Quote:

Free will has nothing to with religion. If any, the opposite is true. Ideas such as fatalism and destiny which reject free will in favor of a predetermined future usually reconcile their beliefs by throwing God into the mix. If the future is predetermined, than some force has predetermined it. That force is God. Or the gods, depending on your religion.

Let me say something according to my past knowledge received (from a reliable individaul) most athiests don't beleive in free will.. (as in most people who would call themselves an athiest)
And if not this is what ought/should be happening...

With that in mind here was my response:
Well let's look at this for a second... Most athiest are materiliastic monists... meaning for example.. you believe in the laws of phsyics right? gravity the whole thing... for the most part, people would... Now if the laws of physics apply to matter, and you are only made of matter, then this implies that every single atom in your body and brain is controlled by the laws of physics, and if that's true there is no such thing as free will..

So what do we have to do, we either one say everying is matter and discredit physics, or we contend not everything is matter and is controlled by the laws of physics...

Now on plausible grounds if you analyse the existence of free will it's hard to justify, how would it work would be a quesiton, like how could you choose something? What grants you this magical ability to choose things, out side of coercive or random forces? And why beleive in it, when science would suggest against it, as their is no proof really...

And following similar logic you would argue againist the existence of God... on plausible grounds so generally those who find reason to dismiss God by teh same token dismiss free will...

Now let's consider if God does exist what does that imply for free will... well you won't throw it out on plausibility reasons because they exists equally for God as they do for free will.. you know beleiving in this magical ability to choose, as well as believing in this magical man in the sky. You don't really argue exactly how or why, you just believe for some reason most label it "faith"...

Now does the existence of a creator preclude the allowance of free will on logical grounds? because on plausible grounds if you accepted one, it'd be expected to accept the other...

And we can fairly easily see no more coudl an athiest argue that logically we don't have free will, then would a thiest find a reason to logically go against free will...

So based on plausibility the same reasoning that allows you to accept God would accept free will, and the same reasoning that disallows an atheist to disprove free will, doesn't allow you too either....

And on the atheist's side (or non thiest) whatever the same reason they doubt God they doubt free will... they look at scientific and plausible evidence and both don't suggest either... so they dismiss both.

Whereas the theist is like to accept both.

The reasons some athiests will try to reject God, and accept free will is do to the wanting to have free will, nothing more, had they held the same criteria they would have dismissed it, and in fact the majority of atheists do.

Whereas the majority of theists accept free will

(some theist deny it such as lutherans)

Char Aznable wrote:

You realize that the new Large Hadron Collider's first atom smashing may reveal the existence of Dark Matter, along with the existence of numerous other dimensions, each with their own separate set of laws of physics. So, there may be a universe where the laws of physics dictate that the life forms of that universe can do absolutely anything that they want.

Then they really wouldn't be dictating would they? they would be non-existent. And again explaining how this would be possible is large part of why many athiests deny it, and according to modern day science they'd say it's not the case...

Also Dark Matter I don't believe exists in another diminesnion, it exists in our universe...

To be clear I ACCEPT free will, as well as God... I think logically, not plausibly free will is very much aparent, though plausibly it wouldn't appear so...

Char Aznable wrote:

I didn't say that dark matter existed in other dimensions, I'm saying that the LHC test will prove or deny the existence of both dark matter and extraneous dimensions. It will also prove or deny the existence of the "Higgs Boson", the particle that gives matter its mass.

Ahh np... I was reading numerous other dimensions, as if Dark Matter was listed as, or in it's own dimension...

Also it's important to note science plausibly shows things, it doesn't PROVE, or DISPROVE things... meaning assuming you accept the idea of "Seeing is beleiving" you'd accept what science, for the most part has to say, unless you think, which we are, lacking a lot of information.

I believe in free will, which implies I deny sciences claim that i'm simply comprised by matter and all my actions are coerced by the laws physics.. I think we are lacking to be able to make that claim, even though many do..

however it is a fact many of the BRIGHTEST of our intellects of our time have accepts free will as well... so there is some split on the verdict..

And they generally try and argue you it out through reason, or by suggesting what I just did above of how we are so naive at this moment.

The analogy is sometime goes like this... Imagine a worm in an apple, now the worm has no idea what's behind the apple the world outside it, the fellow trees , all the other creatures roaming around... And no idea of the gardener that tends the apple orchard... Yet the gardener knows of all these things, but not of what exists beyond his garden surrounding, above it, not of space or the universe...

We are like the worm in the apple, and in a thousand years they will laugh at our thoughts now...

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

I was in a hurry last time I checked this so I had ignored JonSnow's posts, but now that I read them...wtf? I don't understand the connection between the laws of physics acting on atoms in a person's body and the lack of free will. That's the whole psuedo-intellectual BS someone mentioned in another thread. Yeah, physics governs many things about matter. If you jump up, you come back down. If you strike a match, it lights on fire. These are the ways physics affects us. If you're sexually abused as a child, you will have intimacy issues and most likely become extremely promiscuous, as well as be at greater risk for further sexual abuse and abusive relationships. What does that have to do with physics? Or maybe, just maybe, are you trying to explain the viewpoint that opposes yours in the most idiotically simplistic way ever, possibly to make your argument contrary to that one seem all the more attractive? But hey, what do I know.

I'll break it down.

1.) the laws of Physics controlls all matter

2.) we are made of matter

3.) therefore even your example would just somethign coerced upon us...
(basically we don't have will if everything is controlling our actions)
So you must either reject 1, or reject 2 or both, or else you must beleive number 3.

This is the basic scientific POV against will.

I'd like to add that science again doesn't prove nor disprove things.. because who knows this might be teh matrix.....

and secondly science in and of itself shouldn't in theory have an opinon, it should merely observe and record, not interpeting the data but rather observing it, and analysing for patterns... Then they also observe the pattern. that's all science ought to be doing then letting , indviduals, politicians, religious people decide what to make of it.. however science 1.) is often funded by special interesting groups so they have bias and try to say that a certain finding means something and 2.) they're human and so they put their own bias to it, and do try to say what it means..

Sciences shouldn't have a POV on anything, but it does, and largely because since scientist are comprised of humans, the humans have a POV.

I don't think anyone in any discussion has ever accused me of a logical fallacy : )...

but if you do get a chance explain how that is illogical, assuming the assumptions are true, it'd be much appreciated... Actually that's open to anyone really...

I hope you realize though all i'm saying if those assumptions are true then #3 is true..

and that is not the entirity of that side that is the basic argument though, for materialists, and monists...

Well if you agree all your movement are dictated by the laws of phsyics because every atom in your body is dictated by the laws of physics, then what you say is dictated by teh laws of physics, what you do is, what you think is, everyhitng you do is... you don't have free will in order to imply your will you would have to go against some force of physics, maybe you can't fly, but maybe you can control matter in your brain? if you can't do taht, then all your actions are dictated by teh laws of physics..

if you talk about the subatomic, seemingly random actions on taht level...

Well Randomness and dictated actions still dont' all will.. it just means you act randomly and based on some twisted mix of dictation..

I think you have to think smaller just imagine a single atom.. you can graph the movement of a single atom it can't choose where to go everything aobut it is dictated by physics if you add a second atom it may get more complicated (the atoms may hit each other) but still all of their actions are dictated by the laws of physics... so their is no choice... from teh moment they existed they're path was mapped out...


now include randomness (some strange phenomenom that things can be random)

well all we get now is still no choice of a person just dictated, and mapped out actions taht randomly change from time to time... and no one has any control over those changes, if they are random... so either way you don't have will if.

1.) physics and randomness dictate all movement of matter

2.) and we are all made up of matter

3.) then our actions are dictated, meaning we don't have any "control" so to speak...

and by coerced, i mean forced, and by forced i mean if someoen pushes you, you move... you don't haev a choice in the matter and if that's what physics and the "randomness" you speak of does. it pushes all your atoms in a set pattern, plus your random subatomic stuff...

But more likely than not science is wrong, i personally doubt there is only material things, and not immaterial... and I don't beleive all our actions are dictated by those forces..

I'm just saying you can say some of your actions are dicatated by the laws of physics (which essentialyl create patterns) or randomness which is just that random actions... (or the absense of patterns in actions)

if a rock was falling and then randomly started spinning the rock doesn't have to have will though we'd probably think that, becuase most people don't percieve randomness in the world...

basically if you are a collection fo matter only and physics dictates ALL of matters actions then you can't say you ahve a choice in any of your actions.

I can't really say anything beyond that, if you wish to disagree, show me a counter example. there's really nothing more i can say.

but i will say personally i don't beleive it, and plausibly speaking, as that's all science is to begin with, is plausibiilty arguments, the actaulity of science being right about anything is pretty slim... we likely have a basic understanding... but there is no doubt all this stuff will be changed considerably in the future...