Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Yes there is, but your rambling one that just assumed its terms wasn’t one of them.

No, all he did was to ask you to demonstrate your premises. As “the spirit of the thread” was that others played along with your reification it was about as helpful as my starting a “Questions for leprechaunists” thread that had lots of answers with “because leprechauns…” in them.

Apart from that though…

He was given a range of justifications for what was said. That goes beyond standard antitheist forum practice. Indeed Gordon himself has said he is not here to justify himself.

I think we must conclude that he saw the demonstration of premises i.e. comparing them to other premises and did not like them.
Gordon has been through this question with me at least twice.
He started therefore in a rhetorical mood which was against the spirit of the thread and declined to take up the issue on another thread.......leading imho to an opinion that he does not in fact want any detraction from the rhetoric force he thinks this question has. he turns an ''all there is '' into a ''nothing at all''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,
The choices would come from the various processes we employed to work out its taxonomy.

So there would be choices then.....And what would those choices be?.,,,,would it be they are conveniently hidden in those processes by any chance?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

He was given a range of justifications for what was said. That goes beyond standard antitheist forum practice. Indeed Gordon himself has said he is not here to justify himself.

I think we must conclude that he saw the demonstration of premises i.e. comparing them to other premises and did not like them.
Gordon has been through this question with me at least twice.
He started therefore in a rhetorical mood which was against the spirit of the thread and declined to take up the issue on another thread.......leading imho to an opinion that he does not in fact want any detraction from the rhetoric force he thinks this question has. he turns an ''all there is '' into a ''nothing at all''.

Not sure why you're bothering with the lying again here. You demonstrated nothing - you just attempted some (frankly incomprehensible) answers that included terms like "God" with no attempt to establish them.

Anyway, it's dull as ditchwater as a topic so I'll leave you to your private grief here I think. 

[Alan Burns]

It feels like free will because we are not aware of the process going on when making an apparently free choice.

The illusion is that the process is free rather than being predetermined by previous experiences.

Free will is being able to make choices which are not predetermined by previous experiences.

Fairly obvious answers I'd have thought.

But the materialistic laws of physically induced chains of cause and effect will preclude any choice at all - they make things unavoidable reactions to previous events.  The reality is that our previous experiences can influence or limit our choices, but they do not dictate them.

[floo]

But the material laws of physically induced chains of cause and effect preclude any choice at all - they make things unavoidable reactions to previous events.  The reality is that our previous experiences can influence or limit our choices, but they do not dictate them.

Why shouldn't they dictate them, on the basis of once bitten, twice shy, for instance?

[Enki]

If you leave out the spiritual, you are left with unavoidable chain reactions of physical events.  And every criminal will have a cast iron alibi - nature did it!

So what?

Ignoring your implicit assumption of a 'spiritual', your scenario here seems to ignore the fact that those considering the criminal's alibi will also be under the same determinism as the criminal. If the criminal lacks free will, so does everyone else. Maybe you put it in this form, because it is much easier to imagine other people not having free will, rather than ourselves.

Criminal justice ideally is motivated to prevent crimes by deterring offenders. Punishment has been seen as a necessary requisite to prevent criminals from further harming society while(ideally) encouraging the offenders to be law abiding citizens. Whether this works or not is a moot point, but none of this requires free will.

[Rhiannon]

But the materialistic laws of physically induced chains of cause and effect will preclude any choice at all - they make things unavoidable reactions to previous events.  The reality is that our previous experiences can influence or limit our choices, but they do not dictate them.

Of course they do. We make our choices based on our past experiences or the knowledge we have acquired. We always have choices to make - let's say to stay the same or to make changes - but it depends on how much we really want to change and whether we have the inner resources to do so that dictates whether we do it or not, and that's not a choice. And largely we inform our present by our past. Perception can change hugely around what we want and what we are capable of, but only through rexamining and reframing the past and new events coming on. Not through 'free will'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Another non sequitur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

You're welcome.

[Maeght]

But the materialistic laws of physically induced chains of cause and effect will preclude any choice at all - they make things unavoidable reactions to previous events.  The reality is that our previous experiences can influence or limit our choices, but they do not dictate them.

We make choices certainly, as in selecting from a range of options, but that's not the question. It's whether the choices made are free or determined. You want a halfway house of free but limited but have never shown any evidence to support this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BRILLIANT! 

......absolutely brilliant sir, would sir like Ice with his martini?......HaHaHaHa

[floo]

......absolutely brilliant sir, would sir like Ice with his martini?......HaHaHaHa

If you are referring to me, I think you better take more water with yours, dear, I think I am still female!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you are referring to me, I think you better take more water with yours, dear, I think I am still female!

I was Commenting on what I see as a bit of sycophancy.

[floo]

I was Commenting on what I see as a bit of sycophancy.

Definitely take more water with it!

[Alan Burns]

Of course they do. We make our choices based on our past experiences or the knowledge we have acquired. We always have choices to make - let's say to stay the same or to make changes - but it depends on how much we really want to change and whether we have the inner resources to do so that dictates whether we do it or not, and that's not a choice. And largely we inform our present by our past. Perception can change hugely around what we want and what we are capable of, but only through rexamining and reframing the past and new events coming on. Not through 'free will'.

The key word here is "want" which implies that an action is driven by conscious will.  Though influenced  by past events, humans can ultimately choose what they want to do from the feasible options - we are not nature's robots driven by the uncontrollable forces of the physical universe.

[Alan Burns]

We make choices certainly, as in selecting from a range of options, but that's not the question. It's whether the choices made are free or determined. You want a halfway house of free but limited but have never shown any evidence to support this.

You misunderstand what I mean by free will.  I mean the freedom to wilfully choose between two or more alternatives.

To be able to make any conscious choice requires a defining event which triggers the choice.  If the event is just an inevitable reaction to previous physical events it is not a choice - just a pre determined reaction. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

I was Commenting on what I see as a bit of sycophancy.

Shouldn't that be "syphonphancy"?

Damn but I'm on fire today...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Oh bless ... you'll be using that one in future won't you? 

You betcha!

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Could we please avoid discussing the perceived motivations of other members in detail - comment based on the content of posts is, of course, fine (robust or otherwise).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The key word here is "want" which implies that an action is driven by will.

No it doesn’t, or at least not in the sense that you’re attempting it.

We’re some 19,000 posts in now – if you still can’t grasp the straightforward logic that invalidates this then I really can’t see it happening ever.

Though influenced  by past events, humans can ultimately choose what they want to do from the feasible options - we are not nature's robots driven by the uncontrollable forces of the physical universe.

Ignoring for now the pejorative language, essentially yes we are however uncomfortable that thought makes you.

You misunderstand what I mean by free will.  I mean the freedom to wilfully choose between two or more alternatives.

Which must either be deterministic (ie, it just feels “free”) or random. However much you may want to conjecture a “soul”, you cannot just magic it into being outside that binary choice. 

To be able to make any conscious choice requires a defining event which triggers the choice.  If the event is just an inevitable reaction to previous physical events it is not a choice - just a pre determined reaction.

Not quite, but for this purpose close enough.

So?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Damn but I'm on fire today...

You can get antibiotics for that.

[Rhiannon]

The key word here is "want" which implies that an action is driven by conscious will.  Though influenced  by past events, humans can ultimately choose what they want to do from the feasible options - we are not nature's robots driven by the uncontrollable forces of the physical universe.

That's ridiculous, Alan, sorry. Try making yourself *want* to support Leyton Orient. Or to *want* to like Grime. Or to *want* to leave Christianity and follow a pagan path.

The things we want, we want because we do. If we want a green duvet cover it's because we don't like red ones. We don't *choose* the things we want by 'free will'.

[Dicky Underpants]

If you leave out the spiritual, you are left with unavoidable chain reactions of physical events.  And every criminal will have a cast iron alibi - nature did it!

And the promptings of 'Original Sin' and 'The Devil' have never ever been used as get-out clauses by believers, of course...

Hey, just a minute - I forgot: "Wretched man that I am - who will deliver me from the body of this death?"

(In case anyone is wondering, the answer to the latter is Jesus)

[Alan Burns]

That's ridiculous, Alan, sorry. Try making yourself *want* to support Leyton Orient. Or to *want* to like Grime. Or to *want* to leave Christianity and follow a pagan path.

The things we want, we want because we do. If we want a green duvet cover it's because we don't like red ones. We don't *choose* the things we want by 'free will'.

But we do consciously choose between many possible things we may want to do.  This is the freedom to make a choice.

You still do not seem to grasp that there is a difference between choice (driven by conscious will) and automated reaction (the consequence of physical cause and effect).

[Rhiannon]

But we do consciously choose between many possible things we may want to do.  This is the freedom to make a choice.

You still do not seem to grasp that there is a difference between choice (driven by conscious will) and automated reaction (the consequence of physical cause and effect).

Of course we make choices. But they aren't the product of 'free will'.

[Rhiannon]

Rather nice article.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/neuraptitude/201608/illusion-choice-the-myth-free-will%3Famp

'Reality is as flexible and as pliable as the mind that we use to perceive it. The self-doubts, anxieties, and judgments that so often dominate our consciousness can be restructured using the same mental tools that our brain employs to retroactively insert the perception of free will.'