Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Cornelius89]

Can't prove it's wrong? I was unaware it was proved right. Go ahead and show me the proof that it's right.

An infinite regress would have no author, and wouldn't be "free." It also presumes an infinite number of things begin to exist with no ultimate cause. In other words, the infinite chain itself would be uncaused and you'd face the same problem as before. See there's no way out of the dilemma. Nice try Jr.

If you believe that an infinite number of universes can begin to exist with no cause and you just made god obsolete.

I don't subscribe to Kalam for this very reason. Your very refutation of infinite regress (which would have no cause, esp with no Creator) is your own argument's downfall. Otherwise what's the origin of anything then? What caused the Big Bang? If nothing, then the same laws that exist, out of nothing, could be how free will exists. If something, then what caused that? Nothing again? Or an infinite regress?

Feynman points out that, in physics, inertia has no known origin. If you claim to refute LFW on the basis that it can't have an origin other than something that causes it, then you've disproven the existence of anything. This is your fundamental mistake: you implicitly presume that existence is a predicate, like a chair, and therefore must be formed by something that preceded it.

Imo, free will can be created by giving the sentient being the power to choose, just like the original force that can do anything has the power to do it. The same way that a Creator can create a law that functions without any causation as we prove above, he could make free will to choose freely. I don't think how free will operates has to be predicated upon a causation, which by definition would make it non-free, and that's what your argument assumes from the outset: a bias that we all share about cause and effect due to the vast majority of our experiences in the physical world.

On a similar note, since I found out about it, I always felt Bell's Theorem contributed something about free will existing. I could be wrong.

[The Thinker]

I don't subscribe to Kalam for this very reason. Your very refutation of infinite regress (which would have no cause, esp with no Creator) is your own argument's downfall. Otherwise what's the origin of anything then? What caused the Big Bang? If nothing, then the same laws that exist, out of nothing, could be how free will exists. If something, then what caused that? Nothing again? Or an infinite regress?

Feynman points out that, in physics, inertia has no known origin. If you claim to refute LFW on the basis that it can't have an origin other than something that causes it, then you've disproven the existence of anything. This is your fundamental mistake: you implicitly presume that existence is a predicate, like a chair, and therefore must be formed by something that preceded it.

I have no problem with an infinite regress, in principle. My argument to demi was that if can't have an author since it would have no ultimate cause, and therefore it is insufficient as an explanation of free will.

Now you asked "What caused the Big Bang?" I hear this all the time by people who misunderstand the BB.

As an atheist I hear: NO ONE CREATED SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING? This is the name of the first chapter in Christian Apologist Frank Turok's book "Stealing God." Other variations of the question go, "How do you get something from nothing?" or "How does nothing create everything?" or still yet, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The popular view out there especially among theists is that atheists believe "nothing" somehow created everything. If you're an atheist in any kind of situation talking or debating with theists you can be sure some variation of these questions will come up at some point, and you've got to be prepared to give a response.

First, some of these questions assume that the ontological default state should be nothing, and not something, and theists who ask these questions will almost certainly not have shown any justification why that should be so. I don't think one can even come up with an objective prior probability for such an assumption. Second, many of these questions usually rely on a faulty assumption about the big bang. Many people falsely assume the the big bang entails there there was a state of nothingness, and then *poof* you get a big bang. That's not what it says. That's not even what inflationary theory says. They both simply say that there was a first moment when t=0. There wasn't anything prior to that; there was no state of "nothing" from which everything came out of. And since space and time are tied together, as Einstein showed, with no space prior to t=0, there was no time. So you can say that the universe always existed in that at every moment of time the universe exists. In this sense, the universe is omnitemporal. That means there was always something. Somethingness might be the ontological default, and not nothingness.

So no atheist must be committed to the view that "nothing created everything." This is an absurd parody of the atheist position on cosmic origins, and far too many religious apologists and atheists alike believe this. Now of course it is always possible that there was spacetime prior to the big bang. If there's an infinite amount of spacetime prior to our universe's big bang, then most of these questions are mute anyway. And if there is a finite amount of spacetime prior to our universe's big bang, the same principle applies to the absolute origin.


But either way, free will is negated.

Imo, free will can be created by giving the sentient being the power to choose, just like the original force that can do anything has the power to do it. The same way that a Creator can create a law that functions without any causation as we prove above, he could make free will to choose freely. I don't think how free will operates has to be predicated upon a causation, which by definition would make it non-free, and that's what your argument assumes from the outset: a bias that we all share about cause and effect due to the vast majority of our experiences in the physical world.

On a similar note, since I found out about it, I always felt Bell's Theorem contributed something about free will existing. I could be wrong.

That makes no sense. If you cannot control what thoughts, desires, or will arises in your mind, as you can't, you have no free will. You can't choose what your next thought, desire, or idea will be, without that thought, desire, or idea already popping into your consciousness in a manner you couldn't have freely controlled. In order to choose your next thought, you'd have to think about it, before you think about it. That's incoherent. You can't have a thought, about a thought, before you have the thought. If you can't choose your next thought, or any of your thoughts, how is your will or mind controlled by you, and in what sense is it free? It isn't. Thoughts arise in consciousness and we have no control over it.

[demi-conservative]

Can't prove it's wrong? I was unaware it was proved right. Go ahead and show me the proof that it's right.

Mindless robot, how many times must I point out you say 'all free will conceptions inconsistent' till it get through your thick head? This means it's your job to prove it inconsistent or shut up

An infinite regress would have no author, and wouldn't be "free."

You're a moron. Look at regress proposed: free act<- agent<- agent..... Author everywhere is agent.

It also presumes an infinite number of things begin to exist with no ultimate cause.

1) 'Agent causing agent causing....agent causing free act' is at best events, but not 'things'. Your sloppy thinking and categories showing again
2) free act<- agent<- agent.... so there are only two "things", assuming that ...but who knows what you means by "things"? Again, your sloppiness is showing, Mr "our thoughts are our will and mind."
3) Ultimate cause in proposed chain is still agent.

In other words, the infinite chain itself would be uncaused and you'd face the same problem as before. See there's no way out of the dilemma. Nice try Jr.

Even if we grant your implicit metaphysical assumptions here, there's no logical reason why infinite chain cannot be caused by relevant agent.

It's [s]turtles[/s] this agent causing all the way down!!!!!

If you believe that an infinite number of universes can begin to exist with no cause and you just made god obsolete.

I quote your post #1 back to you, child:

This is an informal fallacy known as an appeal to consequences. The undesirable consequences of a thing say nothing about whether it is false.

Now run along

[demi-conservative]

I don't subscribe to Kalam for this very reason. Your very refutation of infinite regress (which would have no cause, esp with no Creator) is your own argument's downfall. Otherwise what's the origin of anything then? What caused the Big Bang? If nothing, then the same laws that exist, out of nothing, could be how free will exists. If something, then what caused that? Nothing again? Or an infinite regress?

Welcome, Cornelius89!!!

I'm afraid you talking to The "Thinker", someone who admits he has no free will, no control over any of his thoughts

He likes to think he is so much better than religious people because of his better thoughts, but he admits hehas no control over any of "superior" thoughts

So there's little, little point to try to constructive discussion with him, especially when he likes to use sloppy categories and bad arguments. Just use simplest method to prove his arguments massive failure (as I did here with using infinite regress), and watch as his mind blows

[Sparko]

Will Thinker freely choose to respond to the post above or freely choose to ignore it?

[The Thinker]

Mindless robot, how many times must I point out you say 'all free will conceptions inconsistent' till it get through your thick head? This means it's your job to prove it inconsistent or shut up

Brainless idiot, I've already logically proven LFW is incoherent. It's your job to show it isn't.

You're a moron. Look at regress proposed: free act<- agent<- agent..... Author everywhere is agent.

Your logic is as bad as your English.

This is the stupidest argument ever.

1) 'Agent causing agent causing....agent causing free act' is at best events, but not 'things'. Your sloppy thinking and categories showing again
2) free act<- agent<- agent.... so there are only two "things", assuming that ...but who knows what you means by "things"? Again, your sloppiness is showing, Mr "our thoughts are our will and mind."
3) Ultimate cause in proposed chain is still agent.

If there's an infinitely regress of causes that have no termination and yet have directionality, you cannot be the author of them. If the whole infinite series is uncaused, you can't have control over it since by definition you can't have control over something uncaused. Now I'm getting a little tired of explaining this to your retarded brain. You can't even use proper grammar.

