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 50 of 55
 [ 1081 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2183Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

I'd like to point out that, in my opinion, interjecting 'cause' into the free will discussion is problematic for several reasons, not least that it glosses over one of distinctions that is, to my mind, central to the whole issue.

When you define free will in terms of lack of outside causes, you're casting the whole discussion in terms of modality, and this is an error, and the reason that some apologists will accuse you of committing a modal fallacy. Here's the problem.

Suppose I say that god's infallible future knowledge precludes my being able to make another choice. One of the objections levelled at this is that it commits the modal fallacy, in saying that god's knowledge is causal. This would indeed commit the modal fallacy if this were the entire argument. However, the reality is that god's infallible future knowledge isn't necessarily causal to my lacking the ability to choose unconstrained between freely realisable alternatives (this is how I define free will in all cases) for that lack to be manifest. It only requires that there be some external constraint on my choice.

Imagine I have to choose between two stones. If god infallibly knows which one I will choose, then the choice is an illusion, because it isn't the case that I can choose the stone that god knows I will not choose. It isn't that god's knowledge has caused this (that would commit the modal fallacy), only that it can't turn out any other way. In short, the universe is deterministic in this specific circumstance. God's knowledge doesn't cause it to be deterministic, it's just that god couldn't know with perfect infallibility what I would choose unless it was. It doesn't matter what apologetic construct is erected to attempt to circumvent this, because perfect future knowledge requires determinism.

This can be cast in terms of the MWI. In that ontology, every outcome is manifest in some iteration of the universe. Cast in the language of infallible knowledge, god knows which iteration we inhabit, which means that the iteration we inhabit cannot turn out any other way.

Thus we remove the modality, and focus only on the choice or the illusion thereof.

This is very subtle, and often lost even on those who have some grasp of the technical aspects of the discussion.

It's among the most popular topics for discussion in apologetics and counter-apologetics, but it's also among the least understood, because the logic of modality can be a minefield and, unless we remove modality altogether, there are huge logical quagmires and intellectual traps to be navigated.
Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:46 pm
momo666
Online
Posts: 28Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:Suppose I say that god's infallible future knowledge precludes my being able to make another choice. One of the objections levelled at this is that it commits the modal fallacy, in saying that god's knowledge is causal. This would indeed commit the modal fallacy if this were the entire argument. However, the reality is that god's infallible future knowledge isn't necessarily causal to my lacking the ability to choose unconstrained between freely realisable alternatives (this is how I define free will in all cases) for that lack to be manifest. It only requires that there be some external constraint on my choice.

Imagine I have to choose between two stones. If god infallibly knows which one I will choose, then the choice is an illusion, because it isn't the case that I can choose the stone that god knows I will not choose. It isn't that god's knowledge has caused this (that would commit the modal fallacy), only that it can't turn out any other way. In short, the universe is deterministic in this specific circumstance. God's knowledge doesn't cause it to be deterministic, it's just that god couldn't know with perfect infallibility what I would choose unless it was. It doesn't matter what apologetic construct is erected to attempt to circumvent this, because perfect future knowledge requires determinism.


About this. Why can't we just say that, yes god's perfect knowledge is not causal but that is not the whole picture. Given that god is omniscient and he is the necessary being that gave rise to all of physical reality, his act of creating us inevitably means that he in fact caused any action I might take.
An omniscient being creating something implies, by necessity, that whatever choice its creation makes, that said choice was designed that way.
Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:27 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2183Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

momo666 wrote:About this. Why can't we just say that, yes god's perfect knowledge is not causal but that is not the whole picture. Given that god is omniscient and he is the necessary being that gave rise to all of physical reality, his act of creating us inevitably means that he in fact caused any action I might take.
An omniscient being creating something implies, by necessity, that whatever choice its creation makes, that said choice was designed that way.


Just to throw a spanner in the works, not really, because he might have had no choice in how he made it. That would require that he were also omnipotent, but omnipotence is incompatible with omniscience.

I've been avoiding doing a total treatment of free will, though I've touched on it in the context of the omnis. I know I'm going to have to.
Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:45 am
leroyPosts: 788Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote: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)




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

he_who_is_nobody
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?



No, it has always been about the definition, my claim is and has always been that will, free will and libertarian free will are the same thing, with the same definition. And with the same implications (weather if the implications are the ones that I claim or not)

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


both and
MarsCydonia
Of course you don't Leroy. That is because you don't know what your are talking about but denying and ignoring everything that is problematic with you beliefs is your default reaction. Familiar?



again you look pathetic when you defend your atheist friends even when they are wrong and dishonest.




:

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.


since both concepts are the same and have the same definition, they need to have the same implications, they may or may not have the implications that I argue, but both have the same implications.





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.


you are the one who is insisting on this, you are the one who keeps making comments and asking question



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.


it is a fact that you contradicted yourself........weather if it was an honest mistake or not does not change the fact that you made this contradictory statements.



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.



that was long ago, and yes It was an accusation, because back then you didn't know what you where talking about...............then you admitted your mistake


............I wont comment any thing else on any of the points above unless you provide a relevant point, relevant to our discussion on will..........


For the sake of this discussion I will grant 2 points, even though in reality I don't

1 that the universe is not deterministic.
I ve been avoiding to comment on this because this would move the conversation towards an other direction, but the fact is that there are many interpretations on quantum mechanics and some of this interpretations are fully deterministic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... _mechanics
Image

it is just too arrogant to say that we know that the universe is not deterministic, when the coin is still on the air, in order to sustain your claim you would have to disprove all the deterministic interpretations .......

as I said before, this is not relevant for the discussion, so for the sake of simplicity, I will simply grant that the universe is not deterministic. ....


2 that will is only possible in a non deterministic universe

Again even though I disagree for the sake of simplicity I will grant that comment. since you are no longer using this definition of determinism
The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will
then it doesn't really matter if the universe is deterministic or not, that does not help nor affects the idea that we have will.


you are know using the term determinism as it relates to math and physics, and not in the way as it relates to philosophy and human choice.







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?



that is my point, you cant....

there is no empirical evidence for will, there is no empirical evidence that shows that will is real and not an illusion.... this is my point.



So if there is no empirical evidence for Will, why do you believe in will?...............the only evidence that we have for will is our own personal and subjective experience, so do subjetive experiences count as evidence?



It allows will to be possible.


sure but it is also possible for will to be an illusion...........so why do you believe in will and not in the illusion of will?

what you would have to do is ether present objective evidence for will (that would exclude the illusion of will) or simply grant that personal and subjetive experiences also count as evidence.




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?


HWN
Because the universe is not deterministic.


well, unless you show that the illusion of will would be impossible in a non deterministic universe, your comment is pointless.




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.


You cant that is my point, there is no testable evidence for will, ........given this why do you believe in 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


I would argue that we cant test the difference............so why do you believe in will?.




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.


:lol: :lol: :lol: no it doesn't and you know it, stop posting random links,

according to the wiki article about chaos theory, some things are unpredictable because we (humans) have a given level of uncertainty and the lack of complete knowledge on the initial conditions.

the lack of predictability of some events is due to human limitation (not aplicable to god or even a human with knowledge)

the good thing is that I can copy paste the portion of the article that proves that I am correct
Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random.[3] The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we tolerate in the forecast, how accurately we can measure its current state, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system


you see the article clearly states that unpredictability is a consequence of human limitations.

so please accept your burden and prove that will implies that it is impossible to predict human choices. and please stop posting random links to irrelevant and unrelated articles.




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



well, nothing in the second paragraph implies that human choices are unpredictable, at best you could argue that human choices are chaotic and hard to predict given our limitations............and I would agree with that.

but someone with enough knowledge and enough information could predict your future choices

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems — a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect - rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7
]

.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:21 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3123Joined: 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: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)




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

he_who_is_nobody
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?



No, it has always been about the definition, my claim is and has always been that will, free will and libertarian free will are the same thing, with the same definition. And with the same implications (weather if the implications are the ones that I claim or not)


:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
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?


Amazing how I can quote exactly what you asked for, yet you will sit there and deny it. How pathetic. An honest person would admit their mistake at this point.

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


both and
MarsCydonia
Of course you don't Leroy. That is because you don't know what your are talking about but denying and ignoring everything that is problematic with you beliefs is your default reaction. Familiar?



again you look pathetic when you defend your atheist friends even when they are wrong and dishonest.


Yet he is not wrong and gave you exactly what you originally asked for. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:

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.


since both concepts are the same and have the same definition, they need to have the same implications, they may or may not have the implications that I argue, but both have the same implications.


:facepalm:

Again, MarsCydonia already demonstrated that you are wrong to claim this. Work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:
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.


you are the one who is insisting on this, you are the one who keeps making comments and asking question


I keep making comments and asking questions on a discussion forum? The thought boggles the mind.

leroy wrote:
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.


it is a fact that you contradicted yourself........weather if it was an honest mistake or not does not change the fact that you made this contradictory statements.


To er is to be human. I have to find this hilarious coming from you after making mistakes like this and never admitting to them. Again, you are pathetic.

leroy wrote:
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.



that was long ago, and yes It was an accusation, because back then you didn't know what you where talking about...............then you admitted your mistake


............I wont comment any thing else on any of the points above unless you provide a relevant point, relevant to our discussion on will..........


:facepalm:

You made that accusation long after I already corrected myself on all the contradictions you pointed out. Glad to know you will no longer bring up this, since it was never a problem in the first place.

leroy wrote:For the sake of this discussion I will grant 2 points, even though in reality I don't


You are acting like an adult. This is a change.

leroy wrote:1 that the universe is not deterministic.
I ve been avoiding to comment on this because this would move the conversation towards an other direction, but the fact is that there are many interpretations on quantum mechanics and some of this interpretations are fully deterministic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... _mechanics
Image

it is just too arrogant to say that we know that the universe is not deterministic, when the coin is still on the air, in order to sustain your claim you would have to disprove all the deterministic interpretations .......

as I said before, this is not relevant for the discussion, so for the sake of simplicity, I will simply grant that the universe is not deterministic. ....


I have to do no such thing. I have presented something that is random as far as we know. That is all that is needed to demonstrate that the universe we live in is not deterministic. That is the black swan, since a deterministic universe depends on non-random events. They (the people claiming the universe is deterministic) need to demonstrate that what I presented is not random.

leroy wrote:2 that will is only possible in a non deterministic universe

Again even though I disagree for the sake of simplicity I will grant that comment. since you are no longer using this definition of determinism
The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will
then it doesn't really matter if the universe is deterministic or not, that does not help nor affects the idea that we have will.


you are know using the term determinism as it relates to math and physics, and not in the way as it relates to philosophy and human choice.


:facepalm:

Incorrect. The definition of determinism I am using comes from a primer on philosophy. Stop trying to rewrite history on a written forum. With just one click, everyone can see just how dishonest you are acting.

leroy wrote:
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?



that is my point, you cant....

there is no empirical evidence for will, there is no empirical evidence that shows that will is real and not an illusion.... this is my point.


Okay. Thus, until you are able to demonstrate a meaningful way to test between them, your question is moot.

leroy wrote:So if there is no empirical evidence for Will, why do you believe in will?...............the only evidence that we have for will is our own personal and subjective experience, so do subjetive experiences count as evidence?


As I have said dozens of times now, because the universe is not deterministic.

leroy wrote:
It allows will to be possible.


sure but it is also possible for will to be an illusion...........so why do you believe in will and not in the illusion of will?

what you would have to do is ether present objective evidence for will (that would exclude the illusion of will) or simply grant that personal and subjetive experiences also count as evidence.


Again, because the universe is not deterministic. Since you have not presented a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will, I see it as you making an arbitrary distinction with no real difference. Again, until you come up with a meaningful way to distinguish between the two, your question is moot.

leroy wrote:
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?


HWN
Because the universe is not deterministic.


well, unless you show that the illusion of will would be impossible in a non deterministic universe, your comment is pointless.


You have made an arbitrary distinction between will and the illusion of will without telling us how to resolve the difference. I reject your arbitrary distinction and await you to provide a meaningful way to test the difference.

leroy wrote:
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.


You cant that is my point, there is no testable evidence for will, ........given this why do you believe in will?


Because the universe is not deterministic.

leroy wrote:
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


I would argue that we cant test the difference............so why do you believe in will?.


Because the universe is not deterministic. However, thank you for admitting that your distinction is arbitrary

leroy wrote:
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.


