Don't suppose it's desperate to cling to the ramblings contained in a 2,000 year old book is it?

robby rensenbrink I don't but I see its better than scientism.

robby rensenbrink Evolution says the earth is 4.54 billion years old and macroevoltion cannot be demonstrated because it takes millions of years. So i guess when you take THE AGE of something to disqualify something, its ATHEISM that clearly has the PROBLEM. But its a good thing that only morons consider the age of something is what therefore disqualifies the truth in it.

jay garrison Wow - genius!

@@a-atheist Excellent argument you put forth! You get two enthusiastic thumbs up for that one.

I don't mean to defend materialism, I call myself a christian, but my logic tells me that IF the material world is all that there is, than the predetermined actions of other people (punishment) will physically influence people to not do that same thing. That is one of the arguments that I feel a materialist would use. still trying to figure out a counterargument.

I think you are referring to the idea of behaviorism...anyways, if someone looks at the quantum level, if a person maintains the traditional view of Copenhagen Interpretation, you can see that the brain simply acts like a quantum experiment where the conscious "I" is doing the measurement...If you want to apply that in psychology, you can say that subconscious gives you an option, but it's the conscious part of the human brain that responds to which option should be taken to consider. I've done a bit of research here several nights ago, and from unbiased studies that I have seen online, most neurologists do apply the term "free won't" rather than the free will, it's the decision to not do what the subconscious seems to offer... these are just some of the theories that I am sure of though

@Sjanetsky1 But that makes equal sense. If you don't have free will then you're not deciding to punish someone to influence them. The piece of knowledge 'if I punish this person, it will influence them' is irrelevant to the individual as the individual can't choose to punish or not that person, he's just a passenger in the back seat, so the logic 'it will influence person X' is irrelevant to the individual as he will punish him one way or the other regardless of whether it's logical or not, if he decides it or not, if he accepts it or not, it just will or won't happen due to a pre-determined set of unknown variables.

To discourage harmful actions in the future and keep them separate from the population until they are rehabilitated. We can see that criminal justice systems that are focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment, have lower recidivism rates. Therefore rehabilitation works better than punishment, but this is nothing new, you can get more preferable behavior from a dog by training it rather than hitting it. However, the biblical hell does not attempt to rehabilitate, only punish. We can see by this comparison that humans have already developed better justice systems than the supposedly perfect bible. 😁

mohanad ghazi because we fight to uphold order, if someone does something disorderly we have to maintain order by punishing/imprisoning the person. The punishment is not for the sake of revenge or a hated of the person who was acting disorderly, it’s simply to maintain order. Similar to putting a child in time out when they do something bad, only as you get older time out becomes a lot more aggressive in a sense.

A soul can exist in someone who’s material consciousness has depreciated. Think fo disabled people who do not have full brain functions.

@@jimmybobby4824 The question remains, does Dr. Crsig believe that consciousness is an emergence entity.

@@crisyorke1328 "emergent"

Craig is saying that the expirement doesn't DISPROVE free will He's not saying that it PROVES the existence of a soul

Default, you bring up an excellent point!

Craig said the awareness of brain, not consciousness. He doesn't think that the awareness of the brain that the experiment is the same as consciousness or something like that, not sure of his views. Theists also say that the mind is different from the brain. And it is. The mind is for the brain like an app is for computer. But they think the mind produces the activity in the brain, not the other way around. They think this mind is some magical woo created by God. I don't even understand what a mind ( with the theistic meaning of soul ) would even be. Of course, this can easily be explained by the fact that the notion of the soul was invented at the time when neuroscicence didn't exist, but theists don't accept this

If two computers / AIs have a conversation with eachother would you consider this white noise too..?

There is reason & evidence that the soul exists. Still, to say that your body has to think to move & then has to use more time to announce you know you did something, is then proof of no free will is wrong thinking. Your brain is specialized & each part of that interaction requires sending the message down the line. Thus you have the choice, then motor control, & then that data has to be sent to another part of your brain to know you did it. There are three processes in distinct parts of the brain that follow that order. It backs up free will & is reasonable to then assert you could have a soul. Even more recent findings back that up if you look at the data.

Jamie did you watch the video?

No , conciousness is the self. It means we have free will.

