I only scanned the thread and saw no definition of free will but based on what I've read this is my objection: your actions cannot be free in the sense that there is some autonomous agent at the controls because your actions are the result of brain activity and a nervous system which are governed by their own laws including those of bio-chemical electrical reactions. Your brain and nervous system are like a machine. There is no "you" in there to control that stuff. It behaves according to how it evolved and the laws governing its physical processes.

(March 8, 2016 at 3:49 pm)Kiekeben Wrote:

(March 7, 2016 at 11:26 pm)pool the great Wrote: Beautiful.
I had that same thought,now I know it's called libertarian free will but I don't understand why you think it's false. 

Jörmungandr has already explained - very nicely, I might add - a big part of the problem here. Let me add a bit more:

In a nutshell, the problem with the libertarian conception of FW is that it requires our decisions to be neither determined nor ultimately random. If your decision to write the post was determined - so that, given the totality of the situation at the time, it had to happen - then obviously you don't have LFW. (In case it's not immediately obvious why, recall that LFW means that there is more than one possibility available to you; determinism, however, means that there is only one possible outcome.) If, OTOH, your action was ultimately random - a matter of chance - then that too is incompatible with LFW, because then it wouldn't really be something that you were in charge of; instead, it would be something that just happened. 

LFW, then, requires that there be a third alternative, something in between the determined and the random. But the problem is that logically, there can be no third alternative. If an event can either happen or fail to happen in the same exact situation, then there cannot be anything in that situation that explains why it happened or failed to happen. And that is what it means for the event to be random.

BTW, in ch. 7 of my book THE TRUTH ABOUT GOD, I explain this further and then use it as part of an argument for atheism.

So your consistently sharp posts made me curious. So I went back through other of your posts until I came to this one. Which sent me searching for your book. Being newish to the forums you are not allowed to link it directly yourself, but I am allowed to. http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/book-...about-god/ Oh, this is a favorable review by the way, not a link to a book seller.

Now I haven't read it myself of course and I'm not sure I will. But given the quality the posts you've made here so far I can see why people might enjoy it. But there is something which gives me pause.

I worry about how you are defining "god" (or "God", which ever you use). That has always been a stumbling block for my reading any of the new atheists .. and I haven't. So I'm wondering if you've managed to define God in a way which Christians generally recognize as what they have in mind - while also defining it in a way which takes sufficient account of the pervasive existence of god belief across continents and millennia? If "god" turns out to be literally the omni-everything cosmic watchmaker the Christians have in mind, then I think you will fail to ground the concept of "god" in any naturalistic way which can account for the pervasiveness of god belief. Before I order my copy I need to know how you resolve that tension. [Pro tip: declaring that god belief was just failed science from the days when we were stupider won't sell your book .. to me.]

(March 15, 2016 at 11:49 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: So your consistently sharp posts made me curious.  So I went back through other of your posts until I came to this one.  Which sent me searching for your book.  Being newish to the forums you are not allowed to link it directly yourself, but I am allowed to.  http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/book-...about-god/  Oh, this is a favorable review by the way, not a link to a book seller.

Now I haven't read it myself of course and I'm not sure I will.  But given the quality the posts you've made here so far I can see why people might enjoy it.  But there is something which gives me pause.

I worry about how you are defining "god" (or "God", which ever you use).  That has always been a stumbling block for my reading any of the new atheists .. and I haven't.  So I'm wondering if you've managed to define God in a way which Christians generally recognize as what they have in mind - while also defining it in a way which takes sufficient account of the pervasive existence of god belief across continents and millennia?  If "god" turns out to be literally the omni-everything cosmic watchmaker the Christians have in mind, then I think you will fail to ground the concept of "god" in any naturalistic way which can account for the pervasiveness of god belief.  Before I order my copy I need to know how you resolve that tension.  [Pro tip: declaring that god belief was just failed science from the days when we were stupider won't sell your book .. to me.]

Thanks for this, and for the reputation vote (or whatever it's called). I appreciate it.

TAYQs: First, in the book I use "God" when referring to a monotheistic deity, and lower case "god" when talking about polytheistic ones (which I discuss only briefly). 

Second, because I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible, I used what I consider the most general definition of God, IOW, the minimum that someone must believe in to qualify as a monotheist. And so I define God as a conscious being that is responsible for the existence of everything else - meaning that he either caused or sustains the existence of everything else (or both), and that he has ultimate responsibility (what that means is explained in the book). Anyone who doesn't believe in at least that isn't a real monotheist, IMO. 

I also cover more specific views - such as that of an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good God - as there are arguments that apply just to them. 

(As to polytheistic gods, they have to be defined differently, but nevertheless must also be thought of as ultimately responsible for what they do - because as I argue, that's an important part of the way the concept of a god functions.)

Lastly, because the book is a defense of positive atheism, that's how I use the term "atheism". (I'm mentioning this because I already received one complaint from a reader who thought that definition automatically disqualified my arguments, even though if he had just read a few pages further he would have seen that I'm aware of the  broader meaning.)

(March 7, 2016 at 3:43 am)pool the great Wrote: In your opinion do you feel that humans possesses free will?

IMHO, no.  For free will to be true and effective, it must be external to the physiology of the body else all is controlled by the bio-chemical reactions and neuron activity.  If your free will is not controlled by the body, where did it come from? god?  How did free will evolve if it is not part of the body's physiology?

(March 16, 2016 at 12:26 am)IATIA Wrote:

(March 7, 2016 at 3:43 am)pool the great Wrote: In your opinion do you feel that humans possesses free will?

IMHO, no.  For free will to be true and effective, it must be external to the physiology of the body else all is controlled by the bio-chemical reactions and neuron activity.  If your free will is not controlled by the body, where did it come from? god?  How did free will evolve if it is not part of the body's physiology?

You think free will is not real because, analogicaly,you can have the will to burst your heart but can't?
Do you think a ball inside a fence have freedom of movement?

Did I read this right, that pool has developed a linear algorithm for the travelling salesman problem?

Pool, your problem in understanding this really simple concept comes down to stubborness and the inability to listen when you already think you're right.
Nothing to do with intelligence, which is what you're trying to display.
Well, you're pig-headedness is only going to hold you back.
I think everyone would agree young fella, that you need to pull your head in.
I'm not saying that in an angry way either, I like you.
But your frustratingly annoying. :-)

(March 16, 2016 at 5:44 am)robvalue Wrote: Did I read this right, that pool has developed a linear algorithm for the travelling salesman problem?

Duh. No problem pool can't tackle.

(March 16, 2016 at 6:59 am)Little lunch Wrote: Pool, your problem in understanding this really simple concept comes down to stubborness and the inability to listen when you already think you're right.
Nothing to do with intelligence, which is what you're trying to display.
Well, you're pig-headedness is only going to hold you back.
I think everyone would agree young fella, that you need to pull your head in.
I'm not saying that in an angry way either, I like you.
But your frustratingly annoying. :-)

Hi
I do agree that free will is a simple concept. It's the ability to do whatever the fuck one want to. But people confuse not having free will because they think that since they can't do something that is out of their domain they have no free will. This is the reason why I ask these people if a ball inside a fence has freedom of movement because they are analogicaly claiming that it doesn't.

Also, I empathise with your emotion of liking me, I like me too.

I should have clarified....

An algorithm that works