Evidence for God from Science

I posted a challenge to Atheists several years ago to discuss the Nature of Reality. What is it ultimately? Many seem unable to move beyond a Materialistic view, although physical laws are clearly defined moving them to Physicalism since such is undeniable. Nonetheless many strongly support a Materialist reductionism of some sort and the physics "just existing" as part of that reality.

In any case, I wrote in that thread:

• my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.
  
  For example, consider the movie The Matrix. Everyone in the "normal" world is hooked up to a machine and experiencing a type of virtual reality. The experiences are just as real as ours in life. And yet, people "could" potentially come back from the dead in this world, as long as the software is tweaked. People can perform what appears to be "magic" by zipping through the air -- suspending the "natural laws" which are really being largely maintained by a software program that runs the virtual world. Heck, Jesus Chris could actually even rise from the dead in such a world!
  
  Yes, it's just a movie. But here is the thing. Who's to say that the life we experience isn't in some way similar--some form of Idealism. Perhaps the machine and software on which we're running is just God. And yet, the Atheist confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!
  
  Atheism presumes to know reality without giving it any foundation. The world just is. It just runs. It is stable. It is predictable. It's finely tuned for life? "Well, duh--we wouldn't be here otherwise!" We just are. What we hear, see, feel, taste and smell is a true representation of the world. It is just NATURAL. Dead people don't rise from the dead.
  
  An Atheistic reality precludes any questions about how reality might be. There is no "more than meets the eye". Is this not a shallow worldview? A kind of "putting on the blinders" or "burying one's head in the sand"? Some deep-seated faith in ignorance? Let's not ask questions about how reality works and just accept what seems apparent, because to ponder such questions is what? Scarey? Would it burst your bubble?

What many don't perhaps realise, is that this Matrix-like "virtual reality" conceptualist view of reality is increasingly gaining popularity in the world:

• The theory that we might all be living in a computer simulation has gotten so popular among Silicon Valley’s tech elites that two billionaires are now apparently pouring money into breaking us out of the simulation. (Tech billionaires are asking scientists for help breaking humans out of the computer simulation, Business Insider Australia)

Here is a more entertaining YouTube video on the matter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZVeC1gXYNE

There is actually some evidence for this when just a few years ago James gates announced to Neil Tyson that he found a special kind of computer code embedded in the equations of string theory which blew Tysons mind away

https://youtu.be/oc4GOkHfxBY

Kurieuo wrote:I posted a challenge to Atheists several years ago to discuss the Nature of Reality. What is it ultimately? Many seem unable to move beyond a Materialistic view, although physical laws are clearly defined moving them to Physicalism since such is undeniable. Nonetheless many strongly support a Materialist reductionism of some sort and the physics "just existing" as part of that reality.

In any case, I wrote in that thread:

• my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.
  
  For example, consider the movie The Matrix. Everyone in the "normal" world is hooked up to a machine and experiencing a type of virtual reality. The experiences are just as real as ours in life. And yet, people "could" potentially come back from the dead in this world, as long as the software is tweaked. People can perform what appears to be "magic" by zipping through the air -- suspending the "natural laws" which are really being largely maintained by a software program that runs the virtual world. Heck, Jesus Chris could actually even rise from the dead in such a world!
  
  Yes, it's just a movie. But here is the thing. Who's to say that the life we experience isn't in some way similar--some form of Idealism. Perhaps the machine and software on which we're running is just God. And yet, the Atheist confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!
  
  Atheism presumes to know reality without giving it any foundation. The world just is. It just runs. It is stable. It is predictable. It's finely tuned for life? "Well, duh--we wouldn't be here otherwise!" We just are. What we hear, see, feel, taste and smell is a true representation of the world. It is just NATURAL. Dead people don't rise from the dead.
  
  An Atheistic reality precludes any questions about how reality might be. There is no "more than meets the eye". Is this not a shallow worldview? A kind of "putting on the blinders" or "burying one's head in the sand"? Some deep-seated faith in ignorance? Let's not ask questions about how reality works and just accept what seems apparent, because to ponder such questions is what? Scarey? Would it burst your bubble?

What many don't perhaps realise, is that this Matrix-like "virtual reality" conceptualist view of reality is increasingly gaining popularity in the world:

• The theory that we might all be living in a computer simulation has gotten so popular among Silicon Valley’s tech elites that two billionaires are now apparently pouring money into breaking us out of the simulation. (Tech billionaires are asking scientists for help breaking humans out of the computer simulation, Business Insider Australia)

Here is a more entertaining YouTube video on the matter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZVeC1gXYNE

The only time we will break out of this simulation is when God's kingdom comes back. That is the real deal, this is just a simulation of sorts.
Also string theory helps support this matrix idea of the universe.

I like your idea

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:14 pm I posted a challenge to Atheists several years ago to discuss the Nature of Reality. What is it ultimately? Many seem unable to move beyond a Materialistic view, although physical laws are clearly defined moving them to Physicalism since such is undeniable. Nonetheless many strongly support a Materialist reductionism of some sort and the physics "just existing" as part of that reality.

In any case, I wrote in that thread:

• my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.
  
  For example, consider the movie The Matrix. Everyone in the "normal" world is hooked up to a machine and experiencing a type of virtual reality. The experiences are just as real as ours in life. And yet, people "could" potentially come back from the dead in this world, as long as the software is tweaked. People can perform what appears to be "magic" by zipping through the air -- suspending the "natural laws" which are really being largely maintained by a software program that runs the virtual world. Heck, Jesus Chris could actually even rise from the dead in such a world!
  
  Yes, it's just a movie. But here is the thing. Who's to say that the life we experience isn't in some way similar--some form of Idealism. Perhaps the machine and software on which we're running is just God. And yet, the Atheist confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!
  
  Atheism presumes to know reality without giving it any foundation. The world just is. It just runs. It is stable. It is predictable. It's finely tuned for life? "Well, duh--we wouldn't be here otherwise!" We just are. What we hear, see, feel, taste and smell is a true representation of the world. It is just NATURAL. Dead people don't rise from the dead.
  
  An Atheistic reality precludes any questions about how reality might be. There is no "more than meets the eye". Is this not a shallow worldview? A kind of "putting on the blinders" or "burying one's head in the sand"? Some deep-seated faith in ignorance? Let's not ask questions about how reality works and just accept what seems apparent, because to ponder such questions is what? Scarey? Would it burst your bubble?

What many don't perhaps realise, is that this Matrix-like "virtual reality" conceptualist view of reality is increasingly gaining popularity in the world:

• The theory that we might all be living in a computer simulation has gotten so popular among Silicon Valley’s tech elites that two billionaires are now apparently pouring money into breaking us out of the simulation. (Tech billionaires are asking scientists for help breaking humans out of the computer simulation, Business Insider Australia)

Here is a more entertaining YouTube video on the matter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZVeC1gXYNE

As an atheist I see nothing wrong with conceptualizing the possibility of what could be, after all there are a lot of questions we don’t have answers to. Yeah the Matrix was an awesome movie; the idea that we are just a brain in a vat being controlled by some outside source, and what we think is real, is just being programmed into our brains? Awesome idea. But as far as believing such an idea is a different story. Until we see evidence of such a reality, I don’t have the option of choosing to believe something like that. What about you?

Ken

I don't believe we're brains in a vat either, for such presumes to know what we do not, that our experience of a physical-material world is ultimately reducible to another material world that we are otherwise oblivious to. The valid question that is raised however, by say the Matrix movie, is how do we truly know what the foundational nature of reality is?

You see, the Materialist confidently asserts that the fundamental nature of reality is physical, that is, the physical order is objective and exists independantly of mind in/of itself as brute fact. Yet, how do they know this? How do you know this? One might rationally claim they'll just use Ockham's razor, but such doesn't allow such a move. Why? Because there are fundamental issues to do with the nature of consiousness, and even in our observable world, which remain unanswered. Indeed, these issues even cause problems to a mechanical physical reality existing as brute fact (some of which you've debated Nils on i.e., free will), and inspire videos like the one I linked to above.

As presented in the video, if the fundamental nature of reality is a virtual reality of sorts, it's not necessarily that another physical world exists that we all reside within and are wired up to some super-computer that generates all reality. Rather, what is being questioned is this fundamental nature of reality, whether it is better understood within something more like Ideal Realism rather than Physical Realism (at least that's my angle). It's not that we're brains in a vat, but rather that the fundamental nature of reality is of a mind over matter rather than matter over mind.

As I see, the possibility for having a real choice to freely act and make decisions, to be responsible and accountable for our actions, can only be had when mind rises up over matter. If reality really is fundamentally matter, our minds reducible to some physical ordering, then in no way can the mind ever rise up over that matter which it arose from. To say it can commits some form a contradiction.

