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

[hatsoff]

Richard,

You apparently don't realize it, but everyone---emuse included---is indeed on topic, as I explained in my last comment. I am saying so for the benefit of the mods, in case they are called upon to investigate.

[RichardChad]

Richard,

You apparently don't realize it, but everyone---emuse included---is indeed on topic, as I explained in my last comment. I am saying so for the benefit of the mods, in case they are called upon to investigate.

and, since you continue to refuse to move the LFW will discussion to the thread set up for it, I'm reporting it to the mods.

thread set up for it: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/emuses-argument-against-lfw-6033738.0.html

[LADZDAZL]

A. Absolutely stunning how many atheists show up on the thread when it got derailed from the OP (have you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true) to "can we attempt to shoot down the notion of LFW but retain all of the terminology and the ability to freely choose cause if we can do that theism is false but we still have LFW will, er.. I mean.. we have everything that LFW has, just not the title cause that's associated with theism.."

Why is this so hard for you Richard?  I know that solid oak doors are 99.9999% empty space. But my language still refers to them as being "solid". Does this mean that I don't really believe that solid oak doors are 99.9999% empty space?  Does the fact I refer to them as heavy prove that I don't really believe they predominantly empty space?

Many atheists have defended determinism on this thread. And we have explained that a superficial treatment of language use as some sort of "gotcha" argument is embarrassingly juvenile. It is no more persuasive than the oak door example.

[RichardChad]

A. Absolutely stunning how many atheists show up on the thread when it got derailed from the OP (have you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true) to "can we attempt to shoot down the notion of LFW but retain all of the terminology and the ability to freely choose cause if we can do that theism is false but we still have LFW will, er.. I mean.. we have everything that LFW has, just not the title cause that's associated with theism.."

Why is this so hard for you Richard?  I know that solid oak doors are 99.9999% empty space. But my language still refers to them as being "solid". Does this mean that I don't really believe that solid oak doors are 99.9999% empty space?  Does the fact I refer to them as heavy prove that I don't really believe they predominantly empty space?

Many atheists have defended determinism on this thread. And we have explained that a superficial treatment of language use as some sort of "gotcha" argument is embarrassingly juvenile. It is no more persuasive than the oak door example.

That's nonsense, what we have clearly seen here is:
1)  atheists on this thread clinging to words that only make sense on LFW

2) atheists on this thread refusing to endorse determinism (attacking LFW is not endorsing determinism)

3) atheists on this thread continuing to treat everyone as if they could have done differently.

4) atheists on this thread actually rejecting the very definition of determinsim, repeatedly arguing against it even to the point of claiming that having the ability to freely choose is consistent with determinism!

There has not been a single atheist that has claimed that determinism is true (the actual determinsm, not the one fabricated by so many that has all of the traits of LFW except the name):  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.


amazing stuff, we actually have moot claiming that dennett claims determinsm includes the ability to freely choose, when Dennett is famous for saying the exact opposite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLGI5ocAYZM
 
I don't know how one explains this mystifying behavior on the part of the atheists on this thread.

[pat1911]

A. Absolutely stunning how many atheists show up on the thread when it got derailed from the OP (have you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true) to "can we attempt to shoot down the notion of LFW but retain all of the terminology and the ability to freely choose cause if we can do that theism is false but we still have LFW will, er.. I mean.. we have everything that LFW has, just not the title cause that's associated with theism.."

Why is this so hard for you Richard?  I know that solid oak doors are 99.9999% empty space. But my language still refers to them as being "solid". Does this mean that I don't really believe that solid oak doors are 99.9999% empty space?  Does the fact I refer to them as heavy prove that I don't really believe they predominantly empty space?

Many atheists have defended determinism on this thread. And we have explained that a superficial treatment of language use as some sort of "gotcha" argument is embarrassingly juvenile. It is no more persuasive than the oak door example.

That's nonsense, what we have clearly seen here is:
1)  atheists on this thread clinging to words that only make sense on LFW

2) atheists on this thread refusing to endorse determinism (attacking LFW is not endorsing determinism)

3) atheists on this thread continuing to treat everyone as if they could have done differently.

4) atheists on this thread actually rejecting the very definition of determinsim, repeatedly arguing against it even to the point of claiming that having the ability to freely choose is consistent with determinism!

There has not been a single atheist that has claimed that determinism is true (the actual determinsm, not the one fabricated by so many that has all of the traits of LFW except the name):  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.


amazing stuff, we actually have moot claiming that dennett claims determinsm includes the ability to freely choose, when Dennett is famous for saying the exact opposite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLGI5ocAYZM
 
I don't know how one explains this mystifying behavior on the part of the atheists on this thread.

+1
The only thing, which is also mystifying is that LFW as it is called here, is the only type of freewill. Where as there are different 'types' of freewill. Where there is even a version of freewill argument called "Soft Determinism".
The irony of trying to convince someone of 'determinsim' as if they had a choice is hilarious, to me. The linguistic gymnastics to get around this is just.....odd.

[Identity Crisis]

A. Absolutely stunning how many atheists show up on the thread when it got derailed from the OP (have you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true) to "can we attempt to shoot down the notion of LFW but retain all of the terminology and the ability to freely choose cause if we can do that theism is false but we still have LFW will, er.. I mean.. we have everything that LFW has, just not the title cause that's associated with theism.."

Why is this so hard for you Richard?  I know that solid oak doors are 99.9999% empty space. But my language still refers to them as being "solid". Does this mean that I don't really believe that solid oak doors are 99.9999% empty space?  Does the fact I refer to them as heavy prove that I don't really believe they predominantly empty space?

Many atheists have defended determinism on this thread. And we have explained that a superficial treatment of language use as some sort of "gotcha" argument is embarrassingly juvenile. It is no more persuasive than the oak door example.

That's nonsense, what we have clearly seen here is:
1)  atheists on this thread clinging to words that only make sense on LFW

2) atheists on this thread refusing to endorse determinism (attacking LFW is not endorsing determinism)

3) atheists on this thread continuing to treat everyone as if they could have done differently.

4) atheists on this thread actually rejecting the very definition of determinsim, repeatedly arguing against it even to the point of claiming that having the ability to freely choose is consistent with determinism!

There has not been a single atheist that has claimed that determinism is true (the actual determinsm, not the one fabricated by so many that has all of the traits of LFW except the name):  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.


amazing stuff, we actually have moot claiming that dennett claims determinsm includes the ability to freely choose, when Dennett is famous for saying the exact opposite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLGI5ocAYZM
 
I don't know how one explains this mystifying behavior on the part of the atheists on this thread.

I think I could explain all of these issues, but it would probably be best to focus on one at a time.

1) non-LFW proponents using words that only make sense given LFW

Consider the googled definition of choice: to pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

The non-LFW proponent just says (as Dennett said in that video you linked) that the alternatives are epistemic. So choice makes sense as long as it's understood that the alternatives of the choice are epistemic. I've said this before though, so why doesn't this make sense?

[LADZDAZL]

Richard,

Somebody opens the door and I say "don't let the cold in". Does this mean I don't really believe that the heat is leaving the house but that cold is moving in? Is this an example of people claiming to believe in physics but their behaviour revealing that they don't really?  Does it suggest a fundamental problem in their world view?


Mary, the philosopher has just completed her book outlining her theory of knowledge. "I always knew I had a book in me" she tells her sister. "What?" says her sister. "That intuition you had doesn't constitute knowledge by your definition. You've just proved your own theory wrong!  Gotcha!"

Dr Craig says, "all people just know certain things are objectively wrong". "What?" exclaims the atheist. "All people? What about psychopaths? How can I take your assessments of probability and sets seriously when you betray your lack of belief in what the world "all" means. You claim to know what "all people" means, but your usage betrays the fact that you don't really believe this standard definition. Gotcha!"


All of these are ridiculous examples of bogus arguments based on vacuous and superficially literal interpretations of language. And your OP is no better.

[RichardChad]

I think I could explain all of these issues, but it would probably be best to focus on one at a time.

1) non-LFW proponents using words that only make sense given LFW

Consider the googled definition of choice: to pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

The non-LFW proponent just says (as Dennett said in that video you linked) that the alternatives are epistemic. So choice makes sense as long as it's understood that the alternatives of the choice are epistemic. I've said this before though, so why doesn't this make sense?

Sentence 1: "So choice makes sense as long as it's understood that the alternatives of the choice are epistemic"
Sentence 2: "there is only one possible future, but since we don't know what it is we can live with the illusion of freely choosing"


These two sentences are identical in meaning.  Why not use the second sentence that clearly captures the view, as opposed to the first which shrouds it in jargon, ESPECIALLY when the first includes "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view.

[pat1911]

You say that determinism and LFW can both be false. What other options are there?

Libertarian Freewill is a specific kind of freewill. There are many more theories and postulations about freewill than just Libertarian.
There is non-causal freewill, Incompatiblism, Agency. Non-agent freewill, non-causal, causal, Soft-determinism, etc.
So yes the general category of 'Determinism' can be false and Libertarian Freewill be false too because there are other options. That is yet another reason why premise 1 fails. It compares the very general category of determinism with a secific kind of 'Freewill' and it is possible that both determinism in general, and LFW specifically can both be false simultaneously.

[Identity Crisis]

I think I could explain all of these issues, but it would probably be best to focus on one at a time.

1) non-LFW proponents using words that only make sense given LFW

Consider the googled definition of choice: to pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

The non-LFW proponent just says (as Dennett said in that video you linked) that the alternatives are epistemic. So choice makes sense as long as it's understood that the alternatives of the choice are epistemic. I've said this before though, so why doesn't this make sense?

Sentence 1: "So choice makes sense as long as it's understood that the alternatives of the choice are epistemic"
Sentence 2: "there is only one possible future, but since we don't know what it is we can live with the illusion of freely choosing"


These two sentences are identical in meaning.  Why not use the second sentence that clearly captures the view, as opposed to the first which shrouds it in jargon, ESPECIALLY when the first includes "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view.

Ok, so it does make sense, you would just prefer we use sentence two. When describing my worldview, I would use something like sentence 1, as I have in our discussion, because it's less emotional and I think it's easier to understand so long as one knows what epistemic means. "Illusion of freely choosing" is less informative and seems to have an emotional slant to it. Since it at least makes sense, even though you would prefer we talk in a different way, can we move on to your second point?

[RichardChad]

I think I could explain all of these issues, but it would probably be best to focus on one at a time.

1) non-LFW proponents using words that only make sense given LFW

Consider the googled definition of choice: to pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

The non-LFW proponent just says (as Dennett said in that video you linked) that the alternatives are epistemic. So choice makes sense as long as it's understood that the alternatives of the choice are epistemic. I've said this before though, so why doesn't this make sense?

Sentence 1: "So choice makes sense as long as it's understood that the alternatives of the choice are epistemic"
Sentence 2: "there is only one possible future, but since we don't know what it is we can live with the illusion of freely choosing"


These two sentences are identical in meaning.  Why not use the second sentence that clearly captures the view, as opposed to the first which shrouds it in jargon, ESPECIALLY when the first includes "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view.

Ok, so it does make sense, you would just prefer we use sentence two. When describing my worldview, I would use something like sentence 1, as I have in our discussion, because it's less emotional and I think it's easier to understand so long as one knows what epistemic means. "Illusion of freely choosing" is less informative and seems to have an emotional slant to it. Since it at least makes sense, even though you would prefer we talk in a different way, can we move on to your second point?

1. how is it "less emotional"??
2. how could it possibly be "easier to understand" when you are using terms like  "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view
3. "Illusion of freely choosing" is exactly what you are claiming, how then could it possibly be "less informative" or have an "emotional slant"

I have a much simpler theory for why you insist on using a sentence that is far more confusing shrouds the real intent: you don't actually believe it to be true.
It's only "emotional" because using sentence 2 would cause people to be extremely uncomfortable with that view as it doesn't coincide with the reality they experience.

[john doe]

Richard,

Somebody opens the door and I say "don't let the cold in". Does this mean I don't really believe that the heat is leaving the house but that cold is moving in? Is this an example of people claiming to believe in physics but their behaviour revealing that they don't really?  Does it suggest a fundamental problem in their world view?


Mary, the philosopher has just completed her book outlining her theory of knowledge. "I always knew I had a book in me" she tells her sister. "What?" says her sister. "That intuition you had doesn't constitute knowledge by your definition. You've just proved your own theory wrong!  Gotcha!"

Dr Craig says, "all people just know certain things are objectively wrong". "What?" exclaims the atheist. "All people? What about psychopaths? How can I take your assessments of probability and sets seriously when you betray your lack of belief in what the world "all" means. You claim to know what "all people" means, but your usage betrays the fact that you don't really believe this standard definition. Gotcha!"


All of these are ridiculous examples of bogus arguments based on vacuous and superficially literal interpretations of language. And your OP is no better.

A nicely nuanced rebuke against just the bit which needs it.

That is the tricky thing about language, too much of it is self-referential.  Leastwise people get caught up in how the definitions interact rather than those things which they represent.

[Identity Crisis]

I think I could explain all of these issues, but it would probably be best to focus on one at a time.

1) non-LFW proponents using words that only make sense given LFW

Consider the googled definition of choice: to pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

The non-LFW proponent just says (as Dennett said in that video you linked) that the alternatives are epistemic. So choice makes sense as long as it's understood that the alternatives of the choice are epistemic. I've said this before though, so why doesn't this make sense?

Sentence 1: "So choice makes sense as long as it's understood that the alternatives of the choice are epistemic"
Sentence 2: "there is only one possible future, but since we don't know what it is we can live with the illusion of freely choosing"


These two sentences are identical in meaning.  Why not use the second sentence that clearly captures the view, as opposed to the first which shrouds it in jargon, ESPECIALLY when the first includes "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view.

Ok, so it does make sense, you would just prefer we use sentence two. When describing my worldview, I would use something like sentence 1, as I have in our discussion, because it's less emotional and I think it's easier to understand so long as one knows what epistemic means. "Illusion of freely choosing" is less informative and seems to have an emotional slant to it. Since it at least makes sense, even though you would prefer we talk in a different way, can we move on to your second point?

1. how is it "less emotional"??
2. how could it possibly be "easier to understand" when you are using terms like  "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view
3. "Illusion of freely choosing" is exactly what you are claiming, how then could it possibly be "less informative" or have an "emotional slant"

I have a much simpler theory for why you insist on using a sentence that is far more confusing shrouds the real intent: you don't actually believe it to be true.
It's only "emotional" because using sentence 2 would cause people to be extremely uncomfortable with that view as it doesn't coincide with the reality they experience.

I think you're losing focus of the discussion here. Remember, all I've set out to do was to show that a determinist can consistently talk about "choice" because a choice is simply the selection among alternatives. Your thought seemed to be that since the past would only be consistent with one future, given determinism, then there are no alternatives. But there are alternatives, they are just epistemic. In response to this, you are telling me how we ought to talk, but this is a different matter. If you're really interested, I'll answer your questions as well as respond to you saying that I don't really believe it, but I would also like to get to 2, 3, and 4 from your original post I responded to, but one at a time.

[hatsoff]

I think you're losing focus of the discussion here. Remember, all I've set out to do was to show that a determinist can consistently talk about "choice" because a choice is simply the selection among alternatives. Your thought seemed to be that since the past would only be consistent with one future, given determinism, then there are no alternatives. But there are alternatives, they are just epistemic. In response to this, you are telling me how we ought to talk, but this is a different matter. If you're really interested, I'll answer your questions as well as respond to you saying that I don't really believe it, but I would also like to get to 2, 3, and 4 from your original post I responded to, but one at a time.

It seems to me that one of the main problems is that "sentence 1" and "sentence 2" do not, in fact, mean the same thing at all, and in fact bear little resemblance to one another.  I am dismayed for you to have implied that Richard was correct to say they do mean the same thing.

[pat1911]

Richard,

Somebody opens the door and I say "don't let the cold in". Does this mean I don't really believe that the heat is leaving the house but that cold is moving in? Is this an example of people claiming to believe in physics but their behaviour revealing that they don't really?  Does it suggest a fundamental problem in their world view?


Mary, the philosopher has just completed her book outlining her theory of knowledge. "I always knew I had a book in me" she tells her sister. "What?" says her sister. "That intuition you had doesn't constitute knowledge by your definition. You've just proved your own theory wrong!  Gotcha!"

Dr Craig says, "all people just know certain things are objectively wrong". "What?" exclaims the atheist. "All people? What about psychopaths? How can I take your assessments of probability and sets seriously when you betray your lack of belief in what the world "all" means. You claim to know what "all people" means, but your usage betrays the fact that you don't really believe this standard definition. Gotcha!"


All of these are ridiculous examples of bogus arguments based on vacuous and superficially literal interpretations of language. And your OP is no better.

That may be fine and dandy in the context of discussing an argument. But when you are composing an actual logical argument your language has to be absolutely precise. A logical argument cannot rely on a "you know what I meant" kind of linguistics.

Therefore, you cannot argue legitimately "You know what he meant by believing in Darth Vader" because it is a logical argument. The language has to be absolutely precise.
In the context of discussion, leniency and a relaxing of precise language is acceptable as long as communication is understood. In an argument, the language has to be exactly what you mean and exact.