Door 20 (a vision of christian free will)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Can one not investigate God whilst also holding on to one's doubts and cynicism? Does it have to be an all or nothing thing?

It depends which doubts and whether they are simply doubts or outright disbelief. For example if I told you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster can only truly be investigated if you first believe in his existence (at least 1% if such a thing is possible), then would you be able to investigate him?
In my opinion, Christians make many claims about God which can be investigated without any prior belief in God. For example you have made some claims about free will which you also claim is related to God and has observable effects on reality. I am genuinely interested in knowing what those observable effects are and investigating for myself whether there are alternative explanations. However in all the threads on the subject you have been unable to give a coherent description that is sufficient enough for me to understand and investigate.
I have found in the past when investigating similar 'observable effect' that Christians have made claims about, that Christians are often willing to change their position quite dramatically once shown to be in error or alternatively to simply refuse to discuss it beyond a certain point, or to cover their ears. The result is I am yet to confirm any such effect as being genuine and have found evidence to my satisfaction that they are not real or can not be attributed to the cause that was initially claimed.
It is made harder when someone actually states that it is impossible to find solid evidence for God (you have made claims like this in the past).

Originally posted by twhitehead
It depends which doubts and whether they are simply doubts or outright disbelief. For example if I told you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster can only truly be investigated if you first believe in his existence (at least 1% if such a thing is possible), then would you be able to investigate him?
In my opinion, Christians make many claims about God which ...[text shortened]... it is impossible to find solid evidence for God (you have made claims like this in the past).

With regards to free will it's difficult to find conclusive evidence because the evidence can be interpreted in both ways. Because one outcome is only ever possible even if there were multiple outcomes possible we would never be able to know more than one outcome. To put it simply we can only ever make one choice not two . I think there is some subjective evidence from our own experiences that supports free will but that might not be very satisfactory for you. What exactly is it you are looking for that would be convincing evidence?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It depends which doubts and whether they are simply doubts or outright disbelief. For example if I told you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster can only truly be investigated if you first believe in his existence (at least 1% if such a thing is possible), then would you be able to investigate him?
In my opinion, Christians make many claims about God which it is impossible to find solid evidence for God (you have made claims like this in the past).

It is made harder when someone actually states that it is impossible to find solid evidence for God (you have made claims like this in the past). WHITEY


It's unlikely that you would ever find the evidence you are looking for in that you seem to want enough evidence to be able to know for sure that God exists whereas what you might get is enough to make you think it's worth pursuing. If faith (even 1% ) is a dirty word for you then there's not a lot anyone can say. All I have ever said is that Christians need to provide enough of an argument to present a reasonable case to anyone open to it.

What would you make of this guys expereince for example...?

http://alicious.com/testimony

Originally posted by knightmeister
With regards to free will it's difficult to find conclusive evidence because the evidence can be interpreted in both ways. Because one outcome is only ever possible even if there were multiple outcomes possible we would never be able to know more than one outcome. To put it simply we can only ever make one choice not two . I think there is some subject ...[text shortened]... satisfactory for you. What exactly is it you are looking for that would be convincing evidence?

So your repeated claims with regards to determinism that "that is not what we experience" are actually totally unfounded?

From your second post in this thread:
Originally posted by knightmeister
"My view is that experientially everything points to free will .."

Originally posted by twhitehead
So your repeated claims with regards to determinism that "that is not what we experience" are actually totally unfounded?

From your second post in this thread:
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]"My view is that experientially everything points to free will .."[/b]

So your repeated claims with regards to determinism that "that is not what we experience" are actually totally unfounded? WHITEY


So , let's imagine we do a questionnaire and survey a million people randomly. We ask them the following question...

" Do you feel or believe WHEN YOU ARE ACTUALLY MAKING CHOICES that

A) your future is determined in the sense that there are only one set of choices that you are only ever going to make and that there is only one course of action that you are destined to take and that the chances of your future life being any different from this determined outcome are precisely 0%.

or B) your future is not set or determined and that there are potentially at least two (if not more) possible roads down which you could walk in life in the sense that you are making real choices between real and possible alternatives that could really happen or not happen depending on your choice. "


I wager we would get 95% + going for B because no-one can feasibly make decisions and choices believing that the outcome is predetermined.

That's my evidence , raw human experience.

Originally posted by knightmeister
That's my evidence , raw human experience.

Ahh, so its a case of what people think they experience not what they actually experience. I might even go with B myself as I think it is compatible with my world view and with determinism but I would have to think really hard about the wording and possible interpretations etc.

Of course most of the people would not really understand the question (myself included) as the wording can be interpreted or understood in so many different ways.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I wager we would get 95% + going for B because no-one can feasibly make decisions and choices believing that the outcome is predetermined.

Sounds like the argument you made in the wayward computer thread which you failed to back up. You are saying that a computer cannot run an if statement if it is aware (believes) that only one option will be possible? I am sure you can see for yourself that that is false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Ahh, so its a case of what people [b]think they experience not what they actually experience. I might even go with B myself as I think it is compatible with my world view and with determinism but I would have to think really hard about the wording and possible interpretations etc.

Of course most of the people would not really understand the question (myself included) as the wording can be interpreted or understood in so many different ways.[/b]

Ahh, so its a case of what people think they experience not what they actually experience. WHITEY

No , it is a case of what they experience. The experience is also emotional , let's try this question...


" When you make an important choice , do you experience anxiety and some tension due to thoughts that you really really might not make the correct choice for you. Do you experience any sense of urgency to make sure you make the right decision for you? Do you experience the choice before you as one between two real and possible alternatives that could both potentially happen in YOUR future?"

What do you think people will say?

I'm quite happy to go long and far down the experience road because I know it will support me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Ahh, so its a case of what people [b]think they experience not what they actually experience. I might even go with B myself as I think it is compatible with my world view and with determinism but I would have to think really hard about the wording and possible interpretations etc.

Of course most of the people would not really understand the question (myself included) as the wording can be interpreted or understood in so many different ways.[/b]

I might even go with B myself as I think it is compatible with my world view and with determinism but I would have to think really hard about the wording and possible interpretations etc WHITEY


You could not possibly subsrcibe to B and not be contradictory. B says that you experience your choice as one between two alternatives that are really possible in YOUR life . In your view there's only one raod you can ever walk down.

Now , you are being a bit slippery here . You had best just admit like some compatabilists do that even if determinism is correct , the only sane thing we can do is live 'as if' free will is true because we cannot really be 100% true to determinism.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No , it is a case of what they experience. The experience is also emotional , let's try this question...

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion
Now do you understand the difference between fact and experience? If you did a survey of people who saw an optical illusion that made something look red don't you think most people would say "it looks red?". Does that make it red? In fact you may later find out that most of them don't even think it is red because they do understand optical illusions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion
Now do you understand the difference between fact and experience? If you did a survey of people who saw an optical illusion that made something look red don't you think most people would say "it looks red?". Does that make it red? In fact you may later find out that most of them don't even think it is red because they do understand optical illusions.

So you do at least admit that we do appear as humans to be under the delusion that we have free will of some sort (even though I don't think it is a delusion). Then we can both agree that the primary experience of humans is that (at least sometimes) they feel they are making real choices between real potentially possible alternatives both of which can happen in their future? The raw data of experience is there , the fact that you choose to interpret it as illusionary does not change the data. You do of course know this.

The issue of whether this expereince is illusionary is a secondary issue right now because the experience may or may not be a delusion. You said there is no experiential evidence to back me up but there is!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion
Now do you understand the difference between fact and experience? If you did a survey of people who saw an optical illusion that made something look red don't you think most people would say "it looks red?". Does that make it red? In fact you may later find out that most of them don't even think it is red because they do understand optical illusions.

Now do you understand the difference between fact and experience?

......oh yes I see. I had no idea that our experiences could be illusionary. Silly me! I had never considered this.

I mean come on , how do you think I make assessments of the experiences that people have with people with John Edwards (psychic) Jesus himself said we must be as wise as serpents.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The issue of whether this expereince is illusionary is a secondary issue right now because the experience may or may not be a delusion. You said there is no experiential evidence to back me up but there is!

I still disagree, the experience doesn't back you up. It is your delusional interpretation that does.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So you do at least admit that we do appear as humans to be under the delusion that we have free will of some sort (even though I don't think it is a delusion).

I have always maintained that we experience free will of some sort, just not your sort.
As I mention in wayward computer thread, your experience of being faced with an IF statement with two possible outcomes is not an illusion if you look only at the IF statement. When the IF statement is run with a given set of inputs then only one outcome will prevail. That matches my experience exactly and I think matches the experience you are trying to claim demonstrates your free will.
The only other possibility that I see is that when a choice is presented then it is irrelevant what the inputs are, both options are still available. So you are essentially saying that the outcome of the choice is random (uncaused) whoever makes the choice. Now go and do your survey again with these questions:
1. When you make a choice the outcome is a result of who you are and what you were thinking at the time.
2. When you make a choice the outcome is random.
I think you will find that the results do not back you up at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have always maintained that we experience free will of some sort, just not your sort.
As I mention in wayward computer thread, your experience of being faced with an IF statement with two possible outcomes is not an illusion if you look only at the IF statement. When the IF statement is run with a given set of inputs then only one outcome will prevail. ...[text shortened]... choice the outcome is random.
I think you will find that the results do not back you up at all.

Whoah! Back up a minute. You haven't said what you think people will say to this (below).......I wager 90%+ will say that this is their experience if we had a survey. If I'm right then most people experience my free will not yours. Free will (my version) does have problems regarding coherency but in terms of experience it trumps your (so called) free will any time because people do believe that there is potentially more than one future out there to choose for themselves. Just admit you have made a pig's ear of taking me on in the area of experience, it's libertarian free will's home terittory.



"When you make an important choice , do you experience anxiety and some tension due to thoughts that you really really might not make the correct choice for you. Do you experience any sense of urgency to make sure you make the right decision for you? Do you experience the choice before you as one between two real and possible alternatives that could both potentially happen in YOUR future?"

What do you think people will say?