Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

Not seein' how bein' a free will makes for guaranteed global destruction.

You understand libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives, yeah? To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

There's nuthin' in there sayin' becuz he chooses to, for example, kill the world, that he'll succeed.

Then he doesn't have free will. Being able to deviate from physical laws when making choices but never being able to act on your choices is incoherent.

I didn't say diddly about never being able to act on choices.

And: I don't see an explanation of how bein' a free will makes for guaranteed global destruction.

I get it. Atla thinks "free" implies "unlimited" or even "omnipotent," as extraordinary as such a claim seems. It's as if Atla thinks that when you say, "I have my own will," you mean, "I can destroy the world with my mind," or even "I'm God."

That's absurd, of course. One wonders how Atla even imagined that's what anybody could be implying. You would think common sense would be sufficient to rule against any such misconception.

[Immanuel Can]

A curious post (2022) from another thread. Hey, wait a second! The writing style is notably different!

Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil. Some younger free-will believers can be saved, but rarely can older ones. The faster they go, the better for everyone else.

Not only that, but how can a predetermined entity be called "evil"? There is no such thing as good and evil in a predetermined world...just whatever was inevitable, and inevitability is not good or bad...it just IS whatever it IS, and that's all we can say.

So how could Mikey call anybody "evil"?

And that's just the latest of his obvious self-contradictions.

[henry quirk]

That's what free means, not bound by physical laws ie. some kind of omnipotent.

That's not libertarian free will/agent causation (any more than free market means all products and services are free).

As I say: libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives. To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

He may be, probably is, informed and influenced by prior events, external forces, and internal drives, but he, his choices, and his acts, aren't necessitated by prior events, external forces, and internal drives. Ain't nuthin' there about successfully doin' anything he chooses. Stan can certainly choose to leap off the 10th story and try to fly by flappin' his arms. Will he? That isn't covered by libertarian free will/agent causality.

[henry quirk]

A curious post (2022) from another thread. Hey, wait a second! The writing style is notably different!

Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil. Some younger free-will believers can be saved, but rarely can older ones. The faster they go, the better for everyone else.

That was written before chatAI assist was readily available.

Read some of our, between Mike & me, conversation in that thread. Mike is a shady guy.

[henry quirk]

Then he doesn't have free will. Being able to deviate from physical laws when making choices but never being able to act on your choices is incoherent.

I didn't say diddly about never being able to act on choices.

And: I don't see an explanation of how bein' a free will makes for guaranteed global destruction.

I get it. Atla thinks "free" implies "unlimited" or even "omnipotent," as extraordinary as such a claim seems. It's as if Atla thinks that when you say, "I have my own will," you mean, "I can destroy the world with my mind," or even "I'm God."

That's absurd, of course. One wonders how Atla even imagined that's what anybody could be implying. You would think common sense would be sufficient to rule against any such misconception.

Yeah, that seems to be the case. Quite a few anti-free will folk hold that view. A simple (insert your search engine of choice) search would clear it up for 'em. But, for some reason, they can't be bothered.

[Immanuel Can]

That's what free means, not bound by physical laws ie. some kind of omnipotent.

That's not libertarian free will/agent causation (any more than free market means all products and services are free).

Good answer. That's tidy.

Let's set a better definition. A person who believes in what is called "free will" would be somebody who believes that human volition contributes to a situation an element that it would not have if the same situation were composed only of predetermining (usually physical) factors. In other words, simply a person who says, "Choice can change outcomes."

This definition does not require a free willian to believe human beings are omnipotent, or that physical factors are not important in outcomes, or even that physical factors don't often adequately explain outcomes, particularly in situations in which will is not involved. All he has to believe is that will makes a difference, at least in some cases.

That's a very moderate, reasonable and common sort of free-will position, I suggest.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A curious post (2022) from another thread. Hey, wait a second! The writing style is notably different!

Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil. Some younger free-will believers can be saved, but rarely can older ones. The faster they go, the better for everyone else.

That was written before chatAI assist was readily available.

Read some of our, Mike & me, conversation in that thread. Mike is a shady guy.

Yes, I did read those exchanges. The Einstein dialogue was interesting.

So, BigMike is demonstrating that soon we may very often find ourselves debating with AI entities operating either on their own or in combination with a human proxy. Very weird!

[Immanuel Can]

A curious post (2022) from another thread. Hey, wait a second! The writing style is notably different!

That was written before chatAI assist was readily available.

Read some of our, Mike & me, conversation in that thread. Mike is a shady guy.

Yes, I did read those exchanges. The Einstein dialogue was interesting.

So, BigMike is demonstrating that soon we may very often find ourselves debating with AI entities operating either on their own or in combination with a human proxy. Very weird!

Well, it will kill sites like this: who wants to end up arguing with an automaton that is, by way of its programming, immune to contrary reasons? What a waste of time that would be.

[accelafine]

That was written before chatAI assist was readily available.

Read some of our, Mike & me, conversation in that thread. Mike is a shady guy.

Yes, I did read those exchanges. The Einstein dialogue was interesting.

So, BigMike is demonstrating that soon we may very often find ourselves debating with AI entities operating either on their own or in combination with a human proxy. Very weird!

Well, it will kill sites like this: who wants to end up arguing with an automaton that is, by way of its programming, immune to contrary reasons? What a waste of time that would be.

Oh the irony

[accelafine]

A curious post (2022) from another thread. Hey, wait a second! The writing style is notably different!

Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil. Some younger free-will believers can be saved, but rarely can older ones. The faster they go, the better for everyone else.

That was written before chatAI assist was readily available.

Read some of our, between Mike & me, conversation in that thread. Mike is a shady guy.

Indeed. His responses were a lot more 'concise' back then to say the least. I even discovered a few typos

[henry quirk]

A curious post (2022) from another thread. Hey, wait a second! The writing style is notably different!

That was written before chatAI assist was readily available.

Read some of our, Mike & me, conversation in that thread. Mike is a shady guy.

Yes, I did read those exchanges. The Einstein dialogue was interesting.

So, BigMike is demonstrating that soon we may very often find ourselves debating with AI entities operating either on their own or in combination with a human proxy. Very weird!

Yeah. But I don't know if it's that big a deal. I mean, Mike, even with chatAI assist, has converted no one, nor won the argument (across multiple threads). If anything, folks here who normally hate each other's guts have informally banded together to reject Mike's gospel. How's the expression go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

[henry quirk]

That was written before chatAI assist was readily available.

Read some of our, Mike & me, conversation in that thread. Mike is a shady guy.

Yes, I did read those exchanges. The Einstein dialogue was interesting.

So, BigMike is demonstrating that soon we may very often find ourselves debating with AI entities operating either on their own or in combination with a human proxy. Very weird!

Well, it will kill sites like this: who wants to end up arguing with an automaton that is, by way of its programming, immune to contrary reasons? What a waste of time that would be.

Only if it truly catches on. I'm already seein' signs the bloom is off the rose, so I'm about ready to declare chatAIs as yesterday's news. Really, them things are of limited utility.

[henry quirk]

That's what free means, not bound by physical laws ie. some kind of omnipotent.

That's not libertarian free will/agent causation (any more than free market means all products and services are free).

Good answer. That's tidy.

Let's set a better definition. A person who believes in what is called "free will" would be somebody who believes that human volition contributes to a situation an element that it would not have if the same situation were composed only of predetermining (usually physical) factors. In other words, simply a person who says, "Choice can change outcomes."

This definition does not require a free willian to believe human beings are omnipotent, or that physical factors are not important in outcomes, or even that physical factors don't often adequately explain outcomes, particularly in situations in which will is not involved. All he has to believe is that will makes a difference, at least in some cases.

That's a very moderate, reasonable and common sort of free-will position, I suggest.

Well, your attempt is good and all, but it borders, for me, on philo-speech. And you know I'm not a philosopher.

[Immanuel Can]

That's not libertarian free will/agent causation (any more than free market means all products and services are free).

Good answer. That's tidy.

Let's set a better definition. A person who believes in what is called "free will" would be somebody who believes that human volition contributes to a situation an element that it would not have if the same situation were composed only of predetermining (usually physical) factors. In other words, simply a person who says, "Choice can change outcomes."

This definition does not require a free willian to believe human beings are omnipotent, or that physical factors are not important in outcomes, or even that physical factors don't often adequately explain outcomes, particularly in situations in which will is not involved. All he has to believe is that will makes a difference, at least in some cases.

That's a very moderate, reasonable and common sort of free-will position, I suggest.

Well, your attempt is good and all, but it borders, for me, on philo-speech. And you know I'm not a philosopher.

Hmmm...well, I think that a great deal of what passes for philosophy could benefit by way of a little common sense from the common man.

[Gary Childress]

It's possible that BigMike is using some kind of AI program to assist in his writing. In some sense, though, his writing still presents an argument so focusing on the method he's using could amount to a fallacy of relevance with regard to the argument he's presenting. Just FYI.