Examination of an Argument

soldier4242

I will withhold my personal analysis for now because I don't want to create bias. I was given an argument for the existence of god that I felt was worth a bit of examination unlike most of the ones I hear. Here it is:

1. Even if something seems random there are factors which are actually determining the results and if you knew them you could predict those results. The fact that you don't know those factors is what makes the event seem random when it actuality it is not.

2. We are subject to the same laws as everything else. This means that we cannot have freewill in a universe where everything is determined.

3. If we don't have free will then nothing we do actually matters. We are like a train on rails. All of our actions are already determined.

4. If we do have free will then there has to be something outside of the laws of physics that is providing the free will.

Result: Freewill can't exist in the absence of some immensely powerful intelligent agent that is able to impose the free will upon an otherwise deterministic universe.

It is important to note that this argument is advocating only the existence of a god and not a specific god or any other religion for that matter. Meaning even if it was considered a bullet proof argument the conclusion would be theism and not Christianity or any other specific religion.

Obviously all of you know I am an atheist so it is axiomatic that I do see faults in this argument. I do plan to play devil's advocate on this however. For all intents and purposes I will try to "defend it" but I will endeavor to stay within the bounds of logic. The idea is that I will destroy all rebuttals that are too weak to hold up and we should be left with only those objections that are legitimate.

mahanaibu

I don't actually find this to be an argument at all. It's a collection of assumptions masquerading as a semi-syllogism. Of course there are factors that determine results. there also are things that happen randomly. So what? Somehow this then makes a leap that everything about our lives is determined by outside factors. Actually, when we exercise free will, we are one of the factors determining results. And why if we have free will does there have to be something "providing" the free will? Or why would it need to be beyond the laws of physics? (Or perhaps more accurately, chemistry and electricity, which provide the impetus for human intelligence, feeling and thought?)

emaren

This is a classic argument that many psychology students have tried to get their head around.

The WikiPedia entry is extremely good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

(yeah, I've contributed to it)

toutmonpossible

I don't actually find this to be an argument at all. It's a collection of assumptions masquerading as a semi-syllogism. Of course there are factors that determine results. there also are things that happen randomly. So what? Somehow this then makes a leap that everything about our lives is determined by outside factors. Actually, when we exercise free will, we are one of the factors determining results. And why if we have free will does there have to be something "providing" the free will? Or why would it need to be beyond the laws of physics? (Or perhaps more accurately, chemistry and electricity, which provide the impetus for human intelligence, feeling and thought?)

4. If we do have free will then there has to be something outside of the laws of physics that is providing the free will.

Yes, I didn't understand how Point 4 made any logical sense. The other statements didn't seem seem to build on each other.

soldier4242

I don't actually find this to be an argument at all. It's a collection of assumptions masquerading as a semi-syllogism. Of course there are factors that determine results. there also are things that happen randomly. So what? Somehow this then makes a leap that everything about our lives is determined by outside factors. Actually, when we exercise free will, we are one of the factors determining results. And why if we have free will does there have to be something "providing" the free will? Or why would it need to be beyond the laws of physics? (Or perhaps more accurately, chemistry and electricity, which provide the impetus for human intelligence, feeling and thought?)

4. If we do have free will then there has to be something outside of the laws of physics that is providing the free will.

Yes, I didn't understand how Point 4 made any logical sense. The other statements didn't seem seem to build on each other.

Well its lists premises and it draws a conclusion so right off the bat it is an argument. I can be a bad argument but it is still and argument.

At premise 1 we can immediately see that the presenter is proceeding from the belief that the universe is deterministic.
At premise 2 the presenter is simply trying to explain that we are part of the universe so if premise 1 is true then we don't have freewill because we don't have any way of exercising true agency.
At premise 3 the presenter is simply pointing out what is at stake if the conclusion is that we don't have free will.
At premise 4 the presenter is trying to assert that since the universe is deterministic it cannot be the source of our freewill and since we are part of the universe we cannot be the source of our own free will either. Since the question only matters if we do have free will then we have to examine that caveat. The presenter at this point is saying that if freewill does not come from within the universe then it must come from outside the universe.

So each premise does actually build on the previous premise and while I would say the argument does actually fail at its goal of prove that god must exist it is at least an argument.

mahanaibu: Your assertion that some things do happen randomly and your question as to why something must provide free will are good starting points to build a solid counter argument and you could go more than one direction with it but these ideas would have to be matured further so that you could deliver your killing blow. I like this because my method for debunking this argument was completely different and you have opened my mind to a new method of approach for this argument.

emaren: Well you sort of gave a link to all the answers to this question there but one would have read it entirely and then examine what is actually being said so I think the game is still alive for now.

halflife1978

I am not a philosopher nor have I ever taken a class in philosophy so I might be way off the mark but here is how I see it.

I don't think I've ever heard any atheist defend the position of free will. It's always some varying degree of determinism although some people like to say that determinism doesn't necessarily preclude the idea of choice, I think even if it is an illusion, reality is what we experience and nothing more.

This is what doesn't make sense to me:

" If we don't have free will then nothing we do actually matters. "

1. Why does it have to matter?
2. If your existence is really deterministic, you're going to do it anyway
3. If it doesn't matter, why do we even go see a movie? Someone already wrote the ending. Just go look it up on Wikipedia and save $8.50 (I actually do this so maybe it is a bad argument)

The universe is deterministic except for at the super micro level, which would follow that human existence is deterministic as well. At least that's how I understand it, and I'm okay with that.

ChristiH4000

The argument fails for me when it presumes the universe is deterministic. I suppose there is a set of rules by which the universe unfolds, but I dare say the final outcome of our individual lives (be they ever so miniscule, trivial, nothings from the perspective of our universe) is not wholly predetermined. To suppose there was a force shaping our progress (the big bang?) is a direction I could entertain.