The right moral answer is not always midway between positions. It is not midway between a Nazi and a holocaust victim, nor midway between a child molester and his victim. Sometimes one side can really be wrong.

I think that the idea that a delay from the subconscious to the conscious means there is no free will is like saying the delay in communication via satellite with someone on the other side of the world means the conversation isn't real.

It is you

@@gergabendicreating something out of nothing?

So tell me, what's the difference between the mind and the mental state? And the agent and the consciousness? Are you telling me the "will' exists separately from the mental state - which is what the conscious state is? Then how does one control their will if their will precedes any mental state of decision making? And what is your evidence, physical, metaphysical or otherwise, that some "will" is the initiator in this whole process? If the mind is dependent on the brain, then determinism is true. You can't have it both ways.

I fail to see how dualism makes sense of the large bodies of evidence that our physical states emerge before our conscious states are aware of them. What predictions or explanatory power does dualism make? Seems like the exact opposite of the evidence to me. How is the will distinct from the consciousness? If you are unprepared to answer any of the questions I asked, then by what means can you make these assertions like "with the initial cause being the will obviously." Obviously? Where in the empirical neuroscientific data is it obvious that the "will" (which you cannot even define) is the initiator of action or decision? Can you explain to me in temporal order, what comes first and when for a decision to be made in terms of the will, the brain and consciousness? I just want to know your position on this, I don't expect you to have absolute empirical knowledge, but at least something that can plausibly fit the data. I don't have all the answers either, but the data we have supports deterministic materialism and that's what a very large percentage of neuroscientists agree with.

Ok let's address your questions. "You are confusing the conscious self reflection with will. This is your basic mistake here." You've provided no evidence at all that the "will" exists. " The will still initiates the physical state." Show me evidence that this is true. "There is absolutely no consensual proof of scientific evidence for the physical states accounting for will." There's no evidence for the will. I don't have to account for something that might as well be made up by dualists. What we have are conscious mental states that are the direct result of physical brain states. "So according to you the initial cause is not the will. What is the initial cause for you? " The initial cause is the physical brain state. That's what the evidence shows. Show me evidence the will exists and effects the brain state. "Where does this psychological organization come from?" The billions of cells and neurons that make up our brains that are the result of biology, genetics and the physical laws of the universe. "The will comes before the reflective self-consciousness in particular of an act or thought in order to know yourself as an agent of that specific consciousness." You make the mistake of not providing any evidence backing up your claims. Anyone can assert something, try describing me the nature of this "will". Convince me that it isn't something made up. "You make a mistake in thinking all will has to be reflectively self conscious." If my actions are controlled by a will, and I'm not even conscious of it, then how can I have free will under this picture of dualism? According to you, I become consciously aware of my will AFTER it decides for me. How can I even be in control of my decisions if my conscious mind is not driving my thoughts and actions? "This does not mean I can't move my feet to get to destination A just because I am not focusing on how I, as the agent, am consciously causing this act." How would you know that you weren't determined to do that by the laws of physics? What test or evidence could you provide to demonstrate that you are consciously causing the act as opposed to consciously reacting to the act?

