Free Will can only be a result of a Creator

[warpspeedpetey]

That sounds like a very good argument as I see it.

The atheistic-materialist universe has no place for free will since everything is determined by physical factors. The only reason we would cite free will is because we’re ignorant of the (supposed) real, physical causes of human decisions. Thus, there is no moral responsibility, no virtue, no courageous acts, no human values or accomplishments. Everything is merely the process of natural laws. Like a rock rolling down a hill. If we knew the precise weight of the rock, the slope of the hill, and the exact nature of the terrain and the strength of the force that first moved it – we would know precisely the exact path the rock would take all the way down.

yup,

even worse though is the ramifications of that world view, namely that we are only a collection of particles. making us no different than a rock, or air, or a plant and as of little value. disposable

that same philosophy indirectly led to all the major atrocities of the last century, the Jews, Gypsies, Russian peasants, Chinese peasants, etc were all devalued by either officially atheistic, or actual atheistic regimes.

on that path lies death, im always a little suprised to hear atheists proudly proclaim their disbelief as though they were unaware of the history of atheism put in practice.

 

[MegaTherion]

Thus, there is no moral responsibility, no virtue, no courageous acts, no human values or accomplishments. Everything is merely the process of natural laws.

That’s quite a strawman. The problem is that no one is claiming that. I and every other atheist I know believe strongly in responsibility for one’s actions. Whether or not free will ultimately exists does not matter in practical, day-to-day concerns in which it at least feels as if we have free will.

I’d hate to see this thread degenerate into a round of silly claims like “atheists have no morals.”

Before you guys abandon any semblance of the actual topic, I want to return to one point: when I said that perhaps matter always existed, I was given this response:

thats not a possibility for several reasons, no proof of anything physical existing pre-expansion, no time pre-expansion, etc.

There’s quite a difference between “not a possibility” and “we have no evidence for it.”

Creation of the universe by your god is a possibility (though we have no evidence for it); matter being eternal is a possibility (though we have no evidence for it).

Without evidence, we cannot hold a definite belief. We can, however, say that since we know matter exists – and that we have no evidence of anything supernatural – it’s more likely that matter always existed.

I mean…unless you have evidence that might support your claim (independently verifiable and repeatedly confirmable, please).

 

[ilovekittens]

yup,

even worse though is the ramifications of that world view, namely that we are only a collection of particles. making us no different than a rock, or air, or a plant and as of little value. disposable

that same philosophy indirectly led to all the major atrocities of the last century, the Jews, Gypsies, Russian peasants, Chinese peasants, etc were all devalued by either officially atheistic, or actual atheistic regimes.

on that path lies death, im always a little suprised to hear atheists proudly proclaim their disbelief as though they were unaware of the history of atheism put in practice.

Yes, it is so wonderful that atrocities have never been committed in the name of religion.

 

[ilovekittens]

If free will really exists, as a little magic ghost in my head, influencing my neurons to fire in ways wholly independent of their neurochemical inclinations, then, yes, free will must be a supernatural force, created by something beyond nature like God.

The problem is, there is little or nothing in modern cognitive neuroscience, psychology, or just in (my own) reflective experience that substanstiates its existence. Free will largely seems to be a relic of a time when self and body/brain were thought to be independent entities. Much of philosophy/theology is derived from that premodern notion. Contemporary neuroscience, though, has moved well beyond that idea, very explicitly demonstrating in many ways that the self and mind are the consequences of biological activity in the brain. As a specific example testing “free will,” there have been experiments using functional MRI which demonstrate activity in the supplementary motor cortex, involving planning and committing to an action such as throwing a ball, BEFORE the idea and “decision” to throw the ball enters consciousness. Thus, while it may seem like the little magic ghost freely wills the body’s arm to throw the ball, in fact the biological brain was one step ahead of that Decider. Free will is thus an illusion. Moreover, it seems very clear to me that every single action I take, word I speak, thought I think, happens for a recognizable reason based on prior experience and natural inclination; whether it is ordering a Big Mac or scratching my ear like I just did or walking an old lady across the street, I am not sure when “free will” is supposed to enter the equation and override the predispositions given to neural activity by nature and prior experience. I think free will is a very powerful illusion, generated by the fact that the brain can recognize the uncertainty of the future and imagine various possibilities.

 

[grannymh]

If free will really exists, as a little magic ghost in my head, influencing my neurons to fire in ways wholly independent of their neurochemical inclinations, then, yes, free will must be a supernatural force, created by something beyond nature like God.

The problem is, there is little or nothing in modern cognitive neuroscience, psychology, or just in (my own) reflective experience that substanstiates its existence. Free will largely seems to be a relic of a time when self and body/brain were thought to be independent entities. Much of philosophy/theology is derived from that premodern notion. Contemporary neuroscience, though, has moved well beyond that idea, very explicitly demonstrating in many ways that the self and mind are the consequences of biological activity in the brain. As a specific example testing “free will,” there have been experiments using functional MRI which demonstrate activity in the supplementary motor cortex, involving planning and committing to an action such as throwing a ball, BEFORE the idea and “decision” to throw the ball enters consciousness. Thus, while it may seem like the little magic ghost freely wills the body’s arm to throw the ball, in fact the biological brain was one step ahead of that Decider. Free will is thus an illusion. Moreover, it seems very clear to me that every single action I take, word I speak, thought I think, happens for a recognizable reason based on prior experience and natural inclination; whether it is ordering a Big Mac or scratching my ear like I just did or walking an old lady across the street, I am not sure when “free will” is supposed to enter the equation and override the predispositions given to neural activity by nature and prior experience. I think free will is a very powerful illusion, generated by the fact that the brain can recognize the uncertainty of the future and imagine various possibilities.

You have to be kidding? Or are you really serious? Sorry. That choice would belong to someone with free will. On the other hand, if you took more than a nanosecond deciding which possibility you would answer…

 

[reggieM]

Whether or not free will ultimately exists does not matter in practical, day-to-day concerns in which it at least feels as if we have free will.

This was already explained. What you “feel” is merely an illusion according to evolutionary-materialism. Your actions are the result of physical/natural laws, according to this idea. You therefore would have no responsiblity for your actions – nothing to praise or blame, no more than we praise a weed for growing through the crack in a sidewalk. Your “decisions” would simply be natural laws causing reactions. Your feelings would be irrelevant since they are also merely material/chemical processes which happen the way gravity brings a rock down a hill. You may want to cling to the illusion that you have freedom of choice, but evolutionary-materialism claims that you have no more free will than a rock does.

 

[grannymh]

This was already explained. What you “feel” is merely an illusion according to evolutionary-materialism. Your actions are the result of physical/natural laws, according to this idea. You therefore would have no responsiblity for your actions – nothing to praise or blame, no more than we praise a weed for growing through the crack in a sidewalk. Your “decisions” would simply be natural laws causing reactions. Your feelings would be irrelevant since they are also merely material/chemical processes which happen the way gravity brings a rock down a hill. You may want to cling to the illusion that you have freedom of choice, but evolutionary-materialism claims that you have no more free will than a rock does.

I hope love is not merely an illusion. Must be tired – I keep using those free will words like hope. There I go again. Can’t use a free will word like keep…

 

[reggieM]

I hope love is not merely an illusion.

For evolutionary-materialists, it is an illusion at best. It cannot have any meaning – it is merely a biological reaction. Personally, I see that as a perfect example of how evil this ideology is – dehumanizing and destroying the meaning of love (and denying the spiritual quality of love). That is the loveless world of scientism.

Love spray being developed by scientists

 

[MegaTherion]

For evolutionary-materialists, it is an illusion at best. It cannot have any meaning – it is merely a biological reaction.

Well, love is caused by chemical reactions in the brain. We can measure it.

But how does that make it any less meaningful?

ilovekittens:

The problem is, there is little or nothing in modern cognitive neuroscience, psychology, or just in (my own) reflective experience that substanstiates its existence. Free will largely seems to be a relic of a time when self and body/brain were thought to be independent entities. Much of philosophy/theology is derived from that premodern notion. Contemporary neuroscience, though, has moved well beyond that idea, very explicitly demonstrating in many ways that the self and mind are the consequences of biological activity in the brain. As a specific example testing “free will,” there have been experiments using functional MRI which demonstrate activity in the supplementary motor cortex, involving planning and committing to an action such as throwing a ball, BEFORE the idea and “decision” to throw the ball enters consciousness. Thus, while it may seem like the little magic ghost freely wills the body’s arm to throw the ball, in fact the biological brain was one step ahead of that Decider. Free will is thus an illusion. Moreover, it seems very clear to me that every single action I take, word I speak, thought I think, happens for a recognizable reason based on prior experience and natural inclination; whether it is ordering a Big Mac or scratching my ear like I just did or walking an old lady across the street, I am not sure when “free will” is supposed to enter the equation and override the predispositions given to neural activity by nature and prior experience. I think free will is a very powerful illusion, generated by the fact that the brain can recognize the uncertainty of the future and imagine various possibilities.

Bravo. Wonderful post. I recall reading about that: our conscious mind is a step behind the actual decision-making part of our brain.

Would any of the free will supporters like to explain how free will fits with that empirical data?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s quite a strawman. The problem is that no one is claiming that. I and every other atheist I know believe strongly in responsibility for one’s actions. Whether or not free will ultimately exists does not matter in practical, day-to-day concerns in which it at least feels as if we have free will.

I’d hate to see this thread degenerate into a round of silly claims like “atheists have no morals.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, it is so wonderful that atrocities have never been committed in the name of religion.

sarcasm aside, the entire inquisition took several centuries to execute less than a few thousand people.

in the last century running the nazi, soviet, chinese, vietnamese, and pol pot atrocities concurrently, they killed more than 100 million innocent people. in a roughly 30 year time span.

i figured it out awhile back and the kill ratio between the religious and atheistic regimes, has been something like 28,000 to 1.

comparing the two in terms of deaths, is ridiculously lopsided

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If free will really exists, as a little magic ghost in my head, influencing my neurons to fire in ways wholly independent of their neurochemical inclinations, then, yes, free will must be a supernatural force, created by something beyond nature like God.

your missing the point that i am trying to convey, namely that free will can not, in this deterministic universe, be a result of any physical process. excluding all physical causes we can then only include supernatural causes, you may be confusing the common usage of supernatural, like ghosts nad such, for the metaphysiocal term, which simply means ‘non physical’

The problem is, there is little or nothing in modern cognitive neuroscience, psychology, or just in (my own) reflective experience that substanstiates its existence… I think free will is a very powerful illusion, generated by the fact that the brain can recognize the uncertainty of the future and imagine various possibilities.

let me do a little cut and paste here rather than a complete restatement

'then you are asking us to believe in a universe where uncountable numbers of causes and effects happen in just such a way as to perfectly fake free will. with no mistakes ever recorded in all of human history.

though mathematically possible, in an ideal system, to show these astronomical odds we would not have enough space in all the world to print the zeros necessary to show how bad the odds are in favor of that.

while barely mathematically possible, in practice that would be an impossibility.

further, if a copy of free will were absolutely perfect, than it would be actual free will.

so, either, we actually have free will or, the universe is structured in such a way as to fool us, perfectly, over a darn near infinite number of events…

im going to go with free will being real, or such an absolutely perfect copy of free will that it is actually free will

either way if free will is real, then it is an effect that cannot be accounted for by any physical process, leaving only non-physical(supernatural) effect’

as an aside, let me point out that the numerous studies of neurobehavior are all related to minor physical phenomenon, extrapolated out as ‘free will’, id be more interested when they can show complex decision making like marriage, employment, child rearing, etc.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, love is caused by chemical reactions in the brain. We can measure it.

But how does that make it any less meaningful?

because one cant logically assign meaning to essentially random events, how can you really love someone, if you are not really involved in it? it would have no more meaning than the feeling i get from a beer, or a piece of chocolate.

Bravo. Wonderful post. I recall reading about that: our conscious mind is a step behind the actual decision-making part of our brain.

Would any of the free will supporters like to explain how free will fits with that empirical data?

sure, those tests just say that it is possible to detect chemical and electrical changes initiated by the subconcious in the brain, prior to the concious realization of those choices. big deal.

i could just as easily tap the line between my computer and my screen. i could then see the information pass from the computer, before it could register on the screen.