So then, while it might really seem like we make choices, all such is merely an illusion. Consciousness, and feelings of being in control, is merely a strange phenomena actually reduced to a certain physical arrangement that came together. This is what I believe Nil's was trying to explain to you elsewhere, and indeed his logic as I see is sound. That is, it is sound provided the ontology one accepts is reducible to an objective physical reality existing as brute fact.

Kurieuo, I will only comment the last part about free will. As I said several times elsewhere the argument for no free will that I discussed with Kenny is valid also if there is Ideal realism. What “you are” is not restricted to the physical part of you. The argument is a metaphysical argument and is not dependent of a physical world view. Free will seems to require self-creation (or uncaused events that aren’t indeterministic) but that is metaphysically impossible or perhaps backwards causation but there is no evidence that such things exist in our world. Probably such worlds would be impossible to live in (but this is a speculation).

Regarding the other issues in your posts there are lot of things you haven’t understood about one (my) materialistic position. If you are interested we could continue the discussion in the thread you refer to.

Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 1:39 pm Kurieuo, I will only comment the last part about free will. As I said several times elsewhere the argument for no free will that I discussed with Kenny is valid also if there is Ideal realism.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Clearly, a mechanical process where you flick over the first domino to have the last in the series fall over, the dominos in the series have no choice in whether they topple over or not. This is what the physical-material worldview entails. So then, if we are reducible to such a mechanical process, then any supposed expression of choice or action are merely dominos in the series falling over, which fall over because previous ones did.

So while it is rather easy to understand why there can be no free will if we live in a reality where matter is first ("matter is over mind"), it isn't clear why such can't be had if the fundamental nature of reality is actually mind first ("mind is over matter"). In fact, it seems to me that free will must be an immovable part of reality where mind is over matter. Merely asserting free will is impossible for all conceptions of reality, something I've also seen Sam Harris do, doesn't make it so.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 4:25 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 1:39 pm Kurieuo, I will only comment the last part about free will. As I said several times elsewhere the argument for no free will that I discussed with Kenny is valid also if there is Ideal realism.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Clearly, a mechanical process where you flick over the first domino to have the last in the series fall over, the dominos in the series have no choice in whether they topple over or not. This is what the physical-material worldview entails. So then, if we are reducible to such a mechanical process, then any supposed expression of choice or action are merely dominos in the series falling over, which fall over because previous ones did.

Yes

So while it is rather easy to understand why there can be no free will if we live in a reality where matter is first ("matter is over mind"), it isn't clear why such can't be had if the fundamental nature of reality is actually mind first ("mind is over matter"). In fact, it seems to me that free will must be an immovable part of reality where mind is over matter. Merely asserting free will is impossible for all conceptions of reality, something I've also seen Sam Harris do, doesn't make it so.

I have hinted of some arguments.

The argument about “me” I gave in the thread There is no hope..” started:
“1. How I am now depends on how I was at some earlier time some moments ago and the environment between that earlier time and now (and on nothing else).”
This is valid even if you include a nonphysical mind in your world view. What else does how I am depend on?

If I make a decision at a specific time I prefer to think that the decision is rational, that I consciously and/or unconsciously base it on my earlier experiences, thoughts, values, moral, feelings, etc. etc. In another world that is equal up to the time of decision I prefer to think that I will make the same decision. If not, why would I decide otherwise? If there is a random influence I may, but if you exclude randomness (that don’t add to free will) what force would determine a different decision.

Either the world is deterministic or there is randomness. In the first case there is no free will. In the second it has to be shown how sheer randomness adds to free will.

Then there is the argument from luck and the argument from the impossibility of self-creation.

None of these arguments assume a materialistic world view. They are valid even if “mind is over matter”.

Which are your arguments?

Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 12:46 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 4:25 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 1:39 pm Kurieuo, I will only comment the last part about free will. As I said several times elsewhere the argument for no free will that I discussed with Kenny is valid also if there is Ideal realism.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Clearly, a mechanical process where you flick over the first domino to have the last in the series fall over, the dominos in the series have no choice in whether they topple over or not. This is what the physical-material worldview entails. So then, if we are reducible to such a mechanical process, then any supposed expression of choice or action are merely dominos in the series falling over, which fall over because previous ones did.

Yes

So while it is rather easy to understand why there can be no free will if we live in a reality where matter is first ("matter is over mind"), it isn't clear why such can't be had if the fundamental nature of reality is actually mind first ("mind is over matter"). In fact, it seems to me that free will must be an immovable part of reality where mind is over matter. Merely asserting free will is impossible for all conceptions of reality, something I've also seen Sam Harris do, doesn't make it so.

