leroy wrote:Strop pretending that I have made contradictions, every single claim that I have made is consistent with other claim, every time you quote a supposed contradiction, I explain why it is not a contradiction, and always without exception you pretend not to understand a repeat the same false accusation.
Well that will be easy as I don't have to stop something I never started: there is no pretense at all.
You either lack the capacity to understand your contradictions or the honesty to admit to them but just because you do not see them or because you deny them does not mean that they are not there.
- Defending free will with determinism is a contradiction (one that HWIN
also pointed out to you).
- Saying that free choices do not require freedom is a contradiction.
I'll even remind you of an old one that I still find funny:
- Saying that an accurate statement is a "blunder", that's a contradiction
Oh and Leroy, do you still maintain that god lacks free will as supported by your own words? Or was that a contradiction?
Should I quote you to help you remember what you wrote?
leroy wrote:Yes you are misrepresenting libertarian free will, as explained in the Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy.
How did you reach this conclusion?
-I have presented quotes and explanations that you have not shown to be false or incorrect.
-You asserted that free choices do not require freedom.
So really Leroy, you need to do better than "because I say so" to convince anyone other than yourself that you're not the one who clearly does not understand what libertarian free will
leroy wrote:you see I already provided an example of something that would be a free choice with a variable affecting your choice......If I have a limited budget I am more likely to buy something cheap, but I am always free to steal money, use my credit card, etc. and buy something expensive
Holy shit Leroy! Are you using something I pointed out to you? It looks like you did. Are you... learning?
MarsCydonia wrote:Your "limited budget" does not influence your options because you had other options such as stealing your lunch or stealing money to pay for it. Your options are practically limitless.
But it seems your stopped learning there.
Think about it Leroy, why is it more likely that you will buy something cheap?
Why is it less likely that you will not choose other options such as stealing?
How is the less likely option equally free when you admit that there is not an equal chance to choose it?
How do you define freedom of choice when your "choices" are not as free?
But there's no contradictions there...
leroy wrote:if this doesn't count as free choice , then I don't believe in what you would call a free choice.
Yes, I would argue that we don't have what you call fully free choices, yes variables can affect free choices. there is no contradiction.
I know you don't believe in free choices Leroy. That is the issue.
- Libertarian free will
requires that actions are freely
chosen. That means free from influencing variables that influence the choice will be one thing rather than the other (which thus means the other is not freely realisable).
- "Leroy's definition of will
, interchangeable with "Leroy's definition of free will
and "Leroy's definition of libertarian will only requires freedom from one thing: the brain
Because what is important to you (as we've seen when you asserted (then ran from your blunder) that god does not have free will), is not actually that the choices be free but be brain-less. You're simply trying to sneak-in dualism
, the freedom of the choices is of second importance.
leroy wrote:my view is that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option?............is that so hard to understand? ............stop playing word games, we both know that you are just sending red hearings, because you know that this statement is true, and that you cant do anything to refute it.
Why would I wish to refute your agreement with me?
MarsCydonia wrote:we, humans who are not brain-less, have options and picks options
But that in no way makes the leap to dualism
that you're always attempting.
Leroy wrote:even if I grant all your previous statements, it is still a fact that you haven't provided any argument or evidence against this implication.
so do you accept the implication?./........do you accept that believing in will, as defined by HWN, implies believing in something that cant be tested, has no evidence other than your own personal experience and cant be explained by known natural laws or mechanisms?
Are you finally dropping dualism from the implications of "Leroy's definition of will"
?Edited to correct some spelling mistakes