(April 15, 2016 at 12:35 pm)Evie Wrote: @ Irrational
Well, the will isn't free. The concept of the will being free is nonsensical. Why should we try to redefine free will into something less nonsensical?
The danger is equivocation. If "free will" just means "unconcerned will" then the question "Does free will exist?" was pointless asking anyway because everyone already knows that our wills aren't always coerced -- compatabilism is a dodge that ignores the real issue which is that libertarian free will does not exist and yet so many people believe in it or at least behave as if it does... we hold people absolutely responsible because "they could have done otherwise" which is false, they couldn't of any free will of their own.
I agree with you about the whole responsibility stuff, but that's another topic. My question to you is: why is not being coerced not an indicator of freedom? After all, how do you normally define freedom?
Quote:Compatabilism is as nonsensical as pantheism. It's like "The existence of God is not the issue, the real issue is why should we define God as something nonsensical and not instead define God as simply the universe itself?"
Well, I'm fine with people equating God to such a spectacular magnificent thing as the universe as long as they make it clear that's what they mean by God.
On a related note, some people experience something really deep when they're contemplating the universe, existence, and all that. And to them, that is God. In that sense, God does exist as a metaphor of some sort.
