(September 18, 2013 at 2:41 pm)John V Wrote:(September 18, 2013 at 2:32 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That doesn't seem to follow. If I build a robot and it does exactly what I program it to do, the things that happen to it as a result are still happening to it. If it loses an arm, it loses an arm. If I program it to feel pain and it feels it, it is what is feeling pain.I disagree. In this scenario "Ouch that hurts" only goes through its mind because you determined before it was even created that "Ouch that hurts" would go through its mind at that point in time. It didn't happen "as a result" of anything beside your programming.
So, as an omnipotent programmer who determines the outcome of anything I am unable to cause something to feel pain without giving it free will first? That could only be beause it is paradoxical. And the only support you've given for it being paradoxical is you saying it's obviously nonsensical.
Like I said, if you can prove suffering necessitates free will, you'll have proven free will. There's probably a Nobel Prize for that. Surely you can support your contention with more than 'hey, it's obvious!'?
I've got nothing against free will myself, I'd love it to be salvaged. But not enough to make a bad argument for it.
P1: Suffering exists.
P2: Suffering necessitates free will.
C: Free will exists.
Establish P2 and you WILL be famous.