Why I don't believe in 'free will'

[Edwardo Piet]

And that's the circular argument once again.

No it isn't, it's simply the reason why an acceptance of free will is my default position.

Yes it's a reason. But it's a circular argument. You believe free will is true because it seems true to you. There is no argument there 'free will is true to me because it's true to me'.

But I assume you don't believe it's just true to you...you believe everyone has it - just because others experience it and you experience it yourself.

To say experience of free will is evidence of free will is circular because that 'experience' could just as easily be an illusion. You can't back up free will with belief in free will. To back up a belief with the belief itself is fallacious.

That's like saying: People commonly believe in God. The fact they commonly experience it is reason enough for them to believe it. Until evidence contradicts this belief they are assumed to be right or breaking-even at best.

But you can't fight back with an argument like that other than say belief in God and 'common experience' or the illusion of God is not evidence of God. That's circular.

Just as with Free Will. I can't fight back with evidence against it - All I need to do is to say that: Belief in Free Will, 'common' experience or the illusion of Free Will - is not evidence of 'free will'. That's circular.

And that's the point. I do appear to experience it which is why I require evidence to disprove it.

You may require it. But I am saying that it is irrational to do so because the fact you experience 'free will' is not reason to believe it's actually true. Because you could just as easily be experiencing an illusion. To back up your belief in free will with the fact you believe in it is circular.

Sure, you may require evidence to disprove it - in the mean time I'm doing my best to explain why that's irrational and why your experience is not evidence and to argue that it is is circular

No, it would be more appropriate to say that "The fact that people commonly believe in free will due to a common experience that it 'appears' to exist is all they need to require opponents to provide some sort of evidence to support their claim that it is in fact an illusion."

They may believe that and expect evidence against free will. But the fact they believe it and it 'appears' that way for them is not reason to believe it. It's circular...their belief in the first place I am arguing - is mistaken. We are wired wrong because there's no real evidence or reasoning for free will as far as I can tell?? (and anyone can suggest to me?)

Their own subjective experience of what 'appears' to be free will could just as be an illusion - they could just as easily believe in free will without actually having free will. So that's not an argument and that doesn't back free will up.

You can't back up belief in free will with belief in free will - that's circular. You can't back up belief in free will with the appearance of it when it could just as easily appear so without it actually existing.

I sense it therefore there is something to sense. If you are saying that what I sense isn't really what I think it is then you need to come up more persuasive arguments than 'a lack of evidence'.

The fact you sense it is not evidence of free will. You can sense without free will. I don't need any persuasive arguments against free will because as far as I'm concerned the belief in the existence of free will is a completely baseless belief. I indeed can argue from 'lack of evidence'.

Just as I need evidence to rationally believe in God whether there can be evidence for God...or not - I also need evidence to rationally believe in 'free will' whether there can be evidence for it or not. I'm not going to just believe anyway. Whether it's instilled in us or not - I think we're wired wrong because I see no actual arguments for 'free will', no evidence and no rational reasons to believe in it whatsoever.

As I have already inferred, there is a reason to believe because I am aware of it.

I am aware of it too - it's just I believe it's an illusion, you don't. The fact that you believe it's true doesn't make it true. I assume it's an illusion until I know of any evidence for it, reason to believe in it - or any persuasive arguments on the other side whatsoever.

Just as how with God I will assume that when people claim to experience God that it's just an illusion for them - until I know of any evidence to actually believe it actually is true and isn't an illusion - that God actually does exist.
Just as with that:

I will assume that when people claim to experience 'free will' that it's just an illusion for them - untill I know of any evidence to actually believe it actually is true and isn't an illusion - that 'free will' actually does exist.

It's a bit like people believing in God because we can all see him in the clouds. Of course, he may be an illusion but it would be those who state that who would have to prove it.

No lol. When the religious experience God it is rational to assume it's an illusion that they're experiencing until there's any evidence whatsoever that they're belief is actually true, that God actually does exist, so that they aren't just experiencing an illusion - and that they're not just believing in a load of utter bollocks because they have absolute nothing to back up their belief in God lol.

Unless I am misunderstanding this last quote ??

For my belief is not a belief but a dislbelief. When I say "I believe there is no free will" I am IOW saying that I DISbelieve in free will. So I don't need evidence of 'no free will' I need evidence OF free will - since I am not being absolutist.

A disbelief and a belief are entirely different things. If you say "I believe there is no free will" then you are making a claim, and it needs backing up. This is not the same as saying "I disbelieve in free will". To disbelieve does not require any assertion of your own, just a rejection of a certain belief.

That is often how it is phrased, yes.

But doesn't "I believe there is no X" mean "I do not believe there is an X" just phrased differently?

Because "I believe this isn't so" means "I do not believe that this is" so right?

Anyway....when I say that I believe free will is an illusion all I mean that I don't believe it is true. Because: If it's not true then what those who believe in it must be experiencing as 'free will' must be an illusion by process of elimination, that's why I believe it's an illusion

- just like if God doesn't exist then those who believe he exists must just be experiencing the illusion of God by the process of elimination.

This is why the gnostic atheists will say "I believe there is no god" or "I know there is no god" (both are claims).

I believe there is no God sounds stronger and more forceful because of the positive word of belief rather than the negative of disbelief. So it's commonly expressed this way.

But if I say "I believe God does not exist" then that means I dont believe that he does exist right? In other words "I disbelieve in God". So really isn't it the same thing? It's just that "I believe there is no X" comes across as stronger and is commonly used by gnostic atheists and for absolutist statements.

Because if you do believe there is no 'X' then isn't that just another way of saying that you don't believe there is 'X'?

Isn't positively believing something does exist the same as negatively believing that something does?

Either you believe it does exists or you don't. Either you believe it does exist or you believe it does not exist.

I think it is simply that the word 'belief' often feels loaded. I think if I said "I believe there is no God" it would come across as like an ideology, like religious like a "belief" - but really it's just another way of saying I don't believe that there is one I think.

Because of this confusion I prefer to say I disbelieve in God and that I do not believe that he does exist rather than saying I do believe that he does not exist - although really I think they mean the same thing...

It's because the word belief has a different connotation to disbelief I think so it seems like if you positively believe that something doesn't exist you are being absolutist whereas if you negatively believe that something does exist (you don't believe it does) then it seems more simply as a dismissal.

Your belief that it is an illusion is a positive belief, not a disbelief.

By the process of elimination it must be an illusion to me. I disbelieve and dismiss 'free will' so if that's true that therefore means that what others experience as 'free will' must be an illusion by process of elimination.

Something can not exist, but at the same time it cannot also be an illusion. An illusion must exist itself to be an illusion, so by claiming something is an illusion, you must provide evidence that the illusion exists.

The fact that others experience it but I do not believe their experience is real is why I believe it's an illusion (as opposed to real). It's an illusion to me because I disbelieve it because there's no reason that I know of to believe that what they experience really is 'free will'. You can't back up belief in free will with belief in free will. Experience of it is not evidence of the truth of it because you could just as easily be experiencing 'free will' without it really existing - because what you are experiencing could just as easily be an illusion.

I know of no reason to believe it is true. That is why I believe it is an illusion -: If it's not true then what you are experiencing as 'free will' must just be an illusion by process of elimination therefore, because it's not real.

EvF