Even if we grant your implicit metaphysical assumptions here, there's no logical reason why infinite chain cannot be caused by relevant agent.

It's [s]turtles[/s] this agent causing all the way down!!!!!

LOL. There is no metaphysical assumption I'm making here. If you claim there is, what is it? I'm simply saying that if the infinite series has no cause, it has no cause. If it has a cause it isn't free, if it has no cause you can't have control over it. There's no way out of your dilemma. It's a logical problem.

I quote your post #1 back to you, child:

This is an informal fallacy known as an appeal to consequences. The undesirable consequences of a thing say nothing about whether it is false.

Now run along

Um no, I'm not making an argument from consequences. I'm merely pointing out the logical fact that your absolutely ad hoc ridiculous attempt to weasel out of the dilemma doesn't work. You're still stuck in it, because there's not possible way out of it.

No go learn how to write proper English.

[Sparko]

Ah so he freely chose to respond.

[Bill the Cat]

Brainless idiot, I've already logically proven LFW is incoherent. It's your job to show it isn't.

All you have shown is that Open Theism is incompatible with LFW, not that LFW is incoherent.

[Sparko]

All you have shown is that Open Theism is incompatible with LFW, not that LFW is incoherent.

he is talking about his idiotic claim that if something has a cause then it can't be a free will decision. He is a moron.

If I am hungry, it will get me started thinking about food. But then I can think about
1. Where do I want to eat?
2. What kind of food do I want? Chinese? Mexican?
3. How much money do I have? Do I need to stop at the ATM?
and so on.

Then I make a choice. Today I think I will skip lunch because I want to lose a few pounds.

Whoah! I just made a free will decision because I WANTED to! Even though the chain of events was "caused" by me being hungry! Amazing!


The Thinker is a moron.

[The Thinker]

All you have shown is that Open Theism is incompatible with LFW, not that LFW is incoherent.

Um no, my argument is not dependent on whether god exists or not. The argument attacks LFW itself.

[TheWall]

Hey could one of you pass the salt?

[Bill the Cat]

Um no, my argument is not dependent on whether god exists or not. The argument attacks LFW itself.

In a linear fashion, as if the cause has to be prior to the effect from all agents' POV. Have a timeless agent with perfect foreknowledge, and the cause and effect linear argument falls apart.

[The Thinker]

he is talking about his idiotic claim that if something has a cause then it can't be a free will decision. He is a moron.

If I am hungry, it will get me started thinking about food. But then I can think about
1. Where do I want to eat?
2. What kind of food do I want? Chinese? Mexican?
3. How much money do I have? Do I need to stop at the ATM?
and so on.

Then I make a choice. Today I think I will skip lunch because I want to lose a few pounds.

Whoah! I just made a free will decision because I WANTED to! Even though the chain of events was "caused" by me being hungry! Amazing!


The Thinker is a moron.

You are actually such a moron because you have a lay-person's understanding of this. It is not merely the cause, the focus is on whatever chronological order of events you think takes place when a "free decision is made" if the decision is part of a series of causes that go beyond you, it isn't free. If it terminates in something uncaused, you cannot by definition have any control over it, so it isn't up to you. There's no logically possible way out of the dilemma.

All those thoughts in your (1)(2)(3) are either uncaused or caused. Your choice is either caused or uncaused. Same problem, same dilemma.

You have no idea how idiotic you are.

[The Thinker]

In a linear fashion, as if the cause has to be prior to the effect from all agents' POV. Have a timeless agent with perfect foreknowledge, and the cause and effect linear argument falls apart.

That makes no sense. A timeless being literally cannot do anything since to be timeless by definition requires that the thing cannot change in any sense, physically and mentally. Change requires time.

I am not in any way arguing that divine foreknowledge negates free will. Absolutely no part of my argument relies on that. So I have no idea what you're even talking about here.

[Bill the Cat]

That makes no sense. A timeless being literally cannot do anything since to be timeless by definition requires that the thing cannot change in any sense, physically and mentally. Change requires time.

Only when interacting with time. The fact that you can't imagine a timeless being who can interact with time but is outside of time is immaterial.

I am not in any way arguing that divine foreknowledge negates free will. Absolutely no part of my argument relies on that. So I have no idea what you're even talking about here.

Because foreknowledge and timelessness defeat your argument.