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 49 of 61
 [ 1216 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1056Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:As MarsCydonia has already stated, please provide a contradiction.


well on dicember 29 you claimed to reject libertarian free will (as defined in the video) and then you came back and affirm that you believe in will. eventhough libertarian free will and will have pretty much the same definition.

Image[

leroy wrote:
When it comes to human choice, and based on the definitions provided in the video are you a determinist or a libertarian?


your reply...........
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am neither. They both are wrong
.


you claimed to accept this definition of determinsim
The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will


then you changed your mind
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Look at that. Dandan was correct about something. I was wrong to agree with this definition of determinism and dandan correctly pointed out why that is the case. Thank you for the correction. I guess I should stop half-assing these replies, otherwise there could be more egg on my face in the future




you even said (or implied) that human choice is just a random stochastic event (like the decay of atoms), which implies that will is jut an illusion

However, I will make this easy. Given nature, we already know of things that are not deterministic. A famous example is the decay rates of isotopes. Radio active decay is a statastic process, in which we can measure and predict the amount of parent to daughter isotope in a given substance. However, we are not able to predict which isotope is going to decay. That is truly a random event we observe in nature. Given that such a simple process of radioactive decay can be random, why would we assume that something as complex as life, let alone sentient life, would not also have statastic processes happening? Those statastic processes would be call will in living things.


that is ok, in most you clarify what you meant, but you have to understand that you are very hard to follow, you make comments that seem to contradict your previous comments.


But anyway, as you made it clear, you do accept that humans have the ability to make choices. (will) as oppose to determinist that would argue that human choice is an illusion.

so my question is and has always been..........

how do you reconclile will with atheism? (naturalism) ?

both scenarios the will scenario and the illusion of will scenario ere empirically equivalent, both make the same predictions and have the same explanatory power and explanatory scope.

but there are 2 arguments (aplicable if atheism is true) that strongly suggest that will is just an illusion

is nothing in the natural world has will, why making an arbitrary exception with will

it is much easier for evolution to create the illusion of will, than actual will, with this I mean that evolution could have created brains with the illusion of will, and given that these brains would have been simpler and equally good for survival than brains with actual will, one would expect this brains to predominate among intelligent agents in the universe.

the illusion scenario is more parsimonious that the will scenario.


how do you know that will is real and not an illusion? why cant you answer the question?



Sugar is made out of atoms - agree?

Sugar is sweet - agree?

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


That is a bad example because sweet is not an objetive property, but I understand the point.

however we have good reasons to think that sugar is sweet, even though almost nothing else in the universe is sweet, we have good testable reason to say that sugar is sweet.


so my question is.......

Do you have good positive reasons to assume that will is real and not an illusion?



he who is nobody
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.




I told you before multiple times and I am telling you now.........

to have will, free will, libertarian free will etc..... does not imply that human choices are unpredictable.


there is no contradiction between the existence of a being that knows your future choices and the existence of will. ...........if you disagree you would have to accept the burden proof and provide your evidence, but we both know that that is never going to happen because for some reason you believe that atheist are not obligated to present evidence.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:26 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 526Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:there is no contradiction between the existence of a being that knows your future choices and the existence of will. ...........if you disagree you would have to accept the burden proof and provide your evidence, but we both know that that is never going to happen because for some reason you believe that atheist are not obligated to present evidence.

Because you say so even when you contradict yourself when you say it? :lol:

MarsCydonia wrote:
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...
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:37 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3149Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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


If you are not going to read his comments, than how would you know if he apologizes and admits to his mistakes?

MarsCydonia wrote: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?


It does say a lot about a person when they have to cut out the question they asked, quote your response, and pretend you are addressing something different.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As MarsCydonia has already stated, please provide a contradiction.


well on dicember 29 you claimed to reject libertarian free will (as defined in the video) and then you came back and affirm that you believe in will. eventhough libertarian free will and will have pretty much the same definition.

Image[

leroy wrote:
When it comes to human choice, and based on the definitions provided in the video are you a determinist or a libertarian?


your reply...........
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am neither. They both are wrong


I first have to say that I am proud of the fact that you are actually going back and rereading our discussion. I have suggested for you to do this several times before.

However, I am still not sure why you are trying to make a mountain out of this molehill. I already realized that we were just talking passed each other and:

he_who_is_nobody on January 04, 2017 wrote:To get over this word game you are playing I will just say this; I reject the ability to choose unconstrained between freely realisable alternatives and accept the ability to decide and make choices, (at least some times). Now, are you going to deal with my answer or do you still want to play word games?


Now, do you want to keep playing word games, or would you like to actually have a discussion?

leroy wrote:you claimed to accept this definition of determinsim
The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will


then you changed your mind
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Look at that. Dandan was correct about something. I was wrong to agree with this definition of determinism and dandan correctly pointed out why that is the case. Thank you for the correction. I guess I should stop half-assing these replies, otherwise there could be more egg on my face in the future


Yes. I admitted that I was wrong and thanked you for the correction, because I was glossing over the last bit of your definition. I found a different definition that I agreed with and is used by philosophers. What is your point in retreated over a mistake I already owned up to?

leroy wrote:you even said (or implied) that human choice is just a random stochastic event (like the decay of atoms), which implies that will is jut an illusion

However, I will make this easy. Given nature, we already know of things that are not deterministic. A famous example is the decay rates of isotopes. Radio active decay is a statastic process, in which we can measure and predict the amount of parent to daughter isotope in a given substance. However, we are not able to predict which isotope is going to decay. That is truly a random event we observe in nature. Given that such a simple process of radioactive decay can be random, why would we assume that something as complex as life, let alone sentient life, would not also have statastic processes happening? Those statastic processes would be call will in living things.


that is ok, in most you clarify what you meant, but you have to understand that you are very hard to follow, you make comments that seem to contradict your previous comments.


:facepalm:

Nothing about that statement says or implies that human choice is just random. Please work on your reading comprehension. Beyond that, I still do not understand why you are bringing this up. I have clearly stated what I mean by free will, will, and determinism. Why not move forward with our discussion instead of retreated over past mistakes (real or otherwise) that I have already admitted to?

leroy wrote:But anyway, as you made it clear, you do accept that humans have the ability to make choices. (will) as oppose to determinist that would argue that human choice is an illusion.


Yes, and I said that from the start. Perhaps if you started reading my post, instead of skimming them, you would have also already known that.

leroy wrote:so my question is and has always been..........

how do you reconclile will with atheism? (naturalism) ?


Why does it need to be reconciled with naturalism? Nothing about will implies anything beyond nature. I already demonstrated that we know of things that make our universe not deterministic. Having a universe that is not deterministic is all that is needed for there to be something like will. Beyond that, atheism is irrelevant to this discussion.

leroy wrote:both scenarios the will scenario and the illusion of will scenario ere empirically equivalent, both make the same predictions and have the same explanatory power and explanatory scope.


If they are both empirically equivalent, make the same prediction, and have the same explanatory power and scope, than what is the real difference, how can we tell, and why should we care?

leroy wrote:but there are 2 arguments (aplicable if atheism is true) that strongly suggest that will is just an illusion


Again, atheism is irrelevant to this discussion. Especially since you believe the universe is so deterministic that your god knows our future based on our present and passed.

leroy wrote:is nothing in the natural world has will, why making an arbitrary exception with will


I would love to see how you demonstrated that nothing in the natural world has will.

leroy wrote:it is much easier for evolution to create the illusion of will, than actual will, with this I mean that evolution could have created brains with the illusion of will, and given that these brains would have been simpler and equally good for survival than brains with actual will, one would expect this brains to predominate among intelligent agents in the universe.

the illusion scenario is more parsimonious that the will scenario.


As I asked before, and you ignored, what is the difference between will and the illusion of will? How would one test to see the difference between the two? Based on how you described them above, there does not seem to be a difference between the two. It appears to just be some arbitrary objection you keep raising with no way to determine which we actually have.

leroy wrote:how do you know that will is real and not an illusion? why cant you answer the question?


I cannot answer the question, because you have not given me a way to tell the difference between the two, nor why I should care.

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

Sugar is sweet - agree?

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


That is a bad example because sweet is not an objetive property, but I understand the point.


How is sweet not an objective property? It seems so objective that we can make synthetic sweeteners and quantify how much sweeter they are from natural ones.

leroy wrote:however we have good reasons to think that sugar is sweet, even though almost nothing else in the universe is sweet, we have good testable reason to say that sugar is sweet.


Since you are just proclaiming that things are sweet and do not have the illusion of sweet, can I also just proclaim that we have will and not the illusion of will?

leroy wrote:so my question is.......

Do you have good positive reasons to assume that will is real and not an illusion?


Again, what is the difference between the illusion of will and will and why should we care?

leroy wrote:
he who is nobody
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.




I told you before multiple times and I am telling you now.........

to have will, free will, libertarian free will etc..... does not imply that human choices are unpredictable.


there is no contradiction between the existence of a being that knows your future choices and the existence of will. ...........if you disagree you would have to accept the burden proof and provide your evidence, but we both know that that is never going to happen because for some reason you believe that atheist are not obligated to present evidence.


You are making the claim that something can tell the future based on only past and present inputs. According to Chaos theory that is impossible for deterministic systems, let alone non-deterministic ones. Thus, if you know of a way to do this, I am sure the mathematicians would love to know about it.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:59 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 526Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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


If you are not going to read his comments, than how would you know if he apologizes and admits to his mistakes?

I still do not understand what I am supposed to apologize for or what mistakes I have to admit to. So far as I see it, Leroy seems to desire an apology for having hurt his feelings.

I understand even less why Leroy expects me to apologizes for "lies" and "mistakes" when he doesn't even hold himself to that standard.

See this for exemple, both a mistake and a lie that Leroy has repeatedly committed and keeps on committing:
leroy wrote:there is no contradiction between the existence of a being that knows your future choices and the existence of will. ...........if you disagree you would have to accept the burden proof and provide your evidence, but we both know that that is never going to happen because for some reason you believe that atheist are not obligated to present evidence.

How many times have we gone over this? Somehow Leroy thinks that failing to provide an answer to the issues we raised or that ignoring that the "answer" he provided is a contradiction counts as a failure on our part and not his.
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:37 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1165Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Leroy's signature wrote:Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”


He still has this deceitful signature.
When it was pointed out to him last time, he just added the two quotation marks in the middle. I suppose he doesn't realise that that makes it an obvious quote mine meant to misrepresent AronRa's position. He's even failing at basic creationist methods.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:12 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3149Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

WarK wrote:
Leroy's signature wrote:Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”


He still has this deceitful signature.
When it was pointed out to him last time, he just added the two quotation marks in the middle. I suppose he doesn't realise that that makes it an obvious quote mine meant to misrepresent AronRa's position. He's even failing at basic creationist methods.


Oh, it is worse than that.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:ok, I guess I have to agree free thinking does not necessary imply a free choice ... but for the record, I admit that I lost this point thanks taking your time

Rumraket wrote:Then you should change your signature, since it implies a contradiction that does not exist.

Put another way: keeping your signature while knowing it's rethorical force is built on a flawed premise is dishonest.



Even though there is not a strict logical contradiction, it is still stupid and goes against the "spirit of free thinking" to deny free will.

in most of the cases (if not all) free thinkers claim to have freely decide to reject dogma and accept, it would be very bisar to find someone who claim to be a free thinker, without the power of choice.


Rumraket points out that it is wrong, dandan/leroy agrees that it is wrong, yet he rationalizes why he should keep it instead of acting honest.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:42 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1056Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

["]
leroy wrote:anyway, you are not worthy my time, unless you apologice for your lies and admit your mistake, I wont even reed your comments.


If you are not going to read his comments, than how would you know if he apologizes and admits to his mistakes?



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?


It does say a lot about a person when they have to cut out the question they asked, quote your response, and pretend you are addressing something different.


:lol: :lol:
defending people with your world view even when they are wrong is pretty much the definition of fanatism. Any honest person would correct their peers.

Libertarian Free will as defined in the video and Will, as defined by you are the same thing, both have the same definition, is as simple as that.

he dishonestly quoted the definition of agent causation and not the definition of libertarian free will in order to prove that these terms have a different definition


the author of the video (and I) would argue that accepting will or libertarian free will (which have the same definition) implies all the brain less stuff that he mentones, one may agree or disagree with it, but that does nothing to change the fact that libertarian free will and will have the same definition.




However, I am still not sure why you are trying to make a mountain out of this molehill


I am not making a mountain, I made a summery of all your contradictions because you asked me to provide that information.


[q"]
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As MarsCydonia has already stated, please provide a contradiction.



Yes. I admitted that I was wrong and thanked you for the correction, because I was glossing over the last bit of your definition. I found a different definition that I agreed with and is used by philosophers. What is your point in retreated over a mistake I already owned up to?



My only point is that given that you contradict yourself many times you are very hard to follow and that it is very difficult to understand the position that you are defending in a conversation.







leroy wrote:But anyway, as you made it clear, you do accept that humans have the ability to make choices. (will) as oppose to determinist that would argue that human choice is an illusion.

Yes, and I said that from the start. Perhaps if you started reading my post, instead of skimming them, you would have also already known that.


well since you seem not to know the difference between real choice and the illusion of choice, your world view is still not clear for me,

in this same post you admitted not to know the difference between will and the illusion of will, [/quote]

If they are both empirically equivalent, make the same prediction, and have the same explanatory power and scope, than what is the real difference, how can we tell, and why should we care?


but before that you affirmed that will is real but not an illusion

leroy wrote:But anyway, as you made it clear, you do accept that humans have the ability to make choices. (will) as oppose to determinist that would argue that human choice is an illusion.


Yes, and I said that from the start. Perhaps if you started reading my post, instead of skimming them, you would have also already known that.



this proves my previous point, you are very hard to follow, first you said that will is real and not an illusion, and then you said that you don't know if will is an illusion.

I am sure that you have a clear explanation on what did you mean, but it is still a fact that you are hard to follow and it is very hard to understand the world views that you are defending.




Why does it need to be reconciled with naturalism? Nothing about will implies anything beyond nature. I already demonstrated that we know of things that make our universe not deterministic. Having a universe that is not deterministic is all that is needed for there to be something like will. Beyond that, atheism is irrelevant to this discussion.


however even quantum fluctuations (that are probably not deterministic) are not will dependent ..you are just playing word games. the fact is that based on what we know, nothing in the universe is not will dependent, why are you making an arbitrary exception with the human brain


If they are both empirically equivalent, make the same prediction, and have the same explanatory power and scope, than what is the real difference, how can we tell, and why should we care?


will> atleast sometimes you have more than 1 alternative

illusion of will> you always have only 1 option, other options are just illusory,

in this video the difference is explains the difference with an oat milk example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCGtkDzELAI

this video explains why you should belive that will is an illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzW-r_vPf50

given that your world view is once again not clear for me, please answer is will real or is will an illusion ?


the rest of my replies on the subject depend on your answer




I told you before multiple times and I am telling you now.........

to have will, free will, libertarian free will etc..... does not imply that human choices are unpredictable.



You are making the claim that something can tell the future based on only past and present inputs. According to Chaos theory that is impossible for deterministic systems, let alone non-deterministic ones. Thus, if you know of a way to do this, I am sure the mathematicians would love to know about it.[
[/quote]

well, are you ever going to accept your burden proof? when are you going to prove that having will implies that human choices are unpredictable.

I have predicted your choices multiple times, does that imply that you don't have will?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:41 pm
leroyPosts: 1056Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

WarK wrote:
Leroy's signature wrote:Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”


He still has this deceitful signature.
When it was pointed out to him last time, he just added the two quotation marks in the middle. I suppose he doesn't realise that that makes it an obvious quote mine meant to misrepresent AronRa's position. He's even failing at basic creationist methods.



Of course this is not Arora's position, this is why I call it a blunder.

he claims not to believe in free will, but deep inside he doesn't, and he clearly lives his daily life as if free will where real. (beign free will the ability to make choices) or will (as HWN likes to call it)

the only reason why he claims to deny free will is because it sounds like a theistic concept, and his conviction is to reject all theistic stuff by default even when he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Few if any atheist are willing to accept the implications of their world view and their claims.


Those who deny will have to accept that their world view was determined, they didn't freely decided to reject dogma and accept science.

those who accept will have to admit that they accept something even though there is no empirical evidence for it, there is no evidence for will except for ones own personal and subjective experience, but few atheist are willing to accept that personal and subjective experiences are reliable sources of knowledge.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:59 pm
leroyPosts: 1056Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

"
Oh, it is worse than that.

ok, I guess I have to agree free thinking does not necessary imply a free choice ... but for the record, I admit that I lost this point thanks taking your time
Rumraket wrote:Then you should change your signature, since it implies a contradiction that does not exist.

Put another way: keeping your signature while knowing it's rethorical force is built on a flawed premise is dishonest.



Even though there is not a strict logical contradiction, it is still stupid and goes against the "spirit of free thinking" to deny free will.

in most of the cases (if not all) free thinkers claim to have freely decide to reject dogma and accept, it would be very bisar to find someone who claim to be a free thinker, without the power of choice.


Rumraket points out that it is wrong, dandan/leroy agrees that it is wrong, yet he rationalizes why he should keep it instead of acting honest.[/quote]


A free thinker that denies free will is like a homosexual that is homophobic, there is no logical contradiction in the strict sense of the word, but it is still stupid, funny and ridiculous to hold both positions.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:02 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2202Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

I wouldn't trust you to correctly compute the consequences of turning a tap on, let alone computing the implications of an alleged world-view that you clearly don't understand.

Seriously, there's no topic you've broached here that isn't light-years beyond your cognitive abilities. I'd recommend some education first.
Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:04 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 981Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:A free thinker that denies free will is like a homosexual that is homophobic, there is no logical contradiction in the strict sense of the word, but it is still stupid, funny and ridiculous to hold both positions.

If there is no logical contradiction (and there isn't), then it logically cannot be stupid or ridiculous to hold both positions.

How ironic.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:07 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2202Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

It's fairly well documented that homophobes are often closet homosexuals.
Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:11 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 526Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Holy shit, you really are that dense.

leroy wrote: :lol: :lol:
defending people with your world view even when they are wrong is pretty much the definition of fanatism. Any honest person would correct their peers.

Libertarian Free will as defined in the video and Will, as defined by you are the same thing, both have the same definition, is as simple as that.

he dishonestly quoted the definition of agent causation and not the definition of libertarian free will in order to prove that these terms have a different definition

the author of the video (and I) would argue that accepting will or libertarian free will (which have the same definition) implies all the brain less stuff that he mentones, one may agree or disagree with it, but that does nothing to change the fact that libertarian free will and will have the same definition.

After 49 pages of comments, you still believe you understand free will despite being shown that you have absolutely no clue about it.

Maybe afte 50 pages of comments it will start to sink in? Can't you get it Leroy?

Libertarien Free Will:
The belief that some Human actions are freely chosen.

But still, after 49 pages of comments, you still don't get what freely means here but you're not the only one that is dense Leroy. Hence why the video provides more details with Agent Causation:
An Agent - a being propelled by a mind - can start a whole chain of causality that wasn't caused by anything else.

Do you get it now Leroy?
Human = agent
freely = wasn't caused by anything else

In other words:
Libertarien Free Will clarified for the dense:
The belief that some Human actions were not caused by anything else.

Or are you still impossibly dense?

Now, again, you're challenged to point to anywhere in my definition, HWIN's definition, etc. of will where we say that choices are causeless.

49 pages Leroy, maybe you'll cease to run, finally answer and admit to your mistake.

Or you'll continue to make a joke of yourself. Your "causeless" choice Leroy, what will it be?


And we still won't forget you running away from this blunder Leroy:
MarsCydonia wrote:
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...
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:25 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 526Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Few if any atheist are willing to accept the implications of their world view and their claims.

And highlighting the hypocrisy we've grown acustomed to:
- I've repeatedly pointed out the implications of your world view.
- The video you try to pass as supporting your joke of a definition for "free will" points out the implications of your worldview.
- Knowing you would run away from the implications highlighted in the video as you ran away from the implications I pointed out myself, I quoted them in a comment.
- Which you've then ran away from.

So to stop being such an obvious hypocrite, shouldn't you accept the implications of your worldview Leroy? or at least address them.

But no, what you will do is project your own conduct unto others.
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:08 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3149Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
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?


It does say a lot about a person when they have to cut out the question they asked, quote your response, and pretend you are addressing something different.


:lol: :lol:
defending people with your world view even when they are wrong is pretty much the definition of fanatism. Any honest person would correct their peers.


How is MarsCydonia wrong? You asked him to quote "anywhere where the author said something that implies that there is a difference" and MarsCydonia did just that. It is the implications of what they called libertarian free will and what we are calling will.

leroy wrote:Libertarian Free will as defined in the video and Will, as defined by you are the same thing, both have the same definition, is as simple as that.

he dishonestly quoted the definition of agent causation and not the definition of libertarian free will in order to prove that these terms have a different definition


:facepalm:

Again, you asked him to quote anywhere in which they are different and MarsCydonia showed how their implications are different. Work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:the author of the video (and I) would argue that accepting will or libertarian free will (which have the same definition) implies all the brain less stuff that he mentones, one may agree or disagree with it, but that does nothing to change the fact that libertarian free will and will have the same definition.


That is obviously where MarsCydonia and I would disagree. Accepting will does not imply anything brainless, it just implies that determinism is wrong.

leroy wrote:

However, I am still not sure why you are trying to make a mountain out of this molehill


I am not making a mountain, I made a summery of all your contradictions because you asked me to provide that information.


All the contradictions I made, I had already corrected long before your summary. That means I clarified myself, correcting any possible contradictions I may have had. What is the point in claiming I am contradicting myself after I already clarified myself?

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As MarsCydonia has already stated, please provide a contradiction.



Yes. I admitted that I was wrong and thanked you for the correction, because I was glossing over the last bit of your definition. I found a different definition that I agreed with and is used by philosophers. What is your point in retreated over a mistake I already owned up to?



My only point is that given that you contradict yourself many times you are very hard to follow and that it is very difficult to understand the position that you are defending in a conversation.


How is it hard to follow a conversation wherein a person actually admits to their mistakes and corrects them when needed? It seems like in a situation like that, the conversation should be very straight forward and easy to follow. It also seems like you will accuse people of contracting themselves well after they have made any corrects.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:But anyway, as you made it clear, you do accept that humans have the ability to make choices. (will) as oppose to determinist that would argue that human choice is an illusion.

Yes, and I said that from the start. Perhaps if you started reading my post, instead of skimming them, you would have also already known that.


well since you seem not to know the difference between real choice and the illusion of choice, your world view is still not clear for me,

in this same post you admitted not to know the difference between will and the illusion of will,


You said that they were both empirically the same and had the same explanatory scope. Thus, I cannot wait to see how you can tell the difference between the two.

leroy wrote:
If they are both empirically equivalent, make the same prediction, and have the same explanatory power and scope, than what is the real difference, how can we tell, and why should we care?


but before that you affirmed that will is real but not an illusion


Still waiting for you to tell me the difference between the two.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:But anyway, as you made it clear, you do accept that humans have the ability to make choices. (will) as oppose to determinist that would argue that human choice is an illusion.


Yes, and I said that from the start. Perhaps if you started reading my post, instead of skimming them, you would have also already known that.



this proves my previous point, you are very hard to follow, first you said that will is real and not an illusion, and then you said that you don't know if will is an illusion.


That is probably because you just started talking about the illusion of will and described it as being identical to will. I am waiting for you to explain the difference between the two.

leroy wrote:I am sure that you have a clear explanation on what did you mean, but it is still a fact that you are hard to follow and it is very hard to understand the world views that you are defending.


:facepalm:

You just started talking about the illusion of will and have not given me a way to tell it apart from will. Thus, I can only wait until you give me a meaningful difference between the two before I can make a judgement about it.

leroy wrote:
Why does it need to be reconciled with naturalism? Nothing about will implies anything beyond nature. I already demonstrated that we know of things that make our universe not deterministic. Having a universe that is not deterministic is all that is needed for there to be something like will. Beyond that, atheism is irrelevant to this discussion.


however even quantum fluctuations (that are probably not deterministic) are not will dependent ..you are just playing word games. the fact is that based on what we know, nothing in the universe is not will dependent, why are you making an arbitrary exception with the human brain


As I already said, we do not live in a deterministic universe. That fact is all that is needed for creatures to have will.

leroy wrote:
If they are both empirically equivalent, make the same prediction, and have the same explanatory power and scope, than what is the real difference, how can we tell, and why should we care?


will> atleast sometimes you have more than 1 alternative

illusion of will> you always have only 1 option, other options are just illusory,


Well, based on that distinction, I accept that we have will. We do not live in a deterministic universe, thus we can make choices at least some times. You should have known this would be my answer, because I have already demonstrated that determinism is wrong.

leroy wrote:in this video the difference is explains the difference with an oat milk example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCGtkDzELAI

this video explains why you should belive that will is an illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzW-r_vPf50


Again, we do not live in a deterministic universe, thus will is possible. Do either of the videos dispute that?

leroy wrote:given that your world view is once again not clear for me, please answer is will real or is will an illusion ?


Thank you for clarifying what the difference is, finally; and one wonders why you could not have done that from the start. Beyond that, I already answered this as soon as you clarified the difference. We have will.

leroy wrote:I told you before multiple times and I am telling you now.........

to have will, free will, libertarian free will etc..... does not imply that human choices are unpredictable.


I know you keep declaring it, I am just waiting for you to demonstrate it.

leroy wrote:
You are making the claim that something can tell the future based on only past and present inputs. According to Chaos theory that is impossible for deterministic systems, let alone non-deterministic ones. Thus, if you know of a way to do this, I am sure the mathematicians would love to know about it.[

well, are you ever going to accept your burden proof? when are you going to prove that having will implies that human choices are unpredictable.


I provided a citation that explains making predictions like this is impossible based on deterministic systems. What more do you want? Or is this yet another example of you not reading my post, but just skimming them. The citation is still in the post you quoted. Feel free to read it at your leisure.

leroy wrote:I have predicted your choices multiple times, does that imply that you don't have will?


No. Tis a difference between guessing I would respond to you on a message forum made for having conversations and predicting what I will eat for breakfast ten years from now. I hope you can see that and I do not have to explain it to you.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:20 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 526Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:the author of the video (and I) would argue that accepting will or libertarian free will (which have the same definition) implies all the brain less stuff that he mentones, one may agree or disagree with it, but that does nothing to change the fact that libertarian free will and will have the same definition.


