Questions for those who believe in free will

[Rational Atheist]

I'm trying to understand the belief in free will. For those who believe in free will, do you believe that your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes or not? If you do, you're a determinist and do not believe in free choice, since you can't control the causes that took place before you were born. If you don't believe your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes, or don't believe that that causal chain extends to before your birth, then you believe that at some point before your action, an event occurred for no reason whatsoever (purely random). How could this possibly get you free will either? No combination of determinism nor indeterminism (randomness) gives you "free will" in the sense of authorship of and responsibility for your actions. How can you believe anyone is ultimately responsible for what they do?

[The Tanager]

All in all it appears to me to be that you believe "free" will is about moral considerations, which are built from human concepts [how the individual defines/accepts the definitions of nature] rather than the nature of nature [because nature is not bound by moral considerations.]
The definitions created this way bring about moral awareness which would otherwise be absent and are largely done through some supernatural authority outside of nature [because nature has no morals] and thus deities are created to compensate, and morals are forced into nature through that means.

I think free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator. Not all of nature is moral but I think humans are naturally so.

[The Tanager]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The natural universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause
4. the cause of the natural universe can either be natural or non-natural (i.e., supernatural)
5. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
6. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

Premises 4 and 5, not having the status of an axiom, require that you demonstrate, substantiate, show, prove, or provided conclusive evidence that they are true in order to claim that your conclusion is true.

So:

Prove that the cause of the natural universe can be supernatural.
Prove that the cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural


Until you do this your argument fails.

The categories of natural and supernatural (non-natural) from premise 4 are logically exhaustive. Either something is A or not-A. Premise 4 is logically necessary.

In support of premise 5, as I've already said, for the cause of the natural universe to be, itself, natural would be self-causation, which is logically impossible since it requires something to exist prior to when it exists. Nothing can exist prior to when it exists.

How do you know? There have been quite a few hypotheses concerning the origin of our universe that posit pre- and co-existing states.

Those pre- or co-existing states are themselves natural, thus a part of the natural universe, should they exist. We are talking about the cause of the natural universe.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 132:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Plenty fair.

2. The natural universe began to exist

Claim made not supported by the evidence.

We observe a "Big Bang", but such implies there set it something to begin with.

3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause

Fails based on the failure of the 2nd premise.

4. the cause of the natural universe can either be natural or non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

No.

All that exists in nature is, by definition, natural.

As claimant declares "natural universe", then there we go.

5. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural

Fails based on the previous failure in premise 2.

"the natural universe can't be it natural caused" is as goofy a notion as I've ever known.


Now watch how were gonna get told, "But God there, well he always existed, and don't need him no explanation for having come him to be."

[Miles]

The categories of natural and supernatural (non-natural) from premise 4 are logically exhaustive. Either something is A or not-A. Premise 4 is logically necessary.

It can certainly be a logical construct, just like something such as a non-pencil can be, but it has to have a truth value to be meaningful (both premises need to be true for a conclusion to be sound), and so far neither something such as a non-pencil nor the supernatural have any. Assemble your persuasive evidence for the truth of the supernatural and maybe then we can talk.


.

[Bust Nak]

Every premise is up for debate. Assuming that to be true, I think there would still need to be a cause for that prior natural stage.

Without the premise that only causes inside this universe can be considered natural, so what if there is another cause for the prior natural cause? While we are here, our universe is, as far as we can tell, unbounded going forward in time, expanding for ever, never ending; so why couldn't the corresponding big crunch prior universe, be unbounded in the other direction, never starting and hence not having a cause?

[William]

All in all it appears to me to be that you believe "free" will is about moral considerations, which are built from human concepts [how the individual defines/accepts the definitions of nature] rather than the nature of nature [because nature is not bound by moral considerations.]
The definitions created this way bring about moral awareness which would otherwise be absent and are largely done through some supernatural authority outside of nature [because nature has no morals] and thus deities are created to compensate, and morals are forced into nature through that means.

I think free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator. Not all of nature is moral but I think humans are naturally so.

If that is the case and your thinking is correct, then we need to identify why "not all of nature is moral but humans are naturally moral" - I will created another thread on that question.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #134]

4. the cause of the natural universe can either be natural or non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

No.

All that exists in nature is, by definition, natural.

Certainly there seems to be no reason why the existence of the universe has to be either natural or supernatural. [non-natural]...or that some of it is because of nature and some of it is because of non-nature...

[William]

I will create another thread on that question.

[link]
Is it Important to Have Knowledge of G&E?

[The Tanager]

1. Everything that beings to exist has a cause

Now watch how were gonna get told, "But God there, well he always existed, and don't need him no explanation for having come him to be."

If something is eternal, then it can't have a cause for its existence because it never began to exist. Whether something eternal exists is another question. It comes in as a conclusion of an argument, though, not just thrown in there. If something eternal exists, then whether that eternal thing is God or not is another question. It comes in as a conclusion of an argument, though, not just thrown in there.


2. The natural universe began to exist

Claim made not supported by the evidence.

We observe a "Big Bang", but such implies there set it something to begin with.

Whether the Big Bang was the start of the natural universe or there was a prior state to the natural universe, even the big crunch, doesn't matter. There is scientific debate concerning that. I'm not saying the science proves one way or the other. This is the philosophical argument I think that supports the truth of premise 2:

A. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite
B. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition
C. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite

Now, obviously there is a lot to unpack there and discuss. To avoid the truth of premise 2 of the Kalam, the natural universe would have to be eternal. In the language of this argument in support, that means the series of events that make up the natural universe (whether the Big Bang is the start of that series or there are prior natural states and events) would have to be an actual infinite. Regardless of whether actual infinites can actually exist or not, they could not be formed by "adding" this series of events together. Thus, the series of events that make up the natural universe cannot be eternal. It must have had a beginning.

While we are here, our universe is, as far as we can tell, unbounded going forward in time, expanding for ever, never ending; so why couldn't the corresponding big crunch prior universe, be unbounded in the other direction, never starting and hence not having a cause?

The big crunch, if it was truly eternal, then we could never have reached the present moment in time because it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. You can never reach an actual infinite (which the series from the unbounded beginning of the big crunch would be) moving from one event in the series to the next, thus never reaching the present.


3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause

I think everyone agrees that 3 logically follows from the truth of 1 and 2. The question is whether those are true.


4. The cause of the natural universe can either be natural or non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

No.

All that exists in nature is, by definition, natural.

As claimant declares "natural universe", then there we go.

We aren't talking about all that exists in nature. We are talking about the cause of all that exists in nature. That cause must either be natural or non-natural. Those are logically exhaustive categories.

Certainly there seems to be no reason why the existence of the universe has to be either natural or supernatural. [non-natural]...or that some of it is because of nature and some of it is because of non-nature...

But the natural 'bit' of this hybrid being is included in "all that exists in nature". From premise 2, the natural bit would need a cause. Thus, we are back to the cause of all that exists in nature being either natural (even the hybrid being's own natural bit) or non-natural (even the supernatural bit of the hybrid being).


5. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural

Fails based on the previous failure in premise 2.

"the natural universe can't be it natural caused" is as goofy a notion as I've ever known.

Premise 5 is completely independent of premise 4. For premise 5 to be false, self-causation must be possible. It is a completely illogical concept. Nothing can exist prior to when it exists in order to cause itself to exist. This is true independent of whether the Big Bang was the start of the natural universe or there were other natural states prior to it or we live in a multi-verse.*

Note here that the multi-verse uses "universe" in a different way then we are. If a multi-verse exists, every "universe" is still a part of the natural universe. The natural universe encompasses all natural states.


6. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

This seems to logically follow from premises 3-5.

[The Tanager]

Without the premise that only causes inside this universe can be considered natural, so what if there is another cause for the prior natural cause?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. What do you mean by "this universe"? I'm talking about all natural states as a part of "the natural universe." I'm saying any natural cause must have a prior cause, ultimately, one that is not natural (to avoid self-causation and the inability of the natural universe from being eternal).