Proof of nonexistence of free will

There is no such thing as a knowledge of superiority or truth or anything else...Unless there is a driving force that knows what "truth" and "truthful knowledge" and "truthful superiority" even is...

If you want the deeper answer from me...it is in the "does nothing exist" thread...

My logic is not flawed nor am I doing anything or purpose, nor am I retarted...you just refuse to accept what I say as truth...Which is not a problem, Because it just furthers my point...

If someone says what they think truth is, and if even one person that has existed, exists, or will exist can say that they disagree with it, it is not ultimate truth...We are hopefully not being dishonest people when we explain what truth is in our own subjective ways...But if it is not universally accepted in a way that no one can refute or argue against in anyway...Then it is not the ultimate truth, and never will be....

The only way there could be anykind of ultimates is if there was something out there, that knew what these ultimates are, And in a way that could never be refuted by a single living thing that has or will ever exist...

The fact you get upset at my refusal to accept your position PROVES this...

What you are saying is no more truth to me, that what your stance is on what my truth to you is...

Ultimates such as truth could only be known and understood by something that knows what it is...And can demonstate it in a way that no one can refute...You and I can not do this...And neither can any other living thing but a God...

If no god exists and can not show what ultimate truth is...Then it does not even matter if there is an ultimate truth or any other ultimate, because not a sinlge living thing will ever know what they are...Or be able to demonstate in a single way how what they know or are saying is an ultimate...

u mean to kill the truth and that is obvious good for u since ur camp is clear in global war so u exist in a way for sure

u mean to know the whole truth for wat to get smthg out of it ??? and u mean that possible like wat the way of monsters edge being liars free profits investments of positive existence turnin it hell for own positive existence to destroy too in order to stay forever the superior knowin that truth is superiority so struggles will never stop

and about that god thin u r justifyin it doesnt say how then it is superiority

u r free together to share all infos u want but that doesnt say how u r superiors to anything nor alone

superiority i repeat dont need any proof it is simply the fact that it is more while knowin that it is always since for anything more is possible

except for u of course, u exist and else obviously seen by ur own eyes and things and realities and past and facts and spaces while u stay sayin hey i dunno the truth of all it must b then subjective there is nothing
wat values nothing of course is ur best reference freein u from any value to respect and realize

If this is true, and is the truth...and is an ultimate, And you ultimtely know that a God would not have to show you an ultimate or prove what ultimate truth is or any other ultimate..for everyone to know with certainty...what the ultimates are...

Then PROVE everything you have just said to me...

Because I am open to learning...about ultimates I do not know...

It has got nothing to do with me getting something out of something...

It has got everything to do with people knowing limitations that exist, that can't be known unless something higher knows what they actually are...And can demonstrate what reality truly is...And how we percieve things are not ultimates...But subjective thoughts...

And just because you think that this God is evil...Does not mean he would not be the one to reveal these ultimates...that is just a subjective thought you have...

If there is a God I doubt he is evil, and that too is just my own subjective thought...

Just like it is yours he is evil...

Now from an objective view...

If this God could not reveal ultimates as he is evil, or does not exist, than no one will ever know ultimates, such as truth, knowledge, superiority, everything, nothingness...

Because if we have esablished that this God is evil...And so too are people at times, then no one would know what the ultimate truth about any of those things are...And it can't be done...Because there is no way to know for certain that they are speaking the truth, about any ultimate, even if they truly know what they are...oppossed to being deceptive, just like this evil God does...And even if the person who knew was not deceptive, if other people are, then there is no way for them to understand that what the truthful person is saying, is an ultimate, because they will not look at what the truthful person is saying as ultimates because the deceptive person is deceptive...And does not care about truthful ultimates...

Where do you exist that people or a person knows a truthful ultimate? And other people fully embrace or know with certainty, that what this person knows is an ultimate truth??

It does not have a single thing to do with that at all...

If you truly think you know ultimates such as truth, knowledge, superiority, everything, nothingness...Better than any other person who exists be my guest...Because the truth is, is that no one actually does...

blablabla when u have nothing to say why do u make multiple posts as if u could have many points to say ?? isnt that ur ultimate truth as the liar u r alone planin such crap moves, hey waistin time of others is not funny so u keep ur fun to u alone where u r out of here

Because people change their minds, or decide to post...Because they feel compelled to do it...

Just another reason why No constant truths could ever be know by mortals...

And why people do have free wills...

And you could say you waste just as much time as others, because you have no interest in actually listening to them, and only holding on to your own opinions...

