If you believe in life after death (redux) ....

If you believe in life after death (redux) .... Feb 8, 2018 20:28:37 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 20:28:37 GMT

^tpfkar

Feb 8, 2018 20:04:10 GMT @miccee said:

Feb 8, 2018 19:52:23 GMT cupcakes said:

I know you don't understand "much", not even you own mind. trumpshrug

It comes down to you fielding "deterministic" to impute some magic upon the non-remarkable cause & effect, of which we're all a constituent part of. "Free will", for anyone without tendentious purpose just means that we do what we choose according to our desires and our characteristics. You just think you can field "deterministic yields no free will", for your purposeful, incoherent definition of free will, as you say as a weapon against religion, even though you behave completely irrationally for someone who actually believes no real choice exists.

We're the product of our inputs and our doings, as is easily known by the minimally competent and noncontroversial for all not trying to work something out of it.

And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.

If you actually understood properly, you wouldn't think that there was anything irrational about me trying to convince people on the Internet to have beliefs tomorrow which are different from what they are today, because nothing that I've stated implies that a person's opinions remain static throughout their life. Any definition of 'free will' other than that which posits that human minds operate independently of causality is not sufficient for Christians to shift blame from God on to humanity (or claim that absolutely anyone can become 'saved'). Therefore, novastar (and other Christians) are clearly alluding to a version of free will which you are suggesting that you don't believe exists, but aren't being very clear about because you perhaps don't want to reject it even though you can ostensibly see that it is incoherent. And from your response it comes across as though you are conceding that novastar's interpretation of free will (the incoherent one that would need to exist in order to support her beliefs) is a verifiable aspect of reality.

If I understood as you do, I'd likely be under close watch. trumpshrug

You've said that you and everyone have no real choice; yet you quite frantically try to get them to choose differently. That there is no "real" choice may or may not be the true case, highly dependent on how you interpret things, but if you truly "know" that you and they are as you say just preprogrammed robots without real choice, then choosing to try to get them to choose differently without laughing at yourself at the crazy self-contradiction the molecules of fate are making your fingers do to the keyboard is unadulterated high irrationality. More evidence is the suggestion that I implied your position implied peoples' opinions remained static. I only laugh at you choosing to work hard to to get them to change when no matter what you choose to do, according to you, whether lying down in front of a train or getting possession of the treasured nuke suitcase could possibly make any difference one way or the other. Sure if one or the other happens it's a different scenario, but according to you, you're just a robot and really had "real" no input at all. Do you think player pianos get intensely emotional? Would it be rational for them to if they had a consciousness and knew they weren't really choosing the tunes?

As for Christians, all the have to do is say "magic!, free will exists" and there's nothing you can do about it. What you can do is point out that God had to be either impotent or a bastard to set some up and not others. The good ones are still good and the sh!tty ones are still sh!tty, but the new bit is God is culpable for whatever they are.

That things will only go one way is another uncontroversial thing that you try to work for purpose. People are still in there as a constituent part of it choosing and doing and making it go that way according to their desires and characteristics.

Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should