Themis wrote:Wrong again, but I understand why you want to think so.
yet it is apparent that you actually do not understand.
Themis wrote:subgenius wrote:Either you believe natural law can be violated or you believe it can not.
Which is one of your main assumptions. The other one you haven't backed up is that free will exists.
weird, because the whole discussion up to this point has been about how free-will can not exist....which conversation are you having?
The only premise in support of free-will's existence has been that if it does exist it surely must be supernatural because natural law can not be violated.
Now, enter your naïve stance of "we don't know that natural law can not be violated" - but we do know. For example, a rock is a rock regardless of whether we know of the rock or not.
:yawn: study grade school philosophy on your own time.
Themis wrote::lol: Yet you want to say that it is violated. You should at least try to stay consistent.
i am being consistent.
Themis wrote::lol: That has to be one of the dumbest statements I have read. How does one making a definition prove it.
it just clicked...you have no idea about what this discussion is about.
are you suggesting that you know human beings to be composed/comprised of something other than biochemical reactions and systems?
you think you would have read that link by now, and possibly come to understand it....but, maybe you should actual read some links on the topic at hand, not the topic you think is at hand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatur ... s_theologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will# ... psychiatrysubgenius wrote:because of its very definition, we are unable to "discover" the supernatural.
Themis wrote:Then you cannot know anything about it.
a claim you can most certainly not prove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KnowledgeBut perhaps you mis-spoke and you meant "Then you cannot
scientifically know anything about it"...which i would agree with.
your struggle is not uncommon, many people have trouble resolving this issue once they get distracted with determinism/indeterminism etc..
and while that discussion is somewhat entertaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_a ... _free_willit is quite off this topic....yet still requires that, perhaps, you that link.
I have clearly stated that if a person considers human existence as solely comprised of sensory experiences (as i believe you have) then those experiences are bound by natural laws, laws of the universe like gravity, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and whatever yet-to-be-discovered laws there are and are not...for which there is only one logical conclusion. Free-will, in order to even be considered as true and existing as to one's ability to choose otherwise, must be able to violate these laws...must be, by definition, supernatural.
Likewise, it can only be concluded that beings solely composed/comprised of biochemical systems are delusional when it comes to claims of individuality, free-thought, and self-responsibility...for those are non-existent as they are manifest only at the whim of external stimuli and random uncontrollable processes.
A basic undergraduate understanding of these premises is required but they are quite simple and quite reasonable as proposed.
So, while you may want to continue with such nonsense as "we don't know what we don't know" the result is still the same....that it is more apparent that you actually do not know of that which you speak of...and to your credit, you have been honest about that from the start.