Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You were persuaded? The same way the bulb in my lamp is persuaded to illuminate itself when I flip the switch, I guess?No, I've said the opposite. I had a natural belief in free will but over the course of some years I became persuaded by reading more about it.
If you accept enough evidence then you have no choice in believing something. You can't decide to not believe.You were persuaded? The same way the bulb in my lamp is persuaded to illuminate itself when I flip the switch, I guess?
I'm also curious about the difference between a natural belief and the presumably unnatural belief you currently hold.
But you have a choice whether to accept?If you accept enough evidence then you have no choice in believing something. You can't decide to not believe.
Well you said you once had a natural belief, and then you changed it to the opposite belief, so I assume the opposite would be unnatural.What makes my belief unnatural?
None. The only choice you have is to accept or reject evidence. If you accept the evidence then belief (or disbelief) is automatic.But you have a choice whether to accept?
I don't know what it means to have an unnatural belief. You either believe or you don't. There's no free will decision to do either.Well you said you once had a natural belief, and then you changed it to the opposite belief, so I assume the opposite would be unnatural.
But you have a choice whether to accept?
Me: Do you have a choice to accept?None. The only choice you have is to accept or reject evidence.
You're the one who mentioned a natural belief. I don't know what that means either, but if there is such a thing there must be something unnatural to oppose it to.I don't know what it means to have an unnatural belief. You either believe or you don't. There's no free will decision to do either.
Atoms, the behavior of chemicals, and molecules and cells, etc.
The long posts was trying to explain to you what was being said as you were dismissing thuings out of hand. I will take your tip on but I also have one for you. How about reading and viewing the link and then I would not have to go to such lengths to explain things.Yeah. Somehow, perhaps, maybe...
Thanks for all that. Here's a tip. Reduce the size of your posts. It'll save you time. Because there's nothing in them that I find worth reading.
Its like the material science offers a promissory note that no matter what everything will eventually be proven as reducibe to deterministic mechanisms and methodlogical naturalism. Which speaks more about a metaphysical belief than science itself.What's funny about determinism is the notion of "before and after" inside a localized time-space. We all know (I'm assuming) that if you're going far back enough to the beginning of the universe it's not quite the steady picture determinists put faith in....and whatever you may consider the end of the universe to be (heat death/big snap) at some point, whatever you imagine of cause and effect, won't be anymore either.
At best, in their tiny lives, in their tiny spaces, they look at the world as if it's all mathematical precision....as if they can't understand that math is entirely incomplete, and filled with paradoxes.
What they call cause and effect may be nothing more than their tiny minds, tiny perceptions, trying to describe a localized time space they cannot possibly comprehend on any macro-scale. Sure guy, it's all cause and effect and you can neatly place now after then and before afterwards. That's a super-duper way to describe everything....not merely the limits of perception or comprehension lining things up for you in an easy-to-use manner.
But yeah...free will describes human behaviors much better than determinism no matter how many arguments you'll make and you will 100% default to acting as if it's real, all the time, just like everyone you look down your nose at.
But no...there's no extremely clear or even obvious value to the idea that because things appear to operate the way they do now, they always will. It's not even a logical conclusion.
You were talking about the choice to believe. It doesn't exist. You have a choice to accept or reject evidence.Me: Do you have a choice to accept?
You: No, not at all, except for the choice to accept.
If I accept evidence then I will naturally believe. Not that I will have a natural belief.You're the one who mentioned a natural belief. I don't know what that means either, but if there is such a thing there must be something unnatural to oppose it to.
I've not only seen the link. I have the book from which the info is derived. All you are saying is that sometimes we consciously decide things.The long posts was trying to explain to you what was being said as you were dismissing thuings out of hand. I will take your tip on but I also have one for you. How about reading and viewing the link and then I would not have to go to such lengths to explain things.
Then we could have debated whether their explanation had merit. Instead we got sidetracked in fallacies.
I don't care about what will happen eventually. What's being discussed is whether we have free will. And that depends on what has and is happening.Its like the material science offers a promissory note that no matter what everything will eventually be proven as reducibe to deterministic mechanisms and methodlogical naturalism. Which speaks more about a metaphysical belief than science itself.
I am talking about Haggards work. Which happens to align with your link from Kane. If its not worth discussing then why did you link Kane.I've not only seen the link. I have the book from which the info is derived. All you are saying is that sometimes we consciously decide things.
It's not worth discussing.
But you have to care about what will happen. Your claiming that the only way we can know whats going on is physically. Within a closed world of physical cause and effect. So therefore you not only have to believe in no free will but also 'no immaterial reality'.I don't care about what will happen eventually. What's being discussed is whether we have free will. And that depends on what has and is happening.
Determinism is verified. There has never been an event that didn't have a previous cause.No one is saying that free will or determinism is verified.
That's the basis on which the thread was established. If you'd rather not discuss free will on that basis then save yourself some time. Maybe start a thread on 'Is reality real?'But you have to care about what will happen. Your claiming that the only way we can know whats going on is physically. Within a closed world of physical cause and effect.
If @FrumiousBandersnatch wants to reply to you about this, then I'll let him do it, for my knowledge is just basic in this compared to his, and he could probably do this part of it justice far better than I could, etc, because other than that, and for right now, I'm going to bed.Go ahead and describe "atoms" at the beginning and end of the universe and describe "when" atoms gained whatever properties you think you're referring to here and go ahead and give us your best guess on when they'll lose those properties.
I'm not interested in your tiny day to day snapshot that you don't fully understand.
No this is wrong. No one can possibly have measured all events for all time. We have theories and assumptions but many are not verified and are actually conflicting with observations. That is a crazy claim considering QM.Determinism is verified. There has never been an event that didn't have a previous cause.
Thats because I disagree with your entire premise and assumption epistemically. I don't agree with your rules in the first place in how we should measure cause and effect. That has not been resolved but your assuming its true in all cases.To prove me wrong then you need to show one. At any time and in any place. You plainly and obviously can't. So you have to argue for libertarianism. Which you haven't.
I'm doing what others are doing. Challenging your premise and assumption that determinism is true.I have no idea what you really think you are doing.
All you need is one example to prove me wrong. And I won't waste any more time responding until you either give me an example or back up any claims you want to make to libertarianism.No this is wrong. No one can possibly have measured all events for all time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?