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 54 of 55
 [ 1081 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote: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. .


again, given that these terms don't have the same definition, they can not be synonymous. is this really that hard to understand?


Now stop grandstanding and move on


You are correct, lets move on........until you clarify otherwise I will simply assume that...>

you believe in will, you believe that at least sometimes you have more than 1 option, even though you cant prove it.an even though there is no empirical evidence for it.

I will simply assume that this is your world view, but you can always correct me and explain what your actual world view is.



do you have anything meaningful to add?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:31 pm
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:

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.


I have no idea what you are talking about, all I am saying is that there are 2 alternatives ether we have options (at least sometimes) or everything is predetermined by prior causes and we never have options.....agree?

Yes one could divide each of these 2 general options in to more specific views, but I don't think is relevant.

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?



I don't know, I don't claim to understand how the process works, and as far as I know no one can.

all I am saying is that I believe that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option and that sometimes some options are more likely to be chosen than others, I cant prove it, and I don't even understand it, it is just my personal view.

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.


to accept will, implies that you accept that at least sometimes you have options, you choose water but you could have chosen milk (in the same circumstances)


as far as I am concern, no one has ever proven will, no one has ever proven that we can have options, and no one has ever claimed to understand how the process of choice and options work, this is why people like hackenslash are skeptical about will and don't grant that we have will. after all why would they grant something that has not been proven and cant even be explained?

people like HWN> grant that we have will, even though he has no evidence for it

people like me > grant that we have will and appeal to personal experience to justify that claim.


So are you like hackenslash, like HWN or like me? or maybe you have a 4th alternative.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:00 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: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. .


again, given that these terms don't have the same definition, they can not be synonymous. is this really that hard to understand?


However, how you defined them, the difference hinges on something that you already admitted is intangible, in practise, thus they seem to be synonyms (a Schrodinger's definition). Again, until you give us a meaningful way to tell the difference, I see no other way to get around our impasse. Beyond that, you already admitted that the one way you thought could be used, cannot.

leroy wrote:
Now stop grandstanding and move on


You are correct, lets move on........until you clarify otherwise I will simply assume that...>

you believe in will, you believe that at least sometimes you have more than 1 option, even though you cant prove it.an even though there is no empirical evidence for it.

I will simply assume that this is your world view, but you can always correct me and explain what your actual world view is.



do you have anything meaningful to add?


Again, I accept will (and all its synonyms) because the universe is not deterministic. That alone is far more than you have done to demonstrate will. However, I am happy that we are finally going to move passed this to (hopefully) a more fruitful discourse.

leroy wrote:people like HWN> grant that we have will, even though he has no evidence for it


:facepalm:

Yeah, no evidence; besides the demonstration that the universe is not deterministic.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:49 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Yeah, no evidence; besides the demonstration that the universe is not deterministic.


didn't we already agreed that deterministic brains can exist in non deterministic universes?................is there any evidence that the human brain is not deterministic and has will?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:56 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 370Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about, all I am saying is that there are 2 alternatives ether we have options (at least sometimes) or everything is predetermined by prior causes and we never have options.....agree?

Yes one could divide each of these 2 general options in to more specific views, but I don't think is relevant.

I don't claim to understand how the process works, and as far as I know no one can.

all I am saying is that I believe that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option and that sometimes some options are more likely to be chosen than others, I cant prove it, and I don't even understand it, it is just my personal view.

You say options are "more liley" because of prior causes (you want as far as to say god could determine which option someone would pick) but at the same time they must not be predetermined by prior causes...?

So what does that even mean? You "don't claim to understand it"...

How can I agree with something that has yet to be coherently established? I would ask again "what is Leroy's definition of "option"" but since you do not understand it, how will it ever make sense?

So don't you think that is why philosophers do not stop at these "2 general options" and try to make sense of it? They have been discussing this for centuries yet you don't think its relevant.

And before you ask: yes, it is really that hard to understand because you do a terrible job at making your position coherent.
That's what happens when you pick the conclusion first and try to defend it when challenged on it.

leroy wrote:to accept Leroy's definition of "will/freedom", implies that you accept that at least sometimes you have options, you choose water but you could have chosen milk (in the same circumstances)

as far as I am concern, no one has ever proven Leroy's definition of "will/freedom", no one has ever proven that we can have options, and no one has ever claimed to understand how the process of choice and options work, this is why people like hackenslash are skeptical about Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" and don't grant that we have Leroy's definition of "will/freedom". after all why would they grant something that has not been proven and cant even be explained?

I'll repeat what I said "I cannot accept "will" (ny which I mean Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" or libertarian free will, because I do not even understand what it would mean to accept it, no one has made an explanation of it that I found coherent".

Worst, with the implications so far established or with the problems yet unsolved, I would be making these blunders by accepting Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" as I've explained before:
I believe in Leroy's definition of "will/freedom", I am a free thinker.

I believe in Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" so creationists are dishonests and/or faith is dishonest

You wouldn't me to make these blunders, would you Leroy?
Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:56 pm
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:You say options are "more liley" because of prior causes (you want as far as to say god could determine which option someone would pick) but at the same time they must not be predetermined by prior causes...?


not necessarily God, all I am saying that under the same circumstances you could have chosen tea or milk rather than water.............but this doesn't necessarily mean that your would have chosen each one 33.33% of the time. .


So what does that even mean? You "don't claim to understand it"...




the concept is easy to understand, the hard thing is to understand how the process of choice works, given that there is no evidence that our brain has this ability and it is impossible to prove that we have choices, because it is impossible to replicate the "same circumstances"



"what is Leroy's definition of "option"" but since you do not understand it, how will it ever make sense?


option: that one could have chosen differently in the same circumstances, with the same constraints.


I'll repeat what I said "I cannot accept "will" (ny which I mean Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" or libertarian free will, because I do not even understand what it would mean to accept it, no one has made an explanation of it that I found coherent".





well then what is it what you accept regarding human choice? what is your view? of all the views that has been discussed by philosophers which one do you think is more probably true?..............do you Believe that human actions are always fully determined by prior causes? or do you believe that at latest sometimes we have options?.....or maybe there is a third option, or maybe you are just skeptic like hackenslash
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:29 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote: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. .


again, given that these terms don't have the same definition, they can not be synonymous. is this really that hard to understand?


Let me try to clear this up:

No, they are not synonymous, but their referents are indistinguishable. In other words, there's no observation we can make, even in principle, that can tell which we're looking at, because they look exactly the same in every way.

HTH. Carry on.
Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:53 pm
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote: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. .

again, given that these terms don't have the same definition, they can not be synonymous. is this really that hard to understand?

Let me try to clear this up:

No, they are not synonymous, but their referents are indistinguishable. In other words, there's no observation we can make, even in principle, that can tell which we're looking at, because they look exactly the same in every way.

HTH. Carry on.



hope this clarification works


so until HWN clarifies otherwise, I will assume that he accepts will, even though he cant prove that the human brain has will.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:29 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 370Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:not necessarily God, all I am saying that under the same circumstances you could have chosen tea or milk rather than water.............but this doesn't necessarily mean that your would have chosen each one 33.33% of the time. .

the concept is easy to understand, the hard thing is to understand how the process of choice works, given that there is no evidence that our brain has this ability and it is impossible to prove that we have choices, because it is impossible to replicate the "same circumstances"

Actually, neuroscience has come a long way and we're getting closer and closer to understanding how the process of choice works. Neuroscience is getting closer while you are getting nowhere.

Let's use your terrible "lactose intolerence" analogy:
If lactoe-intolerance makes it more likely that you would pick water or tea then how does it make more likely? How do you make those odds? If you pick milk, how can you say it made picking tea or water more likely? It would appear to have had no influence at all since the result is the complete opposite of the expected result.

It isn't that is "hard to understand" under Leroy's definition of "will/freedom", its that you have not presented anything to understand. You simply assert that its something possible under Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" but you have not yet presented how it would work or we can see it happening.

Without a process, your "choices" appear to be nothing more than random events and such, by accepting Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" you'd be guilty of commiting the blunders that "atheists" are supposed to be making all the time.

And that's just one of the problem. Second, remember Leroy that you basically asserted that god could determine the choice you'd make 100% of the time (I can go fetch your words for you if you do not believe that is something you asserted)? So let's say god would predict you'd pick water 100% of time because of the variables that influence your "choice" yet that contradicts Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" because it implies "options":
You would not pick water 100% of time because "options", which as we will see, means you could pick differently despite the variables. You could pick milk 50% of the time.

leroy wrote:option: that one could have chosen differently in the same circumstances, with the same constraints.

So Leroy's definition of "option" is "that one could have chosen a different option"...
And if the constraints do not constrain your choice...
I hope you realize how little progress you are making here.

leroy wrote:well then what is it what you accept regarding human choice? what is your view? of all the views that has been discussed by philosophers which one do you think is more probably true?..............do you Believe that human actions are always fully determined by prior causes? or do you believe that at latest sometimes we have options?.....or maybe there is a third option, or maybe you are just skeptic like hackenslash

My position is that I don't accept anything regarding human choices. I don't know how the process of choice works and I haven't seen anyone make a coherent explanation of it.

But I have seen someone make a terrible, repeatedly incoherent and repeatedly self-contradictory explanation of it.
Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:24 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 370Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:not necessarily God, all I am saying that under the same circumstances you could have chosen tea or milk rather than water.............but this doesn't necessarily mean that your would have chosen each one 33.33% of the time. .

the concept is easy to understand, the hard thing is to understand how the process of choice works, given that there is no evidence that our brain has this ability and it is impossible to prove that we have choices, because it is impossible to replicate the "same circumstances"

Actually, neuroscience has come a long way and we're getting closer and closer to understanding how the process of choice works. Neuroscience is getting closer while you are getting nowhere.

Let's use your terrible "lactose intolerence" analogy:
If lactose-intolerance makes it more likely that you would pick water or tea then how does it make more likely? How do you make those odds? If you pick milk, how can you say it made picking tea or water more likely? It would appear to have had no influence at all since the result is the complete opposite of the expected result.

So it isn't that its "hard to understand" under Leroy's definition of "will/freedom", its that you have not presented anything to understand. You simply assert that its something possible under Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" but you have not yet presented how it would work or we can see it happening.

Without a process, your "choices" appear to be nothing more than random events and such, by accepting Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" you'd be guilty of commiting the blunders that "atheists" are supposed to be making all the time.

And that's just one of the problem. Second, remember Leroy that you basically asserted that god could determine the choice you'd make 100% of the time (I can go fetch your words for you if you do not believe that is something you asserted)? So let's say god would predict you'd pick water 100% of time because of the variables that influence your "choice" yet that contradicts Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" because it implies "options":
You would not pick water 100% of time because "options", which as we will see, means you could pick differently despite the variables. You could pick milk 50% of the time.

leroy wrote:option: that one could have chosen differently in the same circumstances, with the same constraints.

So Leroy's definition of "option" is "that one could have chosen a different option"...
And if the constraints do not constrain your choice...
I hope you realize how little progress you are making here.

leroy wrote:well then what is it what you accept regarding human choice? what is your view? of all the views that has been discussed by philosophers which one do you think is more probably true?..............do you Believe that human actions are always fully determined by prior causes? or do you believe that at latest sometimes we have options?.....or maybe there is a third option, or maybe you are just skeptic like hackenslash

My position is that I don't accept anything regarding human choices. I don't know how the process of choice works and I haven't seen anyone make a coherent explanation of it.

But I have seen someone make a terrible, repeatedly incoherent and repeatedly self-contradictory explanation of it. If anyone's "personal experience" makes them believe in a such a mess, I do not see how it could be more obvious for that someone to realize that their "personal experience" is not something they should always trust.
Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:30 pm
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:not necessarily God, all I am saying that under the same circumstances you could have chosen tea or milk rather than water.............but this doesn't necessarily mean that your would have chosen each one 33.33% of the time. .

the concept is easy to understand, the hard thing is to understand how the process of choice works, given that there is no evidence that our brain has this ability and it is impossible to prove that we have choices, because it is impossible to replicate the "same circumstances"

Actually, neuroscience has come a long way and we're getting closer and closer to understanding how the process of choice works. Neuroscience is getting closer while you are getting nowhere.

Let's use your terrible "lactose intolerence" analogy:
If lactoe-intolerance makes it more likely that you would pick water or tea then how does it make more likely? How do you make those odds? If you pick milk, how can you say it made picking tea or water more likely? It would appear to have had no influence at all since the result is the complete opposite of the expected result.

It isn't that is "hard to understand" under Leroy's definition of "will/freedom", its that you have not presented anything to understand. You simply assert that its something possible under Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" but you have not yet presented how it would work or we can see it happening.

Without a process, your "choices" appear to be nothing more than random events and such, by accepting Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" you'd be guilty of commiting the blunders that "atheists" are supposed to be making all the time.

And that's just one of the problem. Second, remember Leroy that you basically asserted that god could determine the choice you'd make 100% of the time (I can go fetch your words for you if you do not believe that is something you asserted)? So let's say god would predict you'd pick water 100% of time because of the variables that influence your "choice" yet that contradicts Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" because it implies "options":
You would not pick water 100% of time because "options", which as we will see, means you could pick differently despite the variables. You could pick milk 50% of the time.

leroy wrote:option: that one could have chosen differently in the same circumstances, with the same constraints.

So Leroy's definition of "option" is "that one could have chosen a different option"...
And if the constraints do not constrain your choice...
I hope you realize how little progress you are making here.

leroy wrote:well then what is it what you accept regarding human choice? what is your view? of all the views that has been discussed by philosophers which one do you think is more probably true?..............do you Believe that human actions are always fully determined by prior causes? or do you believe that at latest sometimes we have options?.....or maybe there is a third option, or maybe you are just skeptic like hackenslash

My position is that I don't accept anything regarding human choices. I don't know how the process of choice works and I haven't seen anyone make a coherent explanation of it.

But I have seen someone make a terrible, repeatedly incoherent and repeatedly self-contradictory explanation of it.



That is and has always been my point........Given that you are an atheist that gowns by the slogan "one shouldn't believe in anything without evidence" you should not grant will, you shouldn't grant that human choice is possible because there is no evidence for it.


This means that you are guilty of committing all the blunders mentioned in the first post, For example every time you call someone liar or dishonest you are implying that he had the option to be honest, but decided to lie. if a mad scientist is controlling your brain and forces you to say you are a 100yo old lady, no one would call you a liar, no one would call you dishonest.


every time you call someone dishonest you are granting human choice (will), even though you claim not to grant human choice.

Second, remember Leroy that you basically asserted that god could determine the choice you'd make 100% of the time (I can go fetch your words for you if you do not believe that is something you asserted)? So let's say god would predict you'd pick water 100% of time because of the variables that influence your "choice" yet that contradicts Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" because it implies "options":
You would not pick water 100% of time because "options", which as we will see, means you could pick differently despite the variables. You could pick milk 50% of the time.


we went over this countless times, maybe God can predict your choices because he knows you, or maybe because he can look at the future, or maybe there is an other way, none of that implies that choices disappear, I have nothing else to add, preheats dragan can explain the point better than me,

Dragan Glas
Just because you know what choice someone is going to make doesn't rob them of that choice. As a chess-player, if I correctly predict what my opponent is going to play, it doesn't mean I've made that choice for him

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12399

isn't that is "hard to understand" under Leroy's definition of "will/freedom", its that you have not presented anything to understand. You simply assert that its something possible under Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" but you have not yet presented how it would work or we can see it happening


I already told you, my answer is I don't know, I don't know how human choice works and I cant present evidence for the reality of human choice, .........I openly admit that I believe in will even thought there is no evidence other than "I feel that will is real"
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:12 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 370Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:That is and has always been my point........Given that you are an atheist that gowns by the slogan "one shouldn't believe in anything without evidence" you should not grant Leroy's definition of "will/freedom", you shouldn't grant that human choice is possible because there is no evidence for it.

:facepalm:
1. I don't have any slogan.
2. I do not grant Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" but that does not mean I shouldn't grant that human choice is possible.

Realize that a position of skepticism toward a subject does not mean you categorically reject it's possibility or believe it's opposite. If I am skeptical that the number of gumballs in a gumball machine is even, that does not mean I do not grant that it could be even nor does it mean that I believe that the number is odd. I do not grant Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" because of its incoherence and its contradiction but that does not mean I do not believe that will is possible.
Seriously Leroy, are you new here? How have you not still grasped this? You have to seriously ask yourself what is impeding your ability to learn.

leroy wrote:This means that you are guilty of committing all the blunders mentioned in the first post, For example every time you call someone liar or dishonest you are implying that he had the option to be honest, but decided to lie. if a mad scientist is controlling your brain and forces you to say you are a 100yo old lady, no one would call you a liar, no one would call you dishonest.

every time you call someone dishonest you are granting human choice (Leroy's definition of "will/freedom"), even though you claim not to grant human choice.

It really doesn't Leroy for reasons that were explained then subsequently ignored by you. So I will not provide the same explanations just for you to ignore again.

And worst, think about the blunder's you think I'd be making, you are actually making them by believing Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" but you've ran from the issues that were raised. Again and again and again...

leroy wrote:we went over this countless times, maybe God can predict your choices because he knows you, or maybe because he can look at the future, or maybe there is an other way, none of that implies that choices disappear, I have nothing else to add, preheats dragan can explain the point better than me,

Not only is your attempt to pit Dragan against me to avoid answering the issues with your god and free will rather pathetic but you really should have read the rest of that thread. Still, thank you for this window into what kind of human being you are.
A blunder theists make all the time...

leroy wrote:I already told you, my answer is I don't know, I don't know how human choice works and I cant present evidence for the reality of human choice, .........I openly admit that I believe in Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" even thought there is no evidence other than "I feel that Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" is real"

As I mentionned, if your personal feelings lead you to believe that such things as Leroy's definition of "will/freedom", married bachelors, squared circles, etc. are real, you really should think twice about trusting your personal feelings.

And it's completely idiotic to think that a "if you don't believe my incoherent and contradictory Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" , you're making blunders!" argument would work.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:28 am
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:Realize that a position of skepticism toward a subject does not mean you categorically reject it's possibility or believe it's opposite..


No one is accusing you for categorically reject will. The point is that you don´t grant that humans have choice as you clearly stated in you previous post

My position is that I don't accept anything regarding human choices. I don't know how the process of choice works and I haven't seen anyone make a coherent explanation of it



but I ll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I misunderstood your comment, so a will ask you once again, do you grant human choice? just answer yes or no I have poor RC and any answer different form yes or no might be misunderstood and misrepresented.


To grant something simply means that you have good reason to accept it, not granting something means that you don't have good reasons to accept it.


For example I don't grant that there is life on Mars, because I don't see any good reasons to believe in such an idea, this doesn't mean that I categorically reject that possibility.





I was not trying to put Dragan against you, it is simply thought that Dragan explained what I have tried to explain dozens of times, I simply thought that Dragan's wording could be clearer than mine. .........I have nothing else to add on that subject, I don't think that there is an incoherence between human choice and knowing a priori what choices are going to be taken. and you haven't proved such incoherence.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:56 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 370Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:No one is accusing you for categorically reject will. The point is that you don´t grant that humans have choice as you clearly stated in you previous post

but I ll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I misunderstood your comment, so a will ask you once again, do you grant human choice? just answer yes or no I have poor RC and any answer different form yes or no might be misunderstood and misrepresented.

To grant something simply means that you have good reason to accept it, not granting something means that you don't have good reasons to accept it.

For example I don't grant that there is life on Mars, because I don't see any good reasons to believe in such an idea, this doesn't mean that I categorically reject that possibility.

:facepalm:

leroy wrote: I don't think that there is an incoherence between human choice and knowing a priori what choices are going to be taken and you haven't proved such incoherence.

:facepalm:
Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:28 pm
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:No one is accusing you for categorically reject will. The point is that you don´t grant that humans have choice as you clearly stated in you previous post

but I ll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I misunderstood your comment, so a will ask you once again, do you grant human choice? just answer yes or no I have poor RC and any answer different form yes or no might be misunderstood and misrepresented.

To grant something simply means that you have good reason to accept it, not granting something means that you don't have good reasons to accept it.

For example I don't grant that there is life on Mars, because I don't see any good reasons to believe in such an idea, this doesn't mean that I categorically reject that possibility.

:facepalm:

leroy wrote: I don't think that there is an incoherence between human choice and knowing a priori what choices are going to be taken and you haven't proved such incoherence.

:facepalm:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

well, útil you explain and clarify otherwise, I will simply asume that you don't grant human choice.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:11 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 370Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

well, útil you explain and clarify otherwise, I will simply asume that you don't grant human choice.

Can I correct your comment Leroy?
Until I explain again something that you did not have the capacity to understand the first time, you will assume something as only Leroy-minded people would do.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:15 pm
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

well, útil you explain and clarify otherwise, I will simply asume that you don't grant human choice.

Can I correct your comment Leroy?
Until I explain again something that you did not have the capacity to understand the first time, you will assume something as only Leroy-minded people would do.


well if I am wrong, why don't you simply correct me and affirm that you grant human choice?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:19 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 370Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:well if I am wrong, why don't you simply correct me and affirm that you grant human choice?

I'll correct your comment again:
"Why don't you simply repeat yourself so I can you ignore your answer again"?
Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:25 pm
leroyPosts: 791Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:well if I am wrong, why don't you simply correct me and affirm that you grant human choice?

I'll correct your comment again:
"Why don't you simply repeat yourself so I can you ignore your answer again"?




so is your answer yes or no?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:07 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 370Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:so is your answer yes or no?

What prevents you from understanding that I will not repeat myself over and over for you Leroy? Not even to break it down to a simple "yes" or "no"?

Try to figure it out and when you're wrong, which is often, I'll point it out for you to ignore and then demand a "yes" or "no".
Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:11 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 54 of 55
 [ 1081 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests