|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 11, 2017 16:22:05 GMT
No, the people choose it, or don't choose it. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 11, 2017 16:36:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 11, 2017 16:43:55 GMT
It's a pity that you can never bring yourself to talk about a topic without mindless trolling and name-calling, but that, too, is a choice you made. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 11, 2017 17:01:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 17:38:29 GMT
Passing the buck? Why shouldn't you be held responsible for your own creation? Believing in a creator God and at the same time blaming people for what people do, that's passing the buck. If you have an ant tank and you remove the glass walls, who is to blame for a house full of ants? The ants, for simply doing as their nature directs, or you, who allowed them to do so when you had the power to prevent it? Because the creation has free will. Hope that helps. The human creation has the same level of free will as the ants. The ants do what it is within their nature to do, and humans do what it is within their nature to do. 'God' created a morally and biologically flawed species and then put it in a dangerous environment with scarce resources. What result could have been expected other than what we have? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 17:43:48 GMT
This may be true, but Erjen's post proves why this 'free will' nonsense needs to be fully debunked. It's what theists always reach for when their argument has disintegrated; and people like you only bolster their position by giving credence to the concept of free will even when you're trying to dispute the way that they are using free will. Simply put, if free will was known to be as much of a nonsense as Noah's Ark, then there would be no need for the debate that you're trying to have and theists would have nowhere left to go. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 11, 2017 17:44:34 GMT
tpfkar I suppose it's possible that ants have much more intentional freedom than they appear to, but it seems far fetched to think that they have the same type of higher order cognitive abilities that humans do.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 11, 2017 17:46:53 GMT
tpfkar I simply do not believe in freely lying to push truths. That's just another form of zealotry. 
previously on free willy |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 11, 2017 17:49:46 GMT
Because the creation has free will. Hope that helps. The human creation has the same level of free will as the ants. The ants do what it is within their nature to do, and humans do what it is within their nature to do. 'God' created a morally and biologically flawed species and then put it in a dangerous environment with scarce resources. What result could have been expected other than what we have? Do ants vote? Do ants ever behave in a deviant manner? Do ants make self-interested choices? If ants have the same level of free will as humans, would they not be doing the same things that humans do? Come on, man. Humans and ants was a poorly thought-through analogy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 17:56:19 GMT
The human creation has the same level of free will as the ants. The ants do what it is within their nature to do, and humans do what it is within their nature to do. 'God' created a morally and biologically flawed species and then put it in a dangerous environment with scarce resources. What result could have been expected other than what we have? Do ants vote? Do ants ever behave in a deviant manner? Do ants make self-interested choices? If ants have the same level of free will as humans, would they not be doing the same things that humans do? Come on, man. Humans and ants was a poorly thought-through analogy. Ants have a less complex brain and live in societies which are less complex. This means that their brains are subject to a smaller range of inputs and can produce a smaller range of outputs. Therefore, the outputs which are yielded are more predictable than those of a typical human. But human behaviour can be made more predictable if the inputs can be controlled - that is the basis on which advertising and political campaigns work, to give two examples. Ants behave in the way that ants are wont to behave, and humans behave in the way that humans are wont to behave. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 17:58:35 GMT
tpfkar I suppose it's possible that ants have much more intentional freedom than they appear to, but it seems far fetched to think that they have the same type of higher order cognitive abilities that humans do.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Higher order cognitive abilities does not yield "free will". The output of our brains is still a product of the range of inputs to which the brain was exposed. Our brain is capable of processing a much broader an complex range of inputs than an ant is, and therefore it is much harder to predict what the output will be than if you were observing the behaviour of an ant. If you're defining free will just based on the complexity of the system producing the decision, then where do you draw the line? Do dolphins and orang-utans have free will? How about cats and dogs? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 18:00:40 GMT
tpfkar I simply do not believe in freely lying to push truths. That's just another form of zealotry.
previously on free willyYes, I know that you have an emotional attachment to "free will" and that makes you regard any evidence to the contrary as being a lie. In that respect, you're the same as Erjen or Ada or any of the other theists. But that's the problem. You can't overcome arguments based on emotional attachment using other arguments based on emotional attachment. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 11, 2017 18:00:40 GMT
Absolutely. It can be done. And......it is being done.
However, you can only control the input, not the will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 18:02:03 GMT
Absolutely. It can be done. And......it is being done. However, you can only control the input, not the will. The will is the product of the inputs. Our brain processes what goes in and then produces an output. The range of inputs is immense and includes what we are disposed to do by our genes, out upbringing, our immediate environment, our preferences, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 11, 2017 18:08:14 GMT
tpfkar Your for-purpose "incredulity" coupled with your penchant for single-minded gross overstatement certainly does not make it disappear. And nowhere was it even implied that "free will" was defined " just based on the complexity of the system producing the decision", but it is obvious for those not consumed by fervor that our more advanced cognitive organ allows us to consider and override our lizard brains to an incredibly larger degree than, well, lizards.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 11, 2017 18:10:55 GMT
Absolutely. It can be done. And......it is being done. However, you can only control the input, not the will. The will is the product of the inputs. Our brain processes what goes in and then produces an output. The range of inputs is immense and includes what we are disposed to do by our genes, out upbringing, our immediate environment, our preferences, etc. I disagree. As an example I use people who have been in drug rehab. Some remain free of the influence for the rest of their lives, and others eventually go back to it. It depends on the will of the individual. By the way, in the Axis countries during WWII the governments controlled all the input they had at their disposal, which at that time was limited only to newspapers and radio, yet there was still some internal opposition. How would you explain that? |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 11, 2017 18:13:37 GMT
Why doesn't He intercede to help starving people and whatnot? A lot of horrible things boil down to free will. The public in Venezuela is starving, the government that oversees them know they're starving, and have all the means and resources to end it, but they choose not to, why? Because they like the power of deciding who lives and who dies. In the Congo, women are raped and killed by both enemy soldiers and their own, they have no protection, their government will not help them, but there are many people that if they had the opportunity to, they would, and they would hold every rapist accountable and throw them all in prison. Just as people choose to help those in need, others choose to only help themselves, if all the latter became the former, how much suffering would still remain in the world? So people who ask why God doesn't just fix all the problems, are basically asking why didn't God just make us all a bunch of robots so nobody could be capable of doing anything evil? But nobody's really going to suggest they'd rather be a robot with no will of their own. With the freedom to think and do for yourself comes a price, most people just don't want to pay it and take responsibility when they see something wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 18:19:04 GMT
The will is the product of the inputs. Our brain processes what goes in and then produces an output. The range of inputs is immense and includes what we are disposed to do by our genes, out upbringing, our immediate environment, our preferences, etc. I disagree. As an example I use people who have been in drug rehab. Some remain free of the influence for the rest of their lives, and others eventually go back to it. It depends on the will of the individual. Because it depends upon people's nature how susceptible they are to reverting to those bad habits, which is determined by myriad factors. People act in accordance with their will, but they do not choose their own will. [/quote]By the way, in the Axis countries during WWII the governments controlled all the input they had at their disposal, which at that time was limited only to newspapers and radio, yet there was still some internal opposition. How would you explain that?[/quote] Because you can't control absolutely all the input, and they cannot retroactively erase the influences to which people were exposed prior to the limitations that they implemented. You can't determine the nature of someone's personality unless you've been able to control them from the start (including the environment in which they were reared), and you can't manipulate the way that an individual's genes predisposes them to react to certain stimuli. The more that you can control the inputs, then the greater the predictability of the output, although it is never realistic to expect to be able to control all the inputs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 18:20:00 GMT
tpfkar Your for-purpose "incredulity" coupled with your penchant for single-minded gross overstatement certainly does not make it disappear. And nowhere was it even implied that "free will" was defined " just based on the complexity of the system producing the decision", but it is obvious for those not consumed by fervor that our more advanced cognitive organ allows us to consider and override our lizard brains to an incredibly larger degree than, well, lizards.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?How was it that you defined free will earlier? The freedom to act in accordance to our nature and preferences. Do ants and lizards and dolphins not have this ability? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 11, 2017 18:20:18 GMT
tpfkar You are ever unconcerned in veracity in you solemn quest. As will as in the gobs unintentional absurd irony you regularly unblushingly deposit, of course.
previously on free willy |
|
