If some physical need, like the volcano has needs, inhabits my body i am a slave to its necessities because i exist in this frail body.I am by a certain degree subject to demands, temptations, weaknesses.I cant imaging neurons firing away in my head and them controlling my actions.I control them, i direct them by my subtle human ability.A car will work without my interference but its direction is my decision, not its.If it requires a soul or a mind separate from brain to explain this free will then thats what it is.I'm not a hard drive, i have the will to determine my fate.Ive heard all the arguments and i defy their reasoning.

Why cant you believe in a soul without a belief in a god?

It seems to me as though many people whom hold atheist views but are into "quantum mechanics" use it as some sort of linch pin. As though, "hey maybe we do have free will, we don't know what causes the 'random' collapse of the wave function' so there is hope!" :perplexed:

Everything in life is belief, belief in science,belief in scriptures,belief in experiences.Yes i do believe in a soul and it does not make my agnostic view incredible or a shield to hide behind.I believe by logical manner there is enough evidence for a an individuals identity to exist without this earthly body.It is partly by personal experience and by others recalled experiences to me.You may say that belief depends on credible evidence but what is credible?

You totally have a point and I agree as for the general ideas: however, if you believe as you say by logical manner (which we all do, even the most rational scientists, since axioms are by definition admitted and cannot be demonstrated), then it means you can at least explain, if not demonstrate, through reasoning, what your conception of the soul is. Experience is individual, reason universal, and that is why philosophy is based on reason no matter how much it is also based on experience too, of course (what isn't anyways?). What I mean is that believing that 2+2=4 does not have the same degree of probability as believing in Santa Claus, because the first one is reasonable. So anyways, could you explicit yourself? I am more than interested, but saying "It is partly by personal experience and by others recalled experiences to me." just isn't enough.

Everything in life is belief, belief in science,belief in scriptures,belief in experiences.Yes i do believe in a soul and it does not make my agnostic view incredible or a shield to hide behind.I believe by logical manner there is enough evidence for a an individuals identity to exist without this earthly body.It is partly by personal experience and by others recalled experiences to me.You may say that belief depends on credible evidence but what is credible?

But aren't some beliefs better supported by the evidence than are others? And aren't some beliefs contrary to the evidence? Just to say that everything is a belief is to ignore the difference among beliefs in regard to whether we have, and how much evidence we have for different beliefs. And, isn't that what is important. Not to distinguish among beliefs in regard to evidence for them is to run the risk of being gullible and an easy mark for all kinds of superstition, and gimcrackery. We owe it to ourselves to have respect for rationality and evidence, don't we? And I am sure that you, yourself, distinguish among those beliefs you are willing to accept, and those you reject or are skeptical of.

What is credible evidence? Evidence which comes from reliable sources, and from personal experience. How do we know what are reliable sources? Past experience, and understanding. Credentialed sources.

Thats up to the individual and he or she must regard that others may not have the same experiences.Im far from gullible and i do scrutinise my own beliefs with objective criticism.I did not entertain the idea the idea entertained me.Some experiences force you to reconsider your views and beliefs.The only thing i can really ever say, are you really really sure.I find life has the habit of telling us we dont know much at all.

The remainder of what free will means is left to how we only 'feel' in control of our actions.

Sometimes people may feel that it is up to them what they do (that is what I understand by, "in control" of one's actions) and it is not up to them what they do. For instance, people who have been hypnotized and are acting under the influence of post-hypnotic suggestion, or, more commonly, people who are drunk, but in denial, and think they are in control of how they drive. But, are you saying that all of our actions are like that? That is pretty implausible, don't you think? When I choose vanilla rather than chocolate ice-cream, not only to I feel the choice is up to me, but I have no good reason to think that it is not up to me, so far as I can tell. Why would you think it is not up to me whether I choose vanilla or chocolate?

How is an avalanches path that is tumbles any different then which ice cream flavor you choose? Does the avalanche choose where it falls? Surely not, its path is directed by what it is made up of and what it interacts with physically.

.

I can't even imagine what it would mean for an avalanche to choose anything. Only people can choose (or not choose) anything. To talk about avalanches choosing is like talking about the square root of minus 1 being purple (or not being purple). It makes no sense to talk that way. But it certainly makes sense to talk of people choosing (or not choosing). What makes you say that human beings are complex avalanches? I think you must be making joke. People are not avalanches at all, so how could they be complex avalanches? (What those who philosophize won't say!)

Define your ability to: "choose"

You have a word to describe an illusion buddy. Does it make sense to say "sunrise"? No, but we know what someone means when they say it, it is just a word that defines an illusion.

We are not avalanches, its called an analogy. Can I ask how old you are?

A human is simply a very complex avalanche

You did write that, didn't you? If it is a metaphor or similie (which is presumably what you mean by, "analogy") then how is a person like an avalanche?

I'll so even better. This is from a reliable dictionary: (Merriam-Webster).

1 a: to select freely and after consideration <choose a career> b: to decide on especially by vote : elect 2 a: to have a preference for b: decide <chose to go by train>intransitive verb1: to make a selection <finding it hard to choose>2: to take an alternative -used after cannot and usually followed by but<when earth is so kind, men cannot choose but be happy - J. A. Froude>

Although, since you are probably a native speaker of English, and choose is a common term in English, you really should know what it means. It is not necessary, by the way, to be able to define a term, in order to know what it means.

Of course it makes sense to say, "sunrise". The newspapers use that term everyday to tell you when the Sun is expected to rise that day. Anyway, how could the word not make sense when we know what it means?

Maybe choosing is an "illusion", but don't you think you ought to argue for that view, rather than simply assert it. What is illusory about choosing? I chose to get married, and I chose my wife, and lots of other things.

Sorry, I cannot tell what your point is in this post.

Sometimes people may feel that it is up to them what they do (that is what I understand by, "in control" of one's actions) and it is not up to them what they do. For instance, people who have been hypnotized and are acting under the influence of post-hypnotic suggestion, or, more commonly, people who are drunk, but in denial, and think they are in control of how they drive. But, are you saying that all of our actions are like that? That is pretty implausible, don't you think? When I choose vanilla rather than chocolate ice-cream, not only to I feel the choice is up to me, but I have no good reason to think that it is not up to me, so far as I can tell. Why would you think it is not up to me whether I choose vanilla or chocolate?

I am not saying that we are at a disadvantage for not having free will. All of our actions are not purely (if at all) orientated by our consciousness. When you decide you want chocolate ice cream over vanilla, we can't assume this immaterial consciousness has much if anything to do with making the decision just because awareness of our decision makes us 'feel' in control of it. What makes up consciousness that can contribute to any material efforts to the decision making process, which is really just that, material. Like Click Here said, the firing of neurons.

An avalanche is made of only molecules and a person is only made of molecules. There is no ability to alter the motions that are caused my previous causes. Read my post again and I already related the avalanches make up to a human.

I can give you a definition for a lot of things that don't exist.

What happens in your brain when you 'choose' something?

You think that because bananas are made up only of molecules, and peersons are made up only of molecules that persons are bananas, too? Why not? In fact, since avalanches are made up of molecules, and bananas are too, avalanches must be bananas.

I can define words that don't refer to anything that exists. So what? But sunrises exist. You can see them (if it is not too cloudy) every morning.

You'll have to ask a physiologist what happens in my brain when I choose. I suppose there is some neural firing. But what has that to do with it, since if the choice is the firing of neurons, and the choice is up to me, then the firing of neurons is up to me.