Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Can you not observe someone making a decision? Can scientists not monitor brain activity? Did you not freely post on these forums?You clearly have a long way to go here.
Now we seem to be getting somewhere.
I can observe animals making decisions.
Do you believe that animals also have free will?
Created:
Posted in:
What's the point of Civil Debate?
The goal is to help the other person refine their argument and to have your own argument refined as well. The format is designed to de-incentivize logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks. I would award you points when you make a valid objection to one of my statements and I would hope that you would award me a point if you considered one of my objections to your statements to be valid and helpful.
Maximum of 6 points awarded and 6 points deducted per player per round, and scores can never go below zero.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Please explain how anyone is supposed to detect free will, you know, empirically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I'm not sure what would make you think that. I've always been under the distinct impression that argumentum ad logos was de rigueur.That is not my standard of evidence, it is THE standard of evidence, common knowledge on a debate forum.
You might be better suited to the science forum than the religion forum.
Please explain how anyone is supposed to detect free will, you know, empirically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience.You're welcome. Go.
Thank you for defining your standard of evidence.
However, I have never claimed, and furthermore I have never heard anyone ever claim that free will can be detected by smell, sight, taste, touch, or sound, and as such, free will itself would seem to lie quite obviously outside the scope of your preferred definition of empirical evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You mean, like this ad hom?I remember Goldtop, but I thought they were usually in favor of logic...
That is a sincere complement. I believe you are a reasonable person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God.Do you know what that means?What that points to is The Holy Name, The Eternal Name that is not uttered with words.The letter kills, the spirit gives life.
If your god doesn't have a name (or not uttered with words), why do you keep calling it god?
If your best description of the thing is "Ultimate REality", then why not just say that.
For instance, if you went around telling people something like, "I have devoted my life to the pursuit of Ultimate REality" this would actually make you sound slightly more reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Still as childish as ever. You do realize that's how children talk, E? Lol.
I agree with you on this point, children do have a tendency to rely heavily on ad hominems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Do you not understand the concept of empirical evidence?
There are many types of evidence, thank you for being more specific.
If not, go and educate yourself, then come back and support your claims with evidence.
Are you talking about empirical evidence as defined in definition 3 by Merriam-Webster?
i.e. - capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
Your so-called logic is absurd.
Your attempt to apply scientific laboratory standards of evidence in support of the absence of free will is absurd.
There is no scientific laboratory in history that has ever claimed to have identified anything even remotely like free will.
There is also no scientific laboratory in history that has ever claimed to have identified anything even remotely like god(s).
There are a great many things that lie squarely outside the scope of scientific observation, free will, ghosts, and god(s) are among the most obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Nowhere in the definition of "YHWH" does it say that he exists outside of Hebrew/Christian mythology or is God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Thanks for the note.
I remember Goldtop, but I thought they were usually in favor of logic...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Ah, so it is a reading comprehension problem, as I suspected.[ad hominem]I never said anything about logical support.[hair splitting] I asked you to provide evidence for your claims, which you have yet to do.[appeal to ambiguity/appeal to ignorance/refusal to clarify] If you don't understand the written word,[ad hominem] you have a big problem that no one here can solve other than you.[appeal to ambiguity/appeal to ignorance/refusal to clarify]
Please explain how logic itself fails to meet your standard of evidence.
Perhaps you might provide an example.
Refusal to define your terms is an appeal to ambiguity.
If I have no idea what your standard of evidence is, then there is no hope of satisfying your request.
I am trying to have a reasonable discussion with you on this topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Repeating the same thing over and over is not an argument. You need to support your claims, which you have yet to do.
So your REPEATED claim that I haven't provided logical support is somehow valid, and yet my logical support (which you have repeatedly asked for) is somehow invalid now that you have ignored it multiple times?
Please provide an example of what you are asking for.
Perhaps we don't share the same definition of "logical support".
That being said, I can offer you some logic -
The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)
1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.
Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
And furthermore,
Even non-physical, ghosts, angels, and gods take actions that are (EITHER) part of a causal chain, (OR) NOT part of a causal chain. Any action that is NOT part of a causal chain (first cause or causa sui) is a de facto random event. A random action is not a free action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The problem may be one of reading comprehension.[ad hominem] I did not demand logic nor pretended to do so.[hairsplitting] I asked you to support your claims which you have refused to do.[strawman, playing dumb] You may want to take some remedial reading classes to help you understand the written word.[ad hominem] Go.
That being said, I can offer you some logic -
The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)
1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.
Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
And furthermore,
Even non-physical, ghosts, angels, and gods take actions that are (EITHER) part of a causal chain, (OR) NOT part of a causal chain. Any action that is NOT part of a causal chain (first cause or causa sui) is a de facto random event. A random action is not a free action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I applaud your ability to ignore logic while pretending to demand logic - and your panicked rush to declare victory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have scripture and thousands of years worth of theological thought backing me up, much of which was not in English.Your argument is nonsensical. I know my God. The Ultimate Reality.
I have books much older than the Torah and thousands of years worth of theological thought backing me up, much of which is not in English.
Your argument is nonsensical. I know Vishnu. The Ultimate Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You pretend to demand evidence to support my claims and I have provided a well known standard logical refutation of free will, and you ignored it.
Since your rush to disqualify was so capricious and vague, I chose a single item to use as an example.
You have simply chosen to employ an argument by repetition. You asked for logical support and I provided logical support.
Your claim that I have not provided logical support is provably false.
I have little faith that you are actually reading any of this and yet I will attempt to provide another example for you.
If someone says god(s) do not exist, do you demand evidence that god(s) do not exist?
No.
You either ask them to define more precisely what they mean by god(s) or you provide some sort of counter evidence in support of a god(s) supposed existence.
If they refuse to rigorously define god(s) and insist on a purely vague definition, then they are making an appeal to ignorance and I believe we both agree that "god(s) in the gaps" is not a sound logical argument.
In this case, you can ask me to define more precisely what I mean by free will or you can provide some sort of counter evidence in support of free will's supposed existence.
If you refuse to rigorously define free will and insist on a purely vague definition, then you are making an appeal to ignorance and I believe we both agree that "free will in the gaps" is not a sound logical argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The three you listed aren't the only ones. Abiogenesis is another.
Good point. I'd say abiogenesis is more of a hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
When you say, "You've made some silly claims and bald faced assertions, have you got any evidence for the above?" this is an appeal to ignorance.
The implication being that free will, objective reality, and infinity are valid concepts prima facie and do not require evidence themselves.
I then replied with a well known standard logical refutation of free will, and you ignored it.
If you find a flaw in my logic, please point it out.
If you would like to continue to dismiss and characterize my statements without making any specific critiques or inquiries, please feel free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Please elaborate on what you mean by "a civil debate cheating ring".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
The whole idea is to incentivize open mindedness and encourage logical critique instead of simple bullheadedness and insults/burns/slams/nitpicking.
Ad hominems, appeals to ignorance, appeals to fear, gish gallop, and appeals to false authority rule the public sphere.
Popular debaters like Ben Shapiro use these fallacies ad nauseam to "win" their public debates. He seems to delight is rankling opponents and exciting audiences without actually communicating well reasoned arguments.
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ug0YG4hw0E
Many claim to appeal to cold hard logic at the same time they repeatedly use cheap logical fallacies to sway an audience.
I've spent some time trying to find a simple solution to this common perversion of logic and this is the best idea I've discovered so far.
Please let me know if you know of a better solution, or if you don't believe there is a problem at all, or if you believe there is another way of looking at this situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Thanks, that's a good suggestion.
I was thinking about using the debate interface here and choosing "judicial decision", then stipulating the rules in round one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You are quite entitled to your opinions, and if you have specific, logical objections, I would be more than happy to address them each specifically.
I would expect you, as a reasonable individual, would understand that if someone claims that you can't prove "god" (or free will in this case) doesn't exist, you would ask them to define "god" more explicitly, and offer some evidence in support of their positive claim that such a thing actually exists.
If you find a flaw in my logic, please point it out.
If you would like to continue to dismiss and characterize my statements without making any specific critiques or inquiries, please feel free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I've sketched out a brief idea of having 3 rules of civil debate -
1 - Establish common ground
2 - Never disqualify your opponent
3 - Only your opponent can grant or deduct points - scores can never go below zero
As a practical matter, only rule 3 needs to be enforced. I'd also like to see if generosity (in rewarding points) can be rewarded in the ranking system, even though a particular debate may technically be counted as a loss.
I'd also like to add some upper limit to the points you can award your opponent.
Perhaps 6 points per round would be good, and it would be nice to be able to quote your opponent to show why each point was given or taken away.
The points could be awarded per round, or at the end of the debate if that is easier to implement.
I just wouldn't want someone awarding their opponent something like 20,0000 points in order to game the ranking system.
The whole idea is to incentivize open mindedness and encourage logical critique instead of simple bullheadedness and insults/burns/slams/nitpicking.
I also thought it might be worth considering making a self moderated tie count as a win for both parties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I do love to explore these subjects in excruciating detail.
However, you seem to trying to put me in the position of trying to prove a negative, which is a logical trap.
It would be like someone asking someone to prove there is no such thing as ghosts, or bigfoot.
The natural burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim.
In this case, it would be up to you to present evidence in support of a claim that free will and/or objective reality and/or infinity exists.
That being said, I can offer you some logic -
The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)
1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.
Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
And furthermore,
Even non-physical, ghosts, angels, and gods take actions that are (EITHER) part of a causal chain, (OR) NOT part of a causal chain. Any action that is NOT part of a causal chain (first cause or causa sui) is a de facto random event. A random action is not a free action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Ok, that sounds fair.
I started a topic under philosophy, I'll see if I can drum up some feedback!
Created:
Posted in:
Atheists ostensibly reject superstitious fairy-tales and religious beliefs because they are logically impossible/unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration.
However, a surprising number self-described atheists believe in other obviously false concepts without question.
Below are just a few examples of faith based beliefs held by many atheists.
1) Free-Will
This is often defended as "an essential prerequisite to human happiness" the exact same way that religious people try say that religion is "an essential prerequisite to human happiness".
You will also hear the very common "we can't possibly know therefore I choose to believe". This is exactly the same as the theist that argues for "god in the gaps".
The fact that Free-Will is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.
2) Objective Reality
This is often defended as "an essential prerequisite to human sanity" the exact same way that religious people try say that religion is "an essential prerequisite to human morality".
The fact that Objective Reality is logically unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.
3) Infinity
Phrases get tossed around like, "infinite potential" and "infinite possibilities" and "the infinite cosmos". Max Planck has shown that our reality is NOT infinitely divisible, and we can extrapolate logically that human potential may be "unknown" but it is certainly not "unbounded".
The fact that Infinity is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific explorationis dismissed out-of-hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I'd also like to add some upper limit to the points you can award your opponent.
Perhaps 6 points per round would be good, and it would be nice to be able to quote your opponent to show why each point was given or taken away.
The points could be awarded per round, or at the end of the debate if that is easier to implement.
I just wouldn't want someone awarding their opponent something like 20,0000 points in order to game the ranking system.
The whole idea is to incentivize open mindedness and encourage logical critique instead of simple bullheadedness and insults/burns/slams/nitpicking.
I also thought it might be worth considering making a self moderated tie count as a win for both parties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I really like that you have the options for "open voting" and "judicial decision".
I would like to request that you consider adding an option for "self moderated" where each participant can grant (and deduct) points to their opponent with the stipulation that scores can never go below zero.
I've sketched out a brief idea of having 3 rules of civil debate -
1 - Establish common ground
2 - Never disqualify your opponent
3 - Only your opponent can grant or deduct points - scores can never go below zero
As a practical matter, only rule 3 needs to be enforced. I'd also like to see if generosity (in rewarding points) can be rewarded in the ranking system, even though a particular debate may technically be counted as a loss.
Created:
Posted in:
Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Every definition of truth requires facts.
Facts are indisputable.
Just like a court of law, both the prosecution and defense must agree on the facts.
If you and your opponent disagree about a fact, you must immediately stop the debate and negotiate the point of disputed fact.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Just like a boxing champion, you are only as good as your opponent.
Ridicule is below the belt.
Use logic.
Your identity cannot qualify or disqualify sound logic.
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
When your opponent makes a valid objection, you have the option to award them a point.
Valid objections strengthen your argument.
Help your opponent strengthen their position by presenting a steel man.
The best debates are the ones that force you to learn something new.
Created: