The Delusion of "Free Will"

[Audacity]

I'm saying choosing corn flakes was not caused by my waking up, something else was involved.

But although something else was involved, waking up had to be a participating cause. If you hadn't woken up could you have chosen?

True! But waking up was not involved in the decision making process of what to eat

Ken

Not saying it originated outside your mind, only that it was not a free act but one determined by cause/effect. Even this "method" you mention would be operating either utterly randomly or through the process of cause/effect. Take your pick: neither support free will.

But if the cause/effect that lead to the action is controlled by my mind, that's free will; right?
Ken

Free will is a bit more than that.

Will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

Free will is to do so undirected by controlling influences.

Cause/effect events are considered to be controlling influences that direct the will to do X and only X.

I’m saying the cause/effect influence come from my mind.

And because of its nature---the effect can only be what it is caused to be---the mind cannot control it. Such cause/effect events only reside in the mind. If one postulated that the mind was in control then the question would be, What makes the mind control X like "this" rather than like "that"?

The one in control of my mind; me.

And we're right back to square one: beCAUSE. . . . . . . . .

I control my mind via free will.

Ken

Then good for you. You're a one-of-a-kind.

Take care.

[Nicki]

Evidence that things have never been shown to happen without a reason, and these reasons have never, ever been seen to have simply *poofed* into existence. All reasons have reasons themselves for existing. Couple this with the rational that a series of cause/effect events can't lead up to anything else than a specific event (to lead up to something else, something in the series would necessarily have to be different) the specific event was an inevitability. There is no such a thing as being able to have done differently. You did what you did because those cause/effect events that led up to your doing couldn't have lead up to anything different.


For thousands of years we've known that gravity is true, that it exists, but until relatively recently we haven't known why it's true---it's a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy. So I'm not at all concerned with all the attendant "whys" that have been brought up.

Can you name anything in our world that these four principles don't apply to in our world?

I want to be careful here and not misread you and end up in a needless rehash of irrelevant statements. So, exactly what four principles are you referring to?

All things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

As I see it, the will is the capacity to act on one's desires, a mental activity, and, of course some things are caused without being willed. Such as natural events. Not trying to be difficult, just being careful.

You may not want to accept it,but can you name anything in our world these four principles don't apply? Because if you can't then you have no evidence. Even randomness applies to these four principles,it has a cause,was caused by something else,was willed into existence just like all other things in our world.

Look around you houses,buildings,stars,cups,plates,trucks,cars,oceans,rivers,lakes,the freedom to choose to do something or not,lightning,clouds,hurricanes,tonadoes,tsunamies,earth quakes,I could go on and on. But unless you have evidence where these four principles don't apply then you have no reason to think as you do. Since we know these four principles apply to all things in our world and not things outside our universe where God is,then we know God kicked it all off because these four principles apply.

All things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence, this is true in our world because man was created in God's image and so he is also able to will things and cause them to happen,or not.The evidence points to God based on what we can tell about God reading the bible,he can cause universes to come into existence and will them into existence easily by just speaking. We also cause things to happen by speaking also.

Gotta wait for your explanation of these four principles you're talking about before answering.

What natural events don't apply to these four principles? Is a thunderstorm natural? Are you claiming it is not cause by something? What about evaporation,cloud formation,etc? It was willed into existence just like all other things are,it was willed that there be clouds,storms,etc. I think you skipped over the evidence. It is a myth natural events are not caused and are not willed into existence. I mean you can believe natural events don't have a cause and are not willed into existence,but you have no evidence to back it up. The evidence is on my side with these four principles that apply to our world.

I am asking for evidence,not proof.You have not even provided evidence like I have and I don't think you can because you don't ask the "why" like I have.Instead it seems you just want to declare that you are right and just expect us to believe you. But we go by evidence to determine truth or not. I think you are pushing just another conspiracy theory like I mentioned above.

Obviously there are no "four principles" or you've forgotten them, or . . . . . . . . . . . . ? In any case, until you produce them there's not sense in proceeding along this line, whatever it is.

I think the four principles are the bit starting with, 'All things have a cause...'

[Nicki]

I'm starting to see Audacity's point in a way. We are influenced by so many different things. Suppose I decide to eat some ice cream, just because I want to. Where does my wanting to come from? I'm influenced by past experience which tells me I like it; the idea of having it now came into my mind for some reason - perhaps it's been high in my subconscious that I have ice cream in the freezer and I'd like to eat it sometime because I'm quite greedy by nature (this is not too far from the truth). Oh, and there's hunger, but ice cream doesn't seem quite the right thing to eat to me when I'm actually hungry.

What if I decide not to eat it? Perhaps I'm influenced by my received knowledge of the unhealthiness of ice cream; maybe I have to do something else to do soon and won't really have time; maybe I want to leave more of the rest for someone else (influenced by the knowledge that they could be upset if they miss out or happy if there's enough for them), maybe physically and mentally I just don't feel like ice cream (unlikely though that is with me - having said that I do manage not to scoff all ice cream as soon as it's available; that doesn't usually seem appropriate). Anyway, there are reasons for everything we do; the question is whether, deep down, they all come from outside ourselves and from our own physical and mental processes which we don't consciously control, or whether we really do have a conscious hand in it. I'm not saying I agree that free will's a delusion, but I can kind of see both sides of it now...

It seems to me, everything you mentioned in your Ice Cream analogy came from within you.
*You wanted Ice Cream because you like the taste
*You deciding it is unhealthy and deciding not to eat it,
*You deciding to leave it for someone else to enjoy,

All these decision, actions, and lack of actions originated from within you, not an outside influence. I believe these were your choices; an example of free will

Ken

Sure, it certainly seems that way on the surface, but I'm saying deep down it could be that we don't really have control over those things. Why would I like the taste of something? Genetics, culture, past experience - but I can't really choose to like something or not; I just do or don't. I remember musing many years ago that it would be great to enjoy everything that's not bad for us; we should be a lot happier on the whole!

[Kenny]

I'm saying choosing corn flakes was not caused by my waking up, something else was involved.

But although something else was involved, waking up had to be a participating cause. If you hadn't woken up could you have chosen?

True! But waking up was not involved in the decision making process of what to eat

Ken

Not saying it originated outside your mind, only that it was not a free act but one determined by cause/effect. Even this "method" you mention would be operating either utterly randomly or through the process of cause/effect. Take your pick: neither support free will.

But if the cause/effect that lead to the action is controlled by my mind, that's free will; right?
Ken

Free will is a bit more than that.

Will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

Free will is to do so undirected by controlling influences.

Cause/effect events are considered to be controlling influences that direct the will to do X and only X.

I’m saying the cause/effect influence come from my mind.

And because of its nature---the effect can only be what it is caused to be---the mind cannot control it. Such cause/effect events only reside in the mind. If one postulated that the mind was in control then the question would be, What makes the mind control X like "this" rather than like "that"?

The one in control of my mind; me.

And we're right back to square one: beCAUSE. . . . . . . . .

I control my mind via free will.

Ken

Then good for you. You're a one-of-a-kind.

As are you, and everybody else.

Take care.

Thank-you; it's been nice discussing with you my friend

Ken

[Kenny]

I'm starting to see Audacity's point in a way. We are influenced by so many different things. Suppose I decide to eat some ice cream, just because I want to. Where does my wanting to come from? I'm influenced by past experience which tells me I like it; the idea of having it now came into my mind for some reason - perhaps it's been high in my subconscious that I have ice cream in the freezer and I'd like to eat it sometime because I'm quite greedy by nature (this is not too far from the truth). Oh, and there's hunger, but ice cream doesn't seem quite the right thing to eat to me when I'm actually hungry.

What if I decide not to eat it? Perhaps I'm influenced by my received knowledge of the unhealthiness of ice cream; maybe I have to do something else to do soon and won't really have time; maybe I want to leave more of the rest for someone else (influenced by the knowledge that they could be upset if they miss out or happy if there's enough for them), maybe physically and mentally I just don't feel like ice cream (unlikely though that is with me - having said that I do manage not to scoff all ice cream as soon as it's available; that doesn't usually seem appropriate). Anyway, there are reasons for everything we do; the question is whether, deep down, they all come from outside ourselves and from our own physical and mental processes which we don't consciously control, or whether we really do have a conscious hand in it. I'm not saying I agree that free will's a delusion, but I can kind of see both sides of it now...

It seems to me, everything you mentioned in your Ice Cream analogy came from within you.
*You wanted Ice Cream because you like the taste
*You deciding it is unhealthy and deciding not to eat it,
*You deciding to leave it for someone else to enjoy,

All these decision, actions, and lack of actions originated from within you, not an outside influence. I believe these were your choices; an example of free will

Ken

Sure, it certainly seems that way on the surface, but I'm saying deep down it could be that we don't really have control over those things.

But why make such an assumption? Why would you assume that which appears obvious is not real, and that which is real is not obvious?

Why would I like the taste of something? Genetics, culture, past experience - but I can't really choose to like something or not; I just do or don't. I remember musing many years ago that it would be great to enjoy everything that's not bad for us; we should be a lot happier on the whole!

I agree we do not have complete control or free will about everything, but there are many things we do have free will about.

Ken

[Nicki]

I'm starting to see Audacity's point in a way. We are influenced by so many different things. Suppose I decide to eat some ice cream, just because I want to. Where does my wanting to come from? I'm influenced by past experience which tells me I like it; the idea of having it now came into my mind for some reason - perhaps it's been high in my subconscious that I have ice cream in the freezer and I'd like to eat it sometime because I'm quite greedy by nature (this is not too far from the truth). Oh, and there's hunger, but ice cream doesn't seem quite the right thing to eat to me when I'm actually hungry.

What if I decide not to eat it? Perhaps I'm influenced by my received knowledge of the unhealthiness of ice cream; maybe I have to do something else to do soon and won't really have time; maybe I want to leave more of the rest for someone else (influenced by the knowledge that they could be upset if they miss out or happy if there's enough for them), maybe physically and mentally I just don't feel like ice cream (unlikely though that is with me - having said that I do manage not to scoff all ice cream as soon as it's available; that doesn't usually seem appropriate). Anyway, there are reasons for everything we do; the question is whether, deep down, they all come from outside ourselves and from our own physical and mental processes which we don't consciously control, or whether we really do have a conscious hand in it. I'm not saying I agree that free will's a delusion, but I can kind of see both sides of it now...

It seems to me, everything you mentioned in your Ice Cream analogy came from within you.
*You wanted Ice Cream because you like the taste
*You deciding it is unhealthy and deciding not to eat it,
*You deciding to leave it for someone else to enjoy,

All these decision, actions, and lack of actions originated from within you, not an outside influence. I believe these were your choices; an example of free will

Ken

Sure, it certainly seems that way on the surface, but I'm saying deep down it could be that we don't really have control over those things.

But why make such an assumption? Why would you assume that which appears obvious is not real, and that which is real is not obvious?

I'm not really assuming; I'm just thinking more deeply about it than I have before and considering the possibility.

Why would I like the taste of something? Genetics, culture, past experience - but I can't really choose to like something or not; I just do or don't. I remember musing many years ago that it would be great to enjoy everything that's not bad for us; we should be a lot happier on the whole!

I agree we do not have complete control or free will about everything, but there are many things we do have free will about.

I certainly prefer that idea, but the whole question is just kind of philosophical speculation really. I'm not dismissing you, but it's pretty hard to know for sure whether we can really make free choices independent of the influences on (and that have been on) us.

[abelcainsbrother]

I want to be careful here and not misread you and end up in a needless rehash of irrelevant statements. So, exactly what four principles are you referring to?


As I see it, the will is the capacity to act on one's desires, a mental activity, and, of course some things are caused without being willed. Such as natural events. Not trying to be difficult, just being careful.


Gotta wait for your explanation of these four principles you're talking about before answering.

What natural events don't apply to these four principles? Is a thunderstorm natural? Are you claiming it is not cause by something? What about evaporation,cloud formation,etc? It was willed into existence just like all other things are,it was willed that there be clouds,storms,etc. I think you skipped over the evidence. It is a myth natural events are not caused and are not willed into existence. I mean you can believe natural events don't have a cause and are not willed into existence,but you have no evidence to back it up. The evidence is on my side with these four principles that apply to our world.

I am asking for evidence,not proof.You have not even provided evidence like I have and I don't think you can because you don't ask the "why" like I have.Instead it seems you just want to declare that you are right and just expect us to believe you. But we go by evidence to determine truth or not. I think you are pushing just another conspiracy theory like I mentioned above.

Obviously there are no "four principles" or you've forgotten them, or . . . . . . . . . . . . ? In any case, until you produce them there's not sense in proceeding along this line, whatever it is.

Re-read my former posts they are in them.

No thank you. If they're not important enough to present at the meeting they're not important enough to go looking for.

No,I'm trying to get you to understand that we determine what is true or not based on evidence,but you did'nt get it because you think it is irrelevant to this disscussion,etc. So you overlooked my point.We have all kinds of conspiracy theories and they can sound very convincing the way they are presented,but without evidence? And it is nothing more than an opinion.

I just think you should re-think this theory you've picked up and find evidence to confirm it or not,like I did using Aquinas's four principles. I actually gave evidence for how and why they point to God. So it cannot be "God of the gaps". God of the gaps would be if we did not have evidence and were just filling in the lack of evidence with God,but we are not doing that. It is evidence based,which is why you can't name anything in our world they don't apply to. The four principles are - All things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

You seem to know some about philosophy although the not caring about the "why" point is a problem. It is something that most atheists live by and they wait on science to give them an answer some day.Not realizing that modern day science does not ask the "why" either,so that science can never give them an answer and so they will never,ever know or get an answer.It is a state of limbo.

There is no sense in deluding yourself,going through life believing things that sounded good to you but did not have evidence behind it and after you die,you realize you were wrong and made a poor decision that can't be undone because you ignored the truth based on evidence. If you like philosophy why not check out Thomas Aquinas? Because noone has ever refuted him,still to this day,they have only ignored him or didn't know. He is still just as right as back then.

[Audacity]

No,I'm trying to get you to understand that we determine what is true or not based on evidence,but you did'nt get it because you think it is irrelevant to this disscussion,etc. So you overlooked my point.We have all kinds of conspiracy theories and they can sound very convincing the way they are presented,but without evidence? And it is nothing more than an opinion.

I just think you should re-think this theory you've picked up and find evidence to confirm it or not,like I did using Aquinas's four principles. I actually gave evidence for how and why they point to God. So it cannot be "God of the gaps". God of the gaps would be if we did not have evidence and were just filling in the lack of evidence with God,but we are not doing that. It is evidence based,which is why you can't name anything in our world they don't apply to. The four principles are - All things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

You seem to know some about philosophy although the not caring about the "why" point is a problem. It is something that most atheists live by and they wait on science to give them an answer some day.Not realizing that modern day science does not ask the "why" either,so that science can never give them an answer and so they will never,ever know or get an answer.It is a state of limbo.

There is no sense in deluding yourself,going through life believing things that sounded good to you but did not have evidence behind it and after you die,you realize you were wrong and made a poor decision that can't be undone because you ignored the truth based on evidence. If you like philosophy why not check out Thomas Aquinas? Because noone has ever refuted him,still to this day,they have only ignored him or didn't know. He is still just as right as back then.

To reformat; your four principles:

.......1) All things have a cause

.......2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else

.......3) All things are willed into existence

.......4) There can be no infinite regression

"1) All things have a cause." True, which would necessarily include god.

" 2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else." This simply doesn't make sense. Consider the example of Thing A. In effect it says A has a cause, which we will call Y, but then you say A isn't caused by Y, but by something else. Does this make sense to you?

"3) All things are willed into existence." Unless you're talking about God willing them into existence this doesn't make any sense---I've never heard of a rock having been willed into existence. And, if you are talking about God willing them into existence then you're first going to have to present convincing evidence this is true, because as it stands I haven't seen any. So as it stands your third principle is moot.

"4) There can be no infinite regression." Agreed, but so what?

[Nessa]

No,I'm trying to get you to understand that we determine what is true or not based on evidence,but you did'nt get it because you think it is irrelevant to this disscussion,etc. So you overlooked my point.We have all kinds of conspiracy theories and they can sound very convincing the way they are presented,but without evidence? And it is nothing more than an opinion.

I just think you should re-think this theory you've picked up and find evidence to confirm it or not,like I did using Aquinas's four principles. I actually gave evidence for how and why they point to God. So it cannot be "God of the gaps". God of the gaps would be if we did not have evidence and were just filling in the lack of evidence with God,but we are not doing that. It is evidence based,which is why you can't name anything in our world they don't apply to. The four principles are - All things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

You seem to know some about philosophy although the not caring about the "why" point is a problem. It is something that most atheists live by and they wait on science to give them an answer some day.Not realizing that modern day science does not ask the "why" either,so that science can never give them an answer and so they will never,ever know or get an answer.It is a state of limbo.

There is no sense in deluding yourself,going through life believing things that sounded good to you but did not have evidence behind it and after you die,you realize you were wrong and made a poor decision that can't be undone because you ignored the truth based on evidence. If you like philosophy why not check out Thomas Aquinas? Because noone has ever refuted him,still to this day,they have only ignored him or didn't know. He is still just as right as back then.

To reformat; your four principles:

.......1) All things have a cause

.......2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else

.......3) All things are willed into existence

.......4) There can be no infinite regression

"1) All things have a cause." True, which would necessarily include god.

" 2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else." This simply doesn't make sense. Consider the example of Thing A. In effect it says A has a cause, which we will call Y, but then you say A isn't caused by Y, but by something else. Does this make sense to you?

"3) All things are willed into existence." Unless you're talking about God willing them into existence this doesn't make any sense---I've never heard of a rock having been willed into existence. And, if you are talking about God willing them into existence then you're first going to have to present convincing evidence this is true, because as it stands I haven't seen any. So as it stands your third principle is moot.

"4) There can be no infinite regression." Agreed, but so what?

Everything that is created in the universe has a cause. God is self - existent.

[abelcainsbrother]

No,I'm trying to get you to understand that we determine what is true or not based on evidence,but you did'nt get it because you think it is irrelevant to this disscussion,etc. So you overlooked my point.We have all kinds of conspiracy theories and they can sound very convincing the way they are presented,but without evidence? And it is nothing more than an opinion.

I just think you should re-think this theory you've picked up and find evidence to confirm it or not,like I did using Aquinas's four principles. I actually gave evidence for how and why they point to God. So it cannot be "God of the gaps". God of the gaps would be if we did not have evidence and were just filling in the lack of evidence with God,but we are not doing that. It is evidence based,which is why you can't name anything in our world they don't apply to. The four principles are - All things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

You seem to know some about philosophy although the not caring about the "why" point is a problem. It is something that most atheists live by and they wait on science to give them an answer some day.Not realizing that modern day science does not ask the "why" either,so that science can never give them an answer and so they will never,ever know or get an answer.It is a state of limbo.

There is no sense in deluding yourself,going through life believing things that sounded good to you but did not have evidence behind it and after you die,you realize you were wrong and made a poor decision that can't be undone because you ignored the truth based on evidence. If you like philosophy why not check out Thomas Aquinas? Because noone has ever refuted him,still to this day,they have only ignored him or didn't know. He is still just as right as back then.

To reformat; your four principles:

.......1) All things have a cause

.......2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else

.......3) All things are willed into existence

.......4) There can be no infinite regression

"1) All things have a cause." True, which would necessarily include god.

" 2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else." This simply doesn't make sense. Consider the example of Thing A. In effect it says A has a cause, which we will call Y, but then you say A isn't caused by Y, but by something else. Does this make sense to you?

"3) All things are willed into existence." Unless you're talking about God willing them into existence this doesn't make any sense---I've never heard of a rock having been willed into existence. And, if you are talking about God willing them into existence then you're first going to have to present convincing evidence this is true, because as it stands I haven't seen any. So as it stands your third principle is moot.

"4) There can be no infinite regression." Agreed, but so what?

They apply to everything in our world. God is outside our world and I made that clear,besides you can't just make up a straw man God that is not eternal,eternal things cannot be caused.

[Kenny]

No,I'm trying to get you to understand that we determine what is true or not based on evidence,but you did'nt get it because you think it is irrelevant to this disscussion,etc. So you overlooked my point.We have all kinds of conspiracy theories and they can sound very convincing the way they are presented,but without evidence? And it is nothing more than an opinion.

I just think you should re-think this theory you've picked up and find evidence to confirm it or not,like I did using Aquinas's four principles. I actually gave evidence for how and why they point to God. So it cannot be "God of the gaps". God of the gaps would be if we did not have evidence and were just filling in the lack of evidence with God,but we are not doing that. It is evidence based,which is why you can't name anything in our world they don't apply to. The four principles are - All things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

You seem to know some about philosophy although the not caring about the "why" point is a problem. It is something that most atheists live by and they wait on science to give them an answer some day.Not realizing that modern day science does not ask the "why" either,so that science can never give them an answer and so they will never,ever know or get an answer.It is a state of limbo.

There is no sense in deluding yourself,going through life believing things that sounded good to you but did not have evidence behind it and after you die,you realize you were wrong and made a poor decision that can't be undone because you ignored the truth based on evidence. If you like philosophy why not check out Thomas Aquinas? Because noone has ever refuted him,still to this day,they have only ignored him or didn't know. He is still just as right as back then.

To reformat; your four principles:

.......1) All things have a cause

.......2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else

.......3) All things are willed into existence

.......4) There can be no infinite regression

"1) All things have a cause." True, which would necessarily include god.

" 2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else." This simply doesn't make sense. Consider the example of Thing A. In effect it says A has a cause, which we will call Y, but then you say A isn't caused by Y, but by something else. Does this make sense to you?

"3) All things are willed into existence." Unless you're talking about God willing them into existence this doesn't make any sense---I've never heard of a rock having been willed into existence. And, if you are talking about God willing them into existence then you're first going to have to present convincing evidence this is true, because as it stands I haven't seen any. So as it stands your third principle is moot.

"4) There can be no infinite regression." Agreed, but so what?

They apply to everything in our world. God is outside our world and I made that clear,besides you can't just make up a straw man God that is not eternal,eternal things cannot be caused.

Perhaps #1 should be rephrased to something like "All things that are not eternal have a cause"

K

[Kenny]

I'm starting to see Audacity's point in a way. We are influenced by so many different things. Suppose I decide to eat some ice cream, just because I want to. Where does my wanting to come from? I'm influenced by past experience which tells me I like it; the idea of having it now came into my mind for some reason - perhaps it's been high in my subconscious that I have ice cream in the freezer and I'd like to eat it sometime because I'm quite greedy by nature (this is not too far from the truth). Oh, and there's hunger, but ice cream doesn't seem quite the right thing to eat to me when I'm actually hungry.

What if I decide not to eat it? Perhaps I'm influenced by my received knowledge of the unhealthiness of ice cream; maybe I have to do something else to do soon and won't really have time; maybe I want to leave more of the rest for someone else (influenced by the knowledge that they could be upset if they miss out or happy if there's enough for them), maybe physically and mentally I just don't feel like ice cream (unlikely though that is with me - having said that I do manage not to scoff all ice cream as soon as it's available; that doesn't usually seem appropriate). Anyway, there are reasons for everything we do; the question is whether, deep down, they all come from outside ourselves and from our own physical and mental processes which we don't consciously control, or whether we really do have a conscious hand in it. I'm not saying I agree that free will's a delusion, but I can kind of see both sides of it now...

It seems to me, everything you mentioned in your Ice Cream analogy came from within you.
*You wanted Ice Cream because you like the taste
*You deciding it is unhealthy and deciding not to eat it,
*You deciding to leave it for someone else to enjoy,

All these decision, actions, and lack of actions originated from within you, not an outside influence. I believe these were your choices; an example of free will

Ken

Sure, it certainly seems that way on the surface, but I'm saying deep down it could be that we don't really have control over those things.

But why make such an assumption? Why would you assume that which appears obvious is not real, and that which is real is not obvious?

I'm not really assuming; I'm just thinking more deeply about it than I have before and considering the possibility.

Why would I like the taste of something? Genetics, culture, past experience - but I can't really choose to like something or not; I just do or don't. I remember musing many years ago that it would be great to enjoy everything that's not bad for us; we should be a lot happier on the whole!

I agree we do not have complete control or free will about everything, but there are many things we do have free will about.

I certainly prefer that idea, but the whole question is just kind of philosophical speculation really. I'm not dismissing you, but it's pretty hard to know for sure whether we can really make free choices independent of the influences on (and that have been on) us.

I get what you are saying; but I guess we could take it a bit further and recognize the possibility that we might not even have a body, but are just a brain in a vat with information being fed into the brain and we are just convinced we have bodies, freewill, and everything that is apparent to us, because that is what is being fed into our brains. I see no reason to make such an assumption unless I see convincing evidence.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

Maybe all this is just one big dream.

[Audacity]

No,I'm trying to get you to understand that we determine what is true or not based on evidence,but you did'nt get it because you think it is irrelevant to this disscussion,etc. So you overlooked my point.We have all kinds of conspiracy theories and they can sound very convincing the way they are presented,but without evidence? And it is nothing more than an opinion.

I just think you should re-think this theory you've picked up and find evidence to confirm it or not,like I did using Aquinas's four principles. I actually gave evidence for how and why they point to God. So it cannot be "God of the gaps". God of the gaps would be if we did not have evidence and were just filling in the lack of evidence with God,but we are not doing that. It is evidence based,which is why you can't name anything in our world they don't apply to. The four principles are - All things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

You seem to know some about philosophy although the not caring about the "why" point is a problem. It is something that most atheists live by and they wait on science to give them an answer some day.Not realizing that modern day science does not ask the "why" either,so that science can never give them an answer and so they will never,ever know or get an answer.It is a state of limbo.

There is no sense in deluding yourself,going through life believing things that sounded good to you but did not have evidence behind it and after you die,you realize you were wrong and made a poor decision that can't be undone because you ignored the truth based on evidence. If you like philosophy why not check out Thomas Aquinas? Because noone has ever refuted him,still to this day,they have only ignored him or didn't know. He is still just as right as back then.

To reformat; your four principles:

.......1) All things have a cause

.......2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else

.......3) All things are willed into existence

.......4) There can be no infinite regression

"1) All things have a cause." True, which would necessarily include god.

" 2) All things that have a cause are caused by something else." This simply doesn't make sense. Consider the example of Thing A. In effect it says A has a cause, which we will call Y, but then you say A isn't caused by Y, but by something else. Does this make sense to you?

"3) All things are willed into existence." Unless you're talking about God willing them into existence this doesn't make any sense---I've never heard of a rock having been willed into existence. And, if you are talking about God willing them into existence then you're first going to have to present convincing evidence this is true, because as it stands I haven't seen any. So as it stands your third principle is moot.

"4) There can be no infinite regression." Agreed, but so what?

They apply to everything in our world. God is outside our world and I made that clear,besides you can't just make up a straw man God that is not eternal,eternal things cannot be caused.

Perhaps #1 should be rephrased to something like "All things that are not eternal have a cause"

K

Perhaps.

[PaulSacramento]

All things that come into being, have a cause.
That is the simple way to put it.
All things that are contingent have a cause.
That is another way to put it.

Also, All things that change ( change state, move, etc) are moved by another ( something other than themselves).