(May 8, 2016 at 7:37 am)robvalue Wrote: OK. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer. I will think on it.
I'm saying it's a flawed argument to use the lack of free will to try and persuade someone to act in a way that requires free will to make sense. It would be like saying how we should spend our money, assuming we have no money.
Why? Because I've seen this mistake many times. It's just an aside.
It's not really flawed, you're just confused about it. You don't believe in free will, yet I assume you do think people should act in a certain way, so whether you like it or not, you make that same argument again and again. The apparent contradiction dispels when you consider the fact that one is an observation( there is no free will) and the other is a suggestion(we should do X). The two can and do coexist, that much is clearly the case, and I don't see why they shouldn't, though arguing in that direction seems utterly illogical to begin with.