I have hinted of some arguments.

The argument about “me” I gave in the thread There is no hope..” started:
“1. How I am now depends on how I was at some earlier time some moments ago and the environment between that earlier time and now (and on nothing else).”
This is valid even if you include a nonphysical mind in your world view. What else does how I am depend on?

1. Not true. This is a premise (not an argument) and can't possibly apply to Idealism, because it only deals with physical attributes to the exclusion of non-physical factors. Allow me to highlight for you:

• How I am now depends on how I was at some earlier time some moments ago and the environment [i.e., time and the environment—physical factors] (and on nothing else [which would include factors that transcend the physical])

So then, this boils down to a mere assertion that free will isn't possible on any view of reality (i.e., both Physicalism and Idealism). Ergo, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur—what is asserted without reason may be denied without reason.

Nils wrote:If I make a decision at a specific time I prefer to think that the decision is rational, that I consciously and/or unconsciously base it on my earlier experiences, thoughts, values, moral, feelings, etc. etc. In another world that is equal up to the time of decision I prefer to think that I will make the same decision. If not, why would I decide otherwise? If there is a random influence I may, but if you exclude randomness (that don’t add to free will) what force would determine a different decision.

Either the world is deterministic or there is randomness. In the first case there is no free will. In the second it has to be shown how sheer randomness adds to free will.

I agree that randomness doesn't provide free will. In determinism I generally include "randomness" within it, especially when discussing "free will". I think that perhaps randominity is simply a way many Materialists try to ease an otherwise a cold fatalistic view of a physical reality that can't logically support free will. Yet, while true randominity (even if logically can and really does exist) may avoid a strict form of determinism (fatalism), you are right that it still doesn't allow for free will.

I certainly have never argued randominity allows for free will or something vice-versa. To re-use my dominos example, if we flick the first domino over and each one keeps toppling over and eventually reaches a junction where it can go left or right. Let's say which path the dominos will go appears indeterminable to us (i.e., random). Nonetheless, whether it goes left or right isn't influenced by any "will", but rather mechanics that involve one event after the other which also happens to include randominity. It is a more complex mechanics, and if randominity is truly part of the physical order, then our choices and actions are nonetheless still determined via event causation (even if we may not be able to determine such).

"Will" on the other hand is purposeful and requires agency. Such that an agent wills to choose left or right, maybe even halts the dominos at the junction in order to diliberate upon whether to let the dominos start falling to the left or right. On the other hand a "will" that is determined by events exclusive from agency has no freedom to it and perhaps shouldn't really be called a will at all.

Nils wrote:Then there is the argument from luck and the argument from the impossibility of self-creation.

A-huh, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Then there is the argument from our will, which everyone (yourself included) behaves in life as seriously possessing, and no doubt an argument from creativity that could be made.

Nils wrote:None of these arguments assume a materialistic world view. They are valid even if “mind is over matter”.

Again, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. You are in fact assuming a materialistic view (as I pointed out above), and even if they were valid arguments, I see nothing that holds up when we consider reality as being founded upon mind (e.g., as per Idealism).

Nils wrote:Which are your arguments?

Besides QM wherein our conscious decision to observe (mind) impacts upon a physical outcome (the material world), it are those who reject something so blatantly obvious like free will who need to give strong positive argument and evidence to the contrary.

Let me be quite blunt here. It is entirely stupid, I mean ABSOLUTELY STUPID... no, it is complete and utter intellectual foolery, to reject that humans possess a will -- that we possess a will -- that exterts a force over our thinking, beliefs, decisions and actions and ALL that stems out from free will.

What stems out from free will includes our being ultimately responsible and accountable for our actions. There really is some sense of justice to be be had in the world when a person who rapes a child, tortures them and eventually kills them after the course of their sick and sadistic actions end, is found guilty and punished. The question isn't whether justice should be had, but rather whether justice can ever fairly be measured out to make such a person pay for their wickedness.

Furthermore, none of us behave like we aren't responsible for ourselves in our lived life. We're even insulted, deeply insulted, want to strongly defend when someone says our beliefs are stupid. Like how I just called your beliefs stupid, right? What's there to be insulted about. They're not yours, rather mere dominos falling in your head just like mine, well if such beliefs aren't influenced by a will of our own agency.

Final argument, is one of being consistent with who we are and how we live. It is practical for all intents and purposes to believe we have an influential will. To say we don't is to be inconsistent with yourself. I mean, if we don't possess free will and indeed such is logically impossible on all worldviews, then what is the point in debating us on anything Nils? That you do debate us, and even passionately so, and that you even appear to take pride in your position, evidences to me that deep down you don't really believe such nonsense.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:51 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 12:46 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 4:25 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 1:39 pm Kurieuo, I will only comment the last part about free will. As I said several times elsewhere the argument for no free will that I discussed with Kenny is valid also if there is Ideal realism.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Clearly, a mechanical process where you flick over the first domino to have the last in the series fall over, the dominos in the series have no choice in whether they topple over or not. This is what the physical-material worldview entails. So then, if we are reducible to such a mechanical process, then any supposed expression of choice or action are merely dominos in the series falling over, which fall over because previous ones did.

Yes

So while it is rather easy to understand why there can be no free will if we live in a reality where matter is first ("matter is over mind"), it isn't clear why such can't be had if the fundamental nature of reality is actually mind first ("mind is over matter"). In fact, it seems to me that free will must be an immovable part of reality where mind is over matter. Merely asserting free will is impossible for all conceptions of reality, something I've also seen Sam Harris do, doesn't make it so.

I have hinted of some arguments.

The argument about “me” I gave in the thread There is no hope..” started:
“1. How I am now depends on how I was at some earlier time some moments ago and the environment between that earlier time and now (and on nothing else).”
This is valid even if you include a nonphysical mind in your world view. What else does how I am depend on?

1. Not true. This is a premise (not an argument) and can't possibly apply to Idealism, because it only deals with physical attributes to the exclusion of non-physical factors.

It is a statement, it doesn’t deal only with physicalism and it can be applied to Idealism

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:51 am
Allow me to highlight for you:

• How I am now depends on how I was at some earlier time some moments ago and the environment [i.e., time and the environment—physical factors] (and on nothing else [which would include factors that transcend the physical])

The statement 1. can be applied to a world with Idealism. “How I was” then applies to all aspects of you including the idealistic parts as well as “the envireonment” does. This is a matter of standard causation.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:51 am
So then, this boils down to a mere assertion that free will isn't possible on any view of reality (i.e., both Physicalism and Idealism). Ergo, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur—what is asserted without reason may be denied without reason.

It is an argment even if I haven’t argued in detail. See below.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:51 am

Nils wrote:If I make a decision at a specific time I prefer to think that the decision is rational, that I consciously and/or unconsciously base it on my earlier experiences, thoughts, values, moral, feelings, etc. etc. In another world that is equal up to the time of decision I prefer to think that I will make the same decision. If not, why would I decide otherwise? If there is a random influence I may, but if you exclude randomness (that don’t add to free will) what force would determine a different decision.

Either the world is deterministic or there is randomness. In the first case there is no free will. In the second it has to be shown how sheer randomness adds to free will.

I agree that randomness doesn't provide free will. In determinism I generally include "randomness" within it, especially when discussing "free will". I think that perhaps randominity is simply a way many Materialists try to ease an otherwise a cold fatalistic view of a physical reality that can't logically support free will. Yet, while true randominity (even if logically can and really does exist) may avoid a strict form of determinism (fatalism), you are right that it still doesn't allow for free will.

An unusual definition of determinism but I understand what you say.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:51 am

I certainly have never argued randominity allows for free will or something vice-versa. To re-use my dominos example, if we flick the first domino over and each one keeps toppling over and eventually reaches a junction where it can go left or right. Let's say which path the dominos will go appears indeterminable to us (i.e., random). Nonetheless, whether it goes left or right isn't influenced by any "will", but rather mechanics that involve one event after the other which also happens to include randominity. It is a more complex mechanics, and if randominity is truly part of the physical order, then our choices and actions are nonetheless still determined via event causation (even if we may not be able to determine such).

"Will" on the other hand is purposeful and requires agency. Such that an agent wills to choose left or right, maybe even halts the dominos at the junction in order to diliberate upon whether to let the dominos start falling to the left or right. On the other hand a "will" that is determined by events exclusive from agency has no freedom to it and perhaps shouldn't really be called a will at all.

You seems to tend to discard the difference between “will” and “free will”. That’s problematic.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:51 am

Nils wrote:Then there is the argument from luck and the argument from the impossibility of self-creation.

A-huh, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Then there is the argument from our will, which everyone (yourself included) behaves in life as seriously possessing, and no doubt an argument from creativity that could be made.

Nils wrote:None of these arguments assume a materialistic world view. They are valid even if “mind is over matter”.

Again, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. You are in fact assuming a materialistic view (as I pointed out above), and even if they were valid arguments, I see nothing that holds up when we consider reality as being founded upon mind (e.g., as per Idealism).

Nils wrote:Which are your arguments?

Besides QM wherein our conscious decision to observe (mind) impacts upon a physical outcome (the material world), it are those who reject something so blatantly obvious like free will who need to give strong positive argument and evidence to the contrary.

Let me be quite blunt here. It is entirely stupid, I mean ABSOLUTELY STUPID... no, it is complete and utter intellectual foolery, to reject that humans possess a will -- that we possess a will -- that exterts a force over our thinking, beliefs, decisions and actions and ALL that stems out from free will.

What stems out from free will includes our being ultimately responsible and accountable for our actions. There really is some sense of justice to be be had in the world when a person who rapes a child, tortures them and eventually kills them after the course of their sick and sadistic actions end, is found guilty and punished. The question isn't whether justice should be had, but rather whether justice can ever fairly be measured out to make such a person pay for their wickedness.

So being sick and wicked, that’s something you choose to be?

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:51 am
Furthermore, none of us behave like we aren't responsible for ourselves in our lived life. We're even insulted, deeply insulted, want to strongly defend when someone says our beliefs are stupid. Like how I just called your beliefs stupid, right? What's there to be insulted about. They're not yours, rather mere dominos falling in your head just like mine, well if such beliefs aren't influenced by a will of our own agency.

No, I am not feeling insulted when you say my beliefs are stupid. I understand that you either misunderstand my position or that you are ignorant about the consequences. But I have to admit that I think that in a philosophical discussion it is stupid to call a person with other views stupid.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:51 am Final argument, is one of being consistent with who we are and how we live. It is practical for all intents and purposes to believe we have an influential will. To say we don't is to be inconsistent with yourself. I mean, if we don't possess free will and indeed such is logically impossible on all worldviews, then what is the point in debating us on anything Nils? That you do debate us, and even passionately so, and that you even appear to take pride in your position, evidences to me that deep down you don't really believe such nonsense.

Two general points.
You should note that you and I live apparently live in different cultures. The distance between the Scandinavian contries and Austalia isn’t so long in the value survey:
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/images ... lusive.png
But still you intellectual environment seems to be quite different to mine. I live in a mainly secular society and I find it mostly easy to convince friends that there is no free will (maybe because they are atheists). I attended a Stockholm university course in free will some years ago. Before the start the professor asked how many thought that there is free will. About two thirds consented. After the course he asked again and now only one third agreed. A recent international survey on professional philosophers asked among lot of other things the attitude to free will and between ten and fifteen percent said they didn’t believe in free will. A clear majority were compatibilists, i.e. they think free will or at least moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, a view the doesn’t seem to be compatible with your view. So, I am not alone being “ABSOLUTELY STUPID”.

Generally, your use of Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. is misplaced. The topic we are discussing here is rather complex. Some write books about it. I primarily presents the argument but am not able to argue in detail in one post. If you don’t agree or don’t understand we can discuss but that will take lot of discussion rounds because your world view and you intuitions are so different to mine. If you are interested I can go on but there is no use to start such a discussion, trying to explain, if you are not interested. I done that a few times at this forum and in most cases I got no response after a few posts.

Nils

Kurieuo thinks he's hot stuff, now that he's found out how to use the [highlight][highlight]highlight[/highlight][/highlight] feature.

Hey K, how does that highlight feature work?

RickD wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 10:01 am Kurieuo thinks he's hot stuff, now that he's found out how to use the [highlight][highlight]highlight[/highlight][/highlight] feature.

Hey K, how does that highlight feature work?

You'll only ever need to highlight ONE word, so what's the point?

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 12:54 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 10:01 am Kurieuo thinks he's hot stuff, now that he's found out how to use the [highlight][highlight]highlight[/highlight][/highlight] feature.

Hey K, how does that highlight feature work?

You'll only ever need to highlight ONE word, so what's the point?

I was just curious, in case I ever figure out how to put together a group of words.

RickD wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 5:49 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 12:54 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 10:01 am Kurieuo thinks he's hot stuff, now that he's found out how to use the [highlight][highlight]highlight[/highlight][/highlight] feature.

Hey K, how does that highlight feature work?

You'll only ever need to highlight ONE word, so what's the point?

I was just curious, in case I ever figure out how to put together a group of words.