Why you don't really have free will

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,769
Non of that really matters to me. Not that anything can matter, because that would require free will.

I'm just here shîtposting, I can't help it.
You didn't freely choose what matters to you :p
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
23,055
I don't believe I said that. Maybe my memory is fading :/
You said it isn't stupid.

Causality appears to be true, yes. It's seemingly all around us.
Indeterminism seems to be a more vague and uncertain, AFAIK only demonstrated "possibly" in Quantum Physics and theory.

Logically they seem incompatible for sure (indeterminism itself is illogical in function), but for indeterminism to exist I suppose anything is possible... including miracles. So in that sense perhaps incompatibility isn't an argument for truth. Indeterminism is a miracle, if true.

So not only have I provided logical reasoning behind entertaining hard determinism, I've also shown it to be pragmatic. And still you guys call it stupid :( tough crowd man.
Sure nobody said it isn't. But so is indeterminism, not just possibly demonstrated. It's just that we didn't see it before we could see quantum states.

Firstly, how do you know this? Secondly, what you're saying is, god allows for stupid, silly, bad and evil stuff to happen? If you know how he exists outside of time, perhaps you also know why he would give little children cancer?

Another question I have is, why would god remove the free will from somebody who is being attacked by a rapist and put the free will in the hands of the rapist instead? Why serve such a despicably f%cked up being?
Well firstly how do you know it isn't? Secondly this is a completely different argument not related to free will.

How is God removing free will from people? You seem to think that free will should trump physical limitations. It doesn't and that's never been one of the criteria.

Again, can you clarify how you know this? What information do you have access to that I and others don't that allows you to know such things?
Again how do you know the opposite?

Thats nice but wrong a theist just defines a person who believes in a God/Gods, you gave a Christian view :rolleyes:
No I gave a theistic one. God = theism. You seem to have missed that.

Ok I'll just take it as you don't understand but the stuff you were saying is literally your warped version of Christianity which is exactly the thing wrong with theists and why there are suicide bombers.
Lol, conflating things again.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,600
"Minding" is a product of free will, also can't do that.
LOL, nice try.

How is God removing free will from people? You seem to think that free will should trump physical limitations. It doesn't and that's never been one of the criteria.
You're right in that this is a slightly separate argument, though it does tie in, in certain ways. To further re-iterate, if it's true that god grants free will, then both the person being raped and the rapist has free will. Why should the person being raped lose their free will in the process of being raped, but the rapist who wants to "freely" do the raping, is allowed all of or most of the free will? Sound kind of silly to me, and that's an understatement.

There isn't anything like unfree choice. That's a contradiction.
lol, define unfree choice and while you're at it, define free choice. The only thing that's a contradiction, is you thinking that it's a contradiction.
 
Last edited:

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
16,791
LOL, nice try.


You're right in that this is a slightly separate argument, though it does tie in, in certain ways. To further re-iterate, if it's true that god grants free will, then both the person being raped and the rapist has free will. Why should the person being raped lose their free will in the process of being raped, but the rapist who wants to "freely" do the raping, is allowed all of or most of the free will? Sound kind of silly to me, and that's an understatement.


lol, define unfree choice and while you're at it, define free choice. The only thing that's a contradiction, is you thinking that it's a contradiction.
Choice: The ability to choose.

I didn't bring up unfree, free choice. Wasn't that you? Maybe you should define it.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,600
Choice: The ability to choose.

I didn't bring up unfree, free choice. Wasn't that you? Maybe you should define it.
I've never mentioned the word "unfree" but have mentioned choice vs free choice. I take it you're a compatibilist? You believe in both determinism and free will.

It’s the “free” part of the term “free will” or “free choice” that is the most problematic. It’s the “free” part that has most of the logical problems. And most importantly, it’s the understanding that we don’t have such “freedom” that is tied to a number of very important philosophical topics (and why certain “compatibilist” definitions of free will simply sidestep the issues).
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,007
LOL, nice try.


You're right in that this is a slightly separate argument, though it does tie in, in certain ways. To further re-iterate, if it's true that god grants free will, then both the person being raped and the rapist has free will. Why should the person being raped lose their free will in the process of being raped, but the rapist who wants to "freely" do the raping, is allowed all of or most of the free will? Sound kind of silly to me, and that's an understatement.


lol, define unfree choice and while you're at it, define free choice. The only thing that's a contradiction, is you thinking that it's a contradiction.
The rape victim did not lose their free will in the process of being raped.
What is it that makes you say such stupid things?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,600
The rape victim did not lose their free will in the process of being raped.
What is it that makes you say such stupid things?
You're right, they didn't lose their free will, they just lost their will completely. Why would your god allow this to happen? More power to the rapist, less power to the person being raped? As we've established now, this is an off-topic discussion from the point of this thread.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,007
You're right, they didn't lose their free will, they just lost their will completely. Why would your god allow this to happen? More power to the rapist, less power to the person being raped? As we've established now, this is an off-topic discussion from the point of this thread.
Says the one that raised the off-topic argument.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
16,791
No, check the link, he chose but the choice wasn't his. There's a distinction to be made between x and free x. Choice and free choice. The agent, like you and I, are always deciding and thinking and weighing up options, but our will to do so, isn't free.
I've never mentioned the word "unfree" but have mentioned choice vs free choice. I take it you're a compatibilist? You believe in both determinism and free will.

It’s the “free” part of the term “free will” or “free choice” that is the most problematic. It’s the “free” part that has most of the logical problems. And most importantly, it’s the understanding that we don’t have such “freedom” that is tied to a number of very important philosophical topics (and why certain “compatibilist” definitions of free will simply sidestep the issues).
No. That's not what I am. There is no determinism. Believing in determanism is a old superstitious hang on. People used to believe they are fated. Same thing.

The opposite of free is not free. You have some contradictory nonsense about choice that is not free.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,600
No. That's not what I am. There is no determinism. Believing in determanism is a old superstitious hang on. People used to believe they are fated. Same thing.

The opposite of free is not free. You have some contradictory nonsense about choice that is not free.
Nope, no contridictions here.

a old superstitious hang on
Oh you mean like theism / Christianity / Islam, etc? :)

Fatalism != determinism.

There's a lot you don't understand about the free will debate it seems, pitty, really.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
16,791
Nope, no contridictions here.


Oh you mean like theism / Christianity / Islam, etc? :)

Fatalism != determinism.

There's a lot you don't understand about the free will debate it seems, pitty, really.
Yeah. Obviously your whole argument being superstitious nonsense and logically incorrect and contradictory, is just because I don't understand it.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,769
You effectively arguing that the word "choice" should be removed from language?
I don't see the relevance of this comment :/ Who cares what words we change or use, it's meaning that counts. Words are merely there to agree on meaning, that's what language is. If things need to be redefined or elaborated on, so be it. As long as we're on the same page.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,600

scud

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
954
If there is no free will , what is the purpose of perceived free will or perceived free thought?

Is it all just an illusion ?

And how would humans evolve psychologically/philosophically If we all accepted there was no free will .

Would it dramatically change us ?
 
Top