So when I have a kid he could have wings, because it is theoretically possible for extreme genetic mutations to take place? Why?
I know that responses like mine only add to the reasons why the debate section is getting removed, but you have such delusions towards the nature of existence that as I read your post I bit my lip so hard it drew blood. So people have these invisible and completely undetectable "souls" huh? The same way god is invisible and undetectable? And you take all of this to be true, only because you want to believe in free will? We have a winner here. Admitting to making up evidence to support your conclusions? Tell me it aint so? I could say the wind was created by invisible unicorns flying around, but it wouldn't make it true.
You put that perfectly. I am a strong believer in free will. Although I am an atheist, and a strong believer and advocate of science, I consider my belief in free will somewhat faith based... that is, based on faith in the fact that my feelings of freedom are not false. I strongly recommend watching this video (in two parts on YouTube). It was very interesting, and provided allot of points of view that are intriguing. Please, if you start watching, and find yourself able, keep watching until it is over... I know parts can be somewhat dry, boring, or difficult to keep up with, but I believe you will consider it a worthwhile venture, ultimately. Even if you do not agree/believe. YouTube- Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 1 of 2 YouTube- Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 2 of 2
That's an idea I've been entertaining for quite some time now, but it's led to something that I can only call a conflict of beliefs. If you reject judgmentalism, how can you keep the right to advocate for anything?
I related them to determinism because it explains the 6th dimension as a fold, and there is a fold for each potential future of a person or being. I basically interpreted this to mean that if all the different futures of a being exist in the 6th dimension, that the choices of the being basically dictate which future they experience. Edit: Sorry I didn't clarify that in my original post.
There's no need to advocate anything, seeing as nothing matters. That being said, you could just become a hypocrite and advocate things anyway, seeing as it wouldn't matter.
Talk about not giving a ****. I admire that. But Hitler's too easy...what about Mark David Chapman? Should what those people did ought to have not happened? I suspect you could be right, though.
If you believe in determinism, then you recognise that events are universally predestined to happen, so your personal opinions and desires really don't matter. Our idea of 'existence' is just an illusion created by our crude memories, senses and ability to think. Nothing is preventable and consciousness is just a by-product of evolution. Ought to have not happened? But it did happen! Coin tosses are determined by initial force, force direction, coin air friction, air temperature, coin weight, coin shape, as well as a plethora of other variables, which are acted upon by other variables: you wouldn't chalk it down to "luck" or "chance", so why would the actions a human brain seems to perform be any different? Determinism is depressing, and I really liked The Beatles.
Can we separate the concept of determinism that says there is strict predestination for all of nature, from a version says that human free will is much more illusionary that it seems because of our subconscious decision-making process? I think the Mark David Chapman example is a bit flawed because it's in the past, and has a connotation of regret that I didn't mean for. What about a future event? Suppose someone has announced that they intend to kill Ringo Starr. What ground do I have to stand on to say, "hey guy! Maybe consider not doing that." Let me modify the question I asked earlier: If you reject judgmentalism [of past events], how can you keep the right to advocate for anything [or, be judgmental about future events]? This bothers me because I do reject judgmentalism, for reasons of the weaker version of determinism that I described above. And yet, I don't believe that it's the right thing to do to tell people that advocacy is futile. It's going to take me a while to pin down the reason for this, but I'll think about it today.
If you say or think that, it's already been predestined to happen though. Future events are as immutable as past events. You can advocate things and be judgemental about future events whilst still believing in hard determinism: but you also lose the belief that you have a "right" to do so. Instead, you'd recognise that your motivations are beyond your control, and self existence is a hollow, meaningless thing. Advocacy isn't futile in a social context, because you might get exactly what you want, but in the 'grand scheme of things', it wouldn't matter.
We live in a state of free will so there is no real reason to believe in determinism, so long as we can not see our own futures then we shall always continue to live in a state of free will. Religious beliefs would also dictate a notion of free will, and even without religious interference we would always live as if though we were free willed As stated by the OP the key word is "Prediction". I can predict that he will put the dollar in the vending machine rather than four quarters. But there is always a a chance he might do the other. I can predict it will rain, but there is always the chance it might not. Einstein himself believed in determinism but he could never find an answer for it.
Look I don't much care for this debate or any debate at all right now but I do care about Einstein. You didn't need Einstein to prove your point so why you would make something up and slander him is beyond me. Einstein believed in determinism so far as you do. He was just willing to admit it. The basic jist of it is, God knows everything therefore all events must occur within God's knowledge of the future for if there were uncertainty God would not be omniscient.
No. His parents were non-observing Jews, and he attended a Catholic school as a child, but that seems to be the extent of his Catholicism. Anyway, that's off topic. Lets get back to discussing a philosophical theory that is inherently unprovable, but looks and feels like there is free will.
And Hitler approved of vegetarianism, and Newton was into alchemy. Using the beliefs of historical figures is hardly compelling evidence. Additionally, I don't think you understand the OP, RR.