:lol: :lol: :lol: no it doesn't and you know it, stop posting random links,

according to the wiki article about chaos theory, some things are unpredictable because we (humans) have a given level of uncertainty and the lack of complete knowledge on the initial conditions.

the lack of predictability of some events is due to human limitation (not aplicable to god or even a human with knowledge)

the good thing is that I can copy paste the portion of the article that proves that I am correct
Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random.[3] The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we tolerate in the forecast, how accurately we can measure its current state, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system


you see the article clearly states that unpredictability is a consequence of human limitations.

so please accept your burden and prove that will implies that it is impossible to predict human choices. and please stop posting random links to irrelevant and unrelated articles.


Amazing how you were able to post the link every time except when you quoted from it. It is almost like you are trying to hide something. Now, we look at the article and see that you cut this out.

Wikipedia - Chaos theory wrote:Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random.[3] The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we tolerate in the forecast, how accurately we can measure its current state, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system, called the Lyapunov time. Some examples of Lyapunov times are: chaotic electrical circuits, about 1 millisecond; weather systems, a few days (unproven); the solar system, 50 million years. In chaotic systems, the uncertainty in a forecast increases exponentially with elapsed time. Hence, mathematically, doubling the forecast time more than squares the proportional uncertainty in the forecast. This means, in practice, a meaningful prediction cannot be made over an interval of more than two or three times the Lyapunov time. When meaningful predictions cannot be made, the system appears random.[12]


That is the whole paragraph from which your quote came from. Nowhere does it say it has to do with human limitations, it states that time is the driving fact in making things more chaotic, since that is just a property of the math. Is it not strange that all your arguments rely on logical fallacies? That should tell you something.

leroy wrote:
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



well, nothing in the second paragraph implies that human choices are unpredictable, at best you could argue that human choices are chaotic and hard to predict given our limitations............and I would agree with that.

but someone with enough knowledge and enough information could predict your future choices

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems — a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect - rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7
]


:lol:

Wow! You do need to work on your reading comprehension. Your quote contradicts exactly what you are claiming above. Nowhere does it say that given enough enough information things can be predicted, it clearly states "In other words, the deterministic nature of these system does not make them predictable." Once again, work on your reading comprehension.

:lol:
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:52 pm
YIM WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2183Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:No, it has always been about the definition, my claim is and has always been that will, free will and libertarian free will are the same thing, with the same definition. And with the same implications (weather if the implications are the ones that I claim or not)


See, this is precisely why I stay away form this discussion until well after the preliminaries are over, because it always degenerates into this dull semantic bullshit.

The real problem here is that we only ever talk about free will, and never just about will. Whatever will we might have, it isn't free; it isn't unconstrained. Until we get to the point at which the discussion revolves around will, which is entirely unambiguous, no progress can reasonably be made.

It also overlooks the whole point of semantics. It doesn't actually matter how you define the terms, as long as I'm clear about what you mean and vice versa. The semantic portion of any discussion should only be about clarifying what we mean when we say a thing, and there should never be any disagreement about what is meant by a term, because it doesn't matter if you and I disagree about how a term is used, whether I've redefined a term, used an accepted definition, or coined a new term for the purpose.

Far too much debate is like this, and it stymies discussion and makes for really tedious and dull conversation.

Getting back to the topic, we definitely don't have free will under any useful definition of the word 'free', so the question becomes only whether we have will, or merely the illusion thereof.

In a deterministic universe, will is an illusion. That said, the universe definitely isn't deterministic, but that doesn't necessarily rescue will.

There's not much I can add until the discussion moves to more interesting and fertile ground.
Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:15 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 370Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:See, this is precisely why I stay away form this discussion until well after the preliminaries are over, because it always degenerates into this dull semantic bullshit.

Hence why this garbage fire of a "discussion" should be left to die. 50 pages in and someone is still arguing that 3 three different terms, with 3 different definitions, mean and imply the same things.

Even though he often contracdicted himself about these meanings and implications.

Or maybe they do now, 50 pages of comments about this, who can follow?

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...
Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:44 pm
leroyPosts: 788Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
So if there is no empirical evidence for Will, why do you believe in will?...............the only evidence that we have for will is our own personal and subjective experience, so do subjetive experiences count as evidence?:


he_who_is_nobody
As I have said dozens of times now, because the universe is not deterministic



well the good news is that hackenslash already explained why are you wrong.
hackenslash
In a deterministic universe, will is an illusion. That said, the universe definitely isn't deterministic, but that doesn't necessarily rescue will.


