Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[MarsCydonia]

No free will was defined in the video as the ability to make choices, this is how freewill has always been defined, nobody mentioned brainless choices you are simply making thighs up, (and yet you call me a lier)

Well, I have yet to see you being honest but we'll get back to that. Now, I mentionned free will being implied in the video as being brain-less choices. Why? Because of this passage:

29. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemicals laws of the brain, can produce free will choices

Have you missed this? Or have you missed the implications of the passage? The passage implies that someone should "see a problem" defending freewill (the ability to make choices) and defending the idea that the brain can produce freewill choices.

The reason why Aronra rejects free will is because according to his view if you cant prove something empirically you cant know it, nor affirm it as true since free will has never been proven empirically he cant affirm free will.

Is that the reason? Or is Leroy putting words into Aron Ra's mouth again? I am confident it is the second rather than the first.

obviously no serious person will ever agree with aronra, there are many things that we know, atleast with a high degree of certainty, even if we cant prove them empirically. (see my coffee example)

Isn't there are many things that we know, atleast with a high degree of certainty something that Aron Ra says? Would you agree on Aron Ra on this? How do you define serious person? Is it "a person who is not a free thinker"? Someone who thinks freewill is the ability to make brainless choices?

there are 2 facts that you cant deny
1 aronra affirmed that he doesn't believe in free will
2 free will was defined as the ability to make choices

I agree with the 1st and partially agree with the 2nd because there's one thing you denied and will probably continue to deny: the video implied that free-will choices cannot be made by the brain.

And something you completely left out and did not address:
I still do not see any contradiction between a person stating they are a free thinker and that person not believing in free will implied as brain-less choices.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

[Exactly. You're making an assumption in premise two then later declaring "therefore god exists". That is invalid. You assumption can be wrong, blowing the entire argument out of the water.

And no, you're wrong on the last part. The different would be that, based on what you know so far, I'd likely read that sentence. God, on the other hand, already knew that I read (past tense) that sentence at a specific point in the future. You need to stop thinking of time linearly in this case. This is why "knowing everything" and "free will" are compatible. Knowing all implies throughout all time as well. In other words, the future already happened and you have complete knowledge of it. People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff. .

No in premise 2 I am simply making the uncontroversial that if God exist he could have created creatures with free will, my only affirmation is that if God exist, there would be a possibility that he created creatures with free will.

You freely decided to read that sentence, the fact that I others knew about your free choice does not change the fact that you freely made the decision of reading the sentence.

Pretend that you freely decided to reed this sentence

now pretend that a time traveler already knew about your free decision

does the existence of the time traveler affect the fact that you freely decided to read the sentence?........No

Look at your premise two in context with three and four:

Premise 2: If God exist he could have created creatures with free will if he wants

Premise 3: There are creatures with free will

Premise 4: God is the only possible cause for free will

This entire thing is laden will false assumptions. Premise 2 is based on an "if" statement, which already makes it invalid to use in a proof. By your wording, you admit that premise 2 can be false, therefore the rest of the "proof" is invalid already. Premise 3 does not directly result from premise 2. There are creatures with what we call free will, yes. Nothing prior, however, explains this. Creatures with what we call free will can (and are) a result of natural processes, so this stand alone statement does not even offer continuity of thought in this "proof". Premise 4 really shits the bed. You've taken a likely false premise 2, tied it to an unrelated premise 3 to create an assertion in premise 4 where you've completely failed to demonstrate any causality whatsoever. You assert a god, which in premise 2 you admit may not exist, you take an unrelated observation in premise 3 and somehow magically tie them together. It is completely illogical.

Now with regards to the time traveller. Your analogy is irrelevant due to the fact that the time traveller is an outside observer, whereas the asserted god is allegedly the one that created the person with that person's entire history already set out in stone. If this god actually knows all, then he knows everyone who will be born and every choice or decision they'll make in life as well as what will "happen" to them when they die. They may have the illusion of free will, but their paths are already set at birth (before actually...). Therefore for a god to truly be all-knowing there can be to actual free will. If there was, god wouldn't know what they'll do in the future and woulnd't, therefore, be all-knowing. There would be limits to this god's knowledge.

 

[leroy]

MarsCydonia And something you completely left out and did not address:
I still do not see any contradiction between a person stating they are a free thinker and that person not believing in free will implied as brain-less choices

because no one is defining free will as: "brain less choices" you arbitrary invented that definition, because you are unable to admit that you where wrong. Drop the towel, admit that some atheist including aronra deny free will (defined as the ability to make choices) and apologize for calling me a liar.

29. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemicals laws of the brain, can produce free will choices

No one is defining free will as a brain less choice, what the quote is implying is that if you believe in free will you would have problem in justify free will from a material point of view. this may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant, the question only applies if you believe in free will.

this is the question that was asked and that Aronra Answered

Do you belive in free will? free will being the ability to make choices without coercion

Aronra... answered NO to this question, first implicitly and then explicitly


I wont answer to any of your comments unless you apologize for calling me a liar or you prove that in Aronras world free will means brain less choices

everybody can watch the video and everybody can see how Aronra denied free will and that free will was defined as the ability to make choices.

