Oh no not another free will thread.

[henryp]

Your second level is nonsense.  Which is fine.  There's nothing wrong with pondering things.  But it carries 0 weight.  So you using it as an escape hatch to get out of a position you don't like is theistic.

Objective world outside of science?  Can you word the question more clearly.  What constitutes 'inside of science.'

Is it that you just don’t understand him?  Science is the most accurate tool that we presently have to build working models of the physical world as we experience it, but science is still contingent upon \

Science, as I think of it, is really just our most informed view of the objective world.  I'm not saying it's fully accurate.  The question is what rationale would lead a person to think they know better on a specific topic?

If everything we know points to A.  How do you justify B?  By saying "Well, science may be wrong!"?  But the follow up question is "Why do you think science is wrong in this case?"  To which they say what?  

Free will is a great example.  Hammy and I agree libertarian free will isn't real because of the evidence that it isn't real.  Other people, though, 'feel' like it is real.  So they start making up a bunch of shit outside of science.  But no matter how much logic they apply, it's all rooted in their 'feeling.'  A 'feeling' is a shit premise.  

If Lutrinae had said "Well, science doesn't know everything!"  I don't think we'd have all tipped our cap and said "Great point Lut!  That's the best argument for free will I've ever heard!  How foolish of us to have not strongly considered that!"