Replace free will for consciousness and this relationship between energy, or materials in general, available to the system and the degree to which it displays consciousness, is an idea worth considering.
1- The universe is either eternal (uncreated), or finite 2- We know by science (well, philosophical arguments are much stronger, but this should do) that is not eternal, it is therefore finite 3- There is logical necessity, possibility, or impossibility when trying to categorize things, example: 1+1 = 2 is a logical necessity, 1+1=3 is a logical impossibility , and a unicorn or yourself is a logical possibility aka you don't have to exist 4- If the world is finite (it means that it began to exist), so then it didn't have to exist aka a logical possibility 5- Then it needs someone who's a logical necessity (therefore eternal) with a will that chooses to bring that logical possibility into reality because if that thing wasn't eternal then it would be finite then we have to ask the same question until we concede infinity which is impossible or cut off the chain with something eternal as we did right here. It also has to have a will that eternal something because if it didn't then it would a simple cause, which would therefore render the universe eternal, but the universe is not eternal, so there is a conscious will therefore God exists. I pray that people would look at the argument and criticize me if they found it unsound
+Michael Cameron one of many philosophical arguments is that if the universe was eternal then it would mean changelessness or being static because changes like newborn babies, or anything new is merely something that didn't exist then it did, but if the universe was eternal then that means it would have gone through all these changes therefore it would static. Why do we see change?
Michael Cameron I gave you philosophical arguments for its finitude, and also near scientific consensus expressed by the BGV theorem, if still can't believe after a logical sound argument then it is your problem not mine
Michael Cameron False it does imply that the universe had a beginning plus the near consensus of the scientific community. You know that and you purposefully obfuscate. You haven't responded to my philosophical arguments
+Akshay Pamnani The reason compatibilists do this is is to clarify what people are actually talking about when they use the expression "free will". There literally are no usages of the term that have any impact on how we behave that are not reducible to what you enumerate as "self-control, conscious decision making etc". At the same time, "free will" is an important concept in moral reasoning. We use it to determine how appropriate it is to assign responsibility to an agent, relative to the environment, all of which is entirely deterministic(For example, if you eat your friend's corpse while you're both in the process of starving to death in the desert, your options are so constrained that it doesn't really make sense to regard you as a danger to society in the same way as if you are your friend's corpse right outside some Burger King in New York.). Libertarian free will definition is just logically contradictory drivel anyway and is completely unworthy of any kind of expression. It's not even an empirical question whether it's false. In short, there's just no need to ditch the expression ""He did it of his own free will", even though libertarian free will is a retarded concept. It's useful in moral reasoning, compatibilist philosophers have worked out pretty much all its implications for centuries so we know what this more sophisticated view of the concept will impact society.(Not very much at all) Ditching the expression "free will" just because it needs a minor adjustment in understanding seems to me like ditching the word "physics" because Einstein's relativity fixes problems with Newtonian mechanics. In any case, libertarian free will pretty much only invokes it's insane properties in debates about religion and objectivism, so modifying its definition has little practical effect. In regular conversation everyone is talking about compatibilist free will. I can assure you that nobody means "Jenny violated the laws of physics when she started smoking" if they say "Jenny started smoking of her own free will". Rather, they're talking about her having options and there not being unreasonable compulsion present - so most of the explanation for her beginning to smoke can be reasonably reduced to the functioning of her reasoning process. Which would be why it's *her* will and not "random shit that happens for no reason".
lots of backpaddling and misunderstanding of predeterminism here.... when the judge eats a sandwich it changes his desinty.. Oh no no that's not against free will that's just, backpaddle, backpeddle.
Free will is an illusion. No one knows the future so it's impossible to make a decision based on a perceived outcome in the future. Only our Creator of all thoughts knows the future of his people so it's His will that we live by.