"Furthermore, do you believe a will exists?" I used to. But since there is no real evidence for it, I've had to accept determinism. Even you can't describe this will. How do you know it exists? And can you give any detail about its ontology? "How about you use your logic? Even neuroscientists like Daniel Dennett, an atheist, made a theory of the will..." I used logic, and I see no evidence that there is an external will distinct from our physical bodies. Unless you can provide a reason for me to consider it, why should I? " You clearly are since you are linking a non-existence of the will to it's lack of physical evidence..." I'm doing that and I'm also taking the physical evidence we do have and assessing what theories it best makes sense in. Dualism has not scored too high. " On the other hand, you have no idea what the initial cause is, while I actually have logical, metaphysical explanation. " Then Make IT! So far you haven't been able to provide ANY detail on the nature of this will and how it interacts with the physical brain. You've admitted there is no evidence of it and so why should I take it any more seriously than the soul? I have a logical and physical explanation. Everything in the universe including all of our brain states are determined by the laws of physics. "I'm simply pointing out how your critique of Craig was based on your ignorance of neuroscience and metaphysics. To which you have provided no proper rebuttal might I add." I have nothing against metaphysics, but it can be used to come up with bullshit answers sometimes. Is it possible the "will" could be pure imagination? Being that the will is metaphysical and has no basis in science as far as I know, and determinism makes better sense of the evidence, I think I'm doing just fine. Other dualists have made the case that consciousness is the driving force and should affect the physical world. That's the opposite of what the data says. "Because our free will is known as apriori." Free will is not at all an a priori fact. It is based on intuition, and our intuition is wrong over and over again. "A case in point, if I decide to move my fingers to type, it is through my own free will." But how would you know you weren't determined to do all of that and became conscious of it after the fact? The decision to act is really made for you by the brain state you have no control over. Are you aware of any dualists who have predicted the results we have found in neuroscience before this data was available using the dualistic hypothesis? I need to make sure this isn't an ad-hoc justification. "There is a test, and it also goes against your materialistic point of view. Go ahead and use electrodes to stimulate on a person's brain, afterwards ask who caused the ensuing effect." The electrodes would be the immediate effect. Just like the so called "God Helmet" would have induced the sensation of the divine in the patients. "If there was an external determination against the mind's will, you would know unconsciously or consciously." You're misunderstanding determinism. The consciousness is a reflection of the physical brain state so you would not experience an outside force compelling you to do anything. That outside force determines your mental state. "However, the will is also in effect, guiding and guided by feedback, the information processed through both conscious and unconscious states." So the will itself is influenced by outside factors? It seems like the physical world influences it according to you. "Therefore, the conclusion is, in certain situations, the knowledge of realistically, self-consciously causing an act is not possible. While in other is it, as seen in lucid mental states where the consciousness is not restrained by external or psychogenic factors." Then conduct a scientific study and create a test that can show that "in certain situations, the knowledge of realistically, self-consciously causing an act is...possible." "As for now your asking questions only makes me feel like you're my student." I ask questions to understand your POV so I don't end up strawmaning you. Not all dualists agree on everything, not all theists agree on everything. Talk to 5 Christians for example, and you get 5 completely different versions of the religion. That's why I ask you. Tell me, what are your positions on this and what are your credentials?

"Listen, with all due respect, you should study more about the topic of free will if you are going to critique William Craig..." All the examples you cite would fit quite well into the picture or materialism. Many argue it is an argument against dualism, that's why most neuroscientists are materialists. "Also, you just said that you don't believe in will. How then is the human an agent?" I'm a compatibalist. "Furthermore, you are unaware of what logic is... a formal science, not dependent on materialism." LOL. Wow that's sad. Logic is not a science nor do I think it is dependent on materialism, it is a branch of philosophy. Science USES logic in the scientific method. "So far you have been refuted in your understanding of will, self consciousness, and you have not even offered a rebuttal with any "evidence."" Why do I need to rebut something you admit has no evidence and its ontology is indescribable? The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the will, the burden of proof is on you to proof the will exists. So far you haven't even stepped up to the plate. You want me to disprove unicorns while we're at it? "I guess you believe intuition is not a priori knowledge? Your statement is refuted already in itself. " Intuition is not the same as logic. Duh. "What results? you have failed to present any opposing view or citations... " "Tracking the Unconscious Generation of Free Decisions Using UItra-High Field fMRI" Bode S, He AH, Soon CS, Trampel R, Turner R, et al. (2011) Tracking the Unconscious Generation of Free Decisions Using UItra-High Field fMRI. PLoS ONE 6(6):e21612. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021612 Sean Carroll, "Free Will Is as Real as Baseball" Scientific American Link: blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/07/13/free-will-is-as-real-as-baseball/#.UpQbhcQ3vh4 Also: www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html The laws of physical are completely deterministic. Our bodies are physical. There is no evidence our consciousness violates the laws of physics. Therefore, our bodies along with the rest of the universe are completely determined. If I want to accept the "will" which you still haven't described, that requires faith. "You say that you would not experience an outside force compelling you to do anything, (in your own words), and then you go on to say in contradiction, that the outside force determines the mental state..." No no no. You simply don't understand determinism. You're imagining that I will X but the physical brain determines Y like an "outside force". That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the brain determines Y and then I will Y. It's not a tug of war between forces. We think and do what our physical brains determine us to do, that includes all mental states. That's why consciousness is the last thing on the list. "...which is incompatible with my beliefs." I want to know your beliefs. Seriously. Tell me. Are you a theist? If so, what religion are you? Do you believe in the soul? Is the soul different from the will? Do you believe we have libertarian free will? If so, describe for me the temporal order in which a decision is made in both the physical and mental processes. I asked you some of these before and you never answered. "Well, instead of just asking questions, you could offer some proof of your materialism and negation of the will and mind. So far you have failed to offer any metaphysical proofs or physical evidence that proves these do not exist." You spew a lot of hot air for a person who admits there is no physical evidence for his position and one must rely on faith in order to believe it. The Libet experiments were one of the first to support that consciousness is the result of and is determined by the physical brain. That is what materialism would predict. What explanatory power does your position hold that materialism cannot offer? If I have to believe your position on faith, along with all the baggage it comes with, then why should I jettison materialism in its favor? The evidence we have is all compatible with materialism, and none of it supports dualism, or supernaturalism. Believe it if you want. I see no evidence for it. And remember, the burden of proof is on you. You're making the positive claim that an immaterial will exists, yet you've failed over and over again to even describe it. I don't have to disprove something that has no evidence supporting. That's standard debate logic.

+Kostas Yes, the time delay between the neurological firing and the subsequent conscious awareness of it kind of throws a kink in there. Craig is lost. Where does all this talk about the "soul" come from? He just hypothesized it as a 3rd factor, in addition to consciousness and brain states, as an explanation of what is going on. This is so ad hoc.

logike77 And even if some exotic quantum quality does allow "free will" . Even then is partial "free will" as e know for a fact the environment and our biological predetermination effects our will.....So again this (God judgement) argument fails.

Kostas Spiliotopoulos Bibically and scientifically speaking there’s no such thing as free will. It’s a purely Religious based teaching used to fill Man’s pride that he has some sort of control over things in life.

Perhaps…

That's what he just did. You are not good at listening. No point in talking to someone like you, since you don't know how to listen. So you better not answer this post. But since you are not good at reading or listening, you probably will.

HonestDiscussioner hhhh really?

+thatadambyrne What he fails to mention here is that Libet's research only showed an effect size of 10% above chance. Amazing how materialists will jump all over that as if it' a done deal with so little statistical support. I guess we all have our prejudices.

Jerry DeCaire The point is that WLC is pointing to demonstrated pre-attentional neural processes and saying that they represent the soul for no reason. Zero Control theory (which is what Libet was investigating) is not really very well supported (more due to a lack of research rather than contradictory research). The concept that there exist process within the brain which occur before the conscious process is very well supported. Also a low effect size means very little if the data is significant, other than suggesting that the study may have low statistical power. Low statistical power means that the researchers are less likely to reject a real effect (type 2 error).

thatadambyrne There appeared to be a small loophole in that Libet’s subjects still had the power to veto a movement in the 200 msec between time W and the movement. Even though the initiation of the movement was not the result of conscious will, its vetoing was. This is referred to as 'free-won't'

thatadambyrne Oh, and one more thing, WLC's point is not as vacuous as you suggest. Science rests on falsification of a prediction, and the theist would predict a time lapse between the initiation of intentionality and the brain's apprehension of that initiation. It's congruent with dualism as much as it is with its antithesis. Roger Penrose and Hammerrof's work deals with non-local consciousness which is not a soul per-say, but nevertheless under that umbrella you would also anticipate a time delay. Correlation is not causation. I personally think it's a two way street. That is, there are some causal attribution to brain (i.e. involuntary actions) but not all. The quality of choice is as important as the quantity of choice in determining which is which.

If u think they are not free why bother giving an argument? They can't think.

But isn't the soul the same as consciousness? Then why does Craig say that the soul takes the decision and then the decision is brought to the consciousness. He is clearly claiming that the soul and consciousness are separate. In that case am I my consciousness (obvious fact) or some mysterious soul behind the consciousness which "I" am not aware of? If the soul takes a decision without my conscious knowledge then is that really "my" soul at all?

@@defaultuser9423 Precisely. It's more than dualism from Dr.Craig's explanation.