On Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:04:10 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to