|
Post by johnblutarsky on Mar 15, 2017 15:18:51 GMT
Soooooo....really no flawed reasoning then. Got it! No flawed reasoning is ever found by the illiterate Well, there's a lot of smart people who are religious, so the lack of finding flawed reasoning seems pretty universal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 21:54:24 GMT
Speak for yourself, God loves me a lot. Oh really, and how do you know? Did your imaginary invisible sky wizard tell you that himself? If so, seek mental healthcare because it means you're hearing voices.
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Mar 16, 2017 18:11:47 GMT
Well, I disagree, I do think that "he" is loving, but I also think that it is much more complicated and beyond anything what we humans can comprehend. Nice post. There are certainly some things difficult to grasp, but if you'll read how rebellion against God started at Genesis 3:1-6, and think deeply on the accusations that were leveled against God, the issues needed time to be resolved. (Especially God's right to sovereignty.) Yes we go through some pretty times, some more so than others, but our problems only last 70 to 90 years.... individually. Then, we sleep (John 11:11-14; 7:60). Once the Resurrection happens (John 5:28,29; 6:44), everyone will have a better life (Psalm 37:9-11,29; Isaiah 11:6-9) , if they choose it.
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Mar 16, 2017 18:58:35 GMT
"Why are we left with the choices, while God does nothing"
One issue raised at the rebellion in Eden was that man can rule himself with God, to make his own decisions. God is simply letting it play out, without His interference. And He has removed His spirit from the Earth. Someday soon, it will be restored (Isaiah 11:6-9).
He hasn't completely left those who want His guidance. We have His Word for that. And the Ransom sacrifice of His Son will provide the Resurrection, to bring back to life the billions who have died (once the issues are settled), so they will experience life as God our Father intended (Matthew 6:9,10; 1 Corinthians 2:9).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 23:01:44 GMT
As in not independently imposed, as in any normal use of the word "free" in this context, and as people have meant it forever, not some contrived partisan definition, introduced for tendentious purpose. And regardless, clockwork determinism has not been established. Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong? If you're talking about compatibilist free will (or Hipster (TM) brand free will as I call it), then that would be a significant walk back from what you were arguing before. Perhaps this is the closest it gets to you ever admitting that you're wrong. Regardless, libertarian free will is the most common conception of free will, and also the one that Christians require in order to exculpate God from the presence of evil. www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-willAs this is a religion forum, this is the conceptualisation of free will which will be discussed. And even if 'clockwork determinism' does not best describe the nature of reality, that still does nothing to help libertarian free will. Because if quantum randomness causes us to make random decisions, then that is 'random will' or 'chaotic will', not free will.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 16, 2017 23:30:30 GMT
tpfkar You can name it whatever you want, I'll just stick with "free will", and with the description of disingenuous tendentious pap for the version you pretend with. And you're a silly liar. I've never argued anything other than that beings making choices based on who they are and the characteristics they have, and that ultimate culpability is a separate and related topic. Multiple times, explicitly, with you. And I don't care about religion, your permanent disability, unless I'm actually discussing the various myths and immoralities. Your need to kill free will so that you can slay the dragon religious simply drives you to emulate the other apologists' expedient tactics. You can over-assert and special plead all you like, it will ever be the transparently political positions of the comically illogical zealot. Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 23:42:46 GMT
tpfkar You can name it whatever you want, I'll just stick with "free will", and with the description of disingenuous tendentious pap for the version you pretend with. And you're a silly liar. I've never argued anything other than that beings making choices based on who they are and the characteristics they have, and that ultimate culpability is a separate and related topic. Multiple times, explicitly, with you. And I don't care about religion, your permanent disability, unless I'm actually discussing the various myths and immoralities. Your need to kill free will so that you can slay the dragon religious simply drives you to emulate the other apologists' expedient tactics. You can over-assert and special plead all you like, it will ever be the transparently political positions of the comically illogical zealot. Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong?You've been arguing in favour of a brand of free will that isn't quite libertarian free will, but not quite compatibilistic free will either. It's a type of free will that has been very vaguely defined and which you have failed to explain how it is meaningfully free. It may not be coerced by another agent, but it is constrained by one's own desires, predisposition, etc. You've also denied that my version of free will is the commonly accepted definition. To quote from the article posted: This is the type of free will that is needed by Christians in order to exculpate God from the existence of evil/suffering in the world.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 16, 2017 23:56:37 GMT
tpfkar I've been arguing the same thing consistently as it is the only thing that fits both sense and the current evidence. I don't care about your punts to pigeonholing definitions from religious sites and political board style gutter tactics in lieu of substantive debate. We are of course affected and driven by our wants and traits, as we're not the bizarre infinitely regressive amorphous blobs that no one has ever associated with what people call free will. The only "meaningful" free will is what we have, making choices based on who and what we are, and that will stand until something more than clumsy ponderings, gross overstatement and purposeful distortions are flung at it. And no type of free will can exculpate God from the problem of evil, regardless of your buy-in. You should not accept religious indoctrination so readily. Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 0:11:39 GMT
tpfkar I've been arguing the same thing consistently as it is the only thing that fits both sense and the current evidence. I don't care about your punts to pigeonholing definitions from religious sites and political board style gutter tactics in lieu of substantive debate. We are of course affected and driven by our wants and traits, as we're not the bizarre infinitely regressive amorphous blobs that no one has ever associated with what people call free will. The only "meaningful" free will is what we have, making choices based on who and what we are, and that will stand until something more than clumsy ponderings, gross overstatement and purposeful distortions are flung at it. And no type of free will can exculpate God from the problem of evil, regardless of your buy-in. You should not accept religious indoctrination so readily. Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong?I've just cited the definition of free will most commonly accepted by theists: "Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise." Your definition of free will is muddled and ill defined and you've provided NO evidence to support it (you can't even define it coherently and consistently, much less support it with evidence). If you believe that the nature of the individual is what causes a choice, then you must accept that punishment for crime is unjust (even if it is a necessary evil). But you seem to be saying that choices are partly caused by our nature and circumstances, but then there is also this 'free will' part of our brain which contributes to the decision, although you can't say how the causal and acausal factors mesh together. You've admitted that if someone could turn back time to revisit a decision they had made, but with no knowledge of what they had decided the first time, and with every other parameter identically the same, then they would always make the same decision. That would entail a criminal committing the same crime every time he pressed 'rewind', and from this it can reasonably be concluded that he was helpless to have avoided committing the crime based on his nature.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 17, 2017 0:18:28 GMT
tpfkar Neither theists not your promotion of their sites have any particular control over reality. The evidence is that we live and experience. Your arguments are consistently comically illogical and your tactics atrocious. And you've admitted that you have desires in this argument that you hold more dear that the truth. And what I said about the intellectual exercise concerning "rewind" was that there would be no logical reason to expect anyone to do otherwise. People are who the are at whatever point in time they are. Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 7:31:47 GMT
tpfkar Neither theists not your promotion of their sites have any particular control over reality. Well, the definition of free will that the article cites is the one that is shared by the majority of the world's population, and it is the only meaningful definition of free will. It is also the definition of free will that forms the foundation of the jurisprudence of probably all of the world's societies, although some nations (such as Norway) are starting to become rather more enlightened in that regard. That is a complete non sequitur. Certainly we experience the sensation of making a choice. That is because our brains do have to actually go through the process of making a decision, even if there is only one decision that it can make. And yes, of course I desire to see superstitious nonsense dismantled, when those superstitions are used to oppress and to unduly deny liberty. Isn't that the same as saying that there logically is only 1 choice that can be made? And if that is so, then what would be the difference between subjecting someone with free will to this experiment, vs subjecting someone without free will to the same experiment? How would we be able to tell which subject had free will and which did not?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 17, 2017 12:55:17 GMT
tpfkar You should get articles from elsewhere than religious apology sites. Or maybe you should not. And if you're starting up about again selling off-me kits at the local pharmacy, sorry, you're going to just have to man up instead. Of course what we live and experience is evidence. You should bone up on what a non-sequitur is. Your pronouncements of what the brain "actually does" is, as typical, thoroughly amusing. And it's not just your desire to see the death of superstition, even though your entire outlook bathes in them, it's that you've stated outright that you need to kill the idea free will in order to undermine religion. Finally, the ability to provide cowards and the mentally ill death pills is not a liberty, it's a sociopathy. No. And so your rest is irrelevant, and regardless, no experiment but a conjectural thought can be applied to it. And here's a knowledge bomb that's going to positively blow your mind - the ones with the free will are the ones that act according to their wants and traits, what people have ever considered as "free will". And I'll pass on your cartoon video. I'm sure it wouldn't convince "hipsters" anyway. Perhaps you could learn to articulate better yourself? Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 21:12:21 GMT
tpfkar You should get articles from elsewhere than religious apology sites. I'm posting that particular link because most of the world's population believes in religious apologias. And the only secular definitions of free will would be ones which admit that our behaviours are pre-determined ('free' will is just defined in such a way that it isn't free in any meaningful sense). Your answer was a non-sequitur in the way it was expressed, as it was ostensibly incongruous with the discussion. The fact that we experience making a choice doesn't mean that we choose that choice before we choose it. What we're actually experiencing is all of the myriad different causal factors that interplay and produce a decision. When we make a decision, we are thinking. We cannot direct ourselves on which thoughts to think, as thoughts emerge without us choosing those thoughts first. Usually this decision will be in line with our normal preferences and predisposition, unless external circumstances force us to act against our own preferences (or unless we're trying to prove to ourselves that we have free will by choosing an undesirable option). The impossibility of libertarian free will, combined with the problem of evil is one of the most efficient arguments to dismiss the possibility of the creator being both omnibenevolent and omniscient. And the argument in favour of the right to die is not that it allows would-be killers to get their jollies off of playing a role in someone's death, it is to give suffering individuals the choice to reject continued suffering. So the ones with free will are the ones who appear to be acting in a manner consistent with hard determinism - with the deterministic factors being their own predisposition, biases and preferences? That is not "what people have ever considered as "free will"", because for most people free will is integral to their religious faith. Any other form of "free will" other than full on libertarian free will (in which one can act against one's nature and make a choice with no determining factors at all) is incompatible with most types of theism. An individual needs to be able to accept Christ as their saviour even if every rudiment of their being is predisposed to reject Christ. The type of free will that is compatible with determinism is something that is espoused by secular philosophers. It basically shows that there is no way to empirically recognise the difference between an actor which possesses free will and that which does not. It cannot be measured or observed in any form, and it is likely that Artificial Intelligence, although not conscious, will some day be able to emulate the behaviour of a human who would be considered to have free will (whilst the AI unit would be deemed not to have free will, based on some nebulous and/or arbitrary criteria).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 17, 2017 21:48:29 GMT
You remain ludicrously comical with your absurd assertions brought on by your unshakable attachment to religion. My answer was, as already pointed out, in no way a non sequitur. The fact that we seem to make a choice is evidence, whether you like it or not, or decide to call it "hipster" or continue bungle basics like "non sequitur". And I still don't care about your soup of unwarranted and arbitrary assertions. And any arguments you attempt against religion are rendered impotent by your free fielding of comically unsound positions and total disregard for probity in service to your quest. We assume that others like us have similar experiences to our own. And what we experience is the most significant evidence, as science has not come close yet to even explaining the mechanisms behind it, much less overturning it, regardless of your great need for a lazy but ineffective weapon to use against your frenemy religion. And ability to distinguish it from sufficiently advanced fakery in others is orthogonal to whether it exists as we experience with ourselves. As much as you wish, you can't magic wand it away with free assertion and forehead-smacking "logic". Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 22:08:53 GMT
You remain ludicrously comical with your absurd assertions brought on by your unshakable attachment to religion. My answer was, as already pointed out, in no way a non sequitur. The fact that we seem to make a choice is evidence, whether you like it or not, or decide to call it "hipster" or continue bungle basics like "non sequitur". And I still don't care about your soup of unwarranted and arbitrary assertions. And any arguments you attempt against religion are rendered impotent by your free fielding of comically unsound positions and total disregard for probity in service to your quest. We assume that others like us have similar experiences to our own. And what we experience is the most significant evidence, as science has not come close yet to even explaining the mechanisms behind it, much less overturning it, regardless of your great need for a lazy but ineffective weapon to use against your frenemy religion. And ability to distinguish it from sufficiently advanced fakery in others is orthogonal to whether it exists as we experience with ourselves. As much as you wish, you can't magic wand it away with free assertion and forehead-smacking "logic". Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?It's a message board for religion; here I discuss religion. The answer I referred to as a non-sequitur was this: "The evidence is that we live and experience. " and that did seem like an incongruous thing say, but then I should be used to your garbled answers and have realised that you meant "the evidence is our experiences". So that's my fault, I suppose, for failing to correctly interpret one of your garbled responses. Regardless, our experience, in and of itself, is no evidence for free will. Our experience of forming a decision can more completely be explained by saying that we are formed with a certain predisposition, bias and preference and our thoughts will automatically tend to conform to those facets of our character. That would be the most economical explanation, as opposed to introducing this nebulously defined and extraneous element "free will". In this instance, positing free will where it is not needed is akin to positing the existence of an ethereal soul. In fact, an ethereal soul would be required in order to direct our brain matter on which thoughts to think (but would still leave the not-trivial difficulty of explaining how the soul reached its decision). If it's impossible to explain whence free will originates, exactly what it's role is and how we would be able to measure its presence or absence in an artificial intelligence, then it is unnecessary to conjecture its existence except for purposes of emotional comfort.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 17, 2017 22:14:59 GMT
tpfkar You certainly can indulge your obsessions. But the actual existence of free will, like so much in life, is wholly independent of religion. And "garbled responses". Ha HA!, you're such the card. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Mar 18, 2017 8:09:47 GMT
Well, I disagree, I do think that "he" is loving, but I also think that it is much more complicated and beyond anything what we humans can comprehend. Any reason he didn't make us smart enough to comprehend him? Not powerful enough? Just a dick move? I don´t know. Some things are not explainable and are outside of the logical spectrum and require belief and faith in the common good. Why are some people smarter and able to think in broader terms and appreciate different opinions and some people conservative, narrow-minded and vulgar? We are all different and that should be respected. Trouble is, people don´t respect others much these days.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Mar 18, 2017 8:19:11 GMT
Any reason he didn't make us smart enough to comprehend him? Not powerful enough? Just a dick move? I don´t know. Some things are not explainable and are outside of the logical spectrum and require belief and faith in the common good. Why are some people smarter and able to think in broader terms and appreciate different opinions and some people conservative, narrow-minded and vulgar? We are all different and that should be respected. Trouble is, people don´t respect others much these days. People also think some of their beliefs deserve respect when they don't. Well, anything that made us that wasn't powerful enough to make us comprehend them doesn't deserve my worship, in my opinion. Same with anything that could have made us smart enough to understand them, but chose not to, and made the consequences rather severe for not blindly believing in them on faith instead of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Mar 18, 2017 8:25:11 GMT
I don´t know. Some things are not explainable and are outside of the logical spectrum and require belief and faith in the common good. Why are some people smarter and able to think in broader terms and appreciate different opinions and some people conservative, narrow-minded and vulgar? We are all different and that should be respected. Trouble is, people don´t respect others much these days. People also think some of their beliefs deserve respect when they don't. Well, anything that made us that wasn't powerful enough to make us comprehend them doesn't deserve my worship, in my opinion. Same with anything that could have made us smart enough to understand them, but chose not to, and made the consequences rather severe for not blindly believing in them on faith instead of evidence. Yes, but trying to respect and listen to other opinions is important, because in doing so one can try to understand their motives and that can teach you a valuable lesson for future reference. Well, having faith in something even though you cannot comprehend it is important as well in my opinion, because that leads to critical thinking and dialogue, which in turn broadens the mind and may lead to an positive outcome for all involved. Blindly believing in something is never good, I agree with you there and bringing violence into it all is certainly not tolerable.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Mar 18, 2017 8:31:47 GMT
People also think some of their beliefs deserve respect when they don't. Well, anything that made us that wasn't powerful enough to make us comprehend them doesn't deserve my worship, in my opinion. Same with anything that could have made us smart enough to understand them, but chose not to, and made the consequences rather severe for not blindly believing in them on faith instead of evidence. Yes, but trying to respect and listen to other opinions is important, because in doing so one can try to understand their motives and that can teach you a valuable lesson for future reference. Well, having faith in something even though you cannot comprehend it is important as well in my opinion, because that leads to critical thinking and dialogue, which in turn broadens the mind and may lead to an positive outcome for all involved. Blindly believing in something is never good, I agree with you there and bringing violence into it all is certainly not tolerable. Id agree with that. How would you say having faith in something you cant comprehend leads to critical thinking? Having faith in something ends critical thinking in my opinion. Maybe I don't really understand what you mean by "having faith in something even though you cannot comprehend". I take that as essentially blindly believing, which you go on to say isnt good.
|
|