(May 28, 2009 at 9:30 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(May 28, 2009 at 7:09 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'm not going to believe on 'faith'. I need a rational reason to believe - I need evidence.As I explained to you last night (and I seem to remember you agreeing with me), evidence isn't the only example of rational reasoning. There is no evidence that 1 + 1 = 2, but we believe it because maths works better when that holds.
Philosophy and logic cannot possibly have evidence for them, and this is a philosophical issue. Hence there is no evidence for either side. The rational reasons to believe are based on logic.
I didn't agree actually. I agreed that I cannot absolutely know these things. I'm agnostic on basically everything.....In that sense I'm philosophical.
I do expect evidence for a belief though. By evidence I mean in a very general way - I simply mean I need a valid reason to believe in something. If there's no valid reason to believe then why believe? If there is a valid reason to believe then that would have to be an indication of the truth of the belief - otherwise it wouldn't be valid. And if it's an indication of the truth of the belief then for me it is iow evidence. That is all I mean.
I need some indication that free will is true. By evidence I just mean that. A valid reason to believe in the truth of it - any whatsoever. If valid then it would iow count as some form of evidence, I would think?
(May 29, 2009 at 12:51 am)lrh9 Wrote: I believe that options equate to free will. (Especially when there are stimuli for more than one of the options.)
How couldn't options be there just as easily without free will? I know of no reason whatsoever to believe that options are an indication of free will. Options can be there and you can still 'act them out' without having any real choice in doing so. Without 'free will'. How would options make a difference?
I still need reason to believe in free will. Otherwise I don't see why on earth I would.
EvF
