Are we as humans truly free?

This is a question that many

individuals often wonder about their freedom even though there
is this common sense that we just are. Though we feel like we
are free and think that we have the choice to make the decisions
we do, and that everything that has occurred is because of our
decisions, does this verify that we are in fact free? Are we bound
by nature and its functioning? Or rather do we have freedom, yet
everything is still at the same time determined? This research
paper will argue for the concept of determinism and how
humans should think about free will, while answering to
objections from libertarianism and compatibilism. Determinism
will be proven as the way by which free will should be thought
as it provides…show more content…

People who believe in this theory are confident that individuals

make choices that cause their beliefs and actions and that those
choices made, are wholly due to their own choosing. Though
this is a popular belief, it is not a logical case for believing
humans have free will. If a reason for something cannot be
found for why we feel a certain way, and in this case free,
philosophy rejects it. Therefore, this reasoning of free will is
irrational as there is no evidence to support it. On one end of the
continuum is the belief in total free will, on the other end is the
belief that free will does not exist. However, there is middle
ground in a third concept by which has pieces of both sides
contributing to this one notion. This concept is compatibilism,
which believes somewhat like determinists, that the universe
operates with law like order. Thus, the past determines the
future, and though compatibilists believe this they also believe
some of the actions taken by humans really are free. Though
every action is free to a compatibilist there is no way by which
something couldn’t not happen, therefore everything is
determined. However, humans still have a freedom according to
compatibilist by which they have moral responsibility and thus
must admit to their thought and actions as their own. Though
these two theories each provide their own structure on…show
more content…

In response to the objection, why would God voluntarily want to

be loved by some humans, and then when they die he is loved on
them like a gumball machine? In other words, why would God
want all of this love from someone all of a sudden continuously
being spat out at him? Seems as though it is an irrational point
that makes no sense because of the inconsistency of it as well as
free will with the objective that a mere feeling can create true
concept without reasoning. However, this very reason makes
this objection completely illogical as indeterminists tend to put
the cart before the horse. This means that they are believing in
an outcome without a cause which completely goes against the
natural functioning of the world in which determinism may
present it as the domino effect. The domino effect signifies that
for every action there must be a cause. Human beings are
material beings and therefore they are subject to the causal laws
of nature according to Baron d’Holbach. For he contends that,
although humans do have a will, this will be not free as it may
seem but rather, it inevitably chooses what it believes will be
most advantageous to the individual (Abel 267). For example,
Zenos arrow and the idea of motion. For there is no moment
when the arrow is actually moving, thought it was released by a
bow, no thing or the arrow truly