Free Will vs Determinism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Vendetta
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Location: ehville

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Vendetta »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Vendetta wrote:...Perhaps this very concept of this becoming an ungoverned, dog eat dog world is part of why many hope that God is there to set it all straight, and cling to faith even in the darkest of times.
Possibly. Of course, there'd be no good in doing that if it turned out not to be true. Hope that is never fulfilled is just a happy delusion, right? However, I suppose even an Atheist could make a sort of case for faith -- after all, if there's no reward in believing the world is a random place with no God in it, and that death ends all, why not embrace anything that makes one even a little bit more happy? Ironically, I can't think of how an Atheist would argue AGAINST happy delusions.

However, for my part, I would make no case in favour of delusions, happy or otherwise. And fake hope...well, that would just be a kind of betrayal, wouldn't it?

But faith that is grounded in knowledge and hope that does not disappoint are very wonderful companions in difficult days.
Yes, that is true. I suppose it's not true faith if your only rationale for believing is because you're scared of what may happen otherwise. Clinging to an ideology that deep down you believe not to be true won't end up benefitting you, even if you think it will. Despite that, we still see it in people today.
Holding a strong, knowledge based faith is very liberating, especially as you say, in times of difficulty. This is why when I find evidence for theism, it fills me with passion.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote:Two points: there are just wars for instance the second World War :

Plausibly true. And I think principled participation is warranted. But personally, I would choose to go as a medic. That's a less morally-problematic role, and still a "combat" role.
...and there are internationally- acclaimed rules for conducting war .
True. But I had it pointed out to me years ago why those don't usually work. When you're on the side that starts losing, you tend to start throwing everything you've got...whether or not it's moral to do so...and that's because anything seems better to you than losing.

Rules for war are a bit like rules for street-fighting: they don't tend to last long.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Cant, none of us can live a life without getting our hands dirty. Some decisions we make are not best decisions but are the least bad decisions.

If you chose to join in your country's just war as a medic, you might be allowed to do so as a conscientious objector. Some conscientious objectors were sent to the coal mines. However the number of conscientious objectors is determined by the proportion of active fighters required.

You have avoided the implied question "can there be a just war?"
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote:You have avoided the implied question "can there be a just war?"
I did not. By definition, an "implied" question is a question that wasn't actually asked. :shock: It was merely implied.

And the reader cannot always tell what "implication" you wished to draw. But you can avoid this by actually asking the question instead of merely "implying" it.

Were you trying to ask me if there is such a thing as a "just" war? Well, I don't much care about that topic, but I think there probably can be. (so much for me not answering).

However, I say again that I would choose to participate not as an "objector" but as a useful functionary in a non-killing role, such as medic. Medics go out on the battlefield and rescue the wounded...very dangerous. But they don't have to kill anybody. They can focus on saving lives.

I would prefer that.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Vendetta wrote: Mon May 08, 2017 8:58 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:
I couldn't say it better.
Of course you couldn't. Getting along is more important to you type people than the truth. AS long as all your type are happy and singing songs together on the hot rails to hell that you've created by maintaining that sense of fellowship, ignoring what you've been destroying, you believe you're doing great! You see I realize that sometimes you've got to break the bad news to people, to help them realize that everything they do is not necessarily rosy. I get tired of people always wanting to look at the good side of things, ignoring the bad side, because it's too painful. Because those ignoring the bad, only ever wanting to acknowledge the good, make things worse! That which is bad, believe it or not, NEEDS correcting, but it shall never be corrected by ignoring it, only ever looking at the good. This my friends is one of the MAIN selfish problems of the modern pampered man. It's why the globe is warming, there's far to much self stroking going on. Actually it's rather sickening, that mankind is destroying itself, in the name of it having a good time! Only ever a good time, only ever a good time... The me, me, me shit has got to stop, or we'll all be killing our children's, children's children! Do you care about your children? Oh, not if it makes you unhappy, oh yeah, god forbid, right?

Are you starting to understand my stance, my position, just a little bit!

The bad exists, man up to it, take responsibility for a change!
That's where you're wrong. You've completely missed our point. We are not saying that there are not bad things that need to be discussed, we are talking about the manner in which they are discussed. Of course there are bad things out there, the world is a screwed up place. And of course these things need to be brought to the table. But they can be looked at in a way that doesn't directly insult either party and takes all perspectives into consideration.
I've taken all perspectives into consideration, After all I'll be 60 this year and I've traveled around the entire world seeing many a different people. There is absolutely no proof that anything any god fearing person has ever said, is anything other than want, desire or simply belief, based upon their fear of death. Or was that too nasty for you? Huh??? As it seemed pretty tame to me!

