On Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:04:10 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:>>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. >
But I have just proved to you that it cannot be either one. The first category doesn't exist yet and the second category negates all possibilities. > > >> > 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. > Yet you don't have the wisdom to know when you don't know about free will. > > >> > 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. > The universe is not algebra. > > > 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. > Because you have no problem with things happening for no reason, yet you have a problem with people causing things to happen for their own personal reasons. > > > 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. > If something can come out of it, then it's not nothing. If a cave produces automobiles, then what is in the cave is not randomness or nothing - it is something which has the potential to produce automobiles. > 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. > You have no idea where reason came from. It's voodoo to you. > > >> 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. > If you think that you know what I know, then you must have psychic powers. > > >>> 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. > Because that is the very embodiment of un-reason. If reason itself can pop into existence for no reason, then who is to say that everything doesn't also do the same? > >> > 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. > No, a loose brick has autonomy. It would need a private will to hurl itself into the air. > > > 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; > Why would it matter if you want some things and don't want others if you have no power to freely choose between them? > 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. > Free just makes the difference between being in the dungeon and being released. Why is it controversial? > > > 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. > How do you know this? What makes you say it? > > >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. > It's bizarre that you are so haunted by the idea of free will that you have to turn it into gibberish to keep it at bay - even if it means throwing your cherished 'reasons' under the bus. > > >> 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. > I'm never trying to win a debate. I am only curious about the truth. You claim that things follow rules, but you have not the faintest idea how or why this happens. I point this out not to spike the football on your head, but to see if there is something that you know about this that I don't - but there isn't. You haven't really contemplated these things deeply at all, you are just very opinionated and rude about any suggestion of unfamiliar ideas. > > > 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. > I'm saying that a yearning for social contact isn't logical in a world in which everyone is only doing what they must (for reasons or no reasons). Craig > John K Clark > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/9n8zF8xr4HAJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