So as I told you before even if I grant that the universe is deterministic and even if I grant that will is impossible in a deterministic universe, it is still true that will could be an illusion in a non deterministic universe.



........
This is the thing......


1 some people believe they have will, they believe that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option. (this includes you, me, and most of the members of this forum)

2 other people think that will is just an illusion, they think that we always have only 1 option, and that the idea of their options is just illusory.

3 there is no empirical evidence for will, al you have is your own subjective experience.


so my question is.............why do you think that this other people are wrong? given that there is no empirical evidence for will, why do you believe in will?



this is the kind of question that I will ask like 100 times without an answer form you.



Wikipedia - Chaos theory wrote:
Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random.[3] The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we tolerate in the forecast, how accurately we can measure its current state, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system, called the Lyapunov time. Some examples of Lyapunov times are: chaotic electrical circuits, about 1 millisecond; weather systems, a few days (unproven); the solar system, 50 million years. In chaotic systems, the uncertainty in a forecast increases exponentially with elapsed time. Hence, mathematically, doubling the forecast time more than squares the proportional uncertainty in the forecast. This means, in practice, a meaningful prediction cannot be made over an interval of more than two or three times the Lyapunov time. When meaningful predictions cannot be made, the system appears random.[12]


again, no where in the quote, nor in the article does it say (let alone prove) that human choices are unpredictable. stop posting random links to unrelated articles.

what the article is saying is that if your initial level of uncertainty is grater than zero, it would increase exponentially as time passes, but this would not apply to someone with absolute knowledge with an uncertainty of ZERO. this is interesting and debatable, but has nothing to do with your statement. What you have to do is that human choices are unpredictable, so please provide your proof and stop sending random articles.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:41 pm
leroyPosts: 788Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:No, it has always been about the definition, my claim is and has always been that will, free will and libertarian free will are the same thing, with the same definition. And with the same implications (weather if the implications are the ones that I claim or not)


See, this is precisely why I stay away form this discussion until well after the preliminaries are over, because it always degenerates into this dull semantic bullshit.

The real problem here is that we only ever talk about free will, and never just about will. Whatever will we might have, it isn't free; it isn't unconstrained. Until we get to the point at which the discussion revolves around will, which is entirely unambiguous, no progress can reasonably be made.

It also overlooks the whole point of semantics. It doesn't actually matter how you define the terms, as long as I'm clear about what you mean and vice versa. The semantic portion of any discussion should only be about clarifying what we mean when we say a thing, and there should never be any disagreement about what is meant by a term, because it doesn't matter if you and I disagree about how a term is used, whether I've redefined a term, used an accepted definition, or coined a new term for the purpose.

Far too much debate is like this, and it stymies discussion and makes for really tedious and dull conversation.

Getting back to the topic, we definitely don't have free will under any useful definition of the word 'free', so the question becomes only whether we have will, or merely the illusion thereof.

In a deterministic universe, will is an illusion. That said, the universe definitely isn't deterministic, but that doesn't necessarily rescue will.

There's not much I can add until the discussion moves to more interesting and fertile ground.



well since the very first page of this conversation I explain clearly and unambiguously what I meant with free will, ...........all the semantics games where created by your atheist friends


so far and as far as I can tell, we all agree that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option this is what I have always meen with free will, and this is what HWN means with will. ................



so my question is /...............given that there is no empirical evidence for will, why do you believe in will?...........all we have is our own subjective experience.........so accepting will implies that you accept personal experiences as evidence, .......so do you accept personal experiences as evidence?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:49 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2183Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:well since the very first page of this conversation I explain clearly and unambiguously what I meant with free will,


You did no such thing. What you said may have seemed like a clear definition to you, because you know what you meant by it, but it's been crystal clear that you don't actually know what you're on about and, given your latest lumping of several definitions one as if that answered any questions, we're still operating on no definition at all.

so my question is /...............given that there is no empirical evidence for will, why do you believe in will?...........all we have is our own subjective experience.........so accepting will implies that you accept personal experiences as evidence, .......so do you accept personal experiences as evidence?


What do you mean, there's no empirical evidence for will? Do you even know what 'empirical' means?

Also, I see you're still clinging to that false subjective/objective dichotomy. Don't worry, many apologists think in such binary terms.
Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:03 pm
leroyPosts: 788Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
Even though he often contracdicted himself about these meanings and implications.


