Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 48 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1719Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Leroy, just because atoms don't have will, doesn't mean that we, and other life-forms with brains, don't.

Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, not of atoms.

Kindest regards,

James


I don't understand why did you mentioned consciousness but anyway.....

brains are made out of matter.....agree?

matter does not have will..........agree?

therefore brains do not have will.

If chemical reactions don't have will, why making an arbitrary exception with the brain and the chemical reactions that cause the experience of will ? you can not make exceptions without justification, so what justification do you offer?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:47 pm
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 69Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Leroy, just because atoms don't have will, doesn't mean that we, and other life-forms with brains, don't.

Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, not of atoms.

Kindest regards,

James


I don't understand why did you mentioned consciousness but anyway.....

brains are made out of matter.....agree?

matter does not have will..........agree?

therefore brains do not have will.

If chemical reactions don't have will, why making an arbitrary exception with the brain and the chemical reactions that cause the experience of will ? you can not make exceptions without justification, so what justification do you offer?

A quality that is present in the whole does not necessarily have to be present in its component parts. A brain can have will just fine without matter itself having it.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:04 pm
leroyPosts: 1719Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Akamia wrote:[A quality that is present in the whole does not necessarily have to be present in its component parts. A brain can have will just fine without matter itself having it.


Granted, but given atheism, I see no good reason to think that this is the case, and no one in this forum has presented any good reason. If nothing in the universe has will, why making an arbitrary exception with the human brain? you need some justification if you what to make an exception.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:43 am
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 69Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Akamia wrote:[A quality that is present in the whole does not necessarily have to be present in its component parts. A brain can have will just fine without matter itself having it.


Granted, but given atheism, I see no good reason to think that this is the case, and no one in this forum has presented any good reason. If nothing in the universe has will, why making an arbitrary exception with the human brain? you need some justification if you what to make an exception.

"Given atheism"? What does atheism have to do with whether or not something that is true of the whole is true of its parts? What I said is true whether you're an atheist or a theist; a god (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant.

I'm not saying you're incorrect – the other guys here do a really good job of that and definitely don't need my help – what I'm saying is that you committed a logical fallacy.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:47 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2943Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Leroy, just because atoms don't have will, doesn't mean that we, and other life-forms with brains, don't.

Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, not of atoms.

Kindest regards,

James


I don't understand why did you mentioned consciousness but anyway.....

brains are made out of matter.....agree?

matter does not have will..........agree?

therefore brains do not have will.

If chemical reactions don't have will, why making an arbitrary exception with the brain and the chemical reactions that cause the experience of will ? you can not make exceptions without justification, so what justification do you offer?

Atoms aren't sweet - agree?

Sugar is made out of atoms - agree?

Sugar is sweet - agree?

So from where did the sweetness come if atoms aren't sweet?

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:22 am
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Akamia wrote:[A quality that is present in the whole does not necessarily have to be present in its component parts. A brain can have will just fine without matter itself having it.


Granted, but given atheism, I see no good reason to think that this is the case, and no one in this forum has presented any good reason. If nothing in the universe has will, why making an arbitrary exception with the human brain? you need some justification if you what to make an exception.


Who's to say only the human brain has will? Are you saying we're the only species that does? I'm certain that something we'd call "free will" (whether or not the label is entirely accurate) has been observed in not only other mammalian species but in birds as well at least. (I'm not aware of others so limit this to mammals and birds.)

Also, if I may, we can't state that "in the universe" is accurate. All we can observe from a life perspective is that on our own planet currently. The possibility that other planets with life that has evolved a brain capable of exhibiting what we'd call "will" is greater than zero.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:21 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 811Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Still :facepalm: and :lol:
leroy wrote:You are falsely accusing me for disagreeing by default, when I did not, I admitted no to understand what Harsh means with free will. So yes you are suppose to apologize.

We're now at 48 pages of comments... Would anyone care to count the number of times Leroy was told something akin to "You need to work on your reading comprehension"?
I expect it to be over two dozen times... Case in point:
You need to workd on your reading comprehension Leroy. What I did was accurately make the observation that you do not know what you are talking about AND that your default reaction is to deny or ignore the issues raised with your beliefs.

Not "disagreeing by default" with atheists but "denying and ignoring the issues raised by default".

See, I even color coded it for you. Red for how you failed to understand what was written and green for what was actually written. Did that help?

So you will be waiting for an apology for a long time because I did not do what you accused me of doing.

