Because you won't lose your sense of self just because you don't think you actually choose that's ****ing stupid.

Which is why I said you don't know how to handle the idea and it confuses you. In all reality you'll just accept it and live just as you are now. Well, research shows that some people tend to lose value in morality and tend to act more in self interest but it really depends on your perception.

Free will is the ability to choose. It's not meaningless.

I already made that point about quantum mechanics having nothing to do with free will. Just simply stating that they contradict predetermination that you lean on as evidence for the lack of free will.

I mean it's what makes us different from pool balls. Or any inanimate object. They are not conscious regardless of being other things. Not hard to understand, Batlord. I'm not a ****ing genius, my words aren't that complex.

No, because it's not relying on ignorance as proof and it's not avoiding the point with condescending statements like 'you just aren't there yet'.

It's evidence of randomness in the universe that directly contradicts predetermination.

I just told you that even if there is randomness that doesn't undermine our point that free will doesn't exist.

To make a decision you must believe in free will, even if you don't intellectually believe in it. It's how the human brain works. I employ cognitive dissonance simply to decide to take a drink of water. Take that away and I imagine I'd probably die of dehydration.

Yes it is.

Our awareness does not equal an ability to choose. Simply to observe.

I've noticed.

No it's literally an argument Christians use to leave the door open for God by by relying on ignorance of quantum mechanics, just replace "free will" with "God". That's the joke. We don't know that quantum mechanics are random, simply that they don't appear to follow the same rules as other matter. Calling it evidence of randomness is stupid.

I already said that before you said it.

I never said it disproves free will I said it disproves predetermination.

Don't strawman me.


You're self contradicting because you're confused. If there is no free will then you're never really making a decision so you don't need to believe in something that you don't really believe to do something you can't do.

If you mean that it's meaningless as a concept then how could you argue it doesn't exist yet argue that you need to believe in it? See, you're confused. If you mean it's meaningless as in it doesn't give anything meaning, then I agree. Free will, or the lack of it, is doesn't give anything meaning.

The question wasn't if it gives us the ability to choose (which it would if free will exists) the question is what makes us different from pool balls. Awareness.

Neither are you, so don't get all condescending.

At this time we have determined that quantum physics are random from what we currently understand. Sure, we could be ignorant to other information that would prove it's not random, but at this time there is no uncertainty in the language of the scientists calling them random. Far different from using ignorance as a crutch.

Meanwhile, there is uncertainty in the understanding of free will and if it exists. The reports that it probably doesn't exist also comes from a limited understanding. Just as with the randomness of quantum particles, what they've studied has brought them to that conclusion with the only difference being that they are less certain that free will doesn't exist than they are with the conclusion that quantum particles behave randomly.

So your point is blatantly ironic.

Damn dude, that’s horrifying

Don't stawman me, bro. I don't lean on predetermination as as evidence for the lack of free will. I lean on free will being a meaningless concept.

Ok then. I'm sorry.

But it's not a meaningless concept just because you have a hard time grasping it.

It's the ability to determine an outcome. Pretty simple.





Also, it needs to be pointed out that when I said Bat's view point is irrational as if he doesn't know what to do with the information he has, he assumed I was saying that believing that free will isn't real is irrational when I was saying that his interpretation of the lack of free will is irrational. Because it is. It's irrational confusion because he doesn't know how to deal with it. I didn't want to get into a conversation with him over something as heavy as free will when he can't even handle differing perceptions of Captain America.

Don't ad hominem me, bro. I'm quite the grasper.
Seriously, though, please elaborate on your definition before I take it apart.

The ability to determine an outcome? When faced with two or more possible outcomes you have the ability to choose?

It's there, nothing else to explain.