The question is not a question because it is a prelude to an already-ready answer, petitio principii fallacy. We already know what is free-will, it already makes perfect sense and all is left is to simply evaluate it(despite this being FAR from obvious nor common place knowledge)…geniuses apparently ask questions which they dont answer…its like asking whether triangles have 3 sides and instead of showing clearly they either do or do not, you begin talking about some irrelevant properties of triangles, talking as if they already have or do not have 3 sides. so why even ask the question???to create an illusion of answering it without having to, obviously…you talk about properties so your dullard friends will automatically assume the answer they presuppose because the already agree with you…its thinking without having to do anything thinking…
Choice has nothing to do with free-will…if you had no free-will, you could still make choices but they would not be yours…
ok
will has nothing to do with free-will also in the sense of not explaining anything in of itself.
objective is not everything you can do but something you want…you can make choices you in no way want as objectives…a man is running away from danger and has to choose left or right without knowing if there is mortal danger behind the either corner…he chooses left which leads to his death despite his objective being to survive…choice has nothing to do with objectives.
tragic…this idiot is stuck on his atheistic, naturalistic, reductionistic Yank science worshipping spin-wheel…let him spin…convictions are science…a man cant know if he loves a woman or not or if he is ready to sacrifice for a cause unless scientists come around and confirm it for him…this level of idiocy is worrying…he stopped suggesting morality is scientifically derivable…I wonder why. if a man believes something is wrong or right that another disagrees with…this can be resolved scientifically from bottom to top…scientists can come and do experiments to decide what is wrong and what is right for everybody but evil and good are relative…this dullard needs to stop fucking drinking and using a computer simultenously…
No offence but what you say makes zero sense to me. I dont even have a clue what you are trying to get across and I think you have zero talent for philosophizing.
You’re correct (in essence). Sometimes for arguments you need exposure.
You can’t be angry at those who don’t have exposure.
That’s like being a brain surgeon and asking someone who’s never done it or even read a book on it or even practiced on cadavers or models and expecting to explain it (while they do it).
Wendy, seeing is believing.
Logic is what we condense for those who haven’t seen.
I am not angry at them, they are angry at me. They cannot understand the condensed version, so I need a whiz with words to give them long, detailed exposure.
Creation cannot self-create. Simple logic. Bam, done! The fewer words you use, the uglier they get.
I almost feel like Hermès, bringing words from the spirits to humans. I’m really good at it, but it has its limits.
Maybe you and I should have a discussion first.
A fern that currently exists could have never not existed, otherwise it’d have to come from nothing at all. Every change and identity in existence has to have always existed - otherwise again - from nothing at all.
Wrap your head around that for a while, because we both know nothing at all is not an option.
