• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Life after Death?

Creasy said:
Our actions may be partially random, but that's hardly 'free will.'
Click to expand...

Stop backpedalling. You unequivocally said there was no spontaneity in nature. There is. The moment randomness is introduced into the equation, we cannot have predeterminism, and that very much implies that we are capable of making choices. The capability to make choices is free will.

But let's consider a different point. Even if all our actions were the product merely of circumstance, what happens when two actions in a specific circumstance are in all regards equally viable? Does our choosing between one of two different but equal possibilities not constitute free will?
 
Creasy, cause and effect is all you can imagine, because it is all you have experienced. If this were a hundred years ago, when there was no quantum physics, you would say that randomness was impossible. Within a hundred years science would prove you wrong. Now you are saying that free will is impossible. Of course you might be right, but there is no reason for your certainty.
 
Last edited:
opaltiger said:
You unequivocally said there was no spontaneity in nature.
Click to expand...
And I was right.

Even if all our actions were the product merely of circumstance, what happens when two actions in a specific circumstance are in all regards equally viable? Does our choosing between one of two different but equal possibilities not constitute free will?
Click to expand...
Why do we choose a over b? If there's a cause (and there always is), our "choice" was determined from the start. If there was no cause, our "choice" was random. Is this your idea of free will?

Ruby said:
Now you are saying that free will is impossible. Of course you might be right, but there is no reason for your certainty.
Click to expand...
I'm only certain that there's no good reason for anyone to believe in free will.
 
Creasy said:
And I was right.
Click to expand...

And yet you admit there is randomness in the universe. Randomness seems to heavily imply spontaneity to me.

Why do we choose a over b? If there's a cause (and there always is), our "choice" was determined from the start. If there was no cause, our "choice" was random. Is this your idea of free will?
Click to expand...

You are looking at this in a much too polarised way. Of course our choices have causes: but do certain causes demand a certain choice? I don't think so. You might say that because of causes a and b, you are more likely to make choice x than y, but that is probability, not certainty. It is exactly what I was getting at when I mentioned quantum mechanics. And I don't see why a causeless choice would be random; I could just as easily say that a causeless choice is one made through free will.

I'm only certain that there's no good reason for anyone to believe in free will.
Click to expand...

If you're certain, there is no point in discussing this further.
 
Creasy said:
I'm only certain that there's no good reason for anyone to believe in free will.
Click to expand...
What, no. You said, 'Free will is incompatible with naturalism.' You did not say that free will is a possibility for which there is no evidence: you said that free will is IMPOSSIBLE without the supernatural.
 
I beleve that you have a set amount of leasons to learn and you keep comeing back untill you have learnt all your leasons. when we learn this lifes leason, we die. simple as that.
 
I beleve that you have a set amount of leasons to learn and you keep comeing back untill you have learnt all your leasons. when we learn this lifes leason, we die. simple as that.
Click to expand...
1) who sets these lessons, and who judges whether you've learnt them or not?

2) isn't that essentially a pointless action, because you never get to use this knowledge, as you die once you've learnt them?

3) what happens when you've learnt all your lessons? And what happens if it takes you several lives to learn one lesson?

4) there are plenty of people who die without learning any lessons, I'm sure, like children who die as infants or before they're even born.

5) does this only apply to humans? if so, why, and if not, how does a plant learn lessons?

Why do you believe this? Is it just something you thought up one day, or is it based off of experience (!!)?
 
FireChao said:
that's why debating with religious people over whether or not they should be religious is pointless
Click to expand...
By which you're admitting that your beliefs aren't good enough as debate material and so you had no real reason to post in this topic?
 
1. They aren't my beliefs.
2. You were the one who was arguing about beliefs (Metallica Fanboy), and I was pointing out the vanity of your actions. In what way am I posting my inadequate beliefs?
 
FireChao said:
1. They aren't my beliefs.
2. You were the one who was arguing about beliefs (Metallica Fanboy), and I was pointing out the vanity of your actions. In what way am I posting my inadequate beliefs?
Click to expand...
I admit to misenterpreting what you were saying on the matter that you weren't expression your views, but defending somebody else's. Doesn't change my point, though: Why go in a Debating Hall to say something not worth discussing? This applies to anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom