Evolution is not really a theory

[Nando Ronteltap]

This all is just free will denial. And that is a psychological condition, not an intellectual position. I think basically we all have the same evidence of free will, excepting a few interpretations of modern scientific theory. We all have the same evidence, readily available, directly accessible to everyone. We all know intuitively how to use the word choosing in common discourse. You reject the evidence, I accept it, and pay dedicated attention to how things are chosen. This is really only interesting if you can find anyone who accepts free will, and pays dedicated attention to how things are chosen, and they do not support some form of intelligent design theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This all is just free will denial. And that is a psychological condition, not an intellectual position. I think basically we all have the same evidence of free will, excepting a few interpretations of modern scientific theory. We all have the same evidence, readily available, directly accessible to everyone. We all know intuitively how to use the word choosing in common discourse. You reject the evidence, I accept it, and pay dedicated attention to how things are chosen. This is really only interesting if you can find anyone who accepts free will, and pays dedicated attention to how things are chosen, and they do not support some form of intelligent design theory.

But how can DNA and single celled organisms express free will, when they don't have the cognitive abilities to even know what a free will is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This all is just free will denial. And that is a psychological condition, not an intellectual position. I think basically we all have the same evidence of free will, excepting a few interpretations of modern scientific theory. We all have the same evidence, readily available, directly accessible to everyone. We all know intuitively how to use the word choosing in common discourse. You reject the evidence, I accept it, and pay dedicated attention to how things are chosen. This is really only interesting if you can find anyone who accepts free will, and pays dedicated attention to how things are chosen, and they do not support some form of intelligent design theory.

No, that is logic. What makes you think that it is "denial"?

By the way, you as of yet have not produced one whit of evidence. You can't claim people have rejected the evidence when you do not even seem to have any.

 

[46AND2]

This all is just free will denial. And that is a psychological condition, not an intellectual position. I think basically we all have the same evidence of free will, excepting a few interpretations of modern scientific theory. We all have the same evidence, readily available, directly accessible to everyone. We all know intuitively how to use the word choosing in common discourse. You reject the evidence, I accept it, and pay dedicated attention to how things are chosen. This is really only interesting if you can find anyone who accepts free will, and pays dedicated attention to how things are chosen, and they do not support some form of intelligent design theory.

I'm not denying free will...i don't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, creator who takes it away by his very nature. I was asking if you do...

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

I'm not denying free will...i don't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, creator who takes it away by his very nature. I was asking if you do...

Sure. How is the agency of a choice identified?

 

[46AND2]

Sure. How is the agency of a choice identified?

Rationale.

If the creator of this universe is omnipotent, he has the ability to create any version of this, or any other universe he wants, correct?

If he is omniscient, he knows exactly what will happen in any given universe, yes?

Therefore, he decided to create a universe in which you make all the "choices" you have made, and will make in the future. Given that, he made all your choices for you.

You may have the illusion of free will, but in reality, you are only making the decisions he wanted you to make when he decided to create this particular universe.

You are only left with these choices:

He is not omnipotent.
He is not omniscient.
He didn't create this universe.
You don't have free will.
Or, he doesn't exist.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Rationale.

If the creator of this universe is omnipotent, he has the ability to create any version of this, or any other universe he wants, correct?

If he is omniscient, he knows exactly what will happen in any given universe, yes?

Therefore, he decided to create a universe in which you make all the "choices" you have made, and will make in the future. Given that, he made all your choices for you.

You may have the illusion of free will, but in reality, you are only making the decisions he wanted you to make when he decided to create this particular universe.

You are only left with these choices:

He is not omnipotent.
He is not omniscient.
He didn't create this universe.
You don't have free will.
Or, he doesn't exist.

Wrong answer. The correct answer is that the agency of a choice is identified by expressing a chosen opinion on what or who it is. That's why people have problems with free will, because they want agency of a choice to be a matter of fact forced by evidence. When agency is identified as fact, then you obtain cause and effect logic, of the factual agency forcing the result of the "choice". So then there is a logic error of contradiction between the choice being free and being forced.

Your riddle is easily solved..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@Nando Ronteltap, you still haven't answered my question: But how can DNA and single celled organisms express free will, when they don't have the cognitive abilities to even know what a free will is?

 

[lasthero]

Wrong answer. The correct answer is that the agency of a choice is identified by expressing a chosen opinion on what or who it is. That's why people have problems with free will, because they want agency of a choice to be a matter of fact forced by evidence. When agency is identified as fact, then you obtain cause and effect logic, of the factual agency forcing the result of the "choice". So then there is a logic error of contradiction between the choice being free and being forced.

Your riddle is easily solved..

Am I the only one who thinks this doesn’t make sense? Is it just me?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Am I the only one who thinks this doesn’t make sense? Is it just me?

To anyone to whom it doesn't make sense, they deny free will.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Heads I win; tails you lose.

 

[VirOptimus]

To anyone to whom it doesn't make sense, they deny free will.

A broken record is tiring.

 

[loveofourlord]

To anyone to whom it doesn't make sense, they deny free will.

I accept free will, you've done nothing to prove it has anything to do with free will, I'm not even sure you know what free will is. how does something random have free will? Does a rock falling have free will to roll right, or roll left?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

I accept free will, you've done nothing to prove it has anything to do with free will, I'm not even sure you know what free will is. how does something random have free will? Does a rock falling have free will to roll right, or roll left?

You say to affirm free will, but you have no idea how the agency of a choice is identified, and then you proceed with an examples where free will doesn't apply.

It is very obvious that free will denial is a psychological condition. You don't talk in a normal straightforward reasonable way about it. You just have to copy the logic that is used with the word choosing in common discourse. When you have the logic, then you look at where the logic applies in nature. I think this is very unfair that I have to play a psychologist to deal with your personal issues with free will. Very unfair the way you regard knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe. Anyone who denies free will has zero credibility as a scientist. It is not something you can be wrong about, and then still say, you have some good understanding of the universe. If you deny free will you are clueless and not really a scientist in the sense that the term scientist has meaning.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You say to affirm free will, but you have no idea how the agency of a choice is identified, and then you proceed with an examples where free will doesn't apply.

It is very obvious that free will denial is a psychological condition. You don't talk in a normal straightforward reasonable way about it. You just have to copy the logic that is used with the word choosing in common discourse. When you have the logic, then you look at where the logic applies in nature. I think this is very unfair that I have to play a psychologist to deal with your personal issues with free will. Very unfair the way you regard knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe. Anyone who denies free will has zero credibility as a scientist. It is not something you can be wrong about, and then still say, you have some good understanding of the universe. If you deny free will you are clueless and not really a scientist in the sense that the term scientist has meaning.

Nando Roneteltap, you still haven't answered my question: But how can DNA and single celled organisms express free will, when they don't have the cognitive abilities to even know what a free will is?

 

[loveofourlord]

You say to affirm free will, but you have no idea how the agency of a choice is identified, and then you proceed with an examples where free will doesn't apply.

It is very obvious that free will denial is a psychological condition. You don't talk in a normal straightforward reasonable way about it. You just have to copy the logic that is used with the word choosing in common discourse. When you have the logic, then you look at where the logic applies in nature. I think this is very unfair that I have to play a psychologist to deal with your personal issues with free will. Very unfair the way you regard knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe. Anyone who denies free will has zero credibility as a scientist. It is not something you can be wrong about, and then still say, you have some good understanding of the universe. If you deny free will you are clueless and not really a scientist in the sense that the term scientist has meaning.

so you don't know what free will is, or science, or evolution...pretty much what I thought, you've shown no understanding of it, and yet claim were in the wrong. Funny how no one agrees with you here. Your in denial of science and what free will actually is, ironic for the one telling others they deny free will to do so themselves.

 

[46AND2]

Wrong answer. The correct answer is that the agency of a choice is identified by expressing a chosen opinion on what or who it is. That's why people have problems with free will, because they want agency of a choice to be a matter of fact forced by evidence. When agency is identified as fact, then you obtain cause and effect logic, of the factual agency forcing the result of the "choice". So then there is a logic error of contradiction between the choice being free and being forced.

Your riddle is easily solved..

This doesn't solve the riddle at all. You are essentially saying that free will doesn't exist as an objective entity, but that as long as one holds that they are choosing freely, then they are. The problem is that if such a creator exists, then by its nature it requires choice (or in this case, lack thereof) to be a matter of fact, because such a being necessarily makes all choices for all of his creation when he decided to create a particular universe, among infinite possibilities within his power.

I will ask you again...if you have free will, can you make a choice that is contrary to what the creator knows you will make? If not, how can you possibly be making said "choice" freely? It may FEEL like it's your choice, but it's really just an illusion. You would be doing exactly what the creator intended for you to do in the first place.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

More free will denial, more display of a psychological condition, and no argumentation.

Now the one seems to be angry, and accusing me of free will denial. The other keeps on asking a question that has already been answered 4 times. And the last is riddling up free will.

You are supposed to just affirm free will, and theorize about how things are chosen in the universe. And intelligent design is reasonable theory obviously, to all who accept free will straightforwardly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More free will denial, more display of a psychological condition, and no argumentation.

Now the one seems to be angry, and accusing me of free will denial. The other keeps on asking a question that has already been answered 4 times. And the last is riddling up free will.

You are supposed to just affirm free will, and theorize about how things are chosen in the universe. And intelligent design is reasonable theory obviously, to all who accept free will straightforwardly.

You are not reasoning properly. If you want to claim that free will exists the burden of proof lies upon you. When you utterly fail at supporting your claim it is not denial to say "I don't believe you."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

More free will denial, more display of a psychological condition, and no argumentation.

Now the one seems to be angry, and accusing me of free will denial. The other keeps on asking a question that has already been answered 4 times. And the last is riddling up free will.

You are supposed to just affirm free will, and theorize about how things are chosen in the universe. And intelligent design is reasonable theory obviously, to all who accept free will straightforwardly.

You have not answered my question once. All you did was make a ridiculous claim with zero evidence to back it up, then you just when on accusing me and others of denying anything you say outright.