Skip to content
April 17, 2012 / itsnobody

It takes more faith to believe in free-will than to believe in God

 “No evidence can be found for the common view that it [free-will] is a function of our brains that causes behavior” – Mark Hallett, M.D.

“We assume that we have free will and that we make decisions, but we don’t. Neurons do. We decide that this sum total driving us is a decision we have made for ourselves. But it is not.” – Rodolfo Llinás, PhD

Free Will is a fictional construction, but it has applications in the real world” –Steven Pinker, PhD

Atheists being inherently stupid people from the beginning to the end are incapable of independently thinking or reasoning, so it’s up to Theists to teach and educate them. Atheists have always threatened the progress of science and mankind by valuing authority and incredulity too highly. Most of the comments from the fools (atheists) have just been about authority and incredulity.

Now I will do something that atheists do not – give valid reasons and empirical observations to support my assertions.

It takes more faith to believe in free-will than it does to believe in God. How so? Well I’ll now explain how in a way that has never been done before.

First a definition, let us define free-will as the “ability to control decisions with your consciousness”. Note that we are not talking about whether or not a decision is predictable or unpredictable, but whether you have control over the decision.

For instance if someone has a brain disorder which causes them to spontaneously act uncontrollably (and have unpredictable decisions), that is not an act of free-will because the person has no control over their decisions.

What matters is whether or not the individual has control over their decisions, not whether the decision is predictable or unpredictable.

Next on how we objectively measure the amount of faith that it takes to believe in something. We can objectively measure the amount of faith it takes to believe in something by the amount of scientific evidence contradicting a claim.

Take for instance believing in multiple universes vs. believing in the geocentric theory. It takes more faith to believe in the geocentric theory because there is far more scientific evidence contradicting the geocentric theory than there is against the existence of multiple universes.

The geocentric theory is empirically testable and fails the test, multiple universes are not empirically testable and do not fail or pass any test.

In this case, free-will is analogous to the geocentric theory failing empirical tests, and God is analogous to multiple universes neither failing nor passing any empirical tests (since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis).

Right now there’s a massive overwhelming amount of scientific evidence against the existence of free-will.

Free-will has a certain degree of empirical testability and has so far failed all tests.

Since there is much more scientific evidence against free-will than God it requires far more faith to believe in free-will than to believe in God.

The Scientific Evidence against free-will:


Since atheists are inherently stupid people it is only common to run into atheists who understand virtually nothing about physics.

In deterministic physics (Newtonian or General Relativity) free-will exists as an illusory perception or a feeling that human beings have, human beings have absolutely no control over their decisions, and their decisions are predictable.

In indeterministic physics (Quantum Mechanics) free-will exists as an illusory perception or a feeling that human beings have, human beings have absolutely no control over their decisions, and human beings cannot predict their decisions.

In other words:
– Determinism would be like saying “someone who has an uncontrollable predictable brain disorder, but feels as if they’re in control has free-will”
– Indeterminism would be like saying “someone who has an uncontrollable unpredictable brain disorder, but feels as if they’re in control has free-will”

Neither determinism nor indeterminism allow for free-will.

So if someone lies, cheats, steals, or kills in both models of modern physics that individual had absolutely no control over their decisions even though they would’ve most likely strongly felt that they did.

In both models free-will is just a feeling or perception, neither model allows for free-will.

The only way real free-will can exist is if the observer or consciousness plays a special role in reality, which would favor an afterlife and the physical brain not being the mind.

Since neurons are macro-particles and not quantum particles the neuronal correlate explanation strongly favors the deterministic model of physics. Quantum Mechanics would not work at all for neurons.

We know that modern physics works extremely well and accurately for electrical technology. If Maxwell’s equations hadn’t been extremely accurate and reality hadn’t followed systematic repeatable rules that human beings can use to predict events most electrical technology would not work. So believing that human beings can control their physical brain would be like believing that a radio, TV, computer, or other electrical devices have free-will.

Believing that human beings can control electrical signals in their brain is like believing that human beings have superhuman powers. It’s just like saying you can control the laws of physics or behavior of neurons with your mind.

So modern physics by itself eliminates free-will.


Libet’s Experiment – A repeatable experiment which indicates that decisions are made in unconscious first, prior to human beings feeling that they had made a decision. The results of Libet’s experiment have been reproduced over and over again.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimuli Experiments – In these experiments magnetic stimulation was shown to bias the choice of finger movements, even when the subjects consciously felt that they chose the decision to move their finger. The TMS affected the physical brain much in the same way that a TMS would effect electrical devices.

Reaction Time Experiments – Show that the “free-will” feeling comes after an action, not prior. The order is stimulus-response-perception not stimulus-perception-response (which would be expected if free-will existed). The free-will perception comes at the very end in the RT experiments.


Neural-Correlate Explanation – The neural-correlate explanation claims that all experiences exists as electro-neuro-biological reactions in the physical brain. This explanation would leave no room for any free-will. All decisions would be made by electrical signals in the physical brain that human beings have absolutely no control over.

Drugs and chemicals altering conscious experiences – Alcohol and other drugs alter consciousness, this tells us that our conscious experiences are at least heavily influenced by chemical reactions which would favor the the neural-correlate explanation and no free-will.

In conclusion physics, the experimental data, and empirical observations all strongly favor the hypothesis that free-will exists as an illusory perception or feeling analogous to the sensory perception that the Sun moves around the Earth. Human beings can all observe with their own eyes the Sun moving around the Earth but the empirical data says otherwise. Similarly human beings can all strongly feel inside that they make decisions and control their decisions, but the empirical data says otherwise.

The scientific evidence against free-will is overwhelming, staggering, and massive. We can clearly see that there’s far more scientific evidence against the existence of free-will than there is against the existence of God.

Common Flawed pro-free-will arguments:

Circular reasoning
 – Probably the most common pro-free-will argument, this type of argument is usually phrased like this:
“Free will exists because I can choose”
“I make decisions everyday, of course free-will exists”
“I chose to type this message”
“I can choose to move my arm”
“Free-will exists because I can chose to do [some action here]

“The problem with all of these arguments is that they pre-assume that free-will exists. You can’t conclude that you chose to make any decision unless you already assume that free will exists.

So all of these arguments are equivalent to saying “Free-will exists because I already assume that I have free-will”.

All of these arguments are equivalent:
“Free-will exists because I can choose to move my arm”
“Free-will exists because I assume that I have free-will and can choose to move my arm”
“Free-will exists because when I my arm moves I assume that I have free-will and chose to do so”
“Free-will exists because I assume that free-will exists”

If you don’t already assume that free-will exists you wouldn’t be able to conclude that you chose to move your arm or chose to make any other decision.

Giving an example of an action and assuming that you chose it tells us nothing about the existence of free-will.

How do you distinguish your arm moving, and you simply having the illusory feeling that you had controlled your arm even though you didn’t versus actually having controlled it? You can’t by pointing out an action and assuming that you have free-will.

If you don’t already assume that free-will exists you would simply conclude that your arm moved and that you had a feeling inside that you chose to move your arm, not that you really through your own free-will chose to move your arm.

We also know that your arm can move involuntarily and that certain disabled people cannot move their arm. So the mere feeling that you moved your arm or made any other decision tells us nothing about the existence of free-will.

So pointing out an action and assuming that you chose it is just circular reasoning.

Indeterminism – A common argument used by free-will believers. The only problem is that indeterminism doesn’t support any degree of free-will, it supports unpredictable will. Meaning you don’t control any of your actions and human beings cannot predict your decisions.

Another problem is that neurons are not quantum particles and Quantum Mechanics would not work at all for neurons.

Even if we assume that the indeterminism model applies this would be equivalent to believing that a person that always has a spontaneous uncontrollable brain disorder acts through their “free-will”.

Sensory Perception – Another common argument. This argument is that our senses clearly tell us that free-will exists, so how can our senses be wrong?

Our senses tell us that the Sun moves around the Earth and gives all kinds of inaccurate data. It’s been shown that memory perception, vision, and other perceptions can be wrong and give false data so there’s no reason to assume that the feeling that you have free-will cannot be inaccurate as well.

If you believe that free-will exists because you strongly feel so then what about people who strongly feel that something bad is going to happen, an afterlife exists, or God exists? Is strongly feeling that something is true equivalent to scientific evidence?

Since we know that many sensory perceptions human beings have are wrong and inaccurate, the sensory perception argument shows nothing.

No evolutionary need – Another argument I’ve heard. It goes something like “there would be no need for consciousness if free-will was non-existent”. There’s a problem with this, the illusion or feeling that you have free-will could very well have been chosen by natural selection.

It could be that species that really believe that they have free-will some how survive longer than species that do not. So natural selection and evolution would favor the species that believes that they have free-will and there would be an evolutionary need for consciousness.

Studies and data support this hypothesis that people who believe they have free-will are happier and more prone to survival than people that believe that they do not.

Since the feeling or perception that you have free-will makes a species more likely to survive, natural selection would favor a species that really believes that they have free-will (even if they do not).

So there really is an evolutionary need for the free-will perception or feeling, even if it is completely illusory.

If anyone has any pro-free-will arguments not listed here, propose it to me so that I can destroy the argument.

Connection to an Afterlife: Free-will is connected to an afterlife, how so? An afterlife has to do with how consciousness is generated, and free-will has to do with how consciousness is generated. The belief that consciousness is composed of electro-chemical signals in the brain favors no afterlife and no free-will.

The argument against an afterlife goes something like this “consciousness exists as electrical signals in the brain, after death these electrical signals cease, and therefore consciousness ceases after death, so there is no afterlife, no consciousness after death”.

This belief that consciousness is composed of electrical signals in the brain favors the non-existence of free-will, that is that all decisions are results of uncontrollable electrical signals.

Meaning that if someone goes out and rapes and murders someone that decision to rape and murder someone was the result of electro-chemical reactions in the person’s brain that they had absolutely no control over.

It’s the same belief – that consciousness is composed of electro-chemical signals in the brain, that is used to support the non-existence of an afterlife and free-will.

So anyone who questions whether or not consciousness exists as electro-chemical reactions is also questioning the existence of an afterlife as well.

For these reasons many pro-free-will arguments resemble pro-afterlife arguments.

So any atheist who believes in free-will will have to admit that:
– You don’t believe in modern science
– You don’t have any problem with having beliefs without evidence
– You don’t have any problem with invoking more faith than it takes to believe in God
– The reason you don’t believe in God has nothing to do with science or evidence
– You believe that consciousness plays a special role in reality (which is nearly the same argument used for an afterlife)

In Conclusion:
– It takes more faith to believe in free-will than to believe in God
– There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of free-will
– There’s more scientific evidence contradicting the existence of  free-will than there is contradicting the existence of God
– All the scientific data clearly matches the hypothesis that “free-will” exists as an illusory perception or feeling
– All common pro-free-will arguments are flawed
– Believing in free-will indicates that you don’t care about science, evidence, or faith

Like I said, I would explain free-will in a way that has never been done before in the course of human history since this Earth first came into existence.



Leave a Comment
  1. rednig / Oct 29 2016 5:47 pm

    Debating with a Young Earth Creationist is actually really easy, because they only have a few standard arguments, and haven’t come up with any new cogent ones for some time. These standard arguments have been published time and time again, and a practiced Young Earth Creationist can handily draw them like a six-gun at the drop of a hat. All of their arguments are silly in their wrongness and easily debunked, and if you’re prepared in advance, it’s easy to beat down any Young Earther with a quick verbal body slam. You’re not going to change their mind, since Young Earthers do not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence; but you might help clear things up for an innocent bystander who overhears.

    So here are the standard arguments for a young Earth, and the standard rebuttals from the scientific consensus, starting with my favorite:

    Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein’s improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin’s original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today’s theory is still incomplete but it’s a thousand times better than it was in Darwin’s day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

    The next argument you’re likely to encounter states that Evolution is controversial; scientists disagree on its validity. Young Earth Creationists have latched onto the fact that evolutionary biologists still have competing theories to explain numerous minor aspects of evolution. Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread designs. Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity of the theory as a whole. Young Earthers often publish lists of scientists whom they say reject evolution. These lists are probably true. In the United States, the majority of the general public are creationists of one flavor or another. But the scientific community has a very different opinion: Most surveys of scientists find that 95 to 98 percent accept evolution just as they do other aspects of the natural world.

    Young Earth Creationists also argue that Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it’s not science. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it’s falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Young Earthers accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution’s status as a science.

    In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn’t match what was predicted. Young Earthers are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they’re right.

    The next argument to be prepared for is that Evolution is itself a religion. This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try to convince us that their own position is science based, they correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the concept of evolution or Darwin’s role in its development. This argument is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human considers himself a member of any “evolution church.”

    Young Earth Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed. Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There’s a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can’t be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over.

    One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:

    A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

    The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you’re looking for complete transitions. It’s not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.

    Here’s another Young Earth argument, and when I first heard it I said “What the heck are they talking about??” It’s that Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable physical law, and it’s true. Young Earth Creationists argue that this means a complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant, animal, or deck of cards, you’ve just proven that photosynthesis, growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems (as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using external energy and material.

    In a related vein, Young Earthers also argue that Evolution cannot create complex structures with irreducible complexity. This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems like it makes sense at face value, but it’s based on a tremendously faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a look at Lee Graham’s applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at

    Another effort to fight science using logic states that It’s too improbable for complex life forms to develop by chance. This is the old “747 in a junkyard” argument. How likely is it that a tornado would go through a junkyard, and by chance, happen to assemble a perfect 747? The same argument was made centuries ago by William Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have.

    You should also be prepared to hear that Evolution cannot create new information. Based on a misinterpretation of information theory, this argument states that the new information required to create a new species cannot suddenly spawn into existence spontaneously; new information can only come from an outside source, namely, an intelligent creator. This particular argument doesn’t go very far, since any genetic mutation or duplication can only be described as new information. Not all of that information is good. Most of it’s useless, called genetic drift, but once in a blue moon you get a piece that’s beneficial to the organism. New genetic information is observed in evolutionary processes every day.

    For a final blow from the logic department, be ready for the argument that Evolution does not explain some aspects of life or culture. This is an argument which is really just a logical fallacy: that since evolution does not explain everything, it is therefore entirely false. Evolutionary biologists are the first ones to stand up and say that there are still plenty of aspects of life we’re still learning about. That doesn’t make the things we’ve already learned wrong. It’s also increasingly common for Young Earthers to point to things that have nothing to do with the origin of life and speciation, like the Big Bang and the age of the earth, and argue that since the theory of evolution does not explain those things as well, it is therefore false. This is an even greater logical fallacy. Theories explain only those observed phenomena they are designed to explain. They are not intended to have anything to do with stuff they have nothing to do with.

    Those are the standard arguments. One thing I can’t easily prepare you for are the non-standard arguments you might get from a creationist who doesn’t know his business very well. For example, when evangelical actor Kirk Cameron and Christian author Ray Comfort were given a platform by ABC television in April 2007 to express their beliefs to the creators of the Blasphemy Challenge, they didn’t even know the standard arguments and just started throwing random stuff out left and right in a way that’s much harder to debate intelligently. Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy had a similar experience when debating moon hoax believer Joe Rogan, and he summed it up quite aptly by pointing out that it’s easy to know the science better than a believer does, but a believer can easily know the pseudoscience way better than you. Stick with what you know, and don’t allow an unpracticed creationist who’s all over the place to steer you off the track.

  2. John / Jan 1 2016 8:48 am

    “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps”
    Proverbs 16:9

    “Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails.”
    Proverbs 19:21

    “LORD, I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps.”
    Jeremiah 10:23

    “The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delights in his way.”
    Psalm 37:23

    “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.”
    Isaiah 46:10

    So much for free will.

  3. oogenhand / Apr 14 2015 4:48 pm

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    “But it doesn’t, because feeling as if you are responsible would still influence your actions, even if the free-will feeling is illusory.”

    Hell is eternal. Otherwise, nice reasoning…

  4. Ryan Schick / Jul 17 2014 5:35 pm

    Movement to get society to view itsnobody as a delusional bigot.

  5. itsnobody / May 23 2013 5:38 am

    I thought atheists were supposed to be smarter or whatever, where’s all of their smart responses? They are weak, useless.

    Hypothesis: Every decision is uncontrollable even though human beings at certain times feel as if they control their decisions

    Let’s look at the (other) evidence indicating this:
    Involuntary decisions: Here a decision occurs when the “free-will” feeling is absent, this indicates that the free-will feeling plays no role in decision-making, and is merely an illusory feeling since decisions occur without it.

    Accidental decisions: Here the “free-will” feeling is present, but the decision that occurs is not what was intended. This fits in perfectly with the hypothesis that decisions are uncontrollable, but we feel as if we make them, since the decision that occurred was not what was intended.

    “Impossible” decisions: Here the “free-will” feeling is present, but the decision is impossible, and cannot occur. This indicates that the “free-will” feeling is merely an illusion.

    – Someone feels as if they can reach up and grab something, but they can’t
    – Someone feels as if they can run at speed of 100mph, but they can’t
    – Someone feels as if they can throw a ball really far, but they can’t
    – Someone feels as if they can lift up a heavy object, but they can’t

    This clearly tells us that the “free-will” feeling is just an illusion.

    So in conclusion everything really fits into the hypothesis that the “free-will” feeling is illusory,

    • Ryan Schick / Jul 17 2014 5:30 pm

      You only respond to comments from people that you can easily win an argument with.
      Stephanie Branndock is way smarter than you and you never respond to her.
      Or me…

  6. GreenDiamond / Aug 5 2012 10:59 am

    So you believe that you have provided proof that free will does not exist. So, it follows then that we have no choice (choice requires free will) as to our actions and are not responsible for the choices that we make. That kinda makes religious behavior codes nonsensical(e.g. the 10 commandments, and the endless number of vague rules set out by the traveling salesman; cho coveniently made himself the exception to most of these vague rules).

    If we have no free will to choose our action then if we do commit a “sin” then we had no choice (will) in the matter. Clearly, an all knowing man up in the sky who created everything would be aware of this and wouldn’t hold us responsible for the things we do.

    Or are you so smart and your god so ignorant?!

    You are so inconsistent and non consequencial. I find you very amusing!!!

    • itsnobody / May 23 2013 5:05 am

      What’s this fool ranting about? Time to destroy him, like how I destroyed everyone else.

      Clearly, an all knowing man up in the sky who created everything would be aware of this and wouldn’t hold us responsible for the things we do.

      But God was never defined as a “man up in the sky”, it’s not mentioned in any argument by Christian scholars in the Early Middle Ages, Middle Ages, or Late Middle Ages. Educated people viewed God as the “Creator of the universe” or “first cause” with no ordinarily visible image, not as a bearded man seated in the sky.

      Newton and Euler never mentioned God as a “man up in the sky”, but as the Creator of the universe.

      But because you’re gullible you just watch TV and paintings or whatever don’t question anything you hear. You’re like the definition of gullible.

      It’s just like a little kid watching cartoon shows and thinking it’s an accurate way to get information about physics.

      That kinda makes religious behavior codes nonsensical(e.g. the 10 commandments, and the endless number of vague rules set out by the traveling salesman; cho coveniently made himself the exception to most of these vague rules).

      But it doesn’t, because feeling as if you are responsible would still influence your actions, even if the free-will feeling is illusory.

  7. sugarcanegray / Jul 22 2012 7:44 pm

    Personally, I’ve never believed in Free Will. It is a truly bizarre concept.

    • itsnobody / May 23 2013 4:30 am

      If you believe in the non-existence of free-will then you are basically saying that you must at least believe in an impersonal type of God, right?

      If free-will does not exist it means that:
      – Reality controls all of our decisions and we simply have an illusory feeling that we control our decisions

      But what is this thing we call “reality”?

  8. Whateverman / May 28 2012 1:28 pm

    If you feel good about getting people to respond to comments that are obviously stupid, doesn’t this say something rather unflattering about you?

    • itsnobody / May 23 2013 4:27 am

      I feel good about gaining knowledge and am rather annoyed by unintelligent comments from atheists.

      My comments aren’t stupid, they contain highly useful information and valid reasons usually, the only exception is if there’s nothing useful to respond to (ad hominems).

      I don’t even have a problem with insults if they are accompanied by reasons, observations, and valid criticisms.

      The more people question, criticize, and scrutinize things the closer we come towards the truth, and learning the truth is purpose of this blog.

      • Ryan Schick / Jul 17 2014 5:32 pm

        This website is not what it was meant to be, it is an atheist forum where people talk about how stupid you are.
        And i encourage people to view you as a lab dog.

  9. Chris P / Apr 20 2012 10:02 pm

    Yes we’ve seen your comments. They contain no useful information just the rantings of a moron.

    It’s just one baseless rant after another.

    • itsnobody / May 23 2013 4:22 am

      If you can’t find them to contain useful information then you’re just stupid, but oh wait I forgot you really are stupid. Just read your own posts, they contain highly unintelligent rantings, mostly ad hominems, and nonsensical arguments.

      If you read this article and look under the “Common Flawed pro-free-will arguments” part you would’ve seen that your arguments (just weak circular reasoning and sensory perception arguments) were already debunked my me.

      To help a fool like you understand how it’s circular reasoning I’ll use a statement you made:

      “I make good and bad decisions” – Circular reasoning

      You can’t conclude that you make any decisions unless you already assume that free-will exists. So your statement merely pre-assumes that free-will exists!

      So these statements are all equivalent:
      “Free-will exists because I make good and bad decisions”
      “Free-will exists because I assume that I have free-will and make good and bad decisions”
      “Free-will exists because I assume that I have free-will”

      You’re just saying free-will exists because you assume that you have free-will.

      If there was no free-will, and free-will was 100% non-existent we would conclude that:
      – Every single decision you feel that you make is uncontrollable, but you have the perception or feeling that you are responsible for them

      We don’t need to invoke the existence of free-will to explain what happened. If free-will was completely non-existent and illusory we could explain everything just fine.

      So your statement “I make good and bad decisions” tells us nothing about the existence of free-will, it merely tells us that you believe that you have free-will.

      I hope you understand how it’s circular reasoning!

  10. itsnobody / Apr 19 2012 10:42 pm

    Well I declare myself the undeniable winner of this debate so far.

    So far all of my statements have remained unrefuted and all the atheists have are laughable ad hominems and baseless statements.

    I guess atheists really are subhuman in terms of intelligence, incapable of independently reasoning.

    Just look at the comments from the fools (atheists), then look at my comments. I’m a step above and beyond every single atheist that’s ever existed.

  11. Chris P / Apr 18 2012 10:44 pm

    I don’t give a rat’s for what you call “Free will” or whatever you want to believe that it is. I do what I determine I want to do. I detect no influence in my decision making. I make good and bad decisions. One bad decision is to write responses on this blog which is apparently written by somebody who thinks that determining that different races have different IQ’s, a measurement that in some ways is biased, is racist. It would be like saying that blacks have blacker skin than whites is “racist” as against being what it is – a fact. But no – he just keeps on ranting – calling people that he doesn’t even know “stupid”. His Twitter posts are full of vuigarities and are repititive.

    He is not bold enough to say who he is or wher he goes to school. Just hides in his anonymity.

    Poor lost soul. Shame that he thinks he has a God helping him out.

    • itsnobody / Apr 19 2012 10:36 pm

      lol your argument can be summarized as “Free-will exists because I say so”

      Thanks for the laugh!

      I already refuted your sensory perception argument and circular reasoning arguments. I guess if I were to say “I strongly feel inside that God exists, I detect God within me” you would accept this argument as valid?

      So you agree that you do not care about having faith, science, and evidence right?

      Believing that certain races are genetically superior or inferior in terms of intelligence matches the exact definition of racism, yet you claim that it is not racist.

      I guess your next argument will be that the “Nazis weren’t really racist”.

      Then the rest of your rants are just ad hominems and changing the subject, but what more can I expect from a subhuman atheist like you?

      Thanks for demonstrating the subhuman atheist mind.

      • Chris P / Apr 19 2012 11:20 pm

        No racism is applying irrational bias to people of a different race. Like refusing to give them a job. Like not allowing gays to marry.

        Given all the ad hominems in almost every tweet of yours. You are still an idiot.

        Given my position in society – subhuman isn’t a good fit. But of course we don’t know what your position is – I mean apart from clueless.

        You haven’t refuted anything of mine – you just lie and lie some more.

      • itsnobody / Apr 19 2012 11:47 pm

        You’re just using a no true scotsman fallacy by re-defining the definition of racism. By definition believing that certain races are genetically more or less intelligent is racist.

        But this article isn’t about racism so perhaps you should post your comments about racism on my other articles instead.

        I don’t use any ad hominems in my tweets, but you probably don’t know the difference between an ad hominem, verbal abuse, or name-calling. Attacking me personally or my tweets does nothing to refute any of my arguments, it’s just an ad hominem.

        I’ve already refuted your circular reasoning and sensory perception argument, you’ve just ignored it.

        Your argument is just “I say free-will exists because I already assume that free-will exists and that I determine what I want to do, I say that I make decisions, and I say that I detect no influence in my decision making, I say so”.

        In other words you’re just saying “free-will exists because I believe that free-will exists”, so you’re essentially saying nothing.

        What a great joke of an argument.

      • Ryan Schick / Jul 17 2014 5:33 pm

        You basically demonstrate how illogical theists are.

  12. Whateverman / Apr 17 2012 8:52 am

    PS. No, I’m not taking you seriously. You’re simply a troll.

    • itsnobody / Apr 19 2012 10:40 pm

      lol, in other words you’ve lost the argument and can only throw argumentum ad hominems like at me like “I say that he’s wrong and a troll”

      What great arguments from the fools (atheists).

      • Chris P / Apr 19 2012 11:22 pm

        Anybody analyzing your tweets would have a hard time telling that they weren’t written by a mad middle school student. Pretty repetitive.

      • itsnobody / Apr 19 2012 11:43 pm

        Anybody who understands what an argumentum ad hominem is knows that calling me a “mad middle school student” does nothing to refute any of my statements.

        In reality I’m a college-student, now have one patent pending, and have taken many very difficult courses. But none of this matters, it’s just pointing out authority. We know from history that basically every authority figure has been wrong about something and that many non-authority figures have been right, so authority shows nothing.

        I’m certain that even the very best argumentation logicians with the highest authority are cannot argue as well as I can, regardless of what “authority” they possess.

        Due to your typical atheistic stupidity you value authority and incredulity above everything. Pointing out a lack or presence of authority does nothing to refute or prove a statement (unless that statement is directly connected to authority), why can’t atheists just understand this?

        Instead of arguing about what empirical observations show and what are valid reasons to support an assertion modern day atheistic (foolish) scientists argue about “what authority does this person have?”. The fools (atheists) have destroyed science by turning it into a laughable popularity contest. Look at all the garbage allowed into peer-reviewed journals just because of authority, and look at all the valid things left out of peer-reviewed journals just because of authority. It’s people like you who have destroyed and ruined science.

        In science what has the highest value is empirical observations, empirical testing, and valid reasoning, not authority or incredulity.

        Just imagine how far we’d be if Theists still ran things and people were forced to look at what empirical observations show and come up with valid reasons to be taken seriously instead of just having to find authority figures to agree with them to be taken seriously (like how it is in modern times).

        If the fools (atheists) hadn’t taken over science we’d be living in a Utopia-like world by now with super-advanced technology and science.

        To help the fools (atheists) understand, a great scientist with a PhD saying something isn’t equivalent to scientific evidence, what’s scientific evidence is empirical observations and valid reasons to support an assertion, not someone saying so.

        Why do you keep trying to personally attack me and my tweets for? It’s so boring now.

        But you still haven’t learned what an argumentum ad hominem is, but what more can be expected from subhuman beings (atheists, it’s the same thing)?

        What’s repetitive is you throwing ad hominems and really believing that you some how refuted something, how boring.

      • Whateverman / Apr 24 2012 2:20 pm

        Are ad hominems always logical fallacies? Why or why not?

  13. Whateverman / Apr 17 2012 8:51 am

    You misunderstand (predictably).

    Free will exists, but the details are fuzzy.

    Would you have said it takes more faith to believe in gravity than in God?

    • itsnobody / Apr 19 2012 10:38 pm

      Instead of giving valid reasons to support your assertions you just give baseless statements, how boring, unchallenging, and typical of atheists.

      Your argument so far is “I say free will exists, the details are fuzzy, I say so”

      What a great argument, thanks for the laugh.

      Believing in some form of gravity requires less faith than believing in God because of the evidence.

      • Whateverman / Apr 24 2012 2:20 pm

        What evidence is that?


  1. Free-will vs. Evolution | itsnobody

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: