Destiny or Free will/choice

September 11, 2016, 1:56 am

Agree17 Disagree14

55%
45%

The debate "Destiny or Free will/choice" was started by TheDebator9000 on September 11, 2016, 1:56 am. 17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

PsychDave posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

TheDebator9000, ElvisKim_22, PsychDave, TheExistentialist, Nemiroff, Cjselfie01, TimRSA and 10 visitors agree.
BBQonions, dalton7532, Apollo, The13yearoldconservative and 10 visitors disagree.

we write our own destiny!

1 year, 10 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

I'm not going to debate the "God" portion of your argument since I can't rectify the internal conflicts of religion....someone more into theology will have to take on that portion.

I will however, challenge your scientific claim.

"scientifically, we are all made out of particles that, since the beginning of time, have been traveling in a predetermined course set by the laws of physics. if one charts the original position of all particles and tracks their course through all the complex interactions throughout all of time (a very tall order) on should be able to predict all events, actions, of choices now and in the future"

Quantum mechanics tells us this statement is wrong. The quantum uncertainty principle tells us that what you're stipulating is impossible; by making the inquiry of "where" a particle is or "what" it's state is in fact alters the "where" or "what" conversely. You are also ignoring the added factor of consciousness. Thought is not a product of particle physics, it's a product of consciousness and thus can't be explained through a particle causal chain. Furthermore, quantum mechanics shows us that particles can generate spontaneously from nothing and so some particles may in fact be younger than the beginning of time (t=0).

2 years, 4 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

so ur saying that u don't have enough data per say? but if u could figure out all the data if free will is true then the data might lead u in the right direction usually but sometimes u might get an unexpected result which mess ups the whole thing.

2 years, 4 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

yes God has a plan but we can go against His plan which idk if we do or not because His plan is not completely known to us most of the time but there is one and we can take a diff. path if we want and usually do but God's plan is adaptable to us. in other words we can always go back to Him and He can help us in our certain situations.

2 years, 4 months ago

I would like to argue against free will from both a scientific and theological stance.

scientifically, we are all made out of particles that, since the beginning of time, have been traveling in a predetermined course set by the laws of physics. if one charts the original position of all particles and tracks their course through all the complex interactions throughout all of time (a very tall order) on should be able to predict all events, actions, of choices now and in the future.

theologically, God has a plan, and assuming God knows the future, the future is already predetermined.

2 years, 4 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

The drunk parent is a bit more complicated as there are more factors to consider. Was drinking encouraged in the family (explicitly or implicitly), did the drinking influence the child (I.e. was the child abused as a result of alcohol, neglected, etc...)? Did the child develop other coping mechanisms, or is substance abuse the only coping mechanism they learned. If they never learned different coping mechanisms, then utilizing them wouldn't be a choice they could make.

Again, we're only able to make choices in so far as we have knowledge of them, have access to them, and are capable of them.

2 years, 4 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

what about the drunk parent thing?

2 years, 4 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

i would argue that an addict isn't completely free to choose either. They must confine their choices to the limit of their character. Meaning that once they are forced to choose between their addiction and their ambitions (rock bottom), they are forced into a binary choice. Someone who isn't an addict isn't limited to sobriety and addiction. An addicts causal chain necessarily eliminates the choice of moderation/casual use. Seeing the limitation of that choice shows us just how much we are slaves to our character and causal chain.

2 years, 4 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

agreed but at any moment u can turn the tables and change ur life. some examples would be life long addicts who finally decided to seek help. more than likely people in there past did drugs so they did them too but then they tried to change. or u could of had a drunk parent and u urself decides to not become one.

2 years, 4 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

I sort of agree with you, but I believe that choice is limited to a fairly large degree by causal events.

I'll give you an example:
Let's say I ask you to choose any movie. You are automatically limited to the movies you have knowledge of. You are further limited to the movies which you can think of at the time. These causal events place limits on your free-will. This is why we are only able to make choices as they conform to our character.

If we look at a moral choice like killing someone. If you have someone like Uday Hussein; by all accounts a terrible individual. How much of his actions were influenced by causal events? It is unlikely that had Uday been raised in the suburbs of Portland that he'd have become the monster he was. The fact that violence was accepted and likely even encouraged for most of his upbringing, begs the question of whether he had a real choice in the matter. Yes, he was free to choose how to apply violence, who to violate, etc.... However, deferring to violence as a way to subdue rivals, settle disputes, etc... was more likely due to the fact that his character had a causal propensity for violence. Just like someone who likes action films is more likely to name "Die Hard" as their movie choice than someone who is into horror.

2 years, 4 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

I think we do have free will. everyday we decide to do something nothing is pushing u to eat eggs instead of ham in the morning u just choose too. though what u have exp. can affect but not make ur decision. I could have been in a wreck so now because of that I could be scared to drive or I can choose to overcome that exp. and drive without fear albeit it would be hard at first but eventually it would get easier.

2 years, 4 months ago

I believe soft-determinism is probably the most accurate way to describe our actions. Meaning that our actions are influenced wholly by causal events and that we can only define free will as it relates to choices we can make in accordance with our character.

2 years, 4 months ago

I don't believe we really have free will. What we do is based on our beliefs and knowledge, which is based on our experiences. There are nearly infinite variables, but our actions are not truly random and as such are predetermined by starting conditions.

2 years, 5 months ago
Discuss "Destiny or Free will/choice" philosophy religion society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.