Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Boss

Member
  • Content count

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

1267 profile views
  1. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    yea you are not understanding how to use logical fallacies to rebut (prove something false). My arguments can only be seen as circular if you only know of 1 way to rebut them. Which is not the case thus not circular. As I kindly pointed out in your bible example, there are multiple ways to rebut the argument at hand. You just have zero rebuttals.
  2. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    I gave my argument and proof(which you further helped, thanks)for free will after defining it, I also address the other definition. You can look at earlier posts to find it. Don't you believe you can recognize choice? well luckily actions speak louder than words right The bible is fallible due to contradictions 1. eye for an eye 2. turn the other cheek You see how I can actually rebut this through proving it false? While you have NEVER rebutted(by definition prove false) instead you just list fallacies that are not pointing out anything as false. Instead, you keep repeating the definition of circular reasoning which everyone knows already and it is unrelated. Here is an example, You are red herring to the circular reasoning instead of focusing on my argument to prove it false Just saying a Logical fallacy does not prove something false, you still have to address the argument to prove it false. Like I didn't just say "red herring" or defined red herring and call it a day like you have with circular reasoning. I actually pointed out you are only mentioning circular reasoning in your defense while not addressing my argument which proves the red herring. That is how you are supposed to use logical fallacies in regards to proving something false.
  3. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    Yea, you have not rebutted my argument because nothing is being proved false. re·but rəˈbət/ verb past tense: rebutted; past participle: rebutted 1. claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false. Saying its a circular argument does not prove a falsehood. Saying how a circular argument makes something False would be better. However, just defining or giving examples of circular is not proving falsehood to an argument. Also, not every action proves free will, As I just said most actions in the universe cant reason or recognize choice. You define choice as a "determined outcome to a previous sequence of events" Where is your proof of the outcome being determined? You are making an unproven claim by saying the outcome is determined without proof So this is a terrible example as I am not making unproven claims like you are. All my claims are holding true while yours do not. If I made an untrue claim, Feel free to point it out. Just don't just give examples of circular, give examples/rebuts to point out falsehoods. Like I have.
  4. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    I never made an assumption of free will(which I defined as recognizing choice). I made an argument in favor of free will which you have not rebutted. In fact, you further proved it. Anyways, its clear you recognize choice now that you have chosen to reply or not. As far as the rest of the universe, yes its true, as far as I know, nothing besides humans can recognize choice because nothing besides humans can reason. However, Because humans can reason and recognize choice, this ability(free will) can affect the physical matter. Like our ability to decide which physical Windows or mac computer or physical android or ios phone to use. Or maybe none to just save money for something else. Also, I never was interested in disproving "determinism". As since there is ZERO evidence "determinism" exist, you can't disprove what was NEVER there. Its like trying to disprove a God exist. All I did was point out "determinism" is an unproven claim with zero evidence. While free will, as I defined it, will objectively take place right now
  5. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    Do you know what fact means? Do you know how truth is obtained? You have no evidence so the answer to that is you don't know. As far as the strawman claiming I want you to determine everything. I have never claimed such. All I ask is for evidence to prove the claim and definition of determinism. I don't assume free will, I defined free will, which was to recognize choice. Which I provided arguments for and which "recognizing choice" was admitted true by smartherthannone. You love straw manning, claiming souls, ghost in the machine nonsense lol and using a false dichotomy claiming "That is the only way that free will can exist" You seem to be the dishonest one, claiming facts with zero evidence and using strawman's. All my claims are backed by evidence. Just like the evidence, you will also have with your choice to reply or not #FreeWill Enjoy
  6. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    1. Yea therapy has been shown to be more probable in regards to helping specific human issues. However, as you mentioned, it is trying to influence the person, its not determining their outcome. If it could, then the therapist would have a 100% success rate as it can determine their outcome and just do therapy on the ones that will have positive outcomes. And if they can't determine their outcome, then it's not determinism. Just probability or speculation 2. Duplicate means to copy the same to get an identical, so the result will be identical. However, I don't know how this relates to reality. There are identical twins and just because you know the outcome of one twin, it doesn't mean you can determine the other twin. Tho of course as I mentioned, there are strong probabilities in regards to being able to estimate the other twins. Its just not determinable. If it was, then it should be provable with evidence of course, But the evidence I found in twin studies shows probability, not determinism.
  7. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    "Determinism" is a claim and a statement. Now, saying you speculate on or have faith in determinism would be a different statement. Determinism does seem like a new faith for people, however, unlike religious people who have faith. Most determinist wont admit they believe it without proof which is what faith is by definition Its also not about a math formula, it can be any kind of evidence. But clearly you don't like evidence so I can see why you straw man that I never asked for such equation, All I ask is for evidence as any rational person should. I already went over the biology fallacy, yes it can influence and make things more probable. There is evidence for that, like correlation studies and averages. However, to say "Determinism" is just dishonesty as there is zero evidence it's determined. There is evidence for probability, not determinism, which I hope you don't think both use the same definition. Anyways, great, so if you can recognize choices then you clearly recognized your choices in your past and will also recognize the ones in your future choice CHois/ noun 1. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities. I am glad you recognize the act of your past and future choices. Free will imo Also, if you want to disprove this definition ie free will as false, You would need to prove the claim that human choices "are not determined by prior causes" The opposers of this definition(free will) are claiming that human choices are determined by prior causes. Determine is a claim, its your choice to use evidence or not to prove your claim. Anyways, we both know you reject evidence when it comes to your determinism claims, So like any rationalist, I will reject unproven claims like determinism
  8. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    Yea I am repeating myself 1. Was gravity like a falling rock a determined event before the understanding? Anyone answering yes must prove it through evidence like the law of gravity Is saying you can determine how the rock falls without evidence reasonable? No. As that is LYING as *You* can't determine it. Only someone with proof can say they can determine it. As you need proof for any of Your claim, if you want to be honest that is. You see, you are claiming you can shoot webs out of your body just because a spider can. Just because a spider can it doesn't make your claim true. You still need to prove your claim. which you NEVER did and probably never will since you dont care for evidence You are claiming determinism without evidence, I am assuming incompetency or just willfully dishonesty 2. You are the one making the claim and misusing words definitions like "determinism" without evidence of determinism. I simply define free will as the ability to recognize choices. And I simply proved that through experimentation by having you reply or not. You have never rebutted it. Just made more unproven claims. You can't tell me you can't recognize the choice to reply or not. As #1 you are clearly speaking English so can understand the two choices. #2 will decide right now whether to reply or not. #3 will have no evidence to the contrary, Maybe just unproven claims and misused words like determinism and illusion without actually proving its determined or an illusion. Unlike real determinism or real illusion as I proved with examples in posts above Thinking of it, choosing Evidence & reason over No evidence & sophistry is also a choice but if the determinist doesn't think so, then that is one hell of an admission of where the conversation is headed
  9. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    You can't prove anything without evidence and reason, so yea you can't prove universal gravitation without evidence like the equation for universal gravitation. Just like how you can't prove determinism without evidence. The perspective/understanding of people means nothing. As universal gravitation works with or without their knowledge. In fact, the majority of people still dont know the equation for universal gravitation. Yet it still keeps working. In the stone age, they didn't know about universal gravitation but it still kept working. However, the point is if someone wants to claim there is universal gravitation, they need evidence like the equation for universal gravitation. Just like if a determinist wants to claim determinism they need to provide evidence. Something you have 0 of. in fact, you are in the negative as you have been instead proving free will through knowing the choice to reply or not, and deciding to reply or not objectivity You think "its not necessary to come up with", if you don't think evidence is needed and conjecture is enough, that is your choice. I just hope you and others are able to understand the clear distinction between us and the determinism case which I think you did a great job showing. Thank you
  10. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    Instead of "fingers crossed" maybe you could provide an argument to disprove it lol instead you are just proving it time and time again everytime you freely choose to reply or not Probability does not turn to certainty. If it did, then the definition of probability would = certainty and you wouldn't need to use different words. But judging how determinist falsely use the word determinist its no surprise they want to turn words to another word with a different meaning. The law of Gravity, as I explained, was always determinable, 1000s years ago, today, 1000s years in the future. It was never probable/speculative. Sure some may have speculated how gravity works but they were incorrect as it has always been determinable through whether you knew the equation or not. You see that equation for universal gravitation is called verifiable evidence in regards to determining something. Maybe you should try doing the same before claiming anything as the result of determinism. I provided real determinism, while the determinist provides no evidence. determinism exist only if proven determinable, You can't use the word and reject its definition. That's like calling someone a man when it doesn't matter what you call someone, as man has a definition and if whatever you called a man doesn't conform to that, its not a man. Just like how claiming determinism when it wasn't determined wouldn't be determinism, its more like faith or belief that somewhere out there, there is an equation that could have determined it. Luckily I prefer evidence & reason. Anyways, you will probably just continue ignoring your lack of such and cross your fingers so I will leave this for anyone else on the fence humans who can reason and recognize multiple choices are not determinist. As let's say one day there is "evidence", Maybe an AI computer that quantified every gene in your body and everything in your environment to a point it where it "determined" your next move, well, take a look at it, and simply choose to do something else.
  11. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    I actually trade stocks and only a fool would say they are determinable as a single loss dispells that myth. they are probability and speculation. Unlike actual determinable things like the law of gravity which is 100% as even at 99.999% it will no longer be determinable. just 99.999% probable Great, don't address the objectivity just ignore it to prove my case even further. Thanks Felicia. Free will is great isn't it? let's see you use it again when you choose to reply or not Any animal that can't reason and identify multiple choices do not possess free will. Meanwhile, you will use your free will right now
  12. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    Determinist by definition claim that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Obviously, they can't prove it unlike real determinable events like gravity. I am also not expecting perfect knowledge just consistency which "determinist" have a hard time determining as maybe they don't even understand what the word determine means. Anyways, glad you see determinist as speculative. ie not determinable A real determinist would make a fortune determining things while the majority don't believe they can be determined. Just by placing bets on the market. My proof of free will? well, you have been proving it to yourself by choosing to reply to me Here let's see your free will objectively take place again, choose to reply to me or not. either choice of yours proves it. Have fun with your free will
  13. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    This "test" actually favors free will, not determinism. As it admits some may eat the pizza and some may not. It was not determinable. But of course, we have an innate genetic quality that drives us. The big three are hunger, thirst, sex. However, it is free will that allows people the choice in how to process these. Like some may look at different diets and choose vegetarian, vegan, keto, etc For sex, some still choose to wait until marriage, enter polygamy or the immoral choice, rape. Yes, If someone also pushes me down a hill I will have no choice but to fall down the hill. However, after I get up, I can choose if I want to climb back up the hill or stay down. A ball has no choice or free will to climb back up or not. But a ball falling is a great example of real determinism, Why? Because it's actually determinable through the law of gravity I can determine how the ball will fall with this The issue with determinist, is they want to take something that hasn't been determinable and claim its determined. They want to claim something to be an illusion, yet, not prove it. Like I can take you to the desert and show you water, then prove it was an illusion or mirage when we get closer. The determinist has no proof its an "illusion" This objectively proves determinist are dishonest or speculative at best. I see Free will as your ability to recognize choices. Like the choice to reply to this or not.
  14. Boss

    Incompatibilism

    That was not a question. Free will is the ability or vehicle that drives asking and answering questions.
  15. Boss

    Emotional Arguments, valid or not?

    Emotional arguments are most likely "valid" to the one making it. It may or may not be valid to reason and evidence. Like a vegan crying over someone eating meat obviously believes eating meat is wrong. However, the person eating meat doesn't think that is valid. Reason and evidence I would argue doesn't either Now, some people fake their "emotions", when in reality, they dont believe it. So you have to be careful even thinking the "emotional" argument is valid to the one making it. However, if they are truly emotional, I assume the argument is valid to them. You can then present reason and evidence to them to see how they respond. But I would first try to understand why they are emotional first, I feel that is very important as if you don't, you may make them more emotional causing them to believe their invalid argument even stronger. Like a big one I find, is you presenting a valid argument against their claims, subconsciously, shows their loved ones(or whoever got them to believe their argument) lied to them. Which they don't want to believe thus rejecting your valid argument in favor of thinking their loved ones did not lie to them. This is why the left loves when Hollywood/celebrities endorse their ideology, as the fans who sometimes even say they love the celebrity don't want to feel like they are rejecting them. IMO Emotions are the strongest driver for humans. Like when you feel hungry/thirsty you eat or drink, when you feel anger, love, etc that can propel action. When you feel fear, sadness, etc that can halt action. The more you accept reason and evidence, the more your emotions will align with the truth. Emotions can propel you into creating a bridge to help connect you with truth. Emotions can also propel you off one into an abyss "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee." - Friedrich Nietzsche Free Will, He who fights with reason, becomes reason, and if thou gaze long into truth, the truth will also gaze into thee
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.