2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: pbs space time
Probabilistic events aren't going to help your free will argument. If you could somehow demonstrate human willpower consistently affecting the frequency of quantum tunneling events or something like that we might have something to talk about, I guess. In reality, however, the odds of quantum tunneling events occurring are related to the physical properties of the wave packet and barrier involved in the event and not arbitrary human whims. Very few skeptics will be convinced of the existence of free will by unsubstantiated (and/or supernatural) claims regarding the nature of probabilistic and/or indeterministic events.
...
Atheism of the gaps? The burden of proof for a lack of a belief? WTF?! 🤣 If you want to be taken seriously you need to say serious things!
Comment by diogenesthehopeful at 13/09/2024 at 08:51 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Probabilistic events aren't going to help your free will argument
Counterfactuals seal the deal. If I can carry out a plan that is free will. If I can keep a promise, that is free will. My intentional behavior is dictated by my understanding of what will happen later if I do this behavior now. If I don't want to hurt my wife later I won't cheat on her now. The probability of her finding out if I cheated could change my calculation. For example, if I cheat on her with her best friend on one of her sisters then there is a stronger probability that she will find out than say contrasted with a total stranger in another city. I can plan a lot of things based on some counterfactual that may or may not play out. If I don't cheat, I don't have to worry about getting caught cheating. That doesn't mean I won't get framed by somebody that would rather have my wife for himself, but that is his counterfactual plan being caring out that couldn't happen if determinism was true. Determinism suggests that the only thing driving what happens are the facts and counterfactuals have no causal power until they are actual events. That doesn't match our experience. I can believe it is going to rain and that is enough for me to carry my umbrella with me whether it rains or not.
The burden of proof for a lack of a belief? WTF?
It will help when you recognize a lack of belief so I'll try to help:
The law of excluded middle says propositions are either true or false (no in between). Let's say "god exists" is a proposition and for the sake of argument we call it P. Now:
1. some people believe P is true
2. some people believe P is false
3. the rest lack belief because that don't believe they know enough to say P is true or false with any sense of conviction. Appropriately they are called agnostic and don't have any burden of proof
In contrast the atheist believes P is false so it is up to him to prove why he believes P is false.
The so called agnostic atheist is trying to argue P is false without saying he believes P is false. That seems disingenuous to me.