Free Will

[_subgenius]

your examples do not allow for free-will.

And the car without the man does? So get rid of the car and lets talk about the man.

i was talking about the man initially, but that seemed to complex...but alas, we will omit the car.

The leaf is unable to choose otherwise when the biochemistry produces the disconnect from the stem reaction. The leaf is unable to "fall tomorrow rather than today"...it simply falls when the natural law avails it.

the leaf is a living thing a car is not. If the leaf is a appendage of the tree, and the tree is a living thing with a life force or 'spirit' then you must concede that it has free will. Now, explain to me about the life force that existed in the cars front nearside tyre?

fine, then consider the tree.
It most certainly may be "alive" without having a spirit or even consciousness
Consider my point with the leaf but now with the tree...the tree is either to choose otherwise about when it looses a single leaf...or not...whether to bend towards the sun or not...whether to resist the wind or sway to and fro...if it has this ability then that ability can not be from the natural laws of the universe.

i noticed the CFRs and have responded when applicable BUT, you have claimed that i have be contradictory of myself...and you have yet to provide the example for your claim (for the obvious reasons)

I provided a perfect example the other day Here. Page2, 5th post.

the example where you stated a conclusion of the church's policy being that "Sterile people should not marry" and i stated that you were wrong?
not sure, but me thinks you just made a simple error on that one....got any others?

nope...and i have been clear about the ability to "choose otherwise" which must be a violation of natural law.

What is the Natural Law that inhibits an animals brain from thinking?

there is none that i know of aside from the implications discovered about the neo-cortex....it is the the nature of thinking that i have noted, not the ability or complexity of thought but, if thoughts are occurring, then how must those thoughts be occurring?
If there is no "magic" involved, then those thoughts are the products of various physical reactions...all of which would be bound to natural laws and thus would not be anything more than a complicated system of "bending towards the sun"....ergo- no ability to choose otherwise.

i understand that as your view completely....which is why i still maintain that you see the car without a driver.
Nevertheless, that does not prove free-will but actually argues against its existence.

If you understand my view why are you debating it? why are you still claiming that freewill is not exercised though the evolved brain, rather than a ghost man sitting in a car?

no matter how complex or simple, the brain as an organ is incapable of violating natural law. The brain can not choose otherwise amongst biochemical processes which are what would would be doing the choosing in the first place....ergo, not independent from itself.

According to you, something from the world stimulates my senses, which puts some chemical reactions in motion, which stimulate neurological reactions in your brain organ, which produce chemicals that direct my body to react...all the while, my brain organ has created a "self" which is chemically stimulated as being "aware" of what the brain organ is doing...ergo, the brain organ is "telling" the brain organ what the brain organ is telling the brain organ....yet all of this relies on processes which are unable to deviate from their product...unable to create, at will, something else.
hmmm....your idea of free-will seems an awful lot like not-free will.

Good you understand then, All your organs work in harmony without conscience, your brain is consciously and unconsciously controlling your body and its actions,

nope..."it" is not controlling, it is simply reacting in an inescapable manner to the external stimuli within its perceptive range. Conscious and unconscious do not exist, they are products of the processes within the brain organ serving whatever purpose you would like to speculate. There is no autonomous "you"..only a collection of biochemical reactions which produce thoughts of you for the brain organ, by the brain organ's reaction to stimuli.

and there is no good or evil ghosts controlling those mental functions, semen have a motivational force, is that an 'adult spirit being' is it thinking? motivating the sperm to swim? I do not believe that the amalgamation of the fathers DNA in the sperm and the mothers egg DNA make choices, I do not believe there is actual freewill until the organ known as the brain begins to function causing movement to the limbs, in the womb babies are independent movers and thinkers, they experience feelings thoughts and feelings, contentment, joy, hunger, anger, fear they are all natural instincts, Mormons believe that unless the foetus takes a breath it never actually lived, in your opinion why is the mature adult spirit within a child not accountable until the physical body reaches a certain age? as a child a spirit are able to exercise your external functions to commit frowned upon acts of freewill. now explain to me why you believe a ghost or legions of ghosts can enter your body and make your body parts work? Like that film Visa-Versa, body swapping would be possible in your religious way of thinking. According to Mormon theology, Who what When Where Why and How do you believe the spirit enters the body?

Good, then you concur with my premise, that there can be no free-will for a being that is completely bound to the natural laws of the universe, and thus no cause for a person to believe the have self-responsibility, original thoughts, or individuality as those are chemically induced perception generated by a brain organ as it has reacted to external environmental stimuli. Thus everything you are, you think, and you feel, are truly "products' of your environment.

no, i got it...enjoyed the movie even...thought the ending was a little predictable and trite, but it was entertaining. However, it hardly stands as "proof"...unless you are conceding that fictional stories can somehow provide "truth"....are you?

I don't believe I claimed the film was proof of anything, I was simply recalling from memory a film about the human mind. I know that fiction can intertwine with fact, what is your point?I am not trying to sell my irreligious ideas for money

Good thing you are not selling, because i do not buy it...you were "recalling" a specific concept with that movie reference?..there are countless movies about the human mind, surely somehting about that one struck a chord...in your own mind...causing a specific reaction?

I am just trying to determine what rules you are playing by, so....you tell me.

I am not playing a game.

I understand, you are serious then

[_subgenius]

The only premise in support of free-will's existence has been that if it does exist it surely must be supernatural because natural law can not be violated.

An assumption you have not backed up. You haven't shown that free will is limited by natural law, and trying to define it that way is not evidence.

(emphasis above mine)
1. Here is the evidence that once again your posts are inadequate, naïve, and ill-informed.
premise = a statement that is assumed to be true for the purpose of an argument from which a conclusion is drawn
so, even a novice can get this one.

Here is the otherwise simple to comprehend initial "backing up" of my premise....follow from there.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

[_Molok]

Please think it through past living in a field of daisies and fluffy bunnies with God strolling around making sure everybody is on the same page.

You mean like heaven? LOL

[Guest]

...

[_Themis]

1. Here is the evidence that once again your posts are inadequate, naïve, and ill-informed.
premise = a statement that is assumed to be true for the purpose of an argument from which a conclusion is drawn
so, even a novice can get this one.

I always understood your premise. You seem to be now saying that you really don't have any evidence or proof for these assumptions that are just being assumed to be true for your logic game. No problem. Thanks.

Here is the otherwise simple to comprehend initial "backing up" of my premise....follow from there.

I asked for evidence since you seemed to be suggesting what you were proposing was fact. If you are not, and are treating certain assumptions as true then no problem. In the end you could have saved a lot of trouble by just saying you don't have any evidence or proof for your big bag of assumptions.

[Guest]

...

[_Molok]

Exactly ... So with that thought in mind ... think it through on a moment to moment basis.
The laws of cause and effect still apply ofcourse , or more importantly would be an individuals view on haveing a fulfilling life.

I have thought it through. And my conclusion is that there is no rational reason why the God of the Bible, if he existed, would hide himself from humanity. Do you have a response to that?

[Guest]

...

[_subgenius]

I think an easy way to think about this argument ... would be to ask if a computer has free will to choose?
Or is it always going to rely on the parameters it was programed with? Even though it could have some complex algorithms and by these actually start to make what we could call informed decisions based on various combinations of input. It will never violate its programming laws , and say ... " Nahhh , I don't think so , not today anyways"

Or more simply put , would it ever make an evil decision , of its own volition.

yes, simple and well stated,
but i fear Themis will insist that one can never "know" everything about computers because one day someone could possibly write a program that directs the computer to choose to ignore, or obey, that same program when doing what the program has instructed it to do........

[_subgenius]

Exactly ... So with that thought in mind ... think it through on a moment to moment basis.
The laws of cause and effect still apply ofcourse , or more importantly would be an individuals view on haveing a fulfilling life.

I have thought it through. And my conclusion is that there is no rational reason why the God of the Bible, if he existed, would hide himself from humanity. Do you have a response to that?

Exodus 33:20 -
“You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
The "reasoning" is due to our sinful position - His appearance is utterly unimaginable and too glorious to be safely perceived by sinful man.

Exodus 3:6 notes God appearing as a burning bush, but Moses was too scared to look at His face.

In the Old Testament we see God appear in objects of His choosing - cloud, fire, tabernacle, etc..
In the New Testament we see God appear through His Son.

I do not think He hides from humanity, it seems that He manifests to humanity and all others are just unable to "see" Him.