CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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 free will an illusion ?
I find it a very interesting debate topic and philosopher Galen Stawson has strongly held views on free will ..........
1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.
If you believe in any form of God, then you run into the problem that since God is omniscient, he already knows exactly what going to do at every single point of your life. This means that your life in some form is mapped out already for you, and so you don't have free will, you're not taking turns in direction, you're just going down a path that has already been laid out.
If you believe you are nothing but an apparition caused by chemical fizzes and you are not real, then of course you have to believe you really have no free will.
"If you believe you are nothing but an apparition caused by chemical fizzes and you are not real, then of course you have to believe you really have no free will."
I'm sure there's someone out there that believes that people are nothing more than chemical (and electrical!) signals, yet they also believe in free will. You never know.
"Atheism and evolution stand on nonsense."
Source?
Anyways, I'm a person who thinks that we are more than chemicals, but I also don't believe in free will.
You want a source for atheism and evolution standing on nonsense? How about common sense. Can you find any common sense? There is no evolution without abiogenisis, life always descends from living things, to believe it spontaneously rose by chance is a scientific impossibility. Also to believe intelligence/consciousness rose from mindless matter is not only a scientific impossibility, it's absurd the same as life rising from non-living matter...absurd. It's nonsense sold to people who want to believe they are exonerated in death and will not be held accountable for their time.
If common sense is not enough to tell you atheism and evolution are silly absurd lies, then you will forever wrestle with absurdities like trying to convince yourself that you have no free will.
We have a historical record in God's word, you can follow the spread of Noah's descendants from the area of the mountains of Ararat, you can follow the spread of world religions from ancient Babylon.
You cannot observe life rising from non-living matter, you cannot observe intelligence/consciousness coming from mindless matter. Those are two scientific impossibilities, science has never found anything other than life and intelligence being inherited. It is nonsensical to insist it happened only because you reject the only logical explanation for life and intelligence...that God gave life and intelligence because He is the Living God and gives life and intelligence.
It amuses me when I read modern science and physics when they talk about the latest discoveries and theories; when the more they learn the closer they get to saying "only God could cause this" and then they rapidly backpedal and say "we didn't really mean it that way, we cannot believe in God". Fine. They don't have to believe in God, but honest objective science will always allude to the creator because it is by Him that all things consist. There is no other logical explanation of reality. The only logical explanation is rejected and replaced with absurdities and nonsense because people know they are morally corrupt and they do not want to submit their will to God.
There are volumes of material you can find tracing civilization from the time of Noah and religions from the Tower of Babble. I'm sure you are aware of these things and will categorically dismiss them in preference of upholding nonsensical beliefs which lead such believers as yourself to ask absurd questions like "do I really have free will?".
I expect you to respond with the usual profanities and vulgarity which accompany clinging to absurd beliefs, so it's unlikely I will read your reply here.
Nope...but to assume kangaroos in Australia proves life emerged accidentally from non-living matter, and consciousness/intelligence came from mindless matter is absurd, scientifically impossible.
I have not researched the origins and spread of kangaroos. Evolutionists assume their absurd and non-scientific beliefs of origins is correct, so they must follow the logical fallacy of "begging the question" and interpret everything they see in ways that support their belief.
I can tell you this....kangaroos come from kangaroos. To believe they came from possums or dogs or anything else is absurd and unscientific.
Evolution is a belief system built on scientific impossibilities, i.e., nonsense.
I have not researched the origins and spread of kangaroos. Evolutionists assume their absurd and non-scientific beliefs of origins is correct, so they must follow the logical fallacy of "begging the question" and interpret everything they see in ways that support their belief.
Not really. We could say that God made the first kangaroo like creature and that it envolved from that. The theory of evolution doesnt reply on what you think it does. Darwin certainly didn't start with the assumption that everything came from nothing. It wasnt part of his thinking.
If God made the first "kangaroo like creature", and it evolved into kangaroos, that is not evolution. That's kangaroos adapting to their environment.
We could say God made the first finches and they adapted to their environments causing many variations of finches. That is a logical explanation, saying finches came from reptiles is a belief not observed in nature. We can observe wolves being selectively bred to produce many variations of dogs and they are all dogs as the wolf is a dog.
Darwin was a puppet of Catholicism used to cast doubt on the word of God and solidify the Catholic churches claim of being the only authority of truth with their supposedly infallible Poop and dogma which is held to be more authoritative than the Bible. I was looking for the documentary video which shows this fact, I posted it on this site before. I think it was in "Tares Among the Wheat" and "Lamp in the Dark"
Darwin's idea of evolution was to support racial superiority of Caucasians and brought us the Aryan super race and the Japanese super race who eventually would have had to fight each other to determine which race gets to evolve if they had won WWII.
Next it will bring a world dictator trying to exterminate 95 percent of the world's population.
Darwin built his belief on the logical fallacy of begging the question, assuming evolution was true and then interpreting everything to fit his own beliefs.......and it's nothing new. Evolutionary beliefs of well known philosophers is documented in the "roots of evolution" video I posted in another debate. In the Bible, the god "Dagon" was supposedly half man and half fish, a thing which crawled out of the ocean....sounds like evolution, doesn't it?...that was around 3000 years ago.
There is nothing mysterious or hard to understand about the belief in evolution.
Australia and the Galapagos Islands are looked at as isolated places where evolution took unique turns. Please spare me the red herring of "you don't understand evolution." I understand it as well as anybody else, I simply reject it for reasons that are obvious when being objective and adhering to scientific method which does not start from the point of assertion of evolution being true. I've heard it all my life, nothing really new ever comes out of it.
The possible explanations for kangaroos being only in Australia are listed below. It is dishonest for anybody to say they know kangaroos evolved in Australia or anywhere else...we were not there to see what happened. The possible explanations below are based on logic and what is actually observed scientifically unlike evolution which is declared to be fact and demands reality be approached from the logical fallacy of begging the question so that observations contrary to the belief must be ignored, fabricated, or interpreted as dictated by the belief in the scientifically impossible idea of evolution.
The answer really is very simple: we don’t know because we weren’t there. Also, I might point out, evolutionists don’t know and they weren’t there either. However, with the biblical model I believe there are two very plausible, logical explanations.
The first explanation is: they hopped over there. No, not in one big hop! Rather, the land was dry and they migrated over on land bridges. This is a very reasonable and probable explanation but in order to understand it we must understand the effects of the ice age and plate tectonics. Previously, I presented the case for an ice age occurring after Noah’s Flood. Such an ice age would have turned much of the water into ice and thus lowering the sea level and allowing a dry land passage. Also, the effects of plate tectonics could have formed these land bridges. Evolutionists themselves believe they could have caused an immense rising and falling of the sea floor creating, perhaps for only a short period (a century perhaps), a connection between Australia and Southeast Asia. Kangaroos are marsupials (animals with pouches). They do not survive well around predators. Thus, they would have been forced by way of then-existent land bridges to remote areas like Australia. They would have migrated in a southeastern direction until they finally survived in an isolated area.
Some object to this because there are no fossils along the route. The lack of fossils is certainly understandable when we consider how rare it is for a fossil to form. Also, consider the fact that the western plains of the United States were once full of buffalo but we never find buffalo fossils there. Kangaroos probably migrated slowly and only spent a few generations in one place before they arrived in a friendly environment.
Another consideration is that perhaps kangaroos did live elsewhere in the world but, because of their inability to stand against predators, they became extinct everywhere but Australia.
Finally, there is another perfectly reasonable explanation for kangaroos being isolated to Australia. After Noah’s Ark I believe people got a great idea: boats. I think a very logical explanation for kangaroos in Australia is that people took them there in boats. Animals were very commonly used in trade in ancient times. Perhaps someone living in Australia had a hankering for marsupials and traded away for them?
The point is, we don’t know why kangaroos ended up there and neither do the evolutionists. Any explanation we might have must take into consideration of our limited understanding. We must not fall into the dishonesty of the evolutionists by claiming we know, beyond a doubt, what happened in the past. However, there are perfectly good, logical, plausible explanations that fit in easily with what we do know--that the Word of God is always right.
Most of this was copy and pasted from a Creation believing website. Of course you have to dismiss this as non-scientific even though the possibilities are entirely logical and nature offers much more realistic "evidences" that the possibilities fitting the Biblical model may be valid than what evolutionists uphold as "evidence" for evolution....evidence which always depends and the assertion that evolution is true when it cannot be proved and is scientifically impossible and a logical absurdity.
Another consideration is that perhaps kangaroos did live elsewhere in the world but, because of their inability to stand against predators, they became extinct everywhere but Australia.
There has never been a kangaroo fossil found anywhere else in the world but Australia. The same goes for animals that look very similar to kangaroos that we believe were their ancestors.
Finally, there is another perfectly reasonable explanation for kangaroos being isolated to Australia. After Noah’s Ark I believe people got a great idea: boats. I think a very logical explanation for kangaroos in Australia is that people took them there in boats. Animals were very commonly used in trade in ancient times. Perhaps someone living in Australia had a hankering for marsupials and traded away for them?
Where did they take them from and why? Again, there is no record of any kangaroos anywhere else in the world. I use kangaroos as an example but there are literally thousands of plants and animals in Australia that have never been found anywhere else. Same for Madagascar. Even when you pluck unsubstantiated theories out of the air, as you are doing, there is no plausible explanation for why this would be other than that they have always been there, in some form or another.
It may seem petty just to focus on one falsehood in the Bible but surely you agree that if one part of the Bible is inaccurate then we must assume its entirety is unreliable too.
Your point about kangaroo fossils was answered. Buffalo fossils are not found either.
Yes I know there are literally thousands of examples you can assert prove your starting point of believing evolution. You start by declaring it must be true and therefore you must automatically reject varying interpretations of evidence and varying idea and possibilities differing from your belief. Evolutionary teaching and research is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question, it is not objective science and it is not objective logic.
It's just a religious philosophy which when declared to be applied science it dictates your interpretation of all data to make it fit what you believe must be true.
Madagascar, New Zealand....whatever. You were not there, you don't know how it turned out the way it did and neither do I, I was not there. There are much more logical and reasonable explanations than to believe in evolution and by that belief you must in robot fashion reject. Your "science" which is not science but rather is the religion of Naturalism dictates your thinking rather than objective rationale for investigating reality.
Is someone else controlling this account now? You make some valid points... I hadnt replied because I wanted more time to think of what to reply with.
Your point about kangaroo fossils was answered. Buffalo fossils are not found either.
Well, bones then rather than fossils. No trace of indigenous species of Australia have been found anywhere else in the world.
Yes I know there are literally thousands of examples you can assert prove your starting point of believing evolution. You start by declaring it must be true and therefore you must automatically reject varying interpretations of evidence and varying idea and possibilities differing from your belief. Evolutionary teaching and research is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question, it is not objective science and it is not objective logic.
Yes absolutely this is a problem with science - it takes a huge body of evidence to change the thinking on one subject because it assumes the bases of that subject to be correct. It is necessary that the basis of any scientific claim is open to criticism, and I believe that.
Evolutionary teaching and research is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question, it is not objective science and it is not objective logic.
I disagree. The observations we have from fossils is enough to make it the plausible explanation. If there is another explanation that has more evidence, we have to be ready to leave it behind though.
Madagascar, New Zealand....whatever. You were not there, you don't know how it turned out the way it did and neither do I, I was not there. There are much more logical and reasonable explanations than to believe in evolution and by that belief you must in robot fashion reject. Your "science" which is not science but rather is the religion of Naturalism dictates your thinking rather than objective rationale for investigating reality.
We know that different species were around at different times. We know that species that were alive 1 million years ago looked very similar to those 2 million years ago and thsoe 2 million years ago similar to 3 years ago etc etc. It makes sense then that there is some relationship between the creature of 60 million years ago and today because each however many years we have a fossil that looks very similar to a creature in that chain. Again, if there is a better explanation then I am willing to hear it but it seems sensible to me.
" There is no plausible explanation for why this would be other than that they have always been there, in some form or another."
This assertion is an assumption and by saying it must be true you then follow the logical fallacy of begging the question and you must subject interpretations of reality according to your starting point of "this has to be true, therefore everything must fit in agreement".
It's scientific fascism, it's pseudo science.
The theories which say are plucked out of the air and are unsubstantiated are much easier to support by honest science than is evolution. The article points out that evolutionists support land bridges which in ancient times connected continents and Islands. Migration or animals or planting by people are logical explanations; I cannot say what is correct...I was not there, you were not there, you don't know any more than I do but I think there are much more logically explained and easier to substantiate ideas as compared to evolution. I am not saying I know exactly how things turned out the way they are, you are asserting that you know and I assert that you were not there and you don't know....which is logical. Claiming you know something you don't know and then setting out to prove it in everything you see is "begging the question", a logical fallacy and I've said this many times, it's just a waste of time and money, it's good for nothing and totally unnecessary for any scientific investigation or application.
Why in the world would you try to find something inaccurate in the Bible and then reject the Bible but you will not hold the same standard to your belief in evolution?
And an inaccuracy is not automatic disqualification of veracity. Two people can tell the same story entirely truthfully with no factual errors while recounting details with variation according to the personality of the story teller. You are applying an unquestioned approach to determine Biblical inaccuracy as disqualifying while holding no standard for inaccuracies of people who approach reality from the starting point of assumption as truth.
The things you say are "falsehoods" in the Bible are easily refuted by logic and facts. You will not accept logical explanations for your questions of Biblical veracity yet you will not ask logical questions of your belief in evolution. Your practicing a religion which is not based in reality, but rather based on assigning supernatural characteristics to matter supposing it causes life and intelligence purposelessly by accident and chance.
They've lied to you, man....and you are buying into it blindly without question.
You can go on and on and on because your belief begs the question. I can look at reality objectively and say "this is what I see and know, and maybe this or that made it happen but I don't know". I came to believe God is there long before I became a Christian because I asked honest questions about what you believe when it was being pumped into me by every available media and public schools.....it's intellectual fascism dictating your beliefs and and attempts to explain reality.
Yes I hold that God created all things for His pleasure and purpose, and that He created man in His own image......but I did not start with these beliefs as assumed and known. I tried to believe evolution for years before I rejected it and explored religions and philosophy trying to find the truth on which I could stand stronger than death. You probably are not ready for this but the only sound logical explanation for life and reality
is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ who said "I am the way, the truth, and the life....."
One day I realized it is true, and I realized I was lost wandering around trying to find the truth and suddenly I found it when I found Jesus Christ in reality is God and He gave me His Spirit when I fell down at the feet of God seeking mercy in the name of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me when I was still in my sins against Him. Now I am against my sin and for Him, in a growth process in which I know I will be like Jesus in His glory and forever I will glorify the name of the One who created me and died in my place to save me from my sins. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me to redeem me from all iniquity.
The point is, we don’t know why kangaroos ended up there and neither do the evolutionists. Any explanation we might have must take into consideration of our limited understanding. We must not fall into the dishonesty of the evolutionists by claiming we know, beyond a doubt, what happened in the past. However, there are perfectly good, logical, plausible explanations that fit in easily with what we do know--that the Word of God is always right.
Fair enough. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. In my mind what I have said proves beyond reasonable doubt that kangaroos did not get off the ark with, for example, penguins or anything other creature and then somehow move to Australia rather the the Ataractica.
The answer really is very simple: we don’t know because we weren’t there. Also, I might point out, evolutionists don’t know and they weren’t there either. However, with the biblical model I believe there are two very plausible, logical explanations.
Right, it isnt as strong a theory as that which can be tested by experiment. It is still a theory that is a based in fossil records though.
The first explanation is: they hopped over there. No, not in one big hop! Rather, the land was dry and they migrated over on land bridges. This is a very reasonable and probable explanation but in order to understand it we must understand the effects of the ice age and plate tectonics. Previously, I presented the case for an ice age occurring after Noah’s Flood. Such an ice age would have turned much of the water into ice and thus lowering the sea level and allowing a dry land passage. Also, the effects of plate tectonics could have formed these land bridges. Evolutionists themselves believe they could have caused an immense rising and falling of the sea floor creating, perhaps for only a short period (a century perhaps), a connection between Australia and Southeast Asia. Kangaroos are marsupials (animals with pouches). They do not survive well around predators. Thus, they would have been forced by way of then-existent land bridges to remote areas like Australia. They would have migrated in a southeastern direction until they finally survived in an isolated area.
That makes sense. We would see bones though if that were the case.
Some object to this because there are no fossils along the route. The lack of fossils is certainly understandable when we consider how rare it is for a fossil to form. Also, consider the fact that the western plains of the United States were once full of buffalo but we never find buffalo fossils there. Kangaroos probably migrated slowly and only spent a few generations in one place before they arrived in a friendly environment.
Yeah but if you google it there have been a large number of buffalos found. I accept that fossils are rare to form (although I dont know this)... even if that were the case, what is the probability of no one ever finding, anywhere in the world, any animals of comes from one of those isolated islands?
Finally, there is another perfectly reasonable explanation for kangaroos being isolated to Australia. After Noah’s Ark I believe people got a great idea: boats. I think a very logical explanation for kangaroos in Australia is that people took them there in boats. Animals were very commonly used in trade in ancient times. Perhaps someone living in Australia had a hankering for marsupials and traded away for them?
If the migration were that modern, then I would expect there would be some documentation in literacy, paintings, folk law - anything at all. There isnt though.
The point is, we don’t know why kangaroos ended up there and neither do the evolutionists. Any explanation we might have must take into consideration of our limited understanding. We must not fall into the dishonesty of the evolutionists by claiming we know, beyond a doubt, what happened in the past. However, there are perfectly good, logical, plausible explanations that fit in easily with what we do know--that the Word of God is always right.
It is not logical though not say God did it. There is nothing to support it other than the Bible. You say the Bible is true solely because the Bible is true. The very circular logic you accuse evolutionists of using (even though they have, at least, some objective base - fossils, observable changes in by selective breeding etc).
You say that the Bible is infallible - why though? You say it yourself, Catholics have perverse the teaching of Christ. As have many other religions - the Jewish faith and Islamic faith have stories to tell of him that you would say are false. There are so many interpretations of Christ that you say are false - so why is the Bible the only correct one? It seems entirely plausible to me that the Bible itself has been corrupted by name (this is backed up by the fact that we have prove that the Bible was edited over the years). Perhaps the best way to worship God is to put away anything of this world and merely to try and feel his presence and feel what he wants. Sometimes I believe this is the only religion that makes sense.
It is a hypothesis which cannot be proved by fossils, you have to believe it. It is not a theory.
You declare your hypothesis to be the only possible explanation and then anything you see or hear must fit your explanation or be ignored. That is not science, it is the logical fallacy of begging the question. It is never seen in nature for an animal like a reptile to morph into an animal like a bird as the belief in evolution dictates is the only possible explanation.
In spite of the fact that it is a scientific impossibility for life to rise by chance or accident from non-living matter, and it is a scientific impossibility for mindless matter to cause consciousness/intelligence, your belief dictates that evolution must be true so you live a life of practicing the logical fallacy of begging the question, setting out to prove your beliefs which are scientifically impossible but since you believe they must be real you cannot stop begging the question in every thing you see in nature. It is not science. Evolution and atheism have nothing to do with real science, they attempt to hijack science by insisting their beliefs are science.
You don't have to believe God gives life. You can belief life is an accident that happened by chance with no real meaning or purpose. You can believe matter has supernatural powers to cause life and consciousness. Fine. But to try to claim science is your proof is ludicrous. Science observes and studies physical reality. That's all. Science does not exclude God from reality though phony abusers of science try to twist the facts of science in ways to support their belief while ignoring hard scientific facts which show their beliefs are impossible. When a person insists on believing in absurdity and claiming science backs up belief in absurdity, there's no use in arguing with them, they are not looking at reality honestly or objectively because they cannot handle the fact that the design of life and reality points to an intelligent designer. People are afraid of God who they insist cannot be God in an unhealthy way. The healthy fear of God is to turn away from evil in fear of receiving it's punishment. The healthy fear of God is to seek His mercy. Your fear of God is totally unhealthy and irrational; self destructive opposing your own life. It's not going to help you at all arguing against God all your life, it's only going to take you to your grave and you don't have to believe you are on your way to Hell. If you won't believe it until you find yourself unable to get out of the fire, that's the way you will have it.
I appreciate that you have made serious effort to engage me civilly and respectfully, but what am I supposed to do? This stuff will never end if you wont' give up on it short of dying and life, the Living God who is the only One who can save you, is calling me to higher purposes than dragging my feet around in evolutionary mud. Sorry. I don't know how to say it nicely. If you insist on going the way you are going you are going to end up in Hell. I really don't want to fight with you.....I just want you to think for your own sake about where you are going.
I really do care about you as a fellow human being, I know I deserve to die and burn in Hell and I know I'm forgiven and I want all of my fellow human beings to know what I know but most of them would rather crucify me and all they can do is send me to Heaven and I feel sorry for them.
You declare your hypothesis to be the only possible explanation and then anything you see or hear must fit your explanation or be ignored.
I don't think like that about many things.
spite of the fact that it is a scientific impossibility for life to rise by chance or accident from non-living matter, and it is a scientific impossibility for mindless matter to cause consciousness/intelligence, your belief dictates that evolution must be true so you live a life of practicing the logical fallacy of begging the question, setting out to prove your beliefs which are scientifically impossible but since you believe they must be real you cannot stop begging the question in every thing you see in nature. It is not science. Evolution and atheism have nothing to do with real science, they attempt to hijack science by insisting their beliefs are science.
I don't believe there is anything so magical about consciousness that means that it must have a magical creation. The cave men thought that there was something magical in the sun when it turns out just to be a ball of gas. I believe consciousness will be the same. As humans we have a tendency to look to the devine when there is something we don't understand. I rather just say I don't know: I don't know how life started.
ut to try to claim science is your proof is ludicrous. Science observes and studies physical reality.
You are describing of type of knowledge that comes from direct observation. This is one type of knowledge. There is also that which comes from historical evidence. Surely, as an advocate of the Bible, you understand this. Evolution comes in part from direct observations of the creatures that are around today (creating a chihuahua from a wolf from example is indicative of how you could make a bird from a reptile with enough repetition of the same process) but largely from historical fossil records. I don't feel that is anything wrong with that but sure it isnt as strong evidence as direct observation. It is still evidence though and to say evolution is based on no evidence at all is grossly dishonest when you are aware of these facts.
People are afraid of God who they insist cannot be God in an unhealthy way. The healthy fear of God is to turn away from evil in fear of receiving it's punishment. The healthy fear of God is to seek His mercy. Your fear of God is totally unhealthy and irrational; self destructive opposing your own life. It's not going to help you at all arguing against God all your life, it's only going to take you to your grave and you don't have to believe you are on your way to Hell. If you won't believe it until you find yourself unable to get out of the fire, that's the way you will have it.
Actually, I wish there were a God. I feel a horrible sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I consider dying. I wish that were not the case and suspect that is one of the many reasons people turn to a belief in the devine. I prefer to be brave and confront the most probable reality though.
A chiwowwa being produced by selective breeding of wolves is not creating a chiwoowwwa. The little doggy was in the genes of the big doggy all along. It is not evolution. Believing it proves evolution is not science. Evolution is a belief, it is not science, it is a religious belief system in which you ascribe supernatural power to nature and then you declare that you are not really you but are only a natural hologram of unreal personality which feels like you and you believe you are exonerated of your wrongs in death...it's hope in death to deliver you from the evil of yourself, it's an evil and useless religion which devalues you into nothing but a momentary and hopeless fizz in which you hope to escape the reality of the things you have done with your time. It's insane, you can have it if you want it and apparently you do want it...I would say good luck in your hope of getting out of reality in death but I do not believe in luck and common senses should tell you that you are not getting out of reality in death...but go ahead and try it if you feel better going out that way. If you won't believe God can save you, you won't ask Him to forgive you and save you, then you won't be saved and I'm just wasting time with you. I'm sorry I can't help you.
You are betting your soul against God and it's a losing bet before you even think about playing it. Why don't you take a little baby step of faith and say prayerfully to who you wish could hear you, "Oh God, I wish I could know that you care for me and hear me...please reveal yourself, if you can, as I read this book which people tell me is your infallible word...I'm not sure I can believe that, but if you can show me you are there and you hear this prayer, then please do it God because I'm really not all too sure of dying in hope of being right about you not caring for me".
Then pick up a good old King James Bible which has changed continents, the course of history, and the lives of millions of people who will give their life before they deny that they came to know God personally through Jesus Christ in those sacred pages. For crying out loud, man, am I just wasting my time? If you will not take a tiny step of faith you won't find faith you can be sure of.
And prayerfully start with the Gospel According to John. It is the simplest and gentlest appeal for people to trust the Savior written by the disciple who referred to himself as "that disciple whom Jesus loved" and was the closest to Jesus all the way up until the end and was the only one Jesus suffered to die of old age rather than being tortured to death for not renouncing what they knew to be true, that Jesus is God who conquered death. You can be saved, man, don't put it off too long.
John was boiled in oil to be executed, but somehow survived and by Roman Law could not be executed as he went through execution....so he was exiled to the Isle of Patmos where he died of old age as Jesus promised after God gave him the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ which spells out the end of the age of the world and the final triumph of God over evil in redeeming His creation by His own blood. John also left us the three epistles of John, wonderful tenderhearted love spelled out by "the disciple who Jesus loved". You have to take a step of faith and open up to the possibility that you can actually know God personally and talk to Him the same as you can talk to me.
It's a love story, for crying out loud...how can people not see it? God loves you so much that He gave His only begotten Son for you, so that if you believe on Him you will not perish but will have eternal life. He is life, His word is Spirit and life, taste and see that the Lord is good. Let every man that is athirst come and drink of the waters of life freely.
I hold nothing against you or anybody on this site...I simply deal with reality. I understand the natural tendency people have to lash out against anybody who tells them they can't get away with the things they have done wrong and they need to seek and be sure of God's forgiveness which He promises through faith in His Son who was given to be the sacrificial lamb taking their sins on Himself and leaving them in the grave when He came up out of it in triumph offering forgiveness to the sinners who put Him in the grave and that is me, you, and everybody else. Try to understand, it's really simple, you can be saved today and sure of eternal life in Heaven with the Lord.
You are plunging into what you do not know. Probability is an extremely risky thing to throw your eternity into. You can know today that your sins are forgiven if you will accept God's loving terms offering you pardon, forgiveness, full assurance of hope in His promise of eternal life in Heaven. I do not toy with probabilities, I do not believe in luck, I do not gamble in any way.
This dermot guy is sick. His first attempt to answer the question was a deviation and then he adds up some stupid unrelated talks.
He seriously needs help.
I found it's best to completely avoid reading some of these people...they are Hell bound and care nothing but to try to get others to go along with them so that makes you their hated enemy.....it's casting peals before swine trying to reason with them
Indeed , this coming from a guy who if you lived here would be placed in an institution for the insane ; there is a rather splendid definition of nut Jobs like you
👉DEFINITION
Preaching Sheik
Someone who goes around preaching to the unseen crowd. They can be found in quiet places, or if they are bold, in public, speaking to those who are not there, or to those who are hidden. Most preaching sheiks are borderline or full blown schizophrenics, though are not always crazy, as they appear to be.
Preaching sheiks give entertaining speeches and acts to the spirit world which watches them constantly. This may also be their way of praying to God in a very different style and manner.
if you happen to witness a preaching sheik in action, whether by hearing them preach or watching them put on a show to what appears to be nobody, keep in mind that you might be just the audience they are looking for.
Though alcohol and/or drugs may be involved in the sheik's sermon, they can do it completely sober. They simply choose to exercise their ability to talk outloud when and where they feel comfortable.
Guy#1: Did you see that dude drink a six pack all alone as he talked to himself for like an hour?
Guy#2: Lol, he didn't just talk bro, he danced and laughed at some pretty funny shit. By the way he was talking to whoever might be listening, he's a preaching sheik, not a nutcase.
The ' musings ' and utterances that emanate from your fevered skull are possibly seen as ' sage ' words by fellow cretins on CD of which there appears to be a bountiful supply , i merely see you as the gibbering wreck you are and I cannot even pray from you 🙀
Sorry for the lack of rhyme there....have a nice day if you're not in Hell, and many more as long as you are not committing murder or rape needing to be executed immediately.
fyi...I have learned to not read your stuff. Apparently your father forgot to teach you lessons you have to learn in Hell. I feel sorry for you....and I sure have learned to keep your garbage out of my eyes.
Can you repeat this is less than five words? Why waste words I'm not going to read...in fact, you might as well just not bother because I won't even read five words. I feel sorry for you and if I care enough to read your garbage it does no good...so I quit caring....well, gave up trying...just have to dust off the feet and say I was dumb to cast my pearls before swine, got torn up a bit by your nasty vile despite, but no worse for the wear, God knows I tried to warn you of where you are going and tried to tell you how you can be saved...but you think you are so stinking tough, stronger than God....a dying fool.
The fossil record does not provide anywhere near the historical record concocted by those who try to establish evolutionary time tables. There is so much logical fallacy in the methods of dating, so much assumption in transition of animals, it is not a scientific method of interpreting data. The lies are told so repeatedly as factual that people fail to investigate the methods and beliefs involved in dating and fabricating story lines of evolution. The people pushing this, from the top behind the scenes, have a global agenda which requires shredding the moral fabric of the population which might enable them to unite in principal to resist degradation and destruction of personal liberty...evolution is a tool used to devalue man by promoting situational ethics as survival of the fittest as man is said to be nothing but an animal with no supreme authority or guide. It's a religion promoting death as exoneration for the individual, and survival as justification for evil. The spirit of evolution is evil, and it's goal is to pull as many people down to Hell as possible before that spirit is itself imprisoned in Hell and no longer able to fight against God.
Saying "there is nothing magical in consciousness" is an attempt to deny that life is supernatural as is consciousness. It is also an insult to God, who loves you and is good, to imply He is some kind of evil magician who created us for his own sadistic entertainment. Believing in evolution is indeed believing in some kind of magic wand in nature with no magician, and to describe it that way insults nobody or nothing as their is nothing but matter and how can you insult mindless emotionless matter? To believe matter is capable of causing life and intelligence is to ascribe supernatural abilities to matter. Matter is not capable of causing life, it is not capable of causing intelligence, these facts are all that has ever been observed anywhere in the universe at any time by science. The logical conclusion is that life and intelligence are supernatural, and that the supernatural Living God gives life and intelligence, but that concept is an affront to proud people who do not want to admit they deserve punishment in death for their immoralities; so they must come up with an alternative scenario to answer the basic questions that any intelligent person begins to ask, usually when they are very young..."why am I here?" "what is the meaning of life" "what makes it worth going through this world of pain and suffering instead of just blowing my brains out to be done with it all?"
I can tell you that the pain and suffering of this world does not compare to the glory that lies ahead for those who love God and are reconciled with Him through the atoning blood of His Son who is the propitiation for the sins of all who will trust in Him. You can receive Him by faith, believing from your heart that God has raised Him from the dead and He is alive forevermore, the Living God, by simply calling on God in prayer honestly,verbally, admitting you have sinned against Him and deserve to die, believing Christ died for you, and agreeing with God you invite verbally Jesus into your heart to be your life and Savior and He will give you a new heart born of His Holy Spirit and live i n you by His Spirit making you a spiritual child of God, a brother of Christ, and a joint-heir of Heaven with, in, and through Jesus Christ for the glory of His own name....it's all for Him, and those who love Him are the benefactors of all of the blessings of God who gives all things that pertain to life and godliness to those who trust in Him.
The promise of God is the indescribable joy of being created, being alive, being given all things good in life free of the corruption of sin when this body of sin is forever left behind and a new body like that of Jesus in His resurrection fit for eternal life in Heaven is revealed. This hope, which you can know with full assurance, is available to all who will believe on Jesus and it is stronger than death, more precious than anything in this world with promise of eternal life so wonderful it is far beyond anything good we can imagine as "Utopia" or Heaven or Paradise....God is good and this is what we were created for, to show His glory and goodness and to give Him the praise and honor He deserves for creating us and giving us life. The meaning of life is that God is good, the purpose of life is to glorify God who created all things for His own pleasure and purpose.
It is not circular reasoning to say the Bible is true. The Bible is found to be true by a systematic and progressive investigation, historical and archaeological as well as prophetic and the only flawless system of logic that is known to man..., the conclusion is that the Bible is true. You cannot reach that conclusion apart from careful inquiry and logical study......or by suddenly coming to know the truth of your need of salvation and God the Savior Jesus Christ being the only way to be saved, but even that conclusion comes as the result of logical deductions, not an assumption from the start which equals the conclusion such as belief in evolution or atheism demands. Your inquiry seeking truth has been flawed and shortsighted, and you have chosen to believe in absurdities....not sure if you call the logical fallacy of begging the question a form or circular reasoning, but circular reasoning is so common and accepted in evolutionary belief that it's amazing how anybody who believes in it can deny that their reasoning is entirely circular.
You can go on and on and on until you are blue in the face with these kinds of questions which are supposed to be "ah-ha!! gotcha!!!" questions. You feel like they are unanswerable rhetoric supporting evolution only because you believe in evolution and your mind is closed to scientific data contrary to your belief.
And don't bother telling my my beliefs are not scientific. Physics and science in all applicably useful fields is a hobby of mine, I read the works of atheistic/evolutionary scientist the same as works done by scientists who believe exactly the same thing I do about reality. There are leaders in the scientific fields on both sides of the disagreement. There is no need to believe in evolution or the big bang for any scientific investigation or application, and scientific investigation will not be honest when it starts from an assumed position and ignores or changes the interpretation of data contrary to that belief in the assumed position.
And this all comes back to the subject of the discussion here....if you believe you got here by chance with no real purpose and are only a manifestation caused by chemical fizzes giving the illusion of personality, you have to believe that you ultimately have no free will and that is one absurd belief born of another absurd belief....then you might go off into parallel universes, a ridiculously absurd belief, life on other planets which have never been found.........all kinds of stuff. When you start by believing there is no God and life came to be by accident and chance, and consciousness/intelligence is not real because it is immaterial you can go off in a never ending meandering of trying to explain reality by absurdity and then to you reality will always be absurd and life has no real value.
You can believe in evolution if you want to....I tried to believe it for a while when I was young until I figured out that if it were real, nothing really matters but trying to avoid pain and being the fittest to survive.....so an individual can excuse atrocity or moral corruption whenever and however they feel like doing it. As a young child I never could quite convince myself to believe life has no objective purpose and no objective value....I did not become a Christian until I was 22 but I kept an open mind to all possible explanations for life and reality. Believing in evolution or the big bang or atheism is a closed minded belief system which is full of huge holes by with anybody honestly seeking objective truth must discard those hypothesis and hold that they are wishful thinking of people who do not want to be accountable for their moral corruptions.
Yes of course we have free will, however, there are consequences as does freedom of speech etc etc.
It takes a very strong will to stand, often alone, and fight for ones beliefs, in the face of opposition, against the tide of oppression, injustice, regulation, etc etc etc etc
"1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do."
The way you are (what ever that means) is a combination of your conscious mind along with your sub-conscious mind. No one is in conscious control of their sub-conscious mind. Therefore no one is really in control of their thinking
All the rules of human interaction are based on the illusion that humans are normally in control of their thinking. The implications of individuals not being regarded as in control of themselves, leads directly to chaos. It's better that we allow this illusion to remain. 😨
Free will gradually turns illusion. It's like the cat is not at home so the mice say, let's have a party.
That is how atheists want it. With the word God, sin and hell off of their conscience. So that they can party mindlessly in the beauty of the illusion.
If God is still acting the same as He used to in the old testament, killing people for the slightest offence, it even happened in the new testament with Ananias;
The illusion of free will won't be that intense that, people will proudly shout out they are gays, fornicators and even say fuck God.
The illusion of the free will God has given man has grown so intense.
Gone were the days when king nebuchadnezzar didn't even have free will in his private thoughts. He lived in the forest as punishment just for an ' attempted' thought of pride.
God was not only colonising how he should act but also how to think.
And he was punished for thinking wrongly.
And in those times, i bet no one whoever knew God would attempt misbehaving even though he hadn't seen him.
But after jesus's coming it has all changed.
Now people are free to even speak blasphemies(like dermot usually does) and yet will be forgiven if asked for in repentance.
The illusion has intensified that, people even,can directly insult God, sin proudly and publicly, justify it and boast to be children of God(He is very tolerant).
Free will.
Right now, free will is not absolute whith moral laws still around serving as a boundry and limit.
People break them everyday and justify themselves.
But what atheists want to achieve is really massive.
They want absolute free will where there is no burden of God,hell or sin torturing their minds in their attempts or acts of wrong doing.
They totally want to discard it like junk.
And i fear for them.
But the illusion will be over soon when God says Game over.
That is when the cat is back and you see the mice running in all directions for safety.....
And to end, people are even capable of freezing their brains.....due to the illusion of free will...
Kids in a candy and toy shop trying every candy or game for free but governed by a few rules so the illusion does not be wild them. But dermot and his people don't want it like that. They don't any rules. They even want to forget the shop has an owner. Well there are cameras in the shop watching you, keep on fooling. Every rule broken will be accounted for.
I would say that free will does exist. It is my belief that if you claim that free will does not exist, how did you come to make the claim that free will doesn't exist? If it's just chemicals reacting based off previous chemical reactions, then you truly do not have free will. That would just make you a moist robot
The conscious expression of the chemical cause for thoughts and actions is experienced as reasons. If I ask you why you did something, you can likely give me a reason (the cause). Before you take a specific conscious action, you will usually understand the reason for doing it. This is simply another expression of causality, without which your experience would be random and unpredictable, and choices impossible.
Causality is cited to explain that free will is an illusion, implying that free will would necessitate an absence of causation. This is an inaccurate perspective of the phenomenon of choice.
I'm just looking for clarification of what you are saying. It kind of sounds like you are in the middle but leaning more towards free choice. Am I right in representing what you said?
I'm not in the middle. I think that determinism VS free will is a false dichotomy. Try to imagine a world of random, un-caused entities and phenomena. Now try to imagine making a choice in such a world. It cannot be done. You would have nothing on which to base your decision, nor would you have any concept of what a decision would lead to.
The assertion that free will is an illusion amounts to saying that if you have reasons for the things you choose, then you have not chosen, your reasons have chosen for you. It's a flawed perception of the whole affair.
I am asserting that there is no choice but in a causal universe.
I have some questions. You said that the determinism/free will thing is a false dichotomy. What other options would you say there are? Also, by causal, do you mean that there is a reason for everything that goes on?
I did. However, I disagree with the logic of steps 3 and 4. While I do agree with step 3 to a certain extent, I don't think that step 4 follows from step 3. Here's what I mean. We may not be responsible for our genetics, be we are responsible for how we react to stimuli. It seems like the whole argument assumes that everything about us is strictly nature and ignores nurture
Hi Luckin , it's a good topic and I know we all have our own ideas so thanks for yours 👌
So I think we all agree with 1: and step :2 also seems fair enough so 3: leading into :4 you have a problem with , ok but in steps 2 if we say for we are not responsible for our genetics , isn't that what we are as in a product of our genetics ?
Are our reactions to stimuli not because of the way we are ?
Incidentally I'm only asking for your thoughts as I'm not looking to convince either way .
1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.
It is a good topic and I like hearing other peoples opinions as well. I would agree with you in a large part when you say that we are the product of our genetics. Genetics do play a part in the chemical reactions that do take place inside the brain. However, I do not see genetics as an island unto themselves when talking about how they influence someones way of thinking. I do believe that a large part of how people think also comes from how they were raised. I'm sure that even with my genetics, if I was raised in the middle east, I would probably be a muslim. Or if I was raised in a house with democratic parents, I would most likely be a democrat. Genetics would probably play a big part in me being a muslim or a democrat, but so would my upbringing as a muslim or a democrat
There is always going to be something that makes you do something. someone may come to the conclusion that free will doesn't exist, only because the question makes you choose a side. There is always something that will influence your actions, even if you don't know it, so free will is an illusion.
I am accepting the rest of your statements. All they do is establish your claim that if free will is an illusion we are nothing more than moist robots. My objection is simply that there is nothing necessarily problematic about that, so the mere observation doesn't constitute an argument against free will being an illusion.
The irony with the claim free will is an illusion is that even the people who fall for that illusion and walk around saying or believing they have free will in essence do have it - for the sole reason that they believed in it. And meanwhile the people who made up their minds that it's all an illusion have doomed themselves to never having anything remotely free will.
Whether one believes that they have free will doesn't determine whether they actually have it, anymore than believing in the existence of anything else determines its actual ontology. Are you a philosophical idealist? That's the only way your remarks make any sense (and I don't think idealism is logically defensible).
I was trying to be ironic, which sometimes is fun on a debate website. But you don't find it fun.
OK. So if you want to put idealism aside then that means we can use reality to also test the its an illusion side of this debate. For example:
1) Despite the most sincere efforts of parents and society to raise people who will think and act a certain way there are countless examples of people who go bad or simply rebel or just turn out utterly unexpectedly. The child of a preacher who ends up being a porn star, the rich kid who becomes a monk, etc. How can none of these cases be free will when so many people and forces tried so hard to make them otherwise?
2) If it's an illusion then Presidents, criminals, cheating spouses, etc, all should just get a free pass for whatever they have done which we don't like. But in reality we never do that. We hold everyone accountable in every way we possibly can conceive.
3) The biological and environmental reason people give for there not being fee will would also apply to pretty much every other living creature, meaning if we don't have free will then neither do they. The pitbull we put down for biting didn't have it, the bear we shot for its forays into human neighborhoods, even the bacteria we fight when they infect us. In reality we do take action against all these things, because taking action makes a difference in our continued living.
Hey Progressive do you not have the free will to move about as you wish ? Do you not have the free will to purchase what you want ? Obvious that you do because you purchased a computer but is that free will an illusion ?
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
3 is the crux of the matter and it must be supported. The outline in the OP provides no basis for this assertion. My take is somewhat unrelated to the outline.
The argument against free will is based on some confusion about the nature of free will. Namely that a causal world makes free will impossible. This notion suggests that a person could only be said to have free will if they did things without cause or reason. That a person with free will would not be able to answer the question of “why” with regards to their actions. This is the straw man most understand to be free will.
Free will relies on a causal universe. In a dynamic causal universe, the individual is simultaneously exposed to a near infinite number of causes. The human brain, is capable of accounting for, and being aware of, a wide array of causes (though not all). The exercise of free will is the process of choosing between alternatives. The alternative actions ahead of us are determined by the causes one values, or puts more weight on. We weigh and measure our reasons and our probable outcomes with unaccounted for variables harassing our progress and demanding constant adjustments. The more aware a person is of the various reasons and alternatives, the more free their will can be said to be. The more unique and even brilliant their solutions will be.
A person who is very much in control of themselves will always have an answer to the question of why they have acted. They are aware of their causes. They have often consciously chosen them. Whereas a person who is not in control of themselves, who cannot maneuver the world, often cannot answer the question of why they have chosen a given course or action. They either don’t know or they simply felt like it. The latter is what free will should look like in the minds of those who think it is not causal and is thus an illusion. Free will is not an illusion, because it is causal.
I cannot answer the question with the same assurance you seem to have , once you acknowledge your free will it's no longer free , once you think to yourself I'm acting on free will you no longer are , it is now determined you will act this way .
I think that's is overly broad. I've never heard a proponent of free will say that they can fly if they want. I don't believe people could be said to have the illusion of not being constrained.
As opposed to your bullshit and your obvious lack of intelligence to debate the topic instead of your usual rants .
Listen don't bother anymore , I'm sick and tired of rude aggressive Americans and yes I did get your anti Irish jab last time and let it go , don't know what your problem is but take it out on someone else .
If you define a thing to broadly, then critiques that don't truly apply to your targeted subject will be effectively levied against it. You have to narrow the scope to a more precise definition. If this is hard to do, then it may be that you haven't thought enough about what you mean by "free will". And if that's the case, then you will find difficulty in stating a conclusion with certainty.
Oh I've a sense of humour alright , and amazingly you've solved the free will debate that philosophers world wide are still divided about ; look forward to reading your peer reviewed papers 🙀
And I hope you've thought ' enough about what you mean by free will '
let's cut to the chase you're anti Irish , you use several accounts as in your pathetic attempts at trying to bait me into your ridiculous argument about Evolution ( remember ) which no doubt would have been the usual nonsense about biogenesis , if you wanted a debate about Evolution I posted the topic up hoping to rope you in why do you think i conceded in public to your egoic nonsense regards the cogito , I thought my private message playing up to your inflated ego would rope you in and you yourself were shocked enough to ask was it genuine .... but still no posts on Evolution .
I also read with tears rolling down my face your proof for a god using laws 1and 2 of thermodynamics which has been debunked by
village idiots everywhere but your neck of the woods , I note also your groundbreaking proof for a god has not made the news here yet you fucking twat 😂😂
Plain and simple you're a prize prick with no courage hiding behind multiple accounts and not suprisinly a theist , your hilarious proof for a god also remarkably remains unpublished 🙀🙀
Oh I've a sense of humour alright , and amazingly you've solved the free will debate that philosophers world wide are still divided about
I’ve also produced an alternative theory to the cause of the red shift in light from distant galaxies, undermining the greatest evidence for the theory of an expanding universe. Care to hear it?
And I hope you've thought ' enough about what you mean by free will
How else would I have formulated a defensible theory?
let's cut to the chase you're anti Irish
This is kind of what I meant about your sense of humor. I initially acted anti-Irish because I saw your racially based insults against your African friend Jeff. The most recent “anti-Irish” comment followed a relatively insightful explanation of your behavior that included human behavior in general and that specifically on this site. I followed it with a simplistic, racial collectivist explanation for your behavior. To me this seemed an obviously good natured ribbing, but just to be sure I added a ;).
you use several accounts as in your pathetic attempts at trying to bait me into your ridiculous argument about Evolution….but still no posts on Evolution
The theory of evolution is sound, minor deficiencies notwithstanding. I have never debated it because I don’t think there is really anything to debate. That's why I invoke it in my explanations. The only other account I have ever used was called StickinStone, but I was upfront about that in my account description. The reason you failed to lure me into anything is because I am not the prey you are hunting. It's like using night crawlers to hunt deer.
Plain and simple you're a prize prick with no courage hiding behind multiple accounts and not suprisinly a theist , your hilarious proof for a god also remarkably remains unpublished 🙀🙀
Now fuck of Lich / Amarel
You can rail against someone elses posts all you want. Someone else’s reason won’t change the soundness of my reason. Apart from an theistic argument for atheism, I believe the only time I talk about God on this site is when I am talking to Saint, and that is mostly just to get him going. And that I haven’t done in a while because he is boring.
Now let's actually cut to the chase. I took a step back when you chastised me for insulting you in the last debate. I apologized because you were correct on the impropriety of my words. Since then I have offered nothing in the way of insults that were actually meant to offend. What I see here is another example of your debate style, namely to avoid the actual debate topic.
Have you indeed ? The great Albert went through a most productive period also and it yielded some groundbreaking revelations, oddly enough I haven't seen any articles in the New Scientist or indeed Discover both of which I purchased at the weekend , maybe it's in the next issue ?
Strangely ( you might help on this one ) I've heard nothing on social media about the 'genius ' who has solved the free will question ?
I think like your previous ' claim ' the old ' take with pinch of salt advice ' is indeed sage advice 🙀 < a scary cat as I'm trying to address my humour issues .
David Irving the historian and holocaust denier had various ' theories ' and was also another raving egotist 😊 no doubt your peer reviewed papers will clarify my doubts ?
Here you go again with your 'this is kind of what I meant ' why can you never say what you mean instead of ' kind of '?
So you acted anti Irish because of the way I behaved to someone else ?
so are you that idiotic that you react to everyone by the way they react to other people ?
This is what I'm saying you rarely make sense not even to yourself I suspect , everything you say is a contradiction of a previous statement.
From day one your PAL has called me a white Irish pig and worse , I've been straight bad told everyone here if you throw a punch there are consequences .
You pair are well and truly matched also everything I claimed about him is factual .
Oh dear, ' a simplistic racial collectivist explanation ' translation : you joined the ' feeding frenzy ' but now couch it in PC bullshit terminology 🙀 As in ' alternative facts ' another term you can now use .
Ah yes " a jolly old good natured ribbing ' we all chuckled so much 😊 Of course it's ok because you added a smile how could I miss it ?
Funny how the smiles I send to the other party do not also give me a ' get out of jail card '
They don't count because anti Irish remarks are ok with PC hypocrites like you , who choose your targets very carefully .
😊 Night crawlers to hunt deer , would never try that because one would never catch you as you're always away on yet another ego trip < 🙀<
So you have a doppelgänger on site who posts the very same content as you ... got ya .
I'm not railing against someone else's posts I'm railing against your posts as I've demonstrated ; you join in with the rabble to offer your' opinion ' on me which is just downright nasty and an attempt at a public outing ; I don't like mobs or cowards .
You then make a ridiculous statement which typically makes no sense .....since then I have offered nothing n the way of insults that were meant to offend .....
Only you could come up with this nonsense and think it logical , if you offered ' nothing in the way of insults ' why would you then ad add ' that were meant to offend ' ?
I guess asmile at the end will explain it all ? 😊
Another example of your illogical nonsense, you string together a series of unrelated statements and call it an argument ... kind of your thing isn't it ?
It's not a very convincing way of avoiding debates is it ?
In a previous encounter after you had no further defences to my questions you used the ' you're picking on J card '
Try debating some time egoic ramblings are just that as you haven't a clue what you're trying to say .
If you cannot explain it simply , you don't understand it well enough
Strangely ( you might help on this one ) I've heard nothing on social media about the 'genius ' who has solved the free will question ?
