Originally Posted by Pawn according to the bible, god is all powerful and can do any thing he wants, meaning he knows every thing, past present future, which means does god know about every thing that will happen before hand? which leads to the question: do we really have free will if god knows our choices? because gods knows "if i do this then people will react to it in this way" meaning he knows what he has to do. but if he knows that his actions will have the effects they have now (war, famine, sin, carrot top) why does he do the actions that result in these out comes? i know that was ahard to explain so let me try to give y'all an example: lets say that there is a river (god put the river there, and he knows the outcome) and 2 tribes need that river to feed thier tribe, they cant share the river because there isnt enough fish. so the choices are: fight over the river, or starve. now dont say that scenario has never happened, if you want u can substatute fish with gold, or something of value. its true the tribes have a FREE choice, war or starve, but really what kind of an option is that? if god wants us to be happy and not fight why put things he knows we will eventually need in the hands of rivals? maybe im wrong, and the tribes would fight no matter how god did things, thats why i ask the question.

Here is you argument in syllogistic form:

(1) Premise: We are made of atoms

(2) Premise: Atoms cannot control themselves

(3) Conclusion: Therefore we cannot control ourselves.

The conclusion is not supported by premise (2),
which must be expanded to something like this:

(2) No combination of atoms can control themselves.

But even this expansion leaves you commiting the fallacy
of begging the question: there is no evidence for your
argument other than the argument itself.

Furthermore, atoms cannot think, but humans beings
can think. Atoms cannot live and die either. It is therefore
clear that atoms in combination may have properties
that individual atoms lack. Also, different combinations
have different properties. Such considerations call into
question the validity of your Premise (2).




If existence is observer-based, then the observing
ego would I think have some kind of parity with the
forces and elements it observes, although I do not
claim to have proven so logically.




There is nothing ambiguous about the collection
of atoms known as the "arm" being attached to
the collection of atoms making the rest of the body.

Furthermore, when atoms form molecules they
share elctrons.




Why don't you just say that you don't know
because it is too complicated for you or
anyone lese to have figured out?




No one has claimed that all objects having
a certain amount of complexity must have
an ego or a will.




You are again begging the qustion.




You have provided no solution, and cannot explain
the dynamics upon which your assumptions rest.




This is hunger, which I agree is not subject to the will.




Whether hunger "translates" into the "locomotion'
of putting food in your mouth is a matter of will.




I don't follow here. There is plenty of food to go around.
Political and social disorder are what get in the way
of distribution.

No, I am drawing attention to the obvious,
which is that different combinations of atoms
have different properties.

The nitrogen atoms in the air we breathe
are harmless. However, when nitrogen
combines with hydrogen and carbon (HCN)
what you get is hydrogen cyanide gas,
and that is not so good for us.




No, your argument relies on a begged question,
as I pointed out in earleir posts.




The laws of physics as presently understood have
absolutely nothing to say about consciousness,
except that reality might be in part observer-based.

Go ahead and call the Physics department at the
institution of higher learning nearest you. If anyone
there says he has the answers all lined up I would
like to know about it.




I said earlier that consciousness gives rise to thought
and observation. I believe free will to be another attribute
of our consciousness. I cannot prove my logically or
empirically, and I am not trying to. You are trying to
prove the opposite view and you are making a real
mess of it.




Because different combinations of atoms have
different properties. Some properties give rise
to consciousness and its attributes, some do not.




You have not shown that Free Will violates
any physical law.




See remarks above on "consciousness".

I do not claim I have proven anything.

You are the one claiming proof, so why don't
you stick to your own defence instead of
badgering me about a claim I am not making?




You would do better to pick another comparison
than planetary motion and falling objects.

Those lie within in the realm of gravitional theory,
whose connection to all other forces is one of
the great unsolved mysteries of all science.




My arm is a collection of molecules attached by
various bonds to the rest of my body.




You mean "in your opinion" it is not Free Will
because opinion is all you are left with after
the failure of your appeals to fact and reason.




No I did not.




Eating is an example locomotion and starving is
an example of the absense of locomotion.




Please rephrase this, and use some other word
than "apperate", which is not in my dictionary.




Withholding food is only an example restriction to Free Will.





OK.




I don't follow here.




Begging the question again. You must provide
support for your claim that conditions are the same
for a drowning man as they are for an unencumbered
pedestrian.




Previously addressed.

I thought my part of the thread was doing fine.




One example would be that they can walk across a road.




OK OK.

I will attack the question you are begging, namely "control"
of the mind by Physics.

(I have decided to use "the mind" in place of "consciousness"
from now on because it sounds fresh)

Google the "Anthropic Principle" and read a few of the links.

The gist of the Anthropic Principle in a weak form is that
the mind has a unique postion in the universe.

In its strongest form the Anthropic Principle holds that
the universe and all its laws are for the benefit of the mind,
the mind having at least equal status with all else combined.

One does not have to subscribe to the Anthropic Principle
in its stongest form to allow the possibility of Free Will.

The Anthropic Principle has been roiling physics for 50 years
with no general agreement as of now. I think most physicists
are on board with the principle in at least a weak form.




See above.




This is not what you have been trying to prove,
it is what you are assuming: Free Will is required
to break the laws of physics, if Free Will exists.

It is a premise: P-R-E-M-I-S-E.

Before you can go prancing off on a syllogism
you must secure your premise. You have not
secured your premise.




What the hell is nihilist?

Whatever it is I hope you get over it.




Addressed.

It has support, and it is issue reckoned with
in all modern professional discussions of cosmology:

Zillions Of Universes? Or Did Ours Get Lucky? - New York Times

(from link): As for your Wikipedia quote, it consisted only
of the article's first two sentences.

Here from elsewhere in the article are expression
of the AP in its strong form:

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(from link, emphasis in original):None of this proves anything except that the most
expert authorities are now at a loss, and there is no
consensus on the position of the mind in the universe.

Who are you, Mr. Bronze Medal, to imagine that you
have discovered a purely logical solution which all the
experts are missing?




Sorry, but this is just a padded version of what
you have said before.

You are still merely assuming that the laws of
physics forbid the mind any freedom.

As I was saying the mind has a unique position in
any form of the AP. It is not just another collection
of atoms.




You argument HINGES on the premise that the laws of physics
FORBID Free Will. That is the ENTIRE substance of all you have
been saying. It is not a rational argument unless you can explain
WHY the laws of physics forbid Free Will.

Garvity requires that if we jump off a cliff then we will fall.
It does not forbid or require that we make the jump in the
first place.

Electromagnetism requires that we will go blind if we stare
at the Sun for too long. It does not forbid or require us to
stare at the Sun in the first place.

The Strong and Weak nuclear forces require that a properly
constructed and triggered hydrogen bomb will explode. They
do not forbid or require our constructing one in the first place,
and they do not forbid or require us to detonate any which
we have constructed.




Epistemology has to with the nature of knowledge,
Nihilism I think may deny anything can be known.
"Meta-" I am not sure about, and none of it sounds
interesting to me so fine, we can forget it.

I am tired of repeating myself and reading your
repetitious fallacy expressed in various ways.

I think I will drop out of the thread again. If someone
offers anything new and interesting I may then have
something else to say.

If you put it this way I have to stay in.

I will make my answers as curt as possible
except in the unlikely event you introduce
some novelty.

No more erudite passages from me to you
which you are unable to appreciate.




You have not made a logical statement.




Your conclusion is required by your premises,
which is begging the question.




You have been invoking the laws of physics
for several posts and now you are throwing
out a new set of targets for me.

I would like to imagine you have realized your error
on the physics and have decided to try something else,
where the four known fundamental forces of physics
have yet to offer much if anything.

Before with you it was gravity, electromagnetism
and the strong and weak nuclear forces which were
ruling out Free Will.

Now you are substituting:

(1) Genes
(2) Psychology
(3) Family
and maybe (4) Religion

As the forces ruling the mind.

But I am sorry, you are begging the same question
with different criteria.

There is no doubt the now eight forces you invoke
do forbid us to do some things, and do require us
to do other things.

That does not even put you on square one of disproof.






ZZZZZZ.