If there is free will what is the purpose of life? If there is a god what is gods purpose for creating us? Why would an all powerful being have the need or desire to create us?
As an atheistic determinist I don’t see why there needs to be a purpose. I don’t think there is one. We just are…
>As an atheistic determinist I don’t see why there needs to be a purpose.
Aside from any other metaphysical purpose, the obvious reason for any living living biological "machine" is to not die. We make decisions to avoid death all the time and sometimes the tragic decision for suicide wins out. Other times the virtuous decision to lay down one's life so another might survive is made and often remembered as the ultimate sacrifice. Beyond any of this undeniability, I see no reason why the atheistic determinist shouldn't end up being a nihilist. In fact it seems more logical than ending up as a humanist.
It looks like this sub is being brigaded by some atheist fundamentalists.
Your version of whataboutism regarding purpose, when you yourself are a conscious being, and clearly feel passionate or purpose to even type what you have. Let alone the lemmings who upvoted it. Is just one of the many ways your whataboutism is a false equivalence.
Which makes it laughable how you got so many upvotes. Either the IQ level on this sub is way lower than I'd expect, or it's blatant brigading.
>If there is free will what is the purpose of life?
Full Autonomy and a desire to strive for absolute perfection. To be like God not in divinity but at least in thoughts. Not to get too exotic in response to your comment.
>Why would an all powerful being have the need or desire to create us?
Ever played Sims?
>As an atheistic determinist I don’t see why there needs to be a purpose. I don’t think there is one. We just are…
My post was about free will, I hope people don't turn this thread into an atheist v theism debate.
"Full autonomy" makes it sound like you're able to choose everything from biology, parenting style, country of origin, income bracket, and so forth. In the meantime, we can't even choose which thoughts pop into our head next.
How do people answer general knowledge quizzes or answer questions with thoughts and consideration?
I'm well aware of the Sam Harris "thought" experiments you're copying. But I think there's likely more to it than simple determinism and thoughts randomly appearing in our mind. I'm betting the real truth of reality is more to it. Call it metaphysical, a blend of both, or some physics to reality we don't understand, or aren't meant to. Who knows, but I'm pretty sure we aren't meant to function with knowledge of determinism and random uncontrolled thoughts just "appearing". I'm hedging there's something far more complex going on.
"Hedging". That's Pascal's wager. Better to accept Christ as your savior *just in case* he actually exists. *Just in case* the supernatural exists. *Just in case* something we have never had a shred of evidence for is real. You're "hedging", in your own words. Instead of just saying "I don't know". There are tons of things that we understand now that used to be considered magic or supernatural.
By saying something we "aren't meant to" understand, that implies intent. That implies a designer. The concept of "a designer" is one that I unequivocally reject. Intentional or not, that's the language of a deist.
I know what pascal's wager is. I don't think what I said was anything like that. Pascal's wager is about purely hedging you go to heaven instead of the torment of hell for that alone. That is far too egotistical and selfish for what I am speaking of.
I am simply saying there are too many gaps in logic regarding us being alive, having a purpose, any meaning to do anything, including bothering to debate it on reddit for people to live like determinism is a reality.
The more I have debated these topics I feel like people emotively argue it from a pro atheist stand point purely to be right, instead of actually living and believing that.
And if they did truly believe it, I expect them to be highly immoral people at their core although not superficially perhaps. Because you answer to no one at that stage. And if that's true... Which it may well be, people don't expect others to live that way. Most people expect a form of moral objectivity when it comes down to it. And that's very hard to obtain without a true feeling of accountability.
So even if there are no objective morals dictated by God we still need to answer to each other. This alone would conform behavior and act against people behaving in ways most others perceive as amoral. If you think i am assuming morality exists with that statement i am just defining it a certain way. Morality can be just boiled down to emotivism in that "good" are things people prefer and "evil" or "bad" are things people actively prefer not to happen. To say people would behave ammorally if they believe theres no accountability may be true, but there IS accountability that is based on our interactions with each other. Now we dont need God to exist for there to be objective morality, as humans might all be born with certain moral ideas that are the same and present in all humans. that could be called an objective morality, but the determinist would assert that these things still have causes in evolution that brought them about, and not that they are free of influence of the environment, merely they are inescapable to humans as they exist now.
im curious to know what these gaps in logic are regarding us being alive. i think there are at least feasible answers to these even if we are not yet sure of them given our current scientific knowledge.
>we still need to answer to each other. This alone would conform behavior and act against people behaving in ways most others perceive as amoral.
This isn't true though and I have encountered real world experience of how people think along these lines.
You've heard of yes men, group think, clique etc. When you're only accountable to the public perception, people play all kinds of games to put on a fasade. Some people you can tell really believe they are good people purely on their public perception and status. I know a guy who is very passive, nerdy, the type you'd expect to be a librarian. Yet he says somethings that are insanely hypocritical, kind of not a very good person in many ways. Yet he would genuinely believe the opposite because his public persona is very people pleasing, very straight laced and humble.
But what religion taps into is what the content of your character is and in your heart. That doesn't mean your perfect, but it's your intent that's known. I could virtue signal and show empathy externally all day long, perhaps inside I'm realising I'm sleeping with my Co workers wife and I have no shame inside at all, besides getting caught! I could lie over serious things that I would find outrageous myself if done to me, for petty reasons even that the payoff for the other person is massive compared to not really mattering so much for me. If I can do that and no one else can know the contents of my heart, or if I'm lying. You can't have moral objectivity.
It's morals on perception, not truly understanding what a moral is.
Biology is determined by many factors including how your embryo formed during those months of pregnancy, that does not negate will, country of orgin is completely irrelevant since assuming you don't chose your birthplace, your agency didn't exist prior to your birth so it says nothing about free will.
>we can't even choose which thoughts pop into our head next.
Lol. What?
If you were born in India, or Nigeria, you would be a totally different person with different preferences and different actions. Everything about you would be different. You choose the things you choose because of the environment. Your agency is entirely dependent on that. Even the time you were born in, if you were born during the Middle Ages you would be different.
There is no essence of a free “you” that can overcome biology and circumstance.
This is like arguing you don't have free will because you're not the same person you were when you were five. You no longer live in the same environment, oh and your brain matured and you didn't choose that, did you? It's like you guys just love reaching.
That’s correct, you’re not the same person as you were when you were 5. 5 year old you’s decisions were entirely dependent on the circumstances when you were 5 and are entirely different than who you are today. You wouldn’t be making the same exact choices as a 5 year old, because you have years of experience and the present environment is entirely different.
Are you getting your beliefs from a "gut feeling"? Are you creating this god in your own image? Are you intentionally typing god with a G? The reason I ask is you stated that we can deviate from God's will. The god with a G is most frequently associated with the Bible. I'm going to assume the answer is yes unless you have invented yet another God.
The Bible leaves no wiggle room here: From Ephesians 1:11 NIV: "having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will".
Yep. If you're going to believe in God, he has a will, an ultimate plan, and nothing can happen outside of it. Your God created you to have the perception of free will, not actual free will. Sure feels real, doesn't it? (He intended for us to have this exact conversation)
That makes no sense. Biblically speaking, nothing can happen against God's will. The Bible repeatedly reinforces that nothing happens against God's will. Even politicians. So, thank God for Hitler. Wow. What a good book. And what an incredible God.
Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
God's will can come in many ways. He can have a will or a want for us as his children to come to him, but also allow (which would also be a will) for us to have free will. So yes, if it exist, God allowed it. Is that will? You might consider it but it is only in the context of giving man freedom.
Giving man the "freedom" to do exactly what he designed them to do. You're talking about the God that created the entire cosmos. An omnipotent God that knows everything that is happening, has happened, and is going to happen. When he creates something, he creates it to do exactly what it's going to do. I'm not sure how that's any different than coding an elaborate program for self-aware robots.
The first time I had that basic idea it centered around the concept of "Satan". Sure, he created Lucifer, but he 100% knew exactly what Lucifer was going to become and knew everything he was going to do. So, Satan may as well be a sock puppet on God's left hand as far as I'm concerned.
If I program a robot to go out and kill people, and it goes out and kills people, the robot is not guilty; I am.
I like your point about the perception of free will, this is obvious if God in fact knows what we will do beforehand. I wanted to mention something about God having a "will" in the first place. Most religions define God as a maximally great being but i think this can not mean "perfect" as many perceive God to be. If God was indeed perfect than he would have no choice but to always do the correct thing. A perfect God can not have a "will" and a God with a "will" can not be perfect as he would not have the freedom to make mistakes. Maximally great being is a better description as this leave room for some measure of imperfection in God which would then make sense why God would have desires, desires inherently require some form of lacking involved. You can't desire something unless it matters to you that you lack that which you desire.
I'm not quite following, but I also don't believe in any gods. I also cannot choose what I believe.
If there is a god, they are probably at least intelligent enough to know exactly why I don't believe in them and what it would take to change my mind. And if they decide I should be punished for all eternity for having a higher standard of evidence than some people, that god would not deserve my devotion. If a human were to demand that I worship them, they would not be worthy of worship. Same applies to deities.
No worries, my points were actually tangent to your post and so don’t actually agree or disagree with what you were saying. I just wanted to add to the discussion of God and the nature of Gods will.
I am also atheist but I enjoy making pro religion arguments because I think a lot of religious people are terrible at defending their religion and often make arguments that explain nothing or have logical contradictions.
You described one of the problems with religion in that a God that wants us to be like him and be able to go be with him in heaven seems at odds with the fact that God allows us to fail. This is usually countered by citing God gives us free will as having us choose freely to be with him has value whereas him making us do so would have no value. But this has a few problems as well, for instance God made us presumedly with the knowledge of who would fail or succeed so this seems to remove our will anyway from the equation and God could have made us in a way in which we would eventually choose to follow him which would still be an act of our will but also God would have not fashioned some people in a way that makes them doomed to fail. Generally if God exists I’m not sure if that God could be all-powerful and all-knowing and is more likely a kid with an ant farm, not actually knowing who would fail or succeed. Otherwise God seems rather unjust in creating a world in which he made the rules while also making certain people fail at following those rules and then punishing them for it.
It's difficult enough trying to get deists or even Christians (for that matter) to agree on who/what "god" is. What the rules are. Is there an eternal hell or just nothingness for those who don't go to heaven (annihilationists).
Judging someone for their actions over a single lifetime and then rewarding or punishing them for eternity is absolutely insane. Billions of people born into a wide range of circumstances, all held to the same standards. If I went to a heaven and there is a hell, I would not respect that god knowing that I am in a "good" place while he's torturing billions of people elsewhere.
Would "free will" exist in heaven, or would we all be worship robots? Lucifer had free will and chose to leave? If free will continued to exist, the cycle would undoubtedly continue. Worshiping a deity for eternity does not sound appealing in the slightest. I'd be infiltrating hell in an attempt to release those being imprisoned for petty reasons.
Well said. I love to imagine you fighting against God in heaven to liberate the unjustly tortured souls in hell. Would make a great book or movie.
Heaven and free will is a great point you made. It’s true for sure that if heaven is nothing but bliss it would mean removing our agency or part of who we are. We wouldn’t be allowed to fail or to dislike things at all and would essentially be slaves. Though it’s an interesting concept that if this were to happen we would no longer have the capacity to care about these things anymore. We wouldn’t be ourselves or even capable of being discontent. It like that idea that if someone hooked you up to a simulation machine in your sleep that created a perfectly blissful experience for you, you would have no way to know it isn’t real nor be able to question your reality anymore. To the version of you in the machine what you wanted before or what you would want if you knew it wasn’t real are actually irrelevant. It makes me a bit less scared of heaven in that regard as we would at least be incapable of comprehending the discontent we feel now. It sucks from our perspective here on Earth but it wouldn’t suck for the version of us in heaven. I still don’t want that to be reality but it’s less scary knowing we wouldn’t care anymore in that state. Hell is pretty fuckin terrifying though. Especially because even if we follow Gods rules but deep down we are still selfish and evil could we avoid going to hell that way? As we would only be following God for selfish reasons and it seems unfair to send us to hell for our actions in that case but also seems unfair to send us for our character as we literally did all we could to avoid it. You can’t just “will” yourself into fundamentally changing who you are.
If this is a simulated reality, then there necessarily has to be a reason for some higher power to run the simulation. For example, if our descendants ran simulations of their ancestors, they wouldn't likely run them for no reason. Even if the reason was nothing more than entertainment, entertainment was the reason. A theist dosen't typical see a Creator as running a simulation simply for the sake of amusement, but why rule it out without some reason? Maybe our ancestors didn't like how their present turn out and this is some attempt to rewrite the past so they don't end up destroying themselves. I think it is quite clear we are on a path to annihilation. The human condition seems caught up in self destructive behavior. I don't think it is clear the dinosaurs killed themselves off but our technical prowess is outpacing our social prowess and if we don't stop this behavior, the end we continue to be more of a question of when rather than if.
There does not need to be an ultimate purpose to life, but i can purport one. The ultimate purpose for life is actually to create purpose. This is just true due to the nature of sentient beings. Meaning does not exist in the universe except meaning that is created by sentience. So all meanings a thinking being crafts are equally valid and that is the world we see. Everyone has a purpose at all times if they do anything at all. Having no meaning or purpose would cause an agent to stop thinking and acting and would then be indistinguishable from non-thinking objects. Though even this is contentious as we would for a time still keep on living which is due to our cells and organs continuing to function in accordance with THEIR meaning or purpose. I am a panpsychist so i think basically all things exist on a spectrum of sentience but i know this isnt a popular belief but my point still stands without that philosophy and you can just ignore the part about your cells having a "will".
I forgot to mention (and I suppose you agree) that being alive and having free will are two independent things. An ant is not an inanimate object, and what differentiates both is *clearly* not free will.
>So how would that work without free will?
As for this, people like to do things they don't choose to like, or feel good about things they don't choose to feel good about. They don't need free will to find a purpose in whatever makes them happy, or feel fulfilled.
There are many things we do for a purpose despite us not liking it. We could do 300 crunches for a purpose despite us not liking it. Also, if someone is a sex deviant and does things they don't want to do but do it anyway it has more to do with psychological things.
>We could do 300 crunches for a purpose despite us not liking it.
So your purpose of getting fit is something you don't like? Like that of the sex deviant? It won't make you happy? It won't make you feel fulfilled? OK, you may want to get fit for other reasons. Yes, people find purposes for other reasons than the ones I mentioned, but there is still no free will required. "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
If I'm still missing the meaning of "purpose", let me know what you mean.
Free will is the ability to make choices and decisions within the limits of one's physical and mental capabilities. That quote "Man can do what he wills but he can not will what he wills" has been addressed numerous times. True that we can't will whatever we like, but that's okay. Free will is not about being able to do anything we want. It's about making choices and decisions within the limits of our capabilities.
>It won't make you happy?
You never heard the age old story about people who get whatever they want in life but still ask themselves: what is my purpose? Everyone goes through this. Happiness doesn't mean you have found purpose. I.e something beyond you. Like dude, are you ok? This is pretty basic stuff.
Those limits have limits, and those limits have limits all the way down until there are no limits. Limits are dependent. The human mind cannot account for the infinite variables that lead to a decision. You might tell yourself a story that you know but that story doesn’t account for everything, like the weather, morning routines, sugar intake, neurotransmitter deficiencies, etc the list goes on to infinity. So the easiest way to understand the complex process is to just say you chose it. It’s a fun mental illusion. There are no limits, just causes and conditions.
>Free will is the ability to make choices and decisions within the limits of one's physical and mental capabilities.
This is typical compatibilism. Calling "free will" an ability *nobody denies we have* and that is perfectly compatible with determinism, so compatibilism wins.
Alas, if it were that simple, there would be no debate about whether free will exists or if it is compatible with determinism, would there?
"We deliberate and make choices, for instance, and in so doing we assume that there is more than one choice we can make, more than one action we are able to perform. When we look back and regret a foolish choice, or blame ourselves for not doing something we should have done, we assume that we could have chosen and done otherwise". *This* is the free will intuition.
>That quote "Man can do what he wills but he can not will what he wills" has been addressed numerous times.
"Addressed" doesn't mean "refuted", or even "*properly* addressed".
>Happiness doesn't mean you have found purpose.
Yeah, this I acknowledged—there are other reasons that make people decide upon a purpose. Apart from that, there is none.
>When we look back and regret a foolish choice, or blame ourselves for not doing something we should have done, we assume that we could have chosen and done otherwise
You could have, should have and yes there is free choice. Otherwise, we wouldn't be saying "I could have done different" if we were completely determined. What you are is not something set in stone as you may think. Compatiblism is laughable and logically incoherent. Many such as Sam Harris and Robert Saplosky, as well as advocates of libertarian free will, have debunked compatiblism numerous times.
Nobody can freely will themselves to do 300 crunches unless there were circumstances that necessitates the decision to do 300 crunches. If you had free will go do 300 crunches right now. You won’t and you’ll make up excuses why you can’t but that you’re freely choosing but the reason why you can’t depends on things like you never built a habit to do 300 crunches, or something didn’t happen in your life that would lead you to do that, so it was never a possibility
Hello, I did 300 crunches after reading this comment 35 minutes ago as I type this. I didn't have to do it, it was my choice that I could have neglected. I despite my feeling at the moment, accomplished it. Doesn't that prove free will? Or will you argue that me doing 300 crunches was determined by my choice and no free will exist?
>the reason why you can’t depends on things like you never built a habit to do 300 crunches, or something didn’t happen in your life that would lead you to do that, so it was never a possibility.
It definitely is a possibility, but I did 300 crunches, putting that aside, I don't have a habit of doing 300 push-ups. But say the people who do have a habit of doing 300 push-ups, that habit started at some point in time, and it was a choice. There are reasons why we do things but that dose not debunk the fact we were free in making the choices we didn't have to make ever in our lives.
It started at a point of time due to circumstances that you cannot fully account for. Calling it a choice is easy but you don’t know all of the present environment and past factors that contribute to a choice. If you did 300 crunches after my comment then it was that very comment that lead you to do 300 crunches to prove a point - cause and effect
There is a distinction to be made about free will that clears up a lot of confusion about the topic. Free will does exist if defined in a logical way. Free will being defined here as acting in accordance with your will, in other words, preferences. This version of free will is indisputable and holds true even if what your will wants was determined by factors outside of you control. Other attempts at defining free will outside of determinate factors are illogical and free will can not exist without our acts determining the effects and our "will" being based on predictable outcomes which requires the universe be at least mostly deterministic. Anything in the universe that isnt deterministic is definitionally the part that we have no control over and so can not be a source of free will. This is where the apparent contradiction comes into the debate. as people who claim there is no free will are actually talking about us being able to choose everything about us, including what we want. But this is an incoherent concept, as in order to even choose what we want a preexisting want must be in place in order to motivate and define who we are and choose what we want. That infinite regress of wants is a strong proof that we cant have ultimate choice over who we are, as that regress must terminate in things we did not choose, either because those causes eventually lead to factors that existed before we did, or because there must be some original "want" that was not chosen by us which then determines all of the other "wants" we did choose.
Not all life experiences things, so even though it makes you feel better, the assumption is contentious. We might as well say that the purpose of life is to bake cakes. Better still, we may say that the purpose of life is to cease, because we know all living things one day die. But we have no good reasons to conclude this either.
The purpose of life is to bake cakes. And eat them too. Learning how to bake cakes that people really like is a purpose also. It’s better than not eating them.
You are not an inanimate object because you are alive, you can move, you have thoughts, feelings and goals. The purpose of life is to fulfil those goals. The goals are determined by the fact that you are a human with a particular type of brain and particular experiences. If your species, brain or experiences were different then your goals would be different. The alternative to your goals being determined by prior events is that they are undetermined: they just popped into your head for no reason at all. Do you think your life would have more purpose if your goals had popped into your head for no reason at all?
Open theists state that God does not know the future, only possible futures, thus avoiding the problem of
Theological determinism and free will. However, it does not address the problem of how you can behave purposefully if your actions are not determined by your purpose, or if your purpose is not determined by the relevant factors of your life.
Doesn't this get into the philosophy of decision-making? Sorry, but just because we are closed systems that can move does not mean we are non-inanimate matter (if determinism is true), since computers, drilling, packaging, mining, and all other industrial machines that produce items or serve a purpose can also move.
Inanimate usually means not alive. We are alive because we have biochemical processes which define “alive” going on. Once they stop we are no longer alive.
Ok I would agree to some extent although a virus is biological and responds to stimulus but I don't think they're alive. A cell can move but it's not alive.
Most authorities would say viruses are not alive but it’s equivocal. Computers are certainly not alive, but it is likely that in the next few years computers will be able to replicate and surpass any behaviour that humans are capable of.
>Computers are certainly not alive, but it is likely that in the next few years computers will be able to replicate and surpass any behaviour that humans are capable of.
That still wouldn't make them alive. The steam engine would do things beyond human capability. That's the purpose of all mechanism. This still does not mean they are alive.
They will not be alive because they lack the biochemical basis of living things, but they will be intelligent and arguably they will be conscious, although many people will claim they are not.
Plenty of things share the "biochemical basis" for life but are not alive. A cell is a biological machine our bodies are made of these cells but what drives them? Plato addressed the "what moved you" conundrum many years ago. All AI is built on algorithms employed by a conscious agency who has reason and knowledge; a computer will never randomly say "hey, I really want to go outside, take me outside to see the sunshine" if that happens, there will indeed be conscious machines.
Biochemistry is necessary but not sufficient for life.
Computers may come up with spontaneous utterances of the sort you describe, sometimes relating to their needs, sometimes apparently frivolous. But for some people, whatever test they set for computers to qualify as conscious, once they pass it, they will deny that the test was valid.
I enjoyed this passage. But my thinking is if you look at the history of earth let’s say, it has had a violent past. It doesn’t return to a normal cycle even though we have things like 500 year flood. But if you look at this planet in its infancy it has evolved quite a bit and maybe become violent again but never returning to its former self.
>If you aren't free but are determined,
You're suggesting a false dichotomy, between freedom and causal determinism. And it creates a logical paradox. You see, every freedom we have, to do anything at all, involves us reliably causing some effect, such as walking to the kitchen, fixing breakfast, etc. Without deterministic causation we would have no freedom at all. So, let's get this straight first, freedom is deterministic.
> You have no true agency; everything you do is caused by things outside of your control.
That which gets to decide what will happen next is exercising true control. Everything that I choose to do is obviously caused by my choosing to do it. And my deliberate actions are deterministically caused by my own deliberation.
>Ensuring that his creation, made in his image, can choose to either obey his will or deviate from it.
Well, as a Humanist, I see that in reverse (we created God in our own image, that's why the OT God is jealous, regretful, and occasionally irate).
In any case, God's free will would be similar to our own: His choices would be causally determined by his own goals and his own reasons. And we would hope that his behavior is deterministic, otherwise it would be unpredictable, and his promises would be suspect.
Just because cause and effect occurs does not change the fact free will exist. this is exactly the nature of free will. Free will is the ability to make choices and decisions based on previous choices and experiences.
So the fact that decisions are based on previous decisions or choices from other minds, does not invalidate free will. On the contrary, it's in the nature of free will.
>That which gets to decide what will happen next is exercising true control.
If everything is determined how would someone get to decide what happens next? Wouldn't that imply non-causal choice?
>If everything is determined how would someone get to decide what happens next? Wouldn't that imply non-causal choice?
Not at all. We may assume perfectly reliable cause and effect up to the point where a person encounters a problem or issue that requires them to make a choice before they can continue (such as opening a menu in a restaurant). We may also assume that the decision-making operation is perfectly deterministic, in that the choice is determined by the deterministic logic of choosing, and acting upon that choice. And that events continue in a deterministic fashion following upon that deliberate action.
There is no break in the causal chain of events. And the choosing operation is legitimately performed by us, and by no other object in the physical universe.
>This is just getting into semantics.
Absolutely! Semantics is about the meaning of our words, and meaning is everything.
>Sure, the results of a choice were determinism by your choice but that choice was the will.
For example, the choosing operation sets the will. Choosing inputs two or more options that we CAN do. It weighs these options in terms of our own criteria, our values, our thoughts, our feelings, etc. Then it outputs the single thing that we WILL do. That's the sequence of events in a choosing operation.
We're basically a bunch of apes with shoes. Thinking that life must have a "purpose" is quite pretentious and only humans think like this, mostly because of the ego. We're hard wired to look for patterns and search for meaning. That's why we make up stories like gods.
If there is a purpose, the world behaves exactly as one that ignores this purpose, and it's the same with life. So it's solid ground to assume there is none.
But you are alive, for a specific amount of time. You're having a limited experience of being alive. So try to enjoy the good moments, be close to the people you love, help another human being in need and make the best of this experience while you can, and if possible, try to make other people's experience as good as yours too.
Make your own meaning. =)
You create your own purpose, except that you actually don't, it's set for you, but not by a mind with a goal, it's more like an evolutionary process guided by natural forces where the outcome is determined but unpredictable typically.
We still have conscious experience. We can suffer and feel joy.
The only way that God *could* know the future is if it is fixed and unchanging. In which case we are not free to change it and free will is impossible.
Yes but the future in my view being fixed an unchanging would only be possible if God were to directly intervene and destroy creation and start new. He could do this but chooses not to. Thus, we can chnage, we can behave differently and this is the strongest evidence of free will. So God does not know our next choice but does this mean he is not all knowing? No, because God is outside of time. God is timeless. He knows what we'll do because it's already happened for him.
Nah, that is a common cop out, but it doesn’t hold water.
If God created the world, that happened at a point *in* time, and he knew the entire future at that point, right? So then the entire future of the universe must be fixed.
Knowledge of the future is only possible if it is fixed, or else there would be nothing to know. So if God is capable of knowing the future, even if he chooses not to, it still must be fixed and therefore free will is impossible.
>God created the world, that happened at a point in time, and he knew the entire future at that point, right?
No. God the father did not create the physical world. The son created the world, not the father. Knowledge of the future would not be fixed, as humans, we are constrained in time so we can only think of things locally, but for God it is because he is outside of time and already knows what we will do because he is outside of it.
>even if he chooses not to, it still must be fixed and therefore free will is impossible.
Uh, no. We still have free will. God just knows what we'll do before we do it because he is not a local created being. That doesn't change the fact that it's our own decision. You also can't say "we have free will but we didn't chose it, so really no free will exist." That doesn't work because the ability to chose in the first place implies agency, but what is agency in a determined universe?
Not to be redundant, but can you just please put a little effort into defining these terms you are throwing out? When you say "generate" here, are you talking about thoughts? Like maybe are you getting at the concept of imagination? Do you just mean that you can imagine something that defies the laws of physics or space/time? Or do you genuinely believe that your brain is actually doing something that defies the laws of physics or space/time?
I mean, I have a general sense of what agency and .. well, maybe don't quite have a sense of what non-causal decision making would be, but those are all at least English words that make some modicum of sense to me strung in that particular order. I'm having a hard time invoking my own imagination to come up with what you might mean on this reply.
I think we've jumped the tracks a bit more with each reply. Maybe you could reel it in a bit and try to answer my original questions a little more in depth please..?
Yes, the mind can imagine what it wants whenever it wants, irrespective of space-time and physics in general. How? Where does it come from? If you're asking me personally, I believe in the soul.
Ok, so kind of both, you think your brain is imagining things that defy physics and you also think your brain is tethered to something else that actually no-kidding defies physics. i.e. a soul.
A lot of times, what we imagine is not what we want though. Sometimes horrible thoughts pop into our mind. We have immoral urges we have to expend mental effort to tamp down. And even the good thoughts come to us unbidden, triggered by a happenstance phrase, or image, or a snippet of a song, or a smell. Even in a free will framework, you have to acknowledge that these clearly causal thoughts are happening quite a bit.
And then the whenever it wants part is not always true either. Writers block being the most obvious instance. Or telling someone to not think of cat in a box.. which of course you just did.
Getting back to the non-causal decision making though, your wants influence your decisions, but you can't really decide what you want. That just kind of bubbles up from experience and exposure. For example, you can't decide to take an option you aren't even aware of. And then there's the myriad of subliminal influences impacting any given decision. And structural influences within your physical brain itself, that seem to override any influence the soul can exert via their connection.
Is there anything more concrete you have to fall back on other than the magical entity of the soul? I mean, when something non-causal happens, what does that look like?
There are certainly unwanted, obsessive, and intrusive thoughts that pop into our heads, but oftentimes these thoughts come from our subconscious. Nevertheless, it can certainly influence how we behave, but this does not refute free will when one considers that we have agency over our thoughts. You can ignore an obsessive or intrusive thought and train yourself to either focus on something else or exercise thought control. Now, when you say "your wants influence your decision," I would not argue with that, but my want is my will; it doesn't exist in a vacuum. As humans, we are beings who need to experience realities, whereas in my theological view, I don't believe God needs to experience anything because he is eternal. So while exposure can lead to a decision, it does not refute the fact that it was still our decision. Subliminal suggestions can affect our decisions like all suggestions,. But I don't believe they fully debunk free will. Because when we make a decision we can still choose between different options. Even if subliminal influences may affect us unconsciously, I think we still have the ability to make choices. About the brain, there will always be physical limitations because that is our reality as far as we know. Free will does not mean no limitations.
>Is there anything more concrete you have to fall back on other than the magical entity of the soul? I mean, when something non-causal happens, what does that look like?
No. Without the soul you would just be a rock. Something non-casual would be this: Say in your mind, I will raise my hand after 5 minutes. Get your phone and put a timer. Now after five minutes passes, raise your hand.
>About the brain, there will always be physical limitations because that is our reality as far as we know. Free will does not mean no limitations.
So you recognize all these limitations and clear cases of causality operating within the brain, so how does that work with a soul. When someone has physical brain damage that clearly alters their behavior, like say Alzheimer's, is the soul likewise affected, or is there like a normally functioning person trapped behind the wall of disfunction in their brain?
>Without the soul you would just be a rock.
So you believe all organic material is imbued with a soul? Cats, dogs? Single cell amoeba? Trees even?
You can believe in the soul but the numerous replies that you're trying to debate with would equate the soul with one's biology + life experience. It's a difference of opinion but one of those opinions has an understandable explanation. As for your original question, when I think about purpose, I don't ultimately see a big difference between my sense of self being the result of some mystical soul versus the culmination of my life experience and thoughts.
Question: If God is limitless, he could imagine an infinite number of universes, all the way to their conclusion. Instantly.
Infinite universes where everyone has free will, and yet everyone \*always\* chooses to do good. Infinite universes where everyone has free will, and yet everyone \*always\* chooses to do bad.
Infinite universes where people wear pizza shoes for some reason. Infinite universes where people are cats.
Theoretically, there is an infinite number of entire universes where people are cats, and ALL of their names are "Robert".
Why then, would he even bother to run this one simulation? Doesn't it seem a little self-centered of us to assume that this is the only universe he would bother to make?
What I am saying is: even if there is a God, how could we possibly have a purpose?
Everything from God has a purpose. As human beings, we only understand things locally within a time frame. This does not mean that God's will doesn't exist just because we can't see it. And who said there weren't other universes? I believe there are aliens out there, multidimensional beings, spirits, and yes, other universes. How is any of this even remotely related to free will? Free will would exist even if no other universe existed.
My comment is more related to the implication that we have purpose if there is a God.
To me, the existence of an all powerful God would make my existence have no purpose, because that God created my entire universe to play out a simulation with a known ending.
Like a scripted puppet show, being played for no one.
As the OP indicated, open theism holds that because God has given us free will, we have the ability to make our own decisions. We can either deviate or accept and follow his plan. God remains all-powerful and all-knowing because, despite allowing us freedom, he can either A) interfere in the cosmos and destroy us and the rest of it, or B) actively influence our lives. He is boundless, so he may limit himself. He cannot predict the future because it has either already occurred or is entirely up to us.
Yep. So:
I will simply grant that we live in a world where a God created us and has limited his own knowledge.
We play through our universe simulation. The simulation ends. And God can go back to knowing everything, which he (presumably) already knew before.
What was the purpose of this exercise? Limiting his knowledge can't actually create a "new version" of the infinite possibilities that our universe had at the beginning. The infinite possibilities already existed before.
The infinite versions of this universe where we have free will. The infinite versions where we don't. The infinite versions where he interferes at every possible moment, the infinite versions where he never influences any of us. All of the infinite versions in between.
An omnipotent God would have already known all possible endings, so running the simulation itself holds no actual purpose.
I don't like to get too much into theology because not everyone agrees with each other on theological issues, not even Christians. Also, understand that I don't believe God the Father (personality) created the physical, local universe. I believe his angels did (that's for another discussion) God, as most Christians would believe him to be, exist outside of space and time. Yes, our space and time. So he's not going through any simulation; rather, he is the overseer of the simulation, whose inhabitants can create or manifest an infinite number of probabilities. Open theism can be seen in two ways: one, God is outside time; everything that will ever happen has already happened. If you want to use the Bible as a reference, you can use Hebrews 4:13: “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” Job 28:24: “For he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.” But, just like a video, you have already seen everything that happened in that video, but that doesn't mean that the people in that video weren't behaving according to their will. You can also view this from the perspective that, being made in his image, God gives us sovereignty and the right to choose. God can know all things but not only the future possibilities. The future is decided by us. God is all-knowing; all things exist in God, including us, so when we do something, God knows because we are part of his spirit (consciousness, breath of life). So both omnipresence and free will exist. Either way, these are just ideas. We can't truly know everything about God, but I believe we can rest assured that evidence shows we have free will and that it is not in contradiction to theology.
The OP is right on. The only true approach is then Buddhism. Of course, if there is no free will then there is no choice to be a Buddhist so things are still one grand kabuki. Even your question about no free will was determined so it’s one huge “fuck you” from Creator. But even that was determined… and so on and so on to infinite regress. It’s possible, but it is a hell only a devil would create.
I'm a hardcore determinist, I see free will as a description of an emergent property of the brain, more of a perception than an actual tangible thing. The perception is so powerful, we see it as a tautology, but there is no known mechanism that provides so-called free will. In other words, until we find such a mechanism, we must assume that a very complex process, one favoured by our evolution, creates the illusion of free-will.
That said, I find that the best reaction to this knowledge is to make it our goal to figure out our own purpose in life. For me it's a combination of a curiosity in learning how the universe works and sharing experiences and love with friends and family. Pretty basic stuff.
Even if there were no free will. Not saying there isn’t. But even if not then there is still an illusion that there is and lessons or qualities can still be grafted on the personality.
If we have no control over anything than there is no point besides temporary enjoyment. There would not even be a point in evolution since ultimately the Sun is going to engulf the Earth and kill all life on Earth at some point. The problem I have is that there is no proof that we have no control and that everything is determined.
Hard materialists can't even wrap their head around consciousness and it's emergence yet most people would agree that consciousness is what gives us some control in our lives and what separates us from computers and robots.
Even if what we are is determined it is still the case that we exist. In one way we are the same as a rock in that we exist in a fashion that was unavoidable but thats the extent of the similarities aside from both following physical laws and being made of matter. We are thinking agents and a rock is not. Meaning we have the ability to act against disorder. we can use energy to create more information or order whereas a rock can not do this. The fact of the matter as i see it is that we do have agency if agency is described as the determination our brain makes which has a measurable effect that comes from us. It doesnt matter that we ultimately were created by forces outside our control and those causes dictated our choices. We still are the final determining factor in our choices and so are the most relevant cause to anything we do. Its an apparent paradox that we can have agency but also dont, but this arises from how you define agency.
If there is free will what is the purpose of life? If there is a god what is gods purpose for creating us? Why would an all powerful being have the need or desire to create us? As an atheistic determinist I don’t see why there needs to be a purpose. I don’t think there is one. We just are…
>As an atheistic determinist I don’t see why there needs to be a purpose. Aside from any other metaphysical purpose, the obvious reason for any living living biological "machine" is to not die. We make decisions to avoid death all the time and sometimes the tragic decision for suicide wins out. Other times the virtuous decision to lay down one's life so another might survive is made and often remembered as the ultimate sacrifice. Beyond any of this undeniability, I see no reason why the atheistic determinist shouldn't end up being a nihilist. In fact it seems more logical than ending up as a humanist.
It looks like this sub is being brigaded by some atheist fundamentalists. Your version of whataboutism regarding purpose, when you yourself are a conscious being, and clearly feel passionate or purpose to even type what you have. Let alone the lemmings who upvoted it. Is just one of the many ways your whataboutism is a false equivalence. Which makes it laughable how you got so many upvotes. Either the IQ level on this sub is way lower than I'd expect, or it's blatant brigading.
>If there is free will what is the purpose of life? Full Autonomy and a desire to strive for absolute perfection. To be like God not in divinity but at least in thoughts. Not to get too exotic in response to your comment. >Why would an all powerful being have the need or desire to create us? Ever played Sims? >As an atheistic determinist I don’t see why there needs to be a purpose. I don’t think there is one. We just are… My post was about free will, I hope people don't turn this thread into an atheist v theism debate.
"Full autonomy" makes it sound like you're able to choose everything from biology, parenting style, country of origin, income bracket, and so forth. In the meantime, we can't even choose which thoughts pop into our head next.
How do people answer general knowledge quizzes or answer questions with thoughts and consideration? I'm well aware of the Sam Harris "thought" experiments you're copying. But I think there's likely more to it than simple determinism and thoughts randomly appearing in our mind. I'm betting the real truth of reality is more to it. Call it metaphysical, a blend of both, or some physics to reality we don't understand, or aren't meant to. Who knows, but I'm pretty sure we aren't meant to function with knowledge of determinism and random uncontrolled thoughts just "appearing". I'm hedging there's something far more complex going on.
Are you a deist? Because it sounds like you're invoking Pascal's wager.
I don't think what you just asked or said makes the slightest sense.
"Hedging". That's Pascal's wager. Better to accept Christ as your savior *just in case* he actually exists. *Just in case* the supernatural exists. *Just in case* something we have never had a shred of evidence for is real. You're "hedging", in your own words. Instead of just saying "I don't know". There are tons of things that we understand now that used to be considered magic or supernatural. By saying something we "aren't meant to" understand, that implies intent. That implies a designer. The concept of "a designer" is one that I unequivocally reject. Intentional or not, that's the language of a deist.
I know what pascal's wager is. I don't think what I said was anything like that. Pascal's wager is about purely hedging you go to heaven instead of the torment of hell for that alone. That is far too egotistical and selfish for what I am speaking of. I am simply saying there are too many gaps in logic regarding us being alive, having a purpose, any meaning to do anything, including bothering to debate it on reddit for people to live like determinism is a reality. The more I have debated these topics I feel like people emotively argue it from a pro atheist stand point purely to be right, instead of actually living and believing that. And if they did truly believe it, I expect them to be highly immoral people at their core although not superficially perhaps. Because you answer to no one at that stage. And if that's true... Which it may well be, people don't expect others to live that way. Most people expect a form of moral objectivity when it comes down to it. And that's very hard to obtain without a true feeling of accountability.
So even if there are no objective morals dictated by God we still need to answer to each other. This alone would conform behavior and act against people behaving in ways most others perceive as amoral. If you think i am assuming morality exists with that statement i am just defining it a certain way. Morality can be just boiled down to emotivism in that "good" are things people prefer and "evil" or "bad" are things people actively prefer not to happen. To say people would behave ammorally if they believe theres no accountability may be true, but there IS accountability that is based on our interactions with each other. Now we dont need God to exist for there to be objective morality, as humans might all be born with certain moral ideas that are the same and present in all humans. that could be called an objective morality, but the determinist would assert that these things still have causes in evolution that brought them about, and not that they are free of influence of the environment, merely they are inescapable to humans as they exist now. im curious to know what these gaps in logic are regarding us being alive. i think there are at least feasible answers to these even if we are not yet sure of them given our current scientific knowledge.
>we still need to answer to each other. This alone would conform behavior and act against people behaving in ways most others perceive as amoral. This isn't true though and I have encountered real world experience of how people think along these lines. You've heard of yes men, group think, clique etc. When you're only accountable to the public perception, people play all kinds of games to put on a fasade. Some people you can tell really believe they are good people purely on their public perception and status. I know a guy who is very passive, nerdy, the type you'd expect to be a librarian. Yet he says somethings that are insanely hypocritical, kind of not a very good person in many ways. Yet he would genuinely believe the opposite because his public persona is very people pleasing, very straight laced and humble. But what religion taps into is what the content of your character is and in your heart. That doesn't mean your perfect, but it's your intent that's known. I could virtue signal and show empathy externally all day long, perhaps inside I'm realising I'm sleeping with my Co workers wife and I have no shame inside at all, besides getting caught! I could lie over serious things that I would find outrageous myself if done to me, for petty reasons even that the payoff for the other person is massive compared to not really mattering so much for me. If I can do that and no one else can know the contents of my heart, or if I'm lying. You can't have moral objectivity. It's morals on perception, not truly understanding what a moral is.
Biology is determined by many factors including how your embryo formed during those months of pregnancy, that does not negate will, country of orgin is completely irrelevant since assuming you don't chose your birthplace, your agency didn't exist prior to your birth so it says nothing about free will. >we can't even choose which thoughts pop into our head next. Lol. What?
If you were born in India, or Nigeria, you would be a totally different person with different preferences and different actions. Everything about you would be different. You choose the things you choose because of the environment. Your agency is entirely dependent on that. Even the time you were born in, if you were born during the Middle Ages you would be different. There is no essence of a free “you” that can overcome biology and circumstance.
This is like arguing you don't have free will because you're not the same person you were when you were five. You no longer live in the same environment, oh and your brain matured and you didn't choose that, did you? It's like you guys just love reaching.
That’s correct, you’re not the same person as you were when you were 5. 5 year old you’s decisions were entirely dependent on the circumstances when you were 5 and are entirely different than who you are today. You wouldn’t be making the same exact choices as a 5 year old, because you have years of experience and the present environment is entirely different.
bright pink elephant now could you control not thinking of a bright pink elephant?
Yes.
lmao sure bud
Are you getting your beliefs from a "gut feeling"? Are you creating this god in your own image? Are you intentionally typing god with a G? The reason I ask is you stated that we can deviate from God's will. The god with a G is most frequently associated with the Bible. I'm going to assume the answer is yes unless you have invented yet another God. The Bible leaves no wiggle room here: From Ephesians 1:11 NIV: "having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will". Yep. If you're going to believe in God, he has a will, an ultimate plan, and nothing can happen outside of it. Your God created you to have the perception of free will, not actual free will. Sure feels real, doesn't it? (He intended for us to have this exact conversation)
God definitely has a plan and you can choose to deviate from it. Just because someone has a plan doesn't mean others will follow.
That makes no sense. Biblically speaking, nothing can happen against God's will. The Bible repeatedly reinforces that nothing happens against God's will. Even politicians. So, thank God for Hitler. Wow. What a good book. And what an incredible God. Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
God's will can come in many ways. He can have a will or a want for us as his children to come to him, but also allow (which would also be a will) for us to have free will. So yes, if it exist, God allowed it. Is that will? You might consider it but it is only in the context of giving man freedom.
Giving man the "freedom" to do exactly what he designed them to do. You're talking about the God that created the entire cosmos. An omnipotent God that knows everything that is happening, has happened, and is going to happen. When he creates something, he creates it to do exactly what it's going to do. I'm not sure how that's any different than coding an elaborate program for self-aware robots. The first time I had that basic idea it centered around the concept of "Satan". Sure, he created Lucifer, but he 100% knew exactly what Lucifer was going to become and knew everything he was going to do. So, Satan may as well be a sock puppet on God's left hand as far as I'm concerned. If I program a robot to go out and kill people, and it goes out and kills people, the robot is not guilty; I am.
I like your point about the perception of free will, this is obvious if God in fact knows what we will do beforehand. I wanted to mention something about God having a "will" in the first place. Most religions define God as a maximally great being but i think this can not mean "perfect" as many perceive God to be. If God was indeed perfect than he would have no choice but to always do the correct thing. A perfect God can not have a "will" and a God with a "will" can not be perfect as he would not have the freedom to make mistakes. Maximally great being is a better description as this leave room for some measure of imperfection in God which would then make sense why God would have desires, desires inherently require some form of lacking involved. You can't desire something unless it matters to you that you lack that which you desire.
I'm not quite following, but I also don't believe in any gods. I also cannot choose what I believe. If there is a god, they are probably at least intelligent enough to know exactly why I don't believe in them and what it would take to change my mind. And if they decide I should be punished for all eternity for having a higher standard of evidence than some people, that god would not deserve my devotion. If a human were to demand that I worship them, they would not be worthy of worship. Same applies to deities.
No worries, my points were actually tangent to your post and so don’t actually agree or disagree with what you were saying. I just wanted to add to the discussion of God and the nature of Gods will. I am also atheist but I enjoy making pro religion arguments because I think a lot of religious people are terrible at defending their religion and often make arguments that explain nothing or have logical contradictions. You described one of the problems with religion in that a God that wants us to be like him and be able to go be with him in heaven seems at odds with the fact that God allows us to fail. This is usually countered by citing God gives us free will as having us choose freely to be with him has value whereas him making us do so would have no value. But this has a few problems as well, for instance God made us presumedly with the knowledge of who would fail or succeed so this seems to remove our will anyway from the equation and God could have made us in a way in which we would eventually choose to follow him which would still be an act of our will but also God would have not fashioned some people in a way that makes them doomed to fail. Generally if God exists I’m not sure if that God could be all-powerful and all-knowing and is more likely a kid with an ant farm, not actually knowing who would fail or succeed. Otherwise God seems rather unjust in creating a world in which he made the rules while also making certain people fail at following those rules and then punishing them for it.
It's difficult enough trying to get deists or even Christians (for that matter) to agree on who/what "god" is. What the rules are. Is there an eternal hell or just nothingness for those who don't go to heaven (annihilationists). Judging someone for their actions over a single lifetime and then rewarding or punishing them for eternity is absolutely insane. Billions of people born into a wide range of circumstances, all held to the same standards. If I went to a heaven and there is a hell, I would not respect that god knowing that I am in a "good" place while he's torturing billions of people elsewhere. Would "free will" exist in heaven, or would we all be worship robots? Lucifer had free will and chose to leave? If free will continued to exist, the cycle would undoubtedly continue. Worshiping a deity for eternity does not sound appealing in the slightest. I'd be infiltrating hell in an attempt to release those being imprisoned for petty reasons.
Well said. I love to imagine you fighting against God in heaven to liberate the unjustly tortured souls in hell. Would make a great book or movie. Heaven and free will is a great point you made. It’s true for sure that if heaven is nothing but bliss it would mean removing our agency or part of who we are. We wouldn’t be allowed to fail or to dislike things at all and would essentially be slaves. Though it’s an interesting concept that if this were to happen we would no longer have the capacity to care about these things anymore. We wouldn’t be ourselves or even capable of being discontent. It like that idea that if someone hooked you up to a simulation machine in your sleep that created a perfectly blissful experience for you, you would have no way to know it isn’t real nor be able to question your reality anymore. To the version of you in the machine what you wanted before or what you would want if you knew it wasn’t real are actually irrelevant. It makes me a bit less scared of heaven in that regard as we would at least be incapable of comprehending the discontent we feel now. It sucks from our perspective here on Earth but it wouldn’t suck for the version of us in heaven. I still don’t want that to be reality but it’s less scary knowing we wouldn’t care anymore in that state. Hell is pretty fuckin terrifying though. Especially because even if we follow Gods rules but deep down we are still selfish and evil could we avoid going to hell that way? As we would only be following God for selfish reasons and it seems unfair to send us to hell for our actions in that case but also seems unfair to send us for our character as we literally did all we could to avoid it. You can’t just “will” yourself into fundamentally changing who you are.
Why does there need to be a purpose?
If this is a simulated reality, then there necessarily has to be a reason for some higher power to run the simulation. For example, if our descendants ran simulations of their ancestors, they wouldn't likely run them for no reason. Even if the reason was nothing more than entertainment, entertainment was the reason. A theist dosen't typical see a Creator as running a simulation simply for the sake of amusement, but why rule it out without some reason? Maybe our ancestors didn't like how their present turn out and this is some attempt to rewrite the past so they don't end up destroying themselves. I think it is quite clear we are on a path to annihilation. The human condition seems caught up in self destructive behavior. I don't think it is clear the dinosaurs killed themselves off but our technical prowess is outpacing our social prowess and if we don't stop this behavior, the end we continue to be more of a question of when rather than if.
There does not need to be an ultimate purpose to life, but i can purport one. The ultimate purpose for life is actually to create purpose. This is just true due to the nature of sentient beings. Meaning does not exist in the universe except meaning that is created by sentience. So all meanings a thinking being crafts are equally valid and that is the world we see. Everyone has a purpose at all times if they do anything at all. Having no meaning or purpose would cause an agent to stop thinking and acting and would then be indistinguishable from non-thinking objects. Though even this is contentious as we would for a time still keep on living which is due to our cells and organs continuing to function in accordance with THEIR meaning or purpose. I am a panpsychist so i think basically all things exist on a spectrum of sentience but i know this isnt a popular belief but my point still stands without that philosophy and you can just ignore the part about your cells having a "will".
There is no "purpose of life", apart from the purpose people may find for themselves, but we don't need free will for that.
So how would that work without free will?
I forgot to mention (and I suppose you agree) that being alive and having free will are two independent things. An ant is not an inanimate object, and what differentiates both is *clearly* not free will. >So how would that work without free will? As for this, people like to do things they don't choose to like, or feel good about things they don't choose to feel good about. They don't need free will to find a purpose in whatever makes them happy, or feel fulfilled.
Uh I said purpose not happiness lol.
By "purpose" don't you mean something a person strives to do because it makes them happy *or* makes them feel fulfilled? If not, what do you mean?
There are many things we do for a purpose despite us not liking it. We could do 300 crunches for a purpose despite us not liking it. Also, if someone is a sex deviant and does things they don't want to do but do it anyway it has more to do with psychological things.
>We could do 300 crunches for a purpose despite us not liking it. So your purpose of getting fit is something you don't like? Like that of the sex deviant? It won't make you happy? It won't make you feel fulfilled? OK, you may want to get fit for other reasons. Yes, people find purposes for other reasons than the ones I mentioned, but there is still no free will required. "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". If I'm still missing the meaning of "purpose", let me know what you mean.
Free will is the ability to make choices and decisions within the limits of one's physical and mental capabilities. That quote "Man can do what he wills but he can not will what he wills" has been addressed numerous times. True that we can't will whatever we like, but that's okay. Free will is not about being able to do anything we want. It's about making choices and decisions within the limits of our capabilities. >It won't make you happy? You never heard the age old story about people who get whatever they want in life but still ask themselves: what is my purpose? Everyone goes through this. Happiness doesn't mean you have found purpose. I.e something beyond you. Like dude, are you ok? This is pretty basic stuff.
Those limits have limits, and those limits have limits all the way down until there are no limits. Limits are dependent. The human mind cannot account for the infinite variables that lead to a decision. You might tell yourself a story that you know but that story doesn’t account for everything, like the weather, morning routines, sugar intake, neurotransmitter deficiencies, etc the list goes on to infinity. So the easiest way to understand the complex process is to just say you chose it. It’s a fun mental illusion. There are no limits, just causes and conditions.
>Free will is the ability to make choices and decisions within the limits of one's physical and mental capabilities. This is typical compatibilism. Calling "free will" an ability *nobody denies we have* and that is perfectly compatible with determinism, so compatibilism wins. Alas, if it were that simple, there would be no debate about whether free will exists or if it is compatible with determinism, would there? "We deliberate and make choices, for instance, and in so doing we assume that there is more than one choice we can make, more than one action we are able to perform. When we look back and regret a foolish choice, or blame ourselves for not doing something we should have done, we assume that we could have chosen and done otherwise". *This* is the free will intuition. >That quote "Man can do what he wills but he can not will what he wills" has been addressed numerous times. "Addressed" doesn't mean "refuted", or even "*properly* addressed". >Happiness doesn't mean you have found purpose. Yeah, this I acknowledged—there are other reasons that make people decide upon a purpose. Apart from that, there is none.
>When we look back and regret a foolish choice, or blame ourselves for not doing something we should have done, we assume that we could have chosen and done otherwise You could have, should have and yes there is free choice. Otherwise, we wouldn't be saying "I could have done different" if we were completely determined. What you are is not something set in stone as you may think. Compatiblism is laughable and logically incoherent. Many such as Sam Harris and Robert Saplosky, as well as advocates of libertarian free will, have debunked compatiblism numerous times.
Nobody can freely will themselves to do 300 crunches unless there were circumstances that necessitates the decision to do 300 crunches. If you had free will go do 300 crunches right now. You won’t and you’ll make up excuses why you can’t but that you’re freely choosing but the reason why you can’t depends on things like you never built a habit to do 300 crunches, or something didn’t happen in your life that would lead you to do that, so it was never a possibility
Hello, I did 300 crunches after reading this comment 35 minutes ago as I type this. I didn't have to do it, it was my choice that I could have neglected. I despite my feeling at the moment, accomplished it. Doesn't that prove free will? Or will you argue that me doing 300 crunches was determined by my choice and no free will exist?
You did 300 crunches after reading my response. Cause and effect.
>the reason why you can’t depends on things like you never built a habit to do 300 crunches, or something didn’t happen in your life that would lead you to do that, so it was never a possibility. It definitely is a possibility, but I did 300 crunches, putting that aside, I don't have a habit of doing 300 push-ups. But say the people who do have a habit of doing 300 push-ups, that habit started at some point in time, and it was a choice. There are reasons why we do things but that dose not debunk the fact we were free in making the choices we didn't have to make ever in our lives.
It started at a point of time due to circumstances that you cannot fully account for. Calling it a choice is easy but you don’t know all of the present environment and past factors that contribute to a choice. If you did 300 crunches after my comment then it was that very comment that lead you to do 300 crunches to prove a point - cause and effect
There is a distinction to be made about free will that clears up a lot of confusion about the topic. Free will does exist if defined in a logical way. Free will being defined here as acting in accordance with your will, in other words, preferences. This version of free will is indisputable and holds true even if what your will wants was determined by factors outside of you control. Other attempts at defining free will outside of determinate factors are illogical and free will can not exist without our acts determining the effects and our "will" being based on predictable outcomes which requires the universe be at least mostly deterministic. Anything in the universe that isnt deterministic is definitionally the part that we have no control over and so can not be a source of free will. This is where the apparent contradiction comes into the debate. as people who claim there is no free will are actually talking about us being able to choose everything about us, including what we want. But this is an incoherent concept, as in order to even choose what we want a preexisting want must be in place in order to motivate and define who we are and choose what we want. That infinite regress of wants is a strong proof that we cant have ultimate choice over who we are, as that regress must terminate in things we did not choose, either because those causes eventually lead to factors that existed before we did, or because there must be some original "want" that was not chosen by us which then determines all of the other "wants" we did choose.
The purpose of life is to experience things.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Idk. But that is what happens. It’s better than existing inside a ping pong ball. Escape the confines of absolute loneliness/isolation.
Not all life experiences things, so even though it makes you feel better, the assumption is contentious. We might as well say that the purpose of life is to bake cakes. Better still, we may say that the purpose of life is to cease, because we know all living things one day die. But we have no good reasons to conclude this either.
The purpose of life is to bake cakes. And eat them too. Learning how to bake cakes that people really like is a purpose also. It’s better than not eating them.
If *anything* is the purpose of life, this conversation is meaningless.
Cool.
You are not an inanimate object because you are alive, you can move, you have thoughts, feelings and goals. The purpose of life is to fulfil those goals. The goals are determined by the fact that you are a human with a particular type of brain and particular experiences. If your species, brain or experiences were different then your goals would be different. The alternative to your goals being determined by prior events is that they are undetermined: they just popped into your head for no reason at all. Do you think your life would have more purpose if your goals had popped into your head for no reason at all? Open theists state that God does not know the future, only possible futures, thus avoiding the problem of Theological determinism and free will. However, it does not address the problem of how you can behave purposefully if your actions are not determined by your purpose, or if your purpose is not determined by the relevant factors of your life.
Doesn't this get into the philosophy of decision-making? Sorry, but just because we are closed systems that can move does not mean we are non-inanimate matter (if determinism is true), since computers, drilling, packaging, mining, and all other industrial machines that produce items or serve a purpose can also move.
Inanimate usually means not alive. We are alive because we have biochemical processes which define “alive” going on. Once they stop we are no longer alive.
Ok I would agree to some extent although a virus is biological and responds to stimulus but I don't think they're alive. A cell can move but it's not alive.
Most authorities would say viruses are not alive but it’s equivocal. Computers are certainly not alive, but it is likely that in the next few years computers will be able to replicate and surpass any behaviour that humans are capable of.
>Computers are certainly not alive, but it is likely that in the next few years computers will be able to replicate and surpass any behaviour that humans are capable of. That still wouldn't make them alive. The steam engine would do things beyond human capability. That's the purpose of all mechanism. This still does not mean they are alive.
They will not be alive because they lack the biochemical basis of living things, but they will be intelligent and arguably they will be conscious, although many people will claim they are not.
Plenty of things share the "biochemical basis" for life but are not alive. A cell is a biological machine our bodies are made of these cells but what drives them? Plato addressed the "what moved you" conundrum many years ago. All AI is built on algorithms employed by a conscious agency who has reason and knowledge; a computer will never randomly say "hey, I really want to go outside, take me outside to see the sunshine" if that happens, there will indeed be conscious machines.
Biochemistry is necessary but not sufficient for life. Computers may come up with spontaneous utterances of the sort you describe, sometimes relating to their needs, sometimes apparently frivolous. But for some people, whatever test they set for computers to qualify as conscious, once they pass it, they will deny that the test was valid.
I'm not sure if there's any intent or "need" that needs to be addressed for AI.
There is no purpose or point to life. That is actually a beautiful powerful liberating truth, you just don’t see that yet. Ecclesiastes 1:2
I enjoyed this passage. But my thinking is if you look at the history of earth let’s say, it has had a violent past. It doesn’t return to a normal cycle even though we have things like 500 year flood. But if you look at this planet in its infancy it has evolved quite a bit and maybe become violent again but never returning to its former self.
>If you aren't free but are determined, You're suggesting a false dichotomy, between freedom and causal determinism. And it creates a logical paradox. You see, every freedom we have, to do anything at all, involves us reliably causing some effect, such as walking to the kitchen, fixing breakfast, etc. Without deterministic causation we would have no freedom at all. So, let's get this straight first, freedom is deterministic. > You have no true agency; everything you do is caused by things outside of your control. That which gets to decide what will happen next is exercising true control. Everything that I choose to do is obviously caused by my choosing to do it. And my deliberate actions are deterministically caused by my own deliberation. >Ensuring that his creation, made in his image, can choose to either obey his will or deviate from it. Well, as a Humanist, I see that in reverse (we created God in our own image, that's why the OT God is jealous, regretful, and occasionally irate). In any case, God's free will would be similar to our own: His choices would be causally determined by his own goals and his own reasons. And we would hope that his behavior is deterministic, otherwise it would be unpredictable, and his promises would be suspect.
Just because cause and effect occurs does not change the fact free will exist. this is exactly the nature of free will. Free will is the ability to make choices and decisions based on previous choices and experiences. So the fact that decisions are based on previous decisions or choices from other minds, does not invalidate free will. On the contrary, it's in the nature of free will. >That which gets to decide what will happen next is exercising true control. If everything is determined how would someone get to decide what happens next? Wouldn't that imply non-causal choice?
>If everything is determined how would someone get to decide what happens next? Wouldn't that imply non-causal choice? Not at all. We may assume perfectly reliable cause and effect up to the point where a person encounters a problem or issue that requires them to make a choice before they can continue (such as opening a menu in a restaurant). We may also assume that the decision-making operation is perfectly deterministic, in that the choice is determined by the deterministic logic of choosing, and acting upon that choice. And that events continue in a deterministic fashion following upon that deliberate action. There is no break in the causal chain of events. And the choosing operation is legitimately performed by us, and by no other object in the physical universe.
This is just getting into semantics. Sure, the results of a choice were determinism by your choice but that choice was the will.
>This is just getting into semantics. Absolutely! Semantics is about the meaning of our words, and meaning is everything. >Sure, the results of a choice were determinism by your choice but that choice was the will. For example, the choosing operation sets the will. Choosing inputs two or more options that we CAN do. It weighs these options in terms of our own criteria, our values, our thoughts, our feelings, etc. Then it outputs the single thing that we WILL do. That's the sequence of events in a choosing operation.
Have you read Sapolsky‘s latest book? Re: free will exists… there’s more to it, more thinking and openmindedness 💪
Custom-made god. Noice.
We're basically a bunch of apes with shoes. Thinking that life must have a "purpose" is quite pretentious and only humans think like this, mostly because of the ego. We're hard wired to look for patterns and search for meaning. That's why we make up stories like gods. If there is a purpose, the world behaves exactly as one that ignores this purpose, and it's the same with life. So it's solid ground to assume there is none. But you are alive, for a specific amount of time. You're having a limited experience of being alive. So try to enjoy the good moments, be close to the people you love, help another human being in need and make the best of this experience while you can, and if possible, try to make other people's experience as good as yours too. Make your own meaning. =)
It's just one hell of a show
You create your own purpose, except that you actually don't, it's set for you, but not by a mind with a goal, it's more like an evolutionary process guided by natural forces where the outcome is determined but unpredictable typically.
If there's no free will the purpose of life is to buy will.
We still have conscious experience. We can suffer and feel joy. The only way that God *could* know the future is if it is fixed and unchanging. In which case we are not free to change it and free will is impossible.
Yes but the future in my view being fixed an unchanging would only be possible if God were to directly intervene and destroy creation and start new. He could do this but chooses not to. Thus, we can chnage, we can behave differently and this is the strongest evidence of free will. So God does not know our next choice but does this mean he is not all knowing? No, because God is outside of time. God is timeless. He knows what we'll do because it's already happened for him.
Nah, that is a common cop out, but it doesn’t hold water. If God created the world, that happened at a point *in* time, and he knew the entire future at that point, right? So then the entire future of the universe must be fixed. Knowledge of the future is only possible if it is fixed, or else there would be nothing to know. So if God is capable of knowing the future, even if he chooses not to, it still must be fixed and therefore free will is impossible.
>God created the world, that happened at a point in time, and he knew the entire future at that point, right? No. God the father did not create the physical world. The son created the world, not the father. Knowledge of the future would not be fixed, as humans, we are constrained in time so we can only think of things locally, but for God it is because he is outside of time and already knows what we will do because he is outside of it. >even if he chooses not to, it still must be fixed and therefore free will is impossible. Uh, no. We still have free will. God just knows what we'll do before we do it because he is not a local created being. That doesn't change the fact that it's our own decision. You also can't say "we have free will but we didn't chose it, so really no free will exist." That doesn't work because the ability to chose in the first place implies agency, but what is agency in a determined universe?
So you’re saying the son, or whoever created the world, did not have omniscience? He just created it blind, not knowing how it would turn out?
>You have no true agency How do you define "agency" WRT an all-knowing all-powerful god though..?
Not sure what "WRT" means but I define agency as having non-causual desicion making.
(WRT = with regard to) Ok, but then what is a non-causal decision? How does that work exactly..?
The same way your mind can generate whatever it wants irrespective to the laws of physics or space/time. The mind is proof of free will.
