The implications of causal determinism (cause and effect) is as follows:
>If determinism is true, all our actions are predicted and we are assumed not to be free.
>If determinism is false, our actions are presumed to be random and as such we do not seem free because we had no part in controlling what happened.
Christcucks BTFO.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
nature.com
twitter.com
I view it as thus: If there is a god, he would know everything that will ever happen. If there isnt a god, we are basically biological machines, and if one were to amass enough knowledge they could predict all of our actions.
where do the laws come from?
>where do the laws come from?
>Physical laws exist
>Therefore God
Not an argument
It doesn't matter if you are not free.
>Christcucks BTFO
How do you think prophecy works?
Predestination is the biblical teaching.
Determinism is the ultimate bluepill and will turn you into a nigger if you internalize it. Determinism is what has killed Christianity and Western civilization and will kill the human species by turning everything into nigger
>Predestination is the biblical teaching.
If you have no free will what is the point of the bible?
>Determinism is the ultimate bluepill and will turn you into a nigger if you internalize it.
Not an argument.
Is determinsm true or not? See OP.
>If
>presumed random
No...
also, even if they are presumed random, what makes you think this would absolve anyone of anything?
And if things are deterministic then what's the difference between saying "things are all predetermined" and saying "what will happen will happen".
In either case your saying the future will occur as the future occures, really you're saying nothing at all.
Guess we should let all the criminals out of jail; they're all innocent.
>the future will occur as the future occures
Then you cannot choose to be saved and Jesus died for nothing.
Determinism is not fatalism.
It's not true, in the sense that we consciously chose to plant seeds which grow and steer towards something. Choices we make with our own free determine and influence many of our other actions, but it's still based off of free will choices
>if you have no free will what is the point of the bible.
To guide those chosen by God from the foundation of creation. The purpose of creation is the glorification of God through a people chosen by God from the beginning of history.
Free will is the narcissistic presumption that we could possibly frustrate the designs of God, and are a Papal heresy.
>we consciously chose to plant seeds
The sensation of free will is a lie.
>Free will is the narcissistic presumption that we could possibly frustrate the designs of God, and are a Papal heresy.
Based Catholic. At least you are honest.
Do you feel bad for those who will never be able to escape the hellfire?
Free will is fake as commonly defined. True. Free will is actually simply this, choose God or choose self. Do what God has commanded, or oppose him. As far as what you eat, who you talk to, what tv shows you like, much of this is causality driven. I was raised in a household of a child molester father and an alcoholic mother who both loved to abuse, in all logic by causality I should be a mass murdering psychopath, but I choose God.
>choose God or choose self
In reality there is no choice.
It has already been made for you.
...
Presuming, without providing justification, that since a premise may be false, that the complete opposite must be true
>Look at this fag
> It doesn't make any sense to me, and therefor must be wrong
Many worlds.
Not true, the choice comes from the ability to realize there is a choice. We, as humans have this ability to choose and to observe our choices. Most animals and insects behave primarily by reaction and survival. If someone punches you, you can choose to punch back, or choose to forgive.
>Do you feel bad for those who will never be able to escape the hellfire?
Humans are totally depravied, we are utterly unworthy of redemption. Each of us is deserving of the Hellfire.
Another way to put it is:
"Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Romans 9:13-15
Who am I to question a being much more wise and knowing than I? God will have mercy on whom He will, and that is enough for me. The bible says that God will wipe the tears from all of our cheeks when the end is come, and then all will be clear. He has been faithful to me thus far, I will not betray that faith now.
Also, I'm a Calvinist, not a baptist.
Predestination is part of TULIP.
>Presuming, without providing justification, that since a premise may be false, that the complete opposite must be true
All possible premises suggest that free will is a lie
Show me a premise which suggests free will is true?
Christians are the ones making claims about free will that are unjustified.
>the choice comes from the ability to realize there is a choice
Sensation of choice is not a choice
Show how choice is possible .
He's arguing from extremes which is a common logic flaw for idiots
Presupposing there is no intelligence or free will in the world. Sad.
What you are saying is crazy, you might as well say
Prove to me that you have a conscious awareness, unless I can for myself experience being you, I will not believe that you are real.
no one can prove choice, no one can prove conscious awareness. Not everything relies on proof, that is why we have faith.
Take this analogy, it's not a false analogy.
> If it's too fucking hot I'll die
> If it's too fucking cold I'll die
>So therefore I'm not alive
Your argument assumes extremes and gives no thought to the center ground, where at which place one can be easily thought to be influenced by destiny (genetics), free will (see the Darwin award), and randomnesses itself (see modern physics).
>Who am I to question a being much more wise and knowing than I?
This doesn't prove the existance of God.
But it is admirable and honest.
Thanks for sharing your position.
>Presupposing there is no intelligence or free will in the world
I didn't presuppose anything, only supposing what is possible to suppose.
You will have great difficulty arguming for intelligence and free will.
>Prove to me that you have a conscious awareness, unless I can for myself experience being you, I will not believe that you are real.
Determinism is not that same as solipsism
It is rational to reason that we both experience consciousness in a similar way by reason of our biology.
This does not support free will however.
Free will isn't a creative force, but an entropic one. Reality is brutally objective. That's why only few can face the naked truth as it is.
Freedom is nothing more than synchronicity which leads to creation.
your biology may be my imagination.
your argument is invalid.
>> If it's too fucking hot I'll die
>> If it's too fucking cold I'll die
>>So therefore I'm not alive
False. The OP doesn't say anything about our current state, on a spectrum if you will, but only shows that all possible places on the spectrum in a deterministic universe does not all free will to exist.
>may be
But unlikely given material world and useful dedication made within.
Besides the argument against solipsism has nothing to do with free will.
You are merely muddying the waters but this is not a valid argument strategy.
Arguing off topic, another logical fallacy. I offered an analogy of arguing to extremes to which you answered with a non sequitur, and did not address the fact that you are arguing indeed to extremes. And still, you have failed to justify that there exists a middle ground, which is the fallacy of your throught.
Please offer argument that centre ground even exists.
I offer two possible extremes. What is a third position?
>God commands you to not kill or you will go to hell
>You must kill to survive, therefore you are going to hell
(((There is middle ground on what you are allowed to kill)))
Just a another simple example
I don't care if it is, I just want to be angry and do stuff.
Thanks for the example but I don't think the analogy is that watertight.
A list of statements about determinism has only 2 statements. If randomness exists or doesn't exist in any middle ground scenario doesn't allow for more statements to be made.
Statements about the universe are absolute in nature.
While it is not, it is an example of arguing to extremes.
With respect to your thesis, you should recognise that if determination and randomnesses are equally mixed, perhaps is still free will which is partially manifested through what we see as random events. I therefore see no reason to conclude an extreme as you chose to. But if that finds you peace, so be it
I appreciate your input.
> if determination and randomnesses are equally mixed, perhaps is still free will which is partially manifested through what we see as random events.
>perhaps
The interaction between randomness and determinism is an interesting thought, but if randomness exists, then by definition, you cannot control the event.
How exactly would determination and randomness interact to create a condition where free will exists?
I am genuinely curious in exploring this if possible.
please read a book.
seriously.
you have juvenile ideas on the topic of determinism.
>read a book
Any specific examples there, burger?
I'd really like to explore how wrong you are.
Orthogonal forces need not interact, and by definition cannot, but they are able to create forces that follow their ripples. Just look at electromagnetism.
Tbqh, our brain activities might be partially determined by some quantum mechanics-ish molecular interaction which is very far from free will and which is totally random.
While I don't think determinism is a thing because the very random nature of quantum mechanics (as far as we understand), I feel like we are having no free will as our very existence is based on randomness of quantum mechanics
If equal, non-interacting. orthogonal parts determinism and randomness exist, then there is a creation of a new force called free will?
Very interesting.
Can you elaborate?
Physical laws exist, therefore something necessary has to exist. That necessary thing is God.
How come it doesn't make me free?
How do you know that?
That necessary thing is defined to be God. You know it by implication.
>physical laws exist, therefore something necessary has to exist
>that necessary thing is God
1. No, i dont know it. You blindly asserting it to be the truth doesn't make it the truth. Provide evidence.
2. Asserting i know something when i've only asked you a question is being dishonest. Stop deflecting and answer the question, or ignore it. If you cant answer it truthfully, then it doesnt affect me.
You can't have evidence for something non-natural. Only reason can get you there. Not all knowledge requires empirical evidence.
>evidence
>proof via deduction
Pick one brainlet
tfw when you finally found an OP to agree with
>only reason can get you there
For example?
>Not all knowledge requires empirical evidence
I didnt say empirical, i want you to give me evidence for your assertion.
i think history is written, but not your side in the history
you choose that side, even tho you have all your family baggage with you,in the end, you make the choice
evidence.
wasnt that hard.
>>evidence
>>proof via deduction
These are complementary not exclusive.
Logic not based on evidence is distraction at best.
I think that is the point you are missing.
>One world only deterministic
>One world only random
>One world only free will
All orthogonal
All cabaible or interacting with each other by mixing the fields of existence.
>Look how smart I am.
>Checkmate
>Except if I'm right I had no say in it at all and am literally no better than a rock.
Determinism is false, we have free will because we have a soul, something special and unique. This is why observation by a human collapses quantum probabilities but machines can't.
I just find it impossible to outline what a 'mixed fields' would even look like or how to arguing for it with evidence.
I could easily say:
>If determinism exists, it is not random, and vice versa.
>Therefore mixed interactions are impossible
>Either events are determined or random
>if I'm right I had no say in it at all and am literally no better than a rock.