We could be talking about the bombing of children in Sudan or somewhere, but the nature of the topic has nothing to do with
The "nature" of the argument is for each to decide, so speak for yourself, please?

whether or not you are so strong to your beliefs
Mine is in fact 'knowledge' based upon the scientific method:

"The Oxford Dictionaries Online define the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". Experiments need to be designed to test hypotheses. The most important part of the scientific method is the experiment." --wikipedia--
And logic:
"Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logikḗ), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken" (but coming to mean "thought" or "reason"), is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo and so on.)" --wikipedia--

that you are unwilling to even entertain those of others,
I've entertained them for years, (remember, gonna be 60 this year) been around the block (earth) quite a few times.

and instead bash them for believing such.
I'm not bashing them:

"bash [bash]
verb (used with object)
1. to strike with a crushing or smashing blow.
2. Chiefly British, Canadian. to hurl harsh verbal abuse at.
noun
3. a crushing blow.
4. Informal. a thoroughly enjoyable, lively party.
"
--dictionary.com--

I haven't touched them. Sure I've touched their arguments. So who hasn't engaged in debate in college? So cry me a river! PLEASE??? Was that sweet enough for you?? :P
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 08, 2017 11:12 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Of course you couldn't. Getting along is more important to you type people than the truth.
Is that why you imagine I'm so conciliatory with you? :lol:

I don't recall backing down to keep the peace, and I don't think I am now. I think you're blowing smoke: that's the truth.

Plain and controversial enough for you? Or am I still trying to "get along"? :wink:
Let be tell you your biggest problem. You evade that which you know you can't win against, change your opponents meaning, then respond as if the exchange was based in truth and honesty. You try and be a slippery fish, but in fact it's easy to see your ploy, so not really as slippery as I'm sure you'd like to be! Of course your type of slipperiness, does afford you one thing, which is that you continually evade another's points, so as to never admit anything contrary to your tired old diatribe, thus often wearing out their patience. Which in no way shape or form, means you've won anything actually worth winning. So in a lot of ways you're a liar!

Of course we've agreed on several occasions.
I mean, you're not all bad! ;-)

My argument on this topic, as to your god or not: is that in truth, you can't know. Instead you can only have faith (believe). You can "know" if you have a coin in your hand, if in fact you have a coin in your hand. And you can "prove" it too. But no one can know or prove that your invisible god exists, that's just a fact! So says both, the scientific method and logic!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

thedoc wrote: Tue May 09, 2017 3:02 am
Immanuel Can wrote: And in the end, God wins. Every time. That's how all this plays out.
And what is God's end, it isn't always what people expect.
There is no god's end. Of course you'll never see it!
There's only an end that people make, and that's the problem!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

thedoc wrote: Tue May 09, 2017 3:07 am
Vendetta wrote: God is there to set it all straight.
Certainly God will set it straight, in God's own time and in God's own way.
Well, you're certainly gonna be waiting for a long time!

Why should God behave according to human expectations?
That's all the written word of men about god has ever done.

I know I've posted this before, but I think it bears repeating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4&t=78s
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 10:10 pm
Let be tell you your biggest problem.
Oh, I can't wait for this... :D
You evade that which you know you can't win against, change your opponents meaning, then respond as if the exchange was based in truth and honesty.

I protest, dear sir. I take people at their word. I can only go with what they write. I cannot read anything they intended to say, by did not manage to say.

It is true that I do occasionally ignore a remark. For example, I tend to ignore insults. I also sometimes try to overlook when someone is so grossly wrong that it would be embarrassing to reply. I think charity requires that sometimes we don't point out the faults in others' logic too sharply -- especially when the "logic" in question is so faulty as to be embarrassing.

And as for ignoring anything I can't win against, what on earth would you have in mind? Do tell. I'm genuinely interested. I'll tackle it right now. Open season.
My argument on this topic, as to your god or not: is that in truth, you can't know.
You are telling me what I can know? Do you do the same for everyone? People can't know celebrities or sports figures, unless you do? Do you imagine that Kampala doesn't exist because you've never been there? How about the outer cosmos: do you conclude that it doesn't exist either, since manifestly you haven't seen it?

Why would you imagine one "can't" know something, merely because you don't know it? :shock: How would you have arrived at that stellar piece of wisdom?

See, sometimes when the logic is too embarrassing, it's just better if I don't make a case of it. However, I remind you that you asked. I was happy to let that one slide.
But no one can know or prove that your invisible god exists, that's just a fact! So says both, the scientific method and logic!
Au contraire. What I don't know is that YOU exist. The only testimony I have that you do is that you appear to type messages. By your logic, then, I shouldn't be believing in you, since that is surely dubious. You could be male, female, a clever chatbot, or not even the same "Spheres" who typed the last message -- and I would not know.

Your "footprint" here is very small. God's is a great deal bigger. And yet you anticipate that I will believe you exist...at least enough to be replying to you.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 11:01 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 10:10 pm
Let be tell you your biggest problem.
Oh, I can't wait for this... :D
You evade that which you know you can't win against, change your opponents meaning, then respond as if the exchange was based in truth and honesty.

I protest, dear sir. I take people at their word.
Never!

I can only go with what they write.
So you simply say, nothing more!

I cannot read anything they intended to say, by did not manage to say.
A nice way to dodge the truth, without any merit in my case.

It is true that I do occasionally ignore a remark.
Yep, that which shows your diatribe as the falsehood it is.

For example, I tend to ignore insults. I also sometimes try to overlook when someone is so grossly wrong that it would be embarrassing to reply. I think charity requires that sometimes we don't point out the faults in others' logic too sharply -- especially when the "logic" in question is so faulty as to be embarrassing.
Nice dodge, "for the sake of the people!" Give me a break, your ploys are laughable!

And as for ignoring anything I can't win against, what on earth would you have in mind? Do tell. I'm genuinely interested. I'll tackle it right now. Open season.
Good, OPEN SEASON!! Hit me with your best shot; something like a cork pop gun, complete with strings attached! :lol:
My argument on this topic, as to your god or not: is that in truth, you can't know.
You are telling me what I can know?
Nope, what humans can/can't know. You are human right?

Do you do the same for everyone?
Humans my son, humans!

People can't know celebrities or sports figures, unless you do?
Subterfuge!! Apples and oranges, and you know it!

Do you imagine that Kampala doesn't exist because you've never been there?
Never even heard of it to my recollection. But if it can be proven to exist it is in fact knowledge. If it can't be proven, then only belief.

How about the outer cosmos: do you conclude that it doesn't exist either, since manifestly you haven't seen it?
Well I've only seen what our astronomers telescopes, astronauts and probes have photographed/videoed, so "assuming" they are genuine, I tend to believe that it's knowledge, yes!

Why would you imagine one "can't" know something, merely because you don't know it? :shock:
Again that is not my position, and you know it; subterfuge! My position is that any creator of everything has no favorites, at least in any particular type group of things, as it would know of all abilities/inabilities, it's limitations.

How would you have arrived at that stellar piece of wisdom?
60 years, coming this year, of life.

See, sometimes when the logic is too embarrassing, it's just better if I don't make a case of it. However, I remind you that you asked. I was happy to let that one slide.
Don't let anything slide, I don't what you to rely on any such excuse. I can take you on and win easily, trust me! But only if you have a shred of honesty in that head of yours!
But no one can know or prove that your invisible god exists, that's just a fact! So says both, the scientific method and logic!
Au contraire. What I don't know is that YOU exist.
Sure you "know," as someone has to be pressing these keys. There is no possible scenario where a YOU, (human) can't be responsible, even if it's simply a programmed computer typing these messages, still a YOU (human) programmed it to do so. As usual, your logic is flawed! While the knowledge is not solidified, one would have to be hair-brained indeed to think it was a "nothing" that is responding to your claptrap!

The only testimony I have that you do is that you appear to type messages.
Nope, incorrect! Messages don't appear to be on Ricks server from an opponent of yours, they are here. Unless you're hallucinating. Which is entirely possible considering that you "believe" in that invisible god of yours. You may be schizophrenic!

By your logic, then, I shouldn't be believing in you, since that is surely dubious.
If you're schizophrenic or hallucinate often you shouldn't necessarily "believe" that you have "knowledge" of me, no! Only if you're of a rational mind should you do so! Of course I tend to wonder in your case!

You could be male, female, a clever chatbot, or not even the same "Spheres" who typed the last message -- and I would not know.
Sure but still a "YOU" is responsible. Hey don't blame me, "YOU" was your initial classification.

Your "footprint" here is very small.
At 4871 messages, I'd argue otherwise!

God's is a great deal bigger.
Only in your feeble imagination. Or so it surely logically seems!

And yet you anticipate that I will believe you exist...at least enough to be replying to you.
Nope, I'm just assuming that you're of sound mind, that you're neither schizophrenic nor often subject to hallucinations. Of course I could be wrong, your current belief system, that which causes my doubt.

Look, I know you fear death, don't we all! But no invisible entity shall save you from it, just because you believe in it.
;-)
User avatar
Vendetta
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Location: ehville

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Vendetta »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 11:01 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 10:10 pm
Let be tell you your biggest problem.
Oh, I can't wait for this... :D
You evade that which you know you can't win against, change your opponents meaning, then respond as if the exchange was based in truth and honesty.

I protest, dear sir. I take people at their word.
Never!

I can only go with what they write.
So you simply say, nothing more!

I cannot read anything they intended to say, by did not manage to say.
A nice way to dodge the truth, without any merit in my case.

It is true that I do occasionally ignore a remark.
Yep, that which shows your diatribe as the falsehood it is.

For example, I tend to ignore insults. I also sometimes try to overlook when someone is so grossly wrong that it would be embarrassing to reply. I think charity requires that sometimes we don't point out the faults in others' logic too sharply -- especially when the "logic" in question is so faulty as to be embarrassing.
Nice dodge, "for the sake of the people!" Give me a break, your ploys are laughable!

And as for ignoring anything I can't win against, what on earth would you have in mind? Do tell. I'm genuinely interested. I'll tackle it right now. Open season.
Good, OPEN SEASON!! Hit me with your best shot; something like a cork pop gun, complete with strings attached! :lol:
My argument on this topic, as to your god or not: is that in truth, you can't know.
You are telling me what I can know?
Nope, what humans can/can't know. You are human right?

Do you do the same for everyone?
Humans my son, humans!

People can't know celebrities or sports figures, unless you do?
Subterfuge!! Apples and oranges, and you know it!

Do you imagine that Kampala doesn't exist because you've never been there?
Never even heard of it to my recollection. But if it can be proven to exist it is in fact knowledge. If it can't be proven, then only belief.

How about the outer cosmos: do you conclude that it doesn't exist either, since manifestly you haven't seen it?
Well I've only seen what our astronomers telescopes, astronauts and probes have photographed/videoed, so "assuming" they are genuine, I tend to believe that it's knowledge, yes!

Why would you imagine one "can't" know something, merely because you don't know it? :shock:
Again that is not my position, and you know it; subterfuge! My position is that any creator of everything has no favorites, at least in any particular type group of things, as it would know of all abilities/inabilities, it's limitations.

How would you have arrived at that stellar piece of wisdom?
60 years, coming this year, of life.

See, sometimes when the logic is too embarrassing, it's just better if I don't make a case of it. However, I remind you that you asked. I was happy to let that one slide.
Don't let anything slide, I don't what you to rely on any such excuse. I can take you on and win easily, trust me! But only if you have a shred of honesty in that head of yours!
But no one can know or prove that your invisible god exists, that's just a fact! So says both, the scientific method and logic!
Au contraire. What I don't know is that YOU exist.
Sure you "know," as someone has to be pressing these keys. There is no possible scenario where a YOU, (human) can't be responsible, even if it's simply a programmed computer typing these messages, still a YOU (human) programmed it to do so. As usual, your logic is flawed! While the knowledge is not solidified, one would have to be hair-brained indeed to think it was a "nothing" that is responding to your claptrap!

The only testimony I have that you do is that you appear to type messages.
Nope, incorrect! Messages don't appear to be on Ricks server from an opponent of yours, they are here. Unless you're hallucinating. Which is entirely possible considering that you "believe" in that invisible god of yours. You may be schizophrenic!

By your logic, then, I shouldn't be believing in you, since that is surely dubious.
If you're schizophrenic or hallucinate often you shouldn't necessarily "believe" that you have "knowledge" of me, no! Only if you're of a rational mind should you do so! Of course I tend to wonder in your case!

You could be male, female, a clever chatbot, or not even the same "Spheres" who typed the last message -- and I would not know.
Sure but still a "YOU" is responsible. Hey don't blame me, "YOU" was your initial classification.

Your "footprint" here is very small.
At 4871 messages, I'd argue otherwise!

God's is a great deal bigger.
Only in your feeble imagination. Or so it surely logically seems!

And yet you anticipate that I will believe you exist...at least enough to be replying to you.
Nope, I'm just assuming that you're of sound mind, that you're neither schizophrenic nor often subject to hallucinations. Of course I could be wrong, your current belief system, that which causes my doubt.

Look, I know you fear death, don't we all! But no invisible entity shall save you from it, just because you believe in it.

When in an argument, all one can do is work with the information the other side presents them with. Neither I.C, nor anyone else can read their opponent's mind. That isn't cherry picking information for their benefit, that is simply the way that exchanges between people work. It is illogical to say that someone is intentionally ignoring information that they simply were not made aware of.

In terms of the existence of you, "Spheres", it is not irrational to question it, considering that there remains a possibility that everything that we see and know on a daily basis is not as it seems. This is the groundwork of metaphysics, and as of right now cannot be proven irrational without a reasonable doubt. To tighten the focus even further, you at least cannot say that Immanuel is irrational for questioning your identity and discernment from the individual behind previous responses given the nature of anonymity and the internet.

In fact, if we are talking about avoiding points of view to make yours seem most correct, you yourself are an excellent example of such. Formulating ad hominem attacks such as accusing your opposition of being schizophrenic will never get anyone to see your side in the argument. You seem very adamant that God doesn't exist. What is your evidence to support such ardent disbelief? I am having a hard time discerning any reasonable logic through your slew of insults and childish prattle. You say that there is definitely no God and that anyone who believes such is an idiot? Fine. Prove it. I find it rather interesting that you seem to believe that your opinion stands for what all humans can and should know, given that you haven't brought forth any semblance of actual, sound logic.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 11:57 pm
And as for ignoring anything I can't win against, what on earth would you have in mind? Do tell. I'm genuinely interested. I'll tackle it right now. Open season.
Good, OPEN SEASON!! Hit me with your best shot; something like a cork pop gun, complete with strings attached!
You (pretend to?) misunderstand, sir. You said there was something I couldn't win against, that I was ignoring. Please do tell.
My argument on this topic, as to your god or not: is that in truth, you can't know.
Do you imagine that Kampala doesn't exist because you've never been there?
Never even heard of it to my recollection. But if it can be proven to exist it is in fact knowledge. If it can't be proven, then only belief.
You can't prove it. I can, but you can't.

So according to your logic, it must not exist.

You don't know God, you say. I agree, if you say so. I say I do. You say I can't. I'd like to know your justification for the claim. It can't be as silly as "I don't know, therefore IC can't know." Nobody's going to believe that. Kampala exists. If you don't believe me, ask those who live there.
My position is that any creator of everything has no favorites, at least in any particular type group of things, as it would know of all abilities/inabilities, it's limitations.
So...wait a minute. You are actually going to argue that the Supreme Being you don't believe exists has a constraint on Him, that he can't "play favourites" and let anybody know what you don't know.

