Is libertarian free will coherent?

[The Thinker]

That is because your distinction is not in my definitions, yet my definitions are still legitimate and accepted.

Then it doesn't matter because words don't have intrinsic meaning. The distinction in the concept is all that matters. Words are arbitrary.

OK, so conscious reflection tells us nothing about the truth or falsehood of any given subject.

No. It's the only thing that tells us about the truth or falsehood of any subject. We cannot "know" anything without consciousness. Your logic is just a strawman.

I already told you, I hold my position by experience.

But you cannot even provide any objective evidence, nor can you even coherently explain LFW. And I've already showed you how a determined person would have the same exact experience you have. So your experience is absolutely worthless as justification.

And you have no idea when your brain is deceiving you or not, and conscious reflection does nothing to clarify.

That's true for everyone. You cannot disprove the logical possibility that you're a brain in a vat.

You would have made a good Stalinist.

Come back when you actually have an argument.

[The Thinker]

No. Free will is an incoherent concept, and so even god cannot have it.

[seer]

Then it doesn't matter because words don't have intrinsic meaning. The distinction in the concept is all that matters. Words are arbitrary.

So why is your arbitrary definition more right than mine? Because it is yours?

No. It's the only thing that tells us about the truth or falsehood of any subject. We cannot "know" anything without consciousness. Your logic is just a strawman.

This is just silly Thinker. Your consciousness tells you no such thing. If your brain dictates that you should believe a falsehood to be true - you do. Conscious reflection in your world does not impact that knowledge, or lack of.

And I've already showed you how a determined person would have the same exact experience you have. So your experience is absolutely worthless as justification.

Just as if you were living in a Matrix your experience of reality would be the same - yet you trust your experience that it is not so.

That's true for everyone. You cannot disprove the logical possibility that you're a brain in a vat.

Except again, I believe that conscious rational deliberation plays an effective role.

Come back when you actually have an argument.

Actually, you probably would have made a better Maoist. Your godless utopia...

[The Thinker]

So why is your arbitrary definition more right than mine? Because it is yours?

Because mine includes that distinction, which makes a huge difference.

This is just silly Thinker. Your consciousness tells you no such thing. If your brain dictates that you should believe a falsehood to be true - you do. Conscious reflection in your world does not impact that knowledge, or lack of.

No it's not silly. LFW is silly because it's incoherent. All I'm saying here is that consciousness itself is what allows us to know anything. I'm not saying what we think must be right. And on your view you can never know if anything is related to reality because on your incoherent view, your thoughts have no causes and therefore have no connection to reality. On mine they do.

I still don't think you've fully been able to realize just how incoherent your view is. Do you want me to show you this?

Just as if you were living in a Matrix your experience of reality would be the same - yet you trust your experience that it is not so.

No comparison. There is no logical incoherence with assuming you're not living in a matrix. There is with LFW. So huge difference.

Except again, I believe that conscious rational deliberation plays an effective role.

That doesn't resolve the problem.

Actually, you probably would have made a better Maoist. Your godless utopia...

Still waiting for an argument. Your godly utopia would probably look like Medieval Europe. Or modern day ISIS.

When are idiotic theists like you going to realize atheism does not = communism?

[seer]

Because mine includes that distinction, which makes a huge difference.

Why is your distinction the end all? Because you like it? Because it supports your position? Talk about arbitrary.

No it's not silly. LFW is silly because it's incoherent. All I'm saying here is that consciousness itself is what allows us to know anything. I'm not saying what we think must be right. And on your view you can never know if anything is related to reality because on your incoherent view, your thoughts have no causes and therefore have no connection to reality. On mine they do.

I still don't think you've fully been able to realize just how incoherent your view is. Do you want me to show you this?

Wrong again, since conscious reflection plays no role in actually discovering truth in your world you can never know, on any given subjective, whether your brain is dictating the correct information or not. I will stick with rational deliberations guided by experience, consciously applying the rules of logic.

When are idiotic theists like you going to realize atheism does not = communism?

Why not? Atheism can include just about any form of government. The Stalinist and Maoists were all good atheists - they even tried to do what you are advocating - the complete destruction of religion.

[seer]

Does science require a soul - yes? Interesting argument by Glenn.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...require-a-soul

[The Thinker]

Why is your distinction the end all? Because you like it? Because it supports your position? Talk about arbitrary.

I'm not claiming it is the end all, I'm claiming that it matters in how you see fatalism vs determinism, such that if you acknowledge the distinction, you will not succumb to the way of thinking you think is required.

Wrong again, since conscious reflection plays no role in actually discovering truth in your world you can never know, on any given subjective, whether your brain is dictating the correct information or not.

You're mistaken. The only way to know truth or anything is by conscious experience. This doesn't require that the conscious experience be causal. The brain feeds the consciousness the data, and the consciousness is way we subjectively get to "know" anything.


And your view is logically incoherent, so why should I or anyone else believe it?

I will stick with rational deliberations guided by experience, consciously applying the rules of logic.

OK. Presumably you want me to believe this too. Well, then make an argument using evidence that this is the case. You don't expect me to believe this on faith do you? For one thing, your "rational deliberations guided by experience" depends on experience. How do you know your experiences are real? Or true?

Why not? Atheism can include just about any form of government. The Stalinist and Maoists were all good atheists - they even tried to do what you are advocating - the complete destruction of religion.

If you acknowledge that atheism "can include just about any form of government" then you just defeated your whole notion that atheism = communism by contradicting it. Do you realize you just disproved yourself and didn't even notice it? So much for that "rational deliberations guided by experience."

[seer]

I'm not claiming it is the end all, I'm claiming that it matters in how you see fatalism vs determinism, such that if you acknowledge the distinction, you will not succumb to the way of thinking you think is required.

I'm not requiring anything, all I have been doing is making the point that fatalism can have a broader definition and still be legitimate. And that I am perfectly justified in using that definition.

You're mistaken. The only way to know truth or anything is by conscious experience. This doesn't require that the conscious experience be causal. The brain feeds the consciousness the data, and the consciousness is way we subjectively get to "know" anything.

But again, you can't know if it is true, Glenn has recently made the argument better than me, but with the same principle:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...require-a-soul

OK. Presumably you want me to believe this too. Well, then make an argument using evidence that this is the case. You don't expect me to believe this on faith do you? For one thing, your "rational deliberations guided by experience" depends on experience. How do you know your experiences are real? Or true?

See Glenn's link.

If you acknowledge that atheism "can include just about any form of government" then you just defeated your whole notion that atheism = communism by contradicting it. Do you realize you just disproved yourself and didn't even notice it? So much for that "rational deliberations guided by experience."

No Thinker, I'm speaking of a particular kind of atheism - the kind that seeks to destroy religion. And that is YOU. And not all atheist believe that way, not even on these boards.

[The Thinker]

Does science require a soul - yes? Interesting argument by Glenn.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...require-a-soul

Nope. In his conclusion 6-1:

Conclusion 6-1. then the belief that we have or don't have free will is held, not because of evidence but because of the arrangement of the atoms in the brain.

This is an assumption. He is assuming that the the arrangement of the atoms in the brain cannot be caused by the evidence pertaining to free will. It's an assumption that none of our brain states have a causal relationship with the world.

From there everything else is wrong. It's so easy for me to pick out where theists go wrong.

[The Thinker]

I'm not requiring anything, all I have been doing is making the point that fatalism can have a broader definition and still be legitimate. And that I am perfectly justified in using that definition.

You're hung up on semantics. What matters is that there is an important distinction. If you don't acknowledge that you'll keep running into this problem. Be smarter than this.

But again, you can't know if it is true, Glenn has recently made the argument better than me, but with the same principle:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...require-a-soul

I did. I already responded his flaw to you. Are you actually saying that you can know things are true on your view?

No Thinker, I'm speaking of a particular kind of atheism - the kind that seeks to destroy religion. And that is YOU. And not all atheist believe that way, not even on these boards.

I never said I want to destroy religion with violence. You concocted that in your own imagination.

[seer]

Nope. In his conclusion 6-1:

This is an assumption. He is assuming that the the arrangement of the atoms in the brain cannot be caused by the evidence pertaining to free will. It's an assumption that none of our brain states have a causal relationship with the world.

From there everything else is wrong. It's so easy for me to pick out where theists go wrong.

Nonsense, this is the very thing that you have not been able to answer. Is your brain processing the evidence correctly? You don't believe things because they are true but because your brain dictates it. And how do atoms outside the brain physically move or influence the atoms in the brain?

[seer]

You're hung up on semantics. What matters is that there is an important distinction. If you don't acknowledge that you'll keep running into this problem. Be smarter than this.

Now acceptable definitions are semantics.

I did. I already responded his flaw to you. Are you actually saying that you can know things are true on your view?

No, Glenn makes the case that the soul is needed.

I never said I want to destroy religion with violence.

Not yet, but you have the same mindset - I mean really if religion is so pernicious you would be doing mankind a favor.

[The Thinker]

Now acceptable definitions are semantics.

If they don't account for that important distinction that is all that matters.

No, Glenn makes the case that the soul is needed.

No he doesn't. You've just assumed that his argument works. I just refuted it here to show how it's self-contradictory:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post290442

Not yet, but you have the same mindset - I mean really if religion is so pernicious you would be doing mankind a favor.

No I don't have the mindset. If I didn't I'd be cool with just killing all religious people. Religion is killing itself with people like you. And the internet is killing too. I'm just pushing it along a little faster.

[The Thinker]

Nonsense, this is the very thing that you have not been able to answer. Is your brain processing the evidence correctly? You don't believe things because they are true but because your brain dictates it.

My brain can dictate it because it is true. You are just assuming that my brain must always necessarily be disconnected from the truth.

And how do atoms outside the brain physically move or influence the atoms in the brain?

Via the senses data becomes electrical signals and they change the brain state. This has been known for a long time.

And anytime you want to show me that LFW is coherent, be my guest. Why are avoiding this?

[Tassman]

But those social acculturations are just as determined by nature as anything else. There is nothing but nature in your world Tass, and nature made us religious.

You have no credible evidence of anything

We will see. Like I said, when the crap hits the fan let's see how many people run to see the atheist - no they run to see the preacher.

And all you have to offer is an ultimately meaningless existence and death Tass. Whether you like it or not most men need more than that.