Still right though.
Wanting evidence for any statement means that you think all knowledge is empirical.
>we have a soul
Do we? I've never heard anything about souls outside of fiction. How did you figure this one out?
for all statements*
>all knowledge is empirical
It isn't?
Wanting proof for an opinion from someone deflecting from a single question repeatedly definitely isn't helping you out here.
No.
What question?
>No.
Elaborate. Show knowledge that isn't Empirical.
I'll wait.
>Physical laws exist, therefore something necessary has to exist. That necessary thing is God.
I asked how you know this.
...
1+1 = 2
Theres scientific evidence that decisions are made by the brain up to 10 seconds before we become aware of them, meaning everything is pre determined.
Theres a plan bros
We agree physical laws exist, I hope.
Physical laws are contingent - that is, they can be different.
Contingent things cannot explain themselves, or rather, they are not sufficient reasons for themselves.
Contingent things, thus, need to be explained by something other than themselves.
This process of contingency upon contingency cannot go on forever.
Hence, there is something that is by its nature necessary.
That something we call God.
Of course free will is a lie, we are here for God's purpose. Where would you hear otherwise?
There is no free will. Everything that has happened, will happen. There is a God and that's why Jesus said that everyone is automatically forgiven. I believe this is the true concept of original sin and the definition got lost somewhere. Because we're not here to make a choice, we're here to understand the choices we make.
Btw I'm not saying Jesus is God and I'm quoting matrix, I'm aware.
I'll posted this again before
>1+1 = 2
Statements like "1 + 1 = 2" come out as uncertain, contingent truths, which we can only learn by observing instances of two singles coming together and forming a pair.
Our knowledge of mathematics is just part of our knowledge of logic in general, and is thus analytic.
All knowledge comes to us from observation through the senses
>Very far-fetched claim
>Doesn't even post source
K boipus
How is first year uni going? Any cute girls in your tutes?
>Contingent things cannot explain themselves, or rather, they are not sufficient reasons for themselves.
concepts dont need to explain themselves, i'm not sure how thats relevant
>Contingent things, thus, need to be explained by something other than themselves.
We created language and concepts. Animals chirp and do things to each other to express things, same with us. These things dont answer to people. Same with gravity or orbiting planets, they dont have to have a "purpose" or a reason why they're there. It literally means nothing
The other problem with this opinion is that you could replace the word "God" with any other God. So, aside from it being poorly constructed and false, its incredibly unsound.
Pol BTFO
That's not how math works. Think of anything from abstract algebra.
Also, another thing you know - the law of identity: A is A and not non-A.
Actually no, you massive fucking retard. Just because you became aware of your decision after your brain has processed it, doesn't prove anything about determinism, more about awareness, consciousness and subconscious processings.
How can you be so retarded faggot, with only so little words.
bro, you are just bluepilled. get over it and read some books
waste of digits
there's no proof, dont fall for the bait
I'm glad you admit here you don't have an argument.
I read books, I'm the one not denying things to keep my fragile opinion in one piece. Get upset all you want, you put out your opinion and i told you why its wrong.
A physical law is not a concept.
Also, concepts don't explain themselves, in the sense they are not the reason for their own existence. As you've said, it was us who created them - we are the reason for their existence. So, it is still relevant.
The fundamental nature of the God of the monotheistic religions is the same.
>Think of anything from abstract algebra.
> the law of identity: A is A and not non-A.
Define A.
lol
A can be literally anything that exists. It's a placeholder.
I've seen this study. They show pleasant images to a subject while connected to an EEG. They then intersect the images with shocking images. The subjects brain activity increases milliseconds before the shocking image appears. Kind of like preparing to reduce the damage of shock
This isn't the same experiment but similar
Literal babble.
You should stop right here.
Exactly. See:
I understand that. They dont need reasons for existence was my point, same with concepts. We aren't the reason why physical laws exist, we're the reason why we conceptually grasp them. They're there because they exist, nothing more.
Do you have any other information to prove your point?
There are two Portuguese bros here.
Oh boo, what are the odds
Still not an argument for free will.
>I don't understand, therefore it's babble.
Tell me why it is babble, then.
>second point
You don't need empirical evidence to assert that something exists. A is literally anything - don't forget that.
SeeYou're a retard that's trying to confuse people by using reasoning loops. Kys
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
okay then go wild
everything you is in both cases not up to you
either you are random and its not up to you
or it is determined and it is not up to you
yet somehow by some magic man created the concept of guilty
get
fugged
niggus
Concepts do need reasons to explain themselves because they exist and they don't explain themselves.
>Laws are there because they exist
You're saying A is true because A is true.
>If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
A sensation of choice is not the same as having a choice.
Exactly, its an argument against free will. If the subconscious is the one making decisions it opens up a can of worms as to what free will even is