Do we really have free will?

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, ASimon,

Didn't you freely choose to post to this thread? I know I did.

Every Sunday I teach a Catholic Bible Study program at our local jail. From time to time a prisoner will ask me about having free will. I ask them to recall the judge who sentenced them to jail and to imagine telling the judge you are not guilty of the crime because you have no free will. Then I ask them, what do you think the judge will say? With a doubt, most say the judge will probably add to their sentence!

You can go through the same mental exercise. Imagine a traffic cop pulling you to the side of the road for doing 55 MPH in a 25MPH zone. Now, I know you would never drive so dangerously ... but, just imagine this - and you begin to tell the cop that you have no free will. What do you think the cop will say? Naturally, this is just pure speculation ... but, I think the vast majority of people know quite well that they have a free will... and would be quite shamed to try and deny it. Of course this is not 100% true over the world ... or, even on CAF...

God bless

The realities of our criminal justice system do not present any sort of challenge to determinism - a point I've made already.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by ASimon

Correct.

That is why many very intelligent thinkers like Sartre and Camus believed life is absurd.

I mentioned the evidence already.

It is unconvincing.

And yet, I've managed to agree on the immense value of life without referring the matter upward to a supernatural Creator.

"managed" suggests "in spite of considerable difficulties"! You may have indicated life has "some value" (although I'm not even sure about that) but certainly not justified its immense value (which is hardly implied by "planning to stay around for a while" ).
.

Needless to say, life becomes more valuable when you're operating under the assumption that it won't go on forever.

Why? Many people believe the exact opposite: the less time they have to live the less significant it becomes - especially when they become infirm.

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

It is unconvincing.

Before, you said I hadn't specified this evidence at all. Now, you're saying the evidence I never specified is unconvincing.

"managed" suggests "in spite of considerable difficulties"!

Only if you insist on completely stripping the irony out of that statement, in the service of making a non-point.

You may have indicated life has "some value" (although I'm not even sure about that) but certainly not justified its immense value (which is hardly implied by "planning to stay around for a while" ).

If this life is the only one I'll get, and the sole vehicle for every experience I'll ever have, what more justification do I need?
.

Why? Many people believe the exact opposite: the less time they have to live the less significant it becomes - especially when they become infirm.

The infirm aside, this is a software glitch that many people have in their brains, and easily seen as such when you extend the principle a bit farther. If experience needs to last forever in order to be meaningful, then that means there's no point in reading a book (because books end), or going to a movie (because movies end), or keeping a pet (because pets die), or maintaining any human relationship on any level (because they all eventually end).

Nobody, not even people who believe their lives will go on forever, actually live their lives in view of this principle. People gladly admit, in one breath, that they value having all sorts of finite experiences, and in the next breath, tell people like me that life has no value unless it goes on forever.

[Sample]

Originally Posted by ianoleary

I'm an 18 year old born and raised Catholic, and lately life has been a mess. Over the past couple of years I've kind of gone though a spiritual rebirth and have been asking a bunch of questions about life. Catholicism seems to have a lot of evidence to support it, but I'm still seeing conflicting evidence. Do we really have free will or am I mistaken about the definition of it? The issue of free will lately has really been bugging me and certainly hasn't helped my OCD/anxiety/depersonalization that's been going on. Can someone enlighten me?

Can you help me by demonstrating the supporting evidence you see?

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by ASimon

Originally Posted by ASimon

Before, you said I hadn't specified this evidence at all. Now, you're saying the evidence I never specified is unconvincing.

I have to be merciful.

BTW What was the evidence?

Only if you insist on completely stripping the irony out of that statement, in the service of making a non-point.

It's a very significant point. "managed" on its own can be overlooked but "to stay a while" instead of "as long as possible" doesn't convey much enthusiasm for being alive.

If this life is the only one I'll get, and the sole vehicle for every experience I'll ever have, what more justification do I need?

Uniqueness doesn't necessarily imply that something is valuable. Some think life is a burden.

The infirm aside, this is a software glitch that many people have in their brains, and easily seen as such when you extend the principle a bit farther. If experience needs to last forever in order to be meaningful, then that means there's no point in reading a book (because books end), or going to a movie (because movies end), or keeping a pet (because pets die), or maintaining any human relationship on any level (because they all eventually end).

Nobody, not even people who believe their lives will go on forever, actually live their lives in view of this principle. People gladly admit, in one breath, that they value having all sorts of finite experiences, and in the next breath, tell people like me that life has no value unless it goes on forever.

Life doesn't need to last forever to be meaningful but the longer it lasts the more meaningful it becomes: the experiences you value will not be curtailed but multiplied and diversified immensely. Only an unimaginative, uncreative and unappreciative person thinks the opportunities for adventure, excitement, enjoyment and fulfilment will eventually fizzle out.

There will also be far less unfinished business, unrectified injustice, unrequited love, doomed ambitions, frustrated ideals and inconsolable grief at being parted from everyone and everything you cherish for all eternity.

Those who believe heaven must be boring reveal more about their personality than the nature of reality! Others who believe hell is too appalling, and heaven too wonderful, to be true reveal their lack of insight into the extremes of reality. They fail to grasp the full horror of evil and the full glory of love. They opt for mediocrity because their mental horizon is restricted to worldly things and think we are just naked apes.

This is directly linked to the rejection of free will which is based on the assumption that the mind is a machine programmed to survive without any ideals, objective values or raison d'etre. No wonder Schopenhauer claimed it would have been better if life had never existed on this planet...

[PeterJohn]

Originally Posted by ASimon

Why does experience have to last forever in order to be meaningful?

It doesn't. But since your obviously stating opinion I though I'd state mine!

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

Actually, it is a hypothesis you have yet to support. The comment I provided involving some people in jail was simply an example. You have managed to evade not only that but the content of many posts because they apparently are not in agreement with your views.

Back to my question - didn't you freely choose to respond to the posts on this thread?

The debate about free will vs determinism was old before St. Thomas - here is an excellent link to help you with some of the issues that need to be considered. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

It seems to me, that your determined attack against free will and all of the arguments (unsupported of course) you have mounted against the posts that support free will - is a pretty good indication that you are freely choosing which approach to want to take. I do not think you are flipping a coin or rolling the dice to see which argument you will use - a random outcome type approach. But, take note: claiming your decisions - and hence your mind are being controlled by others is not a reassuring statement from anyone...

God bless

Originally Posted by ASimon

The realities of our criminal justice system do not present any sort of challenge to determinism - a point I've made already.

[eliza3114]

I would like to believe that we live our daily lives with the "sensation of free will".
as long as in the end we keep what our faith teaches us in the forefront of our
decisions. That way we are still walking in the path of Jesus without hurting anyone
alone the way

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, ASimon,

Actually, it is a hypothesis you have yet to support. The comment I provided involving some people in jail was simply an example. You have managed to evade not only that but the content of many posts because they apparently are not in agreement with your views.

Back to my question - didn't you freely choose to respond to the posts on this thread?

The debate about free will vs determinism was old before St. Thomas - here is an excellent link to help you with some of the issues that need to be considered. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

It seems to me, that your determined attack against free will and all of the arguments (unsupported of course) you have mounted against the posts that support free will - is a pretty good indication that you are freely choosing which approach to want to take. I do not think you are flipping a coin or rolling the dice to see which argument you will use - a random outcome type approach. But, take note: claiming your decisions - and hence your mind are being controlled by others is not a reassuring statement from anyone...

God bless

In reverse order:

I'm not particularly concerned whether my views are reassuring anybody. Reality rules, and sometimes the truth hurts.

Second, no, I did not freely choose to respond to this thread. That would mean we (or at least, I) had free will, and that's not true.

And third, my comments regarding the implications of determinism for jurisprudence have been outlined already, if not here, than in the other thread. For future reference, not bothering to read an argument does not give you license to call it unsupported.

[George Stegmeir]

Originally Posted by ASimon

In reverse order:

I'm not particularly concerned whether my views are reassuring anybody. Reality rules, and sometimes the truth hurts.

Second, no, I did not freely choose to respond to this thread. That would mean we (or at least, I) had free will, and that's not true.

And third, my comments regarding the implications of determinism for jurisprudence have been outlined already, if not here, than in the other thread. For future reference, not bothering to read an argument does not give you license to call it unsupported.

If you did not freely choose to respond to this thread, what commanded you to? An alien from outer space?
Bye the bye, I find your arguments in this and other threads to be specious. You are one of those people who exists only to argue on the internet, and cannot admit when they are wrong. What a waste of time!!!! ....and, as a practicing Christian, I mean that in the most charitible way.

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

Wake up and smell the coffee - you're on a new thread - start living in the present... and you're right - reality does rule! Give a solid argument why you have no free will or just continue to evade - either way, it really is a choice! And, honestly, I was not being serious about needing reassurance from your posts.

Now, maybe you really do think your mind is being controlled by others - and if that is the case, this is a medical condition viewed as a serious disconnect from reality. Take responsiblity for your post - present objective evidence and defend your position in a logical manner. Simply continuing to post your negative opinions is not really evidence.

Now, I have three additional links that refute your 'no-free-will' position:

http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c01303.htm

http://catholicvu.com/newpage342.htm

http://www.catholicbasictraining.com...setexts/6d.htm

Maybe you would like to read these presentations and present a logical argument.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Originally Posted by ASimon

In reverse order:

I'm not particularly concerned whether my views are reassuring anybody. Reality rules, and sometimes the truth hurts.

Second, no, I did not freely choose to respond to this thread. That would mean we (or at least, I) had free will, and that's not true.

And third, my comments regarding the implications of determinism for jurisprudence have been outlined already, if not here, than in the other thread. For future reference, not bothering to read an argument does not give you license to call it unsupported.

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, ASimon,

Wake up and smell the coffee - you're on a new thread - start living in the present... and you're right - reality does rule! Give a solid argument why you have no free will or just continue to evade - either way, it really is a choice! And, honestly, I was not being serious about needing reassurance from your posts.

Now, maybe you really do think your mind is being controlled by others - and if that is the case, this is a medical condition viewed as a serious disconnect from reality. Take responsiblity for your post - present objective evidence and defend your position in a logical manner. Simply continuing to post your negative opinions is not really evidence.

Now, I have three additional links that refute your 'no-free-will' position:

http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c01303.htm

http://catholicvu.com/newpage342.htm

http://www.catholicbasictraining.com...setexts/6d.htm

Maybe you would like to read these presentations and present a logical argument.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

I've already presented the argument. You're wandering in late, and acting like everything that came before never happened. Then, you're giving me links that refute an argument that I supposedly never presented in the first place.

Nice try, but you've given the game away. Tonyrey's already here, trying to get me to chase him in circles with his rhetorical meandering. One is enough, two is overkill. If you want to debate, read what I've written up to now and formulate a response.

[empther]

ASimon again:

If you want to debate, read what I've written up to now and formulate a response.

There is no debating this guy. His position is so preposterous even he doesn't believe what he's saying.
He's just here to cause mischief.

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

I have. I did. And, you really are just evading...again.

You have been insisting there is no free will, that you are not freely responding to these posts and that you need only dismiss requests for documentation. Hardly a convincing way to conduct a dialogue.

God bless

Originally Posted by ASimon

I've already presented the argument. You're wandering in late, and acting like everything that came before never happened. Then, you're giving me links that refute an argument that I supposedly never presented in the first place.

Nice try, but you've given the game away. Tonyrey's already here, trying to get me to chase him in circles with his rhetorical meandering. One is enough, two is overkill. If you want to debate, read what I've written up to now and formulate a response.

[tqualey]

Hi, Empther,

I think you are right.

God bless

Originally Posted by empther

ASimon again:



There is no debating this guy. His position is so preposterous even he doesn't believe what he's saying.
He's just here to cause mischief.