Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
OH is right. The inability to support your stance is a virtue.
|
The familiarity of ad hominem from people with the inability to defend themselves.
Vehemently repeat the same thing like a mentally challenged person ignoring my point then try to dismiss it because they're too narcissistic to accept that they don't know **** they just like to pretend.
It's been my favorite conversation to have since 2011 because on both sides you can't really prove it. Typically I take their stance since it's the uncommon one and I like to challenge conventional thought. The best part is seeing how many people take a hard stance and get frustrated when challenged with points that they can't dispute. It shows how petty and egotistical the average person is. To me, it also makes you look like a blithering idiot. Especially because it's silly to think it actually matters enough to dedicate yourself to an unknowable stance.
Fact of the matter is, a choice is an effect that needs a cause. There is no point in making a decision if there is no effect being caused by your decision. What differs from a pool ball and a human that chooses is that a pool ball has no sense of awareness. It reacts only to the past while a human being has awareness and reacts to what they predict to be the future do to the information a human gathers. The concepts of free will vs predetermination are no where near as comprehensible as they like to make it out to be. And, as you've already pointed out Frown, it might be a false dichotomy. There could be varying levels of free will. Oh, and while this doesn't exactly prove free will exists, quantum particles do actually behave randomly as far as we can tell. So for now, predetermination is kind of debunked. Or at least hasn't been proven.
Remember, there's a reason why the people that actually did the study they jerk off to didn't take a hard stance. They spoke with an uncertain rhetoric. It probably doesn't exist. It doesn't exist as we previously understood it. Etc.