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 53 of 75
 [ 1495 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1579Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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

.


Yes you did accepted will multiple times...........should we add this to the list of contrary claims?


lery will> atleast sometimes you have more than 1 alternative

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


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, based on that distinction, I accept that we have will.


In this conversation you have accepted will and then retracted multiple times, so which one is it? do you accept will or not?...............do you believe that the will scenario is more probably true than the illusion scenario?

the problem is not my lack of reading comprehension the problem is that you constantly change your world view, so far and for 5 or 6 pages I ve been working based on the assumption that you accept will, and then you made a comment that strongly suggest that you don't accept will, that you simoly accept that will is possible.


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



well that is because there is no way to test them, (unless you consider personal experiences meaningful)


and stop your hypocrisy, the fact that 2 competing hypothesis cant be tested does not mean that they are the same, it simply mean that you cant know which one is true and that you should remain equally open to both possibilities.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:17 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3249Joined: 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:
Thus far, you have not given us a meaningful reason to separate will from the illusion of will, and you already went out of your way to say we cannot do this. That is why. Beyond that, I keep saying that will is possible, not that I accept it

.


Yes you did accepted will multiple times...........should we add this to the list of contrary claims?


:facepalm:

You mean the list that I clarified long before you ever put together to claim I contradicted myself?

leroy wrote:
lery will> atleast sometimes you have more than 1 alternative

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


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, based on that distinction, I accept that we have will.


In this conversation you have accepted will and then retracted multiple times, so which one is it? do you accept will or not?...............do you believe that the will scenario is more probably true than the illusion scenario?


I accept will and await for you to give us a meaningful way to test the difference between will and the illusion of will. Anything short of this is just grandstanding on your part.

leroy wrote:the problem is not my lack of reading comprehension the problem is that you constantly change your world view, so far and for 5 or 6 pages I ve been working based on the assumption that you accept will, and then you made a comment that strongly suggest that you don't accept will, that you simoly accept that will is possible.


I accept will and await for you to give us a meaningful way to test the difference between will and the illusion of will. Anything short of this is just grandstanding on your part.

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



well that is because there is no way to test them, (unless you consider personal experiences meaningful)


If will and the illusion of will are empirically the same (as you have gone out of your way to claim), how would our personal experience be able to tell the difference? I do expect an answer to this question.

leroy wrote:and stop your hypocrisy, the fact that 2 competing hypothesis cant be tested does not mean that they are the same, it simply mean that you cant know which one is true and that you should remain equally open to both possibilities.


As you keep saying, will and the illusion of will are empirically the same. If that is the case, than what real difference is there? Please explain, because I honestly do not see a meaningful difference between will and the illusion of will, as you have defined them; just like I do not see a meaningful difference between a bachelor and an unmarried man. You are the one that keeps making a big song and dance about them being different, thus please give us a real and meaningful difference. Otherwise, you are just trying to make another mountain out of this molehill.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Apr 01, 2017 10:18 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1579Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[ :facepalm:

You mean the list that I clarified long before you ever put together to claim I contradicted myself?



you claim to have clarified them, but the truth is that you are constantly making contrary claims including those that you supposedly clarified.





for example
I accept will and await for you to give us a meaningful way to test the difference between will and the illusion of will. Anything short of this is just grandstanding on your part.



you contradicted yourself in the same sentence, to accept will, implies that you reject the "illusion of will scenario"..............but then you claimed that there is no meaningful difference (implying that both scenarios are equally valid)

so which one is it? which do you find more probably true?


1 the human brain is deterministic and any experience of choice is illusory

2 the human brain has will and atleast sometimes we have choices

3 both scenarios are the same, there are no good reasons to prefer one over the other.



I accept will and await for you to give us a meaningful way to test the difference between will and the illusion of will. Anything short of this is just grandstanding on your part.


As I told you before, as far as I am concerned, there is no way to test them, apart from our experiences, there is no evidence that suggests that one scenario y more probably true than the other.



So you have 3 options
1 grant that personal experiences are a reliable way to determine truth
2 provide some other good reason to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario
3 grant that there are no good reasons to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario.


since I have serous problems with reading comprehension and I am unable to understand your comments, I suggest you to answer clearly and unambiguously, wich one do you chose 1,2 or 3


your answer only requires one single number, you don't have to costume your answer with fancy words and sentences, remember I have reading comprehension problems and I might misunderstand any answer that contains more than a single number (1, 2 or 3)


As you keep saying, will and the illusion of will are empirically the same. If that is the case, than what real difference is there? Please explain, because I honestly do not see a meaningful difference between will and the illusion of will, as you have defined them; just like I do not see a meaningful difference between a bachelor and an unmarried man. You are the one that keeps making a big song and dance about them being different, thus please give us a real and meaningful difference. Otherwise, you are just trying to make another mountain out of this molehill.




Do I really have to explain the difference between a synonym and empirical equivalence?

ok...

the statement a bachelor took my wallet and the statement an unmarried man took my wallet are the same, they both provide the same information........we are talking about synonyms


the statement A bachelor took my wallet, and ]the statement a married man took my wallet provide different information, they are not the same, but they are empirically equivalent, (unless you have evidence to support one statement over the other) they make the same predictions both scenarios predict that you don't have your wallet and that you wont be able to pay for that hamburger. .....and the data is equally consisten with both scenarios


if you affirm that scenario 1 is more probably true than the other, then you are implying that you have evidence that supports that the thief was a bachelor, ...........if you don't have such evidence, then you should not prefer scenario 1 over the other.


what I am suggesting is that will and illusion of will are not synonyms (like bachelor and unmarried) they are empirically equivalent. (sure you can always select option 2 and provide a good reason to prefer will over the illusion of will.) in that case the scenarios wont be empirically equivalent, because there would be evidence that supports one scenario over the other.
option 2
2 provide some other good reason to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario




I honestly and sincerely made my best effort in explaining the difference between synonyms and empirical equivalence, if you failed to understand please feel free to look for the difference in any source that you consider reliable, just look for the definition of synonym and the definition of empirical equivalence and comprare the differences between those definitions.



[/b]
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:11 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3249Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

What a surprise, I answer every question dandan/leroy throws my way, yet when I expect him to answer just one question, he flat out ignored it. I guess I will jus have to keep quoting it until he gives us an answer.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:well that is because there is no way to test them, (unless you consider personal experiences meaningful)


If will and the illusion of will are empirically the same (as you have gone out of your way to claim), how would our personal experience be able to tell the difference? I do expect an answer to this question.


leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[ :facepalm:

You mean the list that I clarified long before you ever put together to claim I contradicted myself?



you claim to have clarified them, but the truth is that you are constantly making contrary claims including those that you supposedly clarified.


:roll:

Says you.

leroy wrote:for example
I accept will and await for you to give us a meaningful way to test the difference between will and the illusion of will. Anything short of this is just grandstanding on your part.



you contradicted yourself in the same sentence, to accept will, implies that you reject the "illusion of will scenario"..............but then you claimed that there is no meaningful difference (implying that both scenarios are equally valid)

so which one is it? which do you find more probably true?


1 the human brain is deterministic and any experience of choice is illusory

2 the human brain has will and atleast sometimes we have choices

3 both scenarios are the same, there are no good reasons to prefer one over the other.


:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:As you keep saying, will and the illusion of will are empirically the same. If that is the case, than what real difference is there? Please explain, because I honestly do not see a meaningful difference between will and the illusion of will, as you have defined them; just like I do not see a meaningful difference between a bachelor and an unmarried man. You are the one that keeps making a big song and dance about them being different, thus please give us a real and meaningful difference. Otherwise, you are just trying to make another mountain out of this molehill.


If only you would read for comprehension, instead of mindlessly responding. This is not a contradiction on my part, since you went out of your way to claim will and the illusion of will were empirically the same. The only way I could contradict myself in this case is if they had a meaningful difference.

leroy wrote:
I accept will and await for you to give us a meaningful way to test the difference between will and the illusion of will. Anything short of this is just grandstanding on your part.


As I told you before, as far as I am concerned, there is no way to test them, apart from our experiences, there is no evidence that suggests that one scenario y more probably true than the other.


Than you are asking a meaningless question when you ask me to choose between will and the illusion of will since you readily admit that there is no way to determine which is the case. Stop grandstanding and move on already.

leroy wrote:So you have 3 options
1 grant that personal experiences are a reliable way to determine truth
2 provide some other good reason to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario
3 grant that there are no good reasons to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario.

since I have serous problems with reading comprehension and I am unable to understand your comments, I suggest you to answer clearly and unambiguously, wich one do you chose 1,2 or 3

your answer only requires one single number, you don't have to costume your answer with fancy words and sentences, remember I have reading comprehension problems and I might misunderstand any answer that contains more than a single number (1, 2 or 3)


I choose 4: waiting for you to give us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will.

As of right now, you have defined them to be empirically the same, thus having no real difference. Now stop grandstanding and move on.

leroy wrote:
As you keep saying, will and the illusion of will are empirically the same. If that is the case, than what real difference is there? Please explain, because I honestly do not see a meaningful difference between will and the illusion of will, as you have defined them; just like I do not see a meaningful difference between a bachelor and an unmarried man. You are the one that keeps making a big song and dance about them being different, thus please give us a real and meaningful difference. Otherwise, you are just trying to make another mountain out of this molehill.


[...]

what I am suggesting is that will and illusion of will are not synonyms (like bachelor and unmarried) they are empirically equivalent. (sure you can always select option 2 and provide a good reason to prefer will over the illusion of will.) in that case the scenarios wont be empirically equivalent, because there would be evidence that supports one scenario over the other.
option 2
2 provide some other good reason to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario


Thus, you went out of your way to define will and the illusion of will as being empirically the same, yet want to claim they are not synonyms? You are going to have to do much more than just proclaiming them not synonyms at this point. You could start by giving us a meaningful difference between the two.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:52 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1579Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[



If will and the illusion of will are empirically the same (as you have gone out of your way to claim), how would our personal experience be able to tell the difference? I do expect an answer to this question.



I am not saying that personal experiences can tell the difference, to be honest I have no idea what you men with tell the difference.....All I am saying is that it is rational to trust your personal experiences .................if our personal experience tells us that we have will it is rational to grant that we have will, unless proven otherwise. hopefully this answer helps, if not please explain what you mean...


[
I choose 4: waiting for you to give us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will.



:lol: :lol: :lol: what a surprise, HWN is unable to provide a direct answer.......answer 1, 2 or 3





Thus, you went out of your way to define will and the illusion of will as being empirically the same, yet want to claim they are not synonyms? You are going to have to do much more than just proclaiming them not synonyms at this point. You could start by giving us a meaningful difference between the two.
[/quote]

yes, because empirically equivalence does not mean synonymous. when 2 theories are empirically equivalent it is meant than both theories make the same predictions and are equally consistent with the data, but that does not mean that they are the same, I already did my best to explain the difference, please feel free to ask anyone worthy of your trust and ask him about the difference between empirical equivalence and synonyms,

goog


I am not trying to be arrogant nor condescending, I honestly did my best effort in explaining the difference between empirical equivalence and a synonym, I even provided an example that even a 10yo would have understand. But maybe I am the one with the problem, maybe I am very bad in explaining stuff, so please do research or ask anyone you trust and ask him about the difference between empirical equivalence and synonym


after you do that and after you understand the difference please answer 1,2 or 3
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:52 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3249Joined: 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:[



If will and the illusion of will are empirically the same (as you have gone out of your way to claim), how would our personal experience be able to tell the difference? I do expect an answer to this question.



I am not saying that personal experiences can tell the difference, to be honest I have no idea what you men with tell the difference.....All I am saying is that it is rational to trust your personal experiences .................if our personal experience tells us that we have will it is rational to grant that we have will, unless proven otherwise. hopefully this answer helps, if not please explain what you mean...


Well, since you are not saying that personal experience can tell the difference, than why do you keep bringing it up? You just admitted that your personal experience is irrelevant to determining the difference between will and the illusion of will. Thanks for that.

Beyond that, I would bet that a Calvinist would say their personal experience tells them will is an illusion. Thus, what I am asking is if two people had personal experiences and they said the opposite of each other, how could we determine which was correct?

leroy wrote:
I choose 4: waiting for you to give us a meaningful way to test between will and the illusion of will.



:lol: :lol: :lol: what a surprise, HWN is unable to provide a direct answer.......answer 1, 2 or 3


Just because I do not fall within your script does not mean I did not give a direct answer. Now deal with my direct answer and stop grandstanding. However, I am flattered by how much you are imitating me. Just remember the difference between me and you is that I actually gave an answer (whether you liked it or not), while I had to ask my question a second time, because you left it on the editing room floor.

leroy wrote:
Thus, you went out of your way to define will and the illusion of will as being empirically the same, yet want to claim they are not synonyms? You are going to have to do much more than just proclaiming them not synonyms at this point. You could start by giving us a meaningful difference between the two.


yes, because empirically equivalence does not mean synonymous. when 2 theories are empirically equivalent it is meant than both theories make the same predictions and are equally consistent with the data, but that does not mean that they are the same, I already did my best to explain the difference, please feel free to ask anyone worthy of your trust and ask him about the difference between empirical equivalence and synonyms,

goog


I am not trying to be arrogant nor condescending, I honestly did my best effort in explaining the difference between empirical equivalence and a synonym, I even provided an example that even a 10yo would have understand. But maybe I am the one with the problem, maybe I am very bad in explaining stuff, so please do research or ask anyone you trust and ask him about the difference between empirical equivalence and synonym


after you do that and after you understand the difference please answer 1,2 or 3


I understand the difference. The problem is you are just proclaiming will and the illusion of will to not be synonymous and only being empirically equivalent. I am waiting for you to justify that, because they appear to be synonymous, especially when the only difference you are making is something that cannot be tested. This is the point of me answering with option 4. Now please deal with my direct answer and stop trying to make me stick to your broken script.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:04 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1579Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, since you are not saying that personal experience can tell the difference, than why do you keep bringing it up? You just admitted that your personal experience is irrelevant to determining the difference between will and the illusion of will. Thanks for that.


I understand the difference. The problem is you are just proclaiming will and the illusion of will to not be synonymous and only being empirically equivalent. I am waiting for you to justify that, because they appear to be synonymous, especially when the only difference you are making is something that cannot be tested. This is the point of me answering with option 4. Now please deal with my direct answer and stop trying to make me stick to your broken script.




The words themselves can tell the difference, the difference is intrinsic in their definitions, given that "will" and "illusion of will" have different definitions, they cant be synonyms.



Beyond that, I would bet that a Calvinist would say their personal experience tells them will is an illusion. Thus, what I am asking is if two people had personal experiences and they said the opposite of each other, how could we determine which was correct?


I would bet that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, but I wont fall in this red hearing.' for the sake of the argument I will assume that Calvinist don't believe in will and that they don't have any experience of will.


I never said that our experiences always provide infalible knowledge.......I simply said that it is reasonable to trust your personal experiences, unless there are good reasons not to do so. ........both me and "Calvinist" are being reasonable in trusting our experiences.................The fact that one of us is wrong does not change the fact that we are both being reasonable.




Just because I do not fall within your script does not mean I did not give a direct answer. Now deal with my direct answer and stop grandstanding. However, I am flattered by how much you are imitating me. Just remember the difference between me and you is that I actually gave an answer (whether you liked it or not), while I had to ask my question a second time, because you left it on the editing room floor.



yes you did failed to answer to the question, so pelase answer 1, 2 or 3............these options are "all inclusive" meaning that any possible answer would fall in to 1,2 or 3.

remember I have Reading Comprehension problems, any answer different from 1 2 or 3 might be misinterpreted by me, and that would lead to an other month of useless word games
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:48 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 752Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:I never said that our experiences always provide infalible knowledge.......I simply said that it is reasonable to trust your personal experiences, unless there are good reasons not to do so. ........both me and "Calvinist" are being reasonable in trusting our experiences.................The fact that one of us is wrong does not change the fact that we are both being reasonable.

:lol:
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:07 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2340Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:So you have 3 options
1 grant that personal experiences are a reliable way to determine truth
2 provide some other good reason to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario
3 grant that there are no good reasons to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario.


since I have serous problems with reading comprehension and I am unable to understand your comments, I suggest you to answer clearly and unambiguously, wich one do you chose 1,2 or 3


This is a false trichotomy. One needn't choose any of these options and, moreover, it's advisable not to choose, because this is proper scepticism applied to empirically equivalent propositions. If there's no empirical means by which one can determine the veracity of one proposition over another, we should default to scepticism, because scepticism is the rebuttable position for any given claim. Thus, one must, of necessity, add option 4, namely that the data support no conclusions as yet.
Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:45 am
leroyPosts: 1579Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:So you have 3 options
1 grant that personal experiences are a reliable way to determine truth
2 provide some other good reason to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario
3 grant that there are no good reasons to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario.


since I have serous problems with reading comprehension and I am unable to understand your comments, I suggest you to answer clearly and unambiguously, wich one do you chose 1,2 or 3


This is a false trichotomy. One needn't choose any of these options and, moreover, it's advisable not to choose, because this is proper scepticism applied to empirically equivalent propositions. If there's no empirical means by which one can determine the veracity of one proposition over another, we should default to scepticism, because scepticism is the rebuttable position for any given claim. Thus, one must, of necessity, add option 4, namely that the data support no conclusions as yet.

it is not a false trichonomy.....option 3 includes skepticism......
3 grant that there are no good reasons to prefer the will scenario over the illusion of will scenario.

but sure feel free to add that 4 option

Anyway that is the point that I am trying to explain to HWN, if you don't have any good reason to accept one scenario over the other one should adopt skepticism. (option 3 or what you call option 4) hwn claims to believe in will, but he fails to provide any good reasons to hold that position.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:50 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2340Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Except that you option 3 doesn't promote scepticism, because it specifically places one over the other. If you'd said 'there's no good reason to favour one over the other', I'd have agreed. Yours contains an ambiguity that can be taken as favouring the illusion conclusion.
Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:45 pm
leroyPosts: 1579Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:Except that you option 3 doesn't promote scepticism, because it specifically places one over the other. If you'd said 'there's no good reason to favour one over the other', I'd have agreed. Yours contains an ambiguity that can be taken as favouring the illusion conclusion.


option 3 includes both skepticism and preference for the illusion scenario. But if you find it confusing, feel free to add that 4th option
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:55 pm
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 66Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Except that you option 3 doesn't promote scepticism, because it specifically places one over the other. If you'd said 'there's no good reason to favour one over the other', I'd have agreed. Yours contains an ambiguity that can be taken as favouring the illusion conclusion.


option 3 includes both skepticism and preference for the illusion scenario. But if you find it confusing, feel free to add that 4th option

That's... exactly the problem, friend. That preference is unnecessary and, indeed, counterproductive to the skepticism you claim it promotes.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:23 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2340Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Except that you option 3 doesn't promote scepticism, because it specifically places one over the other. If you'd said 'there's no good reason to favour one over the other', I'd have agreed. Yours contains an ambiguity that can be taken as favouring the illusion conclusion.


option 3 includes both skepticism and preference for the illusion scenario. But if you find it confusing, feel free to add that 4th option


It isn't that I find it confusing, it's that it's inherently ambiguous.
Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:51 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3249Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
I understand the difference. The problem is you are just proclaiming will and the illusion of will to not be synonymous and only being empirically equivalent. I am waiting for you to justify that, because they appear to be synonymous, especially when the only difference you are making is something that cannot be tested. This is the point of me answering with option 4. Now please deal with my direct answer and stop trying to make me stick to your broken script.




The words themselves can tell the difference, the difference is intrinsic in their definitions, given that "will" and "illusion of will" have different definitions, they cant be synonyms.


Since the difference hinges on something that you already admitted is intangible, in practise, they seem to be synonyms. Again, until you give us a meaningful way to tell the difference, I see no other way to get around our impasse. Now stop grandstanding and move on.

leroy wrote:
Beyond that, I would bet that a Calvinist would say their personal experience tells them will is an illusion. Thus, what I am asking is if two people had personal experiences and they said the opposite of each other, how could we determine which was correct?


I would bet that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, but I wont fall in this red hearing.' for the sake of the argument I will assume that Calvinist don't believe in will and that they don't have any experience of will.


I never said that our experiences always provide infalible knowledge.......I simply said that it is reasonable to trust your personal experiences, unless there are good reasons not to do so. ........both me and "Calvinist" are being reasonable in trusting our experiences.................The fact that one of us is wrong does not change the fact that we are both being reasonable.


Thus, you are readily admitting that personal experience is irrelevant for determining the truth. Whether it is reasonable or not is irrelevant to this conversation. I am just glad to have this in writing from you finally. It seems like we are finally making progress on this point.

leroy wrote:
Just because I do not fall within your script does not mean I did not give a direct answer. Now deal with my direct answer and stop grandstanding. However, I am flattered by how much you are imitating me. Just remember the difference between me and you is that I actually gave an answer (whether you liked it or not), while I had to ask my question a second time, because you left it on the editing room floor.



yes you did failed to answer to the question, so pelase answer 1, 2 or 3............these options are "all inclusive" meaning that any possible answer would fall in to 1,2 or 3.

remember I have Reading Comprehension problems, any answer different from 1 2 or 3 might be misinterpreted by me, and that would lead to an other month of useless word games


First off, your three options are not all inclusive, since hackenslash and I can both come up with two fourth options (and you later admit that he is correct to create a fourth option). Beyond that, your first option is irrelevant as you just admitted above. Thus, I choose my fourth option and I once again ask you to deal with my answer and stop trying to make me stick to your broken script. Honestly, if you do not want to deal with useless word games, than deal with my answer and stop trying to force me into your broken script.

leroy wrote:Anyway that is the point that I am trying to explain to HWN, if you don't have any good reason to accept one scenario over the other one should adopt skepticism. (option 3 or what you call option 4) hwn claims to believe in will, but he fails to provide any good reasons to hold that position.


:docpalm:

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


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

[emphasis added]


How many times can I answer a question directly before you accept my answer and move forward?

Once again, work on your reading comprehension and stop asking questions that have already been answered. Perhaps if you were not trying to force me into your broken script, we would not have to play your pointless word games.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:05 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 752Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

It has been while since I've had the time to post on this particular thread but I still see the same old song and dance.

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

Wasn't this pointed out to you before Leroy? I acknowledge that your "freedom" does not require freedom from influcence/freedom from variables.

Hence why I asked what is "Leroy's definition of freedom"? Because it isn't the one in the video which you agreed with then disagreed with when it contradicted some other things you wrote. It isn't the definition of freedom generally used when it comes to philosophical discussions of concerning free will.

But I have to ask you to back-up another of your claim Leroy because it seems to be just another one of your "convenient" but false excuse (in other words: a like):
When did I change the meaning of a word Leroy?

Mine appears to have been pretty much consistant as I used the definitions colloquially used by philosophers when discussing the subject of free will. Pretty much consistant if not always so which is more than can be said for you. So when did I changed the meaning of any word Leroy? Citation neeeded. Otherwise you simply lied.

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

Just because you call them "modest" and "uncontroversial" does not make them so Leroy. Especially since that when you were asked to clarify your "uncontroversial" "Leroy's definition of free will you attempted to sneak-in dualism which is very neither "modest" nor "uncontroversial".

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

And as we've been over this, this simply isn't true. Particularly in the light of your repeated blunders.
For exemple, calling someone dishonest would be a blunder, if he wasn't free from being dishonest, .....because to be dishonest implies that you were free to be honest....l and we both know that you don't believe in "free choices" (as in free from influences).

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

which will? "Leroy's definition of will", "Leroy's definition of free will" or "Leroy's definition of libertarien free will"? I do not accept a single one of those.

And yet, I am still not making any of your "blunders" as they are blunders solely within your deluded mind.

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

Again, which will? Because that may be true for "Leroy's definition of will", "Leroy's definition of free will" or "Leroy's definition of libertarien free will" but I do not accept a single one of those.

leroy wrote:I never said that our experiences always provide infalible knowledge.......I simply said that it is reasonable to trust your personal experiences, unless there are good reasons not to do so. ........both me and "Calvinist" are being reasonable in trusting our experiences.................The fact that one of us is wrong does not change the fact that we are both being reasonable.

- The possibility of being 100% wrong
- The impossibility of determining if you are wrong or right
Does not count as good reasons to perhaps not blindly trust that you are "right".

Hence why you end up with religions and people like Leroy.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:01 pm
leroyPosts: 1579Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:ItHence why I asked what is [i]"Leroy's definition of freedom".



freedom> the idea that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option.

these view of freedom does not entail that each option is equally possible, ...... you are free to buy or not to buy a hamburger, if you are hungry you are more likely to buy it, but you still have options.

is it really so hard to understand? this is what I mean by freedom......................don't call it freedom if you don't what, feel free to give ti an other name.



so do you accept what I call freedom? yes or no.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:21 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 752Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:freedom> the idea that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option.

:roll:
Leroy's definition of "freedom" looks strangely familiar...

Wait, let's looks at this definition, Leroy's definition of "will", Leroy's definition of "free will", etc.:
leroy wrote:the idea that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option

So freedom and will are the same things when you attribute definitions to them? So should we add yet another term that has "the same definitions and the same implications" when you talk about it?

How many more terms mean "the idea that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option" when you use them? Can we get the full list now?

Or perhaps you might want to rethink your definition of freedom.

leroy wrote:these view of freedom/will does not entail that each option is equally possible, ...... you are free/willing to buy or not to buy a hamburger, if you are hungry you are more likely to buy it, but you still have options.

is it really so hard to understand? this is what I mean by freedom/will......................don't call it freedom if you don't what, feel free/willing to give ti an other name.

I added "/will" since to this quote, since when you use it, it has "the same definition and the same implication" has freedom. Is that ok?

Now, to your "point". If I understand correctly and as I've mentionned before, Leroy's definition of "freedom" does not exclude being constrained, restricted, hindered, etc. (you mixed "free" with "possible" there, do you understand the difference?)

Because remember when I asked what causes "an option" to be more likely than the other? Why are they are not as equally free? So under Leroy Leroy's definition of "freedom", you could be constrained, restricted, hindered, etc. and still be Leroy's definition of "free"...

Well since your definition of freedom does not entail freedom as generally understood, we should be calling it something else because we're not meaning the same thing when we use the word.
So Leroy's definition of "free" it is, just like Leroy's definition of "libertarien free will" does not have the same meaning as libertarien free will.

leroy wrote:so do you accept what I call freedom? yes or no.

That's a no. I do not accept Leroy's definition of "freedom/will"
Because I suspect we do not mean the same thing with "options" either.
I have iced tea, milk, water, etc. in my fridge, those are all options to me.
Under your "illusion of will" scenario, there would be no such things as options but I doubt you mean that my iced tea, milk, water, etc. do not exists.

So what is Leroy's definition of "option"?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:49 pm
leroyPosts: 1579Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:So freedom and will are the same things when you attribute definitions to them? So should we add yet another term that has "the same definitions and the same implications" when you talk about it?


yes in this context freedom and will mean the same thing,



[
I added "/will" since to this quote, since when you use it, it has "the same definition and the same implication" has freedom. Is that ok?


yes granted



Because remember when I asked what causes "an option" to be more likely than the other? Why are they are not as equally free? So under Leroy Leroy's definition of "freedom", you could be constrained, restricted, hindered, etc. and still be Leroy's definition of "free"...


yes that is what I would argue, I would say that constrains are not always absolute


So Leroy's definition of "free" it is, just like Leroy's definition of "libertarien free will" does not have the same meaning as libertarien free will.


depends on the author, there is no a universal definition for libertarian free will, but according to all the authors (including the guy in the video) they all grant that libertarian free will implies to have options


That's a no. I do not accept Leroy's definition of "freedom/will"
Because I suspect we do not mean the same thing with "options" either.
I have iced tea, milk, water, etc. in my fridge, those are all options to me.
Under your "illusion of will" scenario, there would be no such things as options but I doubt you mean that my iced tea, milk, water, etc. do not exists.

So what is Leroy's definition of "option"?



well I guess there are only 3 options

1 you have 3 options milk, tea and water........each option is equally likely to be chosen (I am personally open to that possibility but I don't grant it)

2 you have 3 options, but constrains might make some options more probable than others, for example if you are lactose intolerant you are less likely to drink milk but milk is still an option, because lactose intolerance is not an absolute constrain (my view)

3 you where predetermined to select water, other options are illusory, there where absolute constrains that preved you to select milk or tea, being water the only real option. you could have not chosen differently, if all the variables are the same you will always select water, this is the deterministic view


so why don't you drop your word games and answer 1,2 or 3...................which one represents your view?


sure there is a fourth option, you can simply answer that you don't know and can call yourself a skeptic like hackenslash, this would mean that you have no reason to accept one over the other.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:56 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 752Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Leroy wrote:yes in this context freedom and will mean the same thing,

I did not hoped that you would have a better definition but I did hope that you would see the problem with using the same definitions for Leroy's definition of "freedom" and Leroy's definition of "will"

If libertarian free will is "the belief that some actions are freely chosen" (remember the video?) then defining "freely" with "will" makes it completely nonsensical.

But I bet that pointing that out doesn't make it dawn on you that libertarian free will and Leroy's definition of "will" are obviously not the same, not in their definitions nor even in their implications.

Leroy wrote:yes that is what I would argue, I would say that constrains are not always absolute

What makes an option more likely/what constrains someone to pick an option rather than another?
How would someone calculate the odds?
When the less likely option is the option chosen, how does it happen?

Leroy wrote:depends on the author, there is no a universal definition for libertarian free will, but according to all the authors (including the guy in the video) they all grant that libertarian free will implies to have options

According authors, they imply as of yet something undefined as Leroy's definition of "option"?

That is simply not true Leroy because they're as sloppy with language and definitions as you are.

And unless you willfully forgot it, they do imply that "actions are freely chosen" meaning that they are not restrained, bound, constrained, etc., unlike Leroy's definition of "will".

Leroy wrote:well I guess there are only 3 options

1 you have 3 options milk, tea and water........each option is equally likely to be chosen (I am personally open to that possibility but I don't grant it)

2 you have 3 options, but constrains might make some options more probable than others, for example if you are lactose intolerant you are less likely to drink milk but milk is still an option, because lactose intolerance is not an absolute constrain (my view)

3 you where predetermined to select water, other options are illusory, there where absolute constrains that preved you to select milk or tea, being water the only real option. you could have not chosen differently, if all the variables are the same you will always select water, this is the deterministic view

so why don't you drop your word games and answer 1,2 or 3...................which one represents your view?

sure there is a fourth option, you can simply answer that you don't know and can call yourself a skeptic like hackenslash, this would mean that you have no reason to accept one over the other.

So is Leroy's definition of "option" that there is 3 options? Can't you spot the problems with your "explanation" or do I really need to re-point them out for you?

So there's an another option Leroy:
I cannot accept will because I do not even understand what it means to accept it, no one has made an explanation of it that I found coherent.

And from all of those who I have seen try, you've certainly fared the worst.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:53 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 53 of 75
 [ 1495 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
cron