Free Will, God, And The Global Battle Between All Species Essay

In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.

Their wills, which are believed to be freely gained, are actually the result of a causal chain originating from birth. The fact that humans are governed by their genes and environment means that the ability to make moral decisions as free agents is illusory. For these reasons, the hard determinist position, which is a sound, science-based theory, seems to be incompatible with the concept of free will.

Over time, numerous philosophers have dabbled at the concepts surrounding free will, forming their own beliefs that either relate or reject other philosophical views. Free will is defined as the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. Epicurus, Stoics, and John Locke portray arguments about their beliefs on free will. Many times, each philosophical view of the three were influenced by aspects of another philosopher, especially Aristotle. Although their beliefs are unique, each philosophical view can be connected together. All three philosophical views either promote or reject the ideology of determinism referring to the issue of free will. I accept the Stoics beliefs on free will due to freedom resembling a person’s choices to do what he or she wants to do in life.

There are those who think that our behavior is a result of free choice, but there are also others who believe we are servants of cosmic destiny, and that behavior is nothing but a reflex of heredity and environment. The position of determinism is that every event is the necessary outcome of a cause or set of causes, and everything is a consequence of external forces, and such forces produce all that happens. Therefore, according to this statement, man is not free.

The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three Free Will and Determinism views. It refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as

People believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control. This view is known as Determinism. There is also an extreme form of determinism known as ‘hard determinism,’ in which they believe that every demeanor can be traced to a cause, although they may disagree about what those causes are. The idea of determinism poses a difficult issue to the concept of ‘free will’. Are we able to make free choices if all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by our own past and the physical laws of nature? Majority of us would like to believe that we have the freedom of will and are able to make decisions based on our own discretion but, I personally believe that the deterministic view holds true to a certain extent and that most of our actions are a result of a force that is beyond our comprehension. My purpose in this essay is to explain and critically analyze Baron d’Holbach’s view on determinism.

The arguments presented by D’Holbach and Hobart contain many of the same premises and opinions regarding the human mind, but nonetheless differ in their conclusion on whether we have free will. In this paper, I will explain how their individual interpretations of the meaning of free will resulted in having contrary arguments.

The first matter to be noted is that this view is in no way in contradiction to science. Free will is a natural phenomenon, something that emerged in nature with the emergence of human beings, with their

Nietzsche used the phrase “a theologians’ artifice” to describe the belief in free will, it is the world’s way out from a potential fall into barbarism since it allows us to create an organised judgement system (Bear). A force that is beyond my control, my genes and the activity of my brain, made me write this paper, and now it concludes that we should probably wait at least for a few centuries to make this shocking information known, since the world is not ready to learn this due to a lack of responsibility in people who do not believe in free

The concept of free will has been a point of contention among philosophers who study metaphysics. Regarding this concept of free will, three theories have arisen: hard determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Hard determinism states that all human actions have been predetermined, whereas libertarians state that all human actions are free, and compatibilism states that some human actions are free, though they are all casually determined (Stewart et al., 2013, p. 154). Each of these three theories have a different definition of freedom, where hard determinism and libertarianism define freedom as that the person was not casually determined and could have chosen the alternative to his action, and compatibilists define freedom as a person’s ability to perform action through his desires, feelings, and emotions (Stewart et al., 2013, p. 154). Perhaps one of the greatest arguments for libertarianism involves the theory of causality.

Is it possible for evil to exist in our world while humans possess free will? This paper will explore the ideas around freewill and will point out the many coherent and incoherent ideas about this discussion in philosophy. More specifically it will cover the Atheists point of view on the evil and suffering argument for gods non-existence, Walter Terence Stace’s ideas on compatibilism and its relevance to the Atheists perspective, and finally it will discuss John Leslie Mackie’s quote about how mankind can choose between good and evil. The purpose of this paper is to provoke the readers thoughts and insights on alternate concepts and perspectives that many Atheists believe.

For years, natural theologians have searched for answers to human morality by observing nature. By studying the “nonmorality” in nature, it allows for humans to rationalize the inhumanity they see, which justifies our own cruel behaviors. What natural theologians do not understand is that nature is nonmoral; it contains no moral messages and cannot teach humans about how our actions relate to morality. Stephen Jay Gould explores this idea in his essay “Nonmoral Nature” by arguing that the elements within nature do not know the difference between good or bad, they are strictly instinctual. Underneath this argument, he reveals that the answers do not lie in nature, but rather that it lies in humans, and our ability to control good and evil. Gould argues that rather than observing nature in search for the answers on morality, people must to look at themselves to understand it.

In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don’t have free will by addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third

Science is primarily based on study of nature and Religious belief are typically based on faith. Reaching a consensus is generally impossible. Natural science has had some vast majority of influence on religion. Scientific and evidence based rational notion has seen to be increasingly replacing religion. In the 21st century, while science has gained in influence and knowledge, I personally think religion has not been supersede. The idea that science and religion are at war with one another is actually fairly recent. It really only arose in the last third of the nineteenth century, after the publication of Darwin 's book on evolution. In the wake of the furor over Darwin 's idea that humans were descended from apes, some people on both sides tried to paint the other side as the enemy. Charles Darwin was the one that put forward the theory that all life evolves by processes of "natural selection." According to Darwin, life began with very simple creatures, which gradually evolved over millions of years into more complex forms. Eventually this process gave rise to human beings. Likewise in the twentieth century, physicists and cosmologists have worked out a scientific account of how the universe came into being. Again, this account says that the universe came into being in a very simple state that gradually evolved over millions of years into ever more complex forms. Again, the process did not happen in a week, but over extremely long periods of time.

One would envision that in a written work regarding God and nature, one would begin with an assessment of Genesis 1:1. One would think I would begin with the foundational truth of God as creator; however I am not. I will begin - just as I did in my book Torah Unchained! A Search for Christian Morality – by looking at our Jewish roots.