Many atheists/agnostics are now in the path to be trapped

[timf1234]

Reference: Most atheists and agnostics too have faith

/forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94238

I am glad to see 260 replies to the above post. Many of you have gone on the record to say "NO". Let's now proceed.

In my above post "Foundational thing" mean something that has broad implications. If one changes foundational thing then some other things/thoughts/belief need to be changed too in order to maintain the coherency and consistency in logic/reasoning.
Corollary: if changing a thought doesn't require altering (adjust) some other thought(s) then that is not a foundational thought.

Change in foundational thing will produce shock, awe, surprise etc.
Can you imagine the mental tormoil a theist has to go through if his/her mind figures out that there is no God? That's foundational change.

My next question is:
Do you think we have "Free Will"?

[Hokulele]

I am not allowed to answer that.

[Gregory]

Don't know, don't care.

[Lisa Simpson]

I saw Free Willy once.

[timf1234]

sorry error.

[GeeMack]

Watch out! I am setting up a trap.


So you don't have the honesty to simply come out and say what you have to say?

[joobz]

I saw Free Willy once.
So did I....Father William is still serving his time.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I ain't afraid of your trap, I simply prefer my world view regardless of yours. Other than that, this is looking like an odd thread. I await the punch line.

[Hawk one]

If I could even understand the incoherent rambling in the OP, I'm sure I'd spot the "trap", and that "trap" would turn no doubt turn out to be some same old, same old argument, probably using some cheap semantics.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

No planet X option? What a rip off. I was hoping for "on Planet X we obey our robot masters" or something like that.

LLH

[fuelair]

sorry error.
Why yes, yes you are!:D

[timf1234]

Why don't you just repond to the poll question and wait?
You may be right, I could be wrong. Or we both could be right.

Come on, Do we have "Free Will"?
answer it, please.

[Hokulele]

answer it, please.


No.








As in "No, I won't answer it." If you have a point to make, just make it. Silly games like this just look, well, silly.

[JoeEllison]

Is anyone watching House, M.D.?

[JoeEllison]

If I could even understand the incoherent rambling in the OP, I'm sure I'd spot the "trap", and that "trap" would turn no doubt turn out to be some same old, same old argument, probably using some cheap semantics.

You can count on it. Honest people don't "set traps", or redefine their questions AFTER they hear the answers. Therefore, the OP is not being honest.

[timf1234]

You can count on it. Honest people don't "set traps", or redefine their questions AFTER they hear the answers. Therefore, the OP is not being honest.

Are you afraid of being wrong?
Ego?

Yes. I will make a point. But first let me collect the data.
If you do not answer the poll then I won't have the data to make my point that you seek.

[timf1234]

You can count on it. Honest people don't "set traps", or redefine their questions AFTER they hear the answers. Therefore, the OP is not being honest.

What did I redefine?

[Gurdur]

Is anyone watching House, M.D.?
Occasionally.

...Do we have "Free Will"?.
Sometimes.

[fishbob]

Come on, Do we have "Free Will"?
answer it, please.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

[Apology]

On the subject of free will I will state definitively

Perhaps.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Why don't you just repond to the poll question and wait?
You may be right, I could be wrong. Or we both could be right.

Come on, Do we have "Free Will"?
answer it, please.

Because I don't know the answer to the poll question. I'm not even 100% sure what free will is, and I doubt we could all agree on what it is (or would be). So we certainly can't agree on whether or not it exists.

LLH

[Hokulele]

Are you afraid of being wrong?


No.

Ego?


No.

Yes.


No.

I will make a point. But first let me collect the data.
If you do not answer the poll then I won't have the data to make my point that you seek.


In that case, I would say your point is either unfounded, or uninteresting. If you can make a case, and then meet the challenge of defending it without resorting to "traps" or silly games, I might be interested.

[DangerousBeliefs]

If I have free will, then I will answer yes.

If I don't have free will, then whomever controls my will already knows the answer.

Either way, the answer is pre-ordained... well, no need to answer the poll.

[this charming man]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1837046f9b8286bbc7.jpg

[JoeEllison]

Are you afraid of being wrong?
Ego?

Yes. I will make a point. But first let me collect the data.
If you do not answer the poll then I won't have the data to make my point that you seek.

If you have a point, make it now. If you don't, then just admit it.

[Apathia]

Yes, I have free will. No one is coercing my decisions.
No, I don't have a supernatural free will. I do not act in any way that isn't in full integration with all other events transpiring.

These are provisional statements based on my personal self observation. They are not positions of authority or relgious beliefs. I could be mistaken, so they aren't matters of faith.

Also, they are of no use to the trap you want to set.
Actually, you have fallen into your own pit and haven't a clue.

[timf1234]

If I have free will, then I will answer yes.

If I don't have free will, then whomever controls my will already knows the answer.

Either way, the answer is pre-ordained... well, no need to answer the poll.


Your answer: ".....Either way, the answer is pre-ordained..."

Please take the poll.

[this charming man]

When I was a wee lad, I used to get free cookies at Shaw's. Does that count?

[logical muse]

Do you think we have "Free Will"?

Can you please define the terms Do, you, think, we, have, "Free Will", Free, and Will.

[JoeEllison]

Yes, I have free will. No one is coercing my decisions.
No, I don't have a supernatural free will. I do not act in any way that isn't in full integration with all other events transpiring.

These are provisional statements based on my personal self observation. They are not positions of authority or relgious beliefs. I could be mistaken, so they aren't matters of faith.

Also, they are of no use to the trap you want to set.
Actually, you have fallen into your own pit and haven't a clue.

Excellent!:D

[timf1234]

Can you please define the terms Do, you, think, we, have, "Free Will", Free, and Will.


I am not misusing words, or deliberately and/or sneakingly deceive people by playing by words. Therefore, no further explanation is required to answer my question. Do we have Free Will?

What I meant by "trap" here is, I will show that Many if not most atheists have faith, similar to that of theists has faith in God. These atheists are not even aware of that.

Here by "trap" I did not mean cheating.
May be I should not have said "trap" , that alarmed some people.
Actually, there is no trap. I intend to show the natural consequence of incoherent thought.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Why don't you just repond to the poll question and wait?
You may be right, I could be wrong. Or we both could be right.

Come on, Do we have "Free Will"?
answer it, please.

I have a new poll for everyone, with my own undefined term:

Is your flobie ready?

A - Yes
B - No
C - On Planet X flobies are against the law.

LLH

[joobz]

I have a new poll for everyone, with my own undefined term:

Is your flobie ready?

A - Yes
B - No
C - On Planet X flobies are against the law.

LLH
I disagree

[Apology]

I am not misusing words, or deliberately and/or sneakingly deceive people by playing by words. Therefore, no further explanation is required to answer my question. Do we have Free Will?

What I meant by "trap" here is, I will show that Many if not most atheists have faith, similar to that of theists has faith in God. These atheists are not even aware of that.

Here by "trap" I did not mean cheating.
May be I should not have said "trap" , that alarmed some people.
Actually, there is no trap. I intend to show the natural consequence of incoherent thought.

I think you demonstrated this when you posted the poll.

[Hokulele]

I intend to show the natural consequence of incoherent thought.


Too late.


ETA: Darn you Apology!

[Foster Zygote]

I know kittens are banned, but what about fat, old, lazy cats?

[bokonon]

Yawn.

[this charming man]

I know kittens are banned, but what about fat, old, lazy cats?

needs more Akbar

[JoeEllison]

I am not misusing words, or deliberately and/or sneakingly deceive people by playing by words. Therefore, no further explanation is required to answer my question. Do we have Free Will?

What I meant by "trap" here is, I will show that Many if not most atheists have faith, similar to that of theists has faith in God. These atheists are not even aware of that.

Here by "trap" I did not mean cheating.
May be I should not have said "trap" , that alarmed some people.
Actually, there is no trap. I intend to show the natural consequence of incoherent thought.
There you are, playing with words, and digging your own trap. This is you::boxedin:

[Hokulele]

What I meant by "trap" here is, I will show that Many if not most atheists have faith, similar to that of theists has faith in God. These atheists are not even aware of that.


Why do you assume everyone responding is an atheist?

[schlitt]

When "The fresh prince of bel air" was on television, we all had free Will.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't know!

It really depends on how you define "Free Will". And whether or not it can coincide with Determinism.

But I never took Philosophy 101.

You are so not Jigsaw.

[Lisa Simpson]

Monica Lewinsky had free Slick Willie's willie.

[kmortis]

On the subject of free will I will state definitively

Perhaps.

I couldn't agree more. On the one hand, it sure SEEMS like we do. I mean, I'm choosing to respond, right? But what about all the research that's been showing that just before you "decide" to twitch that finger, the brain fires. What about that? You're not even conscious about the idea of twitching the finger, and the neurons are already firing.

But, I'm still choosing to respond to an OP that's posting an idea that is about as old as, at a minimum, Christianity itself. Do humans have free will. Can we choose our own paths? It's caused at least one church split, that I know of. It's caused many a tree to be fell to print all the treistes about it, both for and against. Many electons have been sent across the wireways of the interwebs trying to answer this question in a totally satisfactoriary way.

And you think that you know the concrete answer?

HA!

Keep engaging in your internetial verbal masturbation. Me? i'm going to bed.

[jsfisher]

I was all set to respond to the poll with "yes", but my wife won't let me.

[Zep]

Do we have "Free Will"?Lawyers make a LOT of money here in Australia, and most of that is from day-to-day legal work such as probate, real estate titles, and writing up wills. So the answer is probably "No, we usually don't have free wills."

There, I've said it!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Reference: Most atheists and agnostics too have faith

/forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94238


"Most", eh? Well I'm glad to see that it's not "all". I guess you have learned something from the 260 replies in the other thread.

BTW. I'm am not one of the most.

I am glad to see 260 replies to the above post. Many of you have gone on the record to say "NO". Let's now proceed.

In my above post "Foundational thing" mean something that has broad implications. If one changes foundational thing then some other things/thoughts/belief need to be changed too in order to maintain the coherency and consistency in logic/reasoning.
Corollary: if changing a thought doesn't require altering (adjust) some other thought(s) then that is not a foundational thought.

Change in foundational thing will produce shock, awe, surprise etc.
Can you imagine the mental tormoil a theist has to go through if his/her mind figures out that there is no God? That's foundational change.

My next question is:
Do you think we have "Free Will"?

Who is "we"?

[Apology]

Lawyers make a LOT of money here in Australia, and most of that is from day-to-day legal work such as probate, real estate titles, and writing up wills. So the answer is probably "No, we usually don't have free wills."

There, I've said it!

I wish I would have thought of this :mad:

I could have said my free will cost $500 in filing fees :blush:

[Meri]

My next question is:
Do you think we have "Free Will"?

Only when our Mighty and Benevolent Robot Overlords allow it.

(I was going to make a lawyer joke, but since that was already taken, I'm stuck with this one. Now to wait and see what the "Trap" is)

[Yiab]

My next question is:
Do you think we have "Free Will"?

If we begin by defining "free will" within the context of a quantum-deterministic universe, then yes. By which, of course, I mean "no" in the sense that you probably mean the term.

[Jimbo07]

Now to wait and see what the "Trap" is

Probably something new, intellectually challenging, profound... maybe even revolutionary...

:rolleyes:

[Marquis de Carabas]

No.

[tsg]

Define "free will."
Define "we".

Until you do, you don't even have a question.

[Complexity]

Silly Poll/OP writer:

Some do, some don't.

Now, is it that I can't decide which I am, or that I won't?

And, really, who the hell cares? You'd still be wrong.

[timf1234]

Define "free will."
Define "we".

Until you do, you don't even have a question.

Fell free to define "We", "Free Will", in most sensible way and I will go along with your definition.

[Hokulele]

Fell free to define "We", "Free Will", in most sensible way and I will go along with your definition.


Too bad I despise that laughing dog smiley. This would be a perfect place for it.

Timf, here is the latest attempt to define "free will". Enjoy!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90763

[Silly Green Monkey]

Change in foundational thing will produce shock, awe, surprise etc.
Can you imagine the mental tormoil a theist has to go through if his/her mind figures out that there is no God? That's foundational change.

Of course I can. However, I doubt you can imagine such a change.

[SomeGuy]

I am not misusing words, or deliberately and/or sneakingly deceive people by playing by words. Therefore, no further explanation is required to answer my question. Do we have Free Will?

What I meant by "trap" here is, I will show that Many if not most atheists have faith, similar to that of theists has faith in God. These atheists are not even aware of that.

Here by "trap" I did not mean cheating.
May be I should not have said "trap" , that alarmed some people.
Actually, there is no trap. I intend to show the natural consequence of incoherent thought.

Judging by what you have written so far, if anyone here can show the natural consequence of incoherent thought, it would be you. Keep up the good work!

btw, I answered yes, but only because someone made me do it.

[SomeGuy]

I have a new poll for everyone, with my own undefined term:

Is your flobie ready?

A - Yes
B - No
C - On Planet X flobies are against the law.

LLH

Define law.

[quixotecoyote]

I can shoot lasers with my free will. Can you?

[Taffer]

Reference: Most atheists and agnostics too have faith

/forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94238

I am glad to see 260 replies to the above post. Many of you have gone on the record to say "NO". Let's now proceed.

In my above post "Foundational thing" mean something that has broad implications. If one changes foundational thing then some other things/thoughts/belief need to be changed too in order to maintain the coherency and consistency in logic/reasoning.
Corollary: if changing a thought doesn't require altering (adjust) some other thought(s) then that is not a foundational thought.

Change in foundational thing will produce shock, awe, surprise etc.
Can you imagine the mental tormoil a theist has to go through if his/her mind figures out that there is no God? That's foundational change.

My next question is:
Do you think we have "Free Will"?

Define "Free Will".

I suggest that for the purposes of this thread we use the following description:

An individual has free will if it is possible that it could make a different decision a second time, given the exact same "universal state" (where "universal state" means all physical factors influencing the decision, including all quantum states, etc).

[SomeGuy]

Define "Free Will".

I suggest that for the purposes of this thread we use the following description:

An individual has free will if it is possible that it could make a different decision a second time, given the exact same "universal state" (where "universal state" means all physical factors influencing the decision, including all quantum states, etc).

By this defenition I would like to change my yes to a very definite:

Perhaps.

[quixotecoyote]

Define "Free Will".

I suggest that for the purposes of this thread we use the following description:

An individual has free will if it is possible that it could make a different decision a second time, given the exact same "universal state" (where "universal state" means all physical factors influencing the decision, including all quantum states, etc).

I'd give that a solid no.

[Taffer]

By this defenition I would like to change my yes to a very definite:

Perhaps.

:D

I highly suspect this is not what the OP means, though. I suspect he isn't nearly so definate about what he means.

[wollery]

Define "Free Will".

I suggest that for the purposes of this thread we use the following description:

An individual has free will if it is possible that it could make a different decision a second time, given the exact same "universal state" (where "universal state" means all physical factors influencing the decision, including all quantum states, etc).But does the cat have the free will to decide if it's alive or dead?

[SomeGuy]

:D

I highly suspect this is not what the OP means, though. I suspect he isn't nearly so definate about what he means.

I am expecting some pathetic semantics game.

I will try to get back at him with my self-deviced semantics game called: "Puppets in heaven".

Which boils down to: Suffering necessary site-effect of free will, no suffering in heaven thus no free will in heaven.

[Dunstan]

Mu

[Philip]

I have a new poll for everyone, with my own undefined term:

Is your flobie ready?

A - Yes
B - No
C - On Planet X flobies are against the law.

LLH

I already knew about the flowbee (http://www.flowbee.com/info_testimonials.htm), but a Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=flobie&btnG=Search) turned up a dance called the Flobie Slide (http://www.stepsheetinmotion.com/stepsheets/flobie_slide_cook.htm) and quite a few other hits.

To the OP, I suppose I had free will in posting this if you define "free will" as the motive results of the complex neurological process and emergent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) phenomenon we call "thought" (although not much thought went into posting this).

[Taffer]

But does the cat have the free will to decide if it's alive or dead?

Heh, hence why we need to preclude quantum randomness. Something which is truely random cannot be free will, in any case, so the answer I'd give is "no, it does not decide at all".

[Taffer]

Mu

Mutation rate? :P

[Zep]

If we begin by defining "free will" within the context of a quantum-deterministic universe, then yes. By which, of course, I mean "no" in the sense that you probably mean the term.Is that for very large values of 2?

[Curnir]

No supernatural magic man/woman/monster controls my actions.

[Magic 8 Ball]

Let me take a stab at this "trap." If we say no, then everything is predetermined by some higher power. If we say yes, then we have faith in (belief that we have) free will.

[Roboramma]

I don't think there is such a thing as free will. The concept just doesn't make any sense to me, and I have no evidence for it, so...

No.

[quixotecoyote]

Given an exactly replicated state, the same event will follow.

But.

It may be impossible to predict, create, or duplicate an exact state, even in theory

[OnlyTellsTruths]

I'm having a hard time figuring out who is "really" voting "no" for those people that voted "no"..... approaching circular logic here.

[quixotecoyote]

I'm having a hard time figuring out who is "really" voting "no" for those people that voted "no"..... approaching circular logic here.

Well, they are of course. They simply don't believe the process is aided by a mystical force that transcends the limits of the material world.

[MRC_Hans]

I am not misusing words, or deliberately and/or sneakingly deceive people by playing by words. Therefore, no further explanation is required to answer my question. Do we have Free Will?

What I meant by "trap" here is, I will show that Many if not most atheists have faith, similar to that of theists has faith in God. These atheists are not even aware of that.

Here by "trap" I did not mean cheating.
May be I should not have said "trap" , that alarmed some people.
Actually, there is no trap. I intend to show the natural consequence of incoherent thought.

OK, I voted yes, because within my definition of free will, I have. For instance, I decided to participate in this poll.

Since you do not define what you mean by free will, my definition is a s valid as yours.

Similarly with faith. Yes, I have faith. I have faith in a lot of things, for instance that the sun wil rise again tomorrow, that people will stop at red lights, that my wife won't deceive me.

However, none of those faiths are the same kind as the faith theists have in God.

So, if you define faith as "the kind of faith that theists have in God", then no, I don't have faith.

Hans

[Darat]

I am not misusing words, or deliberately and/or sneakingly deceive people by playing by words. Therefore, no further explanation is required to answer my question. Do we have Free Will?

...snip...


Er yes it is since the common use of "free will" implicitly assumes a "supernatural" element to humans.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Well, they are of course. They simply don't believe the process is aided by a mystical force that transcends the limits of the material world.

Are you sure you don't have this backwards?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Er yes it is since the common use of "free will" implicitly assumes a "supernatural" element to humans.

Does it?

[quixotecoyote]

Are you sure you don't have this backwards?

quite sure.

If you say that you have no free will, it means that your actions are bound and determined by the state of your brain which was determined by a series of events reaching back towards the beginning of time.

Now, outside a religious/mystical perspective, you are your brain. All that identifies as you is generated and contained within your brain. No valid evidence for any soul, mind, or spirit has ever been produced.

So logically, your actions are determined by your brain state. You are your brain state, so you control your actions while remaining in a state of determinism.

However, free will is in opposition to this determinism. Free will implies that you can overcome the constraints that chance and history have conspired to place upon you. But since those constraints are the physical status of your brain along with each and every neuron and synapse involved in the decision making process, the opposition must come from outside your brain. This is the supernatural part.

So people who believe in free will believe something mystical allows you to overcome the limitations of your material existence and alter the laws of cause and effect.

People who do not believe in free will believe that their decisions are their own, as determined by what and who they are.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Why was I under the assumption free will simply means there was a decision made that was not pre-programmed?

Ok so I looked it up and that’s exactly what it means.

Aside from the sub-forum I’m in, I don’t see any reason to not think free will means what Webster’s tells me: “freedom of decision or of choice between alternatives”.

As for your curious response; there's nothing mystical about giving something the ability to make a decision based on statistics it has gathered as opposed to strictly telling it what to do in every situation.

If I had to I’d rather approach that from the angle in the (horribly titled) "The root of consciousness" thread in the Science forum.

I'd rather not approach this from the angle I'm seeing in this thread for awhile. At least until another 10 years of artificial intelligence programming becomes non-proprietary (public). (Though a more thoughtful response to my first post would be nice….)

I do think this has echoes of how some people can’t get beyond the fact that all information in the entire tree of life doesn’t have to have been encoded specifically in the first forms of life for evolution to occur.

Likewise how some people can’t get beyond the fact that every single thing that makes a certain human a human doesn’t have to have been encoded in the sperm and egg it grew from.

I see this topic as fit an example for anthropic bias as that currently used. “Why can I do things?” As opposed to “Why am I here?”

Please refer to wiki/Anthropic_principle

[MRC_Hans]

Er yes it is since the common use of "free will" implicitly assumes a "supernatural" element to humans.I disagree. The philosophical definition of free will does. The kind where rewinding everythin in the universe, then make a different decision is what free will means. The common use is that you are able to make decisions, and that your decisions make a difference for your fate.

ETA: That every event is not preprogrammed from some initiating event.

Hans

[OnlyTellsTruths]

In response to quixotecoyote (MRC_Hans posted quicker than I)

Reading again Webster's definition "freedom of decision..... between alternatives" and your post I can't help but remember how many people confuse the USA's "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion". Don't worry though, I think you know the difference between "of" and "from" without me consulting Webster's again, you're just making common improper assumptions.

[JoeEllison]

I think we certainly have the appearance of free will. But, when you get right down to it, how free are we, and how many choices do we actually make? Leaving the philosophical elements behind, and getting down to the practical, there just aren't that many choices anyways. Between the limitations of physics, personal ability, access to resources, and the cumulative effect of every step of your mental and emotional development, there just doesn't seem to be much room for actual decision making. Add to that the fact that most of our decisions aren't made consciously, and it all adds up to the idea that "free will" is a myth.

[JoeEllison]

In response to quixotecoyote (MRC_Hans posted quicker than I)

Reading again Webster's definition "freedom of decision..... between alternatives" and your post I can't help but remember how many people confuse the USA's "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion". Don't worry though, I think you know the difference between "of" and "from" without me consulting Webster's again, you're just making common improper assumptions.

You don't understand that my freedom of religion requires freedom from your religion? Really?

I don't want to hijack or anything...

[OnlyTellsTruths]

You don't understand that my freedom of religion requires freedom from your religion? Really?

I don't want to hijack or anything...

You just had to step in with this problem of yours didn't you :)

I don't see any difference between you not wanting to see any religion around than, say, someone not wanting to see any annoying kids around. Let's make a whole list of things that are annoying and ban them? Ironic that by trying to have a "fix" for freedom "of" religion not meaning "from" you're attacking the other part of the same ammendment, freedom of speech.

[ponderingturtle]

Are you afraid of being wrong?
Ego?

Yes. I will make a point. But first let me collect the data.
If you do not answer the poll then I won't have the data to make my point that you seek.

No one is afraid of you. The problems is that you keep useing broad terms and not defining what you mean by them, and people here think it highly likely that any answer given will be twisted by the vagueness of the language involved.

[tsg]

Fell free to define "We", "Free Will", in most sensible way and I will go along with your definition.

Your question, you define it.

[tsg]

You just had to step in with this problem of yours didn't you :)

I don't see any difference between you not wanting to see any religion around than, say, someone not wanting to see any annoying kids around. Let's make a whole list of things that are annoying and ban them? Ironic that by trying to have a "fix" for freedom "of" religion not meaning "from" you're attacking the other part of the same ammendment, freedom of speech.

Strawman. That's not what people mean when they say "freedom from religion". You can argue semantics all you like, it doesn't change what people mean when they say it.

[madurobob]

how 'bout:
We = "the folks on this forum"
Free will = "Aren't gonna play"

C'mon tim, quit being so obtuse and (try to) make your point already so we can get on with the debate. This is just stoopid.

Here, I'll try to get you started:
Clearly you are trying to work in the argument that "free will" is not verifiable so anyone who truly feels they have free will simply has "faith" in a something unverifiable. This you intend to equate with religious belief in a god as the existence of god is also entirely unverifiable.

Its a false dichotomy at best. But please, go ahead and start your argument so I can have some fun philosophical reading this morning.

ETA: Opps, Magic 8 Ball already said this... sorrry

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I disagree. The philosophical definition of free will does. The kind where rewinding everythin in the universe, then make a different decision is what free will means. The common use is that you are able to make decisions, and that your decisions make a difference for your fate.

ETA: That every event is not preprogrammed from some initiating event.

Hans
Quite. Broken down into simple analogies we have:
1) Lack of a puppetmaster
2) Lack of predetermination
3) A black box function w/ an infinite # of outputs for any given input

In different contexts, "free will" can mean any or all of the above.

[alfaniner]

We don't have to free Will. The Robot always does that when Dr. Smith gets him into trouble.

[ChristineR]

It's not just that our realistic choices are never what we want them to be. The claim is that my brain s constructed so crave that chocolate that I simply cannot refuse it.

Yet I know that I can refuse it, and suffer the consequences of feeling bad. I also know that the longer I resist, the less I will want it.

Anyhow it has nothing to do with faith. There's enormous evidence of how we make our choices, and the free will model works well, even if it is illusory.

[Foster Zygote]

So, anyone have to gnaw off a foot to escape this here trap yet?

[Beerina]

My next question is:
Do you think we have "Free Will"?

All that exists is determinism, perhaps with some random influences. The old theological concept of "free will" is nonsensical. By what method would a mind arrive at a decision besides making its own judgement according to deterministic rules?


Having said that, if you define "free will" as merely the ability to arrive at a conclusion, based on various inputs, and relying on your own memories, experiences, and preferences as weighted influences, then yes, we do have free will.

The mind decided to steal an old man's wallet. It judged all the things that went into it, insofar as it, itself, judged it had sufficient info, also an input, and decided to proceed. It is perfectly legitimate to punish such a thing. Fear of capture and punishment are legitimate inputs one considers. As a weighted input, it carries little weight if it won't actually be carried out. Therefore it's proper for the rest of society to carry it out.

[Darat]

Does it?

Yes.

[Darat]

I disagree. The philosophical definition of free will does. The kind where rewinding everythin in the universe, then make a different decision is what free will means. The common use is that you are able to make decisions, and that your decisions make a difference for your fate.

ETA: That every event is not preprogrammed from some initiating event.

Hans

I understand your point but I still disagree as the definition "you are able to make decisions..." contains the supernatural assumption.

[Upchurch]

Fell free to define "We", "Free Will", in most sensible way and I will go along with your definition.
Anyone's definition or just tsg's?

If the former, the poll becomes meaningless because every person will be responding to a different question.

If the latter, that seems rather arbitrary. I suppose that would also make the poll meaningless.

[tsg]

Anyone's definition or just tsg's?

If the former, the poll becomes meaningless because every person will be responding to a different question.

If the latter, that seems rather arbitrary. I suppose that would also make the poll meaningless.

Pretty much the reason why I refused to give one.

[Marquis de Carabas]

So, anyone have to gnaw off a foot to escape this here trap yet?
Yes, though it was not my own, and believers in free will may well argue the "have to" bit.

[tsg]

Yes, though it was not my own, and believers in free will may well argue the "have to" bit.