If you’ve understood, then you’ve just seen it solved. But if some trusted authority hasn’t told you it’s correct, then you can’t believe it. Neither can you argue against it.
Here you go again with your 'this is kind of what I meant ' why can you never say what you mean instead of ' kind of '?
“Kind of” because your statement served as an example of what I was talking about, not perfectly but only “kind of”.
This is what I'm saying you rarely make sense not even to yourself I suspect , everything you say is a contradiction of a previous statement
I don’t believe I made any contradictory statements. It will be an easy enough thing for you to copy two of my supposes contradictory statements, I will either stand corrected and choose only one statement, or more likely I will explain to you why the two statements do not contradict.
Ah yes " a jolly old good natured ribbing ' we all chuckled so much 😊 Of course it's ok because you added a smile how could I miss it ?
I had thought that you an I had reached an understanding. In this way, mild insults could be offered in jest and not taken as a matter of offense. Obviously this estimation of you was an error. And I clearly failed to see how easily offended you are.
So you have a doppelgänger on site who posts the very same content as you ... got ya
I checked out his two debates. I expect your confusion is caused by the fact that he is also articulate. Beyond that I am not sure we have much in common. I have invoked the theory of evolution on multiple occasions when explaining my position on various matters. Specifically, I have used evolution to support a theory of morality that seems quite in opposition to his beliefs. Nonetheless, this is another simple matter of pasting his position next to mine. It would provide some evidence for your claim, which is why I am sure you won’t do it.
you join in with the rabble to offer your' opinion ' on me which is just downright nasty and an attempt at a public outing ; I don't like mobs or cowards
Did you read what I wrote? I referred to the debate itself as petty and discussed how this site tends to pull people in that direction. I said you were irrational, but then said that differing levels of rationality allow for debate in the first place while adding that you likely think others are irrational. I don’t make a point of being PC, but in your case it would seem I need to just to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities.
If you cannot explain it simply , you don't understand it well enough
Even Einstein’s simple explanations could not be grasped by everyone he encountered. Their lack of understanding was not indicative of his understanding. I have presented my case in simple enough terms for most, if not for you.
It's not a very convincing way of avoiding debates is it ?
Convincing? No. Effective? Here we are I guess. You didn’t even attempt an argument concerning free will. Congratulations.
Ah , so no peer reviewed papers or articles regarding your two ' groundbreaking ' theories 🙀🙀 trusted authority would mean as opposed to a bullshitter .
Yes thank you for clarifying you haven't got the vocabulary to express what you wish to say more efficiently.
Thank you no as no douut I would have to go through a long winded explanation of what you ' kind of mean '
Ah yes , so now we have yet another way of you explaining your anti Irish remark and no I'm not easily offended but bet you wouldn't call a black a nigger would you ?
You're a two faced PC hypocrite who picks his targets .
He is also articulate 🙀 No you /he are not as any idiot who supports someone who says ' Evolution is nonsense because it is ' is indeed an idiot .
But I understand you have to defend yourself albeit badly .
Oh great , yet more unfounded accusations and lies my claim is indeed accurate as to your duplicity , that's why you got banned from a debate yesterday and as you double posted word for word your exact post on the other side ,most people are onto you so give it up .
That's the evidence you wanted and it's pretty damning isn't it ?
No doubt there will be some long winded explanation that explains nothing at all .
You presented nothing ,you made two claims regarding two of your' groundbreaking ' theories which are purely figments of a somewhat active imagination and may impress your fellow ' intellectual ' Lich which would be a case of you impressing you , which as you continuously demonstrate is a demonstration is a well and truly over inflated ego 🙀🙀🙀
Yes you're neither convincing nor effective why would anyone attempt to argue with an egotist like you who merely wants to force his views down others throats ?
If you've solved the problem of free will why do you need to convince others ?
You deliberately ignore points made to force your egoic ramblings down others throats and you ignore what's not convienient as in several points I raised regarding your accusations against me in this thread .
Congratulations to you on your continued success as a bullshitter ( proven ) racist ( proven ) coward ( proven ) double poster ( possibly three ) proven
trusted authority would mean as opposed to a bullshitter
Trusted authority as opposed to your own reason. You can’t seem to think for yourself. If you had read anything I published, you would not know it. And I would not tell you. Since you don’t have any of your own ideas, why not put up something that’s peer reviewed in support of your side? I’ll be happy to argue against it if it’s wrong, and at least it would be relevant. Unlike this business here.
bet you wouldn't call a black a nigger would you ?
No. But then I’m not black. I am a good bit Scotch/Irish though. What slur did I call you?...
that's why you got banned from a debate yesterday and as you double posted word for word your exact post on the other side
I didn’t know that was Lich that I copied and pasted until just now when you told me. I did that because he got banned for posting a valid point on the wrong side, so I put it on the right side. I even explained this to Lopilulu after he banned me, which I expect is the reason the post was upvoted again. Do you also think I am Nick Cage?
would anyone attempt to argue with an egotist like you who merely wants to force his views down others throats ?
Reason isn’t force. A persons estimate of my personality should have no bearing on their willingness or ability to argue against my words.
If you've solved the problem of free will why do you need to convince others ?
I don’t need to, but this is a debate website (just a reminder). You are the one who created the debate, and now you are upset that someone actually has a defensible position. I noticed that you haven’t responded to the small, relevant post I added further up. You seem to not be interested in debate, this is simply a longwinded distraction from your own lack of ability. Which is fine, I’ll play until I am bored.
You presented nothing
I stated that causality is cited to explain that free will is an illusion, implying that free will would necessitate an absence of causation and that this is an inaccurate perspective of the phenomenon of choice. I expanded on this at length with several people. You were there. They are still there.
You deliberately ignore points made
Make a point. Copy a point you made earlier. I actually prefer it.
Congratulations to you on your continued success as a bullshitter ( proven ) racist ( proven ) coward ( proven ) double poster ( possibly three ) proven
“Proven”, I don’t think that word means what you think that it means.
Two groundbreaking theories unpublished and you're not telling me where they are 😭 so now it's you show me yours first 🙀
I didn't pick a side you cabbage and if you wish to say Strawsons paper hasn't been peer reviewed that makes you even more delusional than you already are .
You can't seem to think for yourself 🙀
Ah so a new defence for your anti Irish slur , why didn't I see that coming 😳
As predicted a big pile of horsehit regards your two personalities on site .
You don't use reason
Play along all you like actually a defensible position was what I was hoping for until your usual insults as in ' that's kind of your thing isn't it ' ?
I called you on it and you don't like that do you ? its a debate website ( just a reminder ) yes I to will also play along not out of boredom but out of amusement at the antics of a puffed up egotist 😱😱😱
If you could engage civilly without resort to insult I would have been happy to continue , but I'm sick saying it if you resort to snide remarks or sarcasm in answer to a statement I make what do you expect , around of applause from the mob no doubt 👏
Yes typically let's do the usual incorrect word usage , oh dear , get the grammar police quick 👮👮👮I used : proven as in established beyond doubt ......
How long will I get will with behaviour ? 🚔🚔🚔
It's quiet amusing that you admire Lich for his reasoning and logic as in his proof for god also unpublished.. thought that might be a biggie ?
It's incredible how shy you's all are at getting your work published maybe J could join you's as he thinks Evolutionists think humans may evolve into ... hamburgers 🍔🍔
Lich ( you ) had a defence of a young earth creationist who he thought was ' onto something ' by stating Evolution was bullshit 🙀🙀
And tellingly like you resorted to insult and like you had to be put in his place 🖕🖕🖕
Two groundbreaking theories unpublished and you're not telling me where they are
You haven’t even see my theory on meta-ethics and moral objectivity yet. If you want to read what I write, you can read it here. I would never provide anything with my actual name on it. Wait, is your name really Dermot?
I didn't pick a side
No, that would take some level of certainty.
if you wish to say Strawsons paper hasn't been peer reviewed that makes you even more delusional than you already are
You haven’t exactly presented Strawsons paper, have you? Peer reviewed doesn’t mean right or correct in terms of substance, only in form. So if you actually present Strawsons position, I will be happy to critique it.
You don't use reason
You don’t use argument.
Yes typically let's do the usual incorrect word usage
I’ve always ignored your incorrect word usage. I think you may be confusing me with someone else again. Or perhaps this the worst attempt at a straw man fallacy ever.
