Does free will exist?

[wynn]

Free will is self evident, just like the fact that you exist. You are simply not honest enough to admit it to yourself.

You are capable of killing people in the name of God, aren't you?

 

[Gustav]

Nobody would freely choose to be unhappy.

So why are we unhappy?

5. a consequence of prior bad "choices"

for instance...
signal had 2 suitors
gustav and dy
signal "chose" dy
signal is unhappy

an unintended and unforeseen consequence

 

[Gustav]

[/I] I added, "Its like asking if there really is such a thing as reality, and then hoping somebody exists in-order to give you an answer.

you mean like a solipsist creating a thread with the intent of having a conversation with himself?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

You are capable of killing people in the name of God, aren't you?

I don't see how killing people has to do with this discussion.

 

[wynn]

I don't see how killing people has to do with this discussion.

I am pointing out your cruelty:

Free will is self evident, just like the fact that you exist. You are simply not honest enough to admit it to yourself.

 

[wynn]

5. a consequence of prior bad "choices"

for instance...
signal had 2 suitors
gustav and dy
signal "chose" dy
signal is unhappy

an unintended and unforeseen consequence

Awwww.


On topic:

Your suggestion '5. a consequence of prior bad "choices"' is implied in the four options that I have already specified.

 

[Gustav]

not quite
it is just the 4th that may imply a bad choice.
given the tenor of the 3 priors, extrapolating an implication of "choice" from the inherent ambiguity of the 4th is somewhat unwarranted

 

[Dywyddyr]

The thread starter asked, "Does free will exists?" so I said, "Why do you expect people to freely give a rationally conscious answer?" I added, "Its like asking if there really is such a thing as reality, and then hoping somebody exists in-order to give you an answer. And that's assuming that you existed to freely ask the question in the first place."

So you can't actually explain the "contradiction".
You assume (without evidence) that free will does exist and therefore assume that there actually is a contradiction.

Free will is self evident

Assumption.

You are simply not honest enough to admit it to yourself.

Perhaps you're not intellectually capable of understanding this.

 

[Gustav]

dy
do we know of any "non physical components to reality"?

 

[wynn]

not quite
it is just the 4th that may imply a bad choice.
given the tenor of the 3 priors, extrapolating an implication of "choice" from the inherent ambiguity of the 4th is somewhat unwarranted

Why would an agent with free will make a bad choice, or make a choice that would prove harmful later on?

 

[Gustav]

it lacks a particular godlike attribute?

 

[wynn]

it lacks a particular godlike attribute?

You mean the reason that an agent with free will makes a bad choice is because the choice lacks a particular godlike attribute?
Isn't this like saying that our free will is useful (" ") only for causing ourselves and others harm?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

That is what you believe.

Wrong. That is what I know.

Because we have no evidence that free will exists.

My experience is good enough evidence for me.

It's quite simple (again).
1) We have no evidence for free will
2) Given the claims of god's attributes (omniscience being one) then free will cannot exist.

1. Experience is evidence for most people.
2. Wrong. You have not used the ''attributes of God
as an example.
No you don't. You (possibly) remember having the illusion of making the choice.

Commonly regarded? By whom?
Sources please.

Most people.
Don't need sources.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

Nobody would freely choose to be unhappy.

So why are we unhappy?

I don't know.
But what does this have to do with free will?

Either:
1. We don't have free will, so things just happen to us, for better or worse.
2. Happiness is not the result of our actions.
3. We are inherently corrupt, evil, and unhappy.
4. Something else is the reason for our misery.

We have free will.
That's what makes you choose.


jan.

 

[wynn]

I don't know.
But what does this have to do with free will?

Nobody would freely choose to be unhappy.

We have free will.
That's what makes you choose.

This would suggest that our unhappiness is our own doing.
But how, if nobody would freely choose to be unhappy?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Wrong. That is what I know.

Ah. Something else you're incorrect on, then.

My experience is good enough evidence for me.

Your experience is infallibly correct? Your senses are infallibly correct? (The answers are, in order, no and no).

1. Experience is evidence for most people.

Then again, most people are easily fooled.

2. Wrong. You have not used the ''attributes of God as an example.

I see, so, according to you the bible is wrong?

Most people.

Ah, so you're just making it up.

Don't need sources.

And claiming infallibility again.

 

[kwhilborn]

“
Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
I don't know.
But what does this have to do with free will?
”
reply by signal,
Nobody would freely choose to be unhappy.


by Jan,
“
We have free will.
That's what makes you choose.
”
reply by signal,
This would suggest that our unhappiness is our own doing.
But how, if nobody would freely choose to be unhappy?

There are many who follow the belief of reincarnation. The majority of the world does. Hindu and Buddhists, and even 25% of people in North America believe in reincarnation.

I am not claiming reincarnation exists, I am making a point that sometimes people would choose to suffer.

Here is an answer from the internet that has to do with handicapped people and reincarnation. I think it sums it all up so I will comment no further here.

Only an ignorant person would look down on a handicapped person as 'getting what he deserved' for wrongs done in a past life. A lot of people don't understand reincarnation, and your question brings to light one serious misconception many have about reincarnation and karma. Anyone who understands how reincarnation and karma really work would never look down on others.

In the first place, if an individual is disadvantaged in some way because of his karma, we respect him for his courage to take on the challenges that will teach him what he needs to learn. We have free will, and karmic situations are never forced on anyone. Secondly, not every disadvantage is a consequence of having done something 'wrong' in the past: we sometimes choose to experience difficulties and face obstacles that will challenge us - much like the reasons some people climb mountains - just to get to the peak, just to see the world from another viewpoint.

Thirdly, it's very common for an individual - especially a somewhat advanced individual - to take on certain life challenges in order to teach others. This is a very selfless, loving thing to do. Helen Keller, for example - blind and deaf since early childhood - inspired millions of people and taught us so much about the strength and wisdom a seriously handicapped individual can have.

The smart Reincarnationist sees "special people" as very special indeed.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

Nobody would freely choose to be unhappy.

It can be the result of what you choose.

This would suggest that our unhappiness is our own doing.
But how, if nobody would freely choose to be unhappy?

Above.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Your experience is infallibly correct? Your senses are infallibly correct? (The answers are, in order, no and no).

Your reasoning is fallible, so that put's us on the same ground.
So which should one choose, there fallible experience which is self-evident,
or fallible reasoning which suggests you are in complete opposition to something which appears to be a simple fact?

Then again, most people are easily fooled.

But not about that.

I see, so, according to you the bible is wrong?

No. Your description of God is lacking.


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your reasoning is fallible, so that put's us on the same ground.

No. Because I'm not making claims. You are.

So which should one choose, there fallible experience which is self-evident, or fallible reasoning which suggests you are in complete opposition to something which appears to be a simple fact?

Make your mind up. It's self-evident or it only appears to be true?
In fact it is NOT self-evident.

But not about that.

Support this please.

No. Your description of God is lacking.

Beside the point.
1) It was never at any point stated to be a complete description.
2) The attribute noted is sufficient to show the dichotomy.

What effect do the other attributes have in this particular case?