Have you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true?

[Emuse]

1. Red herring.

Pink Piranha!
Orange Octopuss!
White Whale!

Typing a colourful water dweller does not defeat an argument Richard! :-)  A conditional statement cannot be a red herring.  It can only be true or false or more plausible than not (in terms of what we find epistemically acceptable).  You are saying that if LFW is true then determinism is false ... correct?  So what is the problem with ...

P1. If determinism is false then LFW is true.

? Surely you accept this?  You agree that determinism is false (the antecedent of P1) and you agree with the consequent (LFW is true) so how can you have a problem with P1?

2. P2 need not be true for LFW to exist and for determinism to be false.

People believe claims for which there is no or insufficient evidence.  For example, Mormons believe that Jesus went to the Americas.  Are you disagreeing with this?  Assuming you don't ... are you arguing that this is not a matter of choice?  So is something determining them to hold these beliefs?  People don't appear to hold these beliefs randomly.  P2 simply says that LFW allows us to hold beliefs for which there is insufficient evidence.  Why are you disagreeing with it?

3. Atheists ALWAYS trot out examples like "well, you can't choose to put your hand in the fire, so LFW doesn't exist" haha! no, all that is required for LFW to exist is that I be able to choose between catching or dropping the ball.

How would believing in Darth Vader hurt me?

I take it that you're not going to defend determinism?

If you can't find a sound objection to my argument (and you haven't provided one so far) then it goes through as a prima facie proof.

yet, you run screaming from any request to defend physicalism, determinism themselves, why?

I've just presented you with an argument defending determinism which I'm willing to discuss at length.  Your claim that atheists run from "defending determinism" doesn't correspond to what is happening in external reality Richard.  The fact that you disagree with claims made in a defence doesn't mean that the person is unwilling or scared to make those claims.

[RichardChad]

Emuse: this thread is specifically to discuss whether or not you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true.

Please take your discussion of LFW to a different thread, thanks


So interesting how your posting frequency leapt up the instant you found the red herring..

[RichardChad]

I've just presented you with an argument defending determinism which I'm willing to discuss at length.  Your claim that atheists run from "defending determinism" doesn't correspond to what is happening in external reality Richard.  The fact that you disagree with claims made in a defence doesn't mean that the person is unwilling or scared to make those claims.

no you didn't, you did what most atheists do, "LFW doesn't exist therefor determinism"

I'm happy to refute that on a different thread, please create one. thanks

[RichardChad]

This is not an answer.

Citing a scenario equally consistent with LFW or determinism is not a defence of LFW.

Now that is basic.

get back to me when you've watched and understood that video

[RichardChad]

no offense, but you are simply clueless on compatabalism, astonishingly so.

Compatabalists ARE determinist (you've yet to acknowledge that BTW, wonder why ; - )  )
Compatabalism is simply the position that determiism and free will are compatible, (free will suitably redefined)

Here's the first thing I wrote in this discussion:

"If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true". You see?

Of course I know what compatibalism is. Unlike you, I've actually read compatibalists... on the topic of compatibalism!

You seem to think that you have found something remarkable by realizing that compatibalists are determinists.

Technically, I don't think you need to be a determinist to be a compatibalist. You could just see determinism and free will as compatible even if you believe some indeterminism to be true.

there is NOTHING on this page that makes the claim that compatabalists acknowledge the ability to freely chose.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

It's exactly opposite, foundational to the notion of compatabalists "free will" is the notion that "freedom in the expression freedom of will modifies a condition of action and not the agent’s will"

see for example
1. If a person acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise (A-C).
2. If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does (D-E).
C. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will (F).

Call this simplified argument the Classical Incompatibilist Argument. According to the argument, if determinism is true, no one has access to alternatives in the way required by the Garden of Forking Paths model of free will.[11]

I'm not going through the most basic arguments for compatibalism. You should know them. Especially if you're going to say that they're false with such confidence.

I have no idea why I kept posting so long in this discussion. I must have been in a weird mood yesterday. Time to stop. Thanks for the discussion Richard. Illuminating as always.

If you are a compatabalist, you believe in determinism, which means you believe that this statement is true:
determinism: the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time.

which, remarkably, every atheist on this thread has disagreed with.

[Moot]

no offense, but you are simply clueless on compatabalism, astonishingly so.

Compatabalists ARE determinist (you've yet to acknowledge that BTW, wonder why ; - )  )
Compatabalism is simply the position that determiism and free will are compatible, (free will suitably redefined)

Here's the first thing I wrote in this discussion:

"If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true". You see?

Of course I know what compatibalism is. Unlike you, I've actually read compatibalists... on the topic of compatibalism!

You seem to think that you have found something remarkable by realizing that compatibalists are determinists.

Technically, I don't think you need to be a determinist to be a compatibalist. You could just see determinism and free will as compatible even if you believe some indeterminism to be true.

there is NOTHING on this page that makes the claim that compatabalists acknowledge the ability to freely chose.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

It's exactly opposite, foundational to the notion of compatabalists "free will" is the notion that "freedom in the expression freedom of will modifies a condition of action and not the agent’s will"

see for example
1. If a person acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise (A-C).
2. If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does (D-E).
C. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will (F).

Call this simplified argument the Classical Incompatibilist Argument. According to the argument, if determinism is true, no one has access to alternatives in the way required by the Garden of Forking Paths model of free will.[11]

I'm not going through the most basic arguments for compatibalism. You should know them. Especially if you're going to say that they're false with such confidence.

I have no idea why I kept posting so long in this discussion. I must have been in a weird mood yesterday. Time to stop. Thanks for the discussion Richard. Illuminating as always.

If you are a compatabalist, you believe in determinism, which means you believe that this statement is true:
determinism: the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time.

which, remarkably, every atheist on this thread has disagreed with.

I'm still done with the discussion, but I just wanted to say that I agree with this:

determinism: the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time.

I think this is a fine definition of determinism and I would say (if I had to guess) that determinism is true.

So, will you acknowledge that this statement:"which, remarkably, every atheist on this thread has disagreed with." is false?

Also, you ignored what I said here:

"Technically, I don't think you need to be a determinist to be a compatibalist. You could just see determinism and free will as compatible even if you believe some indeterminism to be true."

So you're doubly wrong.

If you don't understand how determinism could be compatible with free will, you don't understand what compatibalism is. Don't get me wrong, you don't have to agree with compatibalism, just try to understand the arguments before you decide that they're false.

[pat1911]

P1.  If determinism is false then LFW is true.
P2. If LFW is true then we are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence.
P3. If we are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence then I can believe that Darth Vader exists.
P4. I can't believe Darth Vader exists.
C. Therefore, we are not free to believe claims for which there is no evidence.
C1. Therefore, LFW is not true.
C2. Therefore, determinism is not false.

P1 ~ False equivocation. If determinism is false, then freewill is possible. It does not follow that if determinism is false that LFW, specifically, is necessarily true.
P2 ~ LFW is not required to believe claims for which there is no evidence. Under determinism you may be determined to believe things for which there is no evidence as in determinism itself.
P3 ~ You can believe Darth Vader exists under determinism. You also waver from the vague to the very specific for no apparent reason.
P4 ~ Personal problem. Your inability to believe in Darth Vader does not mean others cannot. So it adds nothing to the argument. Belief or lack of belief in Darth Vader does not prove or disprove either determinism, or LFW.
C., C1., C2., ~ Non-sequitur

All you can prove is that you cannot believe in Darth Vader, its got nothing, zip, nada to do with determinism vs. freewill.

[RichardChad]

I'm still done with the discussion, but I just wanted to say that I agree with this:

determinism: the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time.

I think this is a fine definition of determinism and I would say (if I had to guess) that determinism is true.

So, will you acknowledge that this statement:"which, remarkably, every atheist on this thread has disagreed with." is false?

yep, now it is, you're the first!

now, please reconcile that with what you said before that directly contradicts it.

Me: You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?
You: No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

Also, you ignored what I said here:

"Technically, I don't think you need to be a determinist to be a compatibalist. You could just see determinism and free will as compatible even if you believe some indeterminism to be true."

So you're doubly wrong.

I guess one could believe compatibalism is true without having to be a compatibalist, but one must be a determinist to be a compatibalist.

If you don't understand how determinism could be compatible with free will, you don't understand what compatibalism is. Don't get me wrong, you don't have to agree with compatibalism, just try to understand the arguments before you decide that they're false.

I've never once said that "free will" is not compatible with determinism, that of course is a strawman that is  employed frequently.

What I DO SAY is that libertarian free will (the real free will, involving the ability to freely choose) is not compatible with determinism. That of course is 100% true, you'll find no professional philosopher that disagrees with that statement.

I guess my question is this, if I repeat the last statement 1 million times, would it finally sink in and you guys stop the strawman? Just curious.

[Moot]

I'm still done with the discussion, but I just wanted to say that I agree with this:

determinism: the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time.

I think this is a fine definition of determinism and I would say (if I had to guess) that determinism is true.

So, will you acknowledge that this statement:"which, remarkably, every atheist on this thread has disagreed with." is false?

yep, now it is, you're the first!

now, please reconcile that with what you said before that directly contradicts it.

Me: You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?
You: No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

I'm still out of the discussion but I just can't resist (what's wrong with me lately?). You do understand that reconciling the two statements above is compatibalism? Do you want me to give a full defence of compatibalism now? I already told you that I'm not gonna start going through the basic ideas in the middle of this thread. Go find a 'philosophy for beginners' book or something.

Also, you ignored what I said here:

"Technically, I don't think you need to be a determinist to be a compatibalist. You could just see determinism and free will as compatible even if you believe some indeterminism to be true."

So you're doubly wrong.

I guess one could believe compatibalism is true without having to be a compatibalist, but one must be a determinist to be a compatibalist.

No. A compatibalist is someone who believes that the two are compatible. That's nitpicking though.

If you don't understand how determinism could be compatible with free will, you don't understand what compatibalism is. Don't get me wrong, you don't have to agree with compatibalism, just try to understand the arguments before you decide that they're false.

I've never once said that "free will" is not compatible with determinism, that of course is a strawman that is  employed frequently.

What I DO SAY is that libertarian free will (the real free will, involving the ability to freely choose) is not compatible with determinism. That of course is 100% true, you'll find no professional philosopher that disagrees with that statement.

I guess my question is this, if I repeat the last statement 1 million times, would it finally sink in and you guys stop the strawman? Just curious.

Mmm... what? Actually, don't answer that. I'm out of the discussion for real this time.

[pat1911]

Further, the action or defense of determinism must necessarily assume freewill exists  which is both ironic and contradictory. For if all is determined, so is determined our belief in freewill.
That may very well be it's undoing. The action of convincing somebody of a position assumes they have the will to choose what to believe.

No Pat, it is not assuming LFW exists, to understand that physically causal processes can result in a person coming to have a different point of view than they previously had.  You are simply engaging in bad psychology/mind reading when you purport to know the thought processes of people with views much different than your own.

Let me get this strait, you are providing physically causal processes to affirm a metaphysical construct? What is this physical cause? Shirley, you can't be serious.

Neither determinism nor freewill of any flavor is a physical construct, they are purely metaphysical. Tell me, where can I touch determinism? Where can I smell freewill?

And it is absolutely true that you are assuming that one has freewill, i.e. the ability to choose by the act of trying to be convincing. If are trying to convince someone to have the same opinion on a matter as yourself, you are assuming that person has the ability to choose what he believes. This is not any kind of psychoanalysis, it's a matter of fact.

If it were a physical, causal correlation, then applying a certain cause would yield the same specific effect and would be repeatable. You are not applying flame to paper here, you're trying to change someone's mind on a metaphysical construct.

If we are determined to believe in freewill it's futile to make arguments to convince somebody who does not have a choice in their beliefs. The action is a contradiction in itself.
Does it not seem weird to try and convince somebody of something they had no choice but to believe in?

This seems like a theistic notion of determinism, along the lines of the Greek Fates having determined everything that would happen.  With respect to a modern scientific view of causality it is a straw man.

No, it doesn't seem weird to educate a person, who through no fault of their own, has a mistaken point of view.  It would seem more hopeless if people simply chose what they believed.  On a deterministic view, it is understandable why the weight of evidence can result in people's perspective changing.  (Even changing to believing something they would prefer not to believe.)

As an engineer, I am convinced of things I don't choose to believe, on a near daily basis.  And it is a good thing that I am, or the quality of my work would be pretty poor.

You are not functioning as an engineer here, your functioning as a philosopher of metaphysics. If we were talking of engineering, we would be dealing with physical stuff. We're not, this is pure metaphysics. How do you hit a metaphysical nail with a physical hammer?

[wonderer]

No Richard,

I'm not going to bother defending determinism to you, since you have demonstrated to me that you don't want to know that you are wrong about things.  I prefer to save my time and effort for people capable of admitting to being wrong, or who even want to know when they are wrong about things.  They learn much better.

ok, the search continues then for an atheist willing to defend a core component of their world view!

It would have shown more comprehension of my post if you had said, "ok, the search continues then for an atheist willing to bother dealing with my closed mindedness to the possibility that I am wrong, to defend a core component of their world view to me!" 

As you have been told many times, you can find many atheist philosophers who discuss the subject.  Pretending to yourself that you can't find an atheist to defend the view, just shows that you aren't serious about looking.

[RichardChad]

I'm still done with the discussion, but I just wanted to say that I agree with this:

determinism: the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time.

I think this is a fine definition of determinism and I would say (if I had to guess) that determinism is true.

So, will you acknowledge that this statement:"which, remarkably, every atheist on this thread has disagreed with." is false?

yep, now it is, you're the first!

now, please reconcile that with what you said before that directly contradicts it.

Me: You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?
You: No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

I'm still out of the discussion but I just can't resist (what's wrong with me lately?). You do understand that reconciling the two statements above is compatibalism? Do you want me to give a full defence of compatibalism now? I already told you that I'm not gonna start going through the basic ideas in the middle of this thread. Go find a 'philosophy for beginners' book or something.

Moot, it's not complicated, these two statements:
"it doesn't follow from determinism that the future is as fixed as the past"
and
"if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time"

directly contradict one another.

compatabilism doesn't "reconcile" those in any way shape or form. compatabilism "reconciles" free will with determinsm by redefining free will to be "I am not coerced".

You arent a stupid guy, if you think you have a point make it. I can't possibly make mine any clearer.

[Emuse]

Emuse: this thread is specifically to discuss whether or not you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true.

Please take your discussion of LFW to a different thread, thanks


So interesting how your posting frequency leapt up the instant you found the red herring..

You raised the issue of atheists not being prepared to defend determinism (running away etc) in this thread.  I will therefore respond to the complaint in the same thread in which you made it.

Thanks.

[RichardChad]

Emuse: this thread is specifically to discuss whether or not you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true.

Please take your discussion of LFW to a different thread, thanks


So interesting how your posting frequency leapt up the instant you found the red herring..

You raised the issue of atheists not being prepared to defend determinism (running away etc) in this thread.  I will therefore respond to the complaint in the same thread in which you made it.

Thanks.

again

no you didn't, you did what most atheists do, "LFW doesn't exist therefor determinism"

I'm happy to refute that on a different thread, please create one. thanks

And again, it's really interesting that you want nothing to do with defending determinism, you only want to attack LFW.

[pat1911]

Denying certain occasions where freewill does not exist does not debunk freewill in general.

Allow me to introduce you to the fallacy of special pleading! )  Special pleading occurs when we attempt to exempt something from an accepted principle but cannot give a good reason for doing so.  When we make an observation (eg, a person dying) we will form a belief such as "People can die".  The more times we observe this, the more certain of our conviction we will become.  If we observe people dying and no exceptions then we are justified in holding to "All people die" sans an evidential defeater because that is the only course we can take that avoids special pleading (exempting someone for no good reason).   If we observe something regularly then we need more than logical possibility to provide a defeater.

Special pleading? LOL! I didn't make a silly, bad argument, you did. You are operating under a whole host of fallacies. 'is / ought', 'false equivocation', 'false alternatives','genetic fallacy', 'ignoratio elenchi' etc. I mean you hit them all. You built an argument purely on fallacy. Have you actually looked at the legitimate arguments for determinism? You'd be better off using a copy and paste.

It takes only one single act of freewill to crumble the entire glass house of determinism. Determinism must prove all things are determined. Freewill requires only one event in which it occurs.

Determinism no more needs to prove that all things are determined any more than we need to prove that all people die.  Whilst it is true that one person not dying would disprove "All people die", we do not need to demonstrate that all people die to hold onto the latter.  That is simply false.  And the same goes for those arguing for determinism.

Determinism is a closed system. It requires that all things are determined, or determinism is not the case. That does not mean that somethings can be determined. That does not mean that most things are determined. It means that if determinism is true, then all things must be determined. Otherwise, freewill exists. It takes only one act of freewill to debunk determinism. 
 

So under determinism all actuals and potentials must be covered as determined. Simply freely choosing between Coke and Pepsi, and having freely chosen one and having had the option to choose the other causes determinism to fall apart.

Of course it doesn't.  Why do you think that Coke companies invest in advertising, put a lot of effort into packaging and so on?  Are they all wasting their money because none of this has any impact on what humans will select?  It only has to be show that there is a easily identifiable defeater for "nothing is governing our choice" in most given instances.

The soda companies advertise because they believe we have the will to choose, I.E. freewill. Otherwise they would have no need to advertise. Pepsi people would drink Pepsi, Coke people would drink Coke because we are determined to do so.

Further, the action or defense of determinism must necessarily assume freewill exists  which is both ironic and contradictory. For if all is determined, so is determined our belief in freewill.

This commits the same fallacy that I highlighted in my response to Richard and others.

"P1. If LFW exists then my belief B could have been different" does not give you "P1. If my belief B could have been different then LFW exists" if determinism doesn't lead to modal collapse.  Presenting you with an argument (or advert or what not) influences antecedent circumstances and so might change what you believe.

That may very well be it's undoing. The action of convincing somebody of a position assumes they have the will to choose what to believe.

No, it doesn't.  The action of convincing someone provides that person with argument and information that they previously might not have possessed.  This changes their circumstances which may in turn change their beliefs.  If you lacked a belief in X at time T but then formed a belief in X after T and after hearing an argument A after T then we actually have strong evidence that hearing the argument A is a strong aspect of the antecedent circumstances that determined your belief in X.

If we are determined to believe in freewill it's futile to make arguments to convince somebody who does not have a choice in their beliefs. The action is a contradiction in itself.

Of course it doesn't.  If you heard an argument that changed your belief then we have strong evidence that the argument determined a change in your belief system.  If you could have failed to have heard the argument, then your belief could have been different but it doesn't mean that the belief you do have isn't determined.

Does it not seem weird to try and convince somebody of something they had no choice but to believe in?

No.

Well then for a determinist,  you are sure helping out those of us who hold freewill to exist.
Are you predetermined not to see the contradictions in your own prose?