Nein. That merely influences my views. But again, I am lucky (I guess) in that my irrational prejudices leave me no option but to accept the most logical conclusion.

If that was true you wouldn't post irrelevant articles that have nothing to do with free will as a desperate attempt to inject uncertainty. You believe in free will in a way that rejects falsifiability in the same way as a Christian brings up the shroud of Turin as evidence of the existence of Jesus. It doesn't matter if I bring up how the shroud of Turin has been debunked because the mere introduction of uncertainty is something to cling to.

Yeah see I don't believe you. I think you throw up logic-y sounding **** to give you a cushion so that you can have your cake and eat it too. You get to be skeptical but also still entertain the idea that you have free will.

Actually idc if i have free will because rather i do or dont has literally no effect on the way i can live my life. Its the same reason agnostic athiest is the most logical position unless you are taking a hard position against specific god claims.

You don't think that the way that brains function plays a role in determining whether or not any decision making is involved with our actions?

There is only one corrext answer to the question do humans have free will?

I dont know.

Agnostic atheists are just atheists. They take an academic logical position but they still don't believe in god and live as if god doesn't exist the same as hardline atheists. It's basically logical aesthetics at that point that atheists on forums argue for the sake of brownie points. It's really not the same thing as a logical position on free will because free will is a concept that is central to human thought in a way that even god beliefs aren't.

No.

I don't know is a half-measure. Whether or not we have free will impacts all of human existence, especially since humankind exists and thinks as if we do. For instance how much of the criminal justice system operates on the assumption of free will? All of it? Or at least as much of it as we can justify so that we can continue to give criminals the stink eye. What if humanity decided to set their emotions aside and accept that whatever might be falsifiable free will is easily the less likely assumption? An end to punishment as justice and an eye for an eye?

The assumption of free will has vast and unquantifiable implications for society and if there is a more logical default stance that probably actually reflects reality and we ignore it then we are ignoring what will probably actually have the most effective influence on society.

Of course none of this matters since we're probably just automatons with no worth but perhaps our existence as a species could be made less miserable if we came to a more reasonable and accurate assessment of the nature of consciousness.

Much fallacy. Much tired. Good night.

Bruh I've had countless mindless debates on internet forums with atheists on both sides throwing around smug accusations of logical fallacies and it's largely a circle jerk. Everyone uses vapid logical frameworks that ultimately end up as justifications for right wing gamergate nonsense because white privilege is hard to prove therefore the left are emotionally pleading snowflakes. You're using exactly that kind of logic and declaring superiority because of it but really you're just mentally stunted.

People aren't magical.

We're just chemicals, compiled into certain structures and in certain proportions.

Understand those particles, and you can perfectly predict every "action" that a formation of matter will take. Even environmental factors and quantum randomness can be injected into the equation and accounted for, though obviously we still have a long way to go in being able to accurately gauge such complex ****.

There is no "ability to freely make your own decisions", when the decision that you make is the only one that you ever would have made given any particular equation of formation that you happen to exist in.

Your personality. The information that you have. Your willingness to seek out more information. Every function of your conciousness, which is entirely dependent on the physical structure of your mind and the neurochemicals within. It's all just particles reacting to other particles.

What do any of your last couple posts have to do with you not meeting your burden of proof and being unjustified in your claim of no free will? I dont really care what internet athiests argue about or their justifications unless they us logical reasoning. Tons of athiests are athiests for bad reasons and the gnostic vs agnostic part is the most important part. Gnostic athiests are just as illogical as thiests except when using evidence to debunk specific god claims ie zeus throwing lightning bolts.

Seems to me like youre the one acting superior claiming to know something you cant possibly know.

Church

Mosque

Yes

Brains undergo a decision-making process influenced by environment and past experience. Far from magical and the permanence of a decision doesn't discount that decision-making process. If we programmed a robot to base its actions on environmental factors and past experience, I'd consider the resulting actions to be the robot's choice.

Why? That's just arbitrary.

I would say that it's because brains undergo a decision-making process influenced by environment and past experience. Far from magical and the permanence of a decision doesn't discount that decision-making process. If we programmed a robot to base its actions on environmental factors and past experience, I'd consider the resulting actions to be the robot's choice.

:(

Why are you using the word "choice"? It's meaningless without unpredictability. You sound like you're just taking the feeling of having choice at face value.

Because of the range of options that exists.

I disagree.

Why do you assume there are a range of options?

You have an odd idea of what qualifies as a choice.

Because I can either pick up a piece of paper or leave it on the floor. My picking up that piece of paper being predictable doesn't mean that the option to leave it on the floor doesn't exist.

I know a true Scot when I see one.

Yes. Yes it does. If it could be predicted then you physically could never have left the paper on the floor. Otherwise it wouldn't be predictable.

Nah, for it to not exist it would have to be a physical impossibility.

That is what I am saying.

*leaves a piece of paper on the floor*

That felt physically possible but I could be wrong.

Except for you. You're magical.

Plenty of crackheads probably felt they could fly until they couldn't. Why on earth would you think how you "feel" is in any way meaningful. I think OH is right and you're simply "not there" yet.

Ahh, so you believe in destiny.

In addition to my consideration that leaving the piece of paper on the ground was physically possible, I also demonstrated it. Are you able to support your stance without false equivalencies?

No, they'll probably resort to ad hominem when confronted with the idea that they don't know.

Edit: I'm fairly certain they scoff at people that claim that they were destined to do or be something despite the fact that it's literally what they believe.

How did you demonstrate anything? You just said "I feel like I could have made a different decision and that's evidence enough for me." You might as well be a Christian asked how they know God exists and responding "Cause Jesus died for our sins." You're using what you think is true as evidence for it being true.

I demonstrated that it's physically possible to leave it on the ground and to pick it up, which you said was physically impossible.

I scoff at people who claim destiny as if it were a conscious entity or magical force guiding their lives like God or astrology. And "I don't know" isn't a reasonable stance to stop at because it ignores the reality that believing one and not the other influences how society views itself and their actions resulting from that, and being agnostic is tantamount to believing in free will because you're just going to accept the status quo which is belief in free will. All the circle jerk rationalist garbage in the world isn't going to make you woke.

No you're strawmanning me. You know full well what I'm talking about so don't play dumb.

Looks like you're more concerned with the implications of free will than determining what's true.

How are you going to prove it? I can't prove god doesn't exist but I'm still going to live as if he doesn't.

Kinda been my question for a while now mate.

But destiny wouldn't be a 'magical' force since it would be natural. Same with free will if it existed.

If anything it's YOU who are trying to sound 'woke' with the 'I know free will doesn't exist' bull****. And, again, it's calling things 'magical' or throwing preconceived notions of what I believe being you using ad hominem to cover up the fact that you don't know because you can't take the fact that you don't know. It's the equivalent of me claiming that you don't want to believe in free will because it makes the self imposed doom of humanity more digestible if you think it was destiny rather than choice.

I don't believe in free will. I've said that already on here plenty of times. I'm not going to claim that I know free will doesn't exist and I'm not going to pretend it's a fact to fit my own beliefs. That's just grossly narcissistic and masturbatory to claim that you know, it's fact and that anybody that believes in free will just wants to feel 'magical' or 'isn't there yet'.

Which you contradict by saying things like "I feel like I have a choice between picking up and not picking up a piece of paper" like some damn Christian.

Okay?

I never said that. I said that the option to do both exists because they are physically possible to perform.