Amazon.com Widgets
  • Only to Ourselves

    We can never prove we have free will to other people. That doesn't matter. People shouldn't hold the same standards to prove something just to themselves as they would for when they would expect others to believe it. I know I have free will through direct experience of it. This experience of mine can not be shared with others. I accept that they have free will on good faith, but I can not know for sure.

  • Sure

    Do I have free will? Absolutely. My simple decision to write this argument is a choice I have made to debate this issue. I chose not to go to class this morning because I didn't feel like it. That is free will. What makes this argument easy is that one can look at the most simple of decisions we make and argue that it wasn't required of me therefor I did/did not do it. In this, one does not have to take certain action to 'prove' free will, it is something that naturally occurs every moment of every day. In my personal belief in free will religion is completely irrelevant, as is any sort of grand design theory (sorry Steven Hawkins). In regards to religion, if there is a god I believe he created this world and the rules within it and from that point forward stood back and watched it spin. And then for the argument of grand design or the idea that our actions are the product of our nature I would present the idea that we as humans have stepped outside the bounds of nature and are no longer governed by them.

  • Causality needs Free Will

    Unless an effect can be its own cause, causality needs to be the effect of something without a cause - it needs something that is, itself, free from cause...

    Causality needs free will because causality needs initiation from an outside source. It has to have a cause that is not its own. It cannot be its own effect, that is paradoxical to causality.

    Without free will, causality is paradoxical nonsense.

    In all likelihood, causation is nothing more than purposed will.

    In my opinion, this proves free will exists: the first effect needs to have been initiation by a cause that is not its own effect, thus free will.

    Posted by: COG
  • Causality needs Free Will

    Unless an effect can be its own cause, causality needs to be the effect of something without a cause - it needs something that is, itself, free from cause...

    Causality needs free will because causality needs initiation from an outside source. It has to have an effect that is not its own.

    Without free will, causality is paradoxical nonsense.

    In all likelihood, causation is nothing more than purposed will.

    In my opinion, this proves free will exists: the first effect needs to have been initiation by a cause that was not its own effect, thus free will.

  • Causality needs Free Will

    Unless an effect can be its own cause, causality needs to be the effect of something without a cause - it needs something that is, itself, free from cause...

    Causality needs free will because causality needs initiation from an outside source. It has to have an effect that is not its own.

    Without free will, causality is paradoxical nonsense.

    In all likelihood, causation is nothing more than purposed will.

    In my opinion, this proves free will exists. Things change and change needs initiation without a cause. Change needs to at least have been initiated by free will.

  • Causality needs Free Will

    Unless an effect can be its own cause, causality needs to be the effect of something without a cause - it needs something that is, itself, free from cause...

    Causality needs free will because causality needs initiation from an outside source. It has to have an effect that is not its own.

    Without free will, causality is paradoxical nonsense.

    In all likelihood, causation is nothing more than purposed will.

    In my opinion, this proves free will exists. Things change and change needs initiation without a cause. Change needs to at least have been initiated by free will.

  • Causality needs Free Will

    Unless an effect can be its own cause, causality needs to be the effect of something without a cause - it needs something that is, itself, free from cause...

    Causality needs free will because causality needs initiation from an outside source. It has to have an effect that is not its own.

    Without free will, causality is paradoxical nonsense.

    In all likelihood, causation is nothing more than purposed will.

    In my opinion, this proves free will exists. Things change and change needs initiation without a cause. Change needs to at least have been initiated by free will.

  • Causality needs Free Will

    Unless an effect can be its own cause, causality needs to be the effect of something without a cause - it needs something that is, itself, free from cause...

    Causality needs free will because causality needs initiation from an outside source. It has to have an effect that is not its own.

    Without free will, causality is paradoxical nonsense.

    In all likelihood, causation is nothing more than purposed will.

  • Causality needs Free Will

    Unless an effect can be its own cause, causality needs to be the effect of something without a cause - it needs something that is, itself, free from cause...

    Causality needs free will because causality needs initiation from an outside source. It has to have an effect that is not its own.

    Without free will, causality is paradoxical nonsense.

    In all likelihood, causation is nothing more than purposed will.

  • Causality needs Free Will

    Unless an effect can be its own cause, causality needs to be the effect of something without a cause - it needs something that is, itself, free from cause...

    Causality needs free will because causality needs initiation from an outside source. It has to have an effect that is not its own.

    Without free will, causality is paradoxical nonsense.

    In all likelihood, causation is nothing more than purposed will.

  • A priori causality actually disproves free will

    Free will can be disproved at the most basic level of knowledge; a priori, or self-evident, indisputable understanding . Here's a syllogistic explanation; A priori fact #1 - The universe exists. A priori fact #2 - The universe changes. (What is change? Change is one particle at one place one moment, and at a different place the next). Change cannot occur without it being caused. In other words, there must be a cause to the particle's change in position. Therefore, A priori fact #3 - Causality is necessary to change, and is therefore as a priori a fact as is change. Having established the a priori nature of causality, because the causal antecedents to any human decision regress back to before the "decider" was born, free will is absolutely and allegorically impossible.

    Some will claim that quantum phenomena is not caused. But that assertion provides no defense for free will because a decision that is uncaused cannot be attributed to anything or anyone, therefore it cannot have been caused by a human will.

  • No we cannot prove we have free will. No we do not have free will.

    The idea of free will is more than simply 'making choices,' which it is often confused with.Most people that blindly believe in free will also blindly believe in many other things.For those of you who believe in the concept of free will, I am curious to know: 1. If you are religious, and 2. where do you see evidence of the existence of free will even within your own religion? In other words, where does it say it in your holy text that we have free will?This should be interesting...

  • No I don't think we can prove we have free will......

    All we can really do is trust that we exist. We can try and figure out why things happen in the universe, draw conclusions as to what the nature of God, and what the nature of us as human beings is, but there's no true way to prove we have free will, only that we are in the end.

  • Not possible

    It's simply not possible to prove that we have free will. Anything that you can do, no matter how crazy, to demonstrate that you have free will might just have been exactly what you were predetermined to do in a vain attempt to prove that you have free will. There is just no way to prove it.

  • Can't be proven

    I certainly think that as humans, we are capable of making our own decisions and pathways. But can this be proven? I doubt it. Such things as fate and destiny disprove the idea of "free will" and there are many supporters of each side. I do not think it is a thing that can absolutely be "proven" definitely.

  • Free will is an illusion, but there is still a choice to be made.

    Will exists in the way that we can make a choice. You make the best choice in any given situation based on your past experiences. It isn't truly free because every decision is based on past experience. Even choosing something randomly will have some basis in past experiences.

    To prove free will, take two identical universes (the same at the subatomic level) and watch them. If they deviate, you can potentially prove free will as the reason for the change, otherwise you'd expect identical universes untouched to remain the same. It's a flawed concept because the law of identity shouldn't be broken for any reason.

  • Newtonian determinism. Google it.

    I can offer alternative philosophy which denies free will. The way I like to think of it is how molecules in the air appear to be randomly bumping off each other and moving through the air; mathematically if you knew all these molecules initial conditions (i.E. Positions in space, velocity, and direction of motion, etc.) you could accurately predict where they are going to be and how they are going to move and react to each other, so therefore it is no longer random; in fact it is all just set in motion by the initial conditions of the Big Bang and we are watching the ordered chaos play out. One possibility is that your thoughts and actions are under the illusion of free will, because the molecules that you are composed of were set up with initial conditions and we are watching them play out.

  • We can only disprove it.

    The universe acts on physics alone. Our actions are carried by particles in our brains and bodies acting according to physical laws. What is a sentient being, anyway? It may be possible that I am sitting in an elaborate simulation. However, we can always believe that free will exists; we can always pretend.

  • We can only disprove it.

    The universe acts on physics alone. Our actions are carried by particles in our brains and bodies acting according to physical laws. What is a sentient being, anyway? It may be possible that I am sitting in an elaborate simulation. However, we can always believe that free will exists; we can always pretend.

  • It cannot be proven that we have free will

    Free will supposes dualism which in turn supposes metaphysics. The mind is a proven derivative of the brain, not a separate entity. Unconscious processes determine what we will experience consciously. Our minds cannot possible control the brain in turn, this would create an illogical loop. For free will to be genuine, there would be to be a conscious entity that is free from determinism (like a soul). But there is no such thing.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.