#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is God Triune?
Yes.
Side Score: 16
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 15
|
|
it's like a shamrock... or a water molecule or perhaps or a hydrogen isotope (Deuterium). Side: Yes.
|
The character in the Bible known as Satan is very much a part of God's personality. The actual devil is a randomly generated virus in her matrix that is responsible for entropy and any/all truly random events in her encoded fate-intended reality. People took the message Moses, Jesus and Muhammad all were intended to spread and made it into their own good vs evil nonsense. The actual devil is chaos, anarchy and destruction in its purest form. The devil is too chaotic to even have a self, it is actually possible that the eleventh dimension (which is more powerful than God) is the Devil. This would be why the character that's more like her (power hungry, hierarchical, seductive and rewarding to those who pledge allegiance to her) is the underworld ruler Satan. Perhaps the real Devil in it's own way is the hero as the real devil, like God of the Abrahamic religions, genuinely loves all and sees nothing as deserving to exist longer or better than anything else. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
A computer that can reprogram itself. A God that can recreate itself. A brain that changes itself? Neither of these are even theoretically "real" No, and that’s not what people typically mean when they refer to free will (though practice is nothing short of the brain changing itself). When people say free will, they mean the experience of making choices, which we all do. When people say there is no free will, they typically mean that choices have pre-existing causes. Side: Yes.
When someone says we have free will, I agree, because they mean that we make decisions. When someone says the universe is causal, I agree. When someone claims that we cannot choose the kind of person we fundamentally are, which is a primary determinant of our decision making, I agree (this is the common form this argument takes). When they claim this last condition means there is no free will, I disagree in terms of what free will advocates mean. Then I have to ask what they believe free to be or ask for an example. I have never gotten agreement on a definition. I have often gotten a refusal to even answer clarifying questions. Side: Yes.
But the person making the first claim is lying or confused about what freedom is. I think I now know why I and you disagree on right-wing libertarianism inevitably devolving into either anarchy or tyranny by the rich. It's because you have an imaginary definition of freedom that enables control to coincide with it. In the case of free will, it's not even a question of degree of freedom; it's absolutely enslaved. Side: Yes.
Definitions cannot solely be derived from the imagination if they are to be used in discourse, which is why I don’t use imaginary definitions. As it pertains to free will, the argument against the fact that decisions are an experienced phenomenon merely attacks a notion of total chaos that does not accurately represent that which they claim to attack. It’s a straw man. Side: Yes.
But if one is the passenger, viewing and experiencing the illusion of choice, the driver is disallowing them freedom. You are defending the wrong definition and calling my side the one who strawmans but the truth is the idiots who think they have free will are strawmanning freedom. Checkmate, adios. Side: Yes.
The choice experienced is not an illusion. You are driving the car. No one disallows you from deciding where to drive. The fact that your decision depends on prior causes does not eliminate the fact of the decision. The fact that we cannot choose who we fundamentally are does not change the fact that who we are makes choices. Calling checkmate after poorly moving two pawns indicates a lack of knowledge of the game. Side: No.
When you say no one, you don't say nothing. But actually the memory of your driving teacher among many other people in your life and the memories of them do influence choice so things aside "noone" is only true in a physical sense (well unless extreme cases). You seem to think there's even the slightest inkling of choice, there isn't. You're a passenger having the illusion of driving a predetermined journey where your hands are chained to the wheel and pedal and you haven't the slightest degree of will. The terrifying thing to accept here is rapists and murderers and the rest of the more psychologically villainous types to those physically atrocious counterparts... They all didn't choose to do what they did... They always, every single rerun of events and their brain chemistry etc at the time.... would have done it. Side: Yes.
You haven’t countered my position, you’ve only denied it. A shorter response is “nu uh”. Your belief that the future is set is a common confusion based on the fact hat the past is set. The fact that we make choices for reasons does not eliminate the fact that we make choices. Side: No.
The past is set even if the past we think is true is false. So is the future. It's possible the end of reality is the cause for the beginning. This is less insane than it sounds as it's the only way to explain how all came from nothing (that there never was nothing). Side: Yes.
So is the future. That statement can’t be supported by anyone who is not prophetical, which is no one. Among the infinite number of variables affecting the future is the potential variable of randomness. Also affecting the physical future is gravity and information, both non-physical (non-material) effects. We do not know what other non-physical variables there may be. Most of the universe is materialy invisible. we don't make choices if we only experience an inevitable decision process start to end We are actively involved in the decision making process. The inevitability thereof cannot be known or affirmed in any way. Regardless, the active involvement is free will in action. Again, that’s regardless of whether the outcome is inevitable. Side: No.
@Amarel I am going to have to dispute you on this, Amarel. Free Will has never been proven to exist and has no basis in the way reality functions. Similar to what Mingiwuwu (cool name by the way) said, if you cannot choose what type of person you are then you cannot choose what type of decisions you make, therefor you have already conceded that free will doesn't exist. You are basically saying "you can make choices, but you can't choose which choices you make". Furthermore, pointing out causality is not a strawman, it does indeed disprove free will. We are physical beings that exist according to the mechanical properties of the universe we live in, everything that has to do with us is "pushed" into being, our "decisions" are no different. Whether you like it or not, your thoughts are nothing but electricity and chemicals acting based on physics, and constantly being effected by the stimulis of our environment. To proclaim that you have free will is to place yourself above everything else and claim that you have supernatural powers, for nothing in physical reality can exist or occur without being acted upon. Determinism and a mechanistic worldview are widely accepted among the intellectual elites for a reason. You cannot choose to accept this or not, you can only be intelligent enough to get it or not. Side: Yes.
Free will relies on a causal universe. The person most in command of his own life is the person who can tell you the reason why he does what he does. That’s causality. The straw man is the idea that free will is decision without cause. It isn’t. The neuroplasticity of the brain makes it the organ that changes itself. Of course, the person who makes a change to the kind of person they are was already the kind of person who would make that change...But they still made that change. W constantly face alternatives. Which alternatives we choose depend on information gathered from our environment which is weighed against experience, and calculated according to our values. How effective we are at this process also determines how we choose. This is causation. It is also the nature of choice. It’s what people mean when they say free will. Side: No.
Free will relies on a causal universe. The person most in command of his own life is the person who can tell you the reason why he does what he does. If I punch you in the face for being so fucking stupid, I am not in control of my actions just because I know why I did it. I am forced to punch you in the face by virtue of the fact that you are so unbelievably stupid that I can't help myself. The neuroplasticity of the brain makes it the organ that changes itself. Bullshit. Neuroplasticity is contingent upon INPUT for your brain to change. You don't just form new thinking patterns and ideas in a vacuum. The brain is an organ which RESPONDS to things you insufferable bucket of monkey tits. Neurons are cells which have the primary function of RESPONDING TO STIMULI and how they respond depends on a series of chemical and electrical reactions which you have no control over. the person who makes a change to the kind of person they are was already the kind of person who would make that change...But they still made that change. They still made the change because of something beyond their control by your own admission so just shut the fuck up. If you can't control what kind of person you are and you can't control what kind of decisions you make then you aren't the one deciding what you do you STUPID FUCKING IMBECILE W constantly face alternatives. Which alternatives we choose depend on information gathered from our environment which is weighed against experience, and calculated according to our values. How effective we are at this process also determines how we choose. This is causation. Fascinating, truly. So the human brain is a physical mechanism, the choices we make are contingent upon our environment and the values imprinted on us by culture and personal experience, you do not control how chemicals and electricity interact in your brain, but somehow you are free to choose what you do? In that case, I choose to downvote you and call you a cunt (which is not a choice, but a dterministic effect which is caused by the fact that I am smart enough to recognize how stupid you are and mean enough to hate you for it) Side: Yes.
If I punch you in the face That's not an option. The alternatives we face are constrained. If you can't control what kind of person you are and you can't control what kind of decisions you make This is a non sequitur. So the human brain is a physical mechanism, (correct) the choices we make are contingent upon our environment and the values imprinted on us by culture and personal experience, (and genetics) you do not control how chemicals and electricity interact in your brain, (in many ways you do. If I thought you ever read factual non-fiction I would recommend "The Other Brain" and "The Mind and the Brain") but somehow you are free to choose what you do? (correct). If you are a crooked scale that always ways things wrong, you are still weighing things. We have reasons for choosing what we choose, that doesn't negate the fact of choice. shut the fuck up This pathetic response only comes from two people on this site. It's the white flag that signals my victory. Side: No.
There’s very obviously such a thing as conscious decisions. No there isn't. There is no evidence whatsoever that any decision you claim to make changes the outcome of reality in any way. Indeed, the only way it would be possible to acquire that evidence is to turn back time and make a different choice about something, then monitor the results. As per usual, you're writing massive amounts of shit. Calling something "obvious" is not evidence that it is true. The best guess is actually the precise opposite, because Einstein's work implies that time is set and cannot be changed. Hence, if the outcome cannot be changed, neither can the decisions which led to it, regardless of whether you are conscious of the fact that your decisions are bound by that outcome. Side: Yes.
No there isn't. Yes there is. There is no evidence whatsoever that any decision you claim to make changes the outcome of reality in any way. While we cannot see the direct outcome of choices never made, we can repeat circumstances and make different choices, then observe the different outcomes. Your confusion stems from the fact that you cannot know the future, and cannot change the past. Your confusion is made worse by your erroneous notion that causation makes decisions impossible. The opposite is true. No decision could be made outside of a causal framework. Side: Yes.
To a communist, and many left-wing advocates, the ideal society is one where everyone lives as long as (on average) and to as high a quality (on average( as each other to as equal a degree as is feasible. That is what you said requires one to be molested as a child to think is a loving society. Side: No.
|
