Search results for query: *

So subjective definitions are worthless then? We aren't talking aboput biological sex, or chromosomes, or sex cells. We're talking about gender identity. And if I removed your brain and kept you alive as just a brain in a jar, would you still think of yourself as a woman? Or would you say, "I...

Any definition of "womanhood" based on something like chromosomes or body structures is fundamentally flawed. There will always be some exception that the people proposing such definitions will disagree with.

I disagree with the implication that Humanity is as close to perfect that something can be without actually being perfect. I also disagree with the implication that anything that is not above Humans (a term which is undefined to begin with) must be equivalent to Humans.

I think you need to show evidence for P3. I mean, yeah, it's a concept that Humans have, but if there is a God, why could this God have not also come up with the same concept? I also disagree with C3, as I think it's based on a false dichotomy, that things are either perfect or ordinary. I...

You are missing my point because those are not starting from the same place. And there is nothing in the calculation of pi that introduces an element of randomness. My point was that if we were able to rewind the universe back to some previous state, then let it play out again, we would find...

I've clearly stated what my position is, several times. Once again you are arguing against a strawman of my position. I have NEVER claimed that cause and effect is wrong.

Good Lord... I'm, not saying that if things are unpredictable then we can literally travel back and forth in time, for crying out loud. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a HYPOTHETICAL? I'm saying that IF things are unpredictable, and IF we COULD rewind the universe and play it again, we...

Yes it does. If unpredictability still allows for the universe to be rewound and then played again, then an outside observer could remember the outcome and then introduce that knowledge. For example... The outside observer ("OO" for short) watches the week play out from Monday to Friday. OO...

How can you say they are free of influence when they are by necessity going to be the same each time? You seem to be determined to miss my point. If what happens is happening by necessity, then we do not have free will, since we can not choose to do anything different. And don't even think...

Irrelevant. If there is a necessary outcome, then it will happen no matter what. It can't be changed, and thus I have no choice in the matter. At best, I only THINK I have free choice. I have pointed this out many times now. You miss the point. Doing anything differently is IMPOSSIBLE. And...

But that unpredictability is what makes the outcome impossible to predict. It means that the outcome is NOT set in stone, it is NOT inevitable, and that whatever happens is NOT the one sequence of events that must necessarily happen. And since the outcome is not set in stone, it is flexible, and...

Sorry, do you think that writing something in italics means it's true? If the universe, when rewound, will end up the same, then we will end up with the same intentions. There is no avoiding having the same intentions. The intentions will be the same out of necessity. Free will can not exist...

You have that entirely back to front. A person who hold a gun to my head and tells me to give him my money is not controlling my free will. I can still choose to not cooperate. All he is doing is providing a motivational effect. He is not FORCING the outcome. However, in the scenario where the...

Now, you will no doubt tell me that an event that will necessarily happen is not inevitable, and an event that is inevitable doesn't mean it's necessarily going to happen, because all you have is quibbling over wordplay.

But it is not free from influence. It's influenced by the fact that it MUST be the same outcome every single time. And once again you are repeating the PRATT that I'm saying free will completely throws cause-and-effect out the window. How about you stop resorting to strawman arguments?

So how do we have free choice if the end result MUST be exactly the same as the first time? Can't say I've seen that movie, but that's lovely music.

You seem to have missed the fact that at some point it will no longer be in the future. Once that point is no longer in the future, we can see what happened and we can't change what happened. And how do we know if we are in a replay or not? What differences will there be? I can't think of any...

If outcome B WILL NOT HAPPEN, then there must be something preventing it from happening. If there is something preventing it from happening, then Outcome B CAN NOT happen. On the other hand, if there is nothing to say Outcome B will not happen, then indeed it CAN happen, but then you can not...

So if you were to hypothetically "rewind" the universe back to the way it was a year ago and then let it run forward again, we'd end up in exactly the same place that we are now? Actually, I am a pianist. And I have been quite clear that my arguments were all based on that "theoretical"...

Your explanation of free will is lousy. "Free will is simply helping the future be what it's meant to be." Please, you sound like some hippy who talks to flowers.