where else can you find us?

The League of Reason still has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 49 of 49
 [ 966 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
leroyPosts: 604Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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


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

Image[

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


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


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


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




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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the illusion scenario is more parsimonious that the will scenario.


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



Sugar is made out of atoms - agree?

Sugar is sweet - agree?

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


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

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


so my question is.......

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



he who is nobody
We click the link and it leads us to where
:

dandan/leroy wrote:
I can predict that you will read this sentence, not because I have seen the future, nor because you where not free to decide to reed the sentence or not.

I simply know It because I know you and I know (with a high degree of certainty) that you will freely decide to reed this sentence.

God would know it with a 100% degree of certainty.




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

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


there is no contradiction between the existence of a being that knows your future choices and the existence of will. ...........if you disagree you would have to accept the burden proof and provide your evidence, but we both know that that is never going to happen because for some reason you believe that atheist are not obligated to present evidence.
Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”
Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:26 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 278Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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

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

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:God knows your future choices for the same reason scientist know that the sun will evolve in a red star, scientists know this, not because the saw the future in a crystal ball, but because they understand stars and the physics and variables that surrounds stars, in a similar way God knows your choices, not because the future is already written, but because God knows and understands all the variables that affect your free choices.

And in case you fail to see this Leroy (and you did), that is an obvious contradiction.
If a choice is "free" according to libertarian free willl then there is No variables that affects that choice.

If a variable affects it then it isn't free. Another blunder for Leroy...
Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:37 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3061Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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


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

MarsCydonia wrote:Seriously though, :lol:

You asked if "quote anywhere where the author said something that implies that there is a difference between what he calls libertarian free will and what WHN calls will" and that was exactly it Leroy.

Libertarian free will is about the ability of agent starting chains of events "freely" or causelessly. That's what libertarian free will is. Now look at what HWIN's calls will. Is there anything that implies causelessness in his?


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

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


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

Image[

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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


:facepalm:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

the illusion scenario is more parsimonious that the will scenario.


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

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


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

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

Sugar is sweet - agree?

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

leroy wrote:
he who is nobody
We click the link and it leads us to where
:

dandan/leroy wrote:
I can predict that you will read this sentence, not because I have seen the future, nor because you where not free to decide to reed the sentence or not.

I simply know It because I know you and I know (with a high degree of certainty) that you will freely decide to reed this sentence.

God would know it with a 100% degree of certainty.




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

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


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


You are making the claim that something can tell the future based on only past and present inputs. According to Chaos theory that is impossible for deterministic systems, let alone non-deterministic ones. Thus, if you know of a way to do this, I am sure the mathematicians would love to know about it.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:59 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 278Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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


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

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

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

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

How many times have we gone over this? Somehow Leroy thinks that failing to provide an answer to the issues we raised or that ignoring that the "answer" he provided is a contradiction counts as a failure on our part and not his.
Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:37 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1145Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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


He still has this deceitful signature.
When it was pointed out to him last time, he just added the two quotation marks in the middle. I suppose he doesn't realise that that makes it an obvious quote mine meant to misrepresent AronRa's position. He's even failing at basic creationist methods.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:12 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3061Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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


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


Oh, it is worse than that.

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

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

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



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

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


Rumraket points out that it is wrong, dandan/leroy agrees that it is wrong, yet he rationalizes why he should keep it instead of acting honest.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:42 pm
YIM WWW
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 49 of 49
 [ 966 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests