Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:25 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 1:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:47 pm
1. Free will requires a deterministic order for the changes to result from a decision.
WHY?
Why can change NOT HAPPEN by just free will alone?
What you said here infers that ALL decisions are predetermined anyway, which opposes and is contrary to the idea of free will. Or if you mean something else, then what do you mean?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:47 pm
2. Determinism requires free will to exist given it is determined that free will is discussed.
What does the 'it' word refer to here?
And, saying, "determinism requires free will" implies that free will ALWAYS existed alongside determinism or prior to determinism. Whereas is it NOT possible that free will came to exist through the evolutionary process later along the evolutionary line, or after?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:47 pm
3. Free will and determinism coexist.
Well this is just BLATANTLY OBVIOUS anyway, to 'me'.
But maybe if you explained what 'determinism' and 'free will' ACTUALLY IS, to 'you', then that might help in understanding how you reached this conclusion here. From your 1. and 2. wording this certainly did NOT help in arriving, logically nor reasonably, at this 3. conclusion, well not from my perspective anyway.
1. An act of free will requires further actions to occur from that choice thus necessitating determinism coming from free will.
EVERY 'action' required a previous action.
To me, however, an act of 'free will' does NOT "require" ANY thing. However, from EVERY act of 'free will' a further action, naturally, occurs, anyway.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:25 pm
2. "It" references the totality of being as the conversation and concept of free will emerges within the fabric of being.
Your words here, AGAIN, are NOT helping 'me', at all, understand 'you' better. For example, from the very first word of your sentence I have ABSOLUTELY NO idea NOR clue as to what you are referring to NOT meaning.
Was just using thee ACTUAL word that the word "it" here was referring instead of using the 'it' word REALLY to hard to do?
Or, did you NOT use 'that word' for some other reason?
If yes, then what was that reason, EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:25 pm
3. If free will came through evolution a contradiction entails given both free will and evolution are agents of change thus necessitating "change" as a phenomenon being divided. In the act of free will a change occurs in a form with this new form being a variation of the prior form. This variation is an evolution of forms. Evolution of being, where being exists in contrast to nothing, is pure being freely coming from nothing. This freedom of being from nothing is the will of being thus necessitating being occuring through free will.
IF 'you' EVER get around to EXPLAINING what 'free will' is, to 'you', then 'we' can START LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING 'this'.
Until then what 'you' are talking about and/or referring to here, ONLY 'you' KNOW.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:25 pm
4. If free will requires determinism and determinism requires free will then both free will and determinism coexist.
LOL There is NO dispute that 'free will' and 'determinism' coexist. So, 'you' do NOT need to keep 'trying to' argue for this conclusion.
What 'you' NEED to do, from my perspective, is just SHOW and PROVE how 'you' arrived at that conclusion, in a logically reasoned way. So far, 'you' have NOT YET.
Also, what I was putting forward, through a clarifying question, was; HAS 'free will' ALWAYS coexisted with 'determinism', or, did 'free' will' come to exist, somewhere along the evolutionary line of 'things'?
I suggest STOP 'trying to' argue that 'free will' and 'determinism' coexist. To me, I think this is irrefutable anyway. Instead I suggest you START LOOKING AT the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I am putting forward, to you, and then just Honestly responding to them, ONLY. That way 'you' will then ACTUALLY find, and thus obtain, thee ACTUAL PROOF, which you are 'trying to' SHOW here.