[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This just shows me how inaccurate your reasoning actually is. Why don't you try to understand why free will can never ever ever be proven true instead of telling me bullshit. We can state our opinion that we have free will, but there can be no absolute proof because this requires going back in time. I haven't seen anyone lately that can do that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know free will can be neither proven nor disproven, and neither can determinism. They aren't testable in any way. I have been saying that to you for over a year.

I don't care what you have been saying LadyShea for over a year. You don't get the last word on this topic. Have you ever considered that you might not know as much as you think you know? How arrogant you are. It amazes me every time you open your mouth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what was your point? Do you think either determinism or free will can be proven or disproven?

Free will cannot be proven for the reasons