Atheism and Free Will

[Terrapin Station]

It's not that I'm going to disagree with the above so much as it's not answering the question I'm asking you. Above, you're simply presenting an explanation or definition of what it is to be indivisible; you're just presenting it in more detail.

But that's not what I'm asking you.

Here's what I'm asking you: if we're wondering "Is x indivisible," and especially where there might be some dispute about that, how do we test or check whether it's indivisible or not? Reiterating or further detailing just what it is to be indivisible won't do that. We're proceeding with an understanding of what it is to be indivisible. The problem is rather that there is a dispute over whether x is indivisible under the agreed-upon definition. So how do we settle that?

You'd have to prove logically that that particular thing must be indivisible, such as by showing that it exists, and divisible things do not exist; or you could prove it's not indivisible by physically dividing it.

Could we physically divide something that doesn't exist?

[ManInTheMoon]

Could we physically divide something that doesn't exist?

Obviously. Do you have any reason to think divisible objects exist in the same sense their indivisible components do? I've tried to explain why I think they don't.

[Terrapin Station]

Could we physically divide something that doesn't exist?

Obviously. Do you have any reason to think divisible objects exist in the same sense their indivisible components do? I've tried to explain why I think they don't.

How would that be obvious? If x doesn't exist, how do we manipulate x in any manner? It doesn't exist. There's nothing there to interact with.

[Belindi]

Safe to say most people have the intuition that you describe. I doubt if intuitions are part of the reasoning in analytic philosophy. A claim about your intuition is interesting but it is not a theory.

What intuition are you talking about? That there cannot be an experience without someone experiencing it? That I must exist or I couldn't experience my experiences? That only indivisible things exist? Those do all seem intuitively true, but being intuitive is no reason to doubt them, is it?

Also, I don't know where I ever made a claim about an intuition and portrayed it as a theory.

Doubting intuitions is the fundamental method of western philosophy. Doubting intuitions is called scepticism (American skepticism).

[ManInTheMoon]

How would that be obvious? If x doesn't exist, how do we manipulate x in any manner? It doesn't exist. There's nothing there to interact with.

Do you interact with x or do you interact with the indivisible parts of x?

[ManInTheMoon]

Safe to say most people have the intuition that you describe. I doubt if intuitions are part of the reasoning in analytic philosophy. A claim about your intuition is interesting but it is not a theory.

What intuition are you talking about? That there cannot be an experience without someone experiencing it? That I must exist or I couldn't experience my experiences? That only indivisible things exist? Those do all seem intuitively true, but being intuitive is no reason to doubt them, is it?

Also, I don't know where I ever made a claim about an intuition and portrayed it as a theory.

Doubting intuitions is the fundamental method of western philosophy. Doubting intuitions is called scepticism (American skepticism).

Saying something is intuitive is not an argument against it. I still don't see any reason to suppose that an experience could be real if nobody exists to experience it. You cannot be an experience. You are a person, who experiences. Because that is intuitively obvious, I don't think you can imagine any plausible alternative.

[Belindi]

Safe to say most people have the intuition that you describe. I doubt if intuitions are part of the reasoning in analytic philosophy. A claim about your intuition is interesting but it is not a theory.

What intuition are you talking about? That there cannot be an experience without someone experiencing it? That I must exist or I couldn't experience my experiences? That only indivisible things exist? Those do all seem intuitively true, but being intuitive is no reason to doubt them, is it?

Also, I don't know where I ever made a claim about an intuition and portrayed it as a theory.

Doubting intuitions is the fundamental method of western philosophy. Doubting intuitions is called scepticism (American skepticism).

Saying something is intuitive is not an argument against it. I still don't see any reason to suppose that an experience could be real if nobody exists to experience it. You cannot be an experience. You are a person, who experiences. Because that is intuitively obvious, I don't think you can imagine any plausible alternative.

Optical illusions can give false ideas. Other special senses such as hearing and touch can also be unreliable. There are plenty of optical illusions to be viewed and read about online and in books.

Learned information may also not be reliable and should be reviewed with a measure of scepticism.

[Terrapin Station]

How would that be obvious? If x doesn't exist, how do we manipulate x in any manner? It doesn't exist. There's nothing there to interact with.

Do you interact with x or do you interact with the indivisible parts of x?

You should be answering that, not me. I asked you how we'd check whether something is indivisible or not. You said both that "you could prove [divisible thing x is] not indivisible by physically dividing it" and "divisible things do not exist." I'm asking how you believe we can do the former if divisible things do not exist. How do you divide something that doesn't exist?

Don't ask me how this is supposed to work. I'm asking you to present and defend your own theory.

[ManInTheMoon]

You should be answering that, not me. I asked you how we'd check whether something is indivisible or not. You said both that "you could prove [divisible thing x is] not indivisible by physically dividing it" and "divisible things do not exist." I'm asking how you believe we can do the former if divisible things do not exist. How do you divide something that doesn't exist?

Don't ask me how this is supposed to work. I'm asking you to present and defend your own theory.

You are being obtuse again. Words are ambiguous. "Thing" and "something" and "exist" have multiple meanings. A way to determine that "something" is divisible, and thus does not "exist" in the same way that indivisible objects do, is to divide it. We can still say that divisible things exist, or talk about them as if they were single objects, because language does not need to be perfectly precise to be understood.

I asked you if you interact with x or with the indivisible parts of x. If you really believe that x exists in the same way it's indivisible parts exist, you should be able to say that you do interact with x without interacting with its indivisible parts separately from the whole. My answer would be that you cannot interact with x except by interacting with some indivisible part or parts of x, because in reality there is no x, only the indivisible parts.

[ManInTheMoon]

Optical illusions can give false ideas. Other special senses such as hearing and touch can also be unreliable. There are plenty of optical illusions to be viewed and read about online and in books.

Learned information may also not be reliable and should be reviewed with a measure of scepticism.

You cannot experience any illusion unless you exist to experience it. Apart from that, if things appear to be one way, unless you have conflicting experiences that give you some reason to think that your first experience might be an illusion, you have no reason to doubt it. Do you have any reason to think divisible objects exist in the same way indivisible objects do? Do you have any reason to think you are an experience experienced by nobody? Do you have any reason to believe that an experience could be real if it isn't actually experienced by somebody who exists? Do you have any reason to think that experiences can experience other experiences? Do you truly doubt your own existence?

[Belindi]

Man In The Moon wrote:

Do you have any reason to think you are an experience experienced by nobody? Do you have any reason to believe that an experience could be real if it isn't actually experienced by somebody who exists? Do you have any reason to think that experiences can experience other experiences? Do you truly doubt your own existence?

I am not my body or any organ, tissue, or cell of my body. I am not my mind which is experience of my body. I am a unique bundle of experiences .

I am real and I believe you are real. I also believe the world around me is real also all the things in it are real. However reality is created by bundles of experiences such as already discussed; reality is not created by anything supernatural.

Bundles of experiences do experience other bundles of experiences and this is for the reason that no bundle of experiences can exist minus an environment. It is about relations not things.

I don't doubt the existence of the set of experiences that constitute me, and I don't doubt the set of experiences that constitute you.

[Terrapin Station]

You should be answering that, not me. I asked you how we'd check whether something is indivisible or not. You said both that "you could prove [divisible thing x is] not indivisible by physically dividing it" and "divisible things do not exist." I'm asking how you believe we can do the former if divisible things do not exist. How do you divide something that doesn't exist?

Don't ask me how this is supposed to work. I'm asking you to present and defend your own theory.

You are being obtuse again. Words are ambiguous. "Thing" and "something" and "exist" have multiple meanings. A way to determine that "something" is divisible, and thus does not "exist" in the same way that indivisible objects do, is to divide it.

Okay, stop there.

You said that divisible things do not exist.

Period.

You didn't qualify that in any way.

If you're saying that they exist, but that they don't exist in some particular, qualified way, then that's what you need to write. You need to say, "Divisible things do not exist in x way." You can't just say, "Divisible things do not exist. (Period/non-qualified.)"

[Darshan]

Earthellism answers the question about atheism and free will. What we are seeing in Ukraine is a battle started by an evil atheist (Putin) who believes he has the free will to act anyway he wants. The last century was the combination of atheism and Nazism that killed 50 million people and now an evil atheist has somehow brought the concept of denazify Ukraine in an perverted war. Hitler combined Nazism and atheism to practice his free will of genocide. But everyone has equal free will and Hitler's free will was not a million times better than his victims. In the end the concept of free will fails to solve any problems. Evil atheists do not believe in God and a human soul and a Hell and fulfill the trifecta of evil. Putin has earned the bullet he should get soon just like Hitler earned the bullet he got from himself. Death is the only way to stop a brutal evil atheistic dictator and killing Putin will result in someone better because anyone worse then Putin has already been killed by the master assassin Putin. Death to Putin is the best and most humane solution to a modern day Holocaust in Ukraine. Putin is leading Russia and their people to Hell just like Hitler did to Germany.

[paradox]

What we are seeing in Ukraine is a battle started by an evil atheist (Putin) who believes he has the free will to act anyway he wants.

Huh, but atheists don't soak into -5C cold water with their whole body, and certainly do not wear a cross.

The last century was the combination of atheism and Nazism that killed 50 million people and now an evil atheist has somehow brought the concept of denazify Ukraine in an perverted war.

You dislike Hitler but also dislike his enemies? It's not a lie Ukraine is full of neo-nazi oriented people, I don't defend Putin but his "denazification" war goal is pretty much valid casus beli.

In the end the concept of free will fails to solve any problems. Evil atheists do not believe in God and a human soul and a Hell and fulfill the trifecta of evil. Putin has earned the bullet he should get soon just like Hitler earned the bullet he got from himself. Death is the only way to stop a brutal evil atheistic dictator and killing Putin will result in someone better because anyone worse then Putin has already been killed by the master assassin Putin. Death to Putin is the best and most humane solution to a modern day Holocaust in Ukraine. Putin is leading Russia and their people to Hell just like Hitler did to Germany.

You claim how evil atheists are and claim that killing them is the way to go, but also claim free will doesn't work, you're contradictory to yourself, isn't inciting to kill anyone your own free will that is evil?
I haven't heard Putin use such words, you seem more evil than him.

[Darshan]

Free will did not stop Hitler. Putin is clearly acting like Hitler. Putin completely insults God by attending Easter services by killing innocent women and children on purpose, what we call genocide.
If you do not see Putin as a new Hitler you are blind just the world was in 1940.