Compatibalism

[Tassman]

And again I ask what sort of evidence would you expect to find about the God of the Bible? Not some made up strawman, but the real God of the Bible - regardless of whether you believe in Him or not. What evidence could there be of a creator who is not a part of the creation?

I would not expect to find any evidence. There is no reason to posit such a hypothesis.

[seer]

This is not determinism as it applies to human choices as you well know, it's been explained often enough. But even if it was, your position is ludicrous, namely X cannot be true because I find it distasteful, whereas Y is much nicer, so I'll believe that instead.

With regard to making choices your position is logically incoherent. It takes no account of the impact subconscious influences have on your decision-making process. E.g. your choice of chocolate cake over a cream cake is based upon a myriad factors related to your history of cake-eating. It is not made in isolation of these life-experiences.

So you agree that you are a sock puppet.

[Jedidiah]

I would not expect to find any evidence. There is no reason to posit such a hypothesis.

[Tassman]

So you agree that you are a sock puppet.

This is not what I said.

I repeat, your "sock-puppet" analogy is not determinism as it applies to human choices as you well know, it's been explained often enough. But even if it was, your position is ludicrous, namely X cannot be true because I find it distasteful, whereas Y is much nicer, so I'll believe that instead.

With regard to making choices your position is logically incoherent. It takes no account of the impact subconscious influences have on your decision-making process. E.g. your choice of chocolate cake over a cream cake is based upon a myriad factors related to your history of cake-eating. It is not made in isolation of these life-experiences.

[Tassman]

Not at all. I said I would not expect to find any evidence. The god hypothesis has been around for millennia and none of the posited gods have been substantiated. To echo Laplace, I have no need of such an hypothesis. Scientific methodology is better positioned to understand the universe. We no longer need gods to explain where the sun goes at night.

[seer]

This is not what I said.

I repeat, your "sock-puppet" analogy is not determinism as it applies to human choices as you well know, it's been explained often enough. But even if it was, your position is ludicrous, namely X cannot be true because I find it distasteful, whereas Y is much nicer, so I'll believe that instead.

With regard to making choices your position is logically incoherent. It takes no account of the impact subconscious influences have on your decision-making process. E.g. your choice of chocolate cake over a cream cake is based upon a myriad factors related to your history of cake-eating. It is not made in isolation of these life-experiences.

Of course you are a sock puppet, all your choices, thoughts and acts are predetermined by antecedent conditions.

[Jedidiah]

Not at all. I said I would not expect to find any evidence. The god hypothesis has been around for millennia and none of the posited gods have been substantiated. To echo Laplace, I have no need of such an hypothesis. Scientific methodology is better positioned to understand the universe. We no longer need gods to explain where the sun goes at night.

But you are not even interested in substantiation. You seem to have no interest in knowing whether there is an all powerful creator or not. That is your dishonesty. You say "no such thing" but have no rational basis for that statement.

[Tassman]

Of course you are a sock puppet, all your choices, thoughts and acts are predetermined by antecedent conditions.

Your position is logically incoherent. It takes no account of the impact subconscious influences have on your decision-making process. Try addressing the actual issue.

[Tassman]

But you are not even interested in substantiation. You seem to have no interest in knowing whether there is an all powerful creator or not. That is your dishonesty. You say "no such thing" but have no rational basis for that statement.

[Jedidiah]

You have no evidence that this is true.

[Tassman]

You have no evidence that this is true.

[seer]

Your position is logically incoherent. It takes no account of the impact subconscious influences have on your decision-making process. Try addressing the actual issue.

Tass, we can settle this with an honest answer from you: is everything we do, think or say determined - yes or no?

[Tassman]

Tass, we can settle this with an honest answer from you: is everything we do, think or say determined - yes or no?

What needs to be settled is your claim that libertarian free-will exists in isolation from your subconscious influences. Because, if you acknowledge that subconscious processes have an effect upon your choices, you are admitting that "free-will" is impacted, at least to a degree, by antecedent forces. Thus, you are not exercising libertarian free-will.

[Littlejoe]

What needs to be settled is your claim that libertarian free-will exists in isolation from your subconscious influences. Because, if you acknowledge that subconscious processes have an effect upon your choices, you are admitting that "free-will" is impacted, at least to a degree, by antecedent forces. Thus, you are not exercising libertarian free-will.

[Tassman]