Do we have free-will?

[Panzer Tacticer]

It depends on how you define free will. God knows what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. No matter what we do, we can't change where we'll end up.

..BUT, since we do not know our destiny, it could be anything. We make the choices that define our destiny, God knows the answer to our choices, therefore he knows our destiny, but they could be anything.


..Sorry I'm bad at explaining things.

Then again, god might be as bogus as the day is long, and everything connected to him, and mentioning him might be just a vast waste of time. Chances are god has as much value as Camp's Rapture predictions. Last I heard he'd had a stroke from the stress of being a self evident fool.

If your god does exist, he's a mysogynistic swine that was never worth any respect to begin with.

 

[gloweyjoey]

Honestly, I think God needs to stay out of this.

Here is something to think about when it comes to free will and understanding how it isnt as 'free' as it might seem. Yes, we make are own decision but how do we come to make these decisions and why.

SO...Which way are the arrows going?


Some people are going to be more inclined to see the arrows going one way and miss the ones going the other, or viceversa. After being made aware of the arrows going to other way, when asked the question again, another answer can be chosen. This is a very simple example but does demonstrate the use a free will.


Essentially, free will is something that is learned and can be learned to be used well.

 

[WioWao]

For example, if Jane is a compatibilist and she has just sat down on the sofa, then she is committed to the claim that she could have remained standing, if she had so desired. But it follows from the consequence argument that, if Jane had remained standing, she would have either generated a contradiction, violated the laws of nature or changed the past. Hence, compatibilists are committed to the existence of "incredible abilities", according to Ginet and van Inwagen. One response to this argument is that it equivocates on the notions of abilities and necessities, or that the free will evoked to make any given choice is really an illusion and the choice had been made all along, oblivious to its "decider".

How can you possibly argue with that? Please, with logic, state how is it possible to make choices without it being the product of your surroundings and past experiences?
If you had an object with a brain that had never before experienced anything and this object was in an empty space not triggering any senses. What choices were it to make? None, because it has nothing to base its choices upon. The construction of the brain would however probably trigger some thoughts, but that is just due to the fact that the brain exists and is constructed in a certain way.

What object can make choices not based on past experiences and/or actual surroundings, and without having a brain/choicemaking device which construction makes one choice more likely than the other?