Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

[Rational Atheist]

Here is a simple, yet powerful, argument against the idea that we 'freely' choose our actions.

1. Our thoughts determine our choices.

2. We do not freely choose our thoughts.

3. Therefore, our choices cannot be free.

I don't think anyone would object to premise 1, especially those who believe in free will, since by definition, a "free" choice, if it could exist, requires a person to consciously make it, which by definition involves thought. Premise 2 may be controversial to some, but with a simple thought experiment, it can be proven to be true. If a person could freely choose their thoughts, then they would have to be able to consciously choose what they were going to think before actually thinking it. In other words, there would have to be a time before a person thinks a thought that that thought was consciously chosen by a person, which literally entails the necessity of being able to think a thought before one thinks it. This, of course, is a logical contradiction. Ergo, free will does not exist.

[William]

There's a simple question to answer one's stance on freely-chosen actions: If someone rewinded time, could you do something else? If yes, then you have libertarian free will, otherwise not.

This appears to be saying that if one could travel back in time, and upon doing so, make different choices, one would have evidence of free will...

Well, a better way of explaining free will is: Being able to do something else when rewinding reality.

The metaphysical/libertarian form of free will is absurd: How can an exactly identical situation result in different decisions?

Time travel therefore, is an unsuitable analogy.

[Seek]

There's a simple question to answer one's stance on freely-chosen actions: If someone rewinded time, could you do something else? If yes, then you have libertarian free will, otherwise not.

This appears to be saying that if one could travel back in time, and upon doing so, make different choices, one would have evidence of free will...

Well, a better way of explaining free will is: Being able to do something else when rewinding reality.

The metaphysical/libertarian form of free will is absurd: How can an exactly identical situation result in different decisions?

Time travel therefore, is an unsuitable analogy.

I agree with you.

[AquinasForGod]

This is an interesting argument.

I do not agree with premise 2 for the following reason. When we think a thought, more than one things happens simultaneously, namely, that we are aware of the thought and if we wish to have the thought. If we do not wish to have the thought, then we destroy it before it is apprehended. If we wish to have the thought, then we apprehend it.

Our choice is in what thoughts to have or not.

This is more clear to those who have some level of spiritual awareness. Yes, I know many will just reject that notion and that is fine. I accept it because I experience it.

[William]

This is an interesting argument.

I do not agree with premise 2 for the following reason. When we think a thought, more than one things happens simultaneously, namely, that we are aware of the thought and if we wish to have the thought. If we do not wish to have the thought, then we destroy it before it is apprehended. If we wish to have the thought, then we apprehend it.

Our choice is in what thoughts to have or not.

This is more clear to those who have some level of spiritual awareness. Yes, I know many will just reject that notion and that is fine. I accept it because I experience it.

This does not explain where thoughts derive, but only what we can do with them re "accept or reject."

The idea of "free will" is therefore limited to that aspect but has no bearing on the source of the thought itself.

For example. If thought is the product of the environment then free will is limited to what the environment dictates, and what the environment dictates is not outright subject to a humans free will.

[AquinasForGod]

This is an interesting argument.

I do not agree with premise 2 for the following reason. When we think a thought, more than one things happens simultaneously, namely, that we are aware of the thought and if we wish to have the thought. If we do not wish to have the thought, then we destroy it before it is apprehended. If we wish to have the thought, then we apprehend it.

Our choice is in what thoughts to have or not.

This is more clear to those who have some level of spiritual awareness. Yes, I know many will just reject that notion and that is fine. I accept it because I experience it.

This does not explain where thoughts derive, but only what we can do with them re "accept or reject."

The idea of "free will" is therefore limited to that aspect but has no bearing on the source of the thought itself.

For example. If thought is the product of the environment then free will is limited to what the environment dictates, and what the environment dictates is not outright subject to a humans free will.

I mean to say that we are aware of the thought that arises in us from us and at the same time if we wish to have the thought.

[William]

This is an interesting argument.

I do not agree with premise 2 for the following reason. When we think a thought, more than one things happens simultaneously, namely, that we are aware of the thought and if we wish to have the thought. If we do not wish to have the thought, then we destroy it before it is apprehended. If we wish to have the thought, then we apprehend it.

Our choice is in what thoughts to have or not.

This is more clear to those who have some level of spiritual awareness. Yes, I know many will just reject that notion and that is fine. I accept it because I experience it.

This does not explain where thoughts derive, but only what we can do with them re "accept or reject."

The idea of "free will" is therefore limited to that aspect but has no bearing on the source of the thought itself.

For example. If thought is the product of the environment then free will is limited to what the environment dictates, and what the environment dictates is not outright subject to a humans free will.

I mean to say that we are aware of the thought that arises in us from us and at the same time if we wish to have the thought.

Are you saying that all thought originates/is emergent of our brains?

[AquinasForGod]

This is an interesting argument.

I do not agree with premise 2 for the following reason. When we think a thought, more than one things happens simultaneously, namely, that we are aware of the thought and if we wish to have the thought. If we do not wish to have the thought, then we destroy it before it is apprehended. If we wish to have the thought, then we apprehend it.

Our choice is in what thoughts to have or not.

This is more clear to those who have some level of spiritual awareness. Yes, I know many will just reject that notion and that is fine. I accept it because I experience it.

This does not explain where thoughts derive, but only what we can do with them re "accept or reject."

The idea of "free will" is therefore limited to that aspect but has no bearing on the source of the thought itself.

For example. If thought is the product of the environment then free will is limited to what the environment dictates, and what the environment dictates is not outright subject to a humans free will.

I mean to say that we are aware of the thought that arises in us from us and at the same time if we wish to have the thought.

Are you saying that all thought originates/is emergent of our brains?

No, I believe it originates in the soul and is apprehended by the brain, so to speak.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #197]

I mean to say that we are aware of the thought that arises in us from us and at the same time if we wish to have the thought.

Are you saying that all thought originates/is emergent of our brains?

No, I believe it originates in the soul and is apprehended by the brain, so to speak.

So are you saying we are the brain doing the apprehending?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #197]

I mean to say that we are aware of the thought that arises in us from us and at the same time if we wish to have the thought.

Are you saying that all thought originates/is emergent of our brains?

No, I believe it originates in the soul and is apprehended by the brain, so to speak.

So are you saying we are the brain doing the apprehending?

I believe that we as human beings, the human consciousness is the one person of the soul and body. The soul united with the person of the body is what human consciousness is. We as a human person are both the soul from which the thought originates and simultaneously decide to have the thought and the body which apprehends it.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #197]

I mean to say that we are aware of the thought that arises in us from us and at the same time if we wish to have the thought.

Are you saying that all thought originates/is emergent of our brains?

No, I believe it originates in the soul and is apprehended by the brain, so to speak.

So are you saying we are the brain doing the apprehending?

I believe that we as human beings, the human consciousness is the one person of the soul and body. The soul united with the person of the body is what human consciousness is. We as a human person are both the soul from which the thought originates and simultaneously decide to have the thought and the body which apprehends it.

So you believe that all thoughts a personality has, derive from the personality itself?