-->
@Stephen
read my very first post.
Atheists are hypocrites
Posts
Total:
465
-->
@Shila
your definition says, "Free will is not constrained by fate"
you say, "There is no escaping fate"
these two statements are obviously in conflict
-->
@Sidewalker
The problem here is that this argument is simply a contrived dilemma designed to give the false appearance that it addresses the problem of free will when all it really does is put forth a false dichotomy logical fallacy; these two premises and their conclusions are not exhaustive, which is to say that they are not the only two options. This is compounded by the fact that both arguments 1 and 2 are logically invalid premises.
awesome, instead of simply "disagreeing"
please provide your personally preferred definition of "free"
and
please provide your personally preferred definition of "will"
-->
@Ehyeh
It could very well be that the universe is Stochastic and not deterministic. I touch on it in my own free will debate. There's also just very little evidence from neuroscience to suggest we don't have free will. Determinism is a loser ideology. It makes you into a loser, believing in determinism.
nobody ever said "determinism"
my position is "indeterminism"
-->
@Sidewalker
Regarding the first conditional statement (#1); “caused by previous influences”, is not a logically conclusive process, the physical evidence has never justified the presumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the second conditional statement (#2); “indistinguishable from random”. This argument introduces the logical fallacy of composition, while it may be true that randomness occurs in some quantum events, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to leap from the fact that some events are uncaused and involve chance, to characterize all events as undetermined and random. It does not logically follow that if indeterminism is true, which appears to be a scientific fact about reality, that all events are therefore undetermined and random, and therefore we cannot be in control of our will. Chance can indeed generate alternative possibilities for thought and action without being the necessary cause of our actions, which is to say that they can be adequately determined and therefore free will can exist and be compatible with determinism or indeterminism.
Your argument is logically refuted on all levels; the structure of the argument is a logical fallacy, as are both of its premises.
i am extremely impressed with your analysis
but you missed one critical and tautological point
events are (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused
you have to choose one side or the other, or present an alternative third option
mixing the two (caused and uncaused) together does not solve "free will"
because
(IFF) all events are caused (THEN) free-will cannot exist
but also, shockingly
(IFF) all events are uncaused (THEN) free-will cannot exist
no clever mix of these can solve their fundamental incompatibility with free-will
-->
@Sidewalker
and then recognize that determinism is not a conclusion of science.
without cause and effect, there is no "science"
without cause and effect, engineering is invalidated
-->
@Sidewalker
The most obvious argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident.
ok, i'm willing to accept that free-will is an emotion (purely experiential, and NOT QUANTIFIABLE)
Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence,
hold on,
empirical evidence is by definition QUANTIFIABLE
and you just acknowledged that free will is "experiential" (QUALITATIVE)
and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid.
the claim "free-will is a real and valid concept" is the claim that requires empirical demonstration
in the same way that the claim "bigfoot is a real and valid concept" requires empirical demonstration
in the same way that the claim "god is a real and valid concept" requires empirical demonstration
-->
@Sidewalker
events are (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem here is that this argument is simply a contrived dilemma designed to give the false appearance that it addresses the problem of free will when all it really does is put forth a false dichotomy logical fallacy; these two premises and their conclusions are not exhaustive, which is to say that they are not the only two options. This is compounded by the fact that both arguments 1 and 2 are logically invalid premises.
awesome, instead of simply "disagreeing"
please provide your personally preferred definition of "free"
and
please provide your personally preferred definition of "will"
Oh pulease, you can't reduce a discussion/debate about free will down to a semantic parlor game,it's more important than that. The reason that this concept has been so hotly debated for centuries is
that it is it is a matter
of our identity; it speaks to what and who we are as human beings., word games are not going to resolve anything.
The existence of free will is the self-evident default state, if
you want to deny the experiential reality of every waking moment and challenge
the validity of every moral and legal system found in every known time and
place where humans have existed, you have to do more than play word games. The existence of free will is implicit in your putting forth an argument, evaluating alternatives and making conclusions, in your ability to type it, in our having a conversation about it. The denial of
the self-evident truth of free will is an extraordinary claim, such a claim
requires an extraordinary argument back up by extraordinary evidence. You need a lot more than taking the two words out of context.
-->
@3RU7AL
Regarding the first conditional statement (#1); “caused by previous influences”, is not a logically conclusive process, the physical evidence has never justified the presumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the second conditional statement (#2); “indistinguishable from random”. This argument introduces the logical fallacy of composition, while it may be true that randomness occurs in some quantum events, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to leap from the fact that some events are uncaused and involve chance, to characterize all events as undetermined and random. It does not logically follow that if indeterminism is true, which appears to be a scientific fact about reality, that all events are therefore undetermined and random, and therefore we cannot be in control of our will. Chance can indeed generate alternative possibilities for thought and action without being the necessary cause of our actions, which is to say that they can be adequately determined and therefore free will can exist and be compatible with determinism or indeterminism.
Your argument is logically refuted on all levels; the structure of the argument is a logical fallacy, as are both of its premises.
i am
extremely impressed with your analysis
Thanks, and I hope you also appreciate that I am defending you (see my final comment)
but you
missed one critical and tautological point
events
are (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused
No, as
I’ve already pointed out, this is a false dichotomy. It’s not a incantation that becomes true if
you repeat it.
you
have to choose one side or the other,
Nope, I
don’t.
or
present an alternative third option
OK, let’s
go with the real world, perhaps as science tells us it is. The deterministic laws of Newtonian mechanics
have been subsumed into stochastic laws of quantum and chaos theory, and
relativistic models of multidimensional space/time. But unless I missed a memo, the scientific
world did not conclude that therefore everything is random, cause and effect
are no longer valid, and there is nothing but anarchy and chaos.
mixing
the two (caused and uncaused) together does not solve "free will"
because
(IFF) all
events are caused (THEN) free-will cannot
exist
but
also, shockingly
(IFF) all
events are uncaused (THEN) free-will cannot
exist
OK, so
this is like a Beetlejuice thing, you think if you repeat your false dichotomy incantation
three times that it will manifest itself as true.
no
clever mix of these can solve their fundamental incompatibility with free-will
You should probably let the world of science and engineering know they no
longer get to exist then, those guys are going to need to find a job now.
I can’t believe I have to argue with
you guys to try to convince you that you are sentient, rational, human
beings, it is just amazing to me how often I have to defend you from your own
self-directed ad Hominem attacks, I find that aspect of the free will debate to
be bizarre.
-->
@3RU7AL
and then recognize that determinism is not a conclusion of science.
without cause and effect, there is no "science"
without cause and effect, engineering is invalidated
Yeah, I know, and without free will, there is no science and engineering.
Science, Logic, Philosophy,
Engineering, Arguments, and Debates only apply to volitional beings who are free to interpret, plan, make
choices about alternatives.
We are individuals, responsible for
our own actions and the judgments that motivate those actions.
Your denial of free will is self-referentially nonsensical, free will is axiomatic, to deny free will demands that you to select facts and arguments, and therefore is automatically self-refuting.
-->
@3RU7AL
The most obvious argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident.
ok, i'm willing to accept that free-will is an emotion (purely experiential, and NOT QUANTIFIABLE)
Experience
isn’t quantifiable? Did you just make
that up? In any event, you better let
science know that their “observations” thing isn’t valid.
Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence,
hold on,
empirical evidence is by definition QUANTIFIABLE
In
what Universe is that the case?
Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation, it can be quantitative or qualitative.
Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation, it can be quantitative or qualitative.
and you just acknowledged that free will is "experiential" (QUALITATIVE)
Yeah, and observations are
experiential too, are you working up another semantic false dichotomy?
and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid.
the claim "free-will is a real and valid concept" is the claim that requires empirical demonstration
It’s probably
the most empirically demonstrated thing ever, the fact that we all observe it
every waking moment empirically demonstrates it, the fact that you are making
an argument empirically demonstrates it.
in the same way that the claim "bigfoot is a real and valid concept" requires empirical demonstration
I don’t
know, maybe all you have to do take a definition of the word “big” and a
definition of the word “foot” and draw a conclusion that it means something
else, add fairy dust and unicorns, and repeat it three times, won’t that work?
in the same way that the claim "god is a real and valid concept" requires empirical demonstration
Which God are you talking about?
-->
@Sidewalker
--> @3RU7ALfree-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherentOh pulease, how about you explain this logically incoherent statement.Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random - - WILL cannot be random - - FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences - - FREE is incompatible with WILLThe problem here is that this argument is simply a contrived dilemma designed to give the false appearance that it addresses the problem of free will when all it really does is put forth a false dichotomy logical fallacy; these two premises and their conclusions are not exhaustive, which is to say that they are not the only two options. This is compounded by the fact that both arguments 1 and 2 are logically invalid premises.
Regarding the first conditional statement (#1); “caused by previous influences”, is not a logically conclusive process, the physical evidence has never justified the presumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the second conditional statement (#2); “indistinguishable from random”. This argument introduces the logical fallacy of composition, while it may be true that randomness occurs in some quantum events, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to leap from the fact that some events are uncaused and involve chance, to characterize all events as undetermined and random. It does not logically follow that if indeterminism is true, which appears to be a scientific fact about reality, that all events are therefore undetermined and random, and therefore we cannot be in control of our will. Chance can indeed generate alternative possibilities for thought and action without being the necessary cause of our actions, which is to say that they can be adequately determined and therefore free will can exist and be compatible with determinism or indeterminism.
Your argument is logically refuted on all levels; the structure of the argument is a logical fallacy, as are both of its premises.
Free will was exercised by Eve when she decided to eat the forbidden fruit because she desired knowledge.
Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
But it can also be said Adam was coerced by Eve and lacked free will.
-->
@Sidewalker
or present an alternative third optionOK, let’s go with the real world, perhaps as science tells us it is. The deterministic laws of Newtonian mechanics have been subsumed into stochastic laws of quantum and chaos theory, and relativistic models of multidimensional space/time. But unless I missed a memo, the scientific world did not conclude that therefore everything is random, cause and effect are no longer valid, and there is nothing but anarchy and chaos.
mixing "caused" and "uncaused" is NOT a "third option"
please present your third option that does NOT contain (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused events
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Free Will is contradictory an omniscient God and it's contradictory to life in general whether and omniscient God exists. Freedom is one thing. Free Will is another entirely. If we had free will then we could make whatever choices we want and follow through on them. We can't for all sorts of reasons money, attitude, upbringing, place of birth, type of government in our country. There's a reason psychology exist because people are predictable animals. We rarely if ever change and we really with ever step outside our comfort zone. You're freedom lets you to make choices in regards to what you eat, who you marry, if you have kids, in some way where you live and what you do. Free will to make any choice you want to, at any time, no matter what, does not exist. We are slaves to nature and nurture.
well stated
-->
@3RU7AL
or present an alternative third optionOK, let’s go with the real world, perhaps as science tells us it is. The deterministic laws of Newtonian mechanics have been subsumed into stochastic laws of quantum and chaos theory, and relativistic models of multidimensional space/time. But unless I missed a memo, the scientific world did not conclude that therefore everything is random, cause and effect are no longer valid, and there is nothing but anarchy and chaos.
mixing "caused" and "uncaused" is NOT a "third option"
Oh, sorry, I'm just not that familiar with your magical world of fairy dust and incantations, so let me get this straight, a false dichotomy rules in your fantasy world?
please present your third option that does NOT contain (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused events
I don't know, if you don't accept the real world of logic and science, I'm sort of at a loss, but hey, your fantasy world with the fairy dust and unicorns does sound pretty cool, but without the requisite drugs, I'm afraid I'll just have to stick with the real world.
If I did decide to enter into your false dichotomy world, is there a magic word I say three times or what?
Oh, and mixing nouns and verbs is not an option, provide a response that does not contain (Either) nouns (OR) verbs.
-->
@Sidewalker
I don't know, if you don't accept the real world of logic and science,
logic is defined as a sequence of CAUSAL relationships
science requires INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of results
neither science nor logic offer any support for the validity of free-will
-->
@Sidewalker
i personally feel god's love in my heart
and that's how i know god is verified by science
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't know, if you don't accept the real world of logic and science,
logic is defined as a sequence of CAUSAL relationships
science requires INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of results
neither science nor logic offer any support for the validity of free-will
Please tell me more about your fantastic world on magic fairy dust and unicorns.
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Sidewalkeri personally feel god's love in my heartand that's how i know god is verified by science
According to you, “science requires INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of results.”
How is science able to independently verify your personal feeling god's love in your heart?
-->
@Sidewalker
Please tell me more about your fantastic world on magic fairy dust and unicorns.
please explain to me what you mean by "science and logic"
-->
@SkepticalOne
don't you have to have a "Y" chromosome in order to be considered "male" ?No.
good to know
-->
@Shila
--> @Sidewalkeri personally feel god's love in my heartand that's how i know god is verified by scienceAccording to you, “science requires INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of results.”How is science able to independently verify your personal feeling god's love in your heart?
exactly
Whether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.
-->
@Ehyeh
Whether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.
That doesn’t make sense. Only the male sperm determine the sex of any resulting zygote.
XX chromosomes is female.
XY chromosomes is Male.
If the combination is outside of XX or XY like XXY then you are intersex.
-->
@Ehyeh
Whether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.
which one applies to god ?
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @EhyehWhether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.which one applies to god ?
God produced Jesus after gang raping Mary. So god must be normal.
Luke 1:34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God.
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God.
-->
@3RU7AL
Please tell me more about your fantastic world on magic fairy dust and unicorns.
please explain to me what you mean by "science and logic"
please provide your personally preferred definition of "explain"
and
please provide your personally preferred definition of "mean"