Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is this a good argument against evolution?

Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 9:48:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

So, saying that humans have free will and evolved from animals without free will?
Well, I actually just found Daniel Dennett and his philosophy of free will that WORKS with evolution.
https://www.youtube.com...

It might be hard to understand if you are not used to the vocab and grammar style he uses.

But, no, it is not a good argument.
E_Pluribus_Unum
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 11:54:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 9:48:30 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

So, saying that humans have free will and evolved from animals without free will?
Well, I actually just found Daniel Dennett and his philosophy of free will that WORKS with evolution.
https://www.youtube.com...

It might be hard to understand if you are not used to the vocab and grammar style he uses.

But, no, it is not a good argument.

It depends on what one means by free will. We are, after all, wholly dependent on the particular way our neuron impulses which direct our decision-making function. That is an example of the arguments some use to posit the position that free will doesn't exist (in an irreligious sense).
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 3:36:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

So you say an animal has no free will? Prove it.

Specifically prove that the deer running away from a lion is not using their free will. Or is that just survival instinct which some consider free will.

To answer you question this is an awful argument against evolution as its nonsensical.
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 7:10:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 11:54:49 PM, E_Pluribus_Unum wrote:
At 7/15/2014 9:48:30 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

So, saying that humans have free will and evolved from animals without free will?
Well, I actually just found Daniel Dennett and his philosophy of free will that WORKS with evolution.
https://www.youtube.com...

It might be hard to understand if you are not used to the vocab and grammar style he uses.

But, no, it is not a good argument.

It depends on what one means by free will. We are, after all, wholly dependent on the particular way our neuron impulses which direct our decision-making function. That is an example of the arguments some use to posit the position that free will doesn't exist (in an irreligious sense).

Its defined as the ability to choose what we are going to do.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 7:28:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

Let me help you out here:

P1) If evolution is true, then evolving volition is impossible
P2) If evolution is true, then humans evolved volition
C) 1&2 form a contradiction, therefore evolution must be false

I don't find it convincing for 2 reasons:
1. Evolution has nothing to say on volition, it's conceivable why it would be an advantageous trait, but in principle evolution had nothing much to say about it
2. No reason to accept that humans genuinely do have volition. Personally I reject it as a hard incompatibilist, although other physicalists such as Daniel Dennet do accept Free Will. The bottom line is that we just don't know, I reject it on logical grounds, and burden of proof grounds.

Therefore both premises are controversial. I don't think it's very good, but then few are. One of the stronger arguments against the belief in evolution is Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, which you can check out in my debate with Toviyah.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 2:21:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

No. That isn't a good argument against evolution.
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 12:12:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 3:36:24 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

So you say an animal has no free will? Prove it.

Animals of he same species do the same things.


Specifically prove that the deer running away from a lion is not using their free will. Or is that just survival instinct which some consider free will.

Actually deers running from lions aren't using free will. All deer do that when they know lions are nearby.

To answer you question this is an awful argument against evolution as its nonsensical.
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 12:26:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 7:28:59 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

Let me help you out here:

P1) If evolution is true, then evolving volition is impossible
P2) If evolution is true, then humans evolved volition
C) 1&2 form a contradiction, therefore evolution must be false

Ok for clarity, let's just call it independent thought, which by the definition of "independent," is basically thought without outside influence. This was actually my argument:

P1) If evolution is true, we shouldn't be able to think for ourselves
P2) If evolution is false, then if should be impossible for humans to think for ourselves
P3) Humans can think independently
C1) therefore evolution is false.

I don't find it convincing for 2 reasons:
1. Evolution has nothing to say on volition, it's conceivable why it would be an advantageous trait, but in principle evolution had nothing much to say about it

No it doesn't but can you prove that any organism other than humans are capable of independent thought? And if whatever animal you'll tell me I evolved from couldn't think independently, how do you account for how it's brain evolved into mine for independent thought. Also, having nothing to say about independent thought leaves it vulnerable to such an argument.

2. No reason to accept that humans genuinely do have volition. Personally I reject it as a hard incompatibilist, although other physicalists such as Daniel Dennet do accept Free Will. The bottom line is that we just don't know, I reject it on logical grounds, and burden of proof grounds.
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 12:27:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Free will probably exists for the reason that we do things sometimes even though we don't want to.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 12:30:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:12:26 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/16/2014 3:36:24 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

So you say an animal has no free will? Prove it.

Animals of he same species do the same things.
No they do not. I don't believe in a god while some humans do. I don't have a problem with gays getting married, some people do. Try again.


