You decided from the onset that nothing exists outside of the physical, your proof for this is a measurement tool limited only to the physical, and anything presented that is outside of that is either “magic” to be discarded or secretly physical.
Congratulations: you’re a conspiracy theorist.
I understand the free will problem perfectly well, you do not.
See above.
I have not “decided” that imaginary fantasies don’t exist.
I’ve determined that there is not enough evidence available that they’re worth consideration (yet?).
Nice try.
The very fact this argument drones on and on should be an indicator to you that you lack in the area making convincing arguments.
Have you ever effectively convinced anyone of anything on this forum? Pretty sure 100% of the time I see a post from you, you’re neck-deep in debate with someone over ideological differences that you consistently fail to ever outline in a way that gets people in to your lane.
Might wanna evaluate your overall success rate here, my guess is the stats ain’t good.
I know, you claim to have no free will.
No you haven’t, you claim you have no free will.
If I was under the impression I needed to persuade YOU, I’d have just stopped talking to you entirely the moment you proudly declared one of your many irrational beliefs. This is for the benefit of others, not you. You’ve already gouged out your eyes a long time ago while smugly thinking us silly SEEING people are just making things up as per usual…
Yup.
Just because we have no free will doesn’t mean the concept of determining something isn’t real.
You just…can’t seem to understand the concept being presented here.
By definition, no.
You cannot “determine” anything because you cannot “act”, “choose”, “discriminate”, or otherwise perform any such will to power, you simply are.
Like I said, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
This means nothing from someone who has no clue what is being told to them.
I mean it’s a forum. I can scan backwards. Where else do you talk about enforcement. Related to the statement at hand…
I only see one use of the word enforce, before that. It it is talking about physical compliance as well.
And again if you are not talking about physical enforcement. What relevancy does it have to the statement.
One wonders why he continues interacting with you after soon determining you are irrational. Interaction on the presupposition that you will be rational despite verbally asserting you are irrational.
Of course, he soon continued conversation with me after saying he would ignore me.
What is it called when one constantly forgoes statements made previous to future responses within just a few moments of having made them?
I just thought it was extreme e-sexual tension taking the form of a debate about morality and applicable approaches to personal philosophies. Zipzo won though.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.