 

[WarK]

(...) and apologize for calling me a liar.

Aronra:
“There is no free will, but I am a free thinker”

That quote in your signature. Can you give us the source where AronRa said that? A link to an article or a video with precise timestamp will do.

 

[leroy]

Grumpy Santa Now with regards to the time traveller. Your analogy is irrelevant due to the fact that the time traveller is an outside observer, whereas the asserted god is allegedly the one that created the person with that person's entire history already set out in stone. If this god actually knows all, then he knows everyone who will be born and every choice or decision they'll make in life as well as what will "happen" to them when they die. They may have the illusion of free will, but their paths are already set at birth (before actually...). Therefore for a god to truly be all-knowing there can be to actual free will. If there was, god wouldn't know what they'll do in the future and woulnd't, therefore, be all-knowing. There would be limits to this god's knowledge

In this context God is also an outside observer, like the time traveler, the path is not set, you freely decide which path to take, the thing is that God and the time traveler already know the free decisions that you are going to make.

God knows your choices, but he didn't set the path.

there is a difference between this 2 statements
1 I will force my daughter to drink that glass of water

2 I know that my daughter will drink the glass of water.

in the 1 point you are forcing a path, you are forcing the resoult, in the second point, you know what is going to happen, but you are not forcing that result.

This entire thing is laden will false assumptions. Premise 2 is based on an "if" statement, which already makes it invalid

No, all the premise is doing is to show that there are at least 3 possibilities

1 God created creatures with free will
2 God did not create creatures with free will
3 God does no exist (this possibility comes from premise 1)

 

[leroy]

(...) and apologize for calling me a liar.

Aronra:
“There is no free will, but I am a free thinker”

That quote in your signature. Can you give us the source where AronRa said that? A link to an article or a video with precise timestamp will do.

I can show a video where he denies free will and an other independent video where he calls himself a free thinker. will that be enough.?

 

[WarK]

(...) and apologize for calling me a liar.

Aronra:
“There is no free will, but I am a free thinker”

That quote in your signature. Can you give us the source where AronRa said that? A link to an article or a video with precise timestamp will do.

I can show a video where he denies free will and an other independent video where he calls himself a free thinker. will that be enough.?

You quote him so give the source for this. Where exactly did he say what you imply he said. Or are you lying about it?

 

[MarsCydonia]

because no one is defining free will as: "brain less choices" you arbitrary invented that definition, because you are unable to admit that you where wrong. Drop the towel, admit that some atheist including aronra deny free will (defined as the ability to make choices) and apologize for calling me a liar.

This is not my definition. This is the implication of "question 29" from the video. The implication was not "arbitrarily invented" as I explained why the question implied that the brain cannot produce freewill choices.

So... I have already admitted that some atheists deny freewill, why then do you ask me over and over again to admit something I've already admitted to? Let me tell you something that might blow your mind: some theists deny freewill too! Then, there are some atheists that believe in freewill just like some theists do.

But the problem you cannot grasp is that freewill is implied to be different things by many people.

And if you want me to apologize to you for calling out your lying, well. read on...

No one is defining free will as a brain less choice, what the quote is implying is that if you believe in free will you would have problem in justify free will from a material point of view. this may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant, the question only applies if you believe in free will.

What do you think a brain is? Something immaterial? So if you imply that freewill cannot be justified if choices come from a material brain, it implies that freewill is the ability to make brain-less choices. How did you not get that?

this is the question that was asked and that Aronra Answered

Do you belive in free will? free will being the ability to make choices without coercion

Aronra... answered NO to this question, first implicitly and then explicitly

False. This "quote" of yours was question 28. To which Aron Ra replied that he found the question to be irrelevant. When Aron Ra replied that he does not believe in freewill, he replying to this question, question 29:

29. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemicals laws of the brain, can produce free will choices

So you quote Aron Ra's response to question 29 as if it was his response to question 28. This was falsely representing the questions and his answers. And you know that your representaition was false.

So please tell me how should I call it when you wilfully misrepresent someone and presents falsehoods as if they were true? I'd call it lying but you do seem to get upset when it's pointed out to you.

And something you completely left out and did not address:
I still do not see any contradiction between a person stating they are a free thinker and that person not believing in free will implied as brain-less choices.

And that still remains true. What is the contradiction again?

You are still 0 for 4

 

[leroy]

[
So... I have already admitted that some atheists deny freewill, why then do you ask me over and over again to admit something I've already admitted to? Let me tell you something that might blow your mind: some theists deny freewill too! Then, there are some atheists that believe in freewill just like some theists do.

But the problem you cannot grasp is that freewill is implied to be different things by many people.

Stop acting like a 10yo, Aronra clearly and unambiguously denied free will in the interview, and free will was clearly and unambiguously defined as the ability to make choices. Christians might argue that this ability has a brain less source, but this is irrelevant, brain less is not part of the definition of free will.



just drop the towel and admit that Aronra made a blunder

 

[leroy]

You quote him so give the source for this. Where exactly did he say what you imply he said. Or are you lying about it?

I can provide a source where he denies free will and I can provide a different source where he calls himself a free thinker, would that be enough?

why cant you answer yes or no? is that enough to justify my quote?

if I don't get a clear answer you will change the goal post and say that you where asking for something else

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Leroy, you're putting the sentence in quotes, which implies that this is a single sentence - now you're claiming that it's your summary based on two separate claims of Aron.

You're misrepresenting Aron.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

Leroy, you're putting the sentence in quotes, which implies that this is a single sentence - now you're claiming that it's your summary based on two separate claims of Aron.

You're misrepresenting Aron.

Kindest regards,

James

Ok, that is true, in reality there are 2 independent quotes. I changed my signature,

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Grumpy Santa

This entire thing is laden will false assumptions. Premise 2 is based on an "if" statement, which already makes it invalid

No, all the premise is doing is to show that there are at least 3 possibilities

1 God created creatures with free will
2 God did not create creatures with free will
3 God does no exist (this possibility comes from premise 1)

Sorry Leroy, but you're completely missing the point. Here's your list again in entirety:

Premise 1: the existence of God is possible
Premise 2: If God exist he could have created creatures with free will if he wants
Premise 3: There are creatures with free will
Premise 4: God is the only possible cause for free will
Therefore God is the cause of free will
Therefore God Exist

Premise 1 and 2 talk about "possibilities". However possibilities cannot be used to prove something definitively later on. Premise 4 is flat out false because, as you admit with 1 & 2, god may not exist. If god doesn't exist, then god cannot be the only possible cause for free will. Not only that but it's non-explanatory. You assert that if a god exists then he's the only possible cause of free will but fail to demonstrate that. Free will can be naturally derived with or without a god. This entire thing is a complete failure with regards to "proving" anything.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff. .

Oh, and dandan leroy has always had a tenuous grasp of the English language. Just an FYI to do with as you like.

 

[Rumraket]

Leroy, please understand that the term freethinker is not a statement of causality, but one of doctrine. Being (or considering yourself) a freethinker just means you don't have any "rules" or scriptures you believe you have to follow, regarding what thoughts are okay to think or not.

Do you understand?

I'm a compatibilist, I disagrer with Aaron on free will, yet I also understand that those two statements are not in contradiction, because one is about causality and the other is about social politics. You really should find a better signature.

 

[WarK]

You quote him so give the source for this. Where exactly did he say what you imply he said. Or are you lying about it?

I can provide a source where he denies free will and I can provide a different source where he calls himself a free thinker, would that be enough?

why cant you answer yes or no? is that enough to justify my quote?

if I don't get a clear answer you will change the goal post and say that you where asking for something else

So you changed your signature to the following

Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”

Aronra:
“There is no free will, but I am a free thinker”

(...) and apologize for calling me a liar.

You did lie in your signature claiming AronRa said something he didn't.

Now you pretend they're two separate citations. You're still lying. Grow up.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff. .

Oh, and dandan leroy has always had a tenuous grasp of the English language. Just an FYI to do with as you like.

I was curious to see if he'd catch that...

 

[Rumraket]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

Freethought — or free thought[1] — is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or other dogma.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1][4] The term first came into use in the 17th century to indicate people who inquired into the basis of traditional religious beliefs.

A free thinker is defined as a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what others say.[1] Freethinkers are heavily committed to the use of scientific inquiry, and logic. The skeptical application of science implies freedom from the intellectually limiting effects of confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, or sectarianism.

Atheist author Adam Lee defines freethought as thinking independent of revelation, tradition, established belief, and authority,[5] also defining it as a "broader umbrella" than atheism "that embraces a rainbow of unorthodoxy, religious dissent, skepticism, and unconventional thinking."[6]

One can be a freethinker regardless of whether one is also a proponent of free will. Because free will is about the metaphysics of causality in human actions and decision making, while freethought is about culture, politics and epistemology. They are different subjects, they are not the same thing just because they both have the word "free" in them.

 

[leroy]

Leroy, please understand that the term freethinker is not a statement of causality, but one of doctrine. Being (or considering yourself) a freethinker just means you don't have any "rules" or scriptures you believe you have to follow, regarding what thoughts are okay to think or not.

Do you understand?

I'm a compatibilist, I disagree with Aaron on free will, yet I also understand that those two statements are not in contradiction, because one is about causality and the other is about social politics. You really should find a better signature.

But "free thinking" implies that you chose from atletas 2 alternatives.

A free thinker is defined as a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what others say

by definition a free thinker is someone who choose to form his world view based on his thoughts rather than accepting what others say.

the ability to chose is only possible is free will exists.

how can someone be a free thinker if he does not have the ability to chose?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

by definition a free thinker is someone who choose to form his world view based on his thoughts rather than accepting what others say.

the ability to chose is only possible is free will exists.

how can someone be a free thinker if he does not have the ability to chose?

I think you're missing the concept of "free thinker". It's someone who's actions aren't constrained by something like religious texts. The problem with religious constraints is that they'll often make you go against your own self-interest or personal morality or otherwise make you act in ways you normally wouldn't. (See: suicide bombers as an extreme example.)

Free-thinkers, unburdened by such constraints, don't have those restrictions.

Basically, you're using the wrong definition of "free thinker".