Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audacity,I realize you've had time to think all of this out and after having thought about it,have actually decided by free-will to accept it,but where is your evidence you are right?

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.

If you don't ask the "why" like you stated earlier then how can you ever know it is true?

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.

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote: 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.

Re-read my former posts they are in them.

Nessa wrote:Audacity,

Are you married or have been married previously?

As I said before, I think this is enough about me.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:


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.

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.

Kenny wrote:

Audacity wrote:

Kenny wrote: If the action originated from my mind, it didn’t come from anywhere else. I was born with a brain and I evolved to become what I currently am; a person capable of original thought, and the ability to act on my own without any outside influence; thus free will.
Ken

I can't pretend to know how the brain (mind) develops or necessarily operates other than to say there's a whole lot of "because of this, then this" going on. All of which "began" as a zygote that led to an enormous amount of causes → effects, which inevitably ended up in a person having to do "this" rather than "something else." It's all connected, and all dependent on causes and effects. In fact, as may be apparent, everything that happens, no matter where or what shape it takes, physical or mental, is driven by cause. Causes that are inevitable generators of their particular effects.

But if all those causes that originated from the Zygote (as you call it) originated within the person carrying out the action, seems to me this dispels your claim of no free will.

Ken

Audacity wrote: I purposely put quotation marks around "began" because, while it's pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages. And if I gave the impression they were the only ones, it wasn't my intent.

No you didn’t give the impression of only one, and I didn’t suggest you did. I was saying of the many original causes, some of them originate within the person who commits the action, without direction from any outside sources.

Audacity wrote: In any case, I don't see why what I said might suggest it dispels my claim of free will.

As I said before, If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will

Ken

Nicki wrote: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

Kenny wrote:

Audacity wrote: I purposely put quotation marks around "began" because, while it's pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages. And if I gave the impression they were the only ones, it wasn't my intent.

No you didn’t give the impression of only one, and I didn’t suggest you did. I was saying of the many original causes, some of them originate within the person who commits the action, without direction from any outside sources.

Audacity wrote: In any case, I don't see why what I said might suggest it dispels my claim of free will.

As I said before, If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will
Ken

And as I said: "while [the zygot is] pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages." Problem is,when you say "If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will," "original cause" is meaningless, because other than the very first cause, which one could possibly be identified as the Big Bang, no cause is truly original unto itself.

The only other definition of "original cause" I can imagine would be the cause immediately preceding a particular effect, but it would be a bad use of "original."

In any case, assuming for the minute that an "original cause" could actually take place in the mind, it would not necessarily mean that the will was involved and therefore an example of free will.

Kenny wrote:

Audacity wrote: I purposely put quotation marks around "began" because, while it's pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages. And if I gave the impression they were the only ones, it wasn't my intent.

No you didn’t give the impression of only one, and I didn’t suggest you did. I was saying of the many original causes, some of them originate within the person who commits the action, without direction from any outside sources.

Audacity wrote: In any case, I don't see why what I said might suggest it dispels my claim of free will.

As I said before, If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will
Ken

Audacity wrote:And as I said: "while [the zygot is] pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages." Problem is,when you say "If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will," "original cause" is meaningless, because other than the very first cause, which one could possibly be identified as the Big Bang, no cause is truly original unto itself.

I disagree! If I wake up in the morning and I choose to immediately eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios, my choice of breakfast is totally unrelated to my previous event of waking up in the morning

Audacity wrote: The only other definition of "original cause" I can imagine would be the cause immediately preceding a particular effect, but it would be a bad use of "original."

In any case, assuming for the minute that an "original cause" could actually take place in the mind, it would not necessarily mean that the will was involved and therefore an example of free will.

Technically you are right, but it doesn’t mean the will was not involved either, and until an argument is made showing an outside source is responsible, I will assume the will was completely involved. Thus far I don’t think you’ve made an adequate case showing an outside source was responsible, thus I continue with believing free will.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Audacity wrote: I purposely put quotation marks around "began" because, while it's pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages. And if I gave the impression they were the only ones, it wasn't my intent.

No you didn’t give the impression of only one, and I didn’t suggest you did. I was saying of the many original causes, some of them originate within the person who commits the action, without direction from any outside sources.

Audacity wrote: In any case, I don't see why what I said might suggest it dispels my claim of free will.

As I said before, If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will
Ken

Audacity wrote:And as I said: "while [the zygot is] pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages." Problem is,when you say "If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will," "original cause" is meaningless, because other than the very first cause, which one could possibly be identified as the Big Bang, no cause is truly original unto itself.

I disagree! If I wake up in the morning and I choose to immediately eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios, my choice of breakfast is totally unrelated to my previous event of waking up in the morning

Could you have "chosen" to eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios, if you hadn't woken up? This isn't to say that an event (an effect) is necessarily dependent on all previous events (possible causes). And let me point out that most likely there was a whole lot of other cause/effect events taking place between waking up and your "choosing."

Audacity wrote: The only other definition of "original cause" I can imagine would be the cause immediately preceding a particular effect, but it would be a bad use of "original."

In any case, assuming for the minute that an "original cause" could actually take place in the mind, it would not necessarily mean that the will was involved and therefore an example of free will.

Technically you are right, but it doesn’t mean the will was not involved either, and until an argument is made showing an outside source is responsible, I will assume the will was completely involved. Thus far I don’t think you’ve made an adequate case showing an outside source was responsible, thus I continue with believing free will.
Ken

So why did the will, will what it did? Why didn't the will, will something different? Was it just a random act of willing? If so then it certainly doesn't point to any freedom the will is alleged to have: the will was at the mercy of randomness. In fact, the will was caused to do what it did through a random act. And if it wasn't random then there had to be some reason (a cause) for willing what it did. So either the will is at the mercy of randomness or it's at the mercy of cause. And in both cases it means that what the will did was determined, and hardly free.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Audacity wrote: I purposely put quotation marks around "began" because, while it's pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages. And if I gave the impression they were the only ones, it wasn't my intent.

No you didn’t give the impression of only one, and I didn’t suggest you did. I was saying of the many original causes, some of them originate within the person who commits the action, without direction from any outside sources.

Audacity wrote: In any case, I don't see why what I said might suggest it dispels my claim of free will.

As I said before, If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will
Ken

Audacity wrote:And as I said: "while [the zygot is] pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages." Problem is,when you say "If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will," "original cause" is meaningless, because other than the very first cause, which one could possibly be identified as the Big Bang, no cause is truly original unto itself.

I disagree! If I wake up in the morning and I choose to immediately eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios, my choice of breakfast is totally unrelated to my previous event of waking up in the morning

Audacity wrote: Could you have "chosen" to eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios, if you hadn't woken up?

I’’m not suggesting I could; I’m saying one event is unrelated to the other

Audacity wrote: This isn't to say that an event (an effect) is necessarily dependent on all previous events (possible causes). And let me point out that most likely there was a whole lot of other cause/effect events taking place between waking up and your "choosing."

Yes; and the events that lead to my choice of breakfast originated within myself; thus free will

Audacity wrote: The only other definition of "original cause" I can imagine would be the cause immediately preceding a particular effect, but it would be a bad use of "original."

In any case, assuming for the minute that an "original cause" could actually take place in the mind, it would not necessarily mean that the will was involved and therefore an example of free will.

Technically you are right, but it doesn’t mean the will was not involved either, and until an argument is made showing an outside source is responsible, I will assume the will was completely involved. Thus far I don’t think you’ve made an adequate case showing an outside source was responsible, thus I continue with believing free will.
Ken

Audacity wrote: So why did the will, will what it did? Why didn't the will, will something different? Was it just a random act of willing? If so then it certainly doesn't point to any freedom the will is alleged to have: the will was at the mercy of randomness. In fact, the will was caused to do what it did through a random act. And if it wasn't random then there had to be some reason (a cause) for willing what it did. So either the will is at the mercy of randomness or it's at the mercy of cause. And in both cases it means that what the will did was determined, and hardly free.

The reason was not random, there was a method to my madness; but that method originated within my mind; not some outside force.

Ken

For those following this inanity, the previous comments about why the will so wills gives us another chance to clarify something important. I said ealier, and I'll say again, the problem with "free will" isn't choosing A vs choosing B. That's the easiest part to solve. The problem is with intentionality. What Audacity is simply too obtuse to see--and this is why I laughed, and continue to laugh, at his ridiculous statement that it is good to keep an open mind while simultaneously denying existence open minds or the goodness or badness of anything--is that intentionality itself is what determines A vs B. And I use that word "determines" in the proper sense.

Take any indeterminate aspect of reality you want. On the common sense view (and I think correct view, both philosophically and scientifically), something could be A or B. We won't know for sure until it actually is A or B. We can very likely say with more or less certainty what the probability of A is over B--we can say that there is an 80% chance of A happening rather than B. But if B happens, that just means that what was unlikely actually did happen. So the cause is indeterminately (but really) related to the effect. The mechanistic view (and I think incorrect view, both philosophically and scientifically) holds that something only looks like it could be A or B. The "looks like" here is really a problem with what we know, or can know, about the world. But, in point of fact, there is 100% chance that a particular thing will happen. It was literally impossible for Clinton to win. It was literally impossible for my SN not to be Jac3510. It was literally impossible for Audacity not to join these forums. It was literally impossible for me not to have two children. And all of this was literally impossible from the very first moment of the Big Bang. In other words, the cause is deterministically related to the effect. To be extra clear, the logic is one of necessity. If A then necessarily B. A, so necessarily B.

So back to my statement that intentionality itself determines A to B. In Audacity's mechanistic world, there is no such thing as intentionality. B is determined necesarily by A. There are no probabilities, etc. But in the real world, A is related to B or C indeterminately . . . A may cause B or it may cause C. It may be necessarily and deterministically true that A has an 80% chance of causing B and a 20% chance of causing C, but the actual effect--B or C--is indeterminate. So let's say B happens (the 80% chance). There are only one of two possible explanations.

The first is that there is no direct cause. Here we're talking about non-volitional causes. To use evolution as an example, this gene had a well understood chance of mutating in this particular way, and given X number of times it is reproduced, in this particular event it did, in fact, mutate this particular way. There's no specific cause as to why it mutated this time rather than that. It just did. That's part of the thing's nature. It's part of basic, fundamental reality, because reality is fundamentally probabilistic rather than fundamentally deterministic. But note very carefully (and this will be important in the next paragraph) that there are limits on this randomization. The gene has a tiny chance of mutating this rather than that way--maybe a .001% chance. And we could identify dozens or hundreds of potential mutations and their corresponding chances of actually happening. But we also know that it has a 0% chance of mutating in an infinite number of other ways. That is, the range of indeterminate probabilities is limited by the nature of the thing. It could most likely be A, but it could maybe be B, and have a very, very, very small chance of being C, D, or E.

That provides the basis for understanding both intentionality and ultimately the will. In those non-volitional causes, we see that cause is "directed towards" A, B, C, D, and E. That direction is "weighted" more heavily towards A, and somewhat towards B, and only a little bit towards C, D, and E. In philosophical jargon, [A-E] is the set of potentialities a thing has. And, again, it has those potentialities by nature, that is, because of what it is. Humans can't give birth to elephants, but they can maybe give birth to babies with Proteus syndrome.

This idea of a cause being "directed towards" its effect is fundamentaly to all science. In fact, that's what physics propperly is: the isolation of things so that we can test what are the latent potentialities of any given nature. In so knowing those potentialities, we can manipulate them technologically to produce the results we want. But I digress. The poinnt is, such "pointing" is a real and necessary part of reality. And it also explains the will. For the will is nothing else except the "pointing" or "directing towards" some A, B, C, D, or E. Whereas in non-volitional causes, there is nothing doing the determining except pure chance, in volitional causes, there is something doing the directing. That something intends A rather than B. In fact, that intentionality is precisely what makes animals to be animals.

And let me say one last thing: not all wills or intentionalities are free. In non-rational animals,animals don't have free will. Their acts are determined by their instincts. They see, make a judgment, and act on the judgment with respect to their nature, training, experiences, and other such variables. But this post is too long already and I don't have time to go into a fuller discussion of the relationship between the intellect and the will. The point is merely that, in rational animals, we may intend this rather than that, and that regardless of the otherwise determining factors. That's just what rationality does when applied to the will.

Take all of that away, though, take intentionality away, and you're left with no intellect. Science itself is literally impossible without intentionality. If all causs are absolutely and necessarily related to one particular effect, then non-particular effects are meaningless. Things like ideas and concepts are meaningless. Rationality, thus, is meaningless. There is no such thing as the abstract, even in the mind. Even doubt is impossible, because doubt can be indeterministically related to any number of ideas. But on Audacity's view, there is no indeterminacy in the universe. And so there is no such thing as doubt. Or so thought. Descartes was wrong when he said "I think, therefore I am." In truth, there are no thoughts. There are no doubts.

And that, I think, shows the absurdity of his position at bottom. It's just wrong. You may as well say that red is green. It's just self-contradictory drivel. No, if intentionality is real--and it obviously (in the right sense of the word) is--then his determinism is false.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Audacity wrote: I purposely put quotation marks around "began" because, while it's pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages. And if I gave the impression they were the only ones, it wasn't my intent.

No you didn’t give the impression of only one, and I didn’t suggest you did. I was saying of the many original causes, some of them originate within the person who commits the action, without direction from any outside sources.

Audacity wrote: In any case, I don't see why what I said might suggest it dispels my claim of free will.

As I said before, If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will
Ken

Audacity wrote:And as I said: "while [the zygot is] pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages." Problem is,when you say "If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will," "original cause" is meaningless, because other than the very first cause, which one could possibly be identified as the Big Bang, no cause is truly original unto itself.

I disagree! If I wake up in the morning and I choose to immediately eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios, my choice of breakfast is totally unrelated to my previous event of waking up in the morning

Audacity wrote: Could you have "chosen" to eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios, if you hadn't woken up?

I’’m not suggesting I could; I’m saying one event is unrelated to the other

Then how could you have chosen to eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios without first waking up? You do understand the meanings of "related" and "unrelated" don't you?

Audacity wrote: This isn't to say that an event (an effect) is necessarily dependent on all previous events (possible causes). And let me point out that most likely there was a whole lot of other cause/effect events taking place between waking up and your "choosing."

Yes; and the events that lead to my choice of breakfast originated within myself; thus free will

Audacity wrote: The only other definition of "original cause" I can imagine would be the cause immediately preceding a particular effect, but it would be a bad use of "original."

In any case, assuming for the minute that an "original cause" could actually take place in the mind, it would not necessarily mean that the will was involved and therefore an example of free will.

Technically you are right, but it doesn’t mean the will was not involved either, and until an argument is made showing an outside source is responsible, I will assume the will was completely involved. Thus far I don’t think you’ve made an adequate case showing an outside source was responsible, thus I continue with believing free will.
Ken

Audacity wrote: So why did the will, will what it did? Why didn't the will, will something different? Was it just a random act of willing? If so then it certainly doesn't point to any freedom the will is alleged to have: the will was at the mercy of randomness. In fact, the will was caused to do what it did through a random act. And if it wasn't random then there had to be some reason (a cause) for willing what it did. So either the will is at the mercy of randomness or it's at the mercy of cause. And in both cases it means that what the will did was determined, and hardly free.

The reason was not random, there was a method to my madness; but that method originated within my mind; not some outside force.
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.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Audacity wrote: I purposely put quotation marks around "began" because, while it's pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages. And if I gave the impression they were the only ones, it wasn't my intent.

No you didn’t give the impression of only one, and I didn’t suggest you did. I was saying of the many original causes, some of them originate within the person who commits the action, without direction from any outside sources.

Audacity wrote: In any case, I don't see why what I said might suggest it dispels my claim of free will.

As I said before, If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will
Ken

Audacity wrote:And as I said: "while [the zygot is] pretty much the beginning stage of an individual, those cause/effect events that occurred there aren't the only ones. A vast number of others impinge on and affect a person as he ages." Problem is,when you say "If the original cause of action “X” began within the mind of the person who commits action “X”, that is an example of free will," "original cause" is meaningless, because other than the very first cause, which one could possibly be identified as the Big Bang, no cause is truly original unto itself.

I disagree! If I wake up in the morning and I choose to immediately eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios, my choice of breakfast is totally unrelated to my previous event of waking up in the morning

Audacity wrote: Could you have "chosen" to eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios, if you hadn't woken up?

I’’m not suggesting I could; I’m saying one event is unrelated to the other

Audacity wrote: Then how could you have chosen to eat Corn Flakes instead of Cheerios without first waking up? You do understand the meanings of "related" and "unrelated" don't you?

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

Audacity wrote: This isn't to say that an event (an effect) is necessarily dependent on all previous events (possible causes). And let me point out that most likely there was a whole lot of other cause/effect events taking place between waking up and your "choosing."

Yes; and the events that lead to my choice of breakfast originated within myself; thus free will

Audacity wrote: The only other definition of "original cause" I can imagine would be the cause immediately preceding a particular effect, but it would be a bad use of "original."

In any case, assuming for the minute that an "original cause" could actually take place in the mind, it would not necessarily mean that the will was involved and therefore an example of free will.

Technically you are right, but it doesn’t mean the will was not involved either, and until an argument is made showing an outside source is responsible, I will assume the will was completely involved. Thus far I don’t think you’ve made an adequate case showing an outside source was responsible, thus I continue with believing free will.
Ken

Audacity wrote: So why did the will, will what it did? Why didn't the will, will something different? Was it just a random act of willing? If so then it certainly doesn't point to any freedom the will is alleged to have: the will was at the mercy of randomness. In fact, the will was caused to do what it did through a random act. And if it wasn't random then there had to be some reason (a cause) for willing what it did. So either the will is at the mercy of randomness or it's at the mercy of cause. And in both cases it means that what the will did was determined, and hardly free.

The reason was not random, there was a method to my madness; but that method originated within my mind; not some outside force.
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.[/quote]

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

Ken

Kenny wrote: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?


Ken

Audacity wrote: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. 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"? And we're right back to square one: beCAUSE. . . . . . . . .

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

Audacity wrote: 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

Audacity wrote: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

Audacity wrote: 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.

Audacity wrote: 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.

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

I control my mind via free will.

Ken