Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the context of the OP, I've never seen someone escape a rape charge because they were predetermined to commit rape.

Is the reason for your position really something like "the law seems to assume that free will exists, therefore it must exist" or are you deliberately trying to distract from your lack of a rational answer to the question?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the context of the OP, I've never seen someone escape a rape charge because they were predetermined to commit rape.

It used to be considered a husband couldn't rape his wife, as was expected of her to submit to his sexual lusts. They were married, and that used to be all that mattered.
But, we have adjusted this so that it includes consent even within a marriage, even though this would have been unheard of and unthinkable even just a couple centuries ago.
Laws are constantly changing, and it's futile to try to use them to demonstrate the existence of free-will, as all it really does is demonstrate how inconsistent law is, how non-universal it is, and how we are constantly having to update it and change things as we learn knew things. The same would be done if free will is demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to not exist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

HOW do you know? Just repeating your claim isn't evidence.


Determinists say it only feels like you have free will. The fact that you feel like you have free will doesn't refute their position or support yours.


To save us all time, don't presume to know what I'm thinking or what I'm planning to do. You aren't very good at it.

HOW do you know that what everyone on Earth calls free will is the illusion of free will? Even you call it an illusion of free will because you see choices made as the exertion of free will. Just repeating your claim, which goes against what most people (except Calvinists and those atheists who understand free will implies moral responsibility) understand to be self-evident!

 

[BilliardsBall]

It used to be considered a husband couldn't rape his wife, as was expected of her to submit to his sexual lusts. They were married, and that used to be all that mattered.
But, we have adjusted this so that it includes consent even within a marriage, even though this would have been unheard of and unthinkable even just a couple centuries ago.
Laws are constantly changing, and it's futile to try to use them to demonstrate the existence of free-will, as all it really does is demonstrate how inconsistent law is, how non-universal it is, and how we are constantly having to update it and change things as we learn knew things. The same would be done if free will is demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to not exist.

I agree, the laws are evolving, however, laws will continue to uphold free will (criminals choose criminal actions) as they evolve.

Free will is considered self-evident to most people, therefore, calling free will an "illusion" admits that you also see that free will is there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

HOW do you know that what everyone on Earth calls free will is the illusion of free will?

I don't. I see no way to conclude OR rule out free will or determinism.

Now will you answer the question?

Even you call it an illusion of free will because you see choices made as the exertion of free will. Just repeating your claim, which goes against what most people (except Calvinists and those atheists who understand free will implies moral responsibility) understand to be self-evident!

I haven't made a claim on this matter at all, so I have no idea why you think I've repeated a claim.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Free will is considered self-evident to most people, therefore, calling free will an "illusion" admits that you also see that free will is there.

It used to be evident the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The existence of Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy have been and are self-evident to millions of children. Belief doesn't make something real, just as we know people weren't demonically possessed or attack by a wizard just because people believed they were, and it was self-evident, but rather we know today people have mental disorders and disturbances and become infected with bacteria and viruses.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It used to be evident the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The existence of Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy have been and are self-evident to millions of children. Belief doesn't make something real, just as we know people weren't demonically possessed or attack by a wizard just because people believed they were, and it was self-evident, but rather we know today people have mental disorders and disturbances and become infected with bacteria and viruses.

Explaining that some beliefs are true and some beliefs are false neither invalidates the Bible nor proves it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Explaining that some beliefs are true and some beliefs are false neither invalidates the Bible nor proves it.

I was explaining that things considered "self evident" are not valid for proving something.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was explaining that things considered "self evident" are not valid for proving something.

"Self evident" is just the "argument of obviousness" pretending to be cromulent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Self evident" is just the "argument of obviousness" pretending to be cromulent.

I consider it nothing more than "common sense" repackaged.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I was explaining that things considered "self evident" are not valid for proving something.

That is correct, having a self-evident belief, even if most people have it, is not sufficient evidence for proving the reality of something, yet it:

1) Shows close correlation/likely probability

2) Most persons believe in self-evident things that are also true

3) Most persons believe in self-evident things that there is much evidence for

Atheists disbelieve in God. Most people think atheists are atypical/abnormal, and in the realm of God belief, they are--recently, atheists have begun to point to genetic markers responsible for God belief, if this is true, then atheists are abnormal on a genetic plane.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1) Shows close correlation/likely probability

Not at all. Correlation does not establish causation, and this correlation cannot be established simply based on how many people believe in something. Such as, many people believe guys with large hands and feet have a larger penis, and that African American men have especially large penises. But there is no actual evidence of this, and it's just not how things work.

2) Most persons believe in self-evident things that are also true

If something is "self-evident," that does not prove something true. If something is true, there are much better and superior arguments to use than "self-evident." Such as, gravity, which is self-evident, but we tend to say something like "try jumping off a building and see what happens." It may seem self-evident, but actually we have things like the law of gravity and lots and lots and lots of experience with it to know what will happen if we try jumping off a building.

3) Most persons believe in self-evident things that there is much evidence for

It doesn't matter what most people believe. The entire country of Germany will agree, that indeed millions and millions and millions of people can be wrong about things that seem apparent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists disbelieve in God. Most people think atheists are atypical/abnormal, and in the realm of God belief, they are

Most of the people who think atheists are wrong think that you're wrong, too. Any given person's beliefs are going to go against the beliefs of "most people."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at all. Correlation does not establish causation, and this correlation cannot be established simply based on how many people believe in something. Such as, many people believe guys with large hands and feet have a larger penis, and that African American men have especially large penises. But there is no actual evidence of this, and it's just not how things work.

If something is "self-evident," that does not prove something true. If something is true, there are much better and superior arguments to use than "self-evident." Such as, gravity, which is self-evident, but we tend to say something like "try jumping off a building and see what happens." It may seem self-evident, but actually we have things like the law of gravity and lots and lots and lots of experience with it to know what will happen if we try jumping off a building.

It doesn't matter what most people believe. The entire country of Germany will agree, that indeed millions and millions and millions of people can be wrong about things that seem apparent.

Hi,

We would need to talk about "weak correlation" and "strong correlation". For example, there is an immensely strong correlation between being a person and believing in a living God or gods.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We would need to talk about "weak correlation" and "strong correlation". For example, there is an immensely strong correlation between being a person and believing in a living God or gods.

Most people do believe in some sort of god concept, true. But that itself is not proof to prove god. It's also true that most people who believe in some sort of god hold that most other people who believe in god are wrong. Even within Christianity, this puts you in a very slim portion of those who agree with you while the overwhelming majority of other Christians say you are wrong.
So have two statements:
Most people believe in god - true
Most people who believe in god think their belief is the only correct view - true
These two statements are both true. But most people believing in god cannot alone make god true because it is also true that most people will reject the religion of any one random individual from this group as true. Thus, it would follow that if commonality of a belief makes the belief true, we are left with a logical shortcoming as most people will say the religion of any one random person is wrong, something that should say god is not real as that is what most people believe (because ultimately no ones god would stand undismissed), but, yet, somehow because people do believe in some sort of god, so what are we left with?
The very fact most people do not agree as to what a god or afterlife is, their nature, and existence (or, morality, as I believe we were discussing), or the fact that god must be real because most people believe in a god? They obviously both cannot be true, but yet both have accuracy their