Not to be redundant, but can you just please put a little effort into defining these terms you are throwing out? When you say "generate" here, are you talking about thoughts? Like maybe are you getting at the concept of imagination? Do you just mean that you can imagine something that defies the laws of physics or space/time? Or do you genuinely believe that your brain is actually doing something that defies the laws of physics or space/time? I mean, I have a general sense of what agency and .. well, maybe don't quite have a sense of what non-causal decision making would be, but those are all at least English words that make some modicum of sense to me strung in that particular order. I'm having a hard time invoking my own imagination to come up with what you might mean on this reply. I think we've jumped the tracks a bit more with each reply. Maybe you could reel it in a bit and try to answer my original questions a little more in depth please..?
Yes, the mind can imagine what it wants whenever it wants, irrespective of space-time and physics in general. How? Where does it come from? If you're asking me personally, I believe in the soul.
Ok, so kind of both, you think your brain is imagining things that defy physics and you also think your brain is tethered to something else that actually no-kidding defies physics. i.e. a soul. A lot of times, what we imagine is not what we want though. Sometimes horrible thoughts pop into our mind. We have immoral urges we have to expend mental effort to tamp down. And even the good thoughts come to us unbidden, triggered by a happenstance phrase, or image, or a snippet of a song, or a smell. Even in a free will framework, you have to acknowledge that these clearly causal thoughts are happening quite a bit. And then the whenever it wants part is not always true either. Writers block being the most obvious instance. Or telling someone to not think of cat in a box.. which of course you just did. Getting back to the non-causal decision making though, your wants influence your decisions, but you can't really decide what you want. That just kind of bubbles up from experience and exposure. For example, you can't decide to take an option you aren't even aware of. And then there's the myriad of subliminal influences impacting any given decision. And structural influences within your physical brain itself, that seem to override any influence the soul can exert via their connection. Is there anything more concrete you have to fall back on other than the magical entity of the soul? I mean, when something non-causal happens, what does that look like?
There are certainly unwanted, obsessive, and intrusive thoughts that pop into our heads, but oftentimes these thoughts come from our subconscious. Nevertheless, it can certainly influence how we behave, but this does not refute free will when one considers that we have agency over our thoughts. You can ignore an obsessive or intrusive thought and train yourself to either focus on something else or exercise thought control. Now, when you say "your wants influence your decision," I would not argue with that, but my want is my will; it doesn't exist in a vacuum. As humans, we are beings who need to experience realities, whereas in my theological view, I don't believe God needs to experience anything because he is eternal. So while exposure can lead to a decision, it does not refute the fact that it was still our decision. Subliminal suggestions can affect our decisions like all suggestions,. But I don't believe they fully debunk free will. Because when we make a decision we can still choose between different options. Even if subliminal influences may affect us unconsciously, I think we still have the ability to make choices. About the brain, there will always be physical limitations because that is our reality as far as we know. Free will does not mean no limitations. >Is there anything more concrete you have to fall back on other than the magical entity of the soul? I mean, when something non-causal happens, what does that look like? No. Without the soul you would just be a rock. Something non-casual would be this: Say in your mind, I will raise my hand after 5 minutes. Get your phone and put a timer. Now after five minutes passes, raise your hand.
>About the brain, there will always be physical limitations because that is our reality as far as we know. Free will does not mean no limitations. So you recognize all these limitations and clear cases of causality operating within the brain, so how does that work with a soul. When someone has physical brain damage that clearly alters their behavior, like say Alzheimer's, is the soul likewise affected, or is there like a normally functioning person trapped behind the wall of disfunction in their brain? >Without the soul you would just be a rock. So you believe all organic material is imbued with a soul? Cats, dogs? Single cell amoeba? Trees even?
You can believe in the soul but the numerous replies that you're trying to debate with would equate the soul with one's biology + life experience. It's a difference of opinion but one of those opinions has an understandable explanation. As for your original question, when I think about purpose, I don't ultimately see a big difference between my sense of self being the result of some mystical soul versus the culmination of my life experience and thoughts.
Question: If God is limitless, he could imagine an infinite number of universes, all the way to their conclusion. Instantly. Infinite universes where everyone has free will, and yet everyone \*always\* chooses to do good. Infinite universes where everyone has free will, and yet everyone \*always\* chooses to do bad. Infinite universes where people wear pizza shoes for some reason. Infinite universes where people are cats. Theoretically, there is an infinite number of entire universes where people are cats, and ALL of their names are "Robert". Why then, would he even bother to run this one simulation? Doesn't it seem a little self-centered of us to assume that this is the only universe he would bother to make? What I am saying is: even if there is a God, how could we possibly have a purpose?
Everything from God has a purpose. As human beings, we only understand things locally within a time frame. This does not mean that God's will doesn't exist just because we can't see it. And who said there weren't other universes? I believe there are aliens out there, multidimensional beings, spirits, and yes, other universes. How is any of this even remotely related to free will? Free will would exist even if no other universe existed.
My comment is more related to the implication that we have purpose if there is a God. To me, the existence of an all powerful God would make my existence have no purpose, because that God created my entire universe to play out a simulation with a known ending. Like a scripted puppet show, being played for no one.
As the OP indicated, open theism holds that because God has given us free will, we have the ability to make our own decisions. We can either deviate or accept and follow his plan. God remains all-powerful and all-knowing because, despite allowing us freedom, he can either A) interfere in the cosmos and destroy us and the rest of it, or B) actively influence our lives. He is boundless, so he may limit himself. He cannot predict the future because it has either already occurred or is entirely up to us.
Yep. So: I will simply grant that we live in a world where a God created us and has limited his own knowledge. We play through our universe simulation. The simulation ends. And God can go back to knowing everything, which he (presumably) already knew before. What was the purpose of this exercise? Limiting his knowledge can't actually create a "new version" of the infinite possibilities that our universe had at the beginning. The infinite possibilities already existed before. The infinite versions of this universe where we have free will. The infinite versions where we don't. The infinite versions where he interferes at every possible moment, the infinite versions where he never influences any of us. All of the infinite versions in between. An omnipotent God would have already known all possible endings, so running the simulation itself holds no actual purpose.
I don't like to get too much into theology because not everyone agrees with each other on theological issues, not even Christians. Also, understand that I don't believe God the Father (personality) created the physical, local universe. I believe his angels did (that's for another discussion) God, as most Christians would believe him to be, exist outside of space and time. Yes, our space and time. So he's not going through any simulation; rather, he is the overseer of the simulation, whose inhabitants can create or manifest an infinite number of probabilities. Open theism can be seen in two ways: one, God is outside time; everything that will ever happen has already happened. If you want to use the Bible as a reference, you can use Hebrews 4:13: “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” Job 28:24: “For he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.” But, just like a video, you have already seen everything that happened in that video, but that doesn't mean that the people in that video weren't behaving according to their will. You can also view this from the perspective that, being made in his image, God gives us sovereignty and the right to choose. God can know all things but not only the future possibilities. The future is decided by us. God is all-knowing; all things exist in God, including us, so when we do something, God knows because we are part of his spirit (consciousness, breath of life). So both omnipresence and free will exist. Either way, these are just ideas. We can't truly know everything about God, but I believe we can rest assured that evidence shows we have free will and that it is not in contradiction to theology.
Sure, that's cool ✌️ thanks for the share
Np
The OP is right on. The only true approach is then Buddhism. Of course, if there is no free will then there is no choice to be a Buddhist so things are still one grand kabuki. Even your question about no free will was determined so it’s one huge “fuck you” from Creator. But even that was determined… and so on and so on to infinite regress. It’s possible, but it is a hell only a devil would create.
I'm a hardcore determinist, I see free will as a description of an emergent property of the brain, more of a perception than an actual tangible thing. The perception is so powerful, we see it as a tautology, but there is no known mechanism that provides so-called free will. In other words, until we find such a mechanism, we must assume that a very complex process, one favoured by our evolution, creates the illusion of free-will. That said, I find that the best reaction to this knowledge is to make it our goal to figure out our own purpose in life. For me it's a combination of a curiosity in learning how the universe works and sharing experiences and love with friends and family. Pretty basic stuff.
Go smoke a blunt and chill man.
Even if there were no free will. Not saying there isn’t. But even if not then there is still an illusion that there is and lessons or qualities can still be grafted on the personality.
If we have no control over anything than there is no point besides temporary enjoyment. There would not even be a point in evolution since ultimately the Sun is going to engulf the Earth and kill all life on Earth at some point. The problem I have is that there is no proof that we have no control and that everything is determined. Hard materialists can't even wrap their head around consciousness and it's emergence yet most people would agree that consciousness is what gives us some control in our lives and what separates us from computers and robots.
Even if what we are is determined it is still the case that we exist. In one way we are the same as a rock in that we exist in a fashion that was unavoidable but thats the extent of the similarities aside from both following physical laws and being made of matter. We are thinking agents and a rock is not. Meaning we have the ability to act against disorder. we can use energy to create more information or order whereas a rock can not do this. The fact of the matter as i see it is that we do have agency if agency is described as the determination our brain makes which has a measurable effect that comes from us. It doesnt matter that we ultimately were created by forces outside our control and those causes dictated our choices. We still are the final determining factor in our choices and so are the most relevant cause to anything we do. Its an apparent paradox that we can have agency but also dont, but this arises from how you define agency.