secularmerlin

(Do not go in there. Yell "catch me if you can" like it's a game and then lead her towards us.)

I'm afraid that without any evidence I have no choice but to dismiss your claims.

(It was the hand. Guys love it when you give them a hand.🤗)

Hmm. Interesting.

It's cool man. I enjoy these discussions regardless. That is why I engage in them. You know technical difficulties aside.

(I know right, he's mine now.)

I think your send key is stuck.

Both earthquakes and human behavior can be unpredictable. If events that are subject to cause and effect (earthquakes, the weather etc) are difficult to predict then being hard to predict isn't an necessarily an indicator of freewill.

In order to predict events one must know there initial conditions and all the events which led to the event in question. That may not necessitate that we go all the way back to the beginning of the universe for every event but in any case where the initial conditions are unknown or in which a step of the causal chain goes undetected predictions become problematic. This is true of earthquakes and human behavior. Perhaps if we had enough information we could make such predictions or perhaps quantum uncertainty makes that idea impossible. In niether case is freewill a necessity to existence.

Only if we knew all the initial conditions of the universe and we don't. Your comment does not reflect my argument.

Zud protect these two wanderers. Let them be steadfast and true in the face of peril today and all the days of their lives. Take on their fear and their uncertainty, make it your own and except Ismark and Ireena as the noble warriors they are. Give us strength mighty Zud for we go forth to protect the children. (with this prayer Eikka casts resistance on them both).

Without a word Eikka takes a desiccated ogre hand from her pouch and hands it to Ismark. It's her war trophy from her days with the bloodknob army. She believes it will give him luck.

(Tactical retreat phbuh.😝)

That one has will does not necessitate that this will be free. Also willing something, whether you are capable of accomplishing it or not is a thing you can do as seperate from the act you are willing (willing to jump to the moon is an action, jumping to the moon, if it could be done, would be a seperate action).

Any ability check really.

Cast guidance. If there is an ability check to find traps I want to pass it.

(Grudging respect for Ismark. Plus he doesn't look half bad as an orc.)

You wouldn't have a link to a peer reviewed scientific paper would you?

Perhaps but citation is necessary in a conversation such as this and if you don't have any then I must dismiss your argument.

@Buddamoose @TheDreadPirateRoberts @kindertina @earth @Drafterman 

Thank you.

I'm sure you just haven't gotten to updating my cantrips?

Feat spell sniper, spell sniper cantrip eldritch blast. Cleric cantrip word of radiance. Do I need to prepare those extra spells now or when I next long rest?

(Whose the stiff?)

Without an explanation of what it means your definition is effectively meaningless. I guess 3ru7al is right about quanta being mostly meaningless.

Ok so what does not mean? You said you know what the ultimate truth means what exactly does it mean? So far you have not told us what it means only that it is what it is.

Taking a swig as she says this last.This 

Doing "good", whatever you consider that to be, is not observable guaranteed to provide "beneficial" results, whatever you consider that to be, as harmful and tragic things happen to good and bad people with relatively equal frequency regardless of the standard you wish to use for those distinctions. 

I predict that you will continue to argue that freewill is fundamental and that you will be unable to understand our epistemological limits. This prediction is based on reasonable expectation built on repeated observation. You do not even seem able to choose to offer evidence rather than the argument that freewill must exist because you can do anything you are capable of.

Let us examine this claim. Axiomatically it is true that you could do anything at any time providing you are physically able to do it.

How would that statement be untrue whether our behavior was simply a product of cause and effect or if there is some extra mechanism like freewill or devine will?

If the statement would still be true regardless of whether or not your claim is false then this axiomatically true statement does not act as proof of your hypothesis.

How exactly did you demonstrate freewill? (Cause) I made a post you disagreed with (Effect) you posted in opposition to my arguments. This demonstrated cause and effect not freewill 

I'm not trying to move the goal post and my only claim in this conversation is that cause and effect are testable and observable while freewill is not. Is there some particular comment I have made that suggests more? If so please draw my attention to it and if need be I will revise or retract that statement.

Are you claiming cause and effect do not exist? My only claim is that cause and effect are observable as having a real quantifiable effect on the universr while the only evidence for freewill is a subjective experience.

That video is an hour and twenty minutes long. What are the chances that in that whole time any evidence for or against the idea of "god worlds" is presented rather than assumed. Honestly I watched thirty seconds before the guy lost me with an unfounded claim.

I quietly translate in primordial for Luraxt's benefit.

What does karma have to do with anything? Other than being part of some faith based beliefs I'm not sure what brought this up.

That is actually very astute. Economics is a faith based system and like all faith based systems it tends to be capable of promoting harm and wellbeing equally.

Indeed what is intrinsic value? That term might be an oxy moron. Value is subjective. Nothing actually has value unless we ascribe value to it so value cannot be intrinsic. Way to ask a serious question in a silly thread. 🤡

There is no way to know. I reject all three claims until one is demonstrated to me as true.

Of course I care. I am quite curious as to the origin of life. I eagerly await any scientific findings in support of these questions and if course you only listed three possibilities. The hypothesis I favor is that everything is a natural product of cause and effect and that the initial conditions of the universe (whatever or whenever that was) unguided by consciousness and that things are not predetermined so much as mindlessly predictable.

We will almost certainly never explore it all however and we will likely never be able to travel back to the moments before the big bang when we have no observable evidence of anything so we will probably never know.

As for life being created even if we assume that the universe itself is evidence if some creator that doesn't tell us anything about this creator other than that it created the univers. We don't know what its morality is like. We don't know if it cares about its creation and we don't know if it is still arround. Any statement therefore about the attributes of this hypothetical being are perforce mere conjecture. Of course we don't really know if the universe was created so the whole discussion of what this creator might be is really irrelevant until such time, if any, that some evidence beyond anecdotal for or against the hypothesis is offered.

Ok I won't eat just leaves.

I'm only saying that looking at two classes of vegetarian monkey does not tell us anything about any diet that is not primarily vegetarian but I will heed your warning and make sure that I do not eat only leaves.

Happy murder and enslave indigenous peoples day to you as well.

Since I don't know of any humans that eat only or even primarily leaves this doesn't seem to be a useful comparison in determining the optimal diet for humans.

You are clearly not amused. And here I thought you understood that thus thread was meant to be amusing. You even referred to it as a joke thread. 

Citation needed for your citation.

I will say this again. I do not know how life originated and so I am not claiming that it came about by any particular method. I reject your claim that it was brought about by some god(s) and I reject any claim that it came about by random chance. I reject all claims concerning the origins of life until some hypothesis can be demonstrated as true. I know life exists but that does not tell me where it came from.