The Instigator
HeWhoLightsTheWay
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
flamebreath
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Free will can not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,208 times Debate No: 14114
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

HeWhoLightsTheWay

Pro

Hello, i am new to this site, and was brought in due to an argument i witnessed on this site. The voters agreed that free will does exist, in my opinion on account that they want to believe this is true. Though i will state my main point, that we are chemical systems, with predetermined reactions, controlled by inner sources (restrained) and also external sources (restrained). This being said we are unable to have freedom, which is the ability to act or speak or think without restraint or barrier. Since we are forced to feel emotions, due to preprogrammed chemical laws, and outside stimuli, how can one truly say we have free will. Choice is an illusion since even choosing Mcdonald's over Burger king is based on reasoning, which is based on logic which is based on chemical input based on previous choices, like growing up on Mcdonald's (outside stimuli. Irregardless, it is a scientific fact that we are chemical systems, meaning that your birth + the state of the outside stimuli= chemical reactions in the brain etc,cause us to react chemically in a certain way, wanting to open the door is in fact a chemical reaction, and since all choices are opinionated they are wanted, they are of chemical origin, not unlimited and free such as free will states. There is a difference between doing and choosing as well, where on can want to choose, one is not always free to choose, there fore unable to enact free will.
flamebreath

Con

Hello and might I say that I too am new to this site.

I stand in firm affirmation of the fact that free will does indeed exist. When we look into our nervous system we find that although it is chemically composed of many complex parts, it need the will from the being to actually work accordingly. Know my opponent mentioned that we are composed of both internal and external restraint however; my opponent failed to realize that we actually bend both the internal and external barriers to our personal needs. The force of emotion does not play a role simply because the human could easily avoid and bend the emotions to there will. know my opponent stated a scenario In which he states "Choice is an illusion since even choosing McDonald's over Burger king is based on reasoning, which is based on logic which is based on chemical input based on previous choices, like growing up on McDonald's". know within this scenario, we must find that choice is not an illusion but "The power, right, or liberty to choose" The power, right, or liberty to choose".(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) The word liberty shows us that choice is not a part of the person but is created by the being. The simple choice of McDonald over burger king is indeed determined by previous experience but made by the free will and choice of the being.

Correct Formula: Previous experience+ chemical composition + choice~ FREE WILL
~= congruent not similar
Debate Round No. 1
HeWhoLightsTheWay

Pro

Although i would like to agree, these chemicals in our brain, You the being is made of, are not under our control, in fact the person who has free will is not defined by body truly, because you would still be you in another body. I t is defined by the memories and thoughts you have your opinions, and emotions. emotions are what lead to choice and opinions, which saying truly, chemicals produce these emotions, and our reactions due to outside stimuli, and possibly thought. Now, if you had the choice to make over one restaurant to another, it is the seratonin, and numerous other chemicals that make you happier to go to one, in fact this means that you can actually be edged into making a choice and slightly but surely be restrained from the other, due to chemical input, which may i add is also the makeup of our memories, chemical input, firing synapses. It is even possible to be come addicted to a certain method of choice emotion and thought, this is what you call opinion, which is really addiction to certain chemicals necessary to experience emotion. Also a being can not say they have free will, because we are chemicals alone according to science, meaning these chemicals react as they should, they do not make choices, if you restarted your life you would respond the same way and think the same way, as you are in the same conditions. The being my opponent refers to is the spirit, not the chemically bound body, which may i add is not accepted by science.liberty may give you the right but that does not mean you can truly use this right for you choosing is in fact a freedom, i would like to ask my opponent, is free will ever limited at all, for if it is, this means that you are not truly free, freedom is defined by you ability to act or speak etc without restraint or forced hand. And though it may seem on your level that you are bending your emotions, may i add, that you may not act without the chemicals that make up you, there fore they determine your actions simply put this is already a lost battle for my opponent, science already agrees with this. you keep saying being, what being do you speak of, and who is this one who can bend all of his own actions, where is he located, isolate this man for me. If you cant tell me who you are, which may i add professionals don't even know, wont except that we are in fact free, the current scientific belief is we are a random act, or that we are a cog in a wheel so to speak.
flamebreath

Con

THANKS FOR THE QUICK RESPONSE
When looking into free will, we must find that its is not of physical but of psychology. now in terms of psychology, we must look at the situation in different forms and in doing so, you are able to carefully analyze and conclude.

