Not at all. This thread is making a claim that we can act 'free' from causality. We cannot.chewybrian wrote: ↑July 5th, 2018, 7:00 amYou are putting the burden of proof on the wrong side of the argument.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 5th, 2018, 4:56 amIf the will is "free", then this is a clear contradiction of all the progress made by science, unless you think that humans are some sort of special case that exist outside the laws of physics?
I don't know what that is.This is not a 'ceramic teapot' scenario.
No. They exercise their will.The vast majority of people believe they have a free will ...
Where do I state that? I've not used the word 'illusion' in this or any thread.... because they actively experience the sensation in every waking moment, as presumably you must as well. You are asserting that this is all an illusion, and thus the burden is on you to prove your assertion.
WTFIf God was sitting right in front of you and appeared to all your senses, the teapot argument no longer would hold up. You would need to prove that this appearance was merely an illusion, rather than asking anyone else who also saw God right in front of them to prove that their perception was real. The burden falls on the one who either asks us to believe something we can not perceive, or to deny something which we do perceive.
What good would a will be if your decisions were not caused by your exerience?
If we both look down a street, and you perceive the street to be narrower in the distance, I can break out a ruler, and make various measurements, and prove you wrong, to the satisfaction of most rational people. The apparent narrowness of the street down the block was merely an illusion, and not reality. Can you so easily and convincingly show me that my will is not free?
What do you mean by "god". And why are you dragging this weird concept into this argument?
Both God or free will may be said to run counter to some laws regarding material things, assuming either is material. But, if one of these is right in our face, acting in these ways which contradict such laws, then what are we to assume? Either this thing is not material, and not subject to such laws, or the laws do not apply in all cases. If it quacks like a duck, my working assumption is 'duck'. If you say 'kangaroo', I will reasonably ask for proof. If, as in the case of free will, proof is beyond our capacity, then why should I be moved from my 'duck' stance?
Rubbish.
Either way, you have the burden to prove that our impressions are false. In most other cases, like the appearance of the width of the street, such false impressions are easily disproved if they are in fact false.
I know for sure that my choices are determined by my life experience, thankfully.
The word "free' has no place to play here, except in a legalistic sense of having to take responsibility for my choices.