Primal

The doctrine of free will has traditionally been pointed to as opposed to determinism. The idea supposes that an agent's actions or decisions are uncaused. Uncaused for example by genes, neurons and enviroment.

Dictionary.com defines it as:

But even this is limited. The main chamions of free will, Descartes,Kant, Satre have consitently defined it as a trait that allows choices to be made unrestricted by causal factors. Causal factors would include neural activity. They in essence maintain that given the same exact conditions, an object, in this case a human being, could make two or more different choices as to produce two different outcomes. That means basically, if we knew the outcome of one set of initial conditions and played it back, that we may get a differing outcome even if all the initial conditions are exactly the same.

To deine free will then as something like a feeling or experience instead of an existential trait is somewhat disingenuine, about as disengenuine as defining the "soul" as cerebral activity in light of new evidence.

What one can say in your example if that we experience choice: cognition, not free will. Free will is not an experience but a trait.

As for the analogy you made with apples; the idea of taste has never been a philsophical issue. It has no conceptual baggage attached, taste has never been defined as anything non-causal. Free will by the vast majority has and is defined as noncausal. This makes the idea of free will superfluous and misleading in a determinstic universe in the way the word "taste" is not.

Keith Russell

Kent:

Nope. The experience of eating an apple can be shown to be caused by eating the apple. The experience of 'God', however, cannot be shown to be caused by 'God'.

I have never denied that those who claim to have experienced 'God' might actually have experienced 'something'. I just don't think they've experienced 'God'.

Yes, the experience of 'God' may be real.

But so what? That in no way proves that 'God' is real.

Keith.

Radorth

God is not only real, but Jesus is his ambassador. Why do you think AA had a 78% cure rate when the "higher power" was well known to be Jesus. Now that a Hindu rain god is called upon, it's about 6%.

So if you woke up in the middle of the night, spontaneously speaking in tongues for over an hour, and the whole room was filled with an intense, warm glow which made you feel you were ineffably precious to a holy God, you still would doubt?

Guess I'm just a fool. But at least I can say I was open minded in fact, instead of just yakking about it. The moment you limit what is possible, your mind is closed. How many people can say they honestly asked God for him to show himself in a real and powerful way, and did not just give up because he didn't do the right dance for them? (This is what Jesus meant when he said "You are like children in the market place, saying 'We played for you and you did not dance.'") The truth is not even a majority of Christians can honestly say they've done that.

But if I tell you of earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things? But to him that believes, or is even OPEN to believing "Out of his innermost being will flow rivers of living water."

It's not like you have to simply believe. You can know that you know that God is real and life has meaning.

What are you worried about? That your friends will laugh at you? That demon will take over your mind?

Radorth

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Philosoft

I've never read nor heard such things. Citations, please.

Are you familiar with lucid dreaming?

I do not suggest that you should not have an open mind ... but don't keep your mind so open that your brains fall out. -William J. Bennett

I've had many other Christians tell me God is not beholden to my requests for evidence of his existence. Which is it? Should I ask God to show himself or shouldn't I?

<strong> With the knowledge that feelings of knowing are often false, I find it unconscionable to accept the truth of a feeling that has no empirical support.

My friends are all theists of one sort or another.

<strong> Er, no. I don't like to believe things that are false, no matter how spiritually reassuring.

Radorth

See what I mean?

Radorth

Anunnaki

No. I don`t see what you mean in that post or ANY of your other posts. All I read from you is the typical utter nonsense of a dime a dozen Christian believer.

Radorth

I rest my case, as I usually can, on the assertions of skeptics themselves.

Radorth

Philosoft

Your rhetoric is truly overpowering, counselor.

Rusting Car Bumper

I think you are comitting a fallacy by shifting the meaning of the word "exist" in different parts of your statements.

With regard to your first point: Saying that one believes god exists because one has the experience of God is a reasonable argument.

However, the argument implies only that god exists as an experience in the person's head. It would require much more to claim that God created the universe, rewards and punishes in an afterlife or exists independently of one's mind.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

It would be more accurate to say that "the doctrine of free will is said my a majority of philosophers..." rather than "traditionally been."

The argument I make is not new and I didn't invent it.

Further, philosophy is not bound to discussions about how things "traditionally are" anyway.

DC