Free will

[Harassed]

DUH!!!  
In Canada, the law says you are responsible for your actions, that's free will.
Or your are insane and not responsible, like christians.
Or, say magic jesus words, and it's all OK, that rape didn't count. 

Mennonite Families Flee Canada After Officials Seize Children
Gotta be the most disgusting group on the planet.  
Free will to abuse children then run away to escape criminal justice.

[dom.donald]

Well I think free will is an illusion. At the macro level we think we are making choices, but at the micro level it's just a bunch of chemicals interacting according to a set of rules, with possibly a bit of randomness thrown in for good measure. Given the initial conditions of the system, things could be pre-determined or not, depending on whether true randomness exists or not.
I don't think we are making choices freely. Science has already appeared to show at a high level that our subconscious brains make "choices" which put conscious brain simply seeks to rationalise.

[Thomas Kelly252525]

I think that God knowing what people will choose does not mean that people don't have the potential to be free. It may be thought that wise people have the ability to control themselves and that not wise people don't have the ability to control themselves. If it is thought there is no freewill then there are no wise people and the person who thinks that is true admits they are not wise because they think they don't have the potential to control themselves and that they can never get control of themselves.

[John V]

So get this god is all knowing he knew humanity would fall he knows what everyone at any given point and time would be doing 
something. so even if we wanted to live a "sinless" life it would be purely impossible. Since god would know our actions a head of time
that being said free will is just a illusion and were all drones. Free will if a god existed the chirstian god it simply doesn't exist only 
the illusion of free will does.

Er...so what?

This is a self-defeating argument. You don't go there explicitly, but the idea is that, if God controls all our thoughts and actions - we're drones, as you put it - then it is unjust of him to judge us.

It's self-defeating because our right to just judgment is generally predicated on our being sapient beings. But, as drones, we are not sapient beings, and don't have such rights.

[SofaKingHigh]

So get this god is all knowing he knew humanity would fall he knows what everyone at any given point and time would be doing 
something. so even if we wanted to live a "sinless" life it would be purely impossible. Since god would know our actions a head of time
that being said free will is just a illusion and were all drones. Free will if a god existed the chirstian god it simply doesn't exist only 
the illusion of free will does.

Er...so what?

This is a self-defeating argument. You don't go there explicitly, but the idea is that, if God controls all our thoughts and actions - we're drones, as you put it - then it is unjust of him to judge us.

It's self-defeating because our right to just judgment is generally predicated on our being sapient beings. But, as drones, we are not sapient beings, and don't have such rights.

I think you miss the point.

If the second of your points is correct, then your God cannot possibly be all-knowing.

[John V]

As I didn't number my points, you need to be more explicit.

[dyresand]

As I didn't number my points, you need to be more explicit.

It's self-defeating because our right to just judgment is generally predicated on our being sapient beings. But, as drones, we are not sapient beings, and don't have such rights.

^ god(s) isn't all knowing. 

[Shadow_Man]

IATIA,

Make a choice. Now prove to me that you could have chosen differently.

We have already been down this road. Remember this -

You do not know for a fact (nor can you) that you are nothing more than a computer simulation that was just started at this moment and everything you know was just simply programmed into your avatar.

Agreed. Nor can we know whether the simulation has been running for millenia, and we are just the current generation of avatars.

I do not believe any such proof of free will is possible, any more than you do, as long as things like the computer simulation alternative are impossible to discount, but there is observed evidence for free will out the wazoo.

My entire life is a constant test and verification of my own free will.

No, it is not. That is strictly an assumption on your part. A claim.

No. It is both an observation and direct experience. I roll the dice. How do I prove that the roll was random? In other words, how do I prove that the roll could have come up otherwise? I roll the dice again and again, observing that the results are random. I now know that all rolls are random, even the very first roll I made. It is the same with direct experience of free will. I make a choice. Over time, under identical relevant conditions, I make another and another and another. I observe that my choices vary, and are neither random nor demanded by any external necessity.

Everybody around me reports the same results in the ongoing test that is their lives.

Just because "everybody' thinks it so, does not make it so.

If I was appealing to the argument from popularity I would agree. But I am not. I am appealing to the universal repeatability of the test and its results. Everybody experiences life the same way. They report the same results of their own continuing testing. Free will is not a claim. It is an observed characteristic of people. The evidence is overwhelming.

Yet free will cannot be proven, because just as you said, it relies on the dependability of our memories, and our entire memories could be a lie. But if that were the case, then we could not be sure that the roll of the dice is random, or that causation is valid, because those rely on the dependability of our memories just as much. So either we can rely on our memories, and observe that within appropriate boundaries causation exists, randomness exists, and free will exists, or we must necessarily throw them all away.

I have already shown reasonable evidence that we do not have free will.

(and it is initially based randomly. You apparently skimmed past those parts.)

Are you saying that those two articles are your evidence? If so, please say so clearly. If not, please clarify what you meant, and present a summary of your evidence.

(and it is initially based randomly. You apparently skimmed past those parts.)

I read the articles carefully. I even quoted from the first article to clearly show that the article itself categorizes neural randomness as an assertion of the Spanish researchers. But, by all means, I invite you to quote from the articles themselves to show me what I skimmed over, and prove wrong my conclusion that those articles demonstrate the exact opposite of your claim that our will is random.

So, I absolutely admit that I do not have proof of free will, but instead have nothing more than overwhelming evidence of it. And that gives you the opportunity to prove your counter-claim. You claim that we are robots, absolutely determined by causation and randomness. So by all means - make a choice. Now prove to me that you were constrained to that choice and no other.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[Shadow_Man]

dom.donald,

Well I think free will is an illusion. At the macro level we think we are making choices, but at the micro level it's just a bunch of chemicals interacting according to a set of rules, with possibly a bit of randomness thrown in for good measure.

You are looking for love in all the wrong places.

At the sub-atomic level we have protons, neutrons and electrons, with very specific and limited properties like mass and charge. At the molecular level we have entirely new properties that absolutely do not exist at the sub-atomic level, like color, buoyancy and acidity. At each next level of abstraction (macro-ness) new properties are evident that do not exist at the lower levels, and are not constrained by the limitations of the lower levels. These new properties are very real. They are not illusions.

Eventually we move up to living, breathing, human beings. Brand new properties are evident that absolutely do not exist at the lower levels. They are not constrained by the limitations of those lower levels. They are very real. They are not illusions.

You find love by poking around among the humans, not by poking around among the protons. It is very real, and not an illusion. The same is true for life, and for thoughts, and for free will.

I don't think we are making choices freely.

The evidence overwhelmingly says we make choices freely.

Science has already appeared to show at a high level that our subconscious brains make "choices" which put conscious brain simply seeks to rationalise.

I am very skeptical of this claim, but if I did accept this claim, why should I believe that my subconscious brain is not "me?"

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[The Grand Nudger]

It isn't, at least not in the sense you mean...and yet of course it is you.  You are all of what you are, afterall, lol.