:lol: :lol: :lol:



]
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...[/quote]


Yes variables affect (but do not always determine) your choices. no contradiction there.................is it really that hard to understand it?


for example my limited budget (a variable) would affect my decision on what I will eat for lunch, But I still have more than 1 option, I can still decide what food I will eat for lunch.



to have free will (or will) implies that at least sometimes I have more than 1 option , this doesn't mean that I always have more than 1 option, this doesn't mean that each option is equally probable, and it doesn't mean that my desires are not limited.


someone with absolute knowledge would know the options that I have available, he would know my limitations and my desires...........with this knowledge one can predict my choices...........none of that implies that will is not real, none of that implies that I only had 1 option.



but don't worry, no one is expecting you to understand, and no one is expecting you to admit that there is no contradiction there, ............we all know that you will reply with something stupid and irrelevant, and your atheist friends will always support you.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:14 pm
leroyPosts: 788Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:What do you mean, there's no empirical evidence for will? Do you even know what 'empirical' means?

.


with empirical evidence I mean objective and testable evidence, please let me know if I am using the incorrect terminology.


there is no objective and testable evidence for will, all we have is our own subjective experience............so why do you believe in will? are personal and subjective experience sufficient proof?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:20 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2183Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:someone with absolute knowledge would know the options that I have available, he would know my limitations and my desires...........with this knowledge one can predict my choices...........none of that implies that will is not real, none of that implies that I only had 1 option.


We're not talking about predicting your choice, but knowing it. If an entity has perfect, infallible knowledge of what you will choose, it wouldn't matter how many realisable alternatives seem to be available, the only one actually available is the one this entity knows you will choose. That's determinism, however you slice it.

Your arguments read like those of somebody who's never encountered any of the countering arguments to your position.

but don't worry, no one is expecting you to understand, and no one is expecting you to admit that there is no contradiction there, ............we all know that you will reply with something stupid and irrelevant, and your atheist friends will always support you.


I do wish you wouldn't assert that somebody who disagrees with you does so because they don't understand, because you're really not in any position to assess anybody else's understanding.
Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:01 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2183Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:with empirical evidence I mean objective and testable evidence, please let me know if I am using the incorrect terminology.


That's not what empirical means. Objective? Good luck with that.

there is no objective and testable evidence for will, all we have is our own subjective experience....


Again with the subjective/objective dichotomy. These are not the only options.

........so why do you believe in will?


Who said I did?

are personal and subjective experience sufficient proof?


And now misusing 'proof'. Proof is a formal procedure applicable only to axiomatically founded systems of deductive logic.
Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:04 pm
leroyPosts: 788Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:We're not talking about predicting your choice, but knowing it. If an entity has perfect, infallible knowledge of what you will choose, it wouldn't matter how many realisable alternatives seem to be available, the only one actually available is the one this entity knows you will choose. That's determinism, however you slice it.


first of all the comment is irrelevant, all i am saying is that you can have will, even if some variables affect / influence / or limit your choices ..........If you agree with this simple and uncontroversial statement, then you agree with me and disagree with Mars, there is no contradiction between having will and having stuff that affect your choices.


second....well that is exactly what you have to prove, and what I ve been asking HWN to prove, in this example>

if you grant that I have 2 options, drink water or drink coffee,

how does somebodies knowledge of the future, changes the fact that I had 2 options? how does knowledge about the future automatically vanishes 1 option?

pretend that someone traveled in to the future and noticed that I drank water, does that automatically vanishes my will? is yes, then please provide the evidence for such claim, I see no reason to suppose that knowledge about the future automatically vanishes will.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:23 pm
leroyPosts: 788Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

.......so why do you believe in will

hackenslash wrote:Who said I did??


well, do you believe in will?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:26 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2183Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:first of all the comment is irrelevant,


How the holy fuck can it be irrelevant when it's a direct challenge to what you said?

all i am saying is that you can have will, even if some variables affect / influence / or limit your choices ..........If you agree with this simple and uncontroversial statement, then you agree with me and disagree with Mars, there is no contradiction between having will and having stuff that affect your choices.


I agree that having constraints on your choices doesn't preclude being able to make choices.

how does somebodies knowledge of the future, changes the fact that I had 2 options? how does knowledge about the future automatically vanishes 1 option?