Lich ( you ) had a defence of a young earth creationist
You know I am not religious right? You even sided with me on your debate about bad people thinking they are good people because of religion. This was after your supposed failed trap for Lich (which I doubt was ever a trap). I don’t think you actually think we are the same person. We don’t even have the same views.
Here’s what I think. You scolded me for insulting you and you were happy when I apologized. You then went on to concede defeat to reason and admit your own bias based on your upbringing. Later, I jokingly insulted you by making an absurd statement following a well-reasoned one (the Irish jab that I thought would be obvious). Not realizing how hurt you were, I made a mild joke about certainty and you lost your shit. You were embarrassed that you had conceded to me only to (supposedly) be insulted by me later. Since you already had an issue with this other guy whom I had re-posted, you decided to claim some elaborate trap wherein I would be called out as someone else. A trap that you admitted failed since I didn’t “take the bait”, which makes sense if the bait is relevant to someone else. Now that you’ve stated your accusation, you must triple down on the attacks, lest your properly undersized ego be further injured.
So same old tune ... unpublished but groundbreaking 🖕and two more papers .... unpublished
Ah , you're certain about everything ... well you have a puffed up ego haven't you 😳
I thought the outline would be sufficient for and I offered yesterday and you ignored till today , so 🖕yes get onto Stawson and critique him he's on philosophy org I'm sure he cannot wait for you to descend from the lofty heights of academia and critique him ( good luck ) 😊
You don't use reason or argument 🖕
You're very fond of stawmen as you actually use enough of them
yes I might be confusing you with Lich or someone else 🙀
Only read a small part of your small rant as a good liar needs a good memory which you also don't possess ; it's getting tiring as I've destroyed your precious cogito yet again ,how many other ways would you like it done ?
Why is everything you say so fucking long winded ?
Try and figure out all by youself the conclusion of my statement on the cogito , bet you can't ? But if you're nice I will finish you off humanely 🙀🙀🙀
You probably think Nietzsche is a craft beer so I better not , anyway you recieved one thumping today , I will let you recover and I may take apart your ' revised theory of free will ' ( unpublished )
How many pastings can you take they gotta hurt 🙀🙀🙀
"The exercise of free will is the process of choosing between alternatives."
But what controls the choosing? Even if we rationalize, we rationalize based on past experiences, knowledge, possibly genetics, and so on. We can't control these, yet these factors control our rationalization. If these factors control our "choices", then how are there alternatives?
"The more aware a person is of the various reasons and alternatives, the more free their will can be said to be. The more unique and even brilliant their solutions will be."
Why does increased awareness lead to increased "free will"? Sure, their choice will be more informed, but that does not mean that it has been chosen freely. These various reasons influence rationality.
"They are aware of their causes. They have often consciously chosen them."
Awareness of causes =/= a choice has been made. Rationalization could lead to the illusion of choice, because there are alternatives, but ultimately one choice would have been made given the situation.
But what controls the choosing? Even if we rationalize, we rationalize based on past experiences, knowledge, possibly genetics, and so on.
What else should we base rationale on? We weigh our future expectations against what we know from experience. If we truly learn from experience, we will be more effective at choosing future action that serves our values. Free will depends on this causal relationship, as does your ability to reasonably predict a course you may attempt to choose.
Why does increased awareness lead to increased "free will"? Sure, their choice will be more informed, but that does not mean that it has been chosen freely
Their more informed choice will likely be different than otherwise. They can account for more causes to action. If there were no variables, influences, or determinants, then there would be no choice to make.
Awareness of causes =/= a choice has been made.
You can know that awareness of causes provides choice, because new awareness of new causes often changes the decision that is to be made.
Rationalization could lead to the illusion of choice, because there are alternatives, but ultimately one choice would have been made given the situation.
The past is always a singular timeline. We cannot say the same of the future.
Your criticism of my position seems to be based on what I claim is an incorrect consideration of free will and choice. You cannot get rid of causes and call it free will. The eradication of cause to action would be similar to a madman who knows not what he does nor why. The elimination of determinants would be a universe in which choices would not be possible, since one could never predict outcomes. Thus, to say that free will can’t exist because of the existence of causality is actually absurd. If what you call an illusion is actually awareness, you might consider your outlook.
Seeing as you took the cowards way out and banned me for correcting you thus allowing me no counter I shall do it here ; incidentally i have never banned or downvoted anyone on CD this is a favourite tactic of yours I note .
You get your little gang to do your work for you by posting and withdrawing a debate attacking me ; do it if it makes you feel better , I never back down to bullying cunts like you all because you got whipped in a debate ; you need to grow up you big child .
Let's look at your hate filled ,cowardly attacks and what drove you insane ,
Here it is what I said in response to your nonsense ...If we accept the fact that I am thinking at all proves that I exist , it says nothing about what I am , apart from a thinking thing .
Even this is a step too far , Descartes was wrong to have used the words ' I think ' , he should have said ' there are thoughts '.
His error was that if there are thoughts there must be a thinker , this is open to doubt .
Prehaps thoughts could live independently of thinkers , it could be the way our language is structured that makes us assume every thought needs a thinker .
Regards the ' I ' and 'it ' , the 'I ' in 'I think ' may be of the same kind as the 'it ' in ' it is raining ', which refers to nothing .
This was what caused you to pull up your skirt and dance , scream and jump in a temper tantrum , you big fucking girl 💃
This to me is a reasonable position to take but apparently Amarel thinks I have a lower mentality than someone unfortunate enough to be handicapped all this for pointing out the flaws in the cogito....
😳Here is what you said last week ....it is possible that I may insult in the future .
If I do you call me out it on it and , I will apologise and be mindful 😳
That broken promise lasted one hour and you then launched into your hateful tirades all because I questioned you , here is your hate filled rant ..
😳Here you your own words ...I didn't mean to mock the handicapped, though I can see how my comparison of them to you may be insulting to them. I'll try not to do that again. I just needed clear example which could be found in them.😳
Which proves you're just a hate filled prick 🖕
Here is an assessment of your ' logical ' debating style by a fellow CD user ...
😳Your academic, Don Quixote type reference to statistics is utterly meaningless. Statistics are almost always contradicted by opposing classified facts and can be cherry picked to produce whatever results their creator wishes in a cheap attempt to brace up and deceptively enhance their weak argument. Your absurdly juvenile suppositions have no place in the real world 😳
Sums you up perfectly Captain fucking bullshit , you're a compulsive liar , a coward and still unpublished which is why your in a constant rage 😡😡😡
I note with amusement you never appeal to authority but you do by asking another member of to CD to back you up 😳
Your fellow intellectual is taking a right pasting on Evolution drop over later and watch my devastation of his 'arguments ' I know you're his biggest fan ✋
🤔If you were twice as smart as you are, you’d be half as smart as you think you are.🤔
Now first time ever on CD I'm banning you as no one can endure your unintelligible pseudo intellectual bullshit anymore 🐃💩💩💩💩
We all have free will, we can think of anything we want. Even if somone is druged so that he loses his will, that doesnt mean thats always the case. As long as there is one case where free will isn't an ilussion we can't say free will is an illusion.
Free will is the right, idea or mood to do anything you wish. illusion on the other hand, is like a mirage, hallucination or a false belief. Free will can of course be true not an illusion.
Now coming to the explanation, free will is a right of every person in specific matters and illusion is something that isn't true so that would be actually Donald Trump being better than Barack Obama. Free will can be provided to every single person on this planet. Then how come 'free will' is illusion? Illusions can never be trusted in a proper way. So, by concluding to my point and resting my case by saying that free will is not an illusion, I end my argument.
Unless it means something one way or another then it's a meaningless debate and just wordplay, like a "who came first, the chicken or the egg debate".
Because if criminals lack the free will not to commit crimes, then judges also lack the free will not to send them to prison, so everything in daily life is identical either way, making it a redundant debate.
However, the proponents of the "no" side argue for it strongly because the 'implications' of that position imply a lack of personal responsibility, and not being individually to blame for one's bad actions, so arguing the "yes" side would of course be the better of the two positions.
If I knew this was your discussion, I never would have looked at it..but the "is free will an illusion" question is so stupid I couldn't resist posting...(hmmm...duhhhh...maybe I did not choose to post but had to do it because that's the way the chemicals fizz here....hahahhahaha, how stupid can you be? "mommy, can I be smart if I want to, or must I be stupid because I have no free will?" ......stupid brat needs a good whooping so maybe it will learn something about reality and get saved from Hell....but I sure have learned not to read your garbage.
