Personally i believe in both even though freewill is ruled out by science

Both. I'll keep my reasoning simple, because I could probably write a few hundred pages to fully describe my thoughts on the subject of free will (mostly background including the notable difference between belief and knowledge...).

Evolution: has empirical evidence supporting the theory, and therefore seems the most plausible explanation for life on Earth (with cosmic seeding coming second). Creationism is a bit too fantastic for my tastes (with such ideas being explainable in other ways).

Free will: non-belief is pointless / destructive. Yes, I know that believing something based on the effects of the belief is a bad basis for the belief... but knowledge is not possible on this subject, so the basis for reasoning here is rather limited. Yes, it is possible that human existence is limited to the four dimensions of our reality, with no supernatural ingredient. Human consciousness may be an illusion created by a biological machine (the human brain) with the concept of a "soul" being entirely fiction, taking the concept of free thought along with it (because a biological machine would be governed by the laws of physics, not consciously controlled). Now, consider the effect on society if this idea was widely accepted. All concepts of morality would have to be re-evaluated, because without free will nobody has a choice in their actions. No punishment could be justified because any offender would have had no alternative but act as they were destined to do. Even the unquestionably wise concept of the Golden Rule / Karma would become meaningless because nobody could ever choose to do good.

For me, belief in free will is the only practical option... the alternative is just too ugly.

Edit:
Oh, and free will is not "ruled out by science". It just doesn't have a scientific explanation. There is no scientific proof that free will doesn't exist (such proof being impossible).

actually freewill is ruled out by science because decisions are made before the Rationalization bit of the brain is activated

and i didn't say i don't believe in creationism

i believe god or such a power controls evolution and guides life

OK?

1. You are free to believe whatever you want... (I don't know why you are asking for validation).

2. The way the brain does everything it does is not known, let alone the exact nature of human consciousness. Science is a process used to try and further understanding... and this process never reaches an absolute final destination. Free will has not, and never will be, ruled out by science. Some people may believe it has, but belief and knowledge are not the same things.

3. My comments on evolution pertain to an uncontrolled process. IMO, controlled evolution would fall into the category of either cosmic seeding or creationism.

4. Wouldn't the notion of a godlike entity guiding life invalidate free will (how can something under control be free)?

It seems to me you are trying to somehow make the two things mutually exclusive when they don't have to be.

According to Encarta
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/freewill.html
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/evolution.html


free·will [ fr wìl ]
adjective
Definition:
done voluntarily: done willingly rather than by compulsion


ev·o·lu·tion [ èvvə lsh'n, və lsh'n ] (plural ev·o·lu·tions)
noun
Definition:

1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.

2. biology developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material
3. gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form
the evolution of democracy in Western Europe
4. pattern caused by movement: a pattern formed by a series of movements
5. physics giving off heat or gas: the emission of heat, gas, or vapor
6. mathematics finding root of number: an algebraic operation in which the root, e.g. the square root or cube root, of a number is found.
See also involution (sense 6)
7. military military exercise: a military exercise or maneuver carried out according to a plan

[Early 17th century. < Latin evolut-, past participle of evolvere (see evolve)]
ev·o·lu·tion·al adjective
ev·o·lu·tion·al·ly adverb


Please also note capital "E" in Evolution is generally regarded as the theory.

As someone who listened to an hour-plus debate on the subject of "free will", it needs a very precise definition before you ask if someone thinks it exists, or people will be talking about different concepts. That one-sentence definition from the dictionary is not what most people mean when they ask someone if they think it exists.

This has been hashed out many times and seems to eventually lead to a religious debate.

If that happens this will be locked as religious debates are forbidden.

Please do continue, there is much insight and varying points of view, that I do find compelling to read.

Buddah

Unfortunately, asking about "belief" in evolution is, by its very nature, a religious debate. There is no non-religious reason to doubt it.

Just a word since the religious aspect I just can't opine.

Evolution nowadays come together with the concept of selection. That acts like a filter favoring the 'good' mutations and handcapping the bad ones. Evolution have several problems to explain life albeit can and seems to function where life is already present. Otherwise creation is inflexibly plead and for several times had his foundations shacked.

hoots7 posed the correct question: Why they must be exclusive. Why not, assuming creation, things can't evolve?

We are guided by gens, this can't be negated anymore. Minimal alterations there reflects in alterations of the individual. Is just sensate admit than the few alterations that enhances the individual give him more chances to perpetuate.

Although humans are now less subject to be just eradicated, the chances of good mutations are better that the ones than cripples someone someway. Even if is just a little mutation that enhances his natural defenses against some kind of plague or such.

Evolution has nothing to do with life arising from non-life. That's a separate field called abiogenesis. Evolution is concerned solely with generational change in a life form over time.

Excellent points here. When I talk about free will I'm considering the nature of reality, the nature of human consciousness. A full and complete discussion on these things definitely involves both scientific and theological subjects... and since theological discussions are forbidden here (completely understandably) I don't see how much the subject of free will can be explored. Discussions revolving around evolution often are loaded with overtones of larger issues, which are again leading to forbidden territory here.

If I ever want to explore my beliefs on these things, I think finding a venue other than a gaming community's forums would be more appropriate. As much as I don't want to, I think I'll bow out of this discussion... leaving my previous posts intact in case they are of value to anyone.

I believe in Both.

Evolution: The only other probable explanation is bacterial life somehow surviving a meteorite's entrance into our atmosphere. What else could it be?

Freewill: The human mind has two main instincts: to stay alive, and to breed. If suicide and abstainance vows don't convince you, what about when we are given multiple choices and have to think about them before we decide?

That's panspermia or exogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is change, not origin.

What the vulk?

I think he means that if the movement of every particle that comprises a person and everything they come in contact with could be mapped out, and their relationship fully understood, the actions of that individual would be completely predictable, based on each separate instant of experience, and the way the mind changes from moment to moment. This, of course, is prohibitively complex, and can't be done in any foreseeable future, but the principle seems sound.

One would have though that the possible combinations were so astronomically large that it will be impossible to prove for years to come that there is no such thing as free will, even if there isn't.

I know that already in law courts defendants are trying to rely on pleas that they only did as their brains were programmed to do. It means that the moral arguements for punishment as they were do not stand up. However since it has to be one rule for everyone (in other words all crimes are pre-determined) the punishments need not be changed provided they are designed to prevent or discourage continuations.

Erm - well, I know what I meant.

If I understand you correctly, I agree with you. It would be completely irrelevant as to whether there is such a thing as free will to the question of crime prevention. Personal culpability has nothing to do with whether it was inevitable or not. If it is inevitable that you are to commit a crime, it is also inevitable for me to try to stop you, or punish you for having done it.

Oh... How I would love to debate this with you, but, unfortunately, we cannot due to the forum's rules.

I'm afraid that's asking for the topic to be locked. I thought we were managing to salvage a civil abstract discussion here.

Arandie, you know the rules. The words you used came perilously close to trolling. I have edited them out. Please don't do it again.

Who answered "None"? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that response.

Could have been either a nihilist, or someone who wasn't satisfied with the phrasing of the question, like me. I didn't vote at all, though.