I never said that I thought it is funny, because I don't think it is...

But if you have no free will...Then I would try to come to a root understanding of yourself as to why you are forced to come here to reply to me...

But if you think you have some type of free will, like almost every single person would agree with...Then you would understand that you are freely choosing to read my posts and reply to me....

So if you freely chose to do that, I can't be blamed if you do not like what you read...Or if you freely chose to reply to me...You have an option just ignore me...

No blablabla....Did I say that what you had to say was that? But once again you feel like insults are the best way to express you positions? Why? Peoples opinions are worthy to listen to and consider...Just because you think you have higher superiority than other people does not mean that they should not give their opinions...And I won't stop if I want to post just because you say you are superior to me...Because it is a BS claim...

The argument in the OP is subject to Kant's argument about how free will is possible, given the strong distinction between the "thing in itself" and the world of the phenomenal, that is, the world of "appearances" - I will elaborate.

The argument of the OP appeals, at least implicitly, to the law of cause and effect. More specifically, I assume the writer of the OP would say that any decision I take is "caused" by chemical reactions in my brain, all of which are grounded in the laws of physics, and not in the "will" of any agent. In short, the laws of physics, perhaps combined with random chance, are fully causally sufficient in respect to any action I might take. Fine.

But Kant argues that the law of cause and effect is something our minds "impose" on the data of sense experience that is given to us (Kant also argues that our minds structure the raw data of sense experience in other ways as well). Futhermore, we simply cannot have access to things as they are "in themselves". And one of those things is me. So, Kant would assert (if I understand him) that while our minds necessarily think in terms of cause and effect, and this invariably forces free will out of the picture as the implications are unpacked, the entire "cause-effect" argument only applies to the world as we "see and undertand it" (the realm of "appearance"), and not the world as it is "in itself".

This leaves open the possibility that each of us, as we are in ourselves, can indeed act freely. And, of course, we cannot imagine how that would work precisely because we are "trapped" in the mode of only having access to the world of our "experience", and in that domain, we cannot help but think in terms of cause and effect.

I realize this argument is pretty loose and I can imagine some objections, but there it is. The key point, I think, is that it is at least plausible that the very thing that seems to rule out free will - the unavoidable chain of cause and effect reasoning that results in attributing all our choices to the entirely "will - less" forces of the fundamental laws of nature, may really only apply in the world of "appearances", and not in the "real" world - the world as it truly exists.

An excellent post, AH. Very plausible if not the final word.

this is bc what is objective is else existence so even if it can happen that u might communicate with else positively to an extent that allow u to recognize else existence present, u know that u cant b related to a factor of else existence constant realisation

in terms of existence what matter is being constant objective ways

that is why when one exist then for sure else exist, the constant element cant b but one objective realisation so a lot of others existence are then different

this is how cause and effect logics also apply to oneself, the more a self know else exist, the more it would realize an objective share space with else, so else concept would b a reason of objective being relatively

Sorry, could not understand your post. Can you try to reword?

it wont b easy bc i enjoy my posts in ways of intelligent replies, they dont say smthg particular alone

but in tryin to guess what is that u might ask for more words to get a certain sense about, it would had been less hard if u said smthg urself of what u mean to get so far

ok, so wat i meant is mainly to get ur attention to a certain point u seemed in ur logics to ignore

first, truth value is existence so the constancy and not the principle while it is shown and proved how principles are fun to use for their opposites life

what i just said is true, in the sense that existence is truth superiority
so when truth principles are superiority always infinitely then existence is truth

second, i meant also to get ur attention about another point
by understandin and clarifyin what kant might had meant literally, u could got driven to make a wrong statement or conclusion

truth in itself or relative perspective, is a distinction bc of ones limits and not truth being different or limited

Hi imans: Sorry, but I cannot understand you. No hard feelings.

hard feelings for or about wat ?? it is amazin how u dont respect anything not even things u live of, how can i have any feelin about u

forcin me to make some words while u lie about meaning it is surely nothing that matter but a relative sense of regret if i had to give some efforts to
but it is not the case obviously i mean to enjoy myself typing without any efforts given

so talk to urself for whatever u enjoy inventin about me

There is no ultimate truth, only perceptive truth which others might disagree with.

So do you think that it is possible for anyone or anything to know any ultimate? Or is it not possible? And if it is possible, is a God the only way? Or is this also not possible, because a God would have perspective truths, like us? If you think it is not possible for a God...Is that a perspective truth you have?