DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**wbeachcomber** · 06-23-2012, 12:58 AM

First of all it is not a pseudo scientific materialistic dilemma, Science speaks of genetic determinism not social causation based determinism. This dilemma,as i clarified in the beginning is not purely related to Islam or any other religion but has long been discussed in non religious philosophical literature. I don't think so that the whole of human intention and free will is an illusion , in some aspects we are free and that is known to Allah.

Infact you have borrowed a pseudo scientific notion of the age ie the relation between Quantum physics and free will. I wonder how the in-determinism at quantum level somehow reveals the presence of free will? Though it has become a part of the philosophical narrative in the west but there is no clarity in it. If the randomness of reality at subatomic level show that there is "undirectedness" then how about this that tomorrow string theory starts working and the quantum disorder become symmetrical with the Newtonian/Einstein determinism?

As far as the point regarding the self refutation of the declaration of free will then yes apparently it seems to be self referentially incoherent.But i think deep down it does not work as well. If a person negates free will and endorses sheer determinism in a book then he can be asked "Were you determined to write against free will?" and if he says yes i was then whats next? Whats the next question going to be? The only objection left after this is to ask him "if you were already destined to do it , what good is your argument?" and in response he shakes his head and says "All what you have said is just explains that my argument is contrived and not natural , does it prove that my argument is wrong?" Whats next?

Obviously I borrowed it as a response to the casuality dilemma you borrowed. Just throwing one theory against another. At the end of the day the scientific theorys of today do not rest on absolute determinism as in the case of QM, which falsifies the premise you put up.

The then "what if" questions are mere hypothetical and can be responded by imagining a 100 other "what if" scenarios.

Even if you say that you were determined to speak against freewill, the truth of statement is not yet established since determination implies you were forced to say so. So if you havent established the truth of the statement then you can't say you were forced to say so, which rests upon the truthness of your statement. Your goal is to prove determination. You instead presume determination along the way.

Secondly my point was on regards to tasting freewill. When you speak about freewill, we have to know what freewill is in the first place. Now it is because we have tasted freewill that we know it. Its impossible that you could be forced and yet be aware of what exactly freewill is. So the mere fact that we discuss freewill knowingly is proof of its existance because a forced object would not be aware of what exactly freewill is. Just as a blind man wouldnt know color until he tasted color similarly a forced man wouldnt know freewill until he tasted freewill.

06-23-2012, 12:58 AM	#15
wbeachcomber Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 385 Senior Member	First of all it is not a pseudo scientific materialistic dilemma, Science speaks of genetic determinism not social causation based determinism. This dilemma,as i clarified in the beginning is not purely related to Islam or any other religion but has long been discussed in non religious philosophical literature. I don't think so that the whole of human intention and free will is an illusion , in some aspects we are free and that is known to Allah. Infact you have borrowed a pseudo scientific notion of the age ie the relation between Quantum physics and free will. I wonder how the in-determinism at quantum level somehow reveals the presence of free will? Though it has become a part of the philosophical narrative in the west but there is no clarity in it. If the randomness of reality at subatomic level show that there is "undirectedness" then how about this that tomorrow string theory starts working and the quantum disorder become symmetrical with the Newtonian/Einstein determinism? As far as the point regarding the self refutation of the declaration of free will then yes apparently it seems to be self referentially incoherent.But i think deep down it does not work as well. If a person negates free will and endorses sheer determinism in a book then he can be asked "Were you determined to write against free will?" and if he says yes i was then whats next? Whats the next question going to be? The only objection left after this is to ask him "if you were already destined to do it , what good is your argument?" and in response he shakes his head and says "All what you have said is just explains that my argument is contrived and not natural , does it prove that my argument is wrong?" Whats next? Obviously I borrowed it as a response to the casuality dilemma you borrowed. Just throwing one theory against another. At the end of the day the scientific theorys of today do not rest on absolute determinism as in the case of QM, which falsifies the premise you put up. The then "what if" questions are mere hypothetical and can be responded by imagining a 100 other "what if" scenarios. Even if you say that you were determined to speak against freewill, the truth of statement is not yet established since determination implies you were forced to say so. So if you havent established the truth of the statement then you can't say you were forced to say so, which rests upon the truthness of your statement. Your goal is to prove determination. You instead presume determination along the way. Secondly my point was on regards to tasting freewill. When you speak about freewill, we have to know what freewill is in the first place. Now it is because we have tasted freewill that we know it. Its impossible that you could be forced and yet be aware of what exactly freewill is. So the mere fact that we discuss freewill knowingly is proof of its existance because a forced object would not be aware of what exactly freewill is. Just as a blind man wouldnt know color until he tasted color similarly a forced man wouldnt know freewill until he tasted freewill.
	Quote