Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[Deleted member 619]

Than I await hackenslash to explain his reasoning.

Put simply, I can conceive of other constraints on choice than determinism and, this being the case, the data support no firm conclusions as yet.

 

[Deleted member 619]

is that a yes or a no?

sorry, I don't know what don't do means..........

It's a no. I don't 'believe' anything or, at least, I have no use for that term.

 

[leroy]

is that a yes or a no?

sorry, I don't know what don't do means..........

It's a no. I don't 'believe' anything or, at least, I have no use for that term.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
it is funny that you accuse me for making word games, when it is exactly what you are doing.(you know what I mean)

believe> to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

this is how the term believe has been used in this forum, and this is what HWN and I mean when we say that we believe in will.


but since all you do is play word games, let me rewrite the question.>


based on your knowledge and the information that you have in mind..................which scenario do you peronally find more probably true, the will scenario or the illusion of will scenario?

this being the case, the data support no firm conclusions as yet

would you say that any scenario is more probably true than the other?

 

[Deleted member 619]

There aren't sufficient data. I don't know why you feel you need to compel another answer from me, when the only answer you're going to get has been given.

 

[MarsCydonia]

You did it again Leroy.

Yes variables affect (but do not always determine) your choices. no contradiction there.................is it really that hard to understand it?

I agree! Variables influences your choices (that is what I've always stated) but... As I said Leroy, libertarian free will, whom you stated has the same definition and the same implications as will and free will actually implies no influences on your choice.

The libertarian view of free will states that if "free decisions" are influenced, 'they are not fully free. They are not in this case wholly uncaused'.

Fully free means free from influencing variables on your choices.................is it really that hard to understand it?

Well, if you're Leroy, yes it is.

for example my limited budget (a variable) would affect my decision on what I will eat for lunch, But I still have more than 1 option, I can still decide what food I will eat for lunch.

So, was the limited budget was an influence on:
1. On the options you had available for lunch
2. On the choice you made from between the options you have available?

Hint: It isn't 2.
And it isn't 1 either. Your "limited budget" does not influence your options because you had other options such as stealing your lunch or stealing money to pay for it. Your options are practically limitless.

If something influences your choice at all, it comes from you (not from limited external options), such as a desire to avoid getting caught for a crime. A limited budget doesn't prevent you from choosing the "steal" options, it's your desire to remain free that influences you.
Thus that choice is not fully free because full freedom from desire (or other variables acting on your choice), not partial freedom, is required for free will under libertarian free will because "you need to be able to do otherwise".
Limiting options like you did does not work because you're not actually limiting options, you're just removing the options that conflict with your desires.

to have free will (or will) implies that at least sometimes I have more than 1 option , this doesn't mean that I always have more than 1 option, this doesn't mean that each option is equally probable, and it doesn't mean that my desires are not limited.

See Leroy, that is why that when we started this discussion on free will, I explained to you repeatedly that your definition of free will was piss-poor and it still is because you're mixing and matching the implications of libertarian free will, free will and will as you go along.

It is piss poor because, as I predicted quite accurately, you want "free will" to be free from the influences of "deterministic brain-chemistry" but not all views of free will require it to be brain-less. A definition of free will that does not imply brainlessness... Does not imply brainlessness., is that really so hard to understand?

Again, if you're Leroy, yes it is.

someone with absolute knowledge would know the options that I have available, he would know my limitations and my desires...........with this knowledge one can predict my choices...........none of that implies that will is not real, none of that implies that I only had 1 option.

Oh Leroy... Do you truly fail to see it again? And note: you mentionned desires as influence on your choice (not your options) again... But you'll just ignore that won't you?

So let's go over it again:
So how does this work? Someone with absolute knowledge, would know all your limitations and desires and could predict your choice...
But here lies the rub: Could he predict your choice with 100% accuracy or could he make a mistake?
- If it's 100% accuracy, then he would know that your options, limitations and desires could only lead to one possible outcome. If there's only one possible outcome, then you were not free to choose otherwise.
- If you are free to choose otherwise and you happen to choose otherwise, then his prediction was not 100% accurate.