I'm going to want that back, by the way.

[Michael C]

I couldn't vote, since "I don't know" was not proposed as a possible answer. I have no way of knowing if I have free will or not.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm going to want that back, by the way.
I'll be sure to put it in my will.

[tsg]

I'll be sure to put it in my will.

Just make sure you clean the slobber off of it, please.

And how much did that will cost you? Was it, by any chance, fre*gak**cough cough* Okay, okay, I won't say it. Stop choking me.

[Professor Yaffle]

I am interested to see what your definition of "free will" is before I answer. I would not want to answer based on a different definition to that implied by the OP.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Well, now that I think about it, there is a little ruffle on my collar.



Yes, I have a wee frill.

[sackett]

...Keep engaging in your internetial verbal masturbation. Me? i'm going to bed.

Yeah, well keep those hands outside the covers, mister.

[alfaniner]

I'll be sure to put it in my will.

Will there be a fee to create it, or will it be a...?

[tsg]

Well, now that I think about it, there is a little ruffle on my collar.



Yes, I have a wee frill.

BOOOOOOOO!

[Taffer]

Well, now that I think about it, there is a little ruffle on my collar.



Yes, I have a wee frill.

:D

[Belz...]

My next question is:
Do you think we have "Free Will"?

Which free will are we talking about ?

Absolute free will ? That's an incoherent concept.

Since we're not omniscient, though, we have the illusion of free will, and that's good enough for me.

[Belz...]

Why was I under the assumption free will simply means there was a decision made that was not pre-programmed?

Unless quantum-level non-deterministic fluctuations can affect the outcome of an event, then there is no free will.

But who cares ? It makes no difference from our point of view, anyway.

[uruk]

I voted no.
Free will is like ordering food at a restraunt. You're free to choose whatever you want but only what's on the menu. Volition I guess is the word.

Also all our actions/choices have a consequence and we are affected by those consequences. So I guess in that vien of thought none of our choices are free. There is a consequence to be paid.

Then there are other factors involved such as biology and physics. So the choices we can make are very restricted. We are free to chose any one of them or not but then what's the point.

And the choices that we are allowed to make usually arrive to us through no controll of our own. We can't even chose what it is we have to choose from.

And sometimes we are given no choice at all.

And if you throw in an all-knowing god things get even trickier.

The illusion of free will is the only thing that counts.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Will there be a fee to create it, or will it be a...?
Yes, it will be a complimentary will.

[Darth Rotor]

If I trap an atheist, will he or she chew off the leg in the trap in order to escape before I can check the trap, slay, stuff and then mount this atheist over my fireplace?

Until you answer that question, I can't be sure that you aren't merely playing with your poll.

DR

ETA: Crap, Foster and MdC beat me to it, yet again. Scooped, I am. :p

[uruk]

Yes, it will be a complimentary will.

There are also continental will but it's only bagels and toast.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I know I should read the whole thread, but has timf1234 ever bothered to define free will?

~~ Paul

[Darth Rotor]

I disagree. The philosophical definition of free will does. The kind where rewinding everythin in the universe, then make a different decision is what free will means. The common use is that you are able to make decisions, and that your decisions make a difference for your fate.

ETA: That every event is not preprogrammed from some initiating event.

Hans
Thank you, Hans.

Your ETA opens the idea of "options" or "probabilities" of events derving from previous events, but here we get into the interesting intersection of quantum phenomena and uncertainty, when seen only after the fact/event takes place.

As to terms, the playing of games about definitions is common currency here. In some defense of those insisting on the Philosophical, the title of the post capitalized Free Will, which was either the "Use Title Case" convention, or an inference (intentional or otherwise) that the post wishes to address the philosophical Free Will issue.

In other words, it's more jacking off over deterministic attitudes, or their rejection.

DR

[joobz]

Am I to believe that the OP is implying that life Has nothing left to chance? Are we simply dancing aimlessly, directed by some form of Holy Horror? This thinking leads to the thought that we are merely a planet of playthings. Dancing on strings of some power we can’t perceive. Well the comfort in this view is that if that if “The stars aren’t aligned, or the gods decide to be malign.” We can always place blame on something other than ourselves.

So, you can choose to believe in some guide, perhaps a celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still made a choice. Or you could simply choose to believe in phantom fears or kindness that can kill. Of course, I will always choose the path that’s clear. I will choose to believe in the illusion of free will.

Sure, some people think that they’ve been dealt a losing hand. That the cards were stacked against them. That they simply weren’t born in the land of the lotus. This thinking ultimately leads to the belief that all has been preordainedtThat everyone is a prisoner in chains that we are simply a victim of venomous fate. These people act like we are kicked in the face, but you can hopefully pray for a place in heaven’s unearthly estate


Personally, I think all of us are purely cells comprised to form awareness. We are both imperfect and incomplete. Genetically, we were blended with uncertain ends encoded, on a fleeting fortune hunt in this life. To fuss over whether or not we have free will misses the point. So, You can choose to believe in some guide, perhaps a celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still mad a choice. Or you could simply choose to believe in phantom fears or kindness that can kill. Of course, I will always choose the path that’s clear. I will choose to believe in the illusion of free will.

[Foster Zygote]

If I trap an atheist, will he or she chew off the leg in the trap in order to escape before I can check the trap, slay, stuff and then mount this atheist over my fireplace?

Until you answer that question, I can't be sure that you aren't merely playing with your poll.

DR

Assuming you can, just be sure to mount the atheist in a menacing pose with teeth bared so as to impress chicks.

[ChristineR]

I'd like to point out another problem with this "trap." The usual theist position is that we have free will because it was imposed or gifted on us by the deity. But all theists agree that the deity itself has free will, but that the free will was not imposed or gifted on the deity. Therefore the claim must be that free will can arise spontaneously under certain conditions.

We may call this a supernatural phenomenon on the basis that we do not understand its mechanisms, or we call this a natural phenomenon on the basis that all things that exist are by definition, natural. In either case we have no good reason for putting the extra step of the deity in there. You might therefore claim that free will is a supernatural phenomenon yet still be a staunch atheist.

I'm not aware of anyone making this claim, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the atheist religions do.

[Darth Rotor]

I understand your point but I still disagree as the definition "you are able to make decisions..." contains the supernatural assumption.
Really? It makes the assumption of sentience. Where does supernatural fit into this, other than in Darats' personal assumption?

DR

[Marquis de Carabas]

I know I should read the whole thread, but has timf1234 ever bothered to define free will?

~~ Paul
Come on, Paul. We've seen enough of these in our time, right? You already know the answer.

[uruk]

[COLOR=#474747]So, you can choose to believe in some guide, perhaps a celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still made a choice. Or you could simply choose to believe in phantom fears or kindness that can kill. Of course, I will always choose the path that’s clear. I will choose to believe in the illusion of free will.

Sure, some people think that they’ve been dealt a losing hand. That the cards were stacked against them. That they simply weren’t born in the land of the lotus. This thinking ultimately leads to the belief that all has been preordainedtThat everyone is a prisoner in chains that we are simply a victim of venomous fate. These people act like we are kicked in the face, but you can hopefully pray for a place in heaven’s unearthly estate


Personally, I think all of us are purely cells comprised to form awareness. We are both imperfect and incomplete. Genetically, we were blended with uncertain ends encoded, on a fleeting fortune hunt in this life. To fuss over whether or not we have free will misses the point. So, You can choose to believe in some guide, perhaps a celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still mad a choice. Or you could simply choose to believe in phantom fears or kindness that can kill. Of course, I will always choose the path that’s clear. I will choose to believe in the illusion of free will.

I call foul!! Violation of Rule 2112: "You can not use Rush lyrics to prove your point".

What are you?!?!? Some artic circle touching Canadian?

[Foster Zygote]

I call foul!! Violation of Rule 2112: "You can not use Rush lyrics to prove your point".

What are you?!?!? Some artic circle touching Canadian?

No, he's a Shatner stealing Mexico toucher.

[tsg]

No, he's a Shatner stealing Mexico toucher.

I resent that. I've lived here all my life and I've never once touched Mexico. Broad brush indeed.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go into my basement and feed Captain Kirk.

[uruk]

No, he's a Shatner stealing Mexico toucher.

Well then. There's no excuse

[joobz]

No,
More like a Burbuon swilling, creationist museum having, past 10 churches down 1 street driving, horse riding, bible belt whipping, bluegrass trampling, war of northern aggression having, midwesterner.

[Apology]

If I trap an atheist, will he or she chew off the leg in the trap in order to escape before I can check the trap, slay, stuff and then mount this atheist over my fireplace?


It's a date but you have to wine me and dine me first and I would prefer to be stuffed with truffles and champagne.

[quixotecoyote]

Why was I under the assumption free will simply means there was a decision made that was not pre-programmed?

Ok so I looked it up and that’s exactly what it means.

Aside from the sub-forum I’m in, I don’t see any reason to not think free will means what Webster’s tells me: “freedom of decision or of choice between alternatives”.

As for your curious response; there's nothing mystical about giving something the ability to make a decision based on statistics it has gathered as opposed to strictly telling it what to do in every situation.

If I had to I’d rather approach that from the angle in the (horribly titled) "The root of consciousness" thread in the Science forum.

I'd rather not approach this from the angle I'm seeing in this thread for awhile. At least until another 10 years of artificial intelligence programming becomes non-proprietary (public). (Though a more thoughtful response to my first post would be nice….)

I do think this has echoes of how some people can’t get beyond the fact that all information in the entire tree of life doesn’t have to have been encoded specifically in the first forms of life for evolution to occur.

Likewise how some people can’t get beyond the fact that every single thing that makes a certain human a human doesn’t have to have been encoded in the sperm and egg it grew from.

I see this topic as fit an example for anthropic bias as that currently used. “Why can I do things?” As opposed to “Why am I here?”

Please refer to wiki/Anthropic_principle


You simply aren't looking deep enough. Yes free will can legitimatly be defined as freedom of decision or of choice between alternatives. Now, how do you define freedom of decision or choice between alternatives? The way is is generally resolved is to create a dichotomy between free will and determinism. To resolve that, I refer you to my earlier post

I'm ignoring your diversions into the anthropic principle, bill of rights, and genetic encoding, because they have no relevant bearing on this.

[uruk]

No,
More like a Burbuon swilling, creationist museum having, past 10 churches down 1 street driving, horse riding, bible belt whipping, bluegrass trampling, war of northern aggression having, midwesterner.

So then being a midwesterner You would how life is living on the sprawling fringes of the city with the houses in geometric order acting like an insulated border coming in between the bright lights and the far unlit unkown of life.

I know how that feels. When I was a kid growing up, it all seems so one sided, my opinions all provided. My futur pre-decided. I felt detached and subdvided like I was in a mass production zone. All us dreamers and misfits felt so alone.

Socitey placed us in subdivisions, wether in high school halls or shopping malls. We had to conform or be cast out.
And when we got home, there were subdivisions in basement bars and the backs of cars. You had to be cool or you were cast out.

We searched for any escape to help smooth the unattractive truth But the damned suburbs have no charms to soothe the restless dreams of youth.

Don't you also feel like moths as we drift into the city? Heading for those timeless old attractions and crusing for the action. You felt lit up like a fire fly just feeling the living night.

And you know there are some who will sell thier dreams for small desires. Others who will lose the race to rats and get caught up in ticking traps. And they'll start to dream of somewhere to relax from thier restless flights to somewhere out of a memory they once held of lighted streets on quite nights.



I'll stop now.

[Darat]

Really? It makes the assumption of sentience. Where does supernatural fit into this, other than in Darats' personal assumption?

DR

It's a result of the inherent dualism that is in a lot of everyday language (English at least) e.g. "my mind" - "I changed my mind" and so on.

[Belz...]

But all theists agree that the deity itself has free will

Which is utterly impossible, by definition, if the deity is omniscient.

[Fnord]

Yes, humans have free will.

But is there ever any such thing as a truly free electron?

[Z]

I'm sorry - I can't answer the poll, because I don't know if you're asking about absolute free will, or practical free will.

If you're asking in absolute terms, you see, the answer is no. Whether you believe in theism or atheism, absolute free will is impossible.

In the case of theism (as defined, generally, by Judeo-Christian sects), we have an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient deity who created everything as it was, is, and will be. Hence, free will is only an illusion (or else, we have to toss out a lot of the defining characteristics of such a deity).

On the other hand, where a deity is lacking, we have to revert to some form of monism, in which case, every decision we've ever made is merely the result of physical (or mental, if you prefer idealism) processes obeying exact rules, which means that every decision we ever make we have no choice but to make the way we do - though we might change our decision in an identical situation due to quantum randomness, I don't know about that.

On the other hand, if the concept is practical free will, I'd say that some people have it to one degree or another, but that due to a wide variety of factors, our will isn't as free as we'd like to think that it is.

How this question is supposed to be difficult for atheists, I can't imagine.

BTW - Atheists and agnostics have no faith. Just so you know.

[Fnord]

Atheists and agnostics have no faith. Just so you know.


Why, sure they do! They have faith in a Naturalist universe, wherein no outside or "supernatural" force can exist.

Then again faith would imply religion, so we may be right back where we started.

[tsg]

Why, sure they do! They have faith in a Naturalist universe, wherein no outside or "supernatural" force can exist.

Then again faith would imply religion, so we may be right back where we started.

Equivocation. Nothing more.

[Piscivore]

Yes, humans have free will.

But is there ever any such thing as a truly free electron?
No. Now think about what your brain is made of, and you'll see why your first statement is wrong.

Why, sure they do! They have faith in a Naturalist universe, wherein no outside or "supernatural" force can exist.

Not quite- they postulate a naturalistic universe, wherein no testable or repeatable phenomenon has ever once given evidence that "outside" or "supernatural" forces exist.

[uruk]

Why, sure they do! They have faith in a Naturalist universe, wherein no outside or "supernatural" force can exist.

Then again faith would imply religion, so we may be right back where we started.

They trust in a universe that they can physicaly experiance and remains continous.
You cannot experiance god on that same level.

You cannot see, touch, hear, smell, or taste god.
God remains an intellectual construct or abstract experiance.
God requires a belief in his existance that precludes you being able to experiance him on the same level that you experiance our univers.

You have constant reminders that our univers exists. You have to remind yourself that god exists.

You can generate experimental evidence that the univers exist (at least on a visceral level)
Drop a brick on your foot for an example.

You cannot generate experimental evidenvce that god exists. Try to drop god on your foot.

Then you can say "I know that the universe exists because I interact with it every single instant of my existance."
You can only say that I experiance god on a "spiritual" level.

You can ask another person "hey that's a rock right?" And the othere person will answer "yes that is a rock"

You can ask another person "Ain't The god of Christianity grand?" and the other person may say " to hell with you krishna is better".

Do you see where I am going with this?

You can say that the universe exists because of the nature of our interaction with it. We can physicaly experiance it. We can agree on a physical aspect of the universe. (A rock is hard. Well, prove it. Here let me throw it at you and see)

You cannot say that god exists without similar evidence. At best you can say that I believe or feel that god exists because there is not aspect in the experiance of god that we can agree on in the same manner that we can with the universe. ( God is hard. no he's not, he's soft and warm. Well, prove it. Where's god so we can find out?)

[GeeMack]

Why, sure they do! They have faith in a Naturalist universe, wherein no outside or "supernatural" force can exist.


Why, no they don't! Although there are certainly atheists who believe there are no gods, that is not the base atheist position. The atheists' lack of faith, the position of, "I do not believe gods exist," cannot rationally be construed to mean, "I believe gods do not exist." These are clearly two different concepts. It's interesting, although frustrating for those of us who actually understand the difference, that so many believers in magic continue to have such a difficult time making the distinction.

[JoeEllison]

Why, sure they do! They have faith in a Naturalist universe, wherein no outside or "supernatural" force can exist.

Then again faith would imply religion, so we may be right back where we started.

S, here's another one who feels that faith in God is just like faith in chairs and ducks and boots and rocks.

[jimlintott]

Change in foundational thing will produce shock, awe, surprise etc.
Can you imagine the mental tormoil a theist has to go through if his/her mind figures out that there is no God? That's foundational change.


Well, considering our theist has just discovered that there is no god I hesitate to continue to call him a theist. As to the mental turmoil, this forum has had many threads on how people came to be atheist. I cannot recall any of them stating they experienced mental turmoil. Some of the theists around them seem to have experienced mental turmoil but the new converts usually suggest that they found peace, comfort and a whole new personal freedom by realizing there is no god(s). Personally I could never do faith, even as a small child, so I never found a god to stop believing in.

I suspect that the theist goes through considerable mental turmoil in an ever continuing attempt to reconcile the fantasy world of their beliefs to the real world in which they live. Some become mentally ill over it.

Free will means that given the choice of doors numbered one, two and three, you can pick any one you want.

[quixotecoyote]

Why, no they don't! Although there are certainly atheists who believe there are no gods, that is not the base atheist position. The atheists' lack of faith, the position of, "I do not believe gods exist," cannot rationally be construed to mean, "I believe gods do not exist." These are clearly two different concepts. It's interesting, although frustrating for those of us who actually understand the difference, that so many believers in magic continue to have such a difficult time making the distinction.


To be fair to the believers, there's plenty of us atheists who think the difference between "I do not believe gods exist" and "I believe gods do not exist" is the same level of equivocating semantic ******** as saying faith in God is just like faith in chairs and ducks and boots and rocks.

[brodski]

Why, sure they do! They have faith in a Naturalist universe, wherein no outside or "supernatural" force can exist.

Then again faith would imply religion, so we may be right back where we started.

Not all athiests and agnostics are naturalists.

[rocketdodger]

In either case we have no good reason for putting the extra step of the deity in there.

This is the only argument one needs to completely annihilate every theistic claim in the history of humanity.

Unfortunately hardly anyone (including myself) remembers it in a pinch argument on the street.

[Stir]

I'm not answering the question because I honestly am unclear on what 'free will' is, and I'm none too sure what you mean by 'we' ... and on a related topic, I don't think it's at all clear what 'atheist' means, and I'm completely in the dark as to what 'I' means (not a joke, 'I' really mean that ... understanding the nature of one's own consciousness is astoundingly difficult and 'I' have failed to do so).

[strathmeyer]

I'm having a hard time figuring out who is "really" voting "no" for those people that voted "no"..... approaching circular logic here.

You were expecting everyone to honestly answer a dishonest question?

Will belongs in jail, and he can rot there for all I care.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I resent that. I've lived here all my life and I've never once touched Mexico. Broad brush indeed.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go into my basement and feed Captain Kirk.

Don't forget -- he loves Bran Flakes (TM). :p

[timf1234]

It was my mistake that I use the word "trap".
Actually there is no trap and no semantic play.
Do we, you, us, anyone, anything has any Free Will?
This is a very clear and very logical question.

[tsg]

To be fair to the believers, there's plenty of us atheists who think the difference between "I do not believe gods exist" and "I believe gods do not exist" is the same level of equivocating semantic ******** as saying faith in God is just like faith in chairs and ducks and boots and rocks.

Where were you when I was arguing this yesterday?

[tsg]

Define "free will"

It's really too bad kittening has been prohibited. This thread really needed it.

[Yiab]

I disagree. The philosophical definition of free will does. The kind where rewinding everythin in the universe, then make a different decision is what free will means. The common use is that you are able to make decisions, and that your decisions make a difference for your fate.

ETA: That every event is not preprogrammed from some initiating event.

Hans

The problem is that randomness satisfies your philosophical definition of free will whereas not many people would use the term "free will" to mean "a deterministic combination of random fundamental processes" (or to be more technical a nondeterministic turing machine). I think that most people familiar with modern physics would say that randomness being at the heart of reality is a definite possibility, but that it does not entail any sort of fundamentally meaningful "free will".

It was my mistake that I use the word "trap".
Actually there is no trap and no semantic play.
Do we, you, us, anyone, anything has any Free Will?
This is a very clear and very logical question.

It is very clear up to the definitions of "free will", "thing" and "do".
Once you can define objective identity in a temporal framework and then provide a characterization of the difference between an object that has "free will" and one that doesn't, your question is quite sensible and meaningful, yes.

I'm not trying to say that you're being semantically deceptive, I'm pointing out that there is no "standard" or "common" semantics for the term "free will" which are well-defined enough for the question to be meaningful.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't want to read 4 pages. Could someone tell me the post number where tim gets to the punch line?

[ChristineR]

I don't want to read 4 pages. Could someone tell me the post number where tim gets to the punch line?

Hasn't happened yet. So far we are trying to get him to define free will.

Apparently he thinks no atheist ever thought seriously about the problem of free will and that he can zap us by claiming we have an inherently theistic or faith-based position.

[GeeMack]

It was my mistake that I use the word "trap".
Actually there is no trap and no semantic play.
Do we, you, us, anyone, anything has any Free Will?
This is a very clear and very logical question.


No trap and no semantic play, eh? So timf, why does it seem to be such a problem for you to just get to the point you're trying to make?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Can you imagine the mental tormoil a theist has to go through if his/her mind figures out that there is no God? That's foundational change.


Speaking as a former Christian who is now an atheist, I can say that the change from belief to non-belief has actually been quiet liberating. If anything in my life has caused me personal turmoil to myself of others, it was constantly trying to fit the square peg of "God," "faith," "sin," "virtue" and "miracles" into the round hole that is reality. The only thing problem I have with being an atheist is the pariah status that is slapped on us by believers.

But the fact that the world is largely made up of moronic, delusional, barbarians isn't atheism's fault, isn't it?

Now... Stop f--king around with us and get to your asinine "point."

[kellyb]

Why, sure they do! They have faith in a Naturalist universe, wherein no outside or "supernatural" force can exist.



What makes you say that?

I think a supernatural force could exist. I just don't see any reason to think one actually does.

Sort of like dragons. And gnomes. Could they exist? Sure. Do they? Highly, highly unlikely, I'd say.

[kellyb]

No trap and no semantic play, eh? So timf, why does it seem to be such a problem for you to just get to the point you're trying to make?

Maybe he likes creating threads that go on for 5+ pages?
This will go on forever as long as we keep posting and asking "Where is it? Where's the trap?"

[kellyb]

Speaking as a former Christian who is now an atheist, I can say that the change from belief to non-belief has actually been quiet liberating. If anything in my life has caused me personal turmoil to myself of others, it was constantly trying to fit the square peg of "God," "faith," "sin," "virtue" and "miracles" into the round hole that is reality. The only thing problem I have with being an atheist is the pariah status that is slapped on us by believers.



Once you make it over that initial hump it's a breeze. It's everything leading up to that which seriously sucks for a whole lot of people.

[Loss Leader]

I didn't read this thread. I just voted yes because my captors said they'd kill my parents if I didn't.

[tsg]

Maybe he likes creating threads that go on for 5+ pages?
This will go on forever as long as we keep posting and asking "Where is it? Where's the trap?"

My money is on the "see, I got you talking about it" dodge.

Yeah, we're talking. We're talking like the audience at a comedy show while the comedian tries to remember his act, taking credit for the laughter at his expense.

Either that or he'll claim it was a performance piece.

[Dunstan]

I don't want to read 4 pages. Could someone tell me the post number where tim gets to the punch line?

There's no punch line. There's no trap; he just said so.

Oh, and these are not the droids you're looking for, either.

[quixotecoyote]

Where were you when I was arguing this yesterday?

I was reading it. It didn't look like you needed any help.

[tsg]

I was reading it. It didn't look like you needed any help.

I could have used it. I know what I mean to say, I just can't put it into words to reach those hung up on semantics.

[GeeMack]

To be fair to the believers, there's plenty of us atheists who think the difference between "I do not believe gods exist" and "I believe gods do not exist" is the same level of equivocating semantic ******** as saying faith in God is just like faith in chairs and ducks and boots and rocks.


1. I do not believe gods exist. True or False?

2. I believe gods do not exist. True or False?

One may answer "True" to the first question and "False" to the second. Believing no gods exist is not a corollary to lacking a belief in the existence of gods. Many people have no belief in the existence of gods, but don't necessarily have a belief in the nonexistence of gods. Pointing out that distinction to someone who doesn't appear to grasp it isn't an exercise in semantic ********. Well, at least no more semantic ******** than correcting someone for using the term "red" to describe the color of a green item. They have different meanings.

[tsg]

1. I do not believe gods exist. True or False?

2. I believe gods do not exist. True or False?

One may answer "True" to the first question and "False" to the second. Believing no gods exist is not a corollary to lacking a belief in the existence of gods. Many people have no belief in the existence of gods, but don't necessarily have a belief in the nonexistence of gods. Pointing out that distinction to someone who doesn't appear to grasp it isn't an exercise in semantic ********. Well, at least no more semantic ******** than correcting someone for using the term "red" to describe the color of a green item. They have different meanings.

This derail was done yesterday in timf's other thread. We don't need another.

[JoeEllison]

It was my mistake that I use the word "trap".
Actually there is no trap and no semantic play.
Do we, you, us, anyone, anything has any Free Will?
This is a very clear and very logical question.

No, please... what do YOU think?

[Z]

Do we, you, us, anyone, anything has any Free Will?

Yes... in a vague and practical sense, we have something which, for wont of a better word, we shall call 'free will'. That is, we are free to make decisions largely unhindered by obvious outside forces.

But no in most other senses.

OK, so what's the punchline? (hint: I have a punchline of my own...)

[Belz...]

Yes, humans have free will.

How ?

If the universe is completely deterministic, then there is NO way to choose differently from what you choose when you choose it. If you were to rewind back to that time, you'd make the same choice over and over again, because determinism implies that your choice is 100% based on the factors involved, and they were also determined by previous factors, etc. Unless you get the Big Bang to happen all over again, you're screwed.

If the universe is NOT completely deterministic, then there is some level of randomness there. But randomness is just as much out of your control as determinism. So no free will there.

Pray tell, what is this non-deterministic, non-random thing that gives us free will ?

Why, sure they do! They have faith in a Naturalist universe, wherein no outside or "supernatural" force can exist.

That's not "faith". Please check your dictionary.

[timf1234]

Please see my new Poll and post: Free Will - Illusion of most Atheists' Faith?
Pleease read the whole thing, ponder on it, then take the new poll, Did you change your mind about Free Will?

Don't let your ego get into way from speaking the truth.

[JoeEllison]

Please see my new Poll and post: Free Will - Illusion of most Atheists' Faith?
Pleease read the whole thing, ponder on it, then take the new poll, Did you change your mind about Free Will?

Don't let your ego get into way from speaking the truth.

you're still trolling, still refusing to make sense, still refusing to state your case.

[Jimbo07]

The big revelation is posted. This makes timf smarter than all those stupid atheists/agnostics out there...

(Geez, I can't believe I'm arguing for atheism here :D)

[Belz...]

Please see my new Poll and post: Free Will - Illusion of most Atheists' Faith?
Pleease read the whole thing, ponder on it, then take the new poll, Did you change your mind about Free Will?

Don't let your ego get into way from speaking the truth.

Was that post supposed to carry any meaning, or did you use a random word generator ?

[tsg]

Did you change your mind about Free Will?

No. My current opinion is exactly as it was before: you don't have a clue what you're talking about.