Since noone has ever verifiably viewed such a thing, the point is moot.
The argument about free will has been around probably as long self-awareness. That *sigh* isn't the point either. When you finally decide to explain, backup or expand upon your assertion that free will (or anything else viewed as uniquely human) has or needs a supernatural source - instead of simply asserting that it does, I'll come back to this thread and continue the discussion.
how do i know that the choices i make are anything else than the mere illusion of free will my brain fees me to keep me from going insane while actually my brain is merely hanging on for the ride along a predestined path of determinism?
unless you can somehoe prove that free will exists in the first place discussing it is irrelevant discussin its supernaturality doubly so
it isnt
yeah thats what that sentence says... it doest mean that we cannot agree or disagree though
so?
no
why not just admit that science didnt do a very good job at explaining the universe (or even just knowing how big it is actually) 100 years ago
the complexity of the universe is far far smaller than that of a single human brain and were still struggling to explain ~94% of the universe
current lack of explanations/proof doesnt disprove anything
1) none of these examples have ever been properly documented and thus are compeltely irrelevant
2) if any of these things were to happen the simple fact that it does happen within this universe requires them to follow some potentially not yet found law of physics
I'll admit i've only been skim reading this ongoing discussion with half an eye, so i didn't realise it was more of a philosophical discussion rather than a biblical one.
However, i have noticed in a few of your posts, that you, as a christian, seem (and i'll emphasis the word 'seem') to be using non biblical philosophical reasoning to explain the existence of God. Odd, but if thats what you want, then that's fine by me.
If i've completely misunderstood then please forgive me, which for a christian should be second nature
Suppose you're sitting in a chair. There is a glass of water 2 metres away from you. Both you and the glass are motionless. All positions of and movements are governed by the laws of physics.
Therefore, you will die of thirst.
You can escape this ghastly death by postulating a supernatural free will to put you in motion. But if you need that free will to stay alive, then an earthworm also needs to have free will.
(A nonsensical argument, of course, just to show that reasoning about determinism, randomness and free will is a bit tricky.)
The whole point of 'Free Will' is that all people have the freedom to choose whatever they choose.
Whether you choose to worship the squid ( sorry Hankstar ) or any other deity/being/philosophy is your choice.
The same as you have thousands of choices each day, any of which have the potential to fundermentally alter your life.
Be 30 sec later/earlier crossing the road and you get run over, free will exists on all levels and on all time continumes.
In my opinion it simply is.
A point made by a Lama I spoke with who'd been in a Chinese prison for 10 years was that he'd always felt that he'd had free will because nobody could control his thoughts !
Your question to me was: Why does free will require a supernatural explanation?
I return to my analogy of the puppet show. Two puppets are debating the issue of free will. One Puppet, let's call him Pinocchio, says, "We are not free because everything we do is controlled by a puppet master pulling strings and everything we say comes from the mouth of the puppet master." The other puppet objects saying, "Pinocchio, if what you say is true, then those are not really your words but the words of the puppet master and even my response to you are the words of the puppet master. If what you say is true then what is the point of this conversation?"
From the puppet show we see that the question, "Do we have a free will?" is equivalent to the question, "Who is the actor?" In the case of the puppet show the real actors were not the puppets, the true actor was the puppet master. In our world the question is are we the actors or is nature the true actor and us merely puppets? Having free will means being the actor, being the one who acts, being the one who chooses and being the one who chooses to act.
I can already hear your objection to the analogy. You don't believe puppets and puppet masters reflect the real world.
So, let us imagine a god named Physics, the god of Nature. This all powerful god can place even the smallest lepton, electron, neutron anywhere he likes. Every single particle in the universe is precisely and delicately placed by his omnipotent thumb and index finger at each infinitesimally small interval in time. Every event in the universe is deliberately and precisely orchestrated by him as a one playing the ultimate game of Chinese Checkers. Those things we call "laws of nature" are his strategies. On of his popular strategies is moving particles according to mathematical equations--the law of gravity for example. Sometimes he uses trial and error strategies--like evolution--just to make the game more fun.
So, the question is: In a world controlled by this god of Nature can we have free will? Are we the actors?
Certainly, in such a world there is no free will. We are not the actors. The god of Nature is the actor. We are merely his puppets. His random choices (quantum mechanics) doesn't change this fact in the least.
Having free will means being actors and thus having powers like the God of Nature. It means having the power to direct a few particles within our own brains.
In conclusion, for free will to exist there must exist actors other than nature. It's as simple as that. And anything that is not nature is by definition supernatural. So, I hope I have clearly explained WHY I feel you need something supernatural in order to explain free will. You can deny the existence of free will but then I would reply to you as Pinocchio's friend replied, "If what you say is true then what is the point of this conversation?"
For the last time (please make sure you read and comprehend it): I don't deny the existence of free will. I never have. What I deny is that a supernatural source is needed for it to exist in the first place. What I deny is the weight of an argument that stems from a presupposed existence of, basically, gods.
Your stories and analogies provide nothing in the way of compelling evidence, just more hypotheticals with zero content. "Imagine a puppet show ... imagine a god called Physics" - come on. How about posting something other than religious parables?
What's so damned insufficient about having the abilities of an evolved, aware, intelligent human being who can use his brain to choose exactly what he does every minute of every day? Why is the fact that we can change our minds and override our animal instincts and believe anything we choose to any reason to believe we didn't develop it naturally? The fact that you think our will "must" come from somewhere external (because you can't or won't accept the possibility of a natural explanation) doesn't make it so. It's pure wishful thinking, which is presumably based on pre-existing beliefs regarding the truth of a certain book (after all, if we're just animals who developed free will all by ourselves, it kind of makes gods and their stories irrelevant, doesn't it? A scary thought for some people). Well, it may be convincing to people who read books like that but it's not rational - and neither am I if I continue with this argument, which seems destined to go around in circles.
Short version: I believe we have free will. I am willing to believe our free will (and our ability to recognise and talk about it) is a part of being a human - as much as language, art, music, philosophy, romance, scientific enquiry and all those other endeavours which are uniquely ours. I accept I may never know the true source of it. I do not believe our free will (or any other facet of the human condition) was given to us by gods (or whatever thinly-veiled names people use for them, like "Intelligent Designers" or "the supernatural"). Not because I hate the idea, but because there's no reason to believe any of those causes exist in the first place.
What exactly does that mean? That anything not 100% explainable by physics right at this moment must, by definition, have a "supernatural" explanation? Ridiculous. If that's how scientific enquiry worked, we'd still be sitting around in caves, naked, under the assumption that angry gods made the scary thunder and lightning and wondering what we could do to cheer them up. Just because there isn't a natural explanation for something right now, it doesn't mean there never will be or that god did it.
No scientist will ever claim to have all the answers or the absolute truth (unlike most priests I've encountered). True scientific enquiry is never finished because each new answer just brings with it more questions! To assume that the absence of an immediate explanation automatically implies the presence of gods, ghosts or goblins is wishful thinking, a lack of imagination or just plain lazy.
The point is that the puppetmaster and his audience can have some philosophical fun on a rainy afternoon.
(BTW, according to what law does a conversation between puppets need to have "a point"? The puppets are making a bold assumption here. Seems like their wooden minds try to find a meaning behind everything.)
According to Descartes, mind and matter interact in the Pineal gland. But IMHO that was only an attempt to shoehorn the Christian concept of the soul into the observable, physical reality.
Free will doesn't "mesh with physics", it is physics. It's somewhere in that immensely complex structure that is our brain. You won't find free will by prying open the skull and inspecting the neurons, because there are many levels of abstraction in between. (Like there would be when talking about emotions, memories, and character traits.)
Has anyone read Robert Ardrey's The Territorial Imperative or The Social Contract, or knows about these books? I've just been talking to a friend of mine about this whole thing. He knew Ardrey, and he says these two books are worth a read.
Agree with what you say. I think what I was getting at is that some people who think of themselves as philosophers (i.e. have no interest in physics) aren't even aware of the problem.
Do you mean something like illusion of free will? Or do you mean that the "immortal soul" or whatever you want to call it is in fact a physical entity?
I certainly don't mean the latter: I'm an atheist, so I don't think there is anything like an immortal soul.
As to free will being an illusion: all people feel they have free will, and they generally consider themselves responsible for their actions. If this is an illusion, then it's a damn good one. So good, in fact, that human perception can't distinguish it from real free will. (That is, if you can define such a thing as "real" free will. The concept is messy, IMHO.)
In short: I think I have free will, you think I have free will, and society thinks so too. Therefore, for all practical purposes, free will exists.
That's actually quite similar to my own beliefs. Although it does make me place a slightly lower value on questions of blame, guilt and responsibility than an average modern free person probably does.
) or any other deity/being/philosophy is your choice.