That is obviously where MarsCydonia and I would disagree. Accepting will does not imply anything brainless, it just implies that determinism is wrong.


This is not my position but an implication of Leroy's position that I often repeated to him, Leroy's position being:
- Matter is deterministic
- The brain is made of matter
- Therefore the brain is deterministic

- "Free" choices are uncaused/free from determination
- The brain, being deterministic, cannot produce choices that are uncaused/free from determination
- Therefore, "free" choices are brainless (i.e. require their origin to be outside of the brain).


I reject any assertion that will or free will is brainless until I'm not only showed evidence but an explanation on that would even work as well.
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:44 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:That is obviously where MarsCydonia and I would disagree. Accepting will does not imply anything brainless, it just implies that determinism is wrong.


This is not my position but an implication of Leroy's position that I often repeated to him, Leroy's position being:
- Matter is deterministic
- The brain is made of matter
- Therefore the brain is deterministic

- "Free" choices are uncaused/free from determination
- The brain, being deterministic, cannot produce choices that are uncaused/free from determination
- Therefore, "free" choices are brainless (i.e. require their origin to be outside of the brain).


I reject any assertion that will or free will is brainless until I'm not only showed evidence but an explanation on that would even work as well.


My addition to that. If there is no determinism involved that determine my actions/choices, that would also mean that I don't determine my actions. If that is the case, than how can there be such a thing as "free will" or freedom of choice?
"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
Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:08 pm
leroyPosts: 1056Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[="he_who_is_nobo

How is MarsCydonia wrong? You asked him to quote "anywhere where the author said something that implies that there is a difference" and MarsCydonia did just that. It is the implications of what they called libertarian free will and what we are calling will.



He was suppose to show that there is a difference between the definition of will and libertarian free will (as defined in the video)


given that both concepts have the same definition, as he obviously noted after watching the video, he dishonestly changed the definition provided in the video, for the definition of agent causation.

again when you defend your atheist friends even we they are wrong, you are simply proving that you are a fanatic atheist.



:facepalm:

Again, you asked him to quote anywhere in which they are different and MarsCydonia showed how their implications are different. Work on your reading comprehension.


the implications are the same, The author of the video and I would argue that accepting will or libertarian free will, implies agent causation..........Mars and you (maybe) would argue that this is not an implication, but in any case both will and libertarian free will have the same implication.

however that does not change the fact that will and libertarian free will have the same definition. Accepting 1 implies accepting the other,




All the contradictions I made, I had already corrected long before your summary. That means I clarified myself, correcting any possible contradictions I may have had. What is the point in claiming I am contradicting myself after I already clarified myself?


there is no special point, you simply asked me to provide examples of contradictions,

]
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As MarsCydonia has already stated, please provide a contradiction.


I was just providing the information you asked for.



How is it hard to follow a conversation wherein a person actually admits to their mistakes and corrects them when needed? It seems like in a situation like that, the conversation should be very straight forward and easy to follow. It also seems like you will accuse people of contracting themselves well after they have made any corrects.


I am not making any accusation, I am simply pointing the fact that sometimes it is hard to comprehend your position.



You said that they were both empirically the same and had the same explanatory scope. Thus, I cannot wait to see how you can tell the difference between the two.

leroy wrote:If they are both empirically equivalent, make the same prediction, and have the same explanatory power and scope, than what is the real difference, how can we tell, and why should we care?




HWN
That is probably because you just started talking about the illusion of will and described it as being identical to will. I am waiting for you to explain the difference between the two.


As I made it clear, I never said that free will and the illusion of free will are identical, I said that they are empirically equivalent.

Call two theories empirically equivalent just in case exactly the same conclusions about observable phenomena can be deduced from each

https://books.google.com.mx/books?isbn=1614991065




[Why does it need to be reconciled with naturalism? Nothing about will implies anything beyond nature. I already demonstrated that we know of things that make our universe not deterministic. Having a universe that is not deterministic is all that is needed for there to be something like will. Beyond that, atheism is irrelevant to this discussion.


Well what do you mean with something like will? to me it sounds that you are implying that will is an illusion.........it looks like will, but it is not will you seem to be saying

this is an other example of a comment that causes confusion.

I am probably making a straw man, but you also seem to be implying that the apparent fact that subatomic particles behave in a stochastic way, rather than in a deterministic way, implies that will is possible..........Which would be wrong because subatomic particles are not will dependent (regardless if they behave in a deterministic way or in a stochastic way)


one question would be ...
Are subatomic particles deterministic?

and an other independent question would be

do humans have will?

each question is independent it doesn't matter how you answer question 1 the answer would be irrelevant to question 2 .....but again, maybe I am just making a straw man,

As I already said, we do not live in a deterministic universe. That fact is all that is needed for creatures to have will.


well regardless how you answer the previos comment, It is also true that the illusion of will could have evolved even in a none deterministic universe, therefore proving that the universe is deterministic, does not prove that will is real rather than an illusion.


]
Well, based on that distinction, I accept that we have will. We do not live in a deterministic universe, thus we can make choices at least some times. You should have known this would be my answer, because I have already demonstrated that determinism is wrong.


well again, proving that determinism is wrong does not prove that will is not an illusion.


I guess my question for you would be....

