Posts: 5170
Threads: 364
Joined: September 25, 2012
Reputation:
61
RE: free will paradox
February 4, 2013 at 9:56 am
Dude we should totaly hang out together!
Have you ever been to the Netherlands?
Posts: 473
Threads: 31
Joined: February 2, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: free will paradox
February 4, 2013 at 10:16 am
No but always wanted to plus germans can put back some beer i hear haha i'm all in
Posts: 473
Threads: 31
Joined: February 2, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: free will paradox
February 4, 2013 at 11:38 am
So gods rules over rule god? i'm mean you're saying he can't even prove himself because he made it to where he couldn't wtf? Wow.....and you've mistaken me for some who gives a shit about muslim and cats. Cause i don't. And oh thank you oh merciful for letting me off the hook, but i'm afraid i'll have to ask to please explain this last statement to me, in detail. So far i grasped god isn't part of this physical reality then he is the physical reality if you just believe, then he is back not being in this physical reality when you don't believe. Where am i mistaken oh wise one.
Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: free will paradox
February 4, 2013 at 1:05 pm
"Will paradox" is an odd name for a whale.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 593
Threads: 32
Joined: August 30, 2011
Reputation:
8
RE: free will paradox
February 4, 2013 at 4:16 pm
It is a funny thing. If you believe in free will you have it.
If you don't, you don't.
It is similar to god in many ways.
Please consider this, OP:
Imagine yourself (justin) and your debater (fr0d0) both meet, and that you are both skilled and proficient at inducing an hypnotic state in each other.
To avoid further verbal bloodshed I'll refer to you both as simply, "A" and "B".
To begin with A induces an hypnotic state in B. As a result, B will be completely subject to the will of A. Even so, B does not experience any lack of free will, nor that he is acting under the will of A.
So maybe, despite having no free will whatsoever it is still possible to be under the illusion you do have free will?
Now for the second part of the experiment, A instructs B to induce a hypnotic state in him (in A that is).
So now A is under the will of B and B under the will of A!
How can that be? Both are exerting their will on each other but neither has free will.