# Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"

```On Wed, Oct 17, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You are the one that is saying everything happens for a reason or not for
> a reason.
>```
```
Yes.

> Which category do laws fall under?
>

I haven't the slightest idea, but I do know that it's got to be one or the
other.

> > Yet you claim that it had to originate

I don't claim reason had to "originate" at all because it may have had no
origin, or maybe it did, if so I have no idea how or why if came to be.
Unlike you I have the wisdom to know when I don't know.

> > for a reason or randomly, right?

Yes, If it originated at all then it originated for a reason or it
originated for no reason. You claim to have gotten a A is algebra, so why
you find the concept X is Y or X is not Y so difficult to grasp is a
mystery.

> And since reason can't originate for its own reason
>

I'm just speculating but maybe there is something rather than nothing
because nothing is a logical contradiction of some sort. Or maybe not.

> > then it has to be random.
>

Then It had to happen for no reason. I don't know why you keep beating this
simple point to death.

> If reason can come out of randomness however, then it can't really be
> random.
>

What?! If reason, or anything else, came out of randomness then by
definition it came out of nothing, it came about for no reason, and there
is nothing wrong with something happening for no reason. And it's amusing
that you keep attempting (very unsuccessfully) to use reason to prove that
reason is not of primary importance. And why would you want to do that?
Because reason makes a hash out of your silly theories.

>> I don't know if there was a "very first time", logic does not demand
>> that there be one; and even if there were logic doesn't demand that
>> everything happen for a reason.
>>
>
> > All you have to do is apply your excuse to your own experience and you
> have free will.
>

Maybe maybe not, I don't know because I don't know what "free will" is
supposed to mean and neither do you.

>>> fails because it is circular
>>>
>>
>> >> Describe that circle.
>>
>
> > If the first reason
>

Logic allows for the existence of a first reason but it doesn't demand
there be one.

> happened for a reason then it can't be the first reason,
>

Obviously.

> > Reasons can't just appear out of nowhere and proliferate
>

Why not? Things happen for no reason all the time in modern physics. So I
repeat my question, describe that circle.

> > Free will is supposed to mean the capacity to try to execute your
> private will publicly with relative personal autonomy.

So you have free will if you have personal autonomy and you have personal
autonomy if you have free will, and around and around we go.

> If I am locked in a dungeon, the effect of my will is constrained.
>

I have said many times that "will" is a clear non circular idea, I want
some things and don't want others; if I'm in a dungeon and want to leave my
chains constrain my will and if I want to jump over a mountain gravity
constrains my will. It is only when the word "free" joins up with "will"
that we enter the wonderful world of gibberish.

> you claim to know that free will does not exist.
>

No I don't claim that at all! If the only problem with free will is that it
had the property of non-existence then it would not be gibberish, dragons
don't exist but the word is not gibberish, it means something, just
something that doesn't happen to exist; but "free will" is gibberish
because it doesn't even mean something mythical, "free will" is just a
noise.

>Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.
>>
>
> >What's the difference between that ASCII sequence and the other one,
> "reasons"
>

The difference is 2, one contains 9 ASCII characters and the other only 7.
Didn't you study subtraction in that algebra class you got a A in.

>> Gravity sucks is a rule. Eggs thrown off Leaning Tower of Pisa break.
>> Breaking eggs is physical change.
>>
>
> > How do the eggs follow the rule?
>

And just as saying "not X" whenever your opponent says "X"  blindly saying
"why X?" when he says "X" isn't a winning debate strategy either.

> How does the need for social contact factor into a worldview which lacks
> free will?
>

I can see that's a question because there is a question mark at the end,
but that's all I know; I don't have a answer because I don't understand the
question, don't know what the ASCII sequence "free will" means.

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to