There seems to be a bit of an edit war here. Care to talk?
I must say that the bit about denying free will being like addiction does not come off as well reasoned at all. It is fortunate that free will does not exist. If it did, you might be responsible for your actions, and who the hell wants that? - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 15:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I created an account in part because of this talk page. In my years of lurking, both here and on other sites, I've felt frustrated when I arrived late to the party. I often read the transcript of a long argument or debate and feel that I can see where the disconnect is and wish that I had been reading back when it actually happened so that I could try to help broker a solution, or at least a productive discussion. Similarly, I think I get what Syamsu was trying to say and why everyone responded the way they did. It seems to be a simple case of everybody making the assumption that what is perfectly obvious to them is perfectly obvious to everyone else or, in a few cases, deciding that IF the other person doesn't find something perfectly obvious then they're of such a low intellectual caliber it isn't worth engaging them at their level. I understand that point of view, but I often find it an enjoyable mental exercise to try to figure out where a person's logic has broken down and to bridge the gap.
- tl;dr: I'd really like to invite Syamsu or anyone that would care to argue on his behalf back to discuss our respective understandings of free will in an open, respectful way without violent ad hominem attacks from either side. It's a topic I have discussed at length with family and friends and it seems that every time I do, I encounter a new wrinkle. UnerringlyErrant (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Syamsu won't be able to respond, as they are under a three month block due to their editing pattern. If you want, I can unblock them, but I doubt that you'll make much of a headway with them (here's a short and a long reason).--ZooGuard (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Determinism and Calvinism
A cursory glance at this article seems to reveal a "sceptical" predisposition to determinism of one kind or another. And yet, I see no reference to one of the first modern notions of determinism: Calvinism. You suppose there might be an addition some time soon? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Omniscience and free will
Technically, if the omniscience of such a being was inherent rather than total (that is, if he could pick and choose what he knows), he could create humans without violating free will, at least not of the compatibilist variety. This requires the being to limit his omniscience whenever interacting with the universe, lest he manipulate a person's thoughts or actions. A totally omniscient being, on the other hand, would violate compatibilism, but only if he interacts with the universe in a significant enough manner to manipulate a person's thoughts or actions; if such a being never interacts with the universe at all and only observes, no free will is violated.
Needless to say, any kind of omniscient being conflicts with libertarian free will, even if that being never interacts with the universe at any point in time, and even if that being is powerless to do anything at all. A being with inherent omniscience doesn't need to use his selective omniscience on a person to violate libertarianism; his mere existence would violate libertarianism.
- If free will exists, then "what you're going to do" is meaningless; there is only "what you've done", "what you're doing", and "what you might later do". Therefore, if free will existed, even a totally omniscient being would know all of those three things, but wouldn't know what you were going to do any more than they would need to know how colourless green ideas sleep furiously or why friendly milk will countermand my trousers if the waiter doesn't hold the reader's nose squarely. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Christianity is not incompatible with free will except for Calvinism, and even then there is some limited free will among those who are not Hyper-Calvinists. Non-Calvinist Christians have to accept some level of cognitive dissonance between the Godly battle of omnipotence and omniscience. Bongolian (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
A determinists' disbelief in free will does not demonstrate free will from such a perspective: their apparent choice to disbelieve could be the result of their brain construction, which is the product of a deterministic universe. Much of the first paragraph in the "Problems with the Wager" section is questionable. — Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs
Karl Marx on free will
On this site, you won't be able to ad a single bit of information on any subject. Natzi will come and remove any thing you've ad without checking any of it. This is a unidirectional fascist organization, nothing rational here, cause rational is their mindset no matter what. Even when their native language is a defect to understand a concept like free will which is a translation mistake (de libeiro arbitro is the latin locution, which litteraly translate to "free referee" not will). But not even a bit of research will be done, I'm amazed how people refute belief but got only belief to oppose. I'm a skeptics, a zetetician, and this site is not. I see the same bigotry than any religious folks with censorship of what they disagree, without any discussion or analyze. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs