luvluv

Syphor, what I am trying to tell you is that the definition of free will you are disproving is not the Christian defintion. You are attempting to disprove a Christian theory that no Christian holds.

You are heavily, heavily confusing the terms "cause" and "influence". Yes our environment and our genetics do heavily influence our decisions, but there is a big difference between influencing a decision and causing it.

I think, first of all, it is incumbent upon you to PROVE that environment and genetics CAUSE behaviour, and that environmental and genetic dictates are unchallengable by will. In short, I challenge you to disprove the human phenomenon of choice. You can't make any of your assertions stick until you do. Is anything at play with human choices other than genetics and environment? Does intelligence and the ability to perceive the relative consequences of different choices play no role in decision-making?

Yet again: free will does not mean that human beings are not influenced by the actions of other human beings. It simply means that 1) this influence upon your choices is not total and 2) God Himself will not dictate your choices.

If humans have no free will, why construct an argument against it? Obviously, they will believe what their environment and genetics have caused them to believe. Argument then is pointless. The fact that they believe in free-will is determined from the outset and the individual has no chance to change his mind, because, by your definition, the individual has no role in the choices he makes. So, it is apparent that there is even that form of free-will you describe even in that you made the attempt to convince people to make other choices through an appeal to their reason and will. You assumed therefore, that they could comprehend your meaning and make a choice to apply it's consequences to their lives. But if these people had no choice as to whether or not they believed in free-will, then obvioulsy you cannot alter their opinion.

Finally, let me ask you a hypothetical. Suppose you had a time machine and had the ability to go to all times and yet not age yourself. Suposse that after you had had this time machine for a certain amount of time that you had seen everything that was going to happen in an individual's life because you saw it happen. Would that individuals choices be CAUSED by you, who saw them or knew they were going to happen?

I am just describing to you that God's omniscience may owe much to his temporal omnipresence. A person may have the ability to make any choice in the world but the fact that God can already see what choice he is going to make does not in any way, shape, or form interfere with the individuals freedom to make the choice.

DRFseven

No matter what the Christian definition of free will is, we still don't have it in the sense that Christians mean. Sure, we have the ability to make choices, but that ability is tied to experience. Each of our millions of experiences are one particular influence, but all our influences together equal the only data we have to think thoughts out of.

What do you think a thought comes from? We know from fMRIs that no thoughts occur without memory activation, which we already knew anyway because we can't think anything without employing what we already know. To even articulate a thought, we need to remember symantical symbols and they must relate to each other in significant ways through learned association that occurs automatically through memory coding. Now we can actually watch that happening graphically.

The will is a conglomeration of biological and learned preferences (genes and experience-driven motivation). We can't want what we don't want and we can't believe what we don't believe; we must rely for our desires and beliefs on the mechanism of thought processing and however that ends up is how it ends up. We remember the accessible facts of our perception and "find out" what the conclusion is; we don't control it.

Syphor

The problem is you're splitting hairs over two definitions that are practically the same. Explain how my definition of freewill (freedom-of-choice) differs from your definition (freedom from influence by god)? Even with your definition, due to god’s omniscience, we lack freewill regardless.

Claiming that any influence doesn't equal freewill is not my argument; my argument is that because there is 100% influence over our decisions, we do not have true choice or freewill. Another way to say this is 100% influence causes our decisions. I'll happy accept that freewill can exist with anything less than total influence. Also, by influence I mean both genetic and environmental factors. I am not using the word 'influence' in the strictest sense.

You’re asking me to disprove choice? I’ve never said we lack the ability to choose between two or more different options. Rather, I have claimed several times that true choice; choice free of total influence does not exist. DRFSeven has posted twice about human behaviour which is influenced based on a individuals genome and their environment, and has done a better job than I could. The burden of proof in this instance rests squarely on your shoulders, since it is your implication that besides genetic composition and environmental influences, there is some mystical phenomenon that no psychologist or behavioural scientist has any knowledge of, and that it contributes towards human behaviour.