You see why I ignore some arguments? This one is getting thinner by the second. Charity would suggest I quit pointing that out.
How would you have arrived at that stellar piece of wisdom?
60 years, coming this year, of life.
Well, that answer also doesn't make any sense. "I'm 60, therefore, I know what you can and can't know, and what the Supreme Being can and can't reveal." Is that seriously what you're arguing? Or are you just saying, "I'm old, therefore believe me." :D
I can take you on and win easily, trust me!

Okay, have a go. :D
By your logic, then, I shouldn't be believing in you, since that is surely dubious.
If you're schizophrenic or hallucinate often you shouldn't necessarily "believe" that you have "knowledge" of me, no! Only if you're of a rational mind should you do so! Of course I tend to wonder in your case!
Normally, I prefer to ignore the petty, irrelevant, ad hominem insults. And I'm happy to do so here, since anybody can see that they add no value to your case at all. But I could perhaps point out that resorting to them is a sure signal of embarrassment and desperation. You'll find that's a pretty solid rule, I think. People who aren't feeling like they're losing a point don't ordinarily seem to feel need to resort to them.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Vendetta wrote: Wed May 17, 2017 12:43 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 11:01 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 10:10 pm
Let be tell you your biggest problem.
Oh, I can't wait for this... :D
You evade that which you know you can't win against, change your opponents meaning, then respond as if the exchange was based in truth and honesty.

I protest, dear sir. I take people at their word.
Never!

I can only go with what they write.
So you simply say, nothing more!

I cannot read anything they intended to say, by did not manage to say.
A nice way to dodge the truth, without any merit in my case.

It is true that I do occasionally ignore a remark.
Yep, that which shows your diatribe as the falsehood it is.

For example, I tend to ignore insults. I also sometimes try to overlook when someone is so grossly wrong that it would be embarrassing to reply. I think charity requires that sometimes we don't point out the faults in others' logic too sharply -- especially when the "logic" in question is so faulty as to be embarrassing.
Nice dodge, "for the sake of the people!" Give me a break, your ploys are laughable!

And as for ignoring anything I can't win against, what on earth would you have in mind? Do tell. I'm genuinely interested. I'll tackle it right now. Open season.
Good, OPEN SEASON!! Hit me with your best shot; something like a cork pop gun, complete with strings attached! :lol:
My argument on this topic, as to your god or not: is that in truth, you can't know.
You are telling me what I can know?
Nope, what humans can/can't know. You are human right?

Do you do the same for everyone?
Humans my son, humans!

People can't know celebrities or sports figures, unless you do?
Subterfuge!! Apples and oranges, and you know it!

Do you imagine that Kampala doesn't exist because you've never been there?
Never even heard of it to my recollection. But if it can be proven to exist it is in fact knowledge. If it can't be proven, then only belief.

How about the outer cosmos: do you conclude that it doesn't exist either, since manifestly you haven't seen it?
Well I've only seen what our astronomers telescopes, astronauts and probes have photographed/videoed, so "assuming" they are genuine, I tend to believe that it's knowledge, yes!

Why would you imagine one "can't" know something, merely because you don't know it? :shock:
Again that is not my position, and you know it; subterfuge! My position is that any creator of everything has no favorites, at least in any particular type group of things, as it would know of all abilities/inabilities, it's limitations.

How would you have arrived at that stellar piece of wisdom?
60 years, coming this year, of life.

See, sometimes when the logic is too embarrassing, it's just better if I don't make a case of it. However, I remind you that you asked. I was happy to let that one slide.
Don't let anything slide, I don't what you to rely on any such excuse. I can take you on and win easily, trust me! But only if you have a shred of honesty in that head of yours!
But no one can know or prove that your invisible god exists, that's just a fact! So says both, the scientific method and logic!
Au contraire. What I don't know is that YOU exist.
Sure you "know," as someone has to be pressing these keys. There is no possible scenario where a YOU, (human) can't be responsible, even if it's simply a programmed computer typing these messages, still a YOU (human) programmed it to do so. As usual, your logic is flawed! While the knowledge is not solidified, one would have to be hair-brained indeed to think it was a "nothing" that is responding to your claptrap!

The only testimony I have that you do is that you appear to type messages.
Nope, incorrect! Messages don't appear to be on Ricks server from an opponent of yours, they are here. Unless you're hallucinating. Which is entirely possible considering that you "believe" in that invisible god of yours. You may be schizophrenic!

By your logic, then, I shouldn't be believing in you, since that is surely dubious.
If you're schizophrenic or hallucinate often you shouldn't necessarily "believe" that you have "knowledge" of me, no! Only if you're of a rational mind should you do so! Of course I tend to wonder in your case!

You could be male, female, a clever chatbot, or not even the same "Spheres" who typed the last message -- and I would not know.
Sure but still a "YOU" is responsible. Hey don't blame me, "YOU" was your initial classification.

Your "footprint" here is very small.
At 4871 messages, I'd argue otherwise!

God's is a great deal bigger.
Only in your feeble imagination. Or so it surely logically seems!

And yet you anticipate that I will believe you exist...at least enough to be replying to you.
Nope, I'm just assuming that you're of sound mind, that you're neither schizophrenic nor often subject to hallucinations. Of course I could be wrong, your current belief system, that which causes my doubt.

Look, I know you fear death, don't we all! But no invisible entity shall save you from it, just because you believe in it.

When in an argument, all one can do is work with the information the other side presents them with.
Exactly!

Neither I.C, nor anyone else can read their opponent's mind.
Exactly! No one can, you're preaching to the choir!

That isn't cherry picking information for their benefit, that is simply the way that exchanges between people work.
You're a newbie, IC's been here since Sep 2013, I've been here since Sep 2011. We have a little bit of a history. Again you're a newbie! Welcome of course, but you really don't have a say in age old rivals business, unless you've read EVERYTHING!! Have you read EVERYTHING? I thought not! Then please quit sucking up to your butt buddy, as he's quite capable of handling himself! Dig it?

It is illogical to say that someone is intentionally ignoring information that they simply were not made aware of.
See immediately above, about history!

In terms of the existence of you, "Spheres", it is not irrational to question it, considering that there remains a possibility that everything that we see and know on a daily basis is not as it seems.
FYI, he was just trying to make a point about "knowing". As far as I'm concerned he failed! And you're just a newbie taking up for his butt buddy! So now we're up to date as to each of our motivations!

This is the groundwork of metaphysics, and as of right now cannot be proven irrational without a reasonable doubt. To tighten the focus even further, you at least cannot say that Immanuel is irrational for questioning your identity and discernment from the individual behind previous responses given the nature of anonymity and the internet.
He said YOU, EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ON THIS PLANET IS A "YOU." As to it being this specific YOU, absolutely no one has ever had access to my computer or login information, it would have to be a middleman attack, and for what reason, to pose as the SOB on PNF. Get real! Who around here want's to actually be in the shoes of the SOB anyway, You? Who really wants to be the one that will get in one's face, with the truth? Pretty much no one! Ask them!


In fact, if we are talking about avoiding points of view to make yours seem most correct, you yourself are an excellent example of such. Formulating ad hominem attacks such as accusing your opposition of being schizophrenic will never get anyone to see your side in the argument.
No you idiot, Schizophrenics hear voices in their heads, it was not a personal attack, it's aimed at those that say they have heard their fucked up god in their heads, and that it's their proof he exists. How could they say they know? You need to get an education, my friend, because it's sorely lacking! One has to know the definitions of words before they can understand how they apply, my friend! Or are you just like him, a liar? I'll keep an eye on your newbieness and let you know the verdict, as I see how you interact with other old time regulars!

You seem very adamant that God doesn't exist.
No, I believe that a mindful intentional creator of all that is, is possible. And I equally see that it's possible that there isn't, that it's just the nature of a mindless non-intentional universe. But I certainly see that mans god is a bunch of archaic antiquated bullshit, created by a relatively ignorant bunch, of long long dead people, that used to believe in many, many gods. My position only stands to reason, considering the history of those times!

What is your evidence to support such ardent disbelief?
Show me this invisible god of yours? Prove that he exists! Prove that leprechauns, faeries, pixies, trolls, and hobbits exist! What? You can't! Hmmm. Well you got me there! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I am having a hard time discerning any reasonable logic through your slew of insults and childish prattle.
So the newbie butt buddy proclaims, so what? Prove that your god exists! The burden of proof is yours! Surely not mine! Tell me of the invisible people that I say exists, and I'll show you a liar and a fool!

You say that there is definitely no God and that anyone who believes such is an idiot?
No, only mans god. You see, I differentiate, between mans creator he's called god, and the true creator of all. They are clearly two separate entities!

Fine. Prove it.
The burden of proof is on you believers in your god, not I, that says simply you can't know it, that you simply believe in it! If I said I saw a real live alien from a planet far away, would you believe I know? Would you believe that the burden of proof is mine, or yours, that there is no such invisible entity?

I find it rather interesting that you seem to believe that your opinion stands for what all humans can and should know, given that you haven't brought forth any semblance of actual, sound logic.
Believers in invisible entities, obviously wouldn't know sound logic, if it bit them on their crazy ass's!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 17, 2017 1:08 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 11:57 pm
And as for ignoring anything I can't win against, what on earth would you have in mind? Do tell. I'm genuinely interested. I'll tackle it right now. Open season.
Good, OPEN SEASON!! Hit me with your best shot; something like a cork pop gun, complete with strings attached!
You (pretend to?) misunderstand, sir. You said there was something I couldn't win against, that I was ignoring. Please do tell.
You do it all the time, I'll not go back looking at all your previous messages to point it out, that's your problem. Far too much work for me to undertake. Here's the deal, when I think of it, I'll point it out as you do it again, and again, and again, deal?

Do you imagine that Kampala doesn't exist because you've never been there?
Never even heard of it to my recollection. But if it can be proven to exist it is in fact knowledge. If it can't be proven, then only belief.
You can't prove it. I can, but you can't.
You sound like you're about 12 now! "My dog's bigger than your dog, my dogs bigger than yours." Grow up son!



So according to your logic, it must not exist.
Not at all, my logic is that if you can prove it exists, then it is knowledge, otherwise only belief, PAY ATTENTION!

You don't know God, you say.
Correct!

I agree, if you say so.
OK!

I say I do.
But you can't, you can only believe!

You say I can't.
Because you can't prove that you can!

I'd like to know your justification for the claim.
I just said it immediately above! "Because you can't "prove" that you can!"

It can't be as silly as "I don't know, therefore IC can't know."
Pay attention, I've said it time and time again, see immediately above.

Nobody's going to believe that.
Because that's what you said and you're a nutter

Kampala exists. If you don't believe me, ask those who live there.
If it can be proven to exist then it is knowledge, if it can't, it's simply belief!
My position is that any creator of everything has no favorites, at least in any particular type group of things, as it would know of all abilities/inabilities, it's limitations.
So...wait a minute. You are actually going to argue that the Supreme Being you don't believe exists has a constraint on Him, that he can't "play favourites" and let anybody know what you don't know.
It's not a he, it's an it! The fact that you call it a he is yet more proof that the men of old made him up, in a world where women were property, and had no say. Name me one woman that participated in writing the scriptures. I know of the gospels of john, etc, but how about mary, susan or jane? They don't exist! As I've said over, and over, and over again I believe in the possibility of a creator, it's just not your man made farce of a god. The true creator, if it actually exists, isn't known yet. Man is far too young! And as far as constraints goes, it's you putting on the constraints when you say that you can know and others can't, as it's the only way you can try and sell your god to those that are actually rational!

You see why I ignore some arguments? This one is getting thinner by the second. Charity would suggest I quit pointing that out.
No it's because you're a loser, that you say such things, so you can elevate yourself higher than the rest, a common occurrence in those that claim their god is real. Often one of the main reasons they believe in their god in the first place!

How would you have arrived at that stellar piece of wisdom?
60 years, coming this year, of life.
Well, that answer also doesn't make any sense. "I'm 60, therefore, I know what you can and can't know,
Not quite, I know what knowing is, you obviously don't, so I'll refresh your memory yet again, for you thick of skull:

"know1 [noh]
verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully."


and what the Supreme Being can and can't reveal."
Clearly a supreme being could reveal anything! And it would reveal it to everyone as it would understand everything about us. You're the one with a set of constraints, so you can perpetuate your lies, not I! Everyone of the constraints you impose upon your god are so obviously contrived so as to sell the lie!

Is that seriously what you're arguing?
Pay attention, instead of spouting false characterizations.

Or are you just saying, "I'm old, therefore believe me." :D
No I'm saying that I'm old so bullshit is lost on me, that truth reigns supreme, and I've come to know it well, therefore your lies are transparent! Savvy?
I can take you on and win easily, trust me!

Okay, have a go. :D
In process, dipshit! :lol:

By your logic, then, I shouldn't be believing in you, since that is surely dubious.
If you're schizophrenic or hallucinate often you shouldn't necessarily "believe" that you have "knowledge" of me, no! Only if you're of a rational mind should you do so! Of course I tend to wonder in your case!
Normally, I prefer to ignore the petty, irrelevant, ad hominem insults.
They're not petty irrelevant ad hominem insults, idiot, It's about those that believe in their god due to illness. Ezekiel probably had epilepsy, or so scientists say! And it's completely logical, as well as for those that claimed to have talked to their god, being schizophrenic or having hallucinations due to some mushroom, cactus, purple fungus, seeds or other such thing. Even fever, as those ignorant people of that day knew nothing of those illness's or organisms.

And I'm happy to do so here, since anybody can see that they add no value to your case at all.
Then you're a fool that counts his chickens before they're hatched, as this is far, oh so very far from over. You have absolutely no idea how tenacious I can be. You're dumb ass will give up far before I will, because that's what liars do. They know they're beaten long before they start.

But I could perhaps point out that resorting to them is a sure signal of embarrassment and desperation.
Again with your unhatched eggs, you fool you!

You'll find that's a pretty solid rule, I think.
Not here in a philosophy forum, as philosophy is all about knowledge and truth, not some freighted belief in an invisible entity that no one can prove.

People who aren't feeling like they're losing a point don't ordinarily seem to feel need to resort to them.
Yet again with you unhatched eggs. Read above to find out how you've opened mouth and inserted foot!
If you're as smart as the theists come, this is going to be easy!

P.S. Both you and Vendetta have pretty much screwed up your god arguments with the backing of your "seeing is believing" argument, as that is exactly my point. The difference between god and I, which should be painfully obvious to even liars such as you two, is that I can come and visit with you two, introducing you to my wife and telling you face to face that I have written everything on this forum that was in the pseudonym SpheresOfBalance. Even going so far as to passing a polygraph and an FMRI as to the fact that I'm being truthful, but your god can't even show up, and say one word in front of all three of us to prove he exists! Funny huh?

You cannot know, you can only believe!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 17, 2017 1:08 am Please do tell.
You do it all the time, I'll not go back looking at all your previous messages to point it out, that's your problem. Far too much work for me to undertake. Here's the deal, when I think of it, I'll point it out as you do it again, and again, and again, deal?
No deal. I'm sincere. I want to see what you allege I missed. I'd like to address it. And there's no reason I should agree to your characterization if there is no evidence to support it.
You can't prove it. I can, but you can't.
You sound like you're about 12 now...
No, again you misunderstand. I'm not angry, upset or hurt...and I've studiously avoided insulting you personally. That I'm not entranced with your views can hardly be held against one on a philosophy forum. Defending your position is what philosophical debate is all about.

I'm calm...so why are you so agitated?

Regarding the Kampala analogy, I was not being merely rhetorical, but giving you information that is true. I've BEEN there. I'm safe in saying you haven't, based on your response. So again, in the case of Kampala, we find an illustration of something of knowledge that I can confirm but you cannot.

The point is that you have no way of saying what another person does or does not, can or cannot know when it comes to the issue of the Supreme Being. For as you see, you cannot even perform the same operation for something as earthly and accessible as the capital city of Uganda.
You don't know God, you say.
Correct!

I agree, if you say so.
OK!

I say I do.
But you can't, you can only believe!

You say I can't.
Because you can't prove that you can!
Of course I can't. God can, because He's God. But I can't tell him what to do.

Consider what you're asking. You're asking me if I can command the Supreme Being to perform for you, so you can come to have knowledge you lack. You can ask Him if He wishes to do so, as I have done: and if He wishes to, He will. But neither you nor I commands the Supreme Being to do anything. I could more easily ask Kampala to go and visit you. It has a greater chance of being at my command.

I think we can both acknowledge the reasonableness of that.
I'd like to know your justification for the claim.
I just said it immediately above! "Because you can't "prove" that you can!"
Non-sequitur. I can't "prove" to you a great number of things, nor you to me. That does not impinge on their existence or non-existence.

I have seen Kampala. You (apparently) have not.

You probably don't own an electron microscope, or a Hubble telescope. Does that mean that electrons and red-shift don't exist? You've not seen them. Are you going merely by the testimony of others, if you believe in them?

Then what do you really "know"? You're just having faith in those who HAVE seen them. But your knowledge is not special, then. You actually don't know they exist.
My position is that any creator of everything has no favorites, at least in any particular type group of things, as it would know of all abilities/inabilities, it's limitations.
So...wait a minute. You are actually going to argue that the Supreme Being you don't believe exists has a constraint on Him, that he can't "play favourites" and let anybody know what you don't know.
It's not a he, it's an it!
Ah! So now you claim you DO know the Supreme Being whose existence you were recently denying. You say you know He is an "it."

How, pray tell? I thought you had not seen Him?
...men of old made him up, in a world where women were property, and had no say. Name me one woman that participated in writing the scriptures...
Oh, that's funny. :D Is this the famous "argument from sexism"? The Supreme Being doesn't meet modern feminists' preferences and expectations, therefore He doesn't exist?

See, I want to leave those sorts of horribly bad arguments unnoticed. But you want me to pull them out and showcase them for everyone? Why?
No it's because you're a loser...
Please do look up the ad hominem fallacy. A person shouldn't get to the ripe and wise old age of 60 without knowing that personal insults simply are not arguments. Basic logic, that.
I know what knowing is, you obviously don't, so I'll refresh your memory yet again, for you thick of skull:
[/color]
"know1 [noh]
verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully."
You're a Positivist? :shock: You think that "know" means "clearly and with certainty?" But Positivism and Verificationism have been discredited, as you surely must know...or maybe not, I guess. Are you under the impression that empirical knowledge can ever be absolutely (though only inductively) certain? Do you imagine that "know" means "know without doubt"?

But by that standard, no human being, scientist or not, "knows" anything. :shock: For you do not even know for certain you will draw your own next breath.

Descartes handled this nicely a long time ago. Take a look at Meditations, and you'll see it.
Clearly a supreme being could reveal anything! !
I think so too.
And it would reveal it to everyone as it would understand everything about us.
Non-sequitur. There's no reason to assume that. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise. There's no deduction from "can reveal anything" to "must reveal to everyone."

Consider it this way: I can send you a picture of my family. Where's the deduction from that that I owe to send it to everyone? If I can choose the person to whom I reveal myself, do you impute less ability to the Supreme Being? Is He obliged when I am not? Why?
truth reigns supreme, and I've come to know it well,

:D
I can take you on and win easily, trust me!
Okay, have a go. :D
In process, dipshit!
I can't wait. Seriously. When will you start?
You have absolutely no idea how tenacious I can be.
Not a problem.

I invite all reasoned objections to anything I say. I'm just wondering if you have any of those left. You say you do, but you're spending a lot of time on being emphatic rather than substantial. Let's drop the insults, and see what you've got left.

Seriously...the ad hominem stuff isn't worth your time. It doesn't bother me at all. It's just mildly boring, really. Let's see some arguments here. If you've got anything to say, it can be said calmly and rationally. If it cannot...well, then it's a very weak argument.
Post Reply