77
   

Proof of nonexistence of free will

 
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2019 11:33 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Try telling that to people who are having sexual intercourse.
Determine what sexual intercourse does not exist look it up. If you find a common use of that phrase please provide it.

Homosexuality is an attraction or sexual orientation. That orientation could never lead to intercourse because intercourse must happen between people of the opposite sex. If you look up homosexual behavior you will not see the term intercourse use terms like mutual masturbation.

Could you explain how your comments on sexual assault has anything to do with their discussion on how judges of change the meaning of the words in the constitution as your previous quote stated. Could you explain that for me please?

I would also like to know why you referred me to that article when the quote I pulled out of that article disagrees with your premise that the supreme court justices did not change the meaning of the constitution when, your quote says they did by their changing the meaning of words I interpreting them differently then the people that wrote them.

Could you explain why you chose that quote and how it supports your argument?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2019 11:45 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
short for sexual intercourse.
synonyms: sexual intercourse, sex, lovemaking, making love, sex act, act of love, sexual relations, intimate relations, intimacy, coupling, mating, going to bed with someone, sleeping with someone; More

brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2019 05:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I meant to say homosexual intercourse does not exist. That is like saying male pregnancy. It is physically impossible.

You are giving examples of loose definitions used in different contexts in casual conversation. I was talking about legal terms as they refer to the American Constitution, and how those were defined and interpreted by the founders as they wrote the constitution. Do you think loose definitions taken out of context from casual conversations should be used in determining the original meaning of the constitution?

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2019 05:36 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
I meant to say homosexual intercourse does not exist.
. Your narrow views about sexuality is arcane and ignorant. You're not worth the time of day to discuss any subject, because your ignorance is too overwhelming.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2019 06:42 pm
@brianjakub,
So if homosexual intercourse does not exist, then what is the big deal that many religions have against them?
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2019 05:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
your narrow views about sexuality or arcane an ignorant


We were talking about the supreme court and legal matters. Sexuality has nothing to do with that. we were talking about changing the meaning of the Constitution by changing the meaning of words in a legal environment not casual conversation. If all the constitution is to you is casual conversation then I understand why you think you could change its meaning at the whim of what’s currently in vogue .

If you will look at our past exchanges you didn’t discuss anything. You did not answer any of my questions. And when I asked you to explain why you put certain posts up as responses, you could not explain yourself. Well your inability to back up your own posts makes it hard to comment on your ignorance so I wont.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2019 05:38 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
So if homosexual intercourse does not exist, then what is the big deal that many religions have against them?
There’s a lot of religions that teach it’s wrong that’s a pretty broad question . But historically most religions thought marriage was a religious convenient or sacramental relationship between two people of the opposite sex and God in which they agreed to raise children according to God’s plan. The act of procreation was the physical sign that sealed the covenant. Procreation is not possible in a homosexual act, therefore it’s not possible for a homosexual act to build a seal that covenant. That does not mean homosexuals can’t form covenants and raise families, it just means it doesn’t fit the definition of the word marriage as it was defined and understood for thousands of years.

As for the Christian world they take marriage as a mirror image of the relationship between Jesus and the church where Jesus is the groom and the church is the bride and there is a masculine feminine relationship there.
0 Replies
 
wolflarsen88
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2019 12:27 am
Logically speaking, you can't prove a negative anyways. So a proof of the non-existence of something is illogical. Your challenge instead is to prove that all outcomes are the product of natural forces.
https://ewriters.pro
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2019 02:20 am
@wolflarsen88,
That assumes that free will isn't natural.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2019 11:41 am
@Olivier5,
We are all subjective beings based on our culture, race, parents, teachers, siblings, friends, religion, and education. That's the reality of living on this planet as humans. Most of what we believe to be factual and true are based on our own level of faith.
Quote:
faith
/fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:
trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, ... more
antonyms:
mistrust
Do we have free will? To the extent that society allows us.
0 Replies
 
xrickandmorty
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2020 09:33 am
Actions are defined as physical or mental movement, so free will doesn't exist because everything that is moved is moved in a certain way; in other words a direction. Therefore all these actions were caused to occur in a certain way because of the specific way prior actions had to have influenced the present action. You have no control over present actions because you were caused to do x be x prior actions. In other words any decision you make is caused to occur by prior decision about how to decide, or some other factor.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 03:59 pm
@xrickandmorty,
False. What I will do tomorrow is completely unknown to me. When I decide to do something, it will more than likely happen in the way I planned it. That is the definition of free will.
Briancrc
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 05:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
When I decide to do something, it will more than likely happen in the way I planned it. That is the definition of free will.


One, of course, can make plans and decide to do things before one does them. This is something one can observe and it undoubtedly leads to the feeling that the thought caused the actions that follow. But what caused the thought?

The ability to make choices free from coercion is not enough to explain the causes of one's actions. If it was, then people wouldn't so often say that they don't know why they did what they did. And when they're not being coerced, but aware of their tendencies to do something they expressly say they don't want to do (e.g., smoke another cigarette, eat another dessert, buy another scratch ticket).

Are you free to make choices? Yes. Are you the origin of your choices? It looks more like your genetic endowment and personal history gets the credit.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 08:38 pm
@Briancrc,
Quote:
But what caused the thought?
My past experience, and what transpired in my brain from that. I have gone for walks without any planning of the route I'll be taking. My choice is made as I approach a corner or cross the street or stay on the sidewalk for no apparent reason; it's instantaneous. It's as free will as it gets. Even the fact that I'm sitting here in front of my computer wasn't planned ahead of time.
Briancrc
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2020 04:36 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It's as free will as it gets.


It is. But the probability of your choices is selected by your past experiences. The experiences change you and influence you. We don't choose what we want. Consider something you hate and try to want it.

As one learns something, the point at which that something is learned is not when the person decides to understand it, it's when the other prior experiences/changes of the person come together well enough to allow a new change of the individual (i.e., learning).
xrickandmorty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2020 12:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It is unknown to you but everything can effect everything else in set amount of ways, therefore what you do tomorrow is based off what previously occurred to you. Everything is set because everything interacts in certain way; for proof, if something did not it wouldn't be interacting with anything. The ways something interacts is not changeable because is somethings properties cannot change it can't, and if something can its its property to be able to being the effect of a cause. therefore everything is set based off what the causes are. every set of causes has onother set of causes and so on
0 Replies
 
xrickandmorty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 08:18 am
@cicerone imposter,
There is nothing free about that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 07:31 pm
@Briancrc,
Quote:
It is. But the probability of your choices is selected by your past experiences.
I have traveled to foreign countries a lot. Most times, I would go walking without any plan on destination or how to get "there." There's been times, I've gotten lost. What I learned to do was to take the business card from the hotel where I'm staying, and show it to the taxi driver. It worked 100% of the time. You can decide what's free will to you, but don't expect me to buy your BS.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 08:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You can decide what's free will to you, but don't expect me to buy your BS.


I don't think he is expecting you to buy into it. In fact, I think he would be extremely surprised if you did. I know I would.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 09:59 am
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 04:38:10