Does Man Have Free Will?

[Bookworm4Him]

I will be your opponent.

But what context is this topic?

Omniscient God or without God?

Well, I intended it to be with Omniscient God, more of a predestination (Presbyterians) vs. Free Choice (Baptist) and then to apply that to all life... But I forgot to specify... It doesn't matter all that much, anyway. So, how 'bout you and I debate from the omniscient God view. You first.
(sorry if it takes me awhile to respond. I can't get on that often. )
C'ya!

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Then who (or what) decided what Spinoza would say? If Spinoza isn't responsible for his "truth" then why should it carry any weight whatsoever? Why should any utterance of "truth" be considered such if not freely arrived at? Who's in charge here? Determinists attempt to argue from outside the frame of determinism (exempting their statements because to not do so would render their statements meaningless), but that cannot be so: if there is no freewill, then the words of determinists become meaningless.

And, by extension: who or what chose what you just now posted? Why should anything you (or I) say have any meaning if we did not choose those words and the viewpoints that drive them? You didn't choose Spinoza's views (because in philosophy it's not that easy to empirically prove that someone else's philosophic view is "right" or "wrong")?

How can truth be freely arrived at? This is a contradiction.

So, your brain does not function indepently. You have no other choice than to act, think, or believe as you do, your brain is but a subsystem of a larger whole called "logic." I find that very illogical. If every one functioned without choice, we would all just be stamped out carbon copies of each other, driven by logic to all act the same. Your brain's function doesn't need to involve you at all? OK. I must then logically asume that you are dead. Anyone who isn't at least brain dead has to think to act. Even those who have trained themselves to think and act at the same time, must use their brainpower themselves. Choice is the gift and curse of man.

That's not close to what I said and you tend to misuse the word "logically."

Could both of you be a little more articulate, I can't understand much of what you wrote. And please spare me the italics and bold.

[Redzeppelin]

How can truth be freely arrived at? This is a contradiction.

My answer was not sufficiently clear; I'll try again. Truth cannot be a function of determinism; it must be arrived at throught the free choices of the mind that is examining and evaluating what the "truth" of something is or is not. In other words, in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as truth because your utterances as to what the "truth" is (e.g. Spinoza's right and Descartes is wrong) are merely consequences of random neurons firing and chemicals squirting through your brains, or your socio-economic surroundings or whatever psychological conditions you suffer - but it wasn't you who uttered "truth" - it was the consequences of these processes on you. Truth cannot exist in a world where all human expression is merely the consequence of forces biological, physical, psychological or social.

Could both of you be a little more articulate, I can't understand much of what you wrote. And please spare me the italics and bold.

1) Maybe you ought to work a little harder at understanding us - since communication is a two-way street and I think Pen and I were quite clear.
2) "Spare you"? Sorry - I don't let posters dictate my writing style. Most educated people are quite clear on the usage of these stylistic devices.

[StormLogic]

Truth cannot be a function of determinism; it must be arrived at throught the free choices of the mind that is examining and evaluating what the "truth" of something is or is not.

I think the truth being referred to is defined as that which is independent of a particular viewpoint (hence the reference to three lines making a triangle).

So, your brain does not function indepently. You have no other choice than to act, think, or believe as you do, your brain is but a subsystem of a larger whole called "logic." I find that very illogical. If every one functioned without choice, we would all just be stamped out carbon copies of each other, driven by logic to all act the same.

This assumes all brains are identical.

[NickAdams]

I think the truth being referred to is defined as that which is independent of a particular viewpoint (hence the reference to three lines making a triangle).



This assumes all brains are identical.

Exactly. If this is to be an absolute truth, then it can not be based on something as inconsistent as the brain.

[Redzeppelin]

OK - let me try again: not all accepted "truths" are objective in nature (like the triangle example); there are many "truths" that are established through evaluation - like whether a philosophic position accurately describes life, human behavior or reality; or, whether or not we agree with a particular interpretation of an event, a work of art, a behavior someone is demonstrating. If determinism is the law of existence, there is no need to believe anything any of us says as "right" or "true" because those statements were the consequences of processes that are beyond our control. That's what I meant. Yes: a triangle is a triangle - but much of what we call reality and truth doesn't pan out that objectively.

[StormLogic]

If determinism is the law of existence, there is no need to believe anything any of us says as "right" or "true" because those statements were the consequences of processes that are beyond our control. That's what I meant. Yes: a triangle is a triangle - but much of what we call reality and truth doesn't pan out that objectively.

What we call truth and what is truth are not necessarily the same thing.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

My answer was not sufficiently clear; I'll try again. Truth cannot be a function of determinism; it must be arrived at throught the free choices of the mind that is examining and evaluating what the "truth" of something is or is not. In other words, in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as truth because your utterances as to what the "truth" is (e.g. Spinoza's right and Descartes is wrong) are merely consequences of random neurons firing and chemicals squirting through your brains, or your socio-economic surroundings or whatever psychological conditions you suffer - but it wasn't you who uttered "truth" - it was the consequences of these processes on you. Truth cannot exist in a world where all human expression is merely the consequence of forces biological, physical, psychological or social.

1) Maybe you ought to work a little harder at understanding us - since communication is a two-way street and I think Pen and I were quite clear.
2) "Spare you"? Sorry - I don't let posters dictate my writing style. Most educated people are quite clear on the usage of these stylistic devices.

You, sir, have twisted my argument and then attacked it. Of course determinism is not a function of truth; this is a red herring. Whether or not the particular atoms which comprise my body "utter truth," they by no means change truth. In reality, there must be unchangeable axioms and principles on which to base existence; objective truth must exist.

You seem to think that truth is a pure mental construct, which I disagree with. Geometry and mathematics are based on a few axioms which are true regardless of human interpretation of them, such as the relationship between circumference and diameter (as opposed to history, literature, etc). In other words, if Earth were completely destroyed tomorrow, the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter will exist because they do not depend on anything but themselves. Although the word "truth" is often used as a mental construct in everyday speech, this crass definition isn't suitable for reasoning.

Perhaps you should let your syntax show which words are emphasized. Italics and bold hardly have style.

Edit:

What we call truth and what is truth are not necessarily the same thing.

Quoted for truth.

[Turk]

Really then there is no Free Will.

Where is "somewhere"?

This is not possible.

Do you know stars you see above are dead since millions of years?

[Lote-Tree]

Do you know stars you see above are dead since millions of years?

Where is somewhere?

[Turk]

I never travelled faster than light, that's why i don't know. But you don't think about existence of God. If you would be out of time, then everything happened in time would be known by you. Because you would be beyond of the time. And this wouldn't mean people doesn't have free will.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Most of them are still alive actually...

[Turk]

As i know most of them are dead. But doesn't matter it's enough even some of them are dead, it's enough to point a thought.

[Lote-Tree]

{edit}

But you don't think about existence of God. If you would be out of time, then everything happened in time would be known by you. Because you would be beyond of the time. And this wouldn't mean people doesn't have free will.

Regardless of God being outside time etc...omniscience and free will is logical impossibility. As you said - everything is written in a book and just like characters in a novel don't have free will so do we...

[Turk]

{edit}

Regardless of God being outside time etc...omniscience and free will is logical impossibility. As you said - everything is written in a book and just like characters in a novel don't have free will so do we...

Well, have you watched movie named Lord of the Rings?