This is a misunderstanding of my argument. I claim simply this, because influence is total, freewill cannot exist. Freewill would exist however, if influence was only partial. Now that’s it, and I cannot understand why there is so much contention over this? The argument should be whether influence is total or not, and not whether freewill can exist with total influence, because common sense dictates that it cannot. Now, by this influence I do not mean just human influence. Rather, it is the interaction of an individual’s genetic composition and their environment. This environment is everything outside yourself, such as social, economic, climate etc. It is how an individual reacts to their environment based on their genome, which determines the decisions they make in their life.

Incorrect, I can alter an individual’s opinion because I act as an environmental influence. Obviously some can have their opinions altered more readily than others, and this is due to genetics.

This is textbook Christian defence.

Ok, say I’m God. I’m omniscient and therefore know that I will create the Universe. After I create the Universe, I’ll let events play out by themselves. Now I know the Universe’s creation will lead to the birth of Bob and Mary, whom I’ll let live without my influence. I also know Bob will eventually kill Mary. When Bob dies I know I’ll punish him for killing Mary.

A = I created the universe
B = The universe led to the creation of Bob and Mary
If A and B are true, then C
C = I am responsible for Bob and Mary’s actions.

It is irrelevant whether god interferes or not, he doesn’t have to interfere to be responsible. God’s responsibility is due to him creating the universe and doing this with the knowledge that it will someday lead to the birth of a person who will make choices and decisions. Since god knows exactly the choices this person will make, he cannot possibly make any choice that god is not anticipating. So while this person may think he is choosing his fate (or has freewill), god is already aware of the choices he will make, long before he makes them.

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: Syphor ]</p>

luvluv

The force other than genetics and environment is choice. You are claiming that if you knew everything about my environment and my genes that you would be able to predict with 100% accuracy everything I would do? Whether I would turn left or right at a corner I had never been to before? You're saying you would know something about that?

I'm sorry, but you are premising your argument on the basis of total influence, and you are going to have to prove that this is the case. Otherwise, this thread is a non-starter. If we have choice, we have the Christian definition of free-will. Therefore, I ask you to prove that I do not have choices, or that my choices are positively determined. I just ask you to refer me to one psychological study which proves this to be the case (i.e. that all human behavior is a foregone conclusion determined by environment and genetics).

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Syphor

So where is this 'choice' derived from? Are you claiming it to be some mystical, supernatural property? Are you saying that 'choice' is an event without cause, and that our minds are somewhat exempt from modern physics and chemistry?

Choice is simply result of the interaction of human physiology and environmental influence. That's all, nothing mystical about it. An individuals physiology is of course, derived from genetics; which includes not only physical attributes but also potential behavioural attributes. The way these behavioural attributes are expressed, depends on the type of environmental influence acting on the individual.

Lets say two people have identical genetic compositions (about a 1 in 300 Billion chance), meaning these two people are physically, exactly the same in every way. Lets say these two people lived in separate, but identical environments, with exactly the same environmental influences. Are you therefore saying that, on the basis of this 'choice' property, their decisions in life would be completely different? And if so, how?

Yes, providing I am not contributing to this system. If I am observing your actions but not taking part (by 'taking part' I basically mean existing in the same universe) then yes, I can predict your actions.

As above.

Well this thread begun with two arguments on my part.

1. Freewill and omniscience cannot co-exist.

2. Freewill cannot exist with total influence.

The first one is obvious IMO, unless you want to argue god didn't create the universe; which is against Christian theology. You also seem to have given up supporting the alternative position.

The second is also correct if true. However, the contention is whether there is total influence or not. Now, I will not skip about the issue; I cannot offer you a complete proof that our universe is totally deterministic, and it is that simple. I am basing my position on observational evidence and the reality of cause-and-effect, which is well known and proven. Your position hinges on some unprovable phenomenon (like god), and is therefore a far more indefensible position than mine.

What I can do that you cannot, is support my position with observational evidence (cause-and-effect) and logic (it is obvious that every action leads to a reaction, and effects do not happen without causes). With this in hand, I can make my position seem like a more logical choice than your one.

You can call this thread a non-starter if you wish, that is your prerogative. But using your logic, that makes all theist vs. non-theist debates non-starters. Non-theists cannot prove theist beliefs false, and therefore I cannot disprove this 'choice', 'soul' or whatever. What non-theists can do is demonstrate theist beliefs to be illogical and flawed through evidence (in this case observational) and logic.

Here is a few that better explain my position -

<a href="http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/determinismpaper.html" target="_blank">The Determinism Paper</a>

<a href="http://www.determinism.com/index.shtml" target="_blank">Determinism</a> - Note: Check the 'Articles on Determinism' and 'Where's the Free Will' sections.

<a href="http://www.behavior.org/behavior/what_is_beh_an.cfm" target="_blank">What is Behavioural Analysis?</a>

Answerer

Not matter what kind of argument we(atheists) start, in the end, Christians will tend to contradict themselves.


<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

luvluv

I'll read your links, but here is what I am hearing you say:

Say I come to a fork in a road in unfamiliar territory, with both forks looking basically identical to me, and with me having no information about which fork to take. You are saying that if I choose to go left, then there was never any possibility of me choosing to go right?

Almost all of the basic assumptions by which we live our lives, the way we treat our friends, the way we organize our government, the way we punish criminals, the way we prosecute wars, is predicated on the belief that we can choose our behavior. I doubt that if someone rapes your wife or daughter, you will be content to say that they could not have done anything else given their genetics and environment.

I am not reffering at all to Christianity or any religious argument in my refusal of this. I am sure there are secular people who study behavior who do not agree with determinism, are there not? If that is the case, then please don't try to deal with me as if I had to appeal to mysticism to argue with determinism.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

luvluv

And I am sorry, but I still don't get your objection on the grounds of omniscience. If I can see you making your choices, past, present, and future, how does the fact that I see and know what you are doing (the phrase "will do" doesn't apply to God, who lives in all times) how does that take away your ability to choose?

To know someone is going to do something is not the same as causing them to do it.

You might ask why God created us if He already knew what we were going to do, but that is a different question than whether or not his knowledge of your actions PRODUCED your actions.

ax

God set the factors that would start a chain of events. right? Those chain of events would influence my decision making therebye causing me to act the way I did.If God set up the factors etc is it not him who is deciding for me? Think about it. Just because someone knows what I will do doesn't effect MY freewill.When I am punished for making that choice it is UNFAIR, because He put the factors in place that contribute to my decision.So my own freewill is not hindered- but when I am punished for it it is unfair.

luvluv

Syphor with all due respect none of these articles are at all scientific in nature. It seems more political (in calling for the abolition of jails and such) or propagandist (in saying that free will is a means for control).

It also seems that the whole philosophy itself is necessarily unscientific, since it can never be proven.

True, there are inluences on behavior, both genetic and environmental. But that does not mean that human beings do not have choices. Our choices are often limited by our environment, but there are still right and wrong choices in every situation and all of us are capable of making such decisions when they arise.

"Lets say two people have identical genetic compositions (about a 1 in 300 Billion chance), meaning these two people are physically, exactly the same in every way. Lets say these two people lived in separate, but identical environments, with exactly the same environmental influences. Are you therefore saying that, on the basis of this 'choice' property, their decisions in life would be completely different?"

Okay, so you are saying if we were able to create two such people, lets just say genetic twins, and put them in identical rooms and set up cameras in them, that they would both sit up, roll around in bed, stare up at the sky, play with their toes, all at the same time? That just seems ridiculous to me.

I've known twins in my day (my cousin is married to one) who were VERY different even though they are genetically identical and grew up in the same home. They are much more different from each other than I am from my siblings. If genes, for one, are so overpowering, how can this be the case?

This argument is a non-starter, because neither free will nor 100% determinism can be proven.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>