Will you bring back your magical tape recorder "analogy"?

So in light of the above, I'll explain what you really meant with this:

but don't worry, no one is expecting you to understand, and no one is expecting you to admit that there is no contradiction there, ............we all know that you will reply with something stupid and irrelevant...

Oh, and shouldn't you apologize for being mistaken? Or for lying? When will that be coming?

 

[leroy]

Fully free means free from influencing variables on your choices.................is it really that hard to understand it?

I haven't said that we are fully free so you whole objection and the supposed contradiction relies on a straw man that you created from nowhere...


since the very firs page of this discussion, I defined free will and explain what I mean

Leroy

Freewill is defined as the ability to decide and make choices,(at least some times) as oppose to determinism that states that all choices and even our thoughts are predetermined by the laws of nature

.

Oh, and shouldn't you apologize for being mistaken? Or for lying? When will that be coming?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

well lets see if you have intelectual honesty and admit that you made a straw man.

 

[leroy]

Leroy

So as I told you before even if I grant that the universe is deterministic and even if I grant that will is impossible in a deterministic universe, it is still true that will could be an illusion in a non deterministic universe.

Than I await hackenslash to explain his reasoning. You have already define will and the illusion of will based only on an arbitrary reason (in order to basically keep asking the same question I have already answered). Perhaps hackenslash can give a meaningful difference and explain the way we can test for either one of them.

what hackenslash and I have been trying to say and you still pretend no to understand is the Illusion of will scenario is also possible in a non deterministic
universe. In other words, the fact that we live in a non deterministic universe does not prove that Will is not an illusion.

So if you disagree with us, then you would have to prove that it is impossible to have the illusion of will in a non deterministic universe.......which would be very hard to do because we know that illusions are possible in this universe.


if you fail to provide your proof, I will have to ask again......

why do you believe in will, if there is no evidence for will?

The article state very clearly, "In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."

Nowhere in the article does it say that humans choices are unpredictable, the article talks about chaos theory and exilan that given the fact that there is some degree of uncertainty and lack of complete knowledge on the current state of some systems, the future state of the system might be unpredictable.

Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random.[3] The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we tolerate in the forecast, how accurately we can measure its current state, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system

[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

the article is very interesting but has nothing to do with human choices and nothing to do with freewill and gods knowledge of the future alleged contradiction.


what you have to prove is that someone having knowledge of the future automatically vanishes will.


for me it is obvious that I have 2 alternatives, drink water or not to drink water............wether if someone knows what am I going to do or not is irrelevant, I still have these 2 options. ........feel free to prove me wrong, provide your evidence, instead of providing random and unrelated links

 

[leroy]

See, this is exactly what I mean. It's like you've never encountered any of the counter-arguments before. Erecting yet another example doesn't impact the facts. Infallible knowledge about what you will choose constitutes an absolute constraint on the options. If god infallibly knows you'll choose tea, it isn't possible for you to choose coffee, thus that is merely the illusion of choice.

Just making the statement is not enough, you have to prove it.

how does infalible knowledge constitute an absolute constraint ?.............I ve been trying to provide examples where it seems obvious that somebodies knowledge on the future does not vanishes will. ........but I don't even have to do that, it is up to you to prove it.


My answer to this objections is and has always been that knowledge from the future does not imply that will vanishes...it is up to you to prove me wrong.

infalible knowledge constitute an absolute constraint

that would be your conclusion, so please let us know which are your premises that lead to that conclusion, and provide evidence for such premises.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I haven't said that we are fully free so you whole objection and the supposed contradiction relies on a straw man that you created from nowhere...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

well lets see if you have intelectual honesty and admit that you made a straw man.

:facepalm:
Wow...

Do you truly have not the ability to understand that the contradiction you made was about libertarian free will as I highlighted it?

God knows your future choices for the same reason scientist know that the sun will evolve in a red star, scientists know this, not because the saw the future in a crystal ball, but because they understand stars and the physics and variables that surrounds stars, in a similar way God knows your choices, not because the future is already written, but because God knows and understands all the variables that affect your free choices.

And in case you fail to see this Leroy (and you did), that is an obvious contradiction.
If a choice is "free" according to libertarian free willl then there is No variables that affects that choice.

If a variable affects it then it isn't free. Another blunder for Leroy...

Because you insisted that libertarian free will, free will and will all have the same definitions and implications?

my claim is and has always been that will, free will and libertarian free will are the same thing, with the same definition. And with the same implications

So will you admit A: it's a contradiction if they have the same implications? Or admit B: you made a mistake when you said they do?

So do they have the same definitions and implications or not? Did you make mistake A or mistake B?

Think about it Leroy...

 

[Deleted member 619]

Just making the statement is not enough, you have to prove it.

how does infalible knowledge constitute an absolute constraint ?.............I ve been trying to provide examples where it seems obvious that somebodies knowledge on the future does not vanishes will. ........but I don't even have to do that, it is up to you to prove it.

The problem with all your attempts is that they're bollocks, because the infallibility is being dropped.

An entity with will can choose between freely realisable alternatives A and B. If an entity that cannot be wrong KNOWS I will choose A, then it isn't possible for me to choose anything other than A, thus B is not freely realisable. Perfect, infallible future knowledge entails determinism.

This isn't difficult stuff, and is exactly why I say your arguments read like those of somebody who's never encountered any of the countering arguments to your claim.

 

[MarsCydonia]

[My answer to this objections is and has always been that knowledge from the future does not imply that will vanishes...it is up to you to prove me wrong.

Why can't you prove you are right? Just because you assert something, that does not mean you're right until someone "proves you wrong". In your case, it should be simple enough for you to prove yourself to be right:

Prove that having imperfect knowledge is having perfect knowledge.

Because apparently if you're Leroy, such a contradiction is not problem but it is for the rest of us.

I'll dumb it down, again, for you Leroy

P1: Free will requires that person X is able to freely choose between actions (i.e. can choose to do either action/A or choose to do otherwise/B)
P2: God has the knowledge that person X will choose A
P3: God's knowledge cannot be imperfect
C1: From P2 and P3, X cannot choose B as god's knowledge would be imperfect
C2: Therefore, from P1 and C1, X cannot have free will as he is not free to choose B

 

[surreptitious57]

My answer to this objection is and has always been that knowledge from the future does not imply that will vanishes it is up to you to prove me wrong

Shifting the burden of responsibility is a logical fallacy. The one who makes the claim has to justify it it is not the
responsibility of one who disagrees with it to disprove it. They can if they want to but it is not actually necessary

Knowledge of future events will impact upon free will since one can no longer choose between freely realiseable
alternatives. Even where one is unaware of it and the illusion of free will as far as they know is being maintained

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Leroy

So as I told you before even if I grant that the universe is deterministic and even if I grant that will is impossible in a deterministic universe, it is still true that will could be an illusion in a non deterministic universe.

Than I await hackenslash to explain his reasoning. You have already define will and the illusion of will based only on an arbitrary reason (in order to basically keep asking the same question I have already answered). Perhaps hackenslash can give a meaningful difference and explain the way we can test for either one of them.

what hackenslash and I have been trying to say and you still pretend no to understand is the Illusion of will scenario is also possible in a non deterministic
universe. In other words, the fact that we live in a non deterministic universe does not prove that Will is not an illusion.

So if you disagree with us, then you would have to prove that it is impossible to have the illusion of will in a non deterministic universe.......which would be very hard to do because we know that illusions are possible in this universe.

I have to do no such thing. You keep asking me why I think we have will and I keep answering because the universe is not deterministic. Since you cannot give us a meaningful difference between will and the illusion of will, your question is truly pointless.

if you fail to provide your proof, I will have to ask again......

why do you believe in will, if there is no evidence for will?

Because the universe is not deterministic. Want to try changing your script and ask a meaningful question?

The article state very clearly, "In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."

Nowhere in the article does it say that humans choices are unpredictable, the article talks about chaos theory and exilan that given the fact that there is some degree of uncertainty and lack of complete knowledge on the current state of some systems, the future state of the system might be unpredictable.

:facepalm:

The article state very clearly, "In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."

If a deterministic system cannot be predicted, what chance do we have of predicting something that is not deterministic?

Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random.[3] The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we tolerate in the forecast, how accurately we can measure its current state, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system

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

the article is very interesting but has nothing to do with human choices and nothing to do with freewill and gods knowledge of the future alleged contradiction.

:facepalm:

The article state very clearly, "In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."

If a deterministic system cannot be predicted, what chance do we have of predicting something that is not deterministic?

what you have to prove is that someone having knowledge of the future automatically vanishes will.

Again, I have to do no such thing. Read the citation I gave. If a deterministic system cannot be predicted, what chance do we have of predicting something that is not deterministic?

Beyond that, if you want logical proves just read hackenslash's and MarsCydonia's latest replies to you. They answer it subsequently.

for me it is obvious that I have 2 alternatives, drink water or not to drink water............wether if someone knows what am I going to do or not is irrelevant, I still have these 2 options. ........feel free to prove me wrong, provide your evidence, instead of providing random and unrelated links

:facepalm:

The article state very clearly, "In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."

If a deterministic system cannot be predicted, what chance do we have of predicting something that is not deterministic?

 

[leroy]

So will you admit A: it's a contradiction if they have the same implications? Or admit B: you made a mistake when you said they do?

So do they have the same definitions and implications or not? Did you make mistake A or mistake B?

Think about it Leroy...
..

Granted, My world view and my statements are contradictory with what you call libertarian free will, what you call libertarian free will and will are not the same and have different implication...............But so what? I don't believe in what you call libertarian free will,


Libertarian Free Will has always been defined in this conversation as> the believe that some human actions are freely chosen. which sounds pretty much like my definition of free will and HWN definition of will. this definition was provided by ldmitruk.


This is what you did....

1 Redefine libertarian free will, (LFW) and arbitrary assumed that I believe in what you call LFW

2 find contradictions between my statements and what you call LFW,

3 accuse me for those contradictions

that is as dishonest as something can be, you are lucky to be in a forum where your atheist friends will defend you no matter what.


I gave you an other opportunity, and you did the same dishonest kind of stuff that you've been doing since the very beginning, the only reasonable thing I can do is simply ignore your comments until you apologize ..........


...

 

[MarsCydonia]

Granted, My world view and my statements are contradictory with what you call libertarian free will, what you call libertarian free will and will are not the same and have different implication...............But so what? I don't believe in what you call libertarian free will,

Libertarian Free Will has always been defined in this conversation as> the believe that some human actions are freely chosen. which sounds pretty much like my definition of free will and HWN definition of will. this definition was provided by ldmitruk.


This is what you did....

1 Redefine libertarian free will, (LFW) and arbitrary assumed that I believe in what you call LFW

2 find contradictions between my statements and what you call LFW,

3 accuse me for those contradictions

that is as dishonest as something can be, you are lucky to be in a forum where your atheist friends will defend you no matter what.


I gave you an other opportunity, and you did the same dishonest kind of stuff that you've been doing since the very beginning, the only reasonable thing I can do is simply ignore your comments until you apologize ..........


...

Can't you make up a better story than this Leroy? It isn't between my definition of libertarian free will and yours Leroy, it's between your everchanging definitions/implications and everyone else's. The contradiction I've pointed out is between the definition of libertarian free will and its implications as explained in the Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24 video. Not between your "Leroy's definition of will", "Leroy's definition of free will" and "Leroy's definition of libertarian free will".

If libertarian free will as been used in this conversation as the belief that some human actions are freely chosen then that's perfect because that what I've always been using as well. Which means you contradicted yourself when you assert that free choices are influenced. Because as you'll choose to ignore, if the choice is influenced, it isn't free under libertarian free will as it always has been used in this conversation (and you should really stop speaking for HWIN because until he agrees that his definition of will has the same implications as libertarian free will you're only lying, repeatedly - by which I mean, the actual definition of libertarian free will, not "Leroy's definition of libertarian free will").

So what you have to make up is:
1- Pretend I redefined libertarian free will when in fact I used the definition as discussed in the Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24 video and what, pretend that you didn't mean "they all have the same definitions and implications" or pretend they actually do and ignore you've been shown to be wrong about this?
2- Pretend that there are no contradictions between libertarian free will and your statements.
3- Make up a bullshit story that we can all see through (written forum where we can provide quotes, remember?).

No one is buying what you're attempting to sell. You either
- Made a mistake when you wrote that libertarian free will has the same definition and implications as "Leroy's definition of will", "Leroy's definition of free will" and Leroy's definition of libertarian free will.
Or you
- Made a mistake when you wrote that free choices are influenced because that means they're not actually free under the implications of libertarian free will (not to be confused with Leroy's definition of libertarian free will).

But you preferred to make this ridiculous attempt to rewrite history rather than simply admit to a mistake.

Libertarian Free Will has always been defined in this conversation as> the believe that some human actions are freely chosen. which sounds pretty much like my definition of free will and HWN definition of will. this definition was provided by ldmitruk.

Libertarien Free Will:
The belief that some Human actions are freely chosen.

But still, after 49 pages of comments, you still don't get what freely means here but you're not the only one that is dense Leroy. Hence why the video provides more details with Agent Causation:
An Agent - a being propelled by a mind - can start a whole chain of causality that wasn't caused by anything else.

Do you get it now Leroy?
Human = agent
freely = wasn't caused by anything else

In other words:
Libertarien Free Will clarified for the dense:
The belief that some Human actions were not caused by anything else.

This is what you did....
1 Redefine libertarian free will, (LFW) and arbitrary assumed that I believe in what you call LFW

my claim is and has always been that will, free will and libertarian free will are the same thing, with the same definition. And with the same implications

The why of the above:

God knows your future choices for the same reason scientist know that the sun will evolve in a red star, scientists know this, not because the saw the future in a crystal ball, but because they understand stars and the physics and variables that surrounds stars, in a similar way God knows your choices, not because the future is already written, but because God knows and understands all the variables that affect your free choices.

And in case you fail to see this Leroy (and you did), that is an obvious contradiction.
If a choice is "free" according to libertarian free willl then there is No variables that affects that choice.

If a variable affects it then it isn't free. Another blunder for Leroy...

[sarcasm]Not a blunder under "Leroy's definition of libertarian free will"[/sarcasm], it's a blunder under "The belief that some human actions are freely chosen, which the rest of us call libertarian free will, which again, is:

the believe that some human actions are freely chosen. which sounds pretty much like my definition of free will

 

[leroy]

he_who_is_nobody I have to do no such thing. You keep asking me why I think we have will and I keep answering because the universe is not deterministic.

.

Well then prove that the illusion of will scenario is imposible in a non deterministic universe.

Since you cannot give us a meaningful difference between will and the illusion of will, your question is truly pointless

yes did explained the difference multiple times

1 we have the ability of choice
2 the ability of choice is an illusion

The fact is that you believe in will, which means that you have to accept the implications of such believe.

believing in will implies that you believe in a metaphysical phenomena, for which there is no evidence other than your own personal experience, and that cant be explained by any known natural laws,

there is nothing wrong with that implication (I also believe in will) it is just that many atheist claim than one shouldn't accept the existence of any phenomena or entity if there is no evidence for it. I am glad that you are not that kind of atheist.

If a deterministic system cannot be predicted, what chance do we have of predicting something that is not deterministic?

according to the article, deterministic systems can be predicted in principle, it is just that our limitations like the lack of complete knowledge of all the variables that affect the future state of the system makes some systems chaotic. that is a very interesting article but it has nothing to do with the statement that you are suppose to prove.


what you have to do is prove that human choices are in principle imposible to predict. (even with absolute knowledge)

 

[leroy]

[Can't you make up a better story than this Leroy? It isn't between my definition of libertarian free will and yours Leroy, it's between your everchanging definitions/implications and everyone else's. The contradiction I've pointed out is between the definition of libertarian free will and its implications as explained in the Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24 video. Not between your "Leroy's definition of will", "Leroy's definition of free will" and "Leroy's definition of libertarian free will".

I have nothing else to add, I don't believe in what you call libertarian free will,....... I don't believe in what you call free options.


yes libertarian free will as explained in the video has the nearly the same definition than will and has the same implication, both will and libertarian free will imply agent causation. but this implication weather true or not is not relevant.

this are the 2 relevant implications related will free will and libertarian free will



believing in will implies that you believe in a metaphysical phenomena, for which there is no evidence other than your own personal experience, and that cant be explained by any known natural laws,


don't believing in will implies that that you would be guilty of committing all the blunders mentioned in the first post, for example if one had no other option one can not be blamed for being dishonest, morally wrong of for having an irrational world view.


so do you believe in will? (as defined by HWN)? yes or no?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody I have to do no such thing. You keep asking me why I think we have will and I keep answering because the universe is not deterministic.

.

Well then prove that the illusion of will scenario is imposible in a non deterministic universe.

Again, I have to do no such thing, especially when you went out of your way to define the illusion of will to be indistinguishable from will. Until you better define what exactly you are asking for, you are asking an nonsense question.

Since you cannot give us a meaningful difference between will and the illusion of will, your question is truly pointless

yes did explained the difference multiple times

1 we have the ability of choice
2 the ability of choice is an illusion

How does one test between those? Once you explain this, I can give you a better answer. Until that is done, you are asking a pointless question.

The fact is that you believe in will, which means that you have to accept the implications of such believe.

believing in will implies that you believe in a metaphysical phenomena, for which there is no evidence other than your own personal experience, and that cant be explained by any known natural laws,

:lol:

No it does not. It just means the universe is not deterministic. Nothing about the ability to make a choice sometimes has anything to do with a metaphysical anything. First off, you have not demonstrated that there is a metaphysical anything nor have you linked a metaphysical anything to our ability to make a choice sometimes. You are missing a few steps.

As was predicted by MarsCydonia and I, all of this was just you attempting to justify your belief in dualism. How sad.

there is nothing wrong with that implication (I also believe in will) it is just that many atheist claim than one shouldn't accept the existence of any phenomena or entity if there is no evidence for it. I am glad that you are not that kind of atheist.

What? Work on your reading comprehension please. Nothing I have said thus far implies this.

If a deterministic system cannot be predicted, what chance do we have of predicting something that is not deterministic?

according to the article, deterministic systems can be predicted in principle, it is just that our limitations like the lack of complete knowledge of all the variables that affect the future state of the system makes some systems chaotic. that is a very interesting article but it has nothing to do with the statement that you are suppose to prove.


what you have to do is prove that human choices are in principle imposible to predict. (even with absolute knowledge)

:facepalm:

The article state very clearly, "In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."

What more can be said. You can look at an article that clearly states one thing and read it completely opposite.

 

[leroy]

[
No it does not. It just means the universe is not deterministic. Nothing about the ability to make a choice sometimes has anything to do with a metaphysical anything. First off, you have not demonstrated that there is a metaphysical anything nor have you linked a metaphysical anything to our ability to make a choice sometimes. You are missing a few steps. [

granted, the claim that will is metaphysical represents an additional step that requires justification. I apologize for that leap.

however that doesn't change the fact that you believe in a phenomena for which there is no evidence other than your own personal experience and that cant be explained by any known natural law.

 

[leroy]

P1: Free will requires that person X is able to freely choose between actions (i.e. can choose to do either action/A or choose to do otherwise/B)
P2: God has the knowledge that person X will choose A
P3: God's knowledge cannot be imperfect
C1: From P2 and P3, X cannot choose B as god's knowledge would be imperfect
C2: Therefore, from P1 and C1, X cannot have free will as he is not free to choose B

that doesn't follow, sure you can choose B, in which case Gods knowledge would have been different.

Gods knowledge is determined by your choices. you choices are not determined by Gods knowledge..........see the difference?