As long as I'm not paralyzed, then sure.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26592209]Any definition of free will that is not negated by the fact that all of your actions and thoughts are determined by the motions of lifeless elementary particles without purpose and bound by physical law is kind of academic.[/QUOTE]
Reading over this statements multiple times hoping that it will make sense to me the next time...
The state of the universe is an illusion of the human mind as far as I'm concerned. While all of our 'destinies' are predetermined, they do not contradict the idea of free will. Over analyzing this is pointless seeing as everything we do dictates our end, lifting my arm after I finish typing this will have some sort of adverse effect on the future, but what does it matter? I can choose not to lift my arm up after typing this, and prevent that event from ever happening, isn't that free will?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26592209]Any definition of free will that is not negated by the fact that all of your actions and thoughts are determined by the motions of lifeless elementary particles without purpose and bound by physical law is kind of academic.[/QUOTE]
Again, it's just a matter of how you interpret the term "free will." I have the freedom to dance around my room dressed like a gay wizard, but it is the chaos/randomness of the universe that determines whether or not I want to. I guess there is no real way to say whether or not "free will" exists.
Nope, I am a modern day slave who is incompetent of making self-driven decisions.
[sp]Yes I do[/sp]
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;26592275]I guess there is no real way to say whether or not "free will" exists.[/QUOTE]
Depends. How are you defining it?
When God created us he knew everything that would happen, he knew that I would writte this thread, that I would be born and I would die. We have the election of choice although our decision has been already made. It's like a domino path, you let the first one fall and you know that all of them can get stucked but they won't. Don't get me wrong, everything we do is because we choose to, but someone already decided that we would chose that by ourselves.
[QUOTE=Javyer;26592359]When God created us he knew everything that would happen, he knew that I would writte this thread, that I would be born and I would die. We have the election of choice although our decision has been already made. It's like a domino path, you let the first one fall and you know that all of them can get stucked but they won't. Don't get me wrong, everything we do is because we choose to, but someone already decided that we would chose that by ourselves.[/QUOTE]
That is a very silly viewpoint. Either god doesn't know what you are going to do or you have free will, otherwise there is a contradiction.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
God has made all of our choices for us
We make all of our choices ourselves
Either god makes all of our choices for us, or god does not exist, or both are true
We make our own choices
Therefore, god does not exist
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
I have just logic'd god out of existence.
Well, actually, if God exists, he created physics and he know which direction the chaos/randomness of the universe will go. If he is not intervening, then he would only know what would happen and allow it to happen. Depending on you definition of free will, he/she would be giving it to us. But in a way, an all-knowing being creating an entire universe is likely to have intentionally lead the random arrangements in the universe to wind up a certain way, which brings us back to the argument of how to define "free will."
[editline]10th December 2010[/editline]
But "free will" is only a human philosophical idea that has existed for thousands of years. Really, the definition is too broad and unclear once you dissect the idea with the random chaos of universe in mind. On such a large macro level of thinking, it quite possibly is impossible to define.
Well, yes. As long as it's not illegal.
I think you're using "it depends how you define free will" too much as a substitute to actual argumentation.
If God just "rolled the dice" with the creation and allowed the universe to unfold in a random, non-guided by God way, then we have free will in terms of God's direct influence in our lives.
An omniscient god can't just roll the dice. He must know the outcome. He is omniscient.
To say that any of us know what God thinks would be a lie.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26592853]I think you're using "it depends how you define free will" too much as a substitute to actual argumentation.[/QUOTE]
It's because I truly can't define such a thing completely. If it is just our ability to make actions without being controlled by a separate entity, than in many ways, we have free will, and in many other ways we do not. It isn't as black and white as a simple "yes" or "no."
I know what god thinks because I know how he is defined. To me he is omniscient and omnipotent, or he is not god, and if he his omniscient there are certain laws he must follow (i.e. actually knowing everything) or he is not omniscient and he is not god.
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;26592919]To say that any of us know what God thinks would be a lie.[/QUOTE]
That's why all of this is speculative. We do not even know for sure whether or not he exists.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;26592929]It's because I truly can't define such a thing completely. If it is just our ability to make actions without being controlled by a separate entity, than in many ways, we have free will, and in many other ways we do not. It isn't as black and white as a simple "yes" or "no."[/QUOTE]
No, it is as black and white, depending on the definition. When you say, "separate entity," do you include the laws of physics themselves? Are you positing that a mind exists outside of material influence?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26592940]I know what god thinks because I know how he is defined. To me he is omniscient and omnipotent, or he is not god, and if he his omniscient there are certain laws he must follow (i.e. actually knowing everything) or he is not omniscient and he is not god.[/QUOTE]
That is the mechanics and laws that apply to a God, but what a god thinks, or whether it thinks like a sapient organism, or is just basically a giant computer is currently impossible to determine. And if a god thinks like a sapient organism, then it is currently impossible to determine how a god would think.
[editline]10th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26592962]No, it is as black and white, depending on the definition. When you say, "separate entity," do you include the laws of physics themselves? Are you positing that a mind exists outside of material influence?[/QUOTE]
Physics, considering that any entity like a god would count as being a part of physics. The answer that I would lay down right now as to whether or not we have free will is that in some cases, we do, in others, we do not.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;26592981]That is the mechanics and laws that apply to a God, but what a god thinks, or whether it thinks like a sapient organism, or is just basically a giant computer is currently impossible to determine. And if a god thinks like a sapient organism, then it is currently impossible to determine how a god would think.[/QUOTE]
I figured when he says what god thinks he means how god would act, because otherwise it's irrelevant to the current free will argument.
I believe in free will.
I know it isn't [i]real[/i] free will, but I still consider it free will.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26593008]I figured when he says what god thinks he means how god would act, because otherwise it's irrelevant to the current free will argument.[/QUOTE]
Well, if we have no way of knowing, then we have no way of knowing. We can theorize, but right now, there is no way to know.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;26592981]Physics, considering that any entity like a god would count as being a part of physics. The answer that I would lay down right now as to whether or not we have free will is that in some cases, we do, in others, we do not.[/QUOTE]
I think god would have to not be a part of physics or it wouldn't be much of a god. What sort of absolute ruler is subject to his own laws?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26593065]I think god would have to not be a part of physics or it wouldn't be much of a god. What sort of absolute ruler is subject to his own laws?[/QUOTE]
That's part of what we wouldn't know about a god. If a god created everything, then he created physics, but then comes the age old question as to what created the god itself. We simply know nothing about a god, other than how we define a god.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26592411]
Therefore, god does not exist
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
I have just logic'd god out of existence.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if God(Yavhe) exist, but logically the philosophers have arrived to the conclusion that there is a greater power that is pure good.
[QUOTE=Javyer;26593225]I don't know if God(Yavhe) exist, but logically the philosophers have arrived to the conclusion that there is a greater power that is pure good.[/QUOTE]
No they haven't
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
Not at all
[QUOTE=Javyer;26593225]I don't know if God(Yavhe) exist, but logically the philosophers have arrived to the conclusion that there is a greater power that is pure good.[/QUOTE]
Pure good? What do you mean pure good? Good in an ethical sense? And if you're talking about ancient philosophers, ancient philosophers may have pushed humanity forward in analytical thinking; however, they were extremely limited in the knowledge of the universe.
As a reductionist I tend to look at the debate from the lowest level of physics. Since everything has to obey the laws of physics, this should suffice (unless you believe in that 'emergence' crap)
Quantum Mechanics makes no allowances for free will. In fact, no scientific construct or theory has every been shown to allow free will to exist. So yeah, I don't believe in free will.
Even in terms of ancient philosophers, Epicurus had the trilemma argument. There has never been a consensus, nor is there, but omnipotence and omniscience, two traits almost universally attributed to gods, are logically inconsistent. Well, omnipotence is logically inconsistent in itself and omniscience is at least logically inconsistent with free will.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26593352]Even in terms of ancient philosophers, Epicurus had the trilemma argument. There has never been a consensus, nor is there, but omnipotence and omniscience, two traits almost universally attributed to gods, are logically inconsistent. Well, omnipotence is logically inconsistent in itself and omniscience is at least logically inconsistent with free will.[/QUOTE]
Only to a human. I'm sure there are things we as humans will truly never be able to comprehend. Religion and Spirituality will always have it's contradictions as it's all interpreted by humans, beings that only see things properly when they make sense. We look at things scientifically because it makes sense, but science is also a force that is interpreted by humans, and only makes sense because we are told that it's correct. What makes a physicist's view any more legitimate than a prophet's?
(I'm just one of those nut-jobs that refuses to believe that everything is just protons and neutrons.)
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;26593672]What makes a physicist's view any more legitimate than a prophet's[/QUOTE]
They physicist's whole job is to make his view of how the universe operates a self-consistent set of laws rather than conjecture
Freedom comes at a price. You can't have free will without some sort of consequence.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.