"Free Will" Belief/Disbelief Poll

[Edwardo Piet]

The future means that something will happen but not exactly what will happen

If the future isn't exactly what will happen then it isn't exactly the future. It is merely a possible future, what could happen.

If so then how does it mean that we don't have free will?

We don't have contra-causal free will because what will happen will happen by definition, so we can't change that. And I'm sure you already accept we can't change the past because it has already gone. And we just as obviously can't change the present either because it's already present. The moment we think we've changed the present it has already past. It passes immediately, it's passing all the time. That's what the present is.

What will happen will happen, what is happening is happening, what was happening was happening: This is all true by definition and makes free will impossible. We can't do other than what we are doing, will do or did do by definition. Whether these things are determined or not.

If you think about the present time at every moment in the smallest scale possible, it does seem that we have no control to change what is happening. But on a quantum level, time behaves differently and there might even be closed-timelike curves which could possibly allow our minds to break away from a causal chain of events.

This would mean that what we are doing isn't fully causal but at least in part acausal. That what we are doing isn't determined, or at least not fully. But determined or otherwise, what is is, what was was, what will be will be, by definition. This is a tautology. The fact that what we are doing may not be fully determined and could be more "random" or probabilistic doesn't give us any more free will than if it is fixed.

[Rayaan]

What will happen will happen, what is happening is happening, what was happening was happening: This is all true by definition and makes free will impossible. We can't do other than what we are doing, will do or did do by definition. Whether these things are determined or not.

If we don't have any free will, then does this mean that we don't have any control of ourselves? If so then what is controlling us?

[fr0d0]

It's semantics Rayaan. You're physical makeup and surroundings dictate your actions, you can't break away from that. You are however free to follow what you choose, which is what we think of as freedom.

[Edwardo Piet]

We do what we choose to do because we can't do anything else. Ultimately we can't choose what choices we will choose, that's the thing.

As for "self control" - how can anything truly control itself, and how could we be an exception?

A car is driving down a road with a man in the drivers seat, so we ask "What is driving the car?" obviously, the man driving it. But the same question can just be asked towards to man "What is driving the man?". To say that we "control ourselves" is just as much of a cop-out as saying "The car controls itself" without finding out what is really driving it.

"Self-control" as in self-discipline, specifically strength of will, willpower, is a different meaning of self-control. To act as if it's the same meaning is to make a fallacy of equivocation.

[fr0d0]

*takes torch to Evie's rectum* nope... can't see him!

[ib.me.ub]

We do what we choose to do because we can't do anything else. Ultimately we can't choose what choices we will choose, that's the thing.

As for "self control" - how can anything truly control itself, and how could we be an exception?

A car is driving down a road with a man in the drivers seat, so we ask "What is driving the car?" obviously, the man driving it. But the same question can just be asked towards to man "What is driving the man?". To say that we "control ourselves" is just as much of a cop-out as saying "The car controls itself" without finding out what is really driving it.

"Self-control" as in self-discipline, specifically strength of will, willpower, is a different meaning of self-control. To act as if it's the same meaning is to make a fallacy of equivocation.

Sorry EVF, but this logic is flawed.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

I always think of the term free will in the context that it's used: a justification for why bad happens to good people. But not all the 'evil' in the world is caused by any sort of our will - we have no control over natural disasters that harm and kill good people.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sorry EVF, but this logic is flawed.

Where?

[Minimalist]

we have no control over natural disasters that harm and kill good people.

That's not what the xtian shitwits say. They maintain that natural disasters are their loving god punishing bad behavior.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there." --Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which instituted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. Haitians were originally under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal. Ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other." –Pat Robertson, on the earthquake in Haiti that destroyed the capital and killed tens of thousands of people

[Watson]

That's not Christianity, that's one stupid, senile old fuckwit without an ounce of compassion in his shriveled up old heart. He's a moron.