compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

Please answer the question if you can; and if you cannot, then just say so. Either way, I'm fine. Either is an honest answer.

Refuse to answer at all, evade and redirect, and I have to think I was wrong about the sincerity of your intention: there can be no other conclusion, I think.

The ball's in your court now.

My point is that your question, like my answer are both "at one" with the only possible reality. The ball is in nature's court. Has been, is now and always will be.

This is no answer at all. It is what we call "deflecting" or "redirecting," instead of answering.

I'm a little sad, and a lot disappointed. I had thought you intended to discuss the issue in good faith, and were interested in mutual advancement of the problem, based on all relevant data. I can only suppose that there are some data you simply refuse to consider.

Well, we've gone as far as we're going to go, I guess. Thanks for your time.

[Age]

Please answer the question if you can; and if you cannot, then just say so. Either way, I'm fine. Either is an honest answer.

Refuse to answer at all, evade and redirect, and I have to think I was wrong about the sincerity of your intention: there can be no other conclusion, I think.

The ball's in your court now.

My point is that your question, like my answer are both "at one" with the only possible reality. The ball is in nature's court. Has been, is now and always will be.

This is no answer at all. It is what we call "deflecting" or "redirecting," instead of answering.

I'm a little sad, and a lot disappointed. I had thought you intended to discuss the issue in good faith, and were interested in mutual advancement of the problem, based on all relevant data. I can only suppose that there are some data you simply refuse to consider.

This coming from one who has REFUSED, umpteen times, to just directly answer very simple clarifying questions posed to them, and who has 'tried to' 'deflect' and/or 'redirect' just AS OFTEN.

Well, we've gone as far as we're going to go, I guess. Thanks for your time.

[Age]

All men choose. Dog and cats choose. Rats and blackbirds choose. Spiders and ants choose. Trees and grasses choose.

If you think that, then you do not believe in Determinism at all. You're a dyed-in-the-wool free-willian.

WHY would people BELIEVE such a thing?

...they all are caused by chemical and physical reactions to have choices...

"Caused choices" is a phrase that makes as much sense as 'dry wetness" and "live corpse." It's a contradiction.

How could a 'free-willed' human being come about if 'it' was NOT caused?

If the choices are simply "causes" rather than "taken," then they were never "choices" at all, by definition. And then, you're a strict Determinist; and all your assertions about "choice" turn out to be vacuous.

AGAIN, WHY would people BELIEVE such a thing?

Humans, arguably, have a larger array of choices than plants and other animals.

No, by Determinism, no entity has ANY actual "choice" at all. They're all simply "caused" to do what they do, no matter who or what they are.

ONCE MORE, ANOTHER BELIEF of some 'thing' that is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

The more choices a man has the more free he is.

No: because in Determinism, no "choice" is actually a choice. They're all just predeterminations of the causal stream.

AND, if one Truly BELIEVED in God, then they would AGREE and ACCEPT that the choices they make were caused, or CREATED, by God.

That is; if, as proposed, 'God CREATED EVERY thing', is True, Right, AND Correct.

Given the incoherence of the above, B., I have to think you have no idea what "Determinism" and "choice" would actually involve.

The EXACT SAME thing could ALSO be SAID about 'you', "immanuel can". But, 'you' are NOT READY to even LOOK AT this Fact, correct?

Please answer the question if you can; and if you cannot, then just say so. Either way, I'm fine. Either is an honest answer.

Refuse to answer at all, evade and redirect, and some could begin to think that they were wrong about the sincerity of your intention: there could be no other conclusion, to some.

[Immanuel Can]

This coming from one who has REFUSED, umpteen times, to just directly answer very simple clarifying questions posed to them, and who has 'tried to' 'deflect' and/or 'redirect' just AS OFTEN.

I've been very direct with you, Age...and even tried to help you out.

But your patter is nonsense, and doesn't actually deserve an answer. So don't be surprised that you get none.

[Age]

This coming from one who has REFUSED, umpteen times, to just directly answer very simple clarifying questions posed to them, and who has 'tried to' 'deflect' and/or 'redirect' just AS OFTEN.

I've been very direct with you, Age...and even tried to help you out.

LOL "immanuel can" this here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of what is called 'DEFLECTION' or 'REDIRECTION'.

So, thank you for ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of 'you' DEFLECTING and REDIRECTING, ONCE AGAIN.

But your patter is nonsense, and doesn't actually deserve an answer. So don't be surprised that you get none.

AGAIN, you ALLUDE to SOME SORT of CLAIM but NEVER ACTUALLY POINT OUT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

"your patter is nonsense", says NOTHING, means NOTHING, and IS UTTER NONSENSE, itself.

The questions I have posed to you for CLARITY can be CLEARLY SEEN, and what else that can be CLEARLY SEEN and NOTICED is that they just ask PURELY SENSIBLE questions.

WHERE 'you' CONTRADICT "yourself" can be CLEARLY SEEN. So, it is through that questioning I have ALREADY POINTED OUT some of those CONTRADICTIONS of YOURS.

Your REFUSAL to answer my questions is NONSENSICAL, as NOT doing so is only PROVING how False, Wrong, AND Incorrect what you say REALLY IS.

Just LOOK AT your CLAIM about 'determinism' above, the CONTRADICTION there is that OBVIOUS it is BLINDING. Your REFUSAL to SAY ANY thing is PROOF of this.

[Age]

This coming from one who has REFUSED, umpteen times, to just directly answer very simple clarifying questions posed to them, and who has 'tried to' 'deflect' and/or 'redirect' just AS OFTEN.

I've been very direct with you, Age...and even tried to help you out.

I am being very direct with 'you', "immanuel can", either be Honest, or continue to be the very Dishonest AND WEAK human being that you continue to SHOW us and PROVE here.

I have tried to help 'you' out so many times "immanuel can", but your continual avoidance and Dishonesty just keeps FAILING 'you'.

What you BELIEVE here is OBVIOUSLY absolutely False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, which I have even also tried SO HARD to help you out with, but because you are in so much DENIAL you are completely BLINDED by the Fact that what 'you' are essentially doing here is just doing the very 'thing' you so DREAD to be doing. 'you' are, LITERALLY, doing the very OPPOSITE of what 'you' are MEANT to be doing.

What you are doing puts you had the VERY BOTTOM of list, when it comes to what you call "judgment day". Which is Truly humorous to WATCH and OBSERVE considering how SCARED and AFRAID you REALLY ARE of 'that'.

[Belinda]

All men choose. Dog and cats choose. Rats and blackbirds choose. Spiders and ants choose. Trees and grasses choose.

If you think that, then you do not believe in Determinism at all. You're a dyed-in-the-wool free-willian.

...they all are caused by chemical and physical reactions to have choices...

"Caused choices" is a phrase that makes as much sense as 'dry wetness" and "live corpse." It's a contradiction.

If the choices are simply "causes" rather than "taken," then they were never "choices" at all, by definition. And then, you're a strict Determinist; and all your assertions about "choice" turn out to be vacuous.

Humans, arguably, have a larger array of choices than plants and other animals.

No, by Determinism, no entity has ANY actual "choice" at all. They're all simply "caused" to do what they do, no matter who or what they are.

The more choices a man has the more free he is.

No: because in Determinism, no "choice" is actually a choice. They're all just predeterminations of the causal stream.

Given the incoherence of the above, B., I have to think you have no idea what "Determinism" and "choice" would actually involve.

Determinism is contrasted with 'Free Will' . Determinism means everything that happened necessarily happened. Note the past tense. Choosing means selecting and is an activity on a par going for a walk, and has little to do with 'Free Will'. Your lexicon is not sufficiently explicit.

[Immanuel Can]

Your lexicon is not sufficiently explicit.

Sorry...yours is just wrong. You don't realize that free will is not compatible with Determinism. And the only way that can happen is if somebody either doesn't understand free will, or doesn't understand Determinism.

[Skepdick]

Sorry...yours is just wrong. You don't realize that free will is not compatible with Determinism. And the only way that can happen is if somebody either doesn't understand free will, or doesn't understand Determinism.

You are wronger than wrong.

If free will isn't compatible with determinism then the Christian God is not omniscient.

God doesn't know what your future, the future holds.

[Immanuel Can]

If free will isn't compatible with determinism then the Christian God is not omniscient.

Not so. Old mistake.

"Knowledge" is not "making." They're two different verbs, two different actions and imply two very different states of being.

One can "know" what one has not "made-to-happen." You do it all the time.

[Immanuel Can]

I was talking to iambiguous about this, but it seems he has ceased to be responsive. It happened as soon as I raised this question, which says something about how important it is to this discussion of Compatibiliism.

So I'm going to put it out to everyone. Here it is:

"If free will is an illusion, and Determinism is true, then how is it possible that 100% of all people who have ever lived have lived on the basis of their belief that free will is true, and 100% of the Determinists have been unable to live, even for a short time, as if their Determinism were true?"

[Belinda]

If free will isn't compatible with determinism then the Christian God is not omniscient.

Not so. Old mistake.

"Knowledge" is not "making." They're two different verbs, two different actions and imply two very different states of being.

One can "know" what one has not "made-to-happen." You do it all the time.

But you have been caused to know what you have not "made-to-happen". Your memory of what you did or did not do is caused by your status as an intelligent animal. Your moral conscience regarding what have not made-to-happen" is caused by the morality and reasoning of the culture in which you have been immersed.

[Belinda]

I was talking to iambiguous about this, but it seems he has ceased to be responsive. It happened as soon as I raised this question, which says something about how important it is to this discussion of Compatibiliism.

So I'm going to put it out to everyone. Here it is:

"If free will is an illusion, and Determinism is true, then how is it possible that 100% of all people who have ever lived have lived on the basis of their belief that free will is true, and 100% of the Determinists have been unable to live, even for a short time, as if their Determinism were true?"

It's an interesting question, and I have been wondering if History of Ideas is the proper source for information. I hold that Free Will is a religious doctrine however I believe free will as a belief has been around for much longer than any codified religion.

[Immanuel Can]

If free will isn't compatible with determinism then the Christian God is not omniscient.

Not so. Old mistake.

"Knowledge" is not "making." They're two different verbs, two different actions and imply two very different states of being.

One can "know" what one has not "made-to-happen." You do it all the time.

But you have been caused to know what you have not "made-to-happen".

That statement doesn't even make sense...on any terms.

That you have not made something to happen does not mean you necessarily know about it at all. I may not know about a monsoon in India...and I certainly didn't make it happen. But it still happened.

Seriously, B. -- you must have badly misspoken there somehow.

[Belinda]

Not so. Old mistake.

"Knowledge" is not "making." They're two different verbs, two different actions and imply two very different states of being.

One can "know" what one has not "made-to-happen." You do it all the time.

But you have been caused to know what you have not "made-to-happen".

That statement doesn't even make sense...on any terms.

That you have not made something to happen does not mean you necessarily know about it at all. I may not know about a monsoon in India...and I certainly didn't make it happen. But it still happened.

Seriously, B. -- you must have badly misspoken there somehow.

I have not managed to explain so you can understand.