Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[MarsCydonia]

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

Why does "stop acting like a 10 year old" seem to mean "start uncritically buying bullshit"?

1. Aron Ra stated he does not believe in free will in his video (not an interview)
2. Freewill was implied to be more than just "the ability to make choices" despiste your continued attempt to deny it
3. Freewill has a range of definitions

And:
4. You avoided owning up to your misrepresentationL using Aron Ra's answer to question 29 as if it was his answer to question 28, along all of the other points
5. You still haven't showed there was a contradiction between free thinker and free will.

Since people have repeatedly pointed out to you that your signature has no logical contradictions and was/remains a lie, I have a suggestion for your new signature,
"God is the only possible cause for free will"
"You can't choose differently than how God knows you will choose"

At least, that one would both be honest and actually be a logical contradiction.

 

[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 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.

Yes, and whether one is a proponent or opponent of free will one still believes in the possibility of choice.

It's just that there's a difference between what is given causal primacy for taking that choice.

Typically a person who rejects free will, will argue that choice was either fully determined by something external to oneself, or at least emphasize that part of the responsibility for the choice owes to factors other than just "self".

And a person who does affirm free will, will argue that the fact there even is something we call self (regardless of it's material basis) is what matters.

So both positions are compatible with there being something we call choice. They just disagree about what is ultimately doing the "choosing".

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.

It doesn't matter how someone CHOSE to be a freethinker (whether the cause of the choice is due to something internal in your "self", or due to some external influence), the fact that is relevant to being a freethinker is what you end up choosing, whether you believe that choice is free or not is irrelevant.

A freethinker is basing his/hers thoughts on something other than doctrine and tradition. Even if the decision to BE a freethinker is somehow programmed into your genes and your brain, or caused by external material physical influences, the fact is that if they (your thoughts and opinions) aren't based on tradition or religious doctrine, then you are a freethinker.

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

He can be programmed, or if you will, externally causally determined to be basing his/her throughts and opinions on something other than doctrine and tradition.

It's like being a leftist vs being a conservative. Whether there is free will or not, you can still have political leanings and viewpoints you adhere to, even if you don't think those viewpoints were freely decided on by yourself.

Again: To say you are a freethinker is not a statement about where you put the primary causal responsibility for decisions or choices (internal vs external). It is about social, cultural and political views and opinions regardless of how those opinions are ultimately formed.

Do you understand?

 

[leroy]

[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. .

if the 4 premises are correct, the conclusions are also correct..........agree?

based on my understanding, the only premise that you consider wrong is premise 4 .........correct?

 

[leroy]

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

Why does "stop acting like a 10 year old" seem to mean "start uncritically buying bullshit"?

1. Aron Ra stated he does not believe in free will in his video (not an interview)
2. Freewill was implied to be more than just "the ability to make choices" despiste your continued attempt to deny it
3. Freewill has a range of definitions

And:
4. You avoided owning up to your misrepresentationL using Aron Ra's answer to question 29 as if it was his answer to question 28, along all of the other points
5. You still haven't showed there was a contradiction between free thinker and free will.

Since people have repeatedly pointed out to you that your signature has no logical contradictions and was/remains a lie, I have a suggestion for your new signature,
"God is the only possible cause for free will"
"You can't choose differently than how God knows you will choose"

At least, that one would both be honest and actually be a logical contradiction.

the video is there, people can watch it and see for themselves that free will was defined as the ability to make choices

this is the complete answer that Aronra

I don't believe in free will but I am not certain about it, but our legal system should judge people as if there where free will

If we define free will as our ability to make brain less choices it would be implied that
1 Aronra is not certain, he is allowing for the possibility the possibility of brain less choices, aronra would never allow to the possibility of brain less choices, he would laugh at anybody who believes in brain less choices

2 Ourr legal system should judge people as if brain less choices where real ....does that sound like something that Aronra would say?


there is not a logical contradiction between free will and knowing the future. humans can predict the free choices that other humans might make it the future, I can predict that you will reed this sentence, does my knowledge on the future implies that you didn't freely chose to reed the sentence?

the only difference with humans and God is that God would be 100% sure about your choices and humans would know your choices with a given degree of certainty.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

[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. .

if the 4 premises are correct, the conclusions are also correct..........agree?

based on my understanding, the only premise that you consider wrong is premise 4 .........correct?

Wrong? More like invalid. The premises don't even lead to the conclusion. Premise 1 can go anywhere, it states nothing. It's a "maybe" statement. Premise 2 goes nowhere either, also a "maybe" statement. Premise 3 is not lead to via the first two premises. Premise 4 is simply an assertion without fact backing it.

The entire thing is a mess.

 

[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?

ok, I guess I have to agree free thinking does not necessary imply a free choice, but I bet that all the so called free thinkers would argue that they "they decided" to reject dogma and accept truth based on their inquery, no free thinker will ever claim that he was preprogramed to reject dogmas and scripture.

but for the record, I admit that I lost this point thanks taking your time




what about my second blunder?

I don’t believe in free will, but creationists are dishonest

Many atheist argue that creationists/theist/Christians etc. are dishonest including those who deny free will


the concepts of honestly and dishonesty imply free will, since to be dishonest implies that you had the option to tell the truth but you decided to lie.

for example "Kent Hovid is dishonest knows that he is wrong about xxxxx but he repeats this lie over and over again"

If there is no free will you could be wrong, but you can´t be liar you can´t be dishonest.

 

[leroy]

Wrong? More like invalid. The premises don't even lead to the conclusion. Premise 1 can go anywhere, it states nothing. It's a "maybe" statement. Premise 2 goes nowhere either, also a "maybe" statement. Premise 3 is not lead to via the first two premises. Premise 4 is simply an assertion without fact backing it.

The entire thing is a mess

ok, assuming that all premises are correct, which alternative conclusion could you suggest?

 

[Gnug215]

Leroy...

What's the point of all this?

You make a post about blunders that (some) atheists make all (some of) the time.

Then you get mired in a useless syllogism that leads to nothing.

Where did you think or hope this was going?

And if we all just folded and agreed with you, would this particular blunder be even close to anything as bad as the massive blunders that many theists make a lot of the time?

 

[leroy]

Leroy...

What's the point of all this?

You make a post about blunders that (some) atheists make all (some of) the time.

Then you get mired in a useless syllogism that leads to nothing.

Where did you think or hope this was going?

And if we all just folded and agreed with you, would this particular blunder be even close to anything as bad as the massive blunders that many theists make a lot of the time?

My original intent was not to prove the existence of God using a free will argument, I made that syllogism because someone to make an argument.

I guess my original intent was to show the absurdity of denying things like free will, objective morality, etc. by accepting for example free will you have to accept at least one of the premises that theist typically provide to support an argument. (in this case you would have to accept premise 3 in my syllogism)

 

[WarK]

but for the record, I admit that I lost this point thanks taking your time




what about my second blunder?

I don’t believe in free will, but creationists are dishonest

Many atheist argue that creationists/theist/Christians etc. are dishonest including those who deny free will


the concepts of honestly and dishonesty imply free will, since to be dishonest implies that you had the option to tell the truth but you decided to lie.

for example "Kent Hovid is dishonest knows that he is wrong about xxxxx but he repeats this lie over and over again"

If there is no free will you could be wrong, but you can´t be liar you can´t be dishonest.

Are you trying to say that creationists are compulsive liars?

I see you're still using that dishonest signature.

 

[leroy]

WarK Are you trying to say that creationists are compulsive liars?

I see you're still using that dishonest signature.

No and No, read again

 

[Grumpy Santa]

ok, I guess I have to agree free thinking does not necessary imply a free choice, but I bet that all the so called free thinkers would argue that they "they decided" to reject dogma and accept truth based on their inquery, no free thinker will ever claim that he was preprogramed to reject dogmas and scripture.

Let's not be hasty here. I've been an atheist since... well, since as long as I can remember. I recall doing that first communion thing and none of it made sense even as a kid (when people are most vulnerable to religious programming). I do indeed suspect that I may be hard-wired for skepticism. It's also possible that this hard-wiring makes it easier for me to be a free thinker.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Wrong? More like invalid. The premises don't even lead to the conclusion. Premise 1 can go anywhere, it states nothing. It's a "maybe" statement. Premise 2 goes nowhere either, also a "maybe" statement. Premise 3 is not lead to via the first two premises. Premise 4 is simply an assertion without fact backing it.

The entire thing is a mess

ok, assuming that all premises are correct, which alternative conclusion could you suggest?

That's just it. The premises aren't correct. There's no assuming that they are. That's like asking "assuming elephants can fly..."

To fix it, start with premise 1. "Premise 1: the existence of God is possible"
This, as it stands, is invalid. To be a valid premise, something that can directly lead to the second premise, it needs to state something definitive and factual. So the proper wording would be something like - Premise 1: God exists. Now, however, you carry the burden of proof to demonstrate the factuality of that premise. Not only that, your conclusion simply repeats what Premise 1 should have been worded as, making it a circular argument.

 

[leroy]

Grumpy Santa That's just it. The premises aren't correct. There's no assuming that they are. That's like asking "assuming elephants can fly..."

To fix it, start with premise 1. "Premise 1: the existence of God is possible"
This, as it stands, is invalid. To be a valid premise, something that can directly lead to the second premise, it needs to state something definitive and factual. So the proper wording would be something like - Premise 1: God exists. Now, however, you carry the burden of proof to demonstrate the factuality of that premise. Not only that, your conclusion simply repeats what Premise 1 should have been worded as, making it a circular argument

Consider this argument.

p1 It is possible to win that TV contest
p2 If you win the TV contest you might win a trip to Mexico
p3 You won a trip to Mexico
p4 wining the TV contest is the only way to win a trip to Mexico

Therefore You won the TV contest.

The argument is logically valid, all you need to do to reach the conclusion is prove the premises.


So I ask you again, if my premises where true, would you accept the conclusion? If you say yes, I will try to prove my premises, if you answer no, I will ask why and try to fulfill that requirement before trying to prove my premises.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Grumpy Santa That's just it. The premises aren't correct. There's no assuming that they are. That's like asking "assuming elephants can fly..."

To fix it, start with premise 1. "Premise 1: the existence of God is possible"
This, as it stands, is invalid. To be a valid premise, something that can directly lead to the second premise, it needs to state something definitive and factual. So the proper wording would be something like - Premise 1: God exists. Now, however, you carry the burden of proof to demonstrate the factuality of that premise. Not only that, your conclusion simply repeats what Premise 1 should have been worded as, making it a circular argument

Consider this argument.

p1 It is possible to win that TV contest
p2 If you win the TV contest you might win a trip to Mexico
p3 You won a trip to Mexico
p4 wining the TV contest is the only way to win a trip to Mexico

Therefore You won the TV contest.

The argument is logically valid, all you need to do to reach the conclusion is prove the premises.


So I ask you again, if my premises where true, would you accept the conclusion? If you say yes, I will try to prove my premises, if you answer no, I will ask why and try to fulfill that requirement before trying to prove my premises.

You're making the same mistake here. There's nothing linking p1 & p2 to p3 because p1 and p2 are hypotheticals. It is possible, for example, to win a trip to Mexico by other means. p4 is completely invalid, there can be many ways to win a trip to Mexico. Asserting that you won the TV contest is invalid.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Leroy really needs to read about how to make an argument.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Premises are not suppose to be linked, each premise is an independent statement,

sure, in that case you are rejecting premise 4, but if premise 4 where true, you would accept the comclusion. .......right?


in my argument, I just what to undertand, besides proving premise 4, should I do something else in order to reach the conclusion?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

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

I just demonstrated that fairies exist using dandan's leroy's logic.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Premises are not suppose to be linked, each premise is an independent statement,

sure, in that case you are rejecting premise 4, but if premise 4 where true, you would accept the comclusion. .......right?


in my argument, I just what to undertand, besides proving premise 4, should I do something else in order to reach the conclusion?

If the premises are going to lead to a conclusion then they have to be linked and they have to be factual. You can't throw a bunch of statements together that aren't linked and claim that proves anything.

 

[leroy]

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

I just demonstrated that fairies exist using dandan's leroy's logic.

No you haven't demonstrated anything yet, the next step would be to prove that your premises are true, but the logical form of the argument is valid