is the Christian name for The Creator, but the image the Christians give us is an issue in relation to the Universe.

I accept that it could be an issue for non-theists who actively want to believe that we do not exist within a creation...but that does not mean it is a universal issue.

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

Re-read what I wrote then. "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"?"

Where in that is there insistence that the entity existed prior to the [eternal] universe?
Rather - by referring to It as tge Creator aspect of the Creation - it stands to reason that [in relation to the eternal] that it has mastered the ability to shape what is. Iow "create" from the material available.

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.

Yes. It is called Emergence Theory. What about that which behaves as if it is self aware but has no brain? Such as bacteria. Plants.

How are you to know with any certainty that when your brain finally dies, that you [consciousness] will also die?

IF the universe is the creature-brain THEN what is to say It cannot 'upload' individuate consciousnesses along with all the data of the current life experience and place that into some other environment so that one continues to experience?

After all, that is one of the main beliefs of theism. That is what folk who have OOBEs [etc] seem altogether to have experienced, when one studies the stories to do with that subject.

[Many of those stories also have it that those experiencing this altered state encounter others whom they are able to communicate through thought alone... apparently because they are consciously temporarily no longer entirely within their physical bodies]

So - while Emergence Theory is a simple enough position, it does not answer a lot of the questions produced through what Humans can and do experience, even while they are humans.
We ought not be looking for simple answers within an obviously complicated setting.

[Seek]

[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

Ideas function in that manner when expressed - I recognize that we all bounce these around which in turn create more. It is one of the reasons that I participate in interactions such as these.

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

We are not within forms which allow for this.

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

That is not something which need be an 'issue'. "God" - as is understood today - is the Christian name for The Creator, but the image the Christians give us is an issue in relation to the Universe.

I accept that it could be an issue for non-theists who actively want to believe that we do not exist within a creation...but that does not mean it is a universal issue.

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

Re-read what I wrote then. "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"?"

Where in that is there insistence that the entity existed prior to the [eternal] universe?
Rather - by referring to It as tge Creator aspect of the Creation - it stands to reason that [in relation to the eternal] that it has mastered the ability to shape what is. Iow "create" from the material available.

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.

Yes. It is called Emergence Theory. What about that which behaves as if it is self aware but has no brain? Such as bacteria. Plants.

How are you to know with any certainty that when your brain finally dies, that you [consciousness] will also die?

IF the universe is the creature-brain THEN what is to say It cannot 'upload' individuate consciousnesses along with all the data of the current life experience and place that into some other environment so that one continues to experience?

After all, that is one of the main beliefs of theism. That is what folk who have OOBEs [etc] seem altogether to have experienced, when one studies the stories to do with that subject.

[Many of those stories also have it that those experiencing this altered state encounter others whom they are able to communicate through thought alone... apparently because they are consciously temporarily no longer entirely within their physical bodies]

So - while Emergence Theory is a simple enough position, it does not answer a lot of the questions produced through what Humans can and do experience, even while they are humans.
We ought not be looking for simple answers within an obviously complicated setting.

We are hypocrites, we say there is free will but act and reason as though we dont

[Miles]

[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

Ideas function in that manner when expressed - I recognize that we all bounce these around which in turn create more. It is one of the reasons that I participate in interactions such as these.

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

We are not within forms which allow for this.

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

That is not something which need be an 'issue'. "God" - as is understood today - is the Christian name for The Creator, but the image the Christians give us is an issue in relation to the Universe.

I accept that it could be an issue for non-theists who actively want to believe that we do not exist within a creation...but that does not mean it is a universal issue.

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

Re-read what I wrote then. "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"?"

Where in that is there insistence that the entity existed prior to the [eternal] universe?
Rather - by referring to It as tge Creator aspect of the Creation - it stands to reason that [in relation to the eternal] that it has mastered the ability to shape what is. Iow "create" from the material available.

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.

Yes. It is called Emergence Theory. What about that which behaves as if it is self aware but has no brain? Such as bacteria. Plants.

How are you to know with any certainty that when your brain finally dies, that you [consciousness] will also die?

IF the universe is the creature-brain THEN what is to say It cannot 'upload' individuate consciousnesses along with all the data of the current life experience and place that into some other environment so that one continues to experience?

After all, that is one of the main beliefs of theism. That is what folk who have OOBEs [etc] seem altogether to have experienced, when one studies the stories to do with that subject.

[Many of those stories also have it that those experiencing this altered state encounter others whom they are able to communicate through thought alone... apparently because they are consciously temporarily no longer entirely within their physical bodies]

So - while Emergence Theory is a simple enough position, it does not answer a lot of the questions produced through what Humans can and do experience, even while they are humans.
We ought not be looking for simple answers within an obviously complicated setting.

We are hypocrites, we say there is free will but act and reason as though we dont

Examples please, because to me it seems the other way around.


.

[The Tanager]

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)

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.

This is an argument for the existence of the supernatural. Are you saying that the supernatural must be shown to exist before an argument can be given for the existence of the supernatural? If so, then that is obviously fallacious. If not, then what are you saying?

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?

If premises 3-5 are true, then the cause of the natural universe logically has to be supernatural.

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

This is the form of that part of the argument (premises 4-6):

C must be either N or S
C cannot be N
___________
C1 is S

Where C = cause of the natural universe, N = natural, S = supernatural/non-natural. This is logically valid.

[The Tanager]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The natural universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause

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.

You think premises 1-3 are logically invalid?

All BE are C
U is a BE
_____________
Thus, U is a C

How is that logically invalid?

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.

I gave the philosophical argument in support of that. Not speculation. Logic. Not an argument that X being logical makes it true but an argument that X being illogical means it can't be true, leaving us, logically, with the other logical alternative.

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.

If you define all that exists as natural, then you are fallaciously begging the question.

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.

I agree. I didn't do that. I gave a philosophical argument in support. There are sources of knowledge that go beyond science. Science itself requires philosophical commitments to be true for science to be true.

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.

Where do I do that? Where do I say self-causation is possible for the cause of the universe (the rule stated in what you quoted and responded to)? Or what other exact quote shows special pleading?

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

The argument demands things that begin to exist to have a cause. The natural universe is one of those things. A different argument demands that, ultimately, something must have existed eternally. Logic fills out some of the characteristics the cause of the natural universe has. We've only been talking about the characteristic of being supernatural. After that, I'm happy to explore other ones.

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?

No, the physical data shows that physical things with sentience require the use of a physical brain. Your comment is a philosophical one that goes beyond that evidence without any logical support.

[The Tanager]

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.

If this god was a temporal being, then yes. I haven't made claims about a God, although I do think those claims can eventually be made and are the most rational position to take. I've made the claim about the existence of the supernatural. What that supernatural thing is like, if we can reason anything about it, comes further down the line. Let's stick with the conclusions of these premises first.

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.

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.

[benchwarmer]

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Regarding Post 155 by The Tanager:

Well dangitall, I'm gonna hafta think on that a spell, cause good googly moogly.

I comment now so folks don't think I was trying to skip out on it.

[Miles]

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)

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.

This is an argument for the existence of the supernatural.

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.

Are you saying that the supernatural must be shown to exist before an argument can be given for the existence of the supernatural?

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


Here; All standard form categorical syllogisms must conform to two elements in order to be sound:*


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

2. The form of the argument, i.e. how M, P, and S** are arranged, must be valid, That is, it can take only 1 of 24 different arrangements. e.g.:

All M are P
S is M
_________
S is P......(This particular arrangement is named Barbara)

Or

No M are P
Some M are S
_________
Some S are not P......(This arrangement is named Ferison)

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?

If premises 3-5 are true, then the cause of the natural universe logically has to be supernatural.

But they aren't. Premise 4 has not been shown to be true.

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

This is the form of that part of the argument (premises 4-6):

C must be either N or S
C cannot be N
___________
C1 is S

Where C = cause of the natural universe, N = natural, S = supernatural/non-natural. This is logically 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.



* There are several other types of syllogisms, such as Polysyllogisms, Prosleptic syllogisms, and Disjunctive syllogisms.

** M, P, and S are the common designations for the three elements of an argument

.

[Seek]

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.

If we somehow make decisions that could have been made differently, then how? Why did I choose option A over B? Choices require preferences. How can I choose what I prefer?

There are, as I see it, two arguments in favor of free will:
1. We feel free in our choices
2. We are conscious beings, so we are aware of everything and can control what we do