(May 30, 2009 at 9:32 am)Darwinian Wrote: No.. Just because there is no evidence for proposition A in no way does it follow that proposition B has gained credibility as a result.
I'm just saying that no evidence to believe in A =no reason to believe in A. That's not faith. It's the opposite. Faith is belief without evidence. Not disbelief without evidence.
Quote:I could say, but I don't, that you have no evidence for your belief in the illusion of free will so therefore and because of that, that I have some sort of evidence in favour of it.
It's by default an illusion because the fact people merely believe it is not evidence of the truth of it - that would be circular reasoning.
I need a reason to believe it's actually true. The fact people believe it is not evidence of the truth of it, as i said - that's circular. That's why it's an illusion because belief does not equate to truth of belief because that's circular!
The fact those who believe in God experience the illusion of God existing is not evidence of the truth of it! Their belief in God is not evidence of the truth of their belief in God! That's circular.
Why would it be different for free will?
For my belief is not a belief but a dislbelief. When I say "I believe there is no free will" I am IOW saying that I DISbelieve in free will. So I don't need evidence of 'no free will' I need evidence OF free will - since I am not being absolutist.[/u]
Quote:But you clearly said..
I believe that I know it's an now illusion
This is a statement of belief without evidence. Faith!
I believe it's an illusion because I iow have no reason to believe it's true. I iow disbelieve in free will because there is no evidence. That's not faith. Disbelief without evidence isn't faith - belief without evidence is faith.
The fact that there's no evidence that 'free will' is true is all the evidence I need to believe it's an illusion! Same with God...for all those who believe in God and experience the illusion of God's existence there is still no evidence of the truth of it - That's all I need for evidence that they're merely experiencing an illusion. As with 'free will'.
And if you can't call absence of evidence evidence of absence in this case then that's irrelevant to this matter because it's still not faith. As I said - faith isn't disbelief without evidence...it's belief without evidence.
If you disbelieve in something because there's no evidence then that's not a faith belief! And nor is it irrational:
Just as it's rational for when there's evidence for you to believe...it's rational for when there's no evidence for you to disbelieve.
Quote:fr0d0 tells me that there can be no evidence of God so it's ridiculous to ask for it. And I say that I'm still not going to actually believe without evidence though.
Who understands what fr0d0 says? Not even fr0d0 I suspect. No offence fr0d0
Okay...but my point is that I've been told the similar about 'free will' here as fr0d0 tells me about God it seems...and I don't see why free will is any different on this matter here...?:
Because: If there can be no evidence of God that doesn't mean you don't need evidence first before you rationally believe - I still expect evidence first before I actually believe in "God".
And just like that: If there can be no evidence of (behavioral) 'free will' that doesn't mean you don't need evidence first before you rationally believe - I still expect evidence first before I actually believe in 'free will'.
Fr0d0 tells me there can't be evidence of God but that there can still be reasons. I ask what reasons, and he can't give me them.
If there can't be evidence for "God" that does not mean it's in any way rational to believe in God without evidence for him. That would still be irrational.
Just like that though, here I have been told there can't be evidence of free will will. But there can be reasons. I ask what reasons, and it seems I'm not given anything but the same circular argument and or changes back and forth to other definitions of 'free will' that are completely different and even I don't reject.
And if there can't be evidence for (behavioral)'free will' that does not mean it's in any way rational to believe in 'free will' without evidence for it.. That would still be irrational.
Why would 'free will' be any different?
EvF