Specifically prove that the deer running away from a lion is not using their free will. Or is that just survival instinct which some consider free will.

Actually deers running from lions aren't using free will. All deer do that when they know lions are nearby.

Really? So why would they run away? Is that instinct which then goes back to what I said that some people consider instinct to free will. Actually what is instinct (humans apparently have it as well) so do humans also lack free will?

To answer you question this is an awful argument against evolution as its nonsensical.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 12:33:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:27:53 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
Free will probably exists for the reason that we do things sometimes even though we don't want to.

You know that pretty much contradicts every free will definition.

Free will: is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. (and thats just wikipedia)
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 2:43:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:26:46 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/16/2014 7:28:59 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

Let me help you out here:

P1) If evolution is true, then evolving volition is impossible
P2) If evolution is true, then humans evolved volition
C) 1&2 form a contradiction, therefore evolution must be false

Ok for clarity, let's just call it independent thought, which by the definition of "independent," is basically thought without outside influence. This was actually my argument:

P1) If evolution is true, we shouldn't be able to think for ourselves
P2) If evolution is false, then if should be impossible for humans to think for ourselves
P3) Humans can think independently
C1) therefore evolution is false.

I don't find it convincing for 2 reasons:

Demonstrate P1 and P3 then. Especially P1. The BoP is on you.

1. Evolution has nothing to say on volition, it's conceivable why it would be an advantageous trait, but in principle evolution had nothing much to say about it

No it doesn't but can you prove that any organism other than humans are capable of independent thought?

It's your burden of proof. And the answer is 'yes, if you mean independent thought that is as 'independent' as a humans' cf. other primates.

And if whatever animal you'll tell me I evolved from couldn't think independently, how do you account for how it's brain evolved into mine for independent thought.

You need to substantiate your own points and not just assume your premises are true. Reversing the burden of proof is a bad method of argumentation.

Also, having nothing to say about independent thought leaves it vulnerable to such an argument.

Why should it? That's like saying Newton's law of gravity has nothing to say on the colour of pencils, which means it is a vulnerable spot for falsification. That's asinine.

2. No reason to accept that humans genuinely do have volition. Personally I reject it as a hard incompatibilist, although other physicalists such as Daniel Dennet do accept Free Will. The bottom line is that we just don't know, I reject it on logical grounds, and burden of proof grounds.
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:27:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:30:40 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:12:26 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/16/2014 3:36:24 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

So you say an animal has no free will? Prove it.

Animals of he same species do the same things.
No they do not. I don't believe in a god while some humans do. I don't have a problem with gays getting married, some people do. Try again.

That didn't include people. I didn't know you considered yourself an animal.


Specifically prove that the deer running away from a lion is not using their free will. Or is that just survival instinct which some consider free will.

Actually deers running from lions aren't using free will. All deer do that when they know lions are nearby.

Really? So why would they run away? Is that instinct which then goes back to what I said that some people consider instinct to free will. Actually what is instinct (humans apparently have it as well) so do humans also lack free will?

Instinct is a fixed behavior and it's just about all there is to non-human behavior. Atheism, religion, playing video games, reading, etc. are not instinct.

To answer you question this is an awful argument against evolution as its nonsensical.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:39:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

I would say it means evolution cannot be the whole story, is what it means. I think we've gotten far enough with computers to see that volition is not some natural product of sufficient complexity.

No less than the great C.S. Lewis speculated that God introduced spirit at some point to an evolved early man. But then again, Lewis also thought rubber tyres [sic] were what protected a car from lightening - he wasn't the scientific type. I think evolution is a textbook case of junk science, of forgetting that 'correlation is not causation' and bypassing the scientific method.
This space for rent.
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:53:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 2:43:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:26:46 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/16/2014 7:28:59 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

Let me help you out here:

P1) If evolution is true, then evolving volition is impossible
P2) If evolution is true, then humans evolved volition
C) 1&2 form a contradiction, therefore evolution must be false

Ok for clarity, let's just call it independent thought, which by the definition of "independent," is basically thought without outside influence. This was actually my argument:

P1) If evolution is true, we shouldn't be able to think for ourselves
P2) If evolution is false, then if should be impossible for humans to think for ourselves
P3) Humans can think independently
C1) therefore evolution is false.

I don't find it convincing for 2 reasons:

Demonstrate P1 and P3 then. Especially P1. The BoP is on you.

Defense of P1:

Primates can't think for themselves or do anything that is not instinctual. If I evolved from something that couldn't think for itself, then my brain should have evolved with it without independence. It only makes sense.