See, this is exactly what I mean. It's like you've never encountered any of the counter-arguments before. Erecting yet another example doesn't impact the facts. Infallible knowledge about what you will choose constitutes an absolute constraint on the options. If god infallibly knows you'll choose tea, it isn't possible for you to choose coffee, thus that is merely the illusion of choice.

pretend that someone traveled in to the future and noticed that I drank water, does that automatically vanishes my will? is yes, then please provide the evidence for such claim, I see no reason to suppose that knowledge about the future automatically vanishes will.


This is exactly the sort of fuckwittery that arises when you don't understand the difference between being able to predict thge future and having perfect, infallible knowledge of the future.

The simple fact is that your understanding of the issues and your grasp of even the rudiments of logic is not up to the task you've set yourself.

And with that, I'm out again, because this is extremely tedious ground that I've trodden thousands of times.
Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:00 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2183Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
.......so why do you believe in will

hackenslash wrote:Who said I did??


well, do you believe in will?


I don't do belief.
Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:01 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3123Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Oh look at that. Dandan/Leroy is no longer busy.

:lol:

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:
So if there is no empirical evidence for Will, why do you believe in will?...............the only evidence that we have for will is our own personal and subjective experience, so do subjetive experiences count as evidence?:


he_who_is_nobody
As I have said dozens of times now, because the universe is not deterministic



well the good news is that hackenslash already explained why are you wrong.
hackenslash
In a deterministic universe, will is an illusion. That said, the universe definitely isn't deterministic, but that doesn't necessarily rescue will.


So as I told you before even if I grant that the universe is deterministic and even if I grant that will is impossible in a deterministic universe, it is still true that will could be an illusion in a non deterministic universe.


Than I await hackenslash to explain his reasoning. You have already define will and the illusion of will based only on an arbitrary reason (in order to basically keep asking the same question I have already answered). Perhaps hackenslash can give a meaningful difference and explain the way we can test for either one of them.

leroy wrote:This is the thing......


1 some people believe they have will, they believe that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option. (this includes you, me, and most of the members of this forum)

2 other people think that will is just an illusion, they think that we always have only 1 option, and that the idea of their options is just illusory.

3 there is no empirical evidence for will, al you have is your own subjective experience.


so my question is.............why do you think that this other people are wrong? given that there is no empirical evidence for will, why do you believe in will?


Because the universe is not deterministic. Honestly, I do not know why you keep asking questions that have already been answered.

leroy wrote:this is the kind of question that I will ask like 100 times without an answer form you.


I have answered it every single time you asked it. You are just unwilling to accept my answer and move on from it. Here is a suggestion (that will fall on deaf ears), how about come up with a meaningful difference between will and the illusion of will. That is actually where your impasse lies.

leroy wrote:
Wikipedia - Chaos theory wrote:
Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random.[3] The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we tolerate in the forecast, how accurately we can measure its current state, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system, called the Lyapunov time. Some examples of Lyapunov times are: chaotic electrical circuits, about 1 millisecond; weather systems, a few days (unproven); the solar system, 50 million years. In chaotic systems, the uncertainty in a forecast increases exponentially with elapsed time. Hence, mathematically, doubling the forecast time more than squares the proportional uncertainty in the forecast. This means, in practice, a meaningful prediction cannot be made over an interval of more than two or three times the Lyapunov time. When meaningful predictions cannot be made, the system appears random.[12]


again, no where in the quote, nor in the article does it say (let alone prove) that human choices are unpredictable. stop posting random links to unrelated articles.

what the article is saying is that if your initial level of uncertainty is grater than zero, it would increase exponentially as time passes, but this would not apply to someone with absolute knowledge with an uncertainty of ZERO. this is interesting and debatable, but has nothing to do with your statement. What you have to do is that human choices are unpredictable, so please provide your proof and stop sending random articles.


:facepalm:

The article state very clearly, "In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable." Again, work on your reading comprehension. It is also strange how you quoted that originally, yet now you leave that on the cutting room floor and use another quote. This is why I do not bother quoting things to you in the first place. You can read something from an article, and claim it says the exact opposite. Thus, quoting the article at you is pointless, seeing as how you will ignore what it says and invent a whole different article in your head.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:57 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 788Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:[

well, do you believe in will?

I don't do belief.


is that a yes or a no?

sorry, I don't know what don't do means..........
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:02 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 50 of 55
 [ 1081 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests