On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. >
So you have just proven that X is not Y and X is not not Y. BULLSHIT! > > you don't have the wisdom to know when you don't know about free will. > Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means. > you have no problem with things happening for no reason > True. > yet you have a problem with people causing things to happen for their own > personal reasons. > Not true, I have no problem with that either. I have no problem with you doing what you do for reasons, personal or otherwise, and I have no problem with you doing what you do for no reason at all, but I do have a very big problem with you not doing either one. > If something can come out of it, then it's not nothing. > That would only be true if every event must have a cause, but there is no law of logic that demands that must always be true, and after more than a century of intensive experimentation on this very subject we find that there is no empirical reason to think that must always be true either. > You have no idea where reason came from. It's voodoo to you. > Unlike you I'm not foolish enough to think that I've unlocked all the mysteries of the universe, I'm wise enough to know that I know almost nothing, but one of the few things that I do know is that X is Y or X is not Y. > If reason itself can pop into existence for no reason, then who is to say > that everything doesn't also do the same? > Maybe it does, I don't know, you don't know either but you think you do. > It [a brick] would need a private will to hurl itself into the air. > Or a volcanic eruption underneath it just as you'd need legs and muscles underneath you to jump. > Why would it matter if you want some things and don't want others if you > have no power to freely choose between them? > I think it's very odd that you keep asking me why I wrote this or that or why I did this or that when you believe that people are not deterministic and thus do things for no reason, in fact its the very foundation of your philosophy. Of course you also believe that people don't not do things for a reason, but even leaving out that idiotic contradiction I just don't understand what you expect me to answer when you ask me "why did you say that?". > Free just makes the difference between being in the dungeon and being > released. Why is it controversial? > Assuming I don't like being in that dungeon then if you cut my chains reality is more in accordance with my will and I can do some of the things I wanted to do but couldn't do before, like leave, although I still can't do everything I want, I still can't jump over that mountain. > >>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? > I know this because I'm not a idiot. > What makes you say it? > WHAT MAKES ME SAY IT?! You're asking me what makes me do something ?? You of all people are asking me that question? As you've told me about a hundred times, I said it for no reason and I didn't say it for no reason because I have this thing you call "free will". If you want to be consistent in your philosophy you should never again ask me or anybody else why they said or did something because you already know why. Or at least you think you do. > 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. > Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means. > > I'm never trying to win a debate. > Oh I believe you, certainly I do; and I was born yesterday too. > > I am only curious about the truth. > I don't think so. If you were just curious about the truth you'd look at the facts of the world and try to find theories that might explain a little part of it, instead you find some idea you feel is pleasant and then try to shoehorn facts into it. Nobody who was starting out from first principles and was just curious about the truth would come up with the incoherent hodgepodge of circularity and logical contradictions that you have and try to pass it off as a theory. > You claim that things follow rules, > Some do some don't. > I'm saying that a yearning for social contact isn't logical > It's as logical as a dislike of social contact, and If animals with a strong inclination for social contact got their genes into the next generation better then those that didn't then logically that's the sort of animal you'd expect to see in the world. > How does the need for social contact factor into a worldview which lacks > free will? > Cannot comment, don't know what 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 email@example.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.