I am legitimate

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So, I think a physicalist would have to deny this premise. They would have to hold that some physical states are uncaused. The only other option is a loop of physical causes.

Well, they do have reason to as there are uncaused events https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-such-thing-as-an-uncaused-event

[Anthony_270 957]

If so, then the argument falls apart, no?

[Guest]

Just now, admin_270 said:

If so, then the argument falls apart, no?

Not fully, since those uncaused events don't apply to free will or brain chemistry.

[Anthony_270 957]

I think the first two premises have to be reformulated, then.

[Guest]

Just now, admin_270 said:

I think the first two premises have to be reformulated, then.

Yes.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Since this is the philosophy thread I figured I'd post my proof that free will can't exist without the supernatural

Premise A:  All physical states as applies to the brain and free will must somehow be caused

Premise B: The brain and its processes which would allow free will to be excercised are physical

Conclusion 1: The brain's mechanisms as applies to free will must be caused in a physical manner

Premise A: From the principle of alternate possibilities we know than an agent can't be held responsible for an action if he couldn't have chosen otherwise

Premise B : Frankfurt cases will never apply as beliefs and wants are caused by brain states which are in turn physical states (and from conclusion 1) must be caused

Premise C (From conclusion 1) If all brain states are physical and hence must be caused then we, the agents, couldn't have chosen otherwise and can't be held responsible for those choices.

Conclusion 2: If the physical world is all that exists free will is impossible.

Premise A: (From conclusion 2) since free will is impossible in a solely physical world something non-physical, an unmoved mover of sorts would have to account for it

Premise B: Since such a mover can't be physical it'd have to be supernatural.

Premise C : And that supernatural would account for free will

Conclusion 3: Free will is impossible in a solely physical world, but is possible if a spiritual world exists.

@LegolasRedbard @Conservative Elector 2

 @vcczar @Patine @WVProgressive @Reagan04 @ThePotatoWalrus

@admin_270 I've slightly reformulated it.

[Reagan04 658]

4 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Since this is the philosophy thread I figured I'd post my proof that free will can't exist without the supernatural

Premise A:  All physical states must somehow be caused

Premise B: The brain and its processes are physical

Conclusion 1: The brain's mechanisms must be caused in a physical manner

Premise A: From the principle of alternate possibilities we know than an agent can't be held responsible for an action if he couldn't have chosen otherwise

Premise B : Frankfurt cases will never apply as beliefs and wants are caused by brain states which are in turn physical states (and from conclusion 1) must be caused

Premise C (From conclusion 1) If all brain states are physical and hence must be caused then we, the agents, couldn't have chosen otherwise and can't be held responsible for those choices.

Conclusion 2: If the physical world is all that exists free will is impossible.

Premise A: (From conclusion 2) since free will is impossible in a solely physical world something non-physical, an unmoved mover of sorts would have to account for it

Premise B: Since such a mover can't be physical it'd have to be supernatural.

Premise C : And that supernatural would account for free will

Conclusion 3: Free will is impossible in a solely physical world, but is possible if a spiritual world exists.

@LegolasRedbard @Conservative Elector 2

 @vcczar @Patine @WVProgressive @Reagan04 @ThePotatoWalrus

 

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Why did you tag me?

 

1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

What's the issue? I just want feedback.

 

1 hour ago, Patine said:

You must have missed a couple of things I've said in the last few days.

This also applied to me.

[Anthony_270 957]

1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

 I've slightly reformulated it.

Looking better.

I'm a compatibilist - I think that determinism and free will are compatible, and so I would push on the "couldn't have chosen otherwise" formulation. In the relevant sense, I would say an agent could have chosen otherwise *even in a deterministic universe*, physical or otherwise. My view comes largely out of working on computer agents who review criteria and make choices, but are deterministic. I would say a computer agent *can* choose A, or *can* choose B. That agent then reviews the relevant criteria internally, ranks the possibilities (so, internal deliberation), and *chooses* A or B. This, in my opinion, is a sense of 'choice' *worth having*. Computer agents, therefore, have free will in a weak sense. We have much more developed free will.

[Guest]

Heres one on matters of identity

https://www.dailywire.com/news/34563/new-york-times-columnist-doles-out-advice-how-deal-emily-zanotti

White shame? Really?

[Guest]

A little thing I thought up

29 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Can a tri-omni God lie? If He is omnibenevolent He can't lie but then He wouldn't omnipotent since there is something He can't do, if He can then He isn't omnibenevolent but is still omnipotent since lying is a form of non-benevolence.

 

[Patine 513]

3 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

A little thing I thought up

 

You're a little late to come to the debating table about the nature of the Christian Trinity and it's component members. These were VERY hot debate topics, even leading to major schisms, official refutations, ecclesiastical councils, denunciations, formal creeds, and other such great events in the first several centuries of the Early Christian Church's existence, before the actual Fall of the Roman Empire. You missed the boat on that debate by over 1500 years.