Athiest bashing and free will.

karen3212

Scofflaw wrote:

Except, of course, that really we change "God's" rules pretty often.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sometimes what you say goes completely over my head, but this time I am going to ask, do you mean we reinterpret them? That they don't change, we just reinterpret them?

Scofflaw

karen3212 wrote:

Sometimes what you say goes completely over my head, but this time I am going to ask, do you mean we reinterpret them? That they don't change, we just reinterpret them?

Taking it for the moment that the Biblical God exists - it's possible that all the reinterpretation we've done on the Bible (150 years ago it was being used to support slavery, but now we think that's very much against God's will) brings us closer to the what God intended as we ourselves become more sophisticated - that God's rules haven't changed, but were deliberately expressed in a way that would allow us to grow naturally towards the rules that underly the expression by reinterpreting them. You can argue that this is why the Bible is primarily a work of poetry, because as we grow older (and hopefully wiser) we see more and more in good poetry. The same is true of prose, but prose rarely stands the test of time as long as poetry can, because poetry is expressed in metaphor. In this case, the rules that we ascribe at any given time to God are always human interpretations of the real rules - but as time goes by, our reinterpretations bring us closer to those underlying truths.

Taking it for the moment that God does not exist, what we pretend to be the rules given by God, and unchanging, are regularly reinterpreted to suit the changing moral fabric of society. The elders of religion hold out as long as possible, but if they can't stem the tide, they change the rules and claim it's always been that way. "God's" rules are really human rules - but nevertheless they're a useful stabilising and conservative force in social change.

I don't know whether that clarifies anything, of course!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Taking it for the moment that the Biblical God exists - it's possible that all the reinterpretation we've done on the Bible (150 years ago it was being used to support slavery, but now we think that's very much against God's will) brings us closer to the what God intended as we ourselves become more sophisticated - that God's rules haven't changed, but were deliberately expressed in a way that would allow us to grow naturally towards the rules that underly the expression by reinterpreting them. You can argue that this is why the Bible is primarily a work of poetry, because as we grow older (and hopefully wiser) we see more and more in good poetry. The same is true of prose, but prose rarely stands the test of time as long as poetry can, because poetry is expressed in metaphor. In this case, the rules that we ascribe at any given time to God are always human interpretations of the real rules - but as time goes by, our reinterpretations bring us closer to those underlying truths.

Taking it for the moment that God does not exist, what we pretend to be the rules given by God, and unchanging, are regularly reinterpreted to suit the changing moral fabric of society. The elders of religion hold out as long as possible, but if they can't stem the tide, they change the rules and claim it's always been that way. "God's" rules are really human rules - but nevertheless they're a useful stabilising and conservative force in social change.

I don't know whether that clarifies anything, of course!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw you are going off on a tangent here. I don't agree with that post, but if we start debating that we truly have gone off on a tangent,

I think it's better to let Fanny reply to my reply to my last point first.
Fanny?

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw you are going off on a tangent here. I don't agree with that post, but if we start debating that we truly have gone off on a tangent. I think it's better to let Fanny reply to my reply to my last point first.
Fanny?

Tim, people are free to debate what ever they like, just as you are free to debate what ever you like with Fanny. I don't believe it is your call to tell people what to debate. All debate is equally valid.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

omg. Blanked.

Not blanked. Sunday happens to be the busiest day of the week for me, so I have little time to spend here. Wicknight's post was easier to answer in a few minutes because we've already had the same discussion before.

I am never talking to you again PDN.

Promises, promises ....

So its a "lifetime's values" that determine freewill? But we get our values from our friends/family/culture. So according to your argument "freewill" is doing what those around you want you to do?

No, I didn't say that a lifetime's values determine free will. I mentioned my lifetime's values because they are an expression of who I am and therefore a good (but not infallible) guide as to whether I am acting of my own free will or not. For example, imagine I was kidnapped by the Taliban and a video was subsequently released in which I announced my conversion to Islam and my support for suicide bombers. Those who know me would be confident that I did not make such statements of my free will because they are contrary to every value I hold dear.

Also, my lifetime's values have often been forged despite opposition from my friends/family/culture.

Also, your genes are no less a physical force than a drug I dose you with. If someone is genetically predisposed towards violent murder they're using their freewill to kill, but if I use some drugs to cause the exact same effect in your brain you're having your freewill taken from you? What if I had been giving you those drugs since birth? Or they found their way accidently into your water supply?

Come on, stop tip toeing around the issue, I shouldn't have to drag it out of you bit by bit. If you're sure we have this thing called freewill then gimme a more than a few lines to explain it.

Your genes are certainly a physical force, but that does not mean that you are a helpless puppet in their grasp. If that were so then identical twins would always make identical decisions.

Someone's genes might make them predisposed towards violent murder, but that does not mean that they will automatically become murderers. For example, my understanding of the 'gay gene' debate is that some researchers believe that the presence of a certain gene increases the incidence of homosexuality, but that the incidence is still well under 50%. So, the gene may influence choice, but does not dictate choice.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Some further thoughts I've had:

The universe can be one of three ways; deterministic, random or controlled.

Deterministic: From the begining of the universe cause and effect have dictated one path the universe can take. In this case freewill makes no sense as everything I will ever choose is dictated by other forces.

Random: At the quantum level things are determined randomly and the effects radiate upwards. In which case freewill makes no sense as all my decisions are ultimately randomly determined by collapsing quantum states.

Controlled: A universe where an omnipotent deity dictates how everything goes, in which case there is no such thing as freewill as our will is the deity's will.

Is there a type of universe I'm missing that you're proposing we live in?

Why should the universe be limited to one of those three models? I find it perfectly feasible that many things in the universe are determined (eg most physical laws) but other things occur randomly.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

Asiaprod wrote:

Scofflaw you are going off on a tangent here. I don't agree with that post, but if we start debating that we truly have gone off on a tangent. I think it's better to let Fanny reply to my reply to my last point first.

Tim, people are free to debate what ever they like, just as you are free to debate what ever you like with Fanny. I don't believe it is your call to tell people what to debate. All debate is equally valid.

Thanks Asia! Also, my post is in direct answer to karen's question - I had, of course, no intention of interrupting Tim, or Tim's thread. Heaven forfend.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

Tim, people are free to debate what ever they like, just as you are free to debate what ever you like with Fanny. I don't believe it is your call to tell people what to debate. All debate is equally valid.

Correct it's not my call, it's my suggestion.
Fanny should get a chance to reply, before a tangent prevents that happening. Scofflaw your point, at Yesterday 23:48,
"Except, of course, that really we change "God's" rules pretty often" which was a reply to a point I made to Fanny
was not contextualised and cause confusion illustrated by Karen's question, which prompted you to elaborate. This introduced a tangent between myself and Fanny. If I reply to your posts, it completly takes it off tangent, I don't think that's fair to Fanny.

pH

Zillah wrote:

Some further thoughts I've had:

The universe can be one of three ways; deterministic, random or controlled.

Deterministic: From the begining of the universe cause and effect have dictated one path the universe can take. In this case freewill makes no sense as everything I will ever choose is dictated by other forces.

So you're excluding the Compatibilist argument without even mentioning it?

As you may be aware Free Will has been debated and philosophised over for centuries, wikipedia gives a good introduction.

So no it is not accepted that in a deterministic universe "free will makes no sense".

Dennett's Freedom Evolves presents a great Compatibilist argument, an excellent book which I recommend!

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

So, your claim would therefore be that because the future is unknown specifically to us, it remains open to change? Wouldn't the corollary of that be that someone with amnesia can change the past?

No its the exact opposite. Your assertion is like saying someone with amnesia can change the past. You seem to be saying that it is irrelevant if God knows the future, because we (this universe) don't know the future, so we can change it. Which is making the issue localized to whether or not we know it or not. In fact that is irrelevant.

You run into the issue with the amnesia person. Just because they don't know the past doesn't mean the past isn't fixed. The past is fixed anyways, the past isn't localized to that person, it fixed within the time line of the universe.

In the same way the future is fixed by the fact that it must be for God to know it. Just because we don't see it as fixed just matter, in the same way that it doesn't matter if some of us don't see the past as fixed either.

Scofflaw wrote:

If God knows the future, that doesn't change how it is for us - we still go through each decision point and make decisions.

I know, but just because the amneisa person doesn't view the past as fixed doesn't mean it isn't. It is fixed, they just don't see it like that. Same with the future. We move through time not being able to see the future thinking that it is variable, but it is in fact fixed by the fact that God sees it. Our experience of the future as variable is as much an illusion as the person with amnesia past is an illusion of variability.

Scofflaw wrote:

It doesn't change the fact that we, as ourselves, have yet to get to that decision point and make the decision as far as we are concerned - because the future has yet to happen to us.

I'm not disputing that. We certainly don't view the future as fixed. But that isn't the issue. The issue is if we have free will or not.

Scofflaw wrote:

Similarly, someone with very good knowledge of us may be able to predict which decision we will take in the face of a particular situation - does that mean we have no free will?

As I've tried to explain to the theists who say things like "I know my child is going to slap his brother, does that mean he has no free will", predicting the future is not the same as experiencing it, because you can be wrong. The future is still variable, you just make an educated guess as to what you think will happen.

We don't guess about the past because the past actually did happen.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

No its the exact opposite. Your assertion is like saying someone with amnesia can change the past. You seem to be saying that it is irrelevant if God knows the future, because we (this universe) don't know the future, so we can change it. Which is making the issue localized to whether or not we know it or not. In fact that is irrelevant.

You run into the issue with the amnesia person. Just because they don't know the past doesn't mean the past isn't fixed. The past is fixed anyways, the past isn't localized to that person, it fixed within the time line of the universe.

In the same way the future is fixed by the fact that it must be for God to know it. Just because we don't see it as fixed just matter, in the same way that it doesn't matter if some of us don't see the past as fixed either.

Yes - but I'm not arguing that the future isn't fixed, I'm arguing that we have free will in spite of that fact. The results of our free willed decisions are what constitutes the fixed track of the future.

Wicknight wrote:

I know, but just because the amneisa person doesn't view the past as fixed doesn't mean it isn't. It is fixed, they just don't see it like that. Same with the future. We move through time not being able to see the future thinking that it is variable, but it is in fact fixed by the fact that God sees it. Our experience of the future as variable is as much an illusion as the person with amnesia past is an illusion of variability.

I'm not disputing that. We certainly don't view the future as fixed. But that isn't the issue. The issue is if we have free will or not.

Yes, and my point is that the question of whether the future is fixed is actually irrelevant to the question of whether we have free will, unless the future is fixed because it is deterministically predictable.

Assume we have free will. Now assume that magically I can determine in advance 100% accurately what the next 100 decisions you will freely take will be - by a non-intrusive method that does not interfere in any way. Have I robbed you of your free will simply by making a totally accurate prediction without your knowledge? Or would you claim that such a method is incompatible with free will?

In the latter case I'll draw your attention back to the word 'magical' - I need neither explain this method, nor accept any limitations on it, and I claim that it works in such a way that it avoids any objections or contradictions you might raise.

Wicknight wrote:

As I've tried to explain to the theists who say things like "I know my child is going to slap his brother, does that mean he has no free will", predicting the future is not the same as experiencing it, because you can be wrong. The future is still variable, you just make an educated guess as to what you think will happen.

Fair enough.

Wicknight wrote:

We don't guess about the past because the past actually did happen.

Hah! We certainly do guess about the past. We guess about what happened even to ourselves, as the ease of implanting false memories demonstrates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Assume we have free will. Now assume that magically I can determine in advance 100% accurately what the next 100 decisions you will freely take will be - by a non-intrusive method that does not interfere in any way. Have I robbed you of your free will simply by making a totally accurate prediction without your knowledge? Or would you claim that such a method is incompatible with free will?

Ok, I think the problem here is that we have different ideas about what free will is.

You see it as no one interfering with you. I see it as the possibility to make choice.

The time line is ultimately attached to the universe, and was defined by God during the creation of the Universe.

It isn't that we had free will 5 minutes ago but don't know. Its not that someone walks up to you and makes you choose left over right. We never had free will. Ever. We, and everything in the universe, are a computer program, or a roll of film.

We don't notice this of course, because we cannot see the next frame in the film.

Its like saying does a film character have free will? Just because you don't see anyone influencing Will Farrell in the scene doesn't mean he can do something other than what the film has him doing.

And before you say "he had free will when filming the picture", that is because the film is not set, the future is open. But if God exists then the universe isn't like that, it is like the roll of film, a roll of film created at the very moment of creation. Will Farrel gets to the door and no one in that scene makes him pick the left one but he does and always will because that is how the film is.

Scofflaw wrote:

Hah! We certainly do guess about the past. We guess about what happened even to ourselves, as the ease of implanting false memories demonstrates.

Does that have any effect on the past? If I decide that I would much prefer I remember having sex with Jessica Alba yesterday does that mean I actually was having sex with Jessica Alba (not that I would probably care)

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, I think the problem here is that we have different ideas about what free will is.

You see it as no one interfering with you. I see it as the possibility to make choice.

No, I don't think we disagree about that. The reason I said "not interfering in any way" is not because that's my definition of free will - which is simply, as you say, the possibility to make a choice - but to avoid any argument over whether my magical methods precluded you making a choice by constraining you in any way.

Wicknight wrote:

The time line is ultimately attached to the universe, and was defined by God during the creation of the Universe.

That's the difference, I think - you see the timeline as having been defined by God.

Assume I write a program that generates a map, using random numbers for various purposes (ignore for the moment that computer-generated "random" numbers are pseudo-random, and assume we are using a genuine random number generator like a lump of radioactive material).

The output of this map is a map - so that's what you see. You don't see the random numbers used to generate it. Does my seeing the map make the random numbers any less random?

Again, let's say that I can magically see in advance what the end map will look like - how does that constrain the production of random numbers by radioactive decay? How does it make their generation any less random?

Wicknight wrote:

Does that have any effect on the past? If I decide that I would much prefer I remember having sex with Jessica Alba yesterday does that mean I actually was having sex with Jessica Alba (not that I would probably care)

Well, I suspect that would almost certainly be better than the real thing anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

PDN wrote:

So, the gene may influence choice, but does not dictate choice.

Yup, the gene influences the choice. As do many other things. All those things combined result in the decision your brain makes. At no point was any of it "you", it was all the factors that implacably barrelled ahead to cause your decision. You say a tumor/drug influencing you counts as removing freewill, but genes causing the exact same effect don't. You're drawing arbitrary and meaningless divisions.

For example, imagine I was kidnapped by the Taliban and a video was subsequently released in which I announced my conversion to Islam and my support for suicide bombers. Those who know me would be confident that I did not make such statements of my free will because they are contrary to every value I hold dear.

Which ultimately is meaningless wishy washy crap as you once again refuse to settle on an actual definition for this "freewill" notion of yours.

pH wrote:

As you may be aware Free Will has been debated and philosophised over for centuries, wikipedia gives a good introduction.

Bear in mind that I still reject the notion that the word "freewill" actually means anything. If you're going to respond I'd appreciate if you gave a thorough definition of it.

I know its not a popular notion, but if its so clear to everyone that freewill is a thing, even conceptually, please define it. (Read my responses to PDN to see the kind of issues I think scuttle the notion)

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw you are going off on a tangent here. I don't agree with that post, but if we start debating that we truly have gone off on a tangent,

I think it's better to let Fanny reply to my reply to my last point first.
Fanny?

It's 9 pm now. I'm just in from a full days work and have to do it all again tomorrow Ignoring the fact that this is a relply - there is no chance of me replying today. Fanny sleep now...

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Yup, the gene influences the choice. As do many other things. All those things combined result in the decision your brain makes. At no point was any of it "you", it was all the factors that implacably barrelled ahead to cause your decision.

I quite like the notion that things like Hello Kitty alarm clocks and self-help books are inevitable products of the universe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Zillah wrote:

You say a tumor/drug influencing you counts as removing freewill, but genes causing the exact same effect don't. You're drawing arbitrary and meaningless divisions.

Actually I don't say that. A drug or tumor that completely controls you would remove freewill, but something that influences you still leaves room for free will. For example, alcohol can influence you to do certain things, but you would need to be seriously plastered to lose your free will.

Which ultimately is meaningless wishy washy crap as you once again refuse to settle on an actual definition for this "freewill" notion of yours.

You have a rigid doctrinaire view of the universe as deterministic, so obviously you disagree with my view of free will. As you get older and wiser you will hopefully learn to express yourself in a way that wins people over to your way of thinking instead of alienating people.

pH

Zillah wrote:

Bear in mind that I still reject the notion that the word "freewill" actually means anything. If you're going to respond I'd appreciate if you gave a thorough definition of it.

Fine then say that. Just stop using words that you don't think mean anything in sentences - it gives the impression to readers that you attribute some meaning to those words.

If you want a definition of free will why not head to wikipedia or even type it into Google and do some reading?

karen3212

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't know whether that clarifies anything, of course!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah thank you, I understand what you meant much better

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Actually I don't say that. A drug or tumor that completely controls you would remove freewill, but something that influences you still leaves room for free will.

"You" in that sentence is a collection of such influences. Once again, there is no magic isolated core of sentience.

You have a rigid doctrinaire view of the universe as deterministic, so obviously you disagree with my view of free will.

Actually you have yet to define it in any detail whatsoever. I'm attacking your as of yet undefended assertion that freewill is a thing.

As you get older and wiser you will hopefully learn to express yourself in a way that wins people over to your way of thinking instead of alienating people.

Ad Hominem crap.

pH wrote:

If you want a definition of free will why not head to wikipedia or even type it into Google and do some reading?

I've read those, they're all wishy washy crap. Would you like to pick one of them that you would defend as viable?


Four pages in and no one has yet to take up my challenge to present a detailed definition of what they mean by freewill.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

That's the difference, I think - you see the timeline as having been defined by God.

I do, as the only logical way it can be.

Scofflaw wrote:

The output of this map is a map - so that's what you see. You don't see the random numbers used to generate it. Does my seeing the map make the random numbers any less random?

No, but it would make it rather difficult for you to know what the map will look like when you write the computer program.

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, let's say that I can magically see in advance what the end map will look like - how does that constrain the production of random numbers by radioactive decay? How does it make their generation any less random?

Because they aren't random.

If the map is made up by X, Y or Z and you see that the map produced will be 5,9 and 12, X and Y and Z are 5, 9 and 12. They cannot be anything else.

I see what you are saying, God doesn't pick these numbers, he just lets them fall naturally. But that goes back to what I said about the time line being attached to the universe at the moment of creation. They logically cannot just fall randomly, because that would mean at some point they are variable, and nothing can be variable if God knows everything and creates everything. There is no where for these random numbers to come from, because every process that could randomly generate them is created by God to start off.

The idea of God letting something random happen in the universe is a paradox because he would have to create a system that can give results he doesn't predict. He can't help but influence it because otherwise they cannot exist.

It is a paradox in the same way "Can God create something He cannot move", is a paradox. Can God create something where he does not know how it will be created. If he can he doesn't know everything.

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, I suspect that would almost certainly be better than the real thing anyway

Almost certainly

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Four pages in and no one has yet to take up my challenge to present a detailed definition of what they mean by freewill.

We can't - we're just meat puppets. You'll have to wait until the workings of the universe cause one of to do so.

woodenly,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

we'll be waiting a while so, anyone for drinks?

pH

Mordeth wrote:

we'll be waiting a while so, anyone for drinks?

In another universe someone has already defined it perfectly for Zillah ... wait .. wrong thread.

PDN

pH wrote:

In another universe someone has already defined it perfectly for Zillah ... wait .. wrong thread.

But, if Zillah's determinism is correct, then every other universe is exactly the same as this universe.

Dades

Mordeth wrote:

we'll be waiting a while so, anyone for drinks?

To the Country Club!

Oh, wait - wrong thread again...

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

To the Country Club!

Oh, wait - wrong thread again...

I'd question your motivations there, but you don't have any of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

But, if Zillah's determinism is correct, then every other universe is exactly the same as this universe.

Actually they wouldn't exist, since they are simply a way of modeling the concept of "random"

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

We can't - we're just meat puppets. You'll have to wait until the workings of the universe cause one of to do so.

My beligerent pesterings count as part of the workings of the universe. Oddly enough.

PDN wrote:

But, if Zillah's determinism is correct, then every other universe is exactly the same as this universe.

I'm not neccessarily opposed to the quantum model either. Though I doubt you'd consider a subatomic coin flip to represent your view of freewill.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

We can't - we're just meat puppets. You'll have to wait until the workings of the universe cause one of to do so.

My beligerent pesterings count as part of the workings of the universe. Oddly enough.

Yes - but in the absence of any sort of decision-making capacity on our part you cannot reasonably expect any response, since it's difficult to see how the cause and effect chain functions without any decision on our part.

I appreciate, of course, that you will expect a response anyway, because to claim you're reasonable in the absence of any capacity to make decisions would be entirely meaningless.

meaninglessly,
Scofflaw

Zillah

I hope no one is foolish enough to try and take you seriously...

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I hope no one is foolish enough to try and take you seriously...

Well, it would be entirely meaningless if they did. Or didn't.

so there,
Scofflaw

Zillah

You're entirely meaningless.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

You're entirely meaningless.

As are we all, of course, as are we all.

maturely,
Scofflaw