Free-Will Is Logical Proof Of Transcendence

[MindOverMatter]

If there is nothing but physics, and if nothing occurs or changes with-out a preceding cause or reason, then everything that our bodies do can be nothing more then the blind-inert consequence of causes and effects. There is no purpose or intention behind it. On a strict naturalist point of view there is no good or logical reason to believe otherwise. But if that is true, then nothing we say or do can be free, since everything including the observer can only be the result of a continuous chain of blind causes and effects. There is no reason to think that there is any intellectual purpose behind any cause, since there are only natural events occurring regardless of any observor. If the observor is a part of physical reality, then the observor is trapped in everyday shape and form by preceding causes. In this case, there is no fundamental reason to think that a person is any different in quality or power then the atoms that the so called person is made of.

Therefore I am defending 3 major contentions.

1. We all experience free will, and thus there is good reason to think that the mind, although it is intimately related to the body, transcends the body.
2. If there is only physics, then that would mean that every meaningful conversation, poem, book, song, idea, scientific discovery and artistic achievement, is not only the result of blind inert causes, but it would also mean that cause and effect has blindly arranged everything in such a logical and meaningful manner as to make us think that we are truly making free choices and freely thinking out those choices. But such an idea is so vastly improbable as to be ridiculous. Therefore the most reasonable account of those events is that there is more to reality then physics. In other words there is a spiritual dimension to reality. Which means, for the purposes of this thread, nothing more then “immaterial” or “Non-physical”. God and the soul has always been understood as “immaterial”; not just “invisible”.
3. When I think of an orange, I do not have a real orange in my head, but i do have an real immaterial idea of an orange in my head. It is not physically real, but it is spiritually real. But if there is only a physical reality, then it doesn’t seem reasonable that I have an immaterial idea of an orange in my head. Ideas of physical things fits more reasonably with the Theistic view of mind and body.

With these 3 arguments, I propose that the existence of a “soul” is more logically probable then not.

If you cannot show why it is more reasonable to be a naturalist, then you must admit, for the sake of your intellectual integrity, that there are in fact transcendent realities in existence.
Enjoy.

 

[MegaTherion]

We all experience free will, and thus there is good reason to think that the mind, although it is intimately related to the body, transcends the body.

The problem here is that I very often experience unfree will. I very frequently do not know why I do certain things, only to reason out later that I was responding unconsciously to some other event.

To take a very trivial (and ironic) example, I found myself humming a Christmas song the other day. I caught myself doing it and said, “Why am I humming that song?” After a few seconds of recollection, I realized that I had earlier been watching a discussion about Christmas.

I in no way, shape, or form “chose” to start humming that song. I caught myself doing it and was puzzled as to why I was doing it.

That is a very small example of a much larger phenomenon. I frequently don’t understand the motivations behind my actions until I give some thought to the circumstances that led me to it.

I find myself very much tied to the world around me causally.

If there is only physics, then that would mean that every meaningful conversation, poem, book, song, idea, scientific discovery and artistic achievement, is not only the result of blind inert causes, but it would also mean that cause and effect has blindly arranged everything in such a logical and meaningful manner as to make us think that we are truly making free choices and freely thinking out those choices.

You are ignoring the fact that those works have been produced by beings who have evolved with advanced brain functions.

The sensation of “free will” appears to be a side-effect of our neurological development.

The thing that causes me to feel as if I have free will is my brain. The brain is a product of a very slow evolutionary process that, while blind, was not random (it was guided by natural selection of traits). Now that the brain is developed, it consistently produces consciousness that has apparent free will.

No one is claiming that a bunch of chemicals came together and spontaneously produced Shakespeare’s plays. Over a very long period of time, creatures developed on this planet who had large brains and advanced brain functions. Those brains, now that they are developed, consistently produce consciousness that has the sense of free will. One of those brains oversaw the process by which some of the greatest plays ever were written while the playwright felt he had freely chosen to do so. (Actually, many artists report a curious sense of unfree will)

When I think of an orange, I do not have a real orange in my head, but i do have an real immaterial idea of an orange in my head. It is not physically real, but it is spiritually real. But if there is only a physical reality, then it doesn’t seem reasonable that I have an immaterial idea of an orange in my head. Ideas of physical things fits more reasonably with the Theistic view of mind and body.

What? Our brains generate minds capable of abstracting sensory data. Hence we can form images of physical things.

The fact that you have an imagination doesn’t demonstrate anything.

 

[Quack]

MegaTherion, what you have stumbled upon, in your comment about the orange, is the problem of universals.

Start with this: MindOverMatter was not referring to the image (imagining) of a particular, but the concept of a universal.

Your “unfree will” is a poor habit that you have formed through repeated acts of the will. With motivation, you can cease singing Christmas songs at the wrong time. You would not have done this during a moment of silence or an important business meeting.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The problem here is that I very often experience unfree will.

If you was an intellectually honest person you would admit that you also experience “freewill”. Nobody is saying that we do not have a physical nature. We are saying that we also have a transcendent nature. The nature of self.

You are ignoring the fact that those works have been produced by beings who have evolved with advanced brain functions.

It is irrelevant. Using words such as “advanced” doesn’t make it any more reasonable to believe that every conversation and artistic creation that we have ever expressed has been blindly arranged by nature in such a meaningfull and consistent linear manner as to make us think that we are freely doing things and thinking things of own will. The odds are simply 0 as far as I’m concerned. So yes; i think i can reasonable ignore the fact that we have an advanced brain.

The sensation of “free will” appears to be a side-effect of our neurological development.

And i suppose that nothing your doing or saying now is the result of your own freewill?
Then i suppose its not really relevant what you say, since it is not the result of a person freely engaging in logical analysis; but instead its because of blind chemical reactions in the brain.

Nobody that has experiences, and thinks logically, is going to agree with you.

No one is claiming that a bunch of chemicals came together and spontaneously produced Shakespeare’s plays.

That is precisely what you are saying, whether or not you want to do it over vast periods of time or in a single moment.

What? Our brains generate minds capable of abstracting sensory data. Hence we can form images of physical things.

For those christians who feel a little swayed by MegaTherion’s so called arguments and assertions. There is a great little book by a guy called “Robert A Morey”, called, “The New Atheism–And The Erosion Of Freedom”. There is a wealth of information in that book which will show you how to spot “Circler Arguments” and “fallacy’s”.

The fact that you have an imagination doesn’t demonstrate anything.

You haven’t demonstrated that it doesn’t. It is evident to my experience, and everybody with a brain, that we have immaterial thoughts that we freely choose to create. And unless you are just a drone of nature mindlessly spewing out data, then it should be evident to you to.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

free will is a proof of G-d.

in a deterministic universe, non-physical causes are the only possible way in which we may exercise free will.

that said the common attempt at a refutation involves the idea that free will is just an illusion.

i find it hard to believe that.

free will as an illusion is such a perfect copy of free will as an actuality that it is an actuality.

after all, there is never a time in which one cannot exercise free will, under any circumstances.

one may blame their actions on something else, yet ultimatley if it involves a decision of any kind, that is the exercise of free will.

if you cant tell the difference between the real and the fake, then for all intents and purposes it is real, it behaves as real free will, its outcomes mirror actual free will and we all see it as free will.

ive treated this subject a couple times here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=287048
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=295091

 

[wasmit]

If there is nothing but physics, and if nothing occurs or changes with-out a preceding cause or reason, then everything that our bodies do can be nothing more then the blind-inert consequence of causes and effects.

I can think of at least two uncaused events.
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated inside a vacuum annd radioactive decay.

 

[wasmit]

free will is inconsistent with an omnipotent omniscient god that created all humans.

1. Assume an omnipotent omniscient god that created all humans.
2. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)
3. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event. (omnipotence)
4. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)
5. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)
6. Further, he must have consciously chosen each decision, as even if god created all humans and then did nothing further, he was tacitly agreeing to all future decisions, as he knew about them. (5, omniscience)
7. each decision that is ever made by humans was therefore made by god in the act of creation, as he had the power to change any decision, therefore he chose the outcome of every decision.(5 and 6)
8. every decision that is ever made by humans was actually made by god (7)
9. there is no free will.

 

[wasmit]

Selective quoting is sometimes funny.

So yes; i think i can reasonable ignore the fact that we have an advanced brain.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I can think of at least two uncaused events.
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated inside a vacuum annd radioactive decay.

This is a flawed interpretation of the evidence. It is not a scientific fact, but rather this is a philosophical belief based on the observed evidence.

First of all; nothing is not something from which a thing can arrive out of, or have the potentiality to exist from. Even if it were true, it would not be rational to believe it. Secondly; the particles do have a preceding cause; which is the sea of fluctuating energy from whence it came. With out that, there would be no particles.

Merely being unable to observe the cause of something, or the mechanism involved, is not logical justification alone to assert that one is observing something that has no cause. The only thing that can have no cause is something that is timeless; something which is not itself an effect in the chain of causality and time. A particle might have no “physical” cause; but the idea that it has no cause at all does not even merit a response. The only reason people take it seriously is because they think that it provides a basis for undermining causality. Which would in turn effect the proofs for Gods existence. Otherwise; nobody who enjoys thinking would wave a stick at it.

To sum up quickly; your statement is meaningless and impossible.

Particles do not come out of nothing.

 

[wasmit]

First of all, quantum vacuum fluctuations do not come from nothing - they come from energy in the vacuum. One can look at this using the picture of the Dirac sea, which fills all the negative energy states, for the vacuum. By adding a certain amount of energy a particle from this sea can be excited to positive energy – this gives, for example, an electron while the negative-energy hole that is left is called a positron. Eventually the particle will fall back to its original state, annihilating the electron/positron pair. In principle, this violates energy conservation, though it is actually allowed for short enough times by the uncertainty principle. So, while there is a slight thermodynamic violation, and while it is uncaused (that is, there is no causation), it most certainly does not from “nothing.” In fact, energy is the same before and after the fluctuation.

 

[MindOverMatter]

First of all, quantum vacuum fluctuations do not come from nothing - they come from energy in the vacuum. One can look at this using the picture of the Dirac sea, which fills all the negative energy states, for the vacuum. By adding a certain amount of energy a particle from this sea can be excited to positive energy – this gives, for example, an electron while the negative-energy hole that is left is called a positron. Eventually the particle will fall back to its original state, **annihilating the electron/positron **pair. In principle, this violates energy conservation, though it is actually allowed for short enough times by the uncertainty principle. So, while there is a
slight thermodynamic violation, and while it is uncaused (that is, there is no causation), it most certainly does not from “nothing.” In fact, energy is the same before and after the fluctuation.

Through out this post you have given me list of causes occurring in time.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Please read this whole post before you reply.

1. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future.

If God is Existence, and if Existence transcends and permeates all time, then it is impossible that God doesn’t know all events.

He can change anything at any time.

No. Thats logically impossible if God is all knowing and timeless. If God knows all true events and propositions, then how can he change them? You can’t change an eternal truth. God can only be the root of it, and perhaps participate in it.
God knows all things by necessity of his nature; because God is existence and is the simultaneous uncaused eternal-cause of the Universe. The Universe participates in existence by virtue and necessity of Gods eternal attributes. We have free-will by necessity of Gods love. And since God is Love; human nature has to be free.
How is it possible? I don’t really know. I have an idea of how it works. Other then that, its a true mystery. But what i do believe, is that from a Gods-eye-view of reality, the Universe, in its completion, has always existed as an expression of Gods eternal nature; although from our point of view there is a flow of time and a beginning. And so far as Gods knowledge is concerned; Gods knowledge of events is caused by Gods perfect knowledge of himself.

It is difficult to understand; but Gods knowing all events, in no way undermines our freewill. For instance; it is logically possible for both “destiny” and “freewill” to co-exist. There are certain things that you are going to do and say in the future that you cannot change. You are going to do them, but not because you are forced to do them, but because it was always true that you was going to do them. They are going to occur, and you are going to freely choose them. Everything you did in the past happened; and it is a transcendent Eternal Truth that it was always going to happen from the beginning of time; and yet you freely choose them. Therefore it is **true **that you have an unchangeable destiny and freewill. So Gods knowing all things by necessity of his nature is far from undermining freewill. Since God is the root of all eternal truth. That being the case, it is possible for God to eternally will you into existence as a creature with the capacity of freewill, and at the same time, by virtue of his eternal nature, know everything that you will do.

This is a far cry, from “naturalistic-determinism”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I can think of at least two uncaused events.
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated inside a vacuum annd radioactive decay.

what makes you think that virtual particles and radiactive decay are uncaused?

you may be confusing the idea of ‘uncaused’ with ‘not knowing’ the cause.

why should the event of decay and the almost event of virtual particles be precluded from causation?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

free will is inconsistent with an omnipotent omniscient god that created all humans.

1. Assume an omnipotent omniscient god that created all humans.

ok

1. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future.

ok

He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)

‘can’ and ‘will’ are two very different things

1. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event. (omnipotence)

ok

1. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)

ok, though assuming G-d is subject to time is wrong.

1. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)

ok, with the same caveat as above

1. Further, he must have consciously chosen each decision, as even if god created all humans and then did nothing further, he was tacitly agreeing to all future decisions, as he knew about them. (5, omniscience)

wrong

what mechanism requires that G-d chose each decision?

G-d tacitly agreed that all our decisions were our decisions, what makes Him responsible for them?

1. each decision that is ever made by humans was therefore made by god in the act of creation, as he had the power to change any decision, therefore he chose the outcome of every decision.(5 and 6)

wrong

how does knowledge of those decisions make Him the author?

1. every decision that is ever made by humans was actually made by god (7)

still no reason He is responsible for the decisions of other sentient beings or to assume that by allowing free will he is actually deny ing it

1. there is no free will.

you seem to be equating knowledge of an event performed by an independent actor, with the responsibility for that event assigned to another independent actor.

allowing someone to make their own decisions doesnt seem to be anything but free will, interfering in that would be against free will.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

First of all, quantum vacuum fluctuations do not come from nothing - they come from energy in the vacuum.

thats what MindoverMatter said, they dont come from nothing, the implication being that the vacuum also requires a cause, because it is something, a dimensionally definable area of space lacking physical bodies.

it to requires a cause.

One can look at this using the picture of the Dirac sea, which fills all the negative energy states, for the vacuum. By adding a certain amount of energy a particle from this sea can be excited to positive energy – this gives, for example, an electron while the negative-energy hole that is left is called a positron. Eventually the particle will fall back to its original state, annihilating the electron/positron pair. In principle, this violates energy conservation, though it is actually allowed for short enough times by the uncertainty principle. So, while there is a slight thermodynamic violation,

ive always loved this part of VP, ‘we can violate the laws of nature, as long as nobody catches us’

a VP lasts for less than a planck time, and if observed, couldn’t exist. hence the term virtual

it makes a nice explanation for certain effects, but VP never actually exist as particles, they are only represented as forces.

and while it is uncaused (that is, there is no causation), it most certainly does not from “nothing.” In fact, energy is the same before and after the fluctuation.

how can you say it is uncaused, you just said it is caused by the addition of energy that excites a ceratin particel, that sounds an awful lot like a cause to me.

but VP aside, the vacuum itself needs a cause, before we get any where near, VP.

 

[wasmit]

He can change anything at any time.

Then he is not omnipotent.

He can change anything at any time.

Thats logically impossible if God is all knowing and timeless. If God knows all true events and propositions, then how can he change them? You can’t change an eternal truth.

That is the problem with a being both omnipotent and omniscient. It is logically impossible to be both.

Everything you did in the past happened; and it is a transcendent Eternal Truth that it was always going to happen from the beginning of time; and yet you freely choose them.

These two points are inconsistent - If some past event was always going to happen, then it was impossible for me to choose a different course. therefore free will does not exist.

 

[wasmit]

1. Further, he must have consciously chosen each decision, as even if god created all humans and then did nothing further, he was tacitly agreeing to all future decisions, as he knew about them. (5, omniscience)

It follows logically from (5) and (1), which you have agreed to.

He is responsible because he created all humans (1), and knew every decision that the humans would make (5), and could have changed any decision (5). He therefore agreed to every decision.

As an analogy, if a worker said to his boss “I am going home now, unless you say otherwise.” The boss says “That’s fine.”. The boss is responsible for that decision.

Maybe god did change some future human decisions during creation; if so, we would be none the wiser.

The rest of your objections are cleared up by this explaination, as they all followed from the same misunderstanding.

 

[steve_b]

He is responsible because he created all humans (1), and knew every decision that the humans would make (5), and could have changed any decision (5). He therefore agreed to every decision.

The oldest example we have of God refuting this mischaracterization you pose, is in

Genesis 2:15.

15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

God didn’t make Adam’s decisions for him.

• Or God wouldn’t have given Adam any choices, nor would there be any necessity to put consequences to actions.
• This dialogue jfrom Genesis would be meaningless and never would have happened if God made all of Adam’s choices.
• Otherwise, who is God testing here?..Himself ?
• Bottomline, If Adam couldn’t make any free decisions, And God makes all the decisions for Adam, Adam would have no choice in any matter and he never would have died as a consequence of anything he did.
  your misunderstanding of God and blaming God without taking responsibility for your own bad behavior, was already exercised by Adam 1st and I might add refuted.

Genesis 3:

**11 Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" **

12The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." 13Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Notice, the immediate blame game? WHY? Why assign blame? If God is responsible for Adam’s every action, then man has no culpability for ANYTHING anyway, and God would’t be asking these questions of Adam and Adam wouldn’t feel guilty for anything nor feel the need to blame anyone.

this dialogue is taking place with God and the first humans to show the exact opposite of what you pose.

To answer your final point
If God agreed to every decision Adam made, then again, there would be no consequence to any decision Adam made. Nothing would be deemed good or bad right or wrong.

For sure the following wouldn’t have happened as a result of what they did

Gen 3:

16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

 

[MindOverMatter]

It follows logically from (5) and (1), which you have agreed to.

He is responsible because he created all humans (1), and knew every decision that the humans would make (5), and could have changed any decision (5). He therefore agreed to every decision.

It really depends on the context in which God permits any act. And to know this one must first understand mans proper relationship to God, at least in so far as their two natures are concerned.

In any case this is an offspring from the problem of evil. Please open a new thread, because this debate is derailing the thread. The arguments that you are making has very little to do with the original post. Please don’t answer this post until you open a new thread

 

[MindOverMatter]

If you wish to challenge anything i say in this post, then please respond to this message in a new thread. This is not the correct thread for this topic. It will only confuse people if we continue on this thread.

Then he is not omnipotent.

That depends on what you interpret omnipotent to be. The context in which Catholics use the term, does not include the logically impossible; since the logically impossible does not logically exist. Therefore there is no real limitation or contradiction.

That is the problem with a being both omnipotent and omniscient. It is logically impossible to be both.

I’m not sure what has lead you to think this. Please identify your reasons for asserting that there is a contradiction.

These two points are inconsistent - If some past event was always going to happen, then it was impossible for me to choose a different course.

therefore free will does not exist.

Thats only true if it was not you who chose it.

To say that the future is written, does not necessarily mean that you did not freely write it. For instance; it is true that i wrote this post. It is also true that i freely chose to write it. Therefore it is a universal and eternal truth that i was always going to freely write this message, irrespective of who-ever eternally knows that truth; since the ultimate truth of any future deed, is only unknown to those who exist in time. It was always true, since the beginning of time, that i was going to freely login to this site, just like it was always true that i was going to be born; and so far as the truth is concerned, i am also “destined” to do particular things in the future that are true of my very being and freedom. For instance, it is true that i am going to exist tomorrow, and perhaps it is true that i am going to freely visit my mother; and nothing is going to change that truth, simply because, outside of the confines of time, the truth is eternal, and all free choices and true events, future past and present, are timelessly evident. The ultimate truth of everything is necessarily a timeless truth. However that does not effect the choices we make in time, since it is still true that “you” made those choices. There is no contradiction between the two. Any being existing out side of time and is the cause of time itself, would know all truth regardless of my freely choosing anything. Since God is the first cause, God is therefore the root cause, knower and giver of all truth.

Once you understand what destiny means in the Catholic sense, rather then in the sense that you are applying the term, you will see that it was always true that i was going to exist and do the things that i have done, and yet freely choose to do them. There is no contradiction between the ultimate truth of reality and the freedom of my will as a casual aspect of that reality.

You have simply failed to understand; perhaps because you want to understand it in the way that suits you. This is a dangerous method at approaching truth. If you going to challenge Christianity you must challenge it according to how Christians understand it; and then you will understand that you are wrong.