You did not establish your source as credible. Your appeal to authority, and citation, thus failed.
Philosophy is not a provable argument. It provides no evidence. It is opinion. It does not establish your wild premise of not having free-will, which is demonstrably provable. I can turn left or right right now. Your whole argument boils down to claiming I don't have a choice after the fact, claiming that whatever I picked, either I didn't pick it or I picked both. It's nonsense. Your entire premise is begging the question.
You're the one attempting to overturn established, real-world facts like free-will. You are the one presenting a new view in an article. You are the one that needs to provide the evidence, not me. You failed to do that.
I read the article open to being convinced, you failed to establish your premise, I pointed this out, then you appealed to the authority of a Satanist as your trump card. Had you said "Well, this Satanist has a ph.d in theoretical physics," then I would probably have considered that satisfactory to my objection. You refused to do that, instead accusing me of being religious, rendering your accusation of me being religion-obsessed hypocritical.
I never cared that he was religious, just that he was an outsider with a voluntarily-selected ideology that is widely perceived as anti-social. This makes him statistically far, far more likely to have a variety of disorders such as anti-social personality disorder. This is statistical fact.
Want to keep fighting facts? Start here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11040620
"Adolescents previously involved in Satanism present behavioral problems like aggressive outbursts, depression, "psychosis" or suicide attempts, that could lead to suicide."
You can find lots more.
It was not an attack of his character or religion, by me, to suggest sketicism given his leanings until you could establish some credentials. You neglected to do this. I attempted to locate his credentials myself, and was met with the rambling writings of a cult leader.
It's a lot easier to poke holes in an argument than create one. You created the argument, I poked the holes. It's your article, not mine. It's not my duty to cover the whole topic. I only need cover enough to show clear fallacies in your logic, which you have refused to address.
How do you define a source credible? Because some people said so? Since when truth is democracy?
i know. i said that.
the other two links that you are comfortably ignoring render free-will useless. and they are scientific.
free-will is a concept of religion, definitely not from the realm of "facts". Oh dear...lol
You are making the claim that it exists a-priori. The burden of proof is on you.
You clearly not done so. We were talking about intelligence and you drove the topic away to whether a source is credible about free will.
You clearly failed in every possible level on this debate. You are just trying to find corners to shine.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"How do you define a source credible? Because some people said so? Since when truth is democracy?"
I didn't define credibility. I left that option up to you. You didn't even try. You appear to fundamentally reject that credibility is even a factor. Do you know what an expert witness is in a trial? I work with them frequently. It's quite a simple thing to establish the basic credibility of a witness. It can even be easily done with non-expert witnesses, just by showing they are law abiding, don't spread crazy pamphlets about "the End is coming" on the roadside, etc.
Every one of your responses is anti-objective logic.
"You clearly failed in every possible level on this debate. You are just trying to find corners to shine."
I'm sorry to say something that you will perceive as arrogant, but this is objectively false. Were we being judged under formal rules of debate, you would be getting demolished, because you refuse to address any of my legitimate observations. Every time I pin down a fundamental inconsistency in your argument, or point out a logical fallacy, you either move to something else, or engage in whataboutism. You're form of argument is Machiavellian, not logical. You aren't interested in truth, only winning. You want your opinions accepted as fact, and your poor sources accepted as credible, and your un-provable arguments assumed. You've acted very defensive this whole time, while I am just attempting to get to the facts, dispassionately.
Based on the quality of your previous articles, I assumed we could clear up your gaps in logic. Instead, you are defensive and agitated. I don't see much point in continuing to reply to you, as you are now clearly debating in bad faith.
It's "feels over reals", it's counter to logic, and it's counter to objectivity.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
you are intellectually pathetic. You first complained about him being Satanist, thus not credible and then i was supposed to give him credibility? You could just answer his philosophical propositions.
This conversation is over.
You are the one doing this. I brough you plenty of evidence. Hence why you resorted in needing credibility for the Satanist, ignoring that the bacteria in your gut predetermine anything you do and that ever conscious decision is taken before you even make up your mind.
Science evidence man. You lost the debate looong time ago when you decided to ditch them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"ignoring that the bacteria in your gut predetermine anything you do and that ever conscious decision is taken before you even make up your mind."
This is nonsense with no support. You have provided no evidence. Science does not agree with you. All you do is hurl accusations. Your argument is intellectually dishonest.
"You first complained about him being Satanist"
I pointed out you failed to establish the credibility of your source, and then I pointed out potential flaws. You refused to ever respond. Everything you have said has only strengthened my argument.
I ask you again to establish the credibility of your trump source, or retract. You have not, and will not, because you are intellectually bankrupt.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i gave you the papers. read them, you are in denial kiddo
another one, simple english. your level
https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit