Free will, freedom from what?

[Gary Childress]

Maybe constructing a valid and sound logical argument for why the universe must necessarily be finite and typing it out step by step will help? Otherwise, one isn't really using logic.

Gary, Gary, Gary....

Before you speak, go back and read. I've already laid out the logic, and I've provided the references to the scientific evidence. If you jump into the middle of a conversation, and don't read what's been said, you're not going to know that, and you're going to say silly things like you just said.

Can you link to the post in which you laid out the sound logical argument. Or at least tell me what page it is on? I don't dismiss that you could be right, only that I have not seen your argument.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe constructing a valid and sound logical argument for why the universe must necessarily be finite and typing it out step by step will help? Otherwise, one isn't really using logic.

Gary, Gary, Gary....

Before you speak, go back and read. I've already laid out the logic, and I've provided the references to the scientific evidence. If you jump into the middle of a conversation, and don't read what's been said, you're not going to know that, and you're going to say silly things like you just said.

Can you link to the post in which you laid out the sound logical argument. Or at least tell me what page it is on? I don't dismiss that you could be right, only that I have not seen your argument.

No, I'm not bothering. It's several messages, in which I lay out both the evidence and the reasons. You can decide whose logic you think is right, depending on whether or not you can do logic.

[henry quirk]

It's worse than that.

Oh, it's even worse than that.

As I say: The hard determinist tosses aside the entirety of his own self-experience and adopts a notion that ultimately describes him as mechanism. He lives as a free will (cuz he is) but denies himself as a free will. It's an awful contradiction, a philophrenia.

The soft determinist is in worse shape: he wants the cake in his hands and in his belly, simultaneously. Free and determined, responsible and not, at the same time. A metaphysichosis.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, Gary, Gary....

Before you speak, go back and read. I've already laid out the logic, and I've provided the references to the scientific evidence. If you jump into the middle of a conversation, and don't read what's been said, you're not going to know that, and you're going to say silly things like you just said.

Can you link to the post in which you laid out the sound logical argument. Or at least tell me what page it is on? I don't dismiss that you could be right, only that I have not seen your argument.

No, I'm not bothering. It's several messages, in which I lay out both the evidence and the reasons. You can decide whose logic you think is right, depending on whether or not you can do logic.

Fair enough.

Maybe you can at least let me know, Is your argument a deductive one or an inductive one?

[Atla]

Not pulling out.

But if you're being a troll, there's no point.

And if you're not being a troll, then you don't understand even the most rudimentary facts and logic.

Take your pick.

Either way, there's no a whole lot more that can be said.

You could have said something substantial about the beginning of the universe here

You clearly wouldn't understand it, since I already did, and you couldn't get it.

There's a basic IQ bar. Unless you can do basic logic, you're not going to get any scientific argument at all. Right now, you're either pretending to be incapable, or actually incapable: neither is a strategy I can beat.

That's something people usually say after presenting the killer argument.

[Immanuel Can]

It's worse than that.

Oh, it's even worse than that.

As I say: The hard determinist tosses aside the entirety of his own self-experience and adopts a notion that ultimately describes him as mechanism. He lives as a free will (cuz he is) but denies himself as a free will. It's an awful contradiction, a philophrenia.

The soft determinist is in worse shape: he wants the cake in his hands and in his belly, simultaneously. Free and determined, responsible and not, at the same time. A metaphysichosis.

Yes, a kind of split-personality disorder.

He assumes free will in order to argue that free will is impossible. He assumes a choosing listener, in order to convince that listener that he cannot choose, and thus cannot be convinced. He demands that you change your view, while denying that changing anything from one ironclad course is even possible. He assumes his own rightness, in order to insist that "rightness" is simply a matter of whatever was foreordained, not a matter of truth and falsehood at all...and hence, he accidentally insists that he, himself cannot be right. He claims to be campaigning to defend rational science, while simultaneously declaring that beliefs cannot be made of the basis of either rationality or science, but can only be made by impersonal previous forces that have no interest in truth, and also that personal belief doesn't really change anything at all.

Ah, the multitudinous self-contradictions of "Compatiblism," which is not "compatible" with either reality or even with good sense.

[Immanuel Can]

You could have said something substantial about the beginning of the universe here

You clearly wouldn't understand it, since I already did, and you couldn't get it.

There's a basic IQ bar. Unless you can do basic logic, you're not going to get any scientific argument at all. Right now, you're either pretending to be incapable, or actually incapable: neither is a strategy I can beat.

That's something people usually say after presenting the killer argument.

I say it after the killer argument has already been produced, and the viewer proved herself incapable of grasping it.

[henry quirk]

Of course you know why there's resistance to the notion & evidence of a begnning.

He said it himself, just up-thread: Nah, he only needs the finite universe, because then he can make the (completely accidental) discovery that the universe needs a first cause, and *that could only mean God.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course you know why there's resistance to the notion & evidence of a begnning.

He said it himself, just up-thread: Nah, he only needs the finite universe, because then he can make the (completely accidental) discovery that the universe needs a first cause, and *that could only mean God.

Oh yes...I know. And the motive this betrays for denying the evidence is the fear they have that it just might lead to God. They've said it themselves...they know where this goes.

But not liking the conclusion is a very backward and unscientific reason for refusing the evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you link to the post in which you laid out the sound logical argument. Or at least tell me what page it is on? I don't dismiss that you could be right, only that I have not seen your argument.

No, I'm not bothering. It's several messages, in which I lay out both the evidence and the reasons. You can decide whose logic you think is right, depending on whether or not you can do logic.

Fair enough.

Maybe you can at least let me know, Is your argument a deductive one or an inductive one?

If you bother to read it, you'll know. If you don't bother to read it, I don't care to tell you. It won't help.

[Atla]

You clearly wouldn't understand it, since I already did, and you couldn't get it.

There's a basic IQ bar. Unless you can do basic logic, you're not going to get any scientific argument at all. Right now, you're either pretending to be incapable, or actually incapable: neither is a strategy I can beat.

That's something people usually say after presenting the killer argument.

I say it after the killer argument has already been produced, and the viewer proved herself incapable of grasping it.

Unfortunately for you, anyone who isn't braindead knows that we don't have actual scientific evidence for a beginning. It's a popular idea, but there are plenty of other ideas as well.

[Immanuel Can]

That's something people usually say after presenting the killer argument.

I say it after the killer argument has already been produced, and the viewer proved herself incapable of grasping it.

Unfortunately for you, anyone who isn't braindead knows that we don't have actual scientific evidence for a beginning. It's a popular idea, but there are plenty of other ideas as well.

You should maybe click on those links and read...assuming you can absorb information written at around a middle-school level.

[Gary Childress]

Of course you know why there's resistance to the notion & evidence of a begnning.

He said it himself, just up-thread: Nah, he only needs the finite universe, because then he can make the (completely accidental) discovery that the universe needs a first cause, and *that could only mean God.

Oh yes...I know. And the motive this betrays for denying the evidence is the fear they have that it just might lead to God. They've said it themselves...they know where this goes.

But not liking the conclusion is a very backward and unscientific reason for refusing the evidence.

I assume I will probably die someday. I assume our planet will probably be destroyed someday when the sun goes into a supernova. Those seem to probably be strong inductive conclusions as opposed to weak ones. Do I believe in a God? That's a bit murkier or less clear from a logical and scientific standpoint. Don't you think?

[henry quirk]

To be fair, though: hard determinism might be the way of things. We might just be mechanisms goin' thru the motions. If so: what a cruel, existential *joke. Meat robots with delusions of self-direction.

No wonder, then, soft determinism is popular among the philo-folk. Incoherent as it is, it still lets the compatibilist retain some shred of himself, as a person.



*so it would seem to a actual free will

[Atla]

I say it after the killer argument has already been produced, and the viewer proved herself incapable of grasping it.

Unfortunately for you, anyone who isn't braindead knows that we don't have actual scientific evidence for a beginning. It's a popular idea, but there are plenty of other ideas as well.

You should maybe click on those links and read...assuming you can absorb information written at around a middle-school level.

Well, personally I would have provided links that at least mention the idea of the universe's beginning/end, but as you said I'm very simple