(August 8, 2013 at 5:08 pm)HalcyonicTrust Wrote: Genakus,
Why does everyone keep spelling my name wrong?
(August 8, 2013 at 5:08 pm)HalcyonicTrust Wrote: I am saying that any definition of Libertarianism that implies that chance can be "free-will" is useless and one's that claim "free-will" without chance is contradictory.
I am not close minded, I stated what I believe to be the issue, in my opinion. If you believe I am not entitled that opinion without being close minded, then you are close minded, in my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is assuming your opinion is a fact and arguing from that assumption.
Libertarians don't see "chance as free-will" definition as useless and other libertarians don't regard "free-will without chance" as contradictory. Neither is an established position, but if you enter a debate which presumes libertarian definition then trying to interject another definition makes for an invalid argument.
(August 8, 2013 at 5:08 pm)HalcyonicTrust Wrote: "Free will" has a large effect on what our moral responsibility ultimately is.
It does. But moral responsibility is defined simultaneously with free-will.
(August 8, 2013 at 5:08 pm)HalcyonicTrust Wrote: Either we are ultimately entirely determined or NOT.
The "NOT" part demonstrates a true dichotomy when combined with the "ultimately" part filtering out us being partly determined and partly undetermined.
Just out of curiosity, how do you think your arguments apply to a dualist worldview?
