First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
ONE FUTURE, you can't change it, your born with it.
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Earth, on the top...
Offline
Posted 10/26/10

DomFortress wrote:


KagiNoHikari wrote:

I understand this So you're saying that everyone is born with one future. You make decisions that can change the outcome, but it doesn't matter because it is still your future. So if you had two choices and had to make a decision that could make your future go either way, that is part of your future. Making that decision leads to the future that you were going to reach as soon as you were born. The unchosen decision was not your future, and never was. It was merely a factor of reaching the future that was yours to begin with. It is all decided, and the paths you take lead to it. You cannot change your future, as it is all set for you. The decisions you make direct you closer to the future that was given to you. I get what you're saying here ^_^

excalion wrote:



Congratulations, I think you're the only person who got what the OP was saying. As I already stated a few months ago in my previous post:
"You cannot change fate, if you do then it was your fate to change fate. So in the end you changed nothing at all."
Actually, both of you are wrong about human individuals making their own decision based on their own free wills. When the fact that humans as social animals can be manipulated by others at their own individual decision-making process.


But it is their free will to make those decisions even if they have been manipulated by others. They could just be susceptible to other people. It is still their choices and decisions. It just depends on how strong they are as individuals to not give in to other people.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/26/10 , edited 10/26/10

DomFortress wrote:


KagiNoHikari wrote:

I understand this So you're saying that everyone is born with one future. You make decisions that can change the outcome, but it doesn't matter because it is still your future. So if you had two choices and had to make a decision that could make your future go either way, that is part of your future. Making that decision leads to the future that you were going to reach as soon as you were born. The unchosen decision was not your future, and never was. It was merely a factor of reaching the future that was yours to begin with. It is all decided, and the paths you take lead to it. You cannot change your future, as it is all set for you. The decisions you make direct you closer to the future that was given to you. I get what you're saying here ^_^

excalion wrote:



Congratulations, I think you're the only person who got what the OP was saying. As I already stated a few months ago in my previous post:
"You cannot change fate, if you do then it was your fate to change fate. So in the end you changed nothing at all."
Actually, both of you are wrong about human individuals making their own decision based on their own free wills. When the fact that humans as social animals can be manipulated by others at their own individual decision-making process.


Actually I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all. Your post was about whether the decisions we make come only from within or if there are outside influences, we're talking about the inescapable nature of the course our futures will take, because we only have one. So you see. they are actually two similar but completely different topics. I would appreciate it if you took the time to understand a conversation before quickly stating people are wrong, when it's you who obviously misunderstood what we're talking about.
Posted 10/26/10 , edited 10/26/10

KagiNoHikari wrote:



But it is their free will to make those decisions even if they have been manipulated by others. They could just be susceptible to other people. It is still their choices and decisions. It just depends on how strong they are as individuals to not give in to other people.
This is what I meant that you still don't get it, when psychologically speaking none of us has a sense of self before the age of two. While the process of self-identity can only be done through each of us socializing with our own immediate surroundings. This can be seen from the ways of how we interdependently learned to make our own choices during our primary stage of socialization. In other words, you as a conceptualization of your social experiences is what makes yourself who you are today, when even the concept of your own "free will" is just a byproduct of your own looking glass self, from a symbolic interaction perspective. When nothing interact with your person, you won't make a decision because you don't need to. For power doesn't exist in total vacuum, just like how children raised in extreme isolation are almost without personality of their owns:

Children Raised or Kept in Extreme Isolation

Besides children being raised in the “natural state” provided by the wild, there are also many cases of children who were raised or kept in extreme isolation. A popular story is that of Kaspar Hauser, told in Wolf-children and Feral Man by Singh and Zingg.

Kaspar was first discovered on 26 May 1828, standing unsteadily in a square in Nuremberg, dressed in clumsy clothing. In his hand he held letters directed to the Captain of the 4th Esgataron of the Shwolishay regiment, which inter alia instructed the captain that “...if he isn't good for anything [the captain] must either kill him or hang him in the chimney.”

The boy was about sixteen years of age, appeared unable to communicate, his eyes were red and unused to sunlight, he did not know how to use his fingers, and the soles of his feet, blistered from walking, were as smooth as the hands of a baby. He walked by placing both the ball and heel of the foot down at the same time. Like a child newly emerged from the womb, this adolescent boy seemed a complete stranger to almost everything in the world.

At first regarded as a vagabond and halfwit, he was taken to a prison cell where he was kept while the authorities tried to figure out what to make of him. He could utter only a few phrases, clearly meaningless to him, such as, “I want to be a rider like my father,” and “Don't know,” which he used to express everything from thirst to anxiety. When handed paper and pen, he wrote “Kaspar Hauser.” He was unable to eat anything but bread and water, and reacted violently to most sensory impressions. The very smell of meat or alcohol would put him into terrible convulsions. When presented coffee, he would sweat and vomit. At night, he lay on his straw bed; during the day, he sat on the floor with his feet before him. When a mirror was shown to him, he looked behind him, as if to find the person seen in the mirror.

Hauser's keeper, Herr Hiltel, took Kaspar in his home, where Hiltel's son, Julius, was permitted to play with Kaspar. It was also Julius, writes Hiltel, who taught Kaspar to speak. Kaspar was also of interest to the mayor, Bürgermeister Binder, who most days had Kaspar brought to his house for conversation, and to a certain Professor Daumer, a teacher, who was to devote his time to the education of the boy.

The visits with the mayor led to the development of a more or less coherent study of Kaspar's whereabouts since birth. During their conversations, Herr Binder, who believed that he had communicated well enough with Kaspar, made the attempt to reconstruct Kaspar's former life. Some people doubted Herr Binder's recollection. They did not think Kaspar's speech at that time was enough advanced for him to provide a coherent story. Nevertheless, what Kaspar said, according to Herr Binder, was that he had lived upon bread and water in a small, dark cell. He had known only one person, alluded to by him as “the man,” who periodically drugged him to clean him, change his clothes, cut his fingernails and hair and once hit him for being noisy. He was kept alive in this near vegetative state until his keeper appeared toward the end of his confinement, taught him to write Kaspar Hauser (he did not know the meaning), walk, and to speak a few rudimentary sentences. Equipped with only these and a rough collection of clothes, Kaspar had been led to Nuremberg market and abandoned there.

Two months after being discovered Kaspar went to live with Daumer, where he was provided round-the-clock education. He flowered under Daumer's gentle and compassionate tutelage and learned to read, write and even play chess.

The end of the story is not happy, though. Kaspar died on 17 December 1833, three days after a second attempt had been made on his life. Numerous conflicting explanations have been offered for Kaspar's murder. The most prevalent theory is that Kaspar Hauser was originally locked away because he stood in the way of possible succession to the state of Baden. When the result was obtained, Kaspar was released, so goes the story, with the letters he carried with him being written to mask the true reason. Fear that he would eventually expose his perpetrators, however, required his permanent removal.

Another, more recent story of a child raised in isolation is that of Isabelle, who was born in 1932. She was an illegitimate child and was kept in seclusion for this reason. Her mother had developed normally up to the age of two years and then, as a result of an accident, had become deaf-mute and had not been educated. From the day Isabelle was born until she was a little over six years of age, mother and child spent their time together in a dark room with the blinds drawn, separated from the rest of the family. The parents of the mother did not permit her to leave the house alone. She eventually escaped, however, carrying her child with her, and in this way Isabelle's case was brought to the notice of the authorities.

As a result of lack of sunlight, fresh air, and proper nutrition, Isabelle had developed a rachitic condition that made locomotion virtually impossible. This condition yielded to proper treatment, including surgery, and Isabelle learned to walk and move normally.

When her intelligence was first tested at the age of six and a half, her mental age appeared to be about nineteen months. In place of normal speech, she made a croaking sound.

By means of intensive training and a stimulating environment, Isabelle improved so much that she was considered a child of normal intelligence by the age of eight. Her language development had been rapid: by that time she already had a vocabulary of 1,500 to 2,000 words, she enjoyed and could recite nursery rhymes, she could tell a story and make one up. She could now create and share with others a world of imagination and was not confined in her use of language to the immediate and the concrete.

Consider also the case of Genie, found in California in 1970. Genie was thirteen when she came to the attention of authorities. From the age of twenty months she had been kept in a small room in her parents' house. She had never been out of the room; she was kept naked and restrained to a kind of potty-chair by a harness her father had designed. She could move only her hands and feet. The psychotic father, who apparently hated children, forbade her almost blind mother to speak to the child. (He had put another child, born earlier, in the garage to avoid hearing her cry, and she died there of pneumonia at two months of age.) Genie was fed only milk and baby food during her thirteen years.

When the girl was found, she weighed only 59 pounds. She could not straighten her arms or legs. She did not know how to chew. She could not control her bladder or bowels. She could not recognize words or speak at all. According to the mother's report — the father killed himself soon after Genie was discovered — Genie appeared to have been a normal baby.

Over the next six years, Genie had plenty of interactions with the world, as well as training and testing by psychologists. She gained some language comprehension and learned to speak at about the level of a 2- or 3-year-old: “want milk,” “two hand.” She learned to use tools, to draw, and to connect cause-and-effect in some situations. And she could get from one place to another — to the candy counter in the supermarket, for example — proving that she could construct mental maps of space. Her IQ score on nonverbal tests was a low-normal 74 in 1977. But her language did not develop further, and, in fact, she made types of language errors that even normal 2-year-olds never make. In keeping with the biologistic ideas of our times, the cause of Genie's language delay was sought in her brain only. Nobody ever thought to question whether the methods that were used to teach her had perhaps been inadequate.(citation)



excalion wrote:



Actually I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all. Your post was about whether the decisions we make come only from within or if there are outside influences, we're talking about the inescapable nature of the course our futures will take, because we only have one. So you see. they are actually two similar but completely different topics. I would appreciate it if you took the time to understand a conversation before quickly stating people are wrong, when it's you who obviously misunderstood what we're talking about.
And I would warn you to stop getting into your usual obscurum per obscurius logical fallacy. When I was actually arguing that you're constantly being forced to make decision in this world, whether you wanted to or not. Which is not an either/or statement. Thereby your own inescapable cruel fate is the fact that you're born with the sole purpose of decision-making. That you were socialized by your environment into having your own "free will" most of the time, while the rest is just biology.
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Earth, on the top...
Offline
Posted 10/27/10
We weren't putting emphasis on the decision-making. We were talking about the role of decisions in our future. We weren't discussing how decisions come about in relation to free will. By free will we meant choosing decisions by ourselves, not where or how they were influenced. These are opinions, and there are no wrong opinions in topics like these.
Posted 10/27/10 , edited 10/27/10

KagiNoHikari wrote:

We weren't putting emphasis on the decision-making. We were talking about the role of decisions in our future. We weren't discussing how decisions come about in relation to free will. By free will we meant choosing decisions by ourselves, not where or how they were influenced. These are opinions, and there are no wrong opinions in topics like these.
Now you're just being silly, as in when you can't know for sure what your future holds for yourself, you can't make a sound decision based on uncertainty. Your best would be an educated guess, and even then that depends on your present level of both formal and experiential learning from your past. No matter whenever your current position of the time continuum that you're at, your self-identity will always be just a present conceptualization stemmed from your past. Therefore you can only expect the unexpected, and at best that's just an attitude. Finally, to just blindly claiming that all opinions are equally "not wrong" is once again an obscurum per obscurius logical fallacy. It doesn't make you being right.

So go ahead of yourself and imagine an unforeseeable future self-identity however you want, but don't expect that you'll be getting whatever that you're wishing for just like that, nor that you're right with whatever that yourself have yet to become. It's just your wishful thinking without sufficient justification.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/27/10

DomFortress wrote:


KagiNoHikari wrote:

We weren't putting emphasis on the decision-making. We were talking about the role of decisions in our future. We weren't discussing how decisions come about in relation to free will. By free will we meant choosing decisions by ourselves, not where or how they were influenced. These are opinions, and there are no wrong opinions in topics like these.
Now you're just being silly, as in when you can't know for sure what your future holds for yourself, you can't make a sound decision based on uncertainly. Your best would be an educated guess, and even then that depends on your present level of both formal and experiential learning from your past. No matter whenever your current position of the time continuum that you're at, your self-identity will always be just a present conceptualization stemmed from your past. Therefore you can only expect the unexpected, and at best that's just an attitude. Finally, to just blindly claiming that all opinions are equally "not wrong" is once again an obscurum per obscurius logical fallacy. It doesn't make you being right.

So go ahead of yourself and imagine an unforeseeable future self-identity however you want, but don't expect that you'll be getting whatever that you're wishing for just like that, nor that you're right with whatever that yourself have yet to become. It's just your wishful thinking without sufficient justification.


Okay, I'm sorry, maybe I should stop ranting as well. Let me try to explain to you what we're talking about here instead of just blaming you for not understanding.

So basically, say we have subject A. Subject A decides to make a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast, but he quickly finds out he has no peanut butter. So instead, subject A decides to make a jelly sandwich and he succeeds.

So the question here is, was subject A's fate predetermined for him to have a jelly sandwich? It would seem so, because he ran out of peanut butter he decided to make a jelly sandwich.

Now suppose instead of just making a jelly sandwich, subject A decides to go to the supermarket and purchase some more peanut butter. Subject A then returns home and makes himself a peanut butter sandwich.

Now the question is, did subject A change his own fate by sticking to his original plan and fight through relatively more difficult situations to obtain what he originally wanted? At first glance, people might be inclined to say "Why of course, he fought against fate and won." But in reality he didn't, because his fate was originally designed for him to go out and buy peanut butter so he can still make a peanut butter sandwich instead of a jelly sandwich.

See, whatever happens, whatever choices you make, they will become the only possibility after they come to pass. Hence, defaulting to Occam's Razor: there is only one future, the future that our choices lead us to. The path that we did not choose, simply do not exist in reality.

QED
Posted 10/27/10 , edited 10/27/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Now you're just being silly, as in when you can't know for sure what your future holds for yourself, you can't make a sound decision based on uncertainty. Your best would be an educated guess, and even then that depends on your present level of both formal and experiential learning from your past. No matter whenever your current position of the time continuum that you're at, your self-identity will always be just a present conceptualization stemmed from your past. Therefore you can only expect the unexpected, and at best that's just an attitude. Finally, to just blindly claiming that all opinions are equally "not wrong" is once again an obscurum per obscurius logical fallacy. It doesn't make you being right.

So go ahead of yourself and imagine an unforeseeable future self-identity however you want, but don't expect that you'll be getting whatever that you're wishing for just like that, nor that you're right with whatever that yourself have yet to become. It's just your wishful thinking without sufficient justification.


Okay, I'm sorry, maybe I should stop ranting as well. Let me try to explain to you what we're talking about here instead of just blaming you for not understanding.

So basically, say we have subject A. Subject A decides to make a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast, but he quickly finds out he has no peanut butter. So instead, subject A decides to make a jelly sandwich and he succeeds.

So the question here is, was subject A's fate predetermined for him to have a jelly sandwich? It would seem so, because he ran out of peanut butter he decided to make a jelly sandwich.

Now suppose instead of just making a jelly sandwich, subject A decides to go to the supermarket and purchase some more peanut butter. Subject A then returns home and makes himself a peanut butter sandwich.

Now the question is, did subject A change his own fate by sticking to his original plan and fight through relatively more difficult situations to obtain what he originally wanted? At first glance, people might be inclined to say "Why of course, he fought against fate and won." But in reality he didn't, because his fate was originally designed for him to go out and buy peanut butter so he can still make a peanut butter sandwich instead of a jelly sandwich.

See, whatever happens, whatever choices you make, they will become the only possibility after they come to pass. Hence, defaulting to Occam's Razor: there is only one future, the future that our choices lead us to. The path that we did not choose, simply do not exist in reality.

QED
Why should Subject A even wanted to have breakfast in the first place, and if so, why must it only be peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Your hypothetical argument is thereby moot from the beginning, when you yourself predetermined Subject A's decision while you played God over your subject. But you are no God, when you're just the subject of your own imagination, who's interacting within your own conceptualization of reality; a reality that's for the most part beyond your own control.
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Earth, on the top...
Offline
Posted 10/27/10 , edited 10/27/10
I never said I agree nor disagree with the topic of discussion. I said I understand where the original person was coming from. Then all of a sudden I'm quoted because I understand their point of view, and am told I am wrong, when all I said was that I grasp what they were saying.

However, reading back on it all, it does make sense. In the future, you will obviously 'do things'. Therefore the outcome of performing these tasks will result in the future. The future that was going to happen. It doesn't matter what you choose to do, you will get to a future, which is set for you because you were going to reach it, no matter what it is, and no matter what decisions you make to get there. Yes, the outcome will change as a result of our choices, but the simple definition of the 'future' still stays the same.
Posted 10/27/10

KagiNoHikari wrote:

I never said I agree nor disagree with the topic of discussion. I said I understand where the original person was coming from. Then all of a sudden I'm quoted because I understand their point of view, and am told I am wrong, when all I said was that I grasp what they were saying.

However, reading back on it all, it does make sense. In the future, you will obviously 'do things'. Therefore the outcome of performing these tasks will result in the future. The future that was going to happen. It doesn't matter what you choose to do, you will get to a future, which is set for you because you were going to reach it, no matter what it is, and no matter what decision you make to get there. Yes, the outcome will change as a result of our choices, but the simple definition of the 'future' still stays the same.
And that's where you assumed wrongly once again, because there's no objective certainty that proves you would even have a future. Furthermore while you're still hung up on "free will", the OP was arguing that there was no "free will" since there can only be one objective future in the first place:

Daniel9878 wrote:

Do not read this if you get confused easily (lack of brain power)



There is only one future
If the proposed future did not come to pass, then it was not the future
therefore the future will all ways be the future and you cannot change it

In a persons life, the events that take place are his/her future
if not, well then it is not their future

The only thing that effects a persons future/ outcome/ actions is the body and mind they're born with
and where they are born, the place they are born cannot be changed, neither is it the child's choice
because everything they do in the future will always come to pass, it is and always will be the future

All the external factors to your choices and dessicions were all part of the future
Everything you do, was all decided the moment you we're born
and everything that happens later in life is the effect of external forces that were gonna happen anyway.
There is no such thing as free will

The only way you can change your future
, is change who you are when you are born, your very essence.
and if you are a believer in god, well then he controls who you are born as
therefore he controls your future and judges you for his choice

So how can you even get whatever that the OP was saying in the first place?
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Earth, on the top...
Offline
Posted 10/28/10
You've quoted my sentences again. Okay.

Firstly, you've highlighted my 'The future that was going to happen.' and Daniel9878's 'There is only one future'. These sentences are saying the same thing.

Secondly, I mean free will in the 'events that take place ', which is backed up by the words 'your choices and dessicions'.
I'm not here to quote every line, but this is what I meant.

So you're basically saying you don't agree. Okay then, let's just leave it at that. I don't have the time to keep justifying myself, but thankyou for the fun discussion.

And I can't quote properly yet, sorry.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 10/28/10
Granted you can not even choose to be born and your future is started to tack from from that point on. However as you become older your action, and chose can make a better future for you. Or you can make bad choice and action that can lead to even a far worst future. It up to the person to make it or break it. There this thing called the human spirit and the drive to improve ones self, or you can be a victim all your life by not doing anything and let nature take it course that pathetic in my book.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/28/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Now you're just being silly, as in when you can't know for sure what your future holds for yourself, you can't make a sound decision based on uncertainty. Your best would be an educated guess, and even then that depends on your present level of both formal and experiential learning from your past. No matter whenever your current position of the time continuum that you're at, your self-identity will always be just a present conceptualization stemmed from your past. Therefore you can only expect the unexpected, and at best that's just an attitude. Finally, to just blindly claiming that all opinions are equally "not wrong" is once again an obscurum per obscurius logical fallacy. It doesn't make you being right.

So go ahead of yourself and imagine an unforeseeable future self-identity however you want, but don't expect that you'll be getting whatever that you're wishing for just like that, nor that you're right with whatever that yourself have yet to become. It's just your wishful thinking without sufficient justification.


Okay, I'm sorry, maybe I should stop ranting as well. Let me try to explain to you what we're talking about here instead of just blaming you for not understanding.

So basically, say we have subject A. Subject A decides to make a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast, but he quickly finds out he has no peanut butter. So instead, subject A decides to make a jelly sandwich and he succeeds.

So the question here is, was subject A's fate predetermined for him to have a jelly sandwich? It would seem so, because he ran out of peanut butter he decided to make a jelly sandwich.

Now suppose instead of just making a jelly sandwich, subject A decides to go to the supermarket and purchase some more peanut butter. Subject A then returns home and makes himself a peanut butter sandwich.

Now the question is, did subject A change his own fate by sticking to his original plan and fight through relatively more difficult situations to obtain what he originally wanted? At first glance, people might be inclined to say "Why of course, he fought against fate and won." But in reality he didn't, because his fate was originally designed for him to go out and buy peanut butter so he can still make a peanut butter sandwich instead of a jelly sandwich.

See, whatever happens, whatever choices you make, they will become the only possibility after they come to pass. Hence, defaulting to Occam's Razor: there is only one future, the future that our choices lead us to. The path that we did not choose, simply do not exist in reality.

QED


Why should Subject A even wanted to have breakfast in the first place, and if so, why must it only be peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Your hypothetical argument is thereby moot from the beginning, when you yourself predetermined Subject A's decision while you played God over your subject. But you are no God, when you're just the subject of your own imagination, who's interacting within your own conceptualization of reality; a reality that's for the most part beyond your own control.


Please realize that my post is a compare and contrast of "If A then B" vs. "If A then C". As such I do not need to individually and separately prove A, B and C.

For example, comparing the statements:
If God is as plausible as a spaghetti monster (A) then I will not believe in him (B).
and
If God is as plausible as a spaghetti monster (A) then regardless of that I will still believe in him (C).
The conclusion would yield that the second statement is a manifestation of the stubbornness to accept reality logically. Note that a proof of (A) is not necessary because the clause "if" automatically asserts the truthfulness of (A) in this particular scenario. This comparison doesn't prove (A), nor does it try to. It compares and contrasts (B) and (C) when assuming (A).

So yes, while you are correct in saying that the comparison between peanut butter sandwich and jelly sandwich I presented above is a hypothetical argument, and the scenarios are predetermined by me, that in itself does not detract from the worth of my argument and your post only serves as a distraction from the actual point of my post.

Congratulations, you've committed ignoratio elenchi.

Thank you for proving my speculations earlier about how you respond to posts.
Posted 10/28/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Why should Subject A even wanted to have breakfast in the first place, and if so, why must it only be peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Your hypothetical argument is thereby moot from the beginning, when you yourself predetermined Subject A's decision while you played God over your subject. But you are no God, when you're just the subject of your own imagination, who's interacting within your own conceptualization of reality; a reality that's for the most part beyond your own control.


Please realize that my post is a compare and contrast of "If A then B" vs. "If A then C". As such I do not need to individually and separately prove A, B and C.

For example, comparing the statements:
If God is as plausible as a spaghetti monster (A) then I will not believe in him (B).
and
If God is as plausible as a spaghetti monster (A) then regardless of that I will still believe in him (C).
The conclusion would yield that the second statement is a manifestation of the stubbornness to accept reality logically. Note that a proof of (A) is not necessary because the clause "if" automatically asserts the truthfulness of (A) in this particular scenario. This comparison doesn't prove (A), nor does it try to. It compares and contrasts (B) and (C) when assuming (A).

So yes, while you are correct in saying that the comparison between peanut butter sandwich and jelly sandwich I presented above is a hypothetical argument, and the scenarios are predetermined by me, that in itself does not detract from the worth of my argument and your post only serves as a distraction from the actual point of my post.

Congratulations, you've committed ignoratio elenchi.

Thank you for proving my speculations earlier about how you respond to posts.
Wrong, it's in fact you're the one who committed the irrelevant thesis argument in the first place. When you made your hypothetical statement not based on the OP's porposition of 1) there's no "free will" and 2) if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence. I was going for number 2 in my last statement, but you're just too narcissistic and subsequently arrogant to realize that:

The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of "being chosen" or of "being destined for greatness". He believes that he has a "direct line" to God, even, perversely, that God "serves" him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.(citation)
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/28/10 , edited 10/28/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Why should Subject A even wanted to have breakfast in the first place, and if so, why must it only be peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Your hypothetical argument is thereby moot from the beginning, when you yourself predetermined Subject A's decision while you played God over your subject. But you are no God, when you're just the subject of your own imagination, who's interacting within your own conceptualization of reality; a reality that's for the most part beyond your own control.


Please realize that my post is a compare and contrast of "If A then B" vs. "If A then C". As such I do not need to individually and separately prove A, B and C.

For example, comparing the statements:
If God is as plausible as a spaghetti monster (A) then I will not believe in him (B).
and
If God is as plausible as a spaghetti monster (A) then regardless of that I will still believe in him (C).
The conclusion would yield that the second statement is a manifestation of the stubbornness to accept reality logically. Note that a proof of (A) is not necessary because the clause "if" automatically asserts the truthfulness of (A) in this particular scenario. This comparison doesn't prove (A), nor does it try to. It compares and contrasts (B) and (C) when assuming (A).

So yes, while you are correct in saying that the comparison between peanut butter sandwich and jelly sandwich I presented above is a hypothetical argument, and the scenarios are predetermined by me, that in itself does not detract from the worth of my argument and your post only serves as a distraction from the actual point of my post.

Congratulations, you've committed ignoratio elenchi.

Thank you for proving my speculations earlier about how you respond to posts.
Wrong, it's in fact you're the one who committed the irrelevant thesis argument in the first place. When you made your hypothetical statement not based on the OP's porposition of 1) there's no "free will" and 2) if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence. I was going for number 2 in my last statement, but you're just too narcissistic and subsequently arrogant to realize that:

The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of "being chosen" or of "being destined for greatness". He believes that he has a "direct line" to God, even, perversely, that God "serves" him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.(citation)


My hypothetical scenario has everything to do with the OP's statement about there being only a singular possible future. I gave scenarios for different decisions to be accounted for but each scenario only has a singular outcome, and the future can only have a singular scenario. Therefor it is only possible to have a singular future.

It is actually you who is being too narcissistic to realize that we are talking about there is only one future as stated by the thread's namesake. We are not talking about what you're talking about which is as you put it "if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence."

Considering how we established an exchange of words prior to you intruding upon the conversation by quoting us, it is you who is blindly narcissistic and forcing your topic upon us. A topic which we have both on several occasions explicitly told you we are not talking about, and also a topic which does not have any direct conflicts with our original conversation but you're randomly spewing forth valid yet unrelated statements about it in an attempt to prove we are "wrong".

Who is the ignoratio elenchi-committing-narcissist now?

PS: If you report this reply to you, you better damn well report your reply to me just now as well.
Posted 10/28/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, it's in fact you're the one who committed the irrelevant thesis argument in the first place. When you made your hypothetical statement not based on the OP's porposition of 1) there's no "free will" and 2) if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence. I was going for number 2 in my last statement, but you're just too narcissistic and subsequently arrogant to realize that:

The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of "being chosen" or of "being destined for greatness". He believes that he has a "direct line" to God, even, perversely, that God "serves" him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.(citation)


My hypothetical scenario has everything to do with the OP's statement about there being only a singular possible future. I gave scenarios for different decisions to be accounted for but each scenario only has a singular outcome, and the future can only have a singular scenario. Therefor it is only possible to have a singular future.

It is actually you who is being too narcissistic to realize that we are talking about there is only one future as stated by the thread's namesake. We are not talking about what you're talking about which is as you put it "if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence."

Considering how we established an exchange of words prior to you intruding upon the conversation by quoting us, it is you who is blindly narcissistic and forcing your topic upon us. A topic which we have both on several occasions explicitly told you we are not talking about, and also a topic which does not have any direct conflicts with our original conversation but you're randomly spewing forth valid yet unrelated statements about it in an attempt to prove we are "wrong".

Who is the ignoratio elenchi-committing-narcissist now?

PS: If you report this reply to you, you better damn well report your reply to me just now as well.
Just don't get breakfast, and have brunch later. That will totally stick to the OP's original proposition, not mine:

Daniel9878 wrote:

Do not read this if you get confused easily (lack of brain power)



There is only one future
If the proposed future did not come to pass, then it was not the future
therefore the future will all ways be the future and you cannot change it

In a persons life, the events that take place are his/her future
if not, well then it is not their future

The only thing that effects a persons future/ outcome/ actions is the body and mind they're born with
and where they are born, the place they are born cannot be changed, neither is it the child's choice
because everything they do in the future will always come to pass, it is and always will be the future

All the external factors to your choices and dessicions were all part of the future
Everything you do, was all decided the moment you we're born
and everything that happens later in life is the effect of external forces that were gonna happen anyway.
There is no such thing as free will

The only way you can change your future, is change who you are when you are born, your very essence.

and if you are a believer in god, well then he controls who you are born as
therefore he controls your future and judges you for his choice

So as a matter of fact, not only you're a narcissus who can't take criticism at all, you also ignored the OP's thesis while you hijacked his thread with your own "free will" argument.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.