We would need to talk about "weak correlation" and "strong correlation". For example, there is an immensely strong correlation between being a person and believing in a living God or gods.
statements that make appeals to popularity. That is why any argument based upon how many people follow or like or adhere to something proves absolutely nothing more than the number of people who participate.
And that is before we get to science. Correlation does not mean causation, and correlations do not ever prove anything. Such as, there is a good correlation between having Asperger's (and I've also read autism in general) and not believing in god. This is why wording is very important in science, because your statement would imply those such as myself are not a person because we have a higher correlation in the opposite direction. But our lack of belief (or anyone's) does not make us less of a person. Scientists are another group that has a higher correlation of not being religious/theist, but that does not mean a scientist will be an atheist/agnostic, and indeed there are many religious and spiritual scientists out there. Which also goes back to just because something has a higher correlation or more of widely held/popular belief does not necessarily make the statement true outside of looking at how many people follow/like a certain thing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most people do believe in some sort of god concept, true. But that itself is not proof to prove god. It's also true that most people who believe in some sort of god hold that most other people who believe in god are wrong. Even within Christianity, this puts you in a very slim portion of those who agree with you while the overwhelming majority of other Christians say you are wrong.
So have two statements:
Most people believe in god - true
Most people who believe in god think their belief is the only correct view - true
These two statements are both true. But most people believing in god cannot alone make god true because it is also true that most people will reject the religion of any one random individual from this group as true. Thus, it would follow that if commonality of a belief makes the belief true, we are left with a logical shortcoming as most people will say the religion of any one random person is wrong, something that should say god is not real as that is what most people believe (because ultimately no ones god would stand undismissed), but, yet, somehow because people do believe in some sort of god, so what are we left with?
The very fact most people do not agree as to what a god or afterlife is, their nature, and existence (or, morality, as I believe we were discussing), or the fact that god must be real because most people believe in a god? They obviously both cannot be true, but yet both have accuracy their

We would need to talk about "weak correlation" and "strong correlation". For example, there is an immensely strong correlation between being a person and believing in a living God or gods.
statements that make appeals to popularity. That is why any argument based upon how many people follow or like or adhere to something proves absolutely nothing more than the number of people who participate.
And that is before we get to science. Correlation does not mean causation, and correlations do not ever prove anything. Such as, there is a good correlation between having Asperger's (and I've also read autism in general) and not believing in god. This is why wording is very important in science, because your statement would imply those such as myself are not a person because we have a higher correlation in the opposite direction. But our lack of belief (or anyone's) does not make us less of a person. Scientists are another group that has a higher correlation of not being religious/theist, but that does not mean a scientist will be an atheist/agnostic, and indeed there are many religious and spiritual scientists out there. Which also goes back to just because something has a higher correlation or more of widely held/popular belief does not necessarily make the statement true outside of looking at how many people follow/like a certain thing.

I understand. Fortunately, we have more than close correlation (everyone believes except a minority). We have fulfilled prophecy and the truths and reliability of the Bible to lean upon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi,

We would need to talk about "weak correlation" and "strong correlation". For example, there is an immensely strong correlation between being a person and believing in a living God or gods.

This sure sounds like an attempt at an appeal to popularity, IMO.

BTW: you really need to learn more about what correlation actually means and implies:

A classic example of “correlation does not imply causation” is the famous story that ice-cream sales over the course of a year tend to correlate with the number of drownings. Does this mean that, say, eating ice-cream causes significant groups of children to go sugar-crazy and fall in a lake? Or, even more bizarrely, that while people are drowning they suddenly consume a lot of ice-cream? Well, unsurprisingly, no. ice-cream sales tend to go up in summer, a time when people also spend more time swimming outdoors, so rising ice-cream sales and increased drownings are both caused by warmer weather but aren’t related directly.

Correlation and Causation

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand. Fortunately, we have more than close correlation (everyone believes except a minority).

It seems bizarre to me that a Christian evangelist would be glossing over the differences between religions. For instance, Muslims think that your Trinitarian god doesn't exist. Why would you lump them in with yourself unless you thought that the differences between their god and your god don't matter?

We have fulfilled prophecy and the truths and reliability of the Bible to lean upon.

Until you've actually demonstrated either of these things, don't lean too hard.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This sure sounds like an attempt at an appeal to popularity, IMO.

BTW: you really need to learn more about what correlation actually means and implies:



Correlation and Causation

I understand how to parse correlation and causation. I also understand the difference between strong and weak correlation. I also don't want to play semantics with you--because then almost every scientific proof and axiom is describing correlation and not causation!

 

[BilliardsBall]

It seems bizarre to me that a Christian evangelist would be glossing over the differences between religions. For instance, Muslims think that your Trinitarian god doesn't exist. Why would you lump them in with yourself unless you thought that the differences between their god and your god don't matter?


Until you've actually demonstrated either of these things, don't lean too hard.

Slow down a bit. First, we are discussing how it is that most persons believe in a god(s).

Second, we can see how likely it is that God being prescient, would reveal Himself particularly through predictive prophecy.