Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mark Quayle" data-source="post: 77655400" data-attributes="member: 410020"><p>That was not the point of my response, is why. However, you have handily succeeded in sliding the attention away from where it had been. </p><p></p><p>But would you like to argue with me about my position on free will? We can do that, and probably (at first) keep closer to the intended subject of the thread. I believe in "will"; but, "free"? —not so much. Why? Because of the principle of causation, (i.e. the law of causation and the prevalence of causation. I have never seen anything that was not caused. Need more? </p><p></p><p>Then you should have said that is the OP's premise —not that is the determinist's premise. Maybe even, that is the premise of one of the determinists. </p><p></p><p>I happen to agree with the words of your first sentence here in this last paragraph. But probably not with your meaning of them. A moral agent is only free in that he does indeed choose. He is still bound by causation. He is not free to be uninfluenced by the aggregate of causes upon him, nor can he operate independent of causation. In fact, there is no difference. One is just another way of saying the other, and both are bogus concepts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mark Quayle, post: 77655400, member: 410020"] That was not the point of my response, is why. However, you have handily succeeded in sliding the attention away from where it had been. But would you like to argue with me about my position on free will? We can do that, and probably (at first) keep closer to the intended subject of the thread. I believe in "will"; but, "free"? —not so much. Why? Because of the principle of causation, (i.e. the law of causation and the prevalence of causation. I have never seen anything that was not caused. Need more? Then you should have said that is the OP's premise —not that is the determinist's premise. Maybe even, that is the premise of one of the determinists. I happen to agree with the words of your first sentence here in this last paragraph. But probably not with your meaning of them. A moral agent is only free in that he does indeed choose. He is still bound by causation. He is not free to be uninfluenced by the aggregate of causes upon him, nor can he operate independent of causation. In fact, there is no difference. One is just another way of saying the other, and both are bogus concepts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
Top
Bottom