Will you be apologizing for your false accusation Leroy?

leroy wrote:the blunders only apply for those who reject what I defined as free will

:lol:

They are still not blunders for those who reject your piss-poor definition of will[/b]. Don't you remember how you had to and still ignore the issues raised with your list? The whole list is a blunder you made.

leroy wrote:ok so watch the video and quote anywhere where the author said something that implies that there is a difference between what he calls libertarian free will and what WHN calls will

after watching the video and acknowledging that there is not any meaningful difference you can come back and apologize for your false accusation.


Have you watched the video Leroy? How have you missed this? Quote:
[i]"An agent - being propelled by a mind - can start a whole chain of causality that wasn't caused by anything else ... Where would these "free decisions" - the ones that launch entirely new causal chains - come from? ... Are they simply random?"


Where do they come from Leroy? You argue, just as implied by Libertarian free will, that they do not come from the brain. That they are brain-less, uncaused and basically random.

Ask HWIN, ask me, ask Dragan Glass, ask anyone else here: none of us uses will as being brain-less, uncaused and random.

Go back to watch the video. After you watched the video and acknowledge that there is a meaningful difference between Libertarian free/uncaused and random/brain-less will and will you can apologize for not knowing what you are talking about when you assert that will and Libertarian free/uncaused and random/brain-less will have no differences. Then you can also apologize for accusing others of not knowing what they are talking about when they do.

And by the way Leroy, how about the blunder concerning Libertarian free will and honesty/dishonesty? Remember Leroy that You asserted that "dishonesty requires making the choice of giving false information what you have the correct information" or something akin to it?

Well if the "decision" of being dishonest is not caused by wanting to give the wrong information, how is that dishonest since wrong information has no influence on the "decision"? If "free decisions" are random-events, how are they choices between one thing and another?

That's a blunder you still haven't addressed Leroy.

I won't even ask you to answer other issues you ran away from for now (and you ran from many of them).

leroy wrote:given that there is no difference between what he calls will and what the author of the video calls libertarian free will, you have to ether accept both or reject both.

there might be a difference between will and your straw man and arbitrary understanding of libertarian free will. .....

No Leroy, just because you willfully ignore that there is a difference does not mean that it is a "given" we will just grant you.

As repeatedly stated by a lot of us here, and repeatedly ignored by you:
We accept some definitions of will but we do not accept Libertarian free/uncaused and random/brain-less will.

How many times has HWIN asked you to deal with that answer?

leroy wrote:why don't you quote the answer? do not post random links, please copy paste the exact portion where WHN answered to that question.

after you realized that such question was not answered, you can come back and apologize.

You love to imagine slights, don't you? Dragan Glass has answered you twice in his last comments. His answer was a reformulation of something that was often repeated in the 48 pages of comments.

Will you apologize for again ignoring answers that have been provided repeatedly to you? And apologize for again demanding an apology for an imagined slight?

I've never seen you apologize for something factual Leroy so why do you think anyone would apologize to you for imagined fantasies?

leroy wrote:I am pretty sure I already answered that, but I can repeat my answer if you what......


Theism allows por the possibility of will, in other words, God could have created creatures with will if he wants.

How have you justifed your exception Leroy? You've simply asserted the exception and expect us to accept it.
"There's an exception because I imagine an exception is possible" is not a justification.
What you mean is that theism "allows for the possibility of libertarian free/uncaused and random/brain-less will" but that's a bald assertion, not demonstrated in any way. Furthermore, why would god make an exception for humans and not anything else? That's special pleading.

Try again.

leroy wrote:p1 if God exist it is possible to have creatures with will (in other words the concept of will is not logically impossible)

p2 if God does not exist it would be impossible to have will

p3 we have will

therefore God exists

P3> is already granted by most of you.
P1> by granting 3 you automatically grant P1,
P2> Confirmed by every single observation, chemical reactions do not have will.

:facepalm:

Not only is that not how a logical argument works Leroy but you make a lot of flaws there:
Granting P3 does not automatically grant P1.
P2 is not confirmed by "every single observation": not only is this an undemonstrated bald assertion but it is actually contradicted by observations. That's because your working from a false equivalence between will andt Libertarian free/uncaused and random/brain-less will, again.

leroy wrote:Even though you claimed to accept will, you are constantly making comments that imply otherwise. the problem is not my reading comprehension the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about which is why you contradict yourself all the time.

That's part of your comment to HWIN but I have to ask "Really"? Demonstrate this.
Because everyone thinks this comment applies to you and we demonstrate that all the time. You however? Not so much.

You use will andt Libertarian free/uncaused and random/brain-less will interchangeably when everyone except for you state that do not have the same implication (we've been over this for pages of comments). You are completely ignorant on the matter but you've managed to fool yourself into thinking you are right so when provided with a correction, you think the correction is wrong.

leroy wrote:I don't understand why did you mentioned consciousness but anyway.....

brains are made out of matter.....agree?

matter does not have will..........agree?

therefore brains do not have will.

Everyone here knows that you do not understand ... except for you of course.

I've even ran this by my 10 year-old-niece to see if she understood, with simpler exemples:
Steel does not fly.....agree?
Planes are made out of steel.....agree?
Therefore planes do not fly


A brick does not offer shelter from the rain.....agree?
Houses are made out of brick.....agree?
Therefore houses do not offer shelter from the rain.


Raw meat is a health risk for pregnant women.....agree?
Burgers are cooked from raw meat.....agree?
Therefore burgers are a health risk for pregnant women


Interestingly enough, my niece told me that planes fly, houses offer shelter from the rain and that her mother, my sister, ate burgers while pregnant.

So I told her "But you don't understand, I used the word "Therefore" so it must be true!!!"

:lol:
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:55 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2341Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Ok so does accepting what you call free will implies accepting that constrains don't limit our choices?

If your answer is yes............., then I do not accept what you call free will, I have never made a comment that implies that I accept what you call free will, and I am not aware of any theist that accepts what you call free will. Therefore it would be irrelevant to the conversation, since everybody rejects what you call free will..............obviously constrains limit our options, for example there are constrains that prevent humans from flying, therefore to fly is not an option. there is no controversy there, we all agree.


If your answer is no,...... then I don't see any meaningful difference between will, free will and libertarian free will (as explained in the video)


Could I have that in English, please? Preferably without all the silly changes in font size.
Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:14 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3304Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
[
I never changed anything. I have never claimed to reject will for the entirety of our discussion about this. Please work on your reading comprehension
.

Even though you claimed to accept will, you are constantly making comments that imply otherwise. the problem is not my reading comprehension the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about which is why you contradict yourself all the time


As MarsCydonia has already stated, please provide a contradiction.

leroy wrote:
Because the universe is not deterministic. Twas the whole point of our discussion about radio active decay


nice try,

the fact is that particles do not have will, they do not have the ability to chose to become stable atoms, atoms do not have will...agree?

the process of radioactive decay does not include will..........agree?

weather if this process is deterministic or not depends on how you define determinism, but the fact is that this process does not involve will.


Agreed, and no one said they do. That was just to demonstrate that determinism is wrong. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:so let me repeat the question once again if nothing in the universe has will, why making an arbitrary exception with the human brain?


Who said I am doing that for just the human brain?

Beyond that, I will just repeat what Dragan Glass and MarsCydonia have already said. Perhaps reading it several times will help it stick in.

Dragan Glas wrote:Atoms aren't sweet - agree?

Sugar is made out of atoms - agree?

Sugar is sweet - agree?

So from where did the sweetness come if atoms aren't sweet?


MarsCydonia wrote:Steel does not fly.....agree?
Planes are made out of steel.....agree?
Therefore planes do not fly


A brick does not offer shelter from the rain.....agree?
Houses are made out of brick.....agree?
Therefore houses do not offer shelter from the rain.


Raw meat is a health risk for pregnant women.....agree?
Burgers are cooked from raw meat.....agree?
Therefore burgers are a health risk for pregnant women


Interestingly enough, my niece told me that planes fly, houses offer shelter from the rain and that her mother, my sister, ate burgers while pregnant.

So I told her "But you don't understand, I used the word "Therefore" so it must be true!!!"

:lol:


leroy wrote:
Are we just atoms?


no, we are more than just atoms, we are soul and spirit, but you are not suppose to believe in this stuff.


Nor do I believe in that stuff, but when was it demonstrated that we are souls and spirits (and what is the difference)? Rejecting determinism and accepting will does not lead to one accepting souls or spirits. Just an aside; rejection of deities does not mean one rejects souls or spirits (or any other supernatural thing). Again, stop equivocating.

leroy wrote:1 ....if we are just atoms (and material stuff) .........as your world view demands

2......and if material stuff has no will

conclusion...... then we should not have will

this is why your world view implies that will is just an illusion,


Again, the universe as we know it is not deterministic, thus there is no reason to conclude that we cannot make choices (at least some times). For us not to have will, the universe as we know it would have to be deterministic.

leroy wrote:As a theist I would reject 1, therefore I don't have to accept the conclusion, my world view does not imply that the conclusion is necessary true.


Yet, for some other reason (Calvinism maybe?) you believe in a being that is able to use deterministic reasoning to know our future by simply knowing our present and past. Again, you are holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head. A deity creating humans with the illusion of will is a common belief in theism. Thus, even if we accept that a deity did exist and created us, there is no reason to believe that it created will, but only the illusion of will. You still need to demonstrate that your deity can create it.

leroy wrote:
However, let us not forget that you are the one that believes in a deterministic universe, thus you are the one that does [not] accept will (free or otherwise). Again, deal with my answer and clean up your own mess.[



an other random and unelated link, this tendency of yours is annoying, why do you copy/paste the exact quote where I made such a claim?


We click the link and it leads us to where:

dandan/leroy wrote:I can predict that you will read this sentence, not because I have seen the future, nor because you where not free to decide to reed the sentence or not.

I simply know It because I know you and I know (with a high degree of certainty) that you will freely decide to reed this sentence.

God would know it with a 100% degree of certainty.


What is that? A contradiction you have? However, that is not the best example of you claiming your deity is using determinism, just the one I found first. Here is the best one:

dandan/leroy wrote:God knows your future choices for the same reason scientist know that the sun will evolve in a red star, scientists know this, not because the saw the future in a crystal ball, but because they understand stars and the physics and variables that surrounds stars, in a similar way God knows your choices, not because the future is already written, but because God knows and understands all the variables that affect your free choices.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:19 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 811Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:nice try,

the fact is that particles do not have will, they do not have the ability to chose to become stable atoms, atoms do not have will...agree?

the process of radioactive decay does not include will..........agree?

weather if this process is deterministic or not depends on how you define determinism, but the fact is that this process does not involve will.


Agreed, and no one said they do. That was just to demonstrate that determinism is wrong. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

Leroy has created this false dichotomy in his mind: Either something has libertarian free will or it is deterministic.

So when an example of something non-deterministic is provided to Leroy, such as radioactive decay, his brain-less mind does not register "non-deterministic", it register "therefore radioactive decay must have a will".


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Nor do I believe in that stuff, but when was it demonstrated that we are souls and spirits (and what is the difference)? Rejecting determinism and accepting will does not lead to one accepting souls or spirits.

And here is why I made the observation that Leroy is using will and Libertarian free/uncaused and random/brain-less will interchangeably.

Because for Leroy, if you accept will you must accept brain-less will because he does not see any "significant" difference between the two.
That's super-useful for Leroy because he does not have to support substance dualism if you "accept" it by accepting will.

And that is why Leroy must repeatedly ignore that when we accept will, it does not mean we accept Libertarian free/uncaused and random/brain-less will nor do we accept substance dualism.


Another video for Leroy to ignore the issues with his beliefs.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:55 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 811Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:God knows your future choices for the same reason scientist know that the sun will evolve in a red star, scientists know this, not because the saw the future in a crystal ball, but because they understand stars and the physics and variables that surrounds stars, in a similar way God knows your choices, not because the future is already written, but because God knows and understands all the variables that affect your free choices.

And in case you fail to see this Leroy (and you did), that is an obvious contradiction.
If a choice is "free" according to libertarian free willl then there is No variables that affects that choice.

If a variable affects it then it isn't free. Another blunder for Leroy...
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:00 pm
leroyPosts: 1719Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Dragan Glas wrote:Sugar is made out of atoms - agree?

Sugar is sweet - agree?

So from where did the sweetness come if atoms aren't sweet?

Kindest regards,

James


However there are good and positive reasons to assume that some matter is sweet, you have a justification for your belive in sweet stuff

all I am asking yo to provide is for a good reason to assume that will is not an illusion, as I said before, given atheism there are many good reasons to assume that will is an illusion.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:06 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2943Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Sugar is made out of atoms - agree?

Sugar is sweet - agree?

So from where did the sweetness come if atoms aren't sweet?

Kindest regards,

James


However there are good and positive reasons to assume that some matter is sweet, you have a justification for your belive in sweet stuff

Yes, sugars are molecules - they're "sweetness" occurs at the molecular level, not the atomic, due to how they interact with certain taste-buds on our tongues.

leroy wrote:all I am asking yo to provide is for a good reason to assume that will is not an illusion, as I said before, given atheism there are many good reasons to assume that will is an illusion.

You're the one who's claiming that will is not an illusion - why should I do your job for you.

I've pointed out that we do not have libertarian free will - that it is an illusion.

If you want to claim otherwise ti's for you to provide evidence.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:21 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 811Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:all I am asking yo to provide is for a good reason to assume that will is not an illusion, as I said before, given atheism there are many good reasons to assume that will is an illusion.

Did you not admit Leroy that you could not distinguish between the appearance of "free will" and the illusion of it?

So all you have is indeed an assumption. So what makes it a good assumption rather than a bad assumption? Can you justify it with more than just your subjective opinion?

And your falsely equating will, with Libertarian free/uncaused and random/brain-less will, again.

But by now, everyone knows that you use will in your own very special way :lol:
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:36 pm
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 69Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:Can you justify it with more than just your subjective opinion?


I read that as "subjective onion" for some reason.

Either I'm really hungry right now, or I'm somewhat convinced it's gonna be more of the same stuff out of Leroy again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:55 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3304Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:all I am asking yo to provide is for a good reason to assume that will is not an illusion, as I said before, given atheism there are many good reasons to assume that will is an illusion.

Did you not admit Leroy that you could not distinguish between the appearance of "free will" and the illusion of it?


He claimed that he could use confirmation bias to conclude free will over the illusion of free will after admitting that he could not empirically distinguish between the two. Honestly, at this point, I think a better question is what is the difference between will and the illusion of will? How could one honestly distinguish between the two and why is one better?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:58 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 811Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:He claimed that he could use confirmation bias to conclude free will over the illusion of free will[/url] after admitting that he could not empirically distinguish between the two. Honestly, at this point, I think a better question is what is the difference between will and the illusion of will? How could one honestly distinguish between the two and why is one better?

Though he never mentionned it, I assume he did not like when the video said that this is piss-poor and no justification at all:
Good philosophical reasoning recommends that you reject it

But the world according to Leroy? "Something that is not good reasoning recommends that you buy blindy into it"?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:17 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:He claimed that he could use confirmation bias to conclude free will over the illusion of free will after admitting that he could not empirically distinguish between the two. Honestly, at this point, I think a better question is what is the difference between will and the illusion of will? How could one honestly distinguish between the two and why is one better?


Shouldn't this thread be called "Blunders that Leroy makes all the time"?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:58 pm
leroyPosts: 1719Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:Still :
Have you watched the video Leroy? How have you missed this? Quote:
"An agent - being propelled by a mind - can start a whole chain of causality that wasn't caused by anything else ... Where would these "free decisions" - the ones that launch entirely new causal chains - come from? ... Are they simply random?"[


No you idiot, that is the definition of agent causation not the definition of libertarian free will

Image

this is the definition of libertarian free will (according to the video)
Image

which sounds pretty much the same thing as Will.


Where do they come from Leroy? You argue, just as implied by Libertarian free will, that they do not come from the brain. That they are brain-less, uncaused and basically random
.

There is a difference between the definition of something and the implication of something.


the definition of free will, will, libertarian free will etc. is.........The ability to make choices


the implication (I would argue)...

I all the brainless stuff that you are talking about.


one can accept the definition and reject the implication.


anyway, you are not worthy my time, unless you apologice for your lies and admit your mistake, I wont even reed your comments.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:28 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 811Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
MarsCydonia wrote:Still :
Have you watched the video Leroy? How have you missed this? Quote:
"An agent - being propelled by a mind - can start a whole chain of causality that wasn't caused by anything else ... Where would these "free decisions" - the ones that launch entirely new causal chains - come from? ... Are they simply random?"[


No you idiot, that is the definition of agent causation not the definition of libertarian free will

Image

this is the definition of libertarian free will (according to the video)
Image

which sounds pretty much the same thing as Will.


Where do they come from Leroy? You argue, just as implied by Libertarian free will, that they do not come from the brain. That they are brain-less, uncaused and basically random
.

There is a difference between the definition of something and the implication of something.


the definition of free will, will, libertarian free will etc. is.........The ability to make choices


the implication (I would argue)...

I all the brainless stuff that you are talking about.


one can accept the definition and reject the implication.


anyway, you are not worthy my time, unless you apologice for your lies and admit your mistake, I wont even reed your comments.

:lol:

Seriously though, :lol:

You asked if "quote anywhere where the author said something that implies that there is a difference between what he calls libertarian free will and what WHN calls will" and that was exactly it Leroy.

Libertarian free will is about the ability of agent starting chains of events "freely" or causelessly. That's what libertarian free will is. Now look at what HWIN's calls will. Is there anything that implies causelessness in his?

And keep on wishing Leroy... Maybe reality will change to what you think it is if wish really, really hard but chances are that reality will remain the same ;)
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Last edited by MarsCydonia on Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:54 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 48 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MarsCydonia and 9 guests