Defense of P3:

Independent thought is what makes us human. It's basically thought without any outside Influence.

1. Evolution has nothing to say on volition, it's conceivable why it would be an advantageous trait, but in principle evolution had nothing much to say about it

No it doesn't but can you prove that any organism other than humans are capable of independent thought?

It's your burden of proof. And the answer is 'yes, if you mean independent thought that is as 'independent' as a humans' cf. other primates.

I do my thing, you do your thing, that's independent thought.

And if whatever animal you'll tell me I evolved from couldn't think independently, how do you account for how it's brain evolved into mine for independent thought.

You need to substantiate your own points and not just assume your premises are true. Reversing the burden of proof is a bad method of argumentation.

I wasn't trying to reverse the bop. And I am not just making random assumptions.

Also, having nothing to say about independent thought leaves it vulnerable to such an argument.

Why should it? That's like saying Newton's law of gravity has nothing to say on the colour of pencils, which means it is a vulnerable spot for falsification. That's asinine.

It is not like that because one can view independent thought as an issue in the theory of evolution but can't view pencil color as an issue in the laws of gravity.

2. No reason to accept that humans genuinely do have volition. Personally I reject it as a hard incompatibilist, although other physicalists such as Daniel Dennet do accept Free Will. The bottom line is that we just don't know, I reject it on logical grounds, and burden of proof grounds.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:54:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:39:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

I would say it means evolution cannot be the whole story, is what it means. I think we've gotten far enough with computers to see that volition is not some natural product of sufficient complexity.

No less than the great C.S. Lewis speculated that God introduced spirit at some point to an evolved early man. But then again, Lewis also thought rubber tyres [sic] were what protected a car from lightening - he wasn't the scientific type. I think evolution is a textbook case of junk science, of forgetting that 'correlation is not causation' and bypassing the scientific method.

I agree with you on one point, the argument is a better argument against naturalism/physicalism than it is against evolution.

Although I think it's poor even at that. Since none of the premises are supported
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:57:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:33:53 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:27:53 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
Free will probably exists for the reason that we do things sometimes even though we don't want to.

You know that pretty much contradicts every free will definition.

Free will: is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. (and thats just wikipedia)

Yes it does and if you do something even though you don't want to then technically that's free will. Excitement to do something else is a certain factor that could constrain you from making the choice to do the thing you don't want to.
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:59:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:39:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

I would say it means evolution cannot be the whole story, is what it means. I think we've gotten far enough with computers to see that volition is not some natural product of sufficient complexity.

No less than the great C.S. Lewis speculated that God introduced spirit at some point to an evolved early man. But then again, Lewis also thought rubber tyres [sic] were what protected a car from lightening - he wasn't the scientific type. I think evolution is a textbook case of junk science, of forgetting that 'correlation is not causation' and bypassing the scientific method.

I'm not sure what you mean.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 10:01:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:53:18 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/17/2014 2:43:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:26:46 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/16/2014 7:28:59 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

Let me help you out here:

P1) If evolution is true, then evolving volition is impossible
P2) If evolution is true, then humans evolved volition
C) 1&2 form a contradiction, therefore evolution must be false

Ok for clarity, let's just call it independent thought, which by the definition of "independent," is basically thought without outside influence. This was actually my argument:

P1) If evolution is true, we shouldn't be able to think for ourselves
P2) If evolution is false, then if should be impossible for humans to think for ourselves
P3) Humans can think independently
C1) therefore evolution is false.

I don't find it convincing for 2 reasons:

Demonstrate P1 and P3 then. Especially P1. The BoP is on you.

Defense of P1:

Primates can't think for themselves or do anything that is not instinctual. If I evolved from something that couldn't think for itself, then my brain should have evolved with it without independence. It only makes sense.

No it doesn't ' make sense'. It makes about as much sense as saying two colourless liquids should have mixed to become colourless, instead of red. Yet chemistry does that.

Moreover you actually need to demonstrate your primates assertion. When I see videos like this I have serious reservations about that assertion: http://youtu.be...

It seems at the very least that primates have a comparable type of 'independant brain' to our own, albeit less intelligent.

Defense of P3:

Independent thought is what makes us human. It's basically thought without any outside Influence.

That's not a defence, that's an bald assertion.

1. Evolution has nothing to say on volition, it's conceivable why it would be an advantageous trait, but in principle evolution had nothing much to say about it

No it doesn't but can you prove that any organism other than humans are capable of independent thought?

It's your burden of proof. And the answer is 'yes, if you mean independent thought that is as 'independent' as a humans' cf. other primates.

I do my thing, you do your thing, that's independent thought.

So we're equivocating terms now? Independent thought =/= volition.

And if whatever animal you'll tell me I evolved from couldn't think independently, how do you account for how it's brain evolved into mine for independent thought.

You need to substantiate your own points and not just assume your premises are true. Reversing the burden of proof is a bad method of argumentation.

I wasn't trying to reverse the bop. And I am not just making random assumptions.

Also, having nothing to say about independent thought leaves it vulnerable to such an argument.

Why should it? That's like saying Newton's law of gravity has nothing to say on the colour of pencils, which means it is a vulnerable spot for falsification. That's asinine.

It is not like that because one can view independent thought as an issue in the theory of evolution but can't view pencil color as an issue in the laws of gravity.

2. No reason to accept that humans genuinely do have volition. Personally I reject it as a hard incompatibilist, although other physicalists such as Daniel Dennet do accept Free Will. The bottom line is that we just don't know, I reject it on logical grounds, and burden of proof grounds.
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 10:27:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 10:01:25 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:53:18 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/17/2014 2:43:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:26:46 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/16/2014 7:28:59 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

Let me help you out here:

P1) If evolution is true, then evolving volition is impossible
P2) If evolution is true, then humans evolved volition
C) 1&2 form a contradiction, therefore evolution must be false

Ok for clarity, let's just call it independent thought, which by the definition of "independent," is basically thought without outside influence. This was actually my argument:

P1) If evolution is true, we shouldn't be able to think for ourselves
P2) If evolution is false, then if should be impossible for humans to think for ourselves
P3) Humans can think independently
C1) therefore evolution is false.

I don't find it convincing for 2 reasons:

Demonstrate P1 and P3 then. Especially P1. The BoP is on you.

Defense of P1:

Primates can't think for themselves or do anything that is not instinctual. If I evolved from something that couldn't think for itself, then my brain should have evolved with it without independence. It only makes sense.

No it doesn't ' make sense'. It makes about as much sense as saying two colourless liquids should have mixed to become colourless, instead of red. Yet chemistry does that.

Well have you ever seen an animal think for itself?

Moreover you actually need to demonstrate your primates assertion.

I've watched videos in school on animal behavior and never seen any of them think independently. Especially not the monkeys.

When I see videos like this I have serious reservations about that assertion: http://youtu.be...

It seems at the very least that primates have a comparable type of 'independant brain' to our own, albeit less intelligent.

Defense of P3:

Independent thought is what makes us human. It's basically thought without any outside Influence.

That's not a defence, that's an bald assertion.

I got that assertion from the definition of "independent"

1. Evolution has nothing to say on volition, it's conceivable why it would be an advantageous trait, but in principle evolution had nothing much to say about it

No it doesn't but can you prove that any organism other than humans are capable of independent thought?

It's your burden of proof. And the answer is 'yes, if you mean independent thought that is as 'independent' as a humans' cf. other primates.

I do my thing, you do your thing, that's independent thought.

So we're equivocating terms now? Independent thought =/= volition.

No they're two different things. Free will can be rejected because of human psychology, but if you think differently than everyone else, then by the definition of "independent," that's independent thought.

And if whatever animal you'll tell me I evolved from couldn't think independently, how do you account for how it's brain evolved into mine for independent thought.

You need to substantiate your own points and not just assume your premises are true. Reversing the burden of proof is a bad method of argumentation.

I wasn't trying to reverse the bop. And I am not just making random assumptions.

Also, having nothing to say about independent thought leaves it vulnerable to such an argument.

Why should it? That's like saying Newton's law of gravity has nothing to say on the colour of pencils, which means it is a vulnerable spot for falsification. That's asinine.

It is not like that because one can view independent thought as an issue in the theory of evolution but can't view pencil color as an issue in the laws of gravity.

2. No reason to accept that humans genuinely do have volition. Personally I reject it as a hard incompatibilist, although other physicalists such as Daniel Dennet do accept Free Will. The bottom line is that we just don't know, I reject it on logical grounds, and burden of proof grounds.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 11:02:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

That's like saying this:

If peppered moths evolved from moths with light colored bodies, then why do they have dark colored bodies?

That's the entire point of evolution - to change. To evolve. To add on or take away something.
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 11:25:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 11:02:58 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

That's like saying this:

If peppered moths evolved from moths with light colored bodies, then why do they have dark colored bodies?

That's the entire point of evolution - to change. To evolve. To add on or take away something.

Well, assuming we both believe they existed, even the earliest hominids were able to survive without independent thought... and like four other things we have that they didn't.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 1:39:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 11:25:14 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/17/2014 11:02:58 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

That's like saying this:

If peppered moths evolved from moths with light colored bodies, then why do they have dark colored bodies?

That's the entire point of evolution - to change. To evolve. To add on or take away something.

Well, assuming we both believe they existed, even the earliest hominids were able to survive without independent thought... and like four other things we have that they didn't.

Maybe they could, in a certain environment. But it isn't about just surviving, it's about the rate of survival. Developing free will, if we did, could have been a boon to the survival rates of those that developed it. Thus allowing them to pass on their genes with a higher rate of frequency than those who did not have such a trait. This would result, over a long period of time, in this gene, or set of genes, being dominant. You should read up on Darwin's Finches. It's a great way to start understanding evolution.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_finches
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
E_Pluribus_Unum
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 2:26:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 7:10:49 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
Its defined as the ability to choose what we are going to do.

But we have no control over the arrangement or stimulation of neurons in the central nervous system that causes us to think and decide. In other words, all our decisions are the result of chemicals and electrical impulses that we cannot control.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 6:18:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:57:49 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:33:53 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:27:53 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
Free will probably exists for the reason that we do things sometimes even though we don't want to.

You know that pretty much contradicts every free will definition.

Free will: is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. (and thats just wikipedia)

Yes it does and if you do something even though you don't want to then technically that's free will. Excitement to do something else is a certain factor that could constrain you from making the choice to do the thing you don't want to.

So when the antelope runs away from the lion. It is practicing free will as it is doing something it does not technically want to do. That is it is wasting energy as only one of the group will be killed, so the better option would just be to stay and not run. Unless the antelope realizes it can die and is running to save its life thereby practicing free will.

Guess this debate is over.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 6:24:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:27:58 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:30:40 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:12:26 AM, Loveshismom wrote:
At 7/16/2014 3:36:24 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

So you say an animal has no free will? Prove it.

Animals of he same species do the same things.
No they do not. I don't believe in a god while some humans do. I don't have a problem with gays getting married, some people do. Try again.

That didn't include people. I didn't know you considered yourself an animal.
All humans are animals. Seriously? I am not even sure why I needed to say this. If you think humans are not animals please go read at least one biology book before you start debating against evolution.


Specifically prove that the deer running away from a lion is not using their free will. Or is that just survival instinct which some consider free will.

Actually deers running from lions aren't using free will. All deer do that when they know lions are nearby.

Really? So why would they run away? Is that instinct which then goes back to what I said that some people consider instinct to free will. Actually what is instinct (humans apparently have it as well) so do humans also lack free will?

Instinct is a fixed behavior and it's just about all there is to non-human behavior. Atheism, religion, playing video games, reading, etc. are not instinct.

Instinct is a fixed behavior? No in fact it is a behavioral response to external stimulus that is done without thinking too much. However it is still due to external response. i.e. a dog wants to bite you (a human) and your instinct is to run away. Would you agree with that (the dog question)?

To answer you question this is an awful argument against evolution as its nonsensical.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 4:44:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

This is a stupid argument. For several reasons.

Firstly, I am pretty sure you can't define "Volition" in any meaningful, scientific, way that actually matches up with testing and obseration. You will (and probably have) throw out some black-and-white absolute definition of free will that simply doesn't match the shades-of-gray reality of the real world.

Secondly, even if you were able, you would be able to see an incrementally increasing level of "volition" over the whole animal kingdom. Thus negating the whole argument.

Finally, the argument is basically asking this: if humans evolved the traits that define being human; then why do we have a particular trait that defines being human.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 11:32:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:47:43 PM, Loveshismom wrote:
Here's how it goes: if humans evolved from animals that had no volition, then why do we have volition? Why isn't it all just "human see, human do?"

No I don't think that's a good argument since it assumes that animals have no volition.
Kanyonkaja
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 5:20:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolution
It has occurred to me that if there ever was a lie, if there ever was anything so unscientifically accurate, if there was anything so preposterous, if there was anything so utterly stupid and incredibly farcical, if there was anything that made supposedly educated and intelligent men look like babbling idiots and pea-brained morons, it is the theory (or even more so, theories, each proving the other wrong!) of evolution.

Taught as fact, contradicting truth, and while in some cases and ways trying to accommodate God somewhere in their schemes, these men have denied Him and rather than coming from monkeys, have made monkeys of themselves. Yet they will not believe me when I tell them creation is regressing.