Of course its a religious metaphore. Obviously. But its not an argument.

wouldn't it necessarily either be random or deterministic under your natural worldview? there cannot be freewill in a naturalist worldview

Why not? Its more like the opposite for me. There cant be free will with a creator.

Since a creator knows everything that has been and will be, free will is nothing but an illusion created by him. I dont see how free will would be a problem in a naturalistic worldview. But maybe you can enlighten me.

This post was edited by Saurod on May 9 2025 04:51am

if everything that exists is an outcome of physical laws, matter, motion, and energy and then everything is deterministic. you are, and all of your actions, determined by the laws of physics, matter, motion, and energy.

and your understanding of foreknowledge vs causation is flawed, i can get into that in more detail but please try to express how under a naturalistic worldview there can be free will

Dude, did you watch "Devs" too often? While the laws of nature of course influence everything that happens they are in no way determinsitic on a microscopic or even on a certain macroscopic level. No one will ever be able to predict a bunch of coin flips, no one will ever be able to tell where every drop of water will go when you flip a cup. Why? Because its random.

The laws of nature are laws to a degree. Your take here is highly philosophical and isnt supported by scientific facts at all.

Look, I dont wanna act like I know free will is 100% real, because I am not all knowing, but if you ask if I think its real, which is all we can bring to the table here, then I say yes. I think its real.

This post was edited by Saurod on May 9 2025 05:23am

what are you yapping about?

science doesn't have the ability to justify free will vs determinism, this is a category error. science can't even justify itself (induction). stay on track

how can free will arise in a universe where everything is matter, motion, energy and the laws of physics?


"no one will ever be able to tell where every drop of water will go when you flip a cup. Why? Because its random."

justify this claim? motion is random now?

let's pretend everything is fundamentally random, then there is no free will. "randomness" isn't intentional choice by an agent, you didn't actually choose anything, a random event occurred.

This post was edited by majorblood on May 9 2025 05:32am

You understand that the laws of physics are science, right?

Motion is in theory measurable to a certain point, but the moment microscopic movement comes along, everything is thrown out of the window.

quantum mechanics arent just seemingly random, they ARE random and they influence the macrocosmos.

Free will is thinking and thinking is controlled movement. Your theory doesnt go as far as you think it does. You are also not as smart as you think you are.

Saying the laws of physics would make free will impossible is a bold claim. A VERY bold claim.

still waiting for you to justify free will in your worldview.

so far, your argument is: “quantum mechanics introduces randomness.” but that doesn’t help as randomness isn’t free will. if our actions are fundamentally reducible purely to random quantum events, then we’re not choosing and things are just happening randomly without agency.

or if actions are determined by physics, same result: no choice

“free will is thinking”
free will means intentional choice by a real agent, not the byproduct of random or determined brain states.

if free will is real, it requires a real self - a true agent, or what the religious worldview would call a soul. your purely naturalistic worldview has no room for that, it's either randomness or determinism. no real choice.

This post was edited by majorblood on May 9 2025 06:27am

If it's not an argument, then there isn't anything to think about... It's fodder.

So which is it? Something to think about ( an argument) or fodder?

This reads like a first draft of a freshman-year thought experiment, not a polished allegory. If the goal was to critique religion, authoritarianism, or AI ethics, it does so with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer—no layers, no wit, just regurgitated tropes.

If you stripped away the robotic framing, it’s essentially:
"What if God, but he’s a petty control freak? Whoa, deep."