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

[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.

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.

I stand corrected and have modified this post accordingly with apologies to Richard.  My original post stands unaltered in Pat's reply below. "P1. ~D -> LFW" is logically equivalent to "P1. ~LFW -> D" if we apply modus tollens to the original conditional.  Here is the proof ...

P1. LFW -> ~D
P2. LFW
C. :. ~D

And ...

P1. LFW -> ~D
P2. ~~D (D)
C. :. ~LFW

And ...

P1. D -> ~LFW
P2. LFW
C. :. ~D

Whereas my version ...

P1. ~D -> LFW
P2. ~D
C. :. LFW

And ...

P1. ~D -> LFW
P2. ~LFW
C. :. D

... then gives us ...

P1. ~LFW -> D
P2. ~D
P2. :. LFW

So "~D -> LFW" is logically equivalent to "~LFW -> D". 

This requires some modification but only slightly (I don't see why my version is problematic particularly as we are talking about intentional beliefs only).  So we have ...

P1. If I have reasons to believe P and I am unable to believe not-P then my belief in P is neither free nor random.
P2. I have reasons to believe that God exists and I am unable to believe that God does not exist.
C. Therefore, my belief that God exists is neither free nor random.
P3. If my belief that God exists is neither free nor random then my belief that God exists is determined.
C1. Therefore, my belief that God exists is determined.
P4. If my that God exists is determined then it is impossible that I could have believed that God does not exist.
C2. Therefore, it is impossible that I could have believed that God does not exist.

This would hold for anything we believe but we find impossible not to believe.  Are there any problems with this?

[pat1911]

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.

The first premise doesn't says "P1. If LWF is false then determinism".  It says "P1. If determinism is false then LFW".  These are not logically equivalent so you're simply mistaken in your claim at this point.  If LFW doesn't exist then choices could be determined or random so I intentionally haven't used your conditional.  So ...

P1. ~D -> LFW

Not ....

P1. ~LFW -> D

Modus tollens doesn't reverse an entailment relation.  For example ...

P1. If fish exist then water exists.
P2. Water doesn't exist.
C. Therefore, fish don't exist.

... Doesn't allow us to say "P1. If water exists then fish exist".

Dude, no amount of 'special variables' pointy things or squiggly lines is going to save that argument. It's underwelming.
Why you choose to try and layout brand new arguments for things that already have very well laid out arguments that have existed for centuries is beyond me.
Many of the original arguments for determinism and freewill have raging for a long time, why not just deal with those rather than try an reinvent the wheel with Darth Vader? 

[pat1911]

Richard, why aren't you prepared to defend the LFW you claim to believe in?  I've never met a proponent of LFW who who actually acts as though it's true. Have you?  Why don't you choose to believe in Darth Vadar for 5 minutes as Emuse suggests.  It really is endlessly fascinating to watch you jump hoops, duck and weave, rather than accepting the consequences of what you say you believe.

1. Actually I DO continually defend LFW, you sure have a selective memory! But you know that and said it anyway.

2. Red herring, are you another of those atheists for which determinism is a core component of your belief system yet you refuse to endorse it?

No you don't defend LFW.

When challenged you just claim red herring.


You genuinely seem to believe that some of the greatest philosophical minds of all time, who do hold to determinism and compatabilism, are not just obviously wrong but also know they are wrong and are delusional.

Your bravado is inversely correlated with your expertise.  But your bombast does get response whilst lowering the level of debate. You are the Donald Trump of reasonable faith.

I do not see where a red herring is committed. If anything, the challenge of believing in Darth Vader for 5 minutes would be a red herring in that doing so would neither demonstrate freewill or determinism, it's just a diversionary tactic by application of a nonsensical challenge that demonstrates the ability to be silly.
Okay, so I have chosen to believe in Darth Vader for 2 seconds. And?

And your purpose of the ad hominem attack demonstrates what exactly? Was that a determined attack? Or was the insult prepared under the assumption that RC can change his mind?

Whether or not you believe in freewill or not, attacking and insulting functions under the assumption of freewill; otherwise what's the point? Arguing determinism as if a person has the freewill to change his mind is hilarious to me...

It is Richard who claims red herrings, not me.

Did you actually choose to believe in Darth Vadar ?  Are you telling me you did really, really believe in Darth Vadar for two seconds?

Not really, I believe in Darth Vader in general. He was a great, well developed character in the Star Wars series of which I still like the original trilogy to be the best. So I gave it much more than 2 seconds. Vader was a great bad guy, so I still believe in him. He brought balance to the force. What am I supposed to believe about the character that is different from the story?

And I did not see where Richard invoked a red herring, at all. What was his red herring, specifically?

You know that this is not what was meant by believing Darth Vadar is real. Evasion noted.

And RC accuses others of making red herring arguments.

You weren't specific, that's not my fault. Darth Vader does exist. He is a character in the Star Wars series. If you thought he was something else that's just not my fault or problem. So yeah, I believe in Darth Vader, in the context of Star Wars, ever since 1977.
Trying to establish him as something else isn't my fail.

[Emuse]

Special pleading? LOL! I didn't make a silly, bad argument, you did.

Oh for goodness sake, how childish.  I didn't accuse you of special pleading.

You made the claim that to support a universal claim like "determinism is true" the determinist would need to prove that all events are in fact determined.  But this is akin to me saying "In order to support the universal claim 'all humans are mortal" you must prove that all men are in fact mortal".  We obviously don't have to prove that all people born are in fact mortal before believing that all men are mortal.  So why not?  Well, if we see a principle holding and no reliable defeaters then we hold that principle as being generally true.  So we can hold to a regularly observed principle being true even though we're only working with a relatively few observable examples simply to avoid special pleading.

This is not accusing you of special pleading.

[Emuse]

You weren't specific, that's not my fault. Darth Vader does exist. He is a character in the Star Wars series. If you thought he was something else that's just not my fault or problem. So yeah, I believe in Darth Vader, in the context of Star Wars, ever since 1977.
Trying to establish him as something else isn't my fail.

In my argument "believe in Darth Vader" means "believe that the character in the Star Wars films is also instantiated in external reality" for clarification.

[LADZDAZL]

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

Evasion noted.

Such a shame you're not prepared to defend LFW. Have you met anybody who is?

[pat1911]

You weren't specific, that's not my fault. Darth Vader does exist. He is a character in the Star Wars series. If you thought he was something else that's just not my fault or problem. So yeah, I believe in Darth Vader, in the context of Star Wars, ever since 1977.
Trying to establish him as something else isn't my fail.

In my argument "believe in Darth Vader" means "believe that the character in the Star Wars films is also instantiated in external reality" for clarification.

So noted....Doesn't save your argument though....

[Emuse]

You weren't specific, that's not my fault. Darth Vader does exist. He is a character in the Star Wars series. If you thought he was something else that's just not my fault or problem. So yeah, I believe in Darth Vader, in the context of Star Wars, ever since 1977.
Trying to establish him as something else isn't my fail.

In my argument "believe in Darth Vader" means "believe that the character in the Star Wars films is also instantiated in external reality" for clarification.

So noted....Doesn't save your argument though....

I've also noted the problem in my first argument to Richard.  Please see modification to original post quoted in your initial reply.

[LADZDAZL]

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.

The first premise doesn't says "P1. If LWF is false then determinism".  It says "P1. If determinism is false then LFW".  These are not logically equivalent so you're simply mistaken in your claim at this point.  If LFW doesn't exist then choices could be determined or random so I intentionally haven't used your conditional.  So ...

P1. ~D -> LFW

Not ....

P1. ~LFW -> D

Modus tollens doesn't reverse an entailment relation.  For example ...

P1. If fish exist then water exists.
P2. Water doesn't exist.
C. Therefore, fish don't exist.

... Doesn't allow us to say "P1. If water exists then fish exist".

Dude, no amount of 'special variables' pointy things or squiggly lines is going to save that argument. It's underwelming.
Why you choose to try and layout brand new arguments for things that already have very well laid out arguments that have existed for centuries is beyond me.
Many of the original arguments for determinism and freewill have raging for a long time, why not just deal with those rather than try an reinvent the wheel with Darth Vader?

Dude. I don't understand the squiggly lines or pointy things either. It's OK to admit it.

[LADZDAZL]

Richard, why aren't you prepared to defend the LFW you claim to believe in?  I've never met a proponent of LFW who who actually acts as though it's true. Have you?  Why don't you choose to believe in Darth Vadar for 5 minutes as Emuse suggests.  It really is endlessly fascinating to watch you jump hoops, duck and weave, rather than accepting the consequences of what you say you believe.

1. Actually I DO continually defend LFW, you sure have a selective memory! But you know that and said it anyway.

2. Red herring, are you another of those atheists for which determinism is a core component of your belief system yet you refuse to endorse it?

No you don't defend LFW.

When challenged you just claim red herring.


You genuinely seem to believe that some of the greatest philosophical minds of all time, who do hold to determinism and compatabilism, are not just obviously wrong but also know they are wrong and are delusional.

Your bravado is inversely correlated with your expertise.  But your bombast does get response whilst lowering the level of debate. You are the Donald Trump of reasonable faith.

I do not see where a red herring is committed. If anything, the challenge of believing in Darth Vader for 5 minutes would be a red herring in that doing so would neither demonstrate freewill or determinism, it's just a diversionary tactic by application of a nonsensical challenge that demonstrates the ability to be silly.
Okay, so I have chosen to believe in Darth Vader for 2 seconds. And?

And your purpose of the ad hominem attack demonstrates what exactly? Was that a determined attack? Or was the insult prepared under the assumption that RC can change his mind?

Whether or not you believe in freewill or not, attacking and insulting functions under the assumption of freewill; otherwise what's the point? Arguing determinism as if a person has the freewill to change his mind is hilarious to me...

It is Richard who claims red herrings, not me.

Did you actually choose to believe in Darth Vadar ?  Are you telling me you did really, really believe in Darth Vadar for two seconds?

Not really, I believe in Darth Vader in general. He was a great, well developed character in the Star Wars series of which I still like the original trilogy to be the best. So I gave it much more than 2 seconds. Vader was a great bad guy, so I still believe in him. He brought balance to the force. What am I supposed to believe about the character that is different from the story?

And I did not see where Richard invoked a red herring, at all. What was his red herring, specifically?

You know that this is not what was meant by believing Darth Vadar is real. Evasion noted.

And RC accuses others of making red herring arguments.

You weren't specific, that's not my fault. Darth Vader does exist. He is a character in the Star Wars series. If you thought he was something else that's just not my fault or problem. So yeah, I believe in Darth Vader, in the context of Star Wars, ever since 1977.
Trying to establish him as something else isn't my fail.

You're seriously going to pretend that you didn't understand what Emuse meant when he talked about "believing Darth Vadar is real"?  You are really going to try and bluff that. Any credibility you once had has gone. You knew what he meant. Don't pretend.

[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.

I stand corrected and have modified this post accordingly with apologies to Richard.  My original post stands unaltered in Pat's reply below. "P1. ~D -> LFW" is logically equivalent to "P1. ~LFW -> D" if we apply modus tollens to the original conditional.  Here is the proof ...

P1. LFW -> ~D
P2. LFW
C. :. ~D

And ...

P1. LFW -> ~D
P2. ~~D (D)
C. :. ~LFW

And ...

P1. D -> ~LFW
P2. LFW
C. :. ~D

Whereas my version ...

P1. ~D -> LFW
P2. ~D
C. :. LFW

And ...

P1. ~D -> LFW
P2. ~LFW
C. :. D

... then gives us ...

P1. ~LFW -> D
P2. ~D
P2. :. LFW

So "~D -> LFW" is logically equivalent to "~LFW -> D". 

This requires some modification but only slightly (I don't see why my version is problematic particularly as we are talking about intentional beliefs only).  So we have ...

P1. If I have reasons to believe P and I am unable to believe not-P then my belief in P is neither free nor random.
P2. I have reasons to believe that God exists and I am unable to believe that God does not exist.
C. Therefore, my belief that God exists is neither free nor random.
P3. If my belief that God exists is neither free nor random then my belief that God exists is determined.
C1. Therefore, my belief that God exists is determined.
P4. If my that God exists is determined then it is impossible that I could have believed that God does not exist.
C2. Therefore, it is impossible that I could have believed that God does not exist.

This would hold for anything we believe but we find impossible not to believe.  Are there any problems with this?

1. Thanks for your apology (although I'm not exactly sure what it's for, but it seemed bad form not to acknowledge it)

2. I'm going to respond to this post on another thread, as I said before this thread is to discuss why we don't meet people that proclaim the truth of determinism. I would ask you again to respect that.

[pat1911]

You're seriously going to pretend that you didn't understand what Emuse meant when he talked about "believing Darth Vadar is real"?  You are really going to try and bluff that. Any credibility you once had has gone. You knew what he meant. Don't pretend.

Hey, I am not the one trying to reinvent the argument for determinism, which has been around for centuries using Darth Vader. You don't get to judge my credibility. He made a poor argument and I poked a hole in it. You can make better arguments or you can freely choose to ignore me. You are not determined to respond. It's not my fault you lot haven't properly researched the arguments before pull ad hoc ones out of thin air.

[pat1911]

You weren't specific, that's not my fault. Darth Vader does exist. He is a character in the Star Wars series. If you thought he was something else that's just not my fault or problem. So yeah, I believe in Darth Vader, in the context of Star Wars, ever since 1977.
Trying to establish him as something else isn't my fail.

In my argument "believe in Darth Vader" means "believe that the character in the Star Wars films is also instantiated in external reality" for clarification.

So noted....Doesn't save your argument though....

I've also noted the problem in my first argument to Richard.  Please see modification to original post quoted in your initial reply.

Why don't you just use the much better, centuries old arguments for it and against it? You're not improving upon them, at all. You going to lay out a better argument than David Hume? Dream on.

[Language-Gamer]

Emuse is 100x the philosopher Hume could ever even conceive of!

[LADZDAZL]

You're seriously going to pretend that you didn't understand what Emuse meant when he talked about "believing Darth Vadar is real"?  You are really going to try and bluff that. Any credibility you once had has gone. You knew what he meant. Don't pretend.

Hey, I am not the one trying to reinvent the argument for determinism, which has been around for centuries using Darth Vader. You don't get to judge my credibility. He made a poor argument and I poked a hole in it. You can make better arguments or you can freely choose to ignore me. You are not determined to respond. It's not my fault you lot haven't properly researched the arguments before pull ad hoc ones out of thin air.

You didn't poke a hole in it. You evaded it by using an uncharitable and irrelevant interpretation of what Emuse meant. You still haven't responded to the argument as it was intended.

And you still pretending that you believe that Vadar is real. Because he was a real character in a story. Fine. Go tell your friends you believe in Allah. He's a real character in a story too.