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.
The word you would be looking for to accurately describe things in terms of determinism would be "causality", not "coercion".It does not cut both ways because libertarians do not believe that all beliefs arise through a mental coercion.
Well, I didn´t ask how thinking "freely" means thinking "freely".Limited freedom allows for limited free thought. So if I hold to libertarianism I also hold that I arrived there through a process of partial free rational thinking. That is, it is not clear how your argument would run since libertarians do not believe in all devouring deterministic mechanisms that have established all their beliefs.
So if I hold to libertarianism I also hold that I arrived there through a process of partial free rational thinking.
The word you would be looking for to accurately describe things in terms of determinism would be "causality", not "coercion".
Well, I didn´t ask how thinking "freely" means thinking "freely".
I asked why you think that an undetermined (i.e. random, arbitrary) decision between various options is more likely lead to an accurate result.
The word you would be looking for to accurately describe things in terms of determinism would be "causality", not "coercion".
Well, I didn´t ask how thinking "freely" means thinking "freely".
I asked why you think that an undetermined (i.e. random, arbitrary) decision between various options is more likely lead to an accurate result.
Fortunately nobody here claimed that. So much for your strawman.It's a semantic game to claim that mental determinism is compatible with free thought when the two ideas are mutually exclusive.
No, it isn´t. "Determined" is the word, and "coercion" adds a lot of load and noise to it.Coercion is more accurate and thus faithful to the mental determinist position.
Fortunately nobody here claimed that. So much for your strawman, again.Calling your thinking free is like calling your genes free to give you blue eyes and brown hair if you are a determinist. It's unintelligent or dishonest.
Well, if they aren´t determined, what are they, then?Libertarians do not the view choices as random or arbitrary.
So again, after trying to construct an argument but are unable to substantiate it logically, you simply define the position you tried to argue against out of existence?And free will is justified because it is properly basic not on the basis of an inductive or deductive argument.
How so?It is also inferred from experience and confirmed more directly than anything else that a person could believe.
If it´s that simple - i.e. you simply declare "free will" to exist - why did you construct this argument that you aren´t willing to defend, in the first place?If I want to raise my hand I am free to do it when I want to do it. That is as good of a verification for any position that you can have in life.
I don´t want to show anything illusory. I am not even taking a position here. I am just investigating the validity of your argument as presented. However, whenever I point out the non-sequiturs in it and ask you to fill in the missing logical steps, you just declare "free will" to be a fact and therefore determinism wrong. That doesn´t make the argument in the OP any more convincing.If you want to show that it is illusory, the burden of proof is on you but the argument will have to be as sound any argument showing that other minds do not exist or that there is not an external world since we are more immediately and directly cognizant of our free volition.
In order to defeat your argument I don´t need to show that your conclusion is wrong. I am investigating the validity of your argument. Your argument is wanting - which doesn´t mean that determinism is true. It just means that you have presented a poor argument.You can either show how determinism is justified which would defeat my argument
Well, you presented the argument, so the onus is on you to make sure your conclusions follow from your premises. I have pointed out where this was not the case.or show what is wrong with my argument instead of just claim that is permeated with non sequitors (which isn't tremendously helpful).
Fortunately nobody here claimed that. So much for your strawman.
No, it isn´t. "Determined" is the word, and "coercion" adds a lot of load and noise to it.
Fortunately nobody here claimed that. So much for your strawman, again.
Well, if they aren´t determined, what are they, then?
So again, after trying to construct an argument but are unable to substantiate it logically, you simply define the position you tried to argue against out of existence?
How so?
If it´s that simple - i.e. you simply declare "free will" to exist - why did you construct this argument that you aren´t willing to defend, in the first place?
I don´t want to show anything illusory. I am not even taking a position here. I am just investigating the validity of your argument as presented. However, whenever I point out the non-sequiturs in it and ask you to fill in the missing logical steps, you just declare "free will" to be a fact and therefore determinism wrong. That doesn´t make the argument in the OP any more convincing.
In order to defeat your argument I don´t need to show that your conclusion is wrong. I am investigating the validity of your argument. Your argument is wanting - which doesn´t mean that determinism is true. It just means that you have presented a poor argument.
Well, you presented the argument, so the onus is on you to make sure your conclusions follow from your premises. I have pointed out where this was not the case.
I have also shown you where you ascribed notions to determinism that determinism doesn´t hold.
Furthermore I tried to help you add the missing logical links by asking a couple of questions, but unfortunately you evaded them each time.
Yes, it would - simply because you made it out to be a problem rooted in, caused by and linked to determinism. If the same problem befalls the alternative views, as well, you haven´t made an argument against determinism, but against the idea that we can come to valid conclusions by way of thinking.It still seems to me that the argument is sound. But asserting that the same problem befalls libertarianism, which it doesn't, is not an argument against my argument.
I know, but we are still waiting for you to show how it does - beyond simply claiming it does.Also, I am not arguing that libertatianism is true or that determinism is false but only that there can be no justification for determinism because the belief provides a defeater for the belief.
Well, if (as you did above again) say that determinism is self-defeating, this is not an argument but a mere claim. In order to make it an argument you would have to walk us through your chain of logical steps towards the conclusion ("determinism is self-defeating"). Unless you do so, these logical steps are missing, and all we see is a non-sequitur.You claim that the conclusion does not follow the premise. I understand what you believe but the question I am still waiting for and answer for is why?
I think you have repeated it often enough, without adding any more substance to it.(I'll state the argument again below).
I don't believe that's true at all.Thanks. Martin Luther (but not Lutherans typically) and Blaise Pascal were both determinists.
I' m just going to say that your contentions here need evidence because predestination dose not mean determinism, and the idea that God has an overall plan does not mean determinism.There has been large schools of theological determinists and many Calvinists have held not only that salvation is entirely determined (irresitable grace + unconditional election = determined salvation) but have held that God determined every in the act of creation. This is technically called fatalism meaning that every event is predetermined and thus inevitable and distinct from the more modest claim just that our actions are determined. By far most Christians have held to limited free well (libertarianism).
I' m just going to say that your contentions here need evidence because predestination dose not mean determinism, and the idea that God has an overall plan does not mean determinism.
Calvinists typically hold to some form of determinism, together with a "compatibilist" notion of free will. To quote Berkhof's Systematic Theology:
"Reformed theology stresses the sovereignty of God in virtue of which He has sovereignly determined from all eternity whatsoever will come to pass, and works His sovereign will in His entire creation, both natural and spiritual, according to His predetermined plan. It is in full agreement with Paul when he says that God 'worketh all things after the counsel of His will' (Eph. 1:11)."
Thomist Catholics would have a similar view.
Yes, it would - simply because you made it out to be a problem rooted in, caused by and linked to determinism. If the same problem befalls the alternative views, as well, you haven´t made an argument against determinism, but against the idea that we can come to valid conclusions by way of thinking.
I know, but we are still waiting for you to show how it does - beyond simply claiming it does.
Well, if (as you did above again) say that determinism is self-defeating, this is not an argument but a mere claim. In order to make it an argument you would have to walk us through your chain of logical steps towards the conclusion ("determinism is self-defeating"). Unless you do so, these logical steps are missing, and all we see is a non-sequitur.
The main flaw in your argument is the missing explanation as to why a determined belief is more likely to be inaccurate than a determined one. Maybe you have just forgotten to show this (because it seemed so obvious to you, or something), but until you haven´t shown it, there is a fatal gap in your argument as presented.
I think you have repeated it often enough, without adding any more substance to it.
Now it´s time to fill the missing blanks.
If the problem is linked to epistemology in general (as you would have to prove and appears by presupposing mental determinism as I claimed my objector would) it would still be adequately applied to determinism and thus successful. Its not unsuccessful because it can be applied to other positions obviously. In any case, as libertarians hold their view which was briefly described above, its not clear that it would apply to libertarianism is held and justified as properly basic and directly verifiable in experience. Consequently, belief would not arise in the same way as for the determinist. At the very least, it is not clear that it would be successful relative to libertarianism, and since you are making that claim, the burden of proof would be on you to make an argument. On the one hand, you claim that my conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. But you do not even have premises for how libertarianism, as it is held, would face this problem. They do not believe in mental determinism which is why deterministic belief is uniquely undermined in my argument. Now you again claim that my conclusion does not follow from my premises. This is quite remarkable. I am still waiting to see how it does not! I know that you believe that it does not. I knew that 7 posts ago. I am still waiting for a serious criticism. My argument carefully walks through the steps, offers up a user friendly analogy, it has embedded premises followed by a conclusion that shows that the determinist (at least) could never be justified in their belief. So I am quite satisfied with the argument, but I am beginning to think that deep down you are too because I haven't heard what these numerous non sequitors are.
I believe that the reference there clearly tis o a general or overall plan in history
Not so, actually. I've extended the quote to clarify.
I don´t have the patience to put up with this anymore, sorry.If the problem is linked to epistemology in general (as you would have to prove and appears by presupposing mental determinism as I claimed my objector would) it would still be adequately applied to determinism and thus successful. Its not unsuccessful because it can be applied to other positions obviously. In any case, as libertarians hold their view which was briefly described above, its not clear that it would apply to libertarianism as it is held and justified as properly basic and directly verifiable in experience. Consequently, belief would not be believed to arise in the same way as for the determinist since all beliefs would be mentally determined. At the very least, it is not clear that it would be successful relative to libertarianism, and since you are making that claim, the burden of proof would be on you to make an argument. On the one hand, you claim that my conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. But you do not even have premises for how libertarianism, as it is held, would face this problem. They do not believe in mental determinism which is why deterministic belief is uniquely undermined in my argument. Now you again claim that my conclusion does not follow from my premises. This is quite remarkable. I am still waiting to see how it does not. I know that you believe that it does not. I knew that 7 posts ago. I am still waiting for a serious criticism. My argument carefully walks through the steps, offers up a user friendly analogy, it has embedded premises followed by a conclusion that shows that the determinist (at least) could never be justified in their belief. So I am quite satisfied with the argument until I hear an actual critique.
Metaphors of invisible engines and dipswitches don't tell me anything. I could diagram the Holy Trinity with "Father" and "Son" metaphors but I don't think it would help convince you of Christianity one bit.Visual centers interpret the images. Correlation engines match water droplets in air with previous history. Linguistic engines match droplets with 'rain'. Weather dipswitches flick to 'rain'. Who knows what the actual links look like, but I don't see anything to prevent something like that.
Everything is an emergent property. Stars and planets have emerged. Apes have emerged. That's not saying anything particular about mind other than "it now exists".None. Mind is an emergent property of purely physical systems. As wetness is of atoms.
Yes you're right. Immediate sense perceptions can't really be denied. (I usually pick better fights.But, having seen and/or felt the rain, could you decide otherwise? Unless you lie to yourself, I say no. If you perceive the rain, it leads inexorably, deterministically, to a belief that it is raining. Feel free to call it a judgment that you are 'making', but there is no choice in the result. If it's raining, and you're not insane or defective, then you believe it is raining.
Sorry I guess I thought you meant a physical chain. I think asking if there's a causal chain involves some semantics. Instead of the immediate sense perception of rain, take the example of being a juror in a trial. Say it lasts a week, so for 7 days all day long you hear all kinds of different evidence, and hear it disputed. Afterwards someone might ask you the same question two different ways:Possibly you didn't read my post. I did not say that beliefs were physical things.
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?