Why do you believe that will is real and not an illusion?

apparat form our own personal and subjective experiences, there is no evidence for will...........so why do you accept the reality of will, if there is no evidence for it?

As a theist I am confortable with accepting personal experiences as a good source of knowledge, which is why I am conformable in accepting will ....but most atheist would disagree, most atheist would say that personal and subjetive experiences are useless and unreliable source of knowledge.

So I guess you have 2 options

1 provide evidence for will, evidence that would prove that will is real and not an illusion

2 accept personal and subjective experiences as a reliable source of knowledge and information.




Again, we do not live in a deterministic universe, thus will is possible. Do either of the videos dispute that?


the illusion of will is also possible in a non deterministic universe, therefore proving that the universe is not deterministic, does not prove that will is not real.




I know you keep declaring it, I am just waiting for you to demonstrate it.


well you are the one who is making the positive claim, you are the one who has to prove it

I am saying that predicting human choices does not imply that will is not real

you are saying hat predicting the future necessary implies that will Is not real

you are making the positive claim, you are suppose to prove it



[quote
You are making the claim that something can tell the future based on only past and present inputs. According to Chaos theory that is impossible for deterministic systems, let alone non-deterministic ones. Thus, if you know of a way to do this, I am sure the mathematicians would love to know about it.[[/quowell, are you ever going to accept your burden proof? when are you going to prove that having will implies that human choices are unpredictable. [

]I provided a citation that explains making predictions like this is impossible based on deterministic systems. What more do you want? Or is this yet another example of you not reading my post, but just skimming them. The citation is still in the post you quoted. Feel free to read it at your leisure. ]
[/quote]


As I told you before, stop posting unrelated links, this is annoying.

there is nothing in your link that proves or even implies that human choices are not predictable,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:30 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 526Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

The video's definition of Libertarien Free Will:
Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24 wrote:The belief that some Human actions are freely chosen.


The video's clarification of what Libertarien Free Will implies:
Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24 wrote:An Agent - a being propelled by a mind - can start a whole chain of causality that wasn't caused by anything else.


My clarification of what that means for the philosophically dense:
MarsCydonia wrote:The belief that some human actions are not caused by anything else.

Causelessness is explicitly implied

he_who_is_nobody's definition of Will:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:The belief that people have ability to decide and make choice (at least some times).

I'll ask again Leroy, where does this definition imply causelessness for choices?

That was your demand Leroy:
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.

Quote the video where the author said something that implies Libertarien Free Will implies causelessness: Done
Show how the he_who_is_nobody's definition of Will implies causelessness: we are still waiting on you Leroy

Face it Leroy, you are flat out lying, again, and you've been caught at it, again.


And I still won't let you run away from this blunder Leroy:
MarsCydonia wrote:
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...
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:16 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3149Joined: 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_nobo

How is MarsCydonia wrong? You asked him to quote "anywhere where the author said something that implies that there is a difference" and MarsCydonia did just that. It is the implications of what they called libertarian free will and what we are calling will.



He was suppose to show that there is a difference between the definition of will and libertarian free will (as defined in the video)


Echoing what MarsCydonia just posted, you asked:

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


Now, you are changing that to claim that you asked for just the definition of libertarian free will. Yet, you think I am the one that is hard to follow when you will try to rewrite history on a written forum?

leroy wrote:given that both concepts have the same definition, as he obviously noted after watching the video, he dishonestly changed the definition provided in the video, for the definition of agent causation.


Incorrect. he did exactly what you asked him to do. Now you are changing what you originally asked, while at the same time calling MarsCydonia dishonest. How pathetic.

leroy wrote:again when you defend your atheist friends even we they are wrong, you are simply proving that you are a fanatic atheist.


:facepalm:

MarsCydonia did exactly what you originally asked. You are now changing what you originally asked for and claiming he is dishonest. As I said, you are pathetic.

leroy wrote:
:facepalm:

Again, you asked him to quote anywhere in which they are different and MarsCydonia showed how their implications are different. Work on your reading comprehension.


the implications are the same, The author of the video and I would argue that accepting will or libertarian free will, implies agent causation..........Mars and you (maybe) would argue that this is not an implication, but in any case both will and libertarian free will have the same implication.


:facepalm:

No it does not, as MarsCydonia as already pointed out and just pointed out again above this post.

leroy wrote:however that does not change the fact that will and libertarian free will have the same definition. Accepting 1 implies accepting the other,


Back to this molehill. One wonders why you have to keep building it even after we agreed on the definition of will. Feels like an equivocation fallacy might be coming, because why else insist on this for so long.

leroy wrote:


All the contradictions I made, I had already corrected long before your summary. That means I clarified myself, correcting any possible contradictions I may have had. What is the point in claiming I am contradicting myself after I already clarified myself?


there is no special point, you simply asked me to provide examples of contradictions,

]
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As MarsCydonia has already stated, please provide a contradiction.


I was just providing the information you asked for.


Because you accused me of contradicting myself. Thus, all of your accusations amounted to me being honest enough to admit when I was wrong and accept corrections. Once again, you are pathetic.

leroy wrote:
How is it hard to follow a conversation wherein a person actually admits to their mistakes and corrects them when needed? It seems like in a situation like that, the conversation should be very straight forward and easy to follow. It also seems like you will accuse people of contracting themselves well after they have made any corrects.


I am not making any accusation, I am simply pointing the fact that sometimes it is hard to comprehend your position.


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 is not an accusation? I think accusation can be one of the words that we add to the long and growing list of word that dandan/leroy does not understand.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:If they are both empirically equivalent, make the same prediction, and have the same explanatory power and scope, than what is the real difference, how can we tell, and why should we care?




HWN
That is probably because you just started talking about the illusion of will and described it as being identical to will. I am waiting for you to explain the difference between the two.


As I made it clear, I never said that free will and the illusion of free will are identical, I said that they are empirically equivalent.

Call two theories empirically equivalent just in case exactly the same conclusions about observable phenomena can be deduced from each

https://books.google.com.mx/books?isbn=1614991065


You called them empirically equivalent and did not point out a difference at this point in our discussion. What was I honestly supposed to do except point out the fact that you called them empirically equivalent and wait for you to make a distinction?

leroy wrote:
[Why does it need to be reconciled with naturalism? Nothing about will implies anything beyond nature. I already demonstrated that we know of things that make our universe not deterministic. Having a universe that is not deterministic is all that is needed for there to be something like will. Beyond that, atheism is irrelevant to this discussion.


Well what do you mean with something like will? to me it sounds that you are implying that will is an illusion.........it looks like will, but it is not will you seem to be saying


:facepalm:

I keep pointing out that all we need to have will is a non-deterministic universe. I already demonstrated that the universe as we know it is non-deterministic, thus will can naturally follows.

leroy wrote:this is an other example of a comment that causes confusion.


It only causes confusion, because you want it to. I doubt anyone else is confused by this. Keep trying to make those mountains in stead of getting to a point though.

leroy wrote:I am probably making a straw man, but you also seem to be implying that the apparent fact that subatomic particles behave in a stochastic way, rather than in a deterministic way, implies that will is possible..........Which would be wrong because subatomic particles are not will dependent (regardless if they behave in a deterministic way or in a stochastic way)


:facepalm:

They demonstrate that the universe as we know it is not deterministic. To have will, one needs to live in a non-deterministic universe.

leroy wrote:one question would be ...
Are subatomic particles deterministic?


Obviously not.

leroy wrote:and an other independent question would be

do humans have will?


We can have will, because the universe that we live in is not deterministic.

leroy wrote:each question is independent it doesn't matter how you answer question 1 the answer would be irrelevant to question 2 .....but again, maybe I am just making a straw man,


To have will, one needs to live in a universe that is not deterministic. Thus, the answer to the first one has a direct implication on the second.

leroy wrote:
As I already said, we do not live in a deterministic universe. That fact is all that is needed for creatures to have will.


well regardless how you answer the previos comment, It is also true that the illusion of will could have evolved even in a none deterministic universe, therefore proving that the universe is deterministic, does not prove that will is real rather than an illusion.


How do you propose we demonstrate that we have the illusion of will and not will?

leroy wrote:
Well, based on that distinction, I accept that we have will. We do not live in a deterministic universe, thus we can make choices at least some times. You should have known this would be my answer, because I have already demonstrated that determinism is wrong.


well again, proving that determinism is wrong does not prove that will is not an illusion.


It allows will to be possible.

leroy wrote:I guess my question for you would be....

Why do you believe that will is real and not an illusion?


Honestly, it is because your distinction between the two seems to be something that cannot be demonstrated. I challenge you to show away to demonstrate a real difference between will and the illusion of will. Without this, I honestly believe your questions moot.

leroy wrote:apparat form our own personal and subjective experiences, there is no evidence for will...........so why do you accept the reality of will, if there is no evidence for it?


Because the universe is not deterministic.

leroy wrote:As a theist I am confortable with accepting personal experiences as a good source of knowledge, which is why I am conformable in accepting will ....but most atheist would disagree, most atheist would say that personal and subjetive experiences are useless and unreliable source of knowledge.


Good thing I am not using that.

leroy wrote:So I guess you have 2 options

1 provide evidence for will, evidence that would prove that will is real and not an illusion


Show me how to test for this and I will.

leroy wrote:2 accept personal and subjective experiences as a reliable source of knowledge and information.


I think I will just wait and see how we can test the difference between the two.

leroy wrote:
Again, we do not live in a deterministic universe, thus will is possible. Do either of the videos dispute that?


the illusion of will is also possible in a non deterministic universe, therefore proving that the universe is not deterministic, does not prove that will is not real.


I am still waiting for a meaningful way to tell the difference between the two. You believe this to be of the utmost importance, thus, please tell me how we can test for this.

leroy wrote:
[quote
You are making the claim that something can tell the future based on only past and present inputs. According to Chaos theory that is impossible for deterministic systems, let alone non-deterministic ones. Thus, if you know of a way to do this, I am sure the mathematicians would love to know about it.[[/quowell, are you ever going to accept your burden proof? when are you going to prove that having will implies that human choices are unpredictable. [

]I provided a citation that explains making predictions like this is impossible based on deterministic systems. What more do you want? Or is this yet another example of you not reading my post, but just skimming them. The citation is still in the post you quoted. Feel free to read it at your leisure. ]



As I told you before, stop posting unrelated links, this is annoying.


:lol:

Oh look at that, that is why you are asking questions that were already answered. That citation perfectly addresses what you want, yet you think it is unrelated and annoying. What can I say besides work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:there is nothing in your link that proves or even implies that human choices are not predictable,


You must have missed the second paragraph, that or you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:29 pm
YIM WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 49 of 61
 [ 1216 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests