The free-will argument for the existence of God

[SteveH]

It goes like this:
Scientists and philosophers can find no room for the existance of real, conscious free-will: as one poster on here (I forget who) repeats ad bloody nauseam, there are only two possibilities: events are determined by previous events, or they are random. In neither case is there any room for conscious choice.
But
we know perfectly well from our own direct mental experience that we do have (limited) free-will, and can make real choices, however much some philosophasters may try to deny it. If we don't have free-will, then every thought and belief that we have we were predestined from all eternity to have, so we can never know that we don't have free-will, or indeed anything.
Therefore
the free will we know that we have must be a direct gift from God, who is the freest of all agents. Therefore, God.

OK, now show me why I'm wrong - but if you could do so without sarcasm or drifting off at irrelevant tangents, that would be nice.

[torridon]

Circular reasoning; if knowing things implies god, then god.  The premise assumes it conclusion.

[SteveH]

How is it circular? You'll have to explain in more detail.

[Outrider]

It goes like this:
Scientists and philosophers can find no room for the existance of real, conscious free-will: as one poster on here (I forget who) repeats ad bloody nauseam, there are only two possibilities: events are determined by previous events, or they are random. In neither case is there any room for conscious choice.

That would probably be me, but your conclusion differs from mine to an extent - it's not that there is no room for conscious choice, it's that logically 'conscious choice' (whatever it means, and at whatever level it happens) must be some combination of those two.

But we know perfectly well from our own direct mental experience that we do have (limited) free-will, and can make real choices, however much some philosophasters may try to deny it.

We know no such thing - some people believe they have free will, we are raised to think we have free will, but the evidence and the logic both speak against the concept.

If we don't have free-will, then every thought and belief that we have we were predestined from all eternity to have, so we can never know that we don't have free-will, or indeed anything.

No, we can know something, we just can't in any way change what we were always destined to know or not know.

Therefore the free will we know that we have must be a direct gift from God, who is the freest of all agents. Therefore, God.

That's a massive non-sequitur.... even if free will were a thing, even if we could parse that (cultural?) belief into actual (or even provisional) knowledge, that doesn't mean it came from a God.  If you don't know where it came from the correct response is 'I don't know', not 'therefore (insert supernatural cause of choice)'.

OK, now show me why I'm wrong - but if you could do so without sarcasm or drifting off at irrelevant tangents, that would be nice.

I did it without sarcasm, but I had no choice in the matter...

O.

[jeremyp]

we know perfectly well from our own direct mental experience that we do have (limited) free-will, and can make real choices, however much some philosophasters may try to deny it. If we don't have free-will, then every thought and belief that we have we were predestined from all eternity to have, so we can never know that we don't have free-will, or indeed anything.

I make real choices, but they are based on the information I have available at the time I make the choice and the programming of my brain at that moment. There's no evidence that, if you wound back time to the moment of one of my decisions,  I would make a different decision.

So what exactly do you mean by free will?

Therefore
the free will we know that we have must be a direct gift from God, who is the freest of all agents. Therefore, God.

OK, now show me why I'm wrong - but if you could do so without sarcasm or drifting off at irrelevant tangents, that would be nice.

Let's say that we do have Alan Burnsian free will. That it comes from God seems like an unsupported assertion. Also, where does God get his/her/its free will from?

[Stranger]

Scientists and philosophers can find no room for the existance of real, conscious free-will...

What's "real, conscious free-will"? Exact definition needed.

...as one poster on here (I forget who) repeats ad bloody nauseam, there are only two possibilities: events are determined by previous events, or they are random.

More accurately, to the extent they are not determined by previous events, they must be random. Either minds are deterministic systems or not.

In neither case is there any room for conscious choice.

How do you arrive at that? Why should consciousness make a difference to anything?

we know perfectly well from our own direct mental experience that we do have (limited) free-will, and can make real choices, however much some philosophasters may try to deny it.

Definitions missing again. Free-will? Real choices? There is nothing about our experience of choice-making that is incompatible with minds being deterministic systems (or some combination with randomness).

If we don't have free-will, then every thought and belief that we have we were predestined from all eternity to have, so we can never know that we don't have free-will, or indeed anything.

Why not?

BTW, didn't you bring up compatibilism before?

[SusanDoris]

If we don't have free-will, then every thought and belief that we have we were predestined from all eternity to have, so we can never know that we don't have free-will, or indeed anything.

In a way, you know, that is sort of correct. Bearing in mind that we are all a current link in an unbroken line of life since life began, every single event along that line happened and the composition of each life managed to survive, although of course with probably millions of minor variations, right up to the time the ovum and sperm that turned into you met.

If you think a God was involved, at what point during that unbroken line of life do you think it intervened?
Think of all the zillions of  bits of information each step along the way has picked up.
Which bits do you think a God would have chosen for you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

It goes like this:
Scientists and philosophers can find no room for the existance of real, conscious free-will: as one poster on here (I forget who) repeats ad bloody nauseam, there are only two possibilities: events are determined by previous events, or they are random. In neither case is there any room for conscious choice.

Sort of. We do have “free” will as a lived experience: I’m “free” to choose between tea or coffee for example, but that experience of freedom cannot be unfettered from the underlying want that selected either tea or coffee that must have come from somewhere. And that “somewhere” was either our subconscious (from where it emerged unbidden), or it was random (in which case there’d be no consistency of choice when exactly the same conditions pertained each time the selection was made).     

But
we know perfectly well from our own direct mental experience that we do have (limited) free-will, and can make real choices, however much some philosophasters may try to deny it.

No we don’t. We know that that’s what it feels like, just like it feels like your fingers actually touch the keyboard in front of you. How things seem and how things are though are sometimes very different.

If we don't have free-will, then every thought and belief that we have we were predestined from all eternity to have, so we can never know that we don't have free-will, or indeed anything.

That’s a non sequitur. We “know” only to the extent that the most robust available reasoning and (sometimes) evidence to hand justifies the belief as knowledge. The most robust reasoning and evidence we have to hand about free will tells us that the experience of it is different from the deterministic model that best explains it.   

Therefore
the free will we know that we have must be a direct gift from God, who is the freest of all agents. Therefore, God.

Oh-oh. And that’s an even bigger non sequitur. It’s the same reasoning that a Norseman who heard thunder would have used to arrive at the conclusion “therefore Thor”. Even if we didn’t have a provisionally more sensible model of free will than just guessing, jumping straight to “God” as the answer with no connecting reasoning is unwarranted. You could say “don’t know”, but that’s all.     

OK, now show me why I'm wrong –

I just did.

…but if you could do so without sarcasm or drifting off at irrelevant tangents, that would be nice.

That’s an informal fallacy called poisoning the well.

[Alan Burns]

Just to sum up:

If our perception of the freedom to consciously choose and drive our own thought processes is a reality, then it is evidence of the supernatural, because there is no natural explanation for such freedom to exist.

So in order to support the denial of anything supernatural, you would have to deny the existence of human free will.

So does the truth lie in our perception of reality, or in the outcome of a human ability to think up ways to deny the supernatural.   But where does this ability come from?  What drives it?

[Stranger]

If our perception of the freedom to consciously choose and drive our own thought processes is a reality, then it is evidence of the supernatural, because there is no natural explanation for such freedom to exist.

You really could populate an entire textbook on logical fallacies with your posts on this subject. This is, prima facie, an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance depending on whether you think the (supposed) current absence of an explanation or your opinion that such an explanation cannot be found is most important.

But it's worse than that because you have made utterly absurd claims about what "freedom to consciously choose and drive our own thought processes" means, which actually make it not only logically impossible but impossible to even imagine let alone perceive.

So in order to support the denial of anything supernatural, you would have to deny the existence of human free will.

The way you have defined "free will" makes it self-contradictory and hence logically impossible even if we decide it might be "supernatural".

So does the truth lie in our perception of reality, or in the outcome of a human ability to think up ways to deny the supernatural.   But where does this ability come from?  What drives it?

There is nothing at all about our abilities, what we experience, and what we actually perceive that you have been able to point to that cannot be explained by minds being deterministic systems and hence compatible with a logical and natural explanation.

In short: your argument is unmitigated drivel.

But all these points have been put to you countless times and you just ignore them - preferring, so it would seem, to wallow ignorance and baseless superstition.

[Roses]

Just to sum up:

If our perception of the freedom to consciously choose and drive our own thought processes is a reality, then it is evidence of the supernatural, because there is no natural explanation for such freedom to exist.

So in order to support the denial of anything supernatural, you would have to deny the existence of human free will.

So does the truth lie in our perception of reality, or in the outcome of a human ability to think up ways to deny the supernatural.   But where does this ability come from?  What drives it?

Of course it isn't evidence for the supernatural. In the past many things were thought to be 'supernatural' because at the time there was no natural explanation for them. But as science has progressed its has come up with the answers, which baffled people then. No doubt in the future it will come up with explanations for things for which we do not yet have the answers, when science has worked it all out, there will be a natural cause, imo.

[Outrider]

Just to sum up:

Buckle in, people 

If our perception of the freedom to consciously choose and drive our own thought processes is a reality, then it is evidence of the supernatural, because there is no natural explanation for such freedom to exist.

Firstly, in the construction: the perception of the freedom and the freedom are different things.  The perception of freedom can be real without the freedom being real.

Secondly, your claim that there is no natural explanation for the brain activity that you claim is free will is incorrect; there is a natural explanation for it, although it's an hypothesis at this time. Your contention that there is no natural explanation is actually you manifesting a silent argument from incredulity - you can't imagine a natural explanation, that's not the same thing as there not being one.

So in order to support the denial of anything supernatural, you would have to deny the existence of human free will.

Well, no, that would be a logical fallacy of arguing from the consequence, and would be logically invalid - you don't argue against the existence of free will because it would imply supernatural (especially given that the only person proposing a supernatural explanation for human consciousness is you, we're perfectly happy that human brain activity has a natural source).  We argue against the concept of free will from two points: one, it's logically nonsensical that something can be both free and will, and the experimental evidence suggests that consciousness lags behind the deterministic brain activity that generates it.

So does the truth lie in our perception of reality, or in the outcome of a human ability to think up ways to deny the supernatural.

Neither, but given the flaws in your premise, the flaws in your failure to actually supply a conclusion and instead ask a leading question are a given.

But where does this ability come from?  What drives it?

Emergent property of natural evolution by natural selection of variations seems the most likely explanation, but feel free to proffer your own hypothesis.

O.

[Gordon]

Just to sum up:

If our perception of the freedom to consciously choose and drive our own thought processes is a reality, then it is evidence of the supernatural, because there is no natural explanation for such freedom to exist.

So in order to support the denial of anything supernatural, you would have to deny the existence of human free will.

So does the truth lie in our perception of reality, or in the outcome of a human ability to think up ways to deny the supernatural.   But where does this ability come from?  What drives it?

It seems that ignorance and incredulity are your constant companions, Alan: that should concern you.

[Alan Burns]

It seems that ignorance and incredulity are your constant companions, Alan: that should concern you.

My biggest concern is the false barriers people choose to put up which prevent them from knowing of God's love for them.

[Stranger]

My biggest concern is the false barriers people choose to put up which prevent them from knowing of God's love for them.

Then perhaps you should consider stopping the mindless repetition of hopelessly flawed "arguments" that have been addressed here countless times already and try some honest intellectual engagement with the subject?

If you think the "barriers" are false, it's about time you came up with a coherent and logically sound reason, otherwise it looks rather obvious that it is your beliefs that are based on false (unsound) reasoning.

[Roses]

My biggest concern is the false barriers people choose to put up which prevent them from knowing of God's love for them.

Love and the Biblical god is an oxymoron, if what is attributed to it is correct.

[ekim]

This might be of interest to some:
A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked

https://tinyurl.com/y4yx47f6

[Stranger]

This might be of interest to some:
A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked

https://tinyurl.com/y4yx47f6

This is to do with the role of consciousness and nothing at all to do with Alan's self-contradictory version of free will. Logically, choices are either fully deterministic (entirely the result of everything that led up to them) or they involve some element of randomness. The involvement of consciousness is irrelevant to that.

[Gordon]

My biggest concern is the false barriers people choose to put up which prevent them from knowing of God's love for them.

Then clearly something ain't right, so what would you advise 'God' to do about these alleged false barriers: it being omnipotent etc?

[ippy]

My biggest concern is the false barriers people choose to put up which prevent them from knowing of God's love for them.

It concerns me to know how successful the people were in indoctrinating you A B, and who else were they trying to indoctrinate at the same time in the same place, or perhaps looking on the bright side you just happened to be a one off, one of the ones you inevitably get from time to time that are far more susceptible than most to actually being indoctrinated.

I feel sure you wouldn't keep on with your never ending silly circular arguments if you could break yourself free of your background.

You really do remind me of one of those well known stage hypnotism acts where the hypnotised subject is unable to recognise say number four when counting one to ten, in just the same way you can't recognise the word evidence or what it means when you're so frequently asked for some; conclusion indoctrination! What else?

Commiserations AB, and no I'm not in league with anyone including your fictitious bogyman.

ippy.

[Alan Burns]

If you think the "barriers" are false, it's about time you came up with a coherent and logically sound reason, otherwise it looks rather obvious that it is your beliefs that are based on false (unsound) reasoning.

I would not have the ability to believe in anything (neither would you) without the conscious freedom to drive my own thought processes.  A freedom which physically predetermined material reactions can never enable.  Our freedom to contemplate belief is not a logical impossibility, it is a reality which you do not yet understand.  You can't claim our conscious freedom to be impossible just because you can't understand how it works.  You just need to use it to know it is a reality.

[Stranger]

If you think the "barriers" are false, it's about time you came up with a coherent and logically sound reason, otherwise it looks rather obvious that it is your beliefs that are based on false (unsound) reasoning.

And what do you do? Just repeat the same old drivel that has been addressed countless times before...

I would not have the ability to believe in anything (neither would you) without the conscious freedom to drive my own thought processes.

Our ability to believe stuff is not something anybody denies. Linking it to your own (contradictory) "explanation" is a baseless assertion.

A freedom which physically predetermined material reactions can never enable.

Another baseless assertion, another dishonest pretence that the argument against you is based on "material", and another misrepresentation by the use of "predetermined".

Our freedom to contemplate belief is not a logical impossibility, it is a reality which you do not yet understand.

More dishonest misrepresentation. Our freedom to contemplate is not in dispute and is not identical to your impossible, contradictory interpretation of what that means. You have produced not one single scrap of evidence or sound reason to suggest your version is a reality.

You can't claim our conscious freedom to be impossible just because you can't understand how it works.

Yet more dishonest misrepresentation. I have explained exactly why it is impossible and it has nothing to do with not knowing how it works. Your own claims about it contradict each other, that's why it's impossible.

You just need to use it to know it is a reality.

Your version cannot possibly be used or even imagined because it is self-contradictory for reasons that have been explained over and over again, and which you continue to totally ignore. There is absolutely nothing about any human ability that can be used that suggests your impossible nonsense.

As I said before: perhaps you should consider stopping the mindless repetition of hopelessly flawed "arguments" that have been addressed here countless times already and try some honest intellectual engagement with the subject?

Are you capable of that?

Do you even know what it means?

[Outrider]

I would not have the ability to believe in anything (neither would you) without the conscious freedom to drive my own thought processes.

Why not? Of all the mental processes we have, belief is one of the least consciously driven - you can't choose to believe something, you either believe it or you don't, it's an entirely subconscious process.

A freedom which physically predetermined material reactions can never enable.

A freedom you've not established actually exists.

Our freedom to contemplate belief is not a logical impossibility, it is a reality which you do not yet understand.

The 'you're stupid' school of argument rarely wins.  If you wish to demonstrate that freedom to contemplate belief is not a logical impossible then please, finally, explain how something can be both free of prior events and at the same time not random - that's the logical impossibility you're attempting to split, and which has been called out repeatedly.

You can't claim our conscious freedom to be impossible just because you can't understand how it works.

Which, equally, extends to you not being able to claim that consciousness cannot be a purely mechanistic eventuality arising from brain activity because you can't imagine it working like that.

You just need to use it to know it is a reality.

The problem with you 'just knowing' that reality is that someone else can equally 'just know' an entirely contradictory one...

O.

[torridon]

My biggest concern is the false barriers people choose to put up which prevent them from knowing of God's love for them.

What, you mean the fact of God's hiding and secretiveness is not a concern for you ?  You have things the wrong way round, God insists on hiding then you blame people because they can't find him.

[Roses]

What, you mean the fact of God's hiding and secretiveness is not a concern for you ?  You have things the wrong way round, God insists on hiding then you blame people because they can't find him.

I agree. If god wishes people to believe in it, then why stay in hiding?