Scenario 1: when transferred into another body, we have to see that your chemical composition is not the same however we often find that the choices we make remain the same. why is this you ask, it is simply because the human body is not in control but the human beliefs are. I agree with my opponent when he stated "I t is defined by the memories and thoughts you have your opinions, and emotions. emotions are what lead to choice and opinions" however; he completely neglected the fact that the free will leads to these emotions. Without free will we simply cannot respond to emotions or have different emotions because it is not part of our chemical composition.

Scenario 2: When making simple decisions, I agree that previous experience do play a major role in this but we have to remember that previous experiences often fall under free will. You chose to remember this experience and did not just spontaneously remember it. the simple fact of the matter was explained by a Stephan from http://my.opera.com... in which he states "I like to believe that we have a choice but it doesn't always seem so". This statement shows that although it might not seem like it but we are controlled by our will and not by our chemical composition.

Scenario 3: finally we have to look into the book HUNGER GAMES by Suzanne Collins and position ourselves in the main characters situation, we find that when threatened by danger, it is our WILL to live that might save us and not our chemical properties. the simple truth to this matter is that it does not matter how much our chemical composition changes or play a role in decision making, overall we as the master must choose to react or not to react simply by the use of free will.

I AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE
Debate Round No. 2
HeWhoLightsTheWay

Pro

Yes i agree, will or thought, does play in our choices, though it is the chemical composition of the brain that plays out our individual will, when we think, we are in fact using chemical data, the product of a distinct reaction, psychology has placed emotions, and associated behaviors in certain areas of the brain, where certain chemicals initiate certain thoughts and reactions to these thoughts, without will we still can get the illusion of free will, in which you think your thoughts are in fact incurred by your own will, but in which they are incurred by outside and inside chemical reactions. I would love to be proven wrong, as free will would indicate that thoughts are immaterial, and guided thereby by an outer source, as i previously asked, we can not be located anywhere in the brain specifically, we are in fact, a combined structure in which chemicals react to produce both emotion and thought, thought leading to action also controlled by chemicals in the brain, other wise one would have to assume some immaterial being exists in which is the capability to control physical matter.
flamebreath

Con

Yes I highly agree that our chemical composition of the brain plays out our individual will however; you must understand that it is our free will that actually forces our brains to cooperate accordingly. When we are faced with different situations like I mentioned earlier, we must use our free will to decide what happens next. We must see that without FREE WILL, our mind cannot decide or work against our free will.

first we have to look into the one emotion in which my opponent failed to realize was controlled by free will, the emotion of love. yes I agree that love isn't determined by the free will however we must take into consideration that love cannot advance without the free will to move on and ask the other out. so in conclusion, emotion is a rain carried on by free will (cloud).
Debate Round No. 3
HeWhoLightsTheWay

Pro

regardless how one feels that his action is carried out by his or her own free will, the truth is chemicals can move you to make decisions for example in the delusional, which many say that one may become love drunk, or delusioned. Chemicals do control the brain, and we do not force these chemicals to act, if we did we would be concluded as not part of the physical body, meaning we are in fact a non material being whom is able to manipulate material substance, though no science can determine that this is true. if we are the ones deciding, then who are we, we are certainly not chemicals, there fore all of psychology and science becomes void, especially in deciding what we in fact are, therefore we can not scientifically deduct that we are in control of chemical reactions which are the driver of all our functions, and are bound by the laws of chemistry and physics .
flamebreath

Con

When looking into the delusional we often find that we cannot compare there decision making ability to that of the normal character. Yes I agree that chemical changes can affect the freedom of a character however; we find that the chemical change do not take away there free will but simply impair the victim from performing there daily activities. My opponent mentioned that " meaning we are in fact a non material being whom is able to manipulate material substance" this practically tells us that the human is not controlled by their material substance therefore they control their material substance thus given them the free will that is been argued in this debate. When looking at this from a psychological view, we find that the human Brian's and particles is not directly linked to there will however we find that the indirect fuel of free will or liberty from the human in other to accomplish its task. although we are bond to the formula of chemistry and physics, we must see that we biologically control these formula thus making it ours. without the free will given to the human, there will be absolutely no laws to bind us.
Debate Round No. 4
HeWhoLightsTheWay

Pro

HeWhoLightsTheWay forfeited this round.
flamebreath

Con

My opponent did not post his argument so i will just go ahead and conclude with a single statement "Our free will is not visible and does not have material existence. However, such factors do not render its existence impossible. Everyone has two (physical) eyes, but we also can see with our third (spiritual) eye. We use the former to see things in this world; we use the latter to see things beyond events and this world. Our free will is like our third eye, which you may call insight. It is an inclination or inner force by which we prefer and decide." (http://www.islamanswers.net...)

"Man wills and God creates. A project or a building's plan has no value or use unless you start to construct the building according to it, so that it becomes visible and serves many purposes. Our free will resembles that plan, for we decide and act according to it, and God creates our actions as a result of our decisions. Creation and acting or doing something are different things. God's creation means that He gives actual existence to our choices and actions in this world. Without God's creation, we can do nothing." (http://www.islamanswers.net...)

Thank you and i urge you vote in firm negation.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by HeWhoLightsTheWay 6 years ago
HeWhoLightsTheWay
due to the holidays i was unable to post, also my computer's internet shut down. Though i must say that the past state can be used to predict the future if you know the correct way to interpret this information. And yes chemical composition is scientifically, maybe not spiritually, but in science given the way as the true us not spirit, meaning as chemicals react in set ways that they will react due to predetermined method ie choice. Also my opponent did in fact say that WE control the chemical composition, though, in truth, WE are the chemical composition, and chemicals do not choose how to react.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
If we were to test that scenario, you could argue that the reason the person "deliberately" answered incorrectly is because that person, through past experiences, gained the belief that there is free will. And because of this gained belief they will refuse to do anything that would prove free will is nonexistant.

Also, because they think that there is free will, you could indeed predict that they will not say what you tell them they will say.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
There is a simple test that proves free will exists.

If we make the assumption that there is no free will, and every action you take is 100% determined by the past, then it is possible to gather the past information to predict the future (as there would be no variables). Then I could tell you what you are going to say next (with that telling of you added into the data and accounted for). You could simply here what you were told you are going to say next and choose to say something different, there-by proving the predicting machine wrong. That means that there must have been some variable which the machine could not accommodate for. That means that our original assumption, that everything is 100% predictable, with enough information, is incorrect. As the variable lies within the person (since that is where things went t!ts up), that variable must be free will (or whatever you'd like to call it).
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
This was a surprisingly good debate over a issue I think is very interesting. Sadly pro forfeits round 5 so I must vote con.

I dont believe the whole chemical reactions thing because imo, separating free will from chemical reactions is just a distinction without a difference.

I do believe that any action you take is determined solely by things learned in the past (see Determinism). For instance, if someone asks me what 2 plus 2 is, I will answer 4. But the only reason I do so is because 1. I learned in past that the answer is 4, and 2. I learned in the past that it is polite to answer questions asked of you. In this way I really did not make an active choice to answer but merely acted based on things learned in the past.

I'm kind of rambling a bit, but good debate.
Posted by flamebreath 6 years ago
flamebreath
Exactly my point, if we are not able to predict the future then we will have make our future therefore we have the freedom to create the future of our dream simply by fueling it with dreams.
Posted by DifferentView 6 years ago
DifferentView
The argument that our brains function on "chemical reactions" states that our actions are predetermined as a chemical reaction can be solved. Therefore this argument implies that the universe is just one almost mathematical problem that can be calculated and predicted. The amount of variables in an infinite universe to work out said problem is also infinite. It can never be solved as you are trying to work from chaos. This means you cannot predict the future, and if that is the case, then the future can never affect the present, meaning that for all intents and purposes the future is unknown to all, and therefore we are free. We have freedom to do whatever, predetermined or not.
Posted by flamebreath 6 years ago
flamebreath
wow i wish i was as deep as you when it comes to philosphical issues.
Posted by HeWhoLightsTheWay 6 years ago
HeWhoLightsTheWay
i am many things one of them is a philosopher.
Posted by flamebreath 6 years ago
flamebreath
you must be a philosopher
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
HeWhoLightsTheWayflamebreathTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
HeWhoLightsTheWayflamebreathTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
HeWhoLightsTheWayflamebreathTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04