(March 14, 2012 at 10:24 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Therefore. The ultimate therefore here...
You must show causation can be superseded to show free will.
Otherwise, we are simply saying the argument doesn't disprove magic because it starts with the assumption there is no magic.
I hold my hand up here, I assume no magic. But the onus of proof is always on "Magic".
You only need to show free will exists if you reject the evidence of your own experience. Magic always seems to come down to sleight of hand and misdirection. You say our apparent experience of free will is an illusion. Perhaps you like to explain how that is done exactly.
I agree with Genkaus that it is time to decide exactly what we mean by "free will". Because in addition to the archaic version we use it in mundane useful ways in the courtroom to determine competence and to describe levels of childhood development.
I'm always struck when proponents of determinism ask for a display of free will that they have just given it themselves or else what they claim to have reasoned to is in some sense just a hardwired belief.
Thank you gentlemen for an interesting discussion and for once again providing me with an excuse for a last minute rush to work.