 

[grannymh]

This was already explained. What you “feel” is merely an illusion according to evolutionary-materialism. Your actions are the result of physical/natural laws, according to this idea… You may want to cling to the illusion that you have freedom of choice, but evolutionary-materialism claims that you have no more free will than a rock does.

To Whom It May Concern:

I flat out refuse to be considered in the same class as a determined rock in a deterministic universe.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To Whom It May Concern:

I flat out refuse to be considered in the same class as a determined rock in a deterministic universe.

Blessings,
grannymh

well, in a universe full of rocks, you would be a pretty, pretty flower

 

[MegaTherion]

because one cant logically assign meaning to essentially random events, how can you really love someone, if you are not really involved in it?

But you are involved in it – you assign things meaning from your particular perspective.

The love I have for others exists, and I feel it as meaningful. Whether it’s “determined” or “freely chosen” wouldn’t change how it feels or how meaningful it is to me.

Why would it?

it would have no more meaning than the feeling i get from a beer, or a piece of chocolate.

I don’t value beer over people. Now there probably are people who do value beer over people – but I wouldn’t associate with them (and whether I “choose” not to associate with them or whether that choice is determined, the result is the same, and equally important to me).

sure, those tests just say that it is possible to detect chemical and electrical changes initiated by the subconcious in the brain, prior to the concious realization of those choices. big deal.

So you acknowledge that decisions are made by a part of the brain of which you are not conscious. Where does the 'free will" part come in? I thought the free will referred to the conscious self choosing one path over another.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But you are involved in it – you assign things meaning from your particular perspective.

The love I have for others exists, and I feel it as meaningful. Whether it’s “determined” or “freely chosen” wouldn’t change how it feels or how meaningful it is to me.

Why would it?

because in a sheerly deterministic universe, its not real, sincere love. that would matter to me. why should i perform any altruistic act for that love if its fake?

So you acknowledge that decisions are made by a part of the brain of which you are not conscious.

not by part of the brain, neuroanatomy texts will show that they have nothing more than rough guestimates as to the process of decision initiation.

Where does the 'free will" part come in?

at this point i am coming to the conclusion of a superimposition of non-physical factors. precisely because no physical factors can account for a break in the causal chains.

I thought the free will referred to the conscious self choosing one path over another.

from the data it would seem that your concious mind is the last to know. it seems that the initiator would be what psychologists call the subconcious. that, taken with determinism, would seem to provide the perfect forum for the superimposition of non-physical factors in the exercise of free will.

 

[ready]

Warpspeedy, I like your thinking!

 

[Dameedna]

because in a sheerly deterministic universe, its not real, sincere love. that would matter to me. why should i perform any altruistic act for that love if its fake?

What is real and sincere love? Why do you think love based on biology fake?

It sounds like, you wouldn’t love anyone unless you thought there was a God.

from the data it would seem that your concious mind is the last to know. it seems that the initiator would be what psychologists call the subconcious. that, taken with determinism, would seem to provide the perfect forum for the superimposition of non-physical factors in the exercise of free will.

They have come along way since freud in understanding the human brain.

You seem to have a lot of doubts about your beliefs speedy. I’ve never seen anyone make so much effort, thread after thread after thread, simply trying to “prove” they are correct.

Is your faith new to you?

 

[Dameedna]

That sounds like a very good argument as I see it.

The atheistic-materialist universe has no place for free will since everything is determined by physical factors. The only reason we would cite free will is because we’re ignorant of the (supposed) real, physical causes of human decisions. Thus, there is no moral responsibility, no virtue, no courageous acts, no human values or accomplishments. Everything is merely the process of natural laws. Like a rock rolling down a hill. If we knew the precise weight of the rock, the slope of the hill, and the exact nature of the terrain and the strength of the force that first moved it – we would know precisely the exact path the rock would take all the way down.

The universe and current understanding of Physics, tend to negate determinism. Matter can appear randomly, and behaviour of certain particles cannot be predicted(quantum mechanics).

But regardless of wether or not the universe is determined and wether or not we have free will, we think we do, and hence we still make people responsible for their actions.

This entire argument is simply another God of the Gaps. There is much we don’t know, therefore, it must be a God.

How about we say, we don’t know?