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 52 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
momo666Posts: 30Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
MarsCydonia wrote:P1: Free will requires that person X is able to freely choose between actions (i.e. can choose to do either action/A or choose to do otherwise/B)
P2: God has the knowledge that person X will choose A
P3: God's knowledge cannot be imperfect
C1: From P2 and P3, X cannot choose B as god's knowledge would be imperfect
C2: Therefore, from P1 and C1, X cannot have free will as he is not free to choose B



that doesn't follow, sure you can choose B, in which case Gods knowledge would have been different.

Gods knowledge is determined by your choices. you choices are not determined by Gods knowledge..........see the difference?


Come on leroy.....
Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:44 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:that doesn't follow, sure you can choose B, in which case Gods knowledge would have been different.

Gods knowledge is determined by your choices. you choices are not determined by Gods knowledge..........see the difference

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.

: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
Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:53 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[
No it does not. It just means the universe is not deterministic. Nothing about the ability to make a choice sometimes has anything to do with a metaphysical anything. First off, you have not demonstrated that there is a metaphysical anything nor have you linked a metaphysical anything to our ability to make a choice sometimes. You are missing a few steps. [


granted, the claim that will is metaphysical represents an additional step that requires justification. I apologize for that leap.


Justification that I doubt you can provide.

leroy wrote:however that doesn't change the fact that you believe in a phenomena for which there is no evidence other than your own personal experience and that cant be explained by any known natural law.


:facepalm:

Is the universe deterministic? No. Than the ability to make a choice sometimes stems from that. You have not shown a reason to doubt that and went out of your way to say that will and the illusion of will cannot be distinguished. Again, I await for you to give us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will. Until that is done, your questioning me about it is pointless.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:59 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

So you still refuse to admit to your mistakes? At least you didn't attempt to blatantly rewrite history this time but how do you think this makes you look Leroy?

leroy wrote:I have nothing else to add, I don't believe in what you call libertarian free will,....... I don't believe in what you call free options.

So you reject libertarian free will as explained in the Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24 video, which is essentially in agreement with most theologians and philosopher's understanding of libertarian free will.

You already hinted as much when you stated that you never said we're "fully" free and that "free" choices are not free from variables. I have no doubt that you fail to understand how full freedom is important for libertarian free will: as I've been over this, there is no pratical difference between "free" and "fully" free, there is no "partial freedom". Either your decisions as an agent are free or they are influenced, that is the dichotomy within the philosophy of libertarian free will.

leroy wrote:yes libertarian free will as explained in the video has the nearly the same definition than will and has the same implication.

So you reject will as well? You reject the implications of libertarian free will and they're the same as will...

leroy wrote:both will and libertarian free will imply agent causation. but this implication weather true or not is not relevant.

Well, we know that you reject agent causation as you reject that choices are free from variables., that is that human actions are freely chosen/uncaused.

leroy wrote:believing in will implies that you believe in a metaphysical phenomena, for which there is no evidence other than your own personal experience, and that cant be explained by any known natural laws,

Which "will"? Will as the rest of understand it? "Leroy's definition of will"? If so, which one? "Leroy's definition of will, version 1"? "Leroy's definition of will, version 2"? etc.

But for will, it really doesn't. You're sneaking in this assumption completely absent a soundly justified link between the two. If you want to argue for dualism then argue for it. The "if you accept will therefore you accept dualism" is easily seen through for the bull it is.

leroy wrote:don't believing in will implies that that you would be guilty of committing all the blunders mentioned in the first post, for example if one had no other option one can not be blamed for being dishonest, morally wrong of for having an irrational world view.

:lol:
It still does not make that implication Leroy because your "blunders" aren't as it has been repeatedly explained to you.

I'd be more worried about my beliefs if I believed in "Leroy's definition of will" and its blunders:
- The blunder that god has no free will
- The blunder of defending free will with determinism.
- The blunder that "free will" does not actually require will to be free.
Etc.

And through all of this Leroy, you never made the "not-free-from-variables-free-choice" of learning from your mistakes...
"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
Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:01 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
:facepalm:

Is the universe deterministic? No. Than the ability to make a choice sometimes stems from that. You have not shown a reason to doubt that and went out of your way to say that will and the illusion of will cannot be distinguished. Again, I await for you to give us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will. Until that is done, your questioning me about it is pointless.




You've been told multiple times both by Harsh and By me,

the fact that we live in a non deterministic universe does not prove that we have will, because the illusion of will is also posible in a deterministic universe.

I await for you to give us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will.


You cant test them, this is the point that I have been making,


therefore the conclusion is that you believe in something (will) in something that cant be tested, and that has no evidence other than your own personal experience. agree?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:25 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:You already hinted as much when you stated that you never said we're "fully" free and that "free" choices are not free from variables. I have no doubt that you fail to understand how full freedom is important for libertarian free will: as I've been over this, there is no pratical difference between "free" and "fully" free, there is no "partial freedom". Either your decisions as an agent are free or they are influenced, that is the dichotomy within the philosophy of libertarian free will.


You have a mess of ideas in your mind, I don't accept in your strawman understanding of libertarian free will,




Believing in will, as defined by HWN, implies believing in something that cant be tested, has no evidence other than your own personal experience and cant be explained by known natural laws or mechanisms ...............agree?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:35 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

What is entertaining with Leroy is,despite your attempts to rewrite history to erase your blunders and then you're attempt to simply ignore them, that we can always count on you to make up some new blunders.

Leroy wrote:You have a mess of ideas in your mind, I don't accept in your strawman understanding of libertarian free will,


:lol: and :lol:

:lol: #1: My ideas are very clear Leroy, perhaps you find them confusing due to your numerous contradictions? I've pointed out a large number of your contradictions and I've not been the only one to spot some. What exactly do you find confusing?

:lol: #2: Do you know what strawman is? A strawman is misreprenstation of an argument. So "strawman understanding makes little to no sense. How am I misreprenting my own understanding? Or are you saying that I am misrepresenting libertarian free will?

Except how did I do that? I've provided quotes and explanations of libertarian free will entails. While you, you have provided nothing... except a blundering defense that "free" choices are can be contrainsned by a "limited budget" which I've shown to be a ridiculous equivalence between options and choices.

So should I bring back quotes of your words? Where you stated that never said that "free" choices are fully free? Or that variables influence "free" choices?

Ok then Leroy, if you want to go back to the beginning of your attempt to sneak dualism in with "Leroy's definition of will", can you provide an explanation of what you think "Leroy's definition of will" that is not piss-poor? Something that once asked to clarify is not something as ridiculous as "not free from variables but brain-free"?

Leroy wrote:Believing in will, as defined by HWN, implies believing in something that cant be tested, has no evidence other than your own personal experience and cant be explained by known natural laws or mechanisms ...............agree?

Or are you finally dropping dualism from the implicaitons of "Leroy's definition of will"?
"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 Mar 16, 2017 3:27 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
:lol: #1: My ideas are very clear Leroy, perhaps you find them confusing due to your numerous contradictions? I've pointed out a large number of your contradictions and I've not been the only one to spot some. What exactly do you find confusing?[


Strop pretending that I have made contradictions, every single claim that I have made is consistent with other claim, every time you quote a supposed contradiction, I explain why it is not a contradiction, and always without exception you pretend not to understand a repeat the same false accusation.


:lol: #2: Do you know what strawman is? A strawman is misreprenstation of an argument. So "strawman understanding makes little to no sense. How am I misreprenting my own understanding? Or are you saying that I am misrepresenting libertarian free will?


Yes you are misrepresenting libertarian free will, as explained in the Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy.


Except how did I do that? I've provided quotes and explanations of libertarian free will entails. While you, you have provided nothing... except a blundering defense that "free" choices are can be contrainsned by a "limited budget" which I've shown to be a ridiculous equivalence between options and choices.


you see I already provided an example of something that would be a free choice with a variable affecting your choice......If I have a limited budget I am more likely to buy something cheap, but I am always free to steal money, use my credit card, etc. and buy something expensive

if this doesn't count as free choice , then I don't believe in what you would call a free choice.


So should I bring back quotes of your words? Where you stated that never said that "free" choices are fully free? Or that variables influence "free" choices?


Yes, I would argue that we don't have what you call fully free choices, yes variables can affect free choices. there is no contradiction.


my view is that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option?............is that so hard to understand? ............stop playing word games, we both know that you are just sending red hearings, because you know that this statement is true, and that you cant do anything to refute it.




Leroy wrote:Believing in will, as defined by HWN, implies believing in something that cant be tested, has no evidence other than your own personal experience and cant be explained by known natural laws or mechanisms ...............agree?



even if I grant all your previous statements, it is still a fact that you haven't provided any argument or evidence against this implication.


so do you accept the implication?./........do you accept that believing in will, as defined by HWN, implies believing in something that cant be tested, has no evidence other than your own personal experience and cant be explained by known natural laws or mechanisms?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:50 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Strop pretending that I have made contradictions, every single claim that I have made is consistent with other claim, every time you quote a supposed contradiction, I explain why it is not a contradiction, and always without exception you pretend not to understand a repeat the same false accusation.

Well that will be easy as I don't have to stop something I never started: there is no pretense at all.

You either lack the capacity to understand your contradictions or the honesty to admit to them but just because you do not see them or because you deny them does not mean that they are not there.

- Defending free will with determinism is a contradiction (one that HWIN also pointed out to you).
- Saying that free choices do not require freedom is a contradiction.
I'll even remind you of an old one that I still find funny:
- Saying that an accurate statement is a "blunder", that's a contradiction

Oh and Leroy, do you still maintain that god lacks free will as supported by your own words? Or was that a contradiction?
Should I quote you to help you remember what you wrote?

leroy wrote:Yes you are misrepresenting libertarian free will, as explained in the Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy.

How did you reach this conclusion?
-I have presented quotes and explanations that you have not shown to be false or incorrect.
-You asserted that free choices do not require freedom.

So really Leroy, you need to do better than "because I say so" to convince anyone other than yourself that you're not the one who clearly does not understand what libertarian free will is.

leroy wrote:you see I already provided an example of something that would be a free choice with a variable affecting your choice......If I have a limited budget I am more likely to buy something cheap, but I am always free to steal money, use my credit card, etc. and buy something expensive

Holy shit Leroy! Are you using something I pointed out to you? It looks like you did. Are you... learning?
MarsCydonia wrote:Your "limited budget" does not influence your options because you had other options such as stealing your lunch or stealing money to pay for it. Your options are practically limitless.

But it seems your stopped learning there.
Think about it Leroy, why is it more likely that you will buy something cheap?
Why is it less likely that you will not choose other options such as stealing?
How is the less likely option equally free when you admit that there is not an equal chance to choose it?
How do you define freedom of choice when your "choices" are not as free?

But there's no contradictions there...

leroy wrote:if this doesn't count as free choice , then I don't believe in what you would call a free choice.

Yes, I would argue that we don't have what you call fully free choices, yes variables can affect free choices. there is no contradiction.

I know you don't believe in free choices Leroy. That is the issue.
- Libertarian free will requires that actions are freely chosen. That means free from influencing variables that influence the choice will be one thing rather than the other (which thus means the other is not freely realisable).
- "Leroy's definition of will, interchangeable with "Leroy's definition of free will and "Leroy's definition of libertarian will only requires freedom from one thing: the brain.

Because what is important to you (as we've seen when you asserted (then ran from your blunder) that god does not have free will), is not actually that the choices be free but be brain-less. You're simply trying to sneak-in dualism, the freedom of the choices is of second importance.

leroy wrote:my view is that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option?............is that so hard to understand? ............stop playing word games, we both know that you are just sending red hearings, because you know that this statement is true, and that you cant do anything to refute it.

Why would I wish to refute your agreement with me?
MarsCydonia wrote:we, humans who are not brain-less, have options and picks options

But that in no way makes the leap to dualism that you're always attempting.

Leroy wrote:even if I grant all your previous statements, it is still a fact that you haven't provided any argument or evidence against this implication.

so do you accept the implication?./........do you accept that believing in will, as defined by HWN, implies believing in something that cant be tested, has no evidence other than your own personal experience and cant be explained by known natural laws or mechanisms?

Are you finally dropping dualism from the implications of "Leroy's definition of will"?
Edited to correct some spelling mistakes
"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 Mar 17, 2017 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:38 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
:facepalm:

Is the universe deterministic? No. Than the ability to make a choice sometimes stems from that. You have not shown a reason to doubt that and went out of your way to say that will and the illusion of will cannot be distinguished. Again, I await for you to give us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will. Until that is done, your questioning me about it is pointless.




You've been told multiple times both by Harsh and By me,

the fact that we live in a non deterministic universe does not prove that we have will, because the illusion of will is also posible in a deterministic universe.


Yeah, I know I have been told that by both of you, but neither one of you have demonstrated that. Feel free to start.

leroy wrote:
I await for you to give us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will.


You cant test them, this is the point that I have been making,


If one cannot test between them, than they are not different in any meaningful way. Thus, you constant questioning about them was truly pointless and you knew it the whole time.

leroy wrote:therefore the conclusion is that you believe in something (will) in something that cant be tested, and that has no evidence other than your own personal experience. agree?


I disagree. Again, will is possible because the universe is not deterministic. Since we can test and demonstrate that the universe is not deterministic, than will is possible. Again, feel free to prove me wrong about this, and not just declare it like you have been.

MarsCydonia wrote:Should I quote you to help you remember what you wrote?


Yes, since dandan/leroy has the memory of a goldfish.

Image
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:29 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Yes, since dandan/leroy has the memory of a goldfish.

Well let's see what we can find (for Leroy to then ignore and/or deny):
Leroy wrote:
MarsCydonia wrote:...Can someone who cannot make the choice to be honest (tell the truth) or be dishonest (lie) have free will?...

the answer is no

Leroy wrote:God cant learn, god cant lie

So someone that cannot lie cannot have free will... And god cannot lie...
But that's ok, because god is irrelevant and we should exclude it from conversations about free will...
Leroy wrote:that is a red hearing we are talking about human free will, Gods atributes are irrelevant in this particular conversation

:D
"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
Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:39 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy
the fact that we live in a non deterministic universe does not prove that we have will, because the illusion of will is also posible in a deterministic universe.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Yeah, I know I have been told that by both of you, but neither one of you have demonstrated that. Feel free to start.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

do we really have to prove that illusions are possible in this universe?..........you belive that God and religious experiences are illusions/delusions........this proves that you grant that illusions/delusions are possible,



If one cannot test between them, than they are not different in any meaningful way. Thus, you constant questioning about them was truly pointless and you knew it the whole time.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

the fact that 2 hypothesis cant be tested does no prove that they are the same thing,



I disagree. Again, will is possible because the universe is not deterministic. Since we can test and demonstrate that the universe is not deterministic, than will is possible. Again, feel free to prove me wrong about this, and not just declare it like you have been.



yes both will and the illusion of will are possible in a non deterministic universe. we know this because we know that illusions/delusions are possible, we know that the human brain can create illusions/delusions this has been observed......... the fact that is that you accept will over the illusion of will, even tough you don't have evidence other than your own personal experience.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:02 pm
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 90Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
If one cannot test between them, than they are not different in any meaningful way. Thus, you constant questioning about them was truly pointless and you knew it the whole time.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

the fact that 2 hypothesis cant be tested does no prove that they are the same thing,


The problem in this case isn't that they can't be tested full-stop, it's that you can't test to determine if it's one or the other. Have you ever heard of a "distinction without a difference"? It's a very similar concept to what's happening right now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:48 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
leroy
the fact that we live in a non deterministic universe does not prove that we have will, because the illusion of will is also posible in a deterministic universe.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Yeah, I know I have been told that by both of you, but neither one of you have demonstrated that. Feel free to start.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

do we really have to prove that illusions are possible in this universe?..........you belive that God and religious experiences are illusions/delusions........this proves that you grant that illusions/delusions are possible,


Yes, and you have done nothing to link illusions to will besides declaring it.

leroy wrote:
If one cannot test between them, than they are not different in any meaningful way. Thus, you constant questioning about them was truly pointless and you knew it the whole time.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

the fact that 2 hypothesis cant be tested does no prove that they are the same thing,


I am telling you to wake me up when you are able to test for a meaningful difference between the two. Otherwise, all your pontificating about it seems pointless. One might as well talking about how many angels can fit on the head of a needle or if the Hulk could be the Juggernaut in a fight.

To say this another way:

Akamia wrote:The problem in this case isn't that they can't be tested full-stop, it's that you can't test to determine if it's one or the other. Have you ever heard of a "distinction without a difference"? It's a very similar concept to what's happening right now.


leroy wrote:
I disagree. Again, will is possible because the universe is not deterministic. Since we can test and demonstrate that the universe is not deterministic, than will is possible. Again, feel free to prove me wrong about this, and not just declare it like you have been.



yes both will and the illusion of will are possible in a non deterministic universe. we know this because we know that illusions/delusions are possible, we know that the human brain can create illusions/delusions this has been observed......... the fact that is that you accept will over the illusion of will, even tough you don't have evidence other than your own personal experience.


No. The fact is you have not given us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will. Again, until this is done, all your banter about it is moot.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:46 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:- Defending free will with determinism is a contradiction (one that HWIN also pointed out to you).
- Saying that free choices do not require freedom is a contradiction.
I'll even remind you of an old one that I still find funny:
- Saying that an accurate statement is a "blunder", that's a contradiction


this are not contradictions, because you arbitrarily changed the meaning of words, I don't believe (or at least I don't grant) what you call "free choices" nor what you call "freedom"



If you go back to the beginning of this conversation, all the way back to post number 1, and up to this point, you will find out that I am just making 2 very modest and uncontroversial points.


1 rejecting will (as defined by HWN) implies making all the blunders that I mentioned, for example calling someone dishonest would be a blunder, if he had no other option, .....because to be dishonest implies that you HAD the option of being honest. and to have options implies will

given that you don't deny will, you are not guilty of committing this blunder.


2 accepting will, implies accepting something for which there is no empirical evidence, other than your own personal and subjetive experience, and that cant be explained with known natural laws .....since apparently we all grant will (except for Harsh) then we are all forced to admit that at least sometimes it is "ok" to accept a reality based on your own personal experiences, even if there is no evidence..........I personally don't find this problematic, but many atheist feel uncomfortable with this point.

these are the only 2 points that I ve been trying to make, since the very beginning, everything else where just red hearings, and words games, design to move the attention away from this 2 points.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:19 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

Yes, and you have done nothing to link illusions to will besides declaring it.



well we know that illusions are possible in this universe, we know that it is possible to have a delusion, ........this all we need to show that will could been a delusion.




I am telling you to wake me up when you are able to test for a meaningful difference between the two.



one wonders what you mean by "meaningful".....but as I told you before, according to our experience we have will, will is real, at least sometimes we really have more than 1 option, this is what our experience tells us.

for me this is meanignfull, because I grant that personal experiences are a good source of knowlege,


but if that is not your case, and you don´t see any meaniflul difference, between will and the illusion of will, then why do you belive in will? shouldn't you adopt a skeptic position? (like harsh did)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:30 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
P1: Free will requires that person X is able to freely choose between actions (i.e. can choose to do either action/A or choose to do otherwise/B)
P2: God has the knowledge that person X will choose A
P3: God's knowledge cannot be imperfect
C1: From P2 and P3, X cannot choose B as god's knowledge would be imperfect
C2: Therefore, from P1 and C1, X cannot have free will as he is not free to choose B


This isn't going to be helpful to the conversation, apologies in advance, but I'm stuck here.

"P1: Free will requires that person X is able to freely choose between actions (i.e. can choose to do either action/A or choose to do otherwise/B)"

While there are times that we seem to have free will (be it real or illusionary), there are other times we don't, when we react instinctively or subconsciously and only significant efforts *may* change our minds. I don't see P1 as "all encompassing".

"P2: God has the knowledge that person X will choose A"

I guess I don't need to go into why I consider this fallacious, assigning properties to something that doesn't exist... :)
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:47 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

Yes, and you have done nothing to link illusions to will besides declaring it.



well we know that illusions are possible in this universe, we know that it is possible to have a delusion, ........this all we need to show that will could been a delusion.


:facepalm:

Could be is not is. Just because someting could be does not mean it is. You need more then "it could be" as an argument.

leroy wrote:
I am telling you to wake me up when you are able to test for a meaningful difference between the two.



one wonders what you mean by "meaningful".....but as I told you before, according to our experience we have will, will is real, at least sometimes we really have more than 1 option, this is what our experience tells us.


Meaningful is a way to test between will and the illusion of will. Yet, you already went out of your way to say we cannot do this.

Beyond that, I am not using my subjective experience. Will would be an illusion if the universe was determonistic. The universe is not, thus will is possible.

leroy wrote:for me this is meanignfull, because I grant that personal experiences are a good source of knowlege,


Yeah, we all know you are gullible. You should not be proud of that.

leroy wrote:but if that is not your case, and you don´t see any meaniflul difference, between will and the illusion of will, then why do you belive in will? shouldn't you adopt a skeptic position? (like harsh did)


Who said I am not skeptical of it? The problem is, you have only come up with a piss-poor declaration against what I have said. Just because you are unable to mount a good argument, does not mean there are no arguments against will. I am simply waiting for you to present one, instead of floundering around trying to make mountains out of nothing.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:16 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
:facepalm:

Could be is not is. Just because someting could be does not mean it is. You need more then "it could be" as an argument.


Aja......So in a non deterministic universe, will could be real or it could be an illusion............... agree? both are possibilities.

So why do you accept will? why do you prefer the will scenario instead of the illusion scenario?.............can you provide any evidence that would make the will scenario more probably true than the illusion scenario?......if not, then why do you believe in will?

when someone prefers one hypothesis over the other, you most have good reasons, so what are those good reasons.



Meaningful is a way to test between will and the illusion of will. Yet, you already went out of your way to say we cannot do this.


well given that you cant test them, why do you prefer the will scenario over the illusion scenario?

Beyond that, I am not using my subjective experience. Will would be an illusion if the universe was determonistic. The universe is not, thus will is possible.


yes, and the illusion of will is also possible, given that both scenarios are possible, why do you prefer one scenario over the other?


Who said I am not skeptical of it? The problem is, you have only come up with a piss-poor declaration against what I have said. Just because you are unable to mount a good argument, does not mean there are no arguments against will. I am simply waiting for you to present one, instead of floundering around trying to make mountains out of nothing.




why should I provide good arguments against will, if both of us believe in will?...............my point is and has always been that there are no arguments for will, except for your own personal experience. .............if you disagree feel free to prove me wrong, provide an argument for will that would show that the will scenario is more probably true than the illusion scenario.


the fact that we live in a non deterministic universe does not make the will scenario more probable than the illusion scenario. (unless you prove otherwise)

Who said I am not skeptical of it?


sure, given that there is no conclusive evidence for any of the sides, we should remain skeptical and open minded...........but that fact is that both of us believe that the will scenario is more probably true than the illusion scenario, I just what to know why you think that.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:52 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
:facepalm:

Could be is not is. Just because someting could be does not mean it is. You need more then "it could be" as an argument.


Aja......So in a non deterministic universe, will could be real or it could be an illusion............... agree? both are possibilities.


Agree.

leroy wrote:So why do you accept will? why do you prefer the will scenario instead of the illusion scenario?.............can you provide any evidence that would make the will scenario more probably true than the illusion scenario?......if not, then why do you believe in will?


Thus far, you have not given us a meaningful reason to separate will from the illusion of will, and you already went out of your way to say we cannot do this. That is why. Beyond that, I keep saying that will is possible, not that I accept it.

leroy wrote:when someone prefers one hypothesis over the other, you most have good reasons, so what are those good reasons.


You have not provided a meaningful difference between will and the illusion of will. You might as well be asking me if someone is a bachelor or unmarried.

leroy wrote:
Meaningful is a way to test between will and the illusion of will. Yet, you already went out of your way to say we cannot do this.


well given that you cant test them, why do you prefer the will scenario over the illusion scenario?


Because you have not given us a meaningful way to test them, thus they are indistinguishable at this point. Essentially, because you have so utterly failed to make a meaningful distinction between the two, I accept both at the same time. Just like I accept that someone can be a bachelor and unmarried at the same time.

leroy wrote:
Beyond that, I am not using my subjective experience. Will would be an illusion if the universe was determonistic. The universe is not, thus will is possible.


yes, and the illusion of will is also possible, given that both scenarios are possible, why do you prefer one scenario over the other?


Because you have not given us a meaningful way to test them, thus they are indistinguishable at this point. Essentially, because you have so utterly failed to make a meaningful distinction between the two, I accept both at the same time. Just like I accept that someone can be a bachelor and unmarried at the same time.

leroy wrote:
Who said I am not skeptical of it? The problem is, you have only come up with a piss-poor declaration against what I have said. Just because you are unable to mount a good argument, does not mean there are no arguments against will. I am simply waiting for you to present one, instead of floundering around trying to make mountains out of nothing.




why should I provide good arguments against will, if both of us believe in will?


Because, you are the one making a big song and dance about it and have been for the last several pages.

leroy wrote:my point is and has always been that there are no arguments for will, except for your own personal experience.


Wrong. I have made that argument several times now. Work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:if you disagree feel free to prove me wrong, provide an argument for will that would show that the will scenario is more probably true than the illusion scenario.


Again, you have not given us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will. At this point, will and the illusion of will are as different as a bachelor and an unmarried man.

leroy wrote:the fact that we live in a non deterministic universe does not make the will scenario more probable than the illusion scenario. (unless you prove otherwise)


What you are calling will and the illusion of will have no meaningful difference, thus I have no reason to make a distinction between them.

leroy wrote:
Who said I am not skeptical of it?


sure, given that there is no conclusive evidence for any of the sides, we should remain skeptical and open minded...........but that fact is that both of us believe that the will scenario is more probably true than the illusion scenario, I just what to know why you think that.


No. I think you have not made a meaningful distinction between what you are calling will and the illusion of will. This is where we are at right now. Make that distinction and we can move forward, otherwise, admit that you cannot and you have just been wasting time asking for something that I cannot answer because you failed to give us a meaningful difference between the two.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:55 pm
YIM WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 52 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ldmitruk and 5 guests