Assuming that the word 'god' refers to the 'creator of everything' and is 'perfect' (the majority of definitions) then the existence of 'free will' (if it does, indeed, exist) precludes the existence of such a god.

If I have free will, it stands to reason that I am able to apply it to creating something that did not exist before as a direct result of the unfettered choices I have made within the non-confines of that free will (In other words, a god would not have had any control of those choices and, therefore, also have no authorship of the creative result.)

Therefore, I would have created something that was not created by god.

Therefore, everything would not have been created by god.

Therefore, god would not exist as defined, i.e. creator of everything.

Therefore, god can only exist if there is no free will.

Therefore, if there were a god, there could be no sin (imperfection), since everything would be his doing.


**** addendum


This is a fascinating discussion of 'free will' - but much misses the irony of my point - in that it poses an argument in favor of atheism based on a standard argument used by Abrahamic believers - that god created everything - except he didn't. Actually, they are stuck with a tremendous paradox we, as atheists, are not. Because, if god created free will - he made it possible and, therefore, certain, that some things are NOT of his creation - but if he didn't create free will, then he is pre-damning many people to hell (which JW's and Calvinists sort of agree on.)

Of course, as an atheist, if there is no real random number (a no-cause cause), we also have a problem because that suggests (albeit on a chaos theory level) that everything is still pretermined by a hyper-complex multi-chain of causality and, in a way, suggests a 'Master Plan' of sorts (albeit it without an actual 'Master' behind it.).

Views: 326

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, denying existence of something while using it to deny it doesn't work. In other words, you have to use free will to deny free will.
something in me rebels against the notion of no free will. Still, the more I learn about the brain, the less I trust it.

It has been demonstrated that certain neurological inputs produce predictable outputs. There is no choice in the matter. It is a lot like optical illusions, we have no choice but to see things a certain way. It is scary and wonderful how algorithmic it appears to be.
ehrm... *whisper* but there's no such thing as free will.

sorry, but i didn't need to read past the title. I have a hundred comment long blog where I discuss my ides about free will and why it is an illusion.

the insanely short version: genes and experiences. We can't choose either.

If you're not satisfied I'll be glad to refer you to my other blog and then debate after you've read it.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/why-hate-is-irrational-a...

The blog itself has no proofs. The discussion is all in the comments. It's long, but interesting. I hope it inspires you to either see my point or come back and debate me on something that nobody else brought up. Let me know! =)
Don't you have the choice to choose either to accept free will or deny it? Don't you think you need free will even to deny free will?
I'm no more "free" to accept free will than I am to accept the existence of God. I didn't choose atheism. It was a conclusion I arrived at, due to my genetics and experience(exposure to ideas, personal observations, etc.)
This raises an interesting question. How do you define that "I"? Would you still deny free will if you included your genetic heritage and past experiences in the definition of yourself, instead of seeing them as external agents influencing your decision process?
Gotta love where you are going with this - my 'spirituality' as an atheist lies in my general acceptance that everything is intrinsically interconnected and 'self' is a construct. I'm 'bigger than my body gives me credit for' as John Meyer's song goes.
Would you still deny free will if you included your genetic heritage and past experiences in the definition of yourself, instead of seeing them as external agents influencing your decision process?

You're making the point that I'm trying to express, Jaume. I see myself as the sum of my genetics and experience. There is nothing in this self that acts independently of these influences. As a result, I am never the same person twice. As experience is gained, the self is altered. The idea of the other self that appears to observe the true self(Sartre's concept) is interesting as a metaphor, but I can't see it as compatible with a purely naturalistic worldview.
To arrive at a conclusion requires free will. You are free to accept free will and God or deny them. The problem is if you accept something that is not true, you'll have to deal with the consequences of the conflicts between what is in the reality and what is inside the contents of your consciousness. Denying free will while implicitly using free will looks like a conflict to me.
We are not animals. Animals are not able to deny free will.

The reason why free will is a major part of philosophy is that most philosophers are not knowledgeable in biology and can only use logic to argue their philosophical positions.

The reason why free will is perceived as an illusion is that most people are unable to figure out how an animate objects can come together as a whole to become a conscious being. This inability causes them to conclude free will is an illusion.
When I said "We are not animals.", I was referring to the concept "animal" that does not include human, aka homo sapien. In other words, there are two categories of living organisms: animals and humans.

I know in biology humans are animals. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
IF my grandmother had testicles she'd be my grandfather.


All rules of inference begin; "IF X----- " IE; a premise is always assumed to be true for the sake of argument. Hence a logical inference may or may not be true.

Arguments for and against the existence of free will and god are metaphysical propositions,both unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Not even exactly sure where I stand on free will.I lean towards genetic and psychological determinism. I lack the science to begin to understand the arguments of physicists. My position is that free will as we use the term does not exist. Our choices are always limited by circumstance and imprecise knowledge.WHICH choice(s) we make are predetermined by instinct ( flight/fight-fear) culture,personality,circumstance,intellect,education and precedent. 'Free wil' and 'free,fully informed choice(s)' are so rare as to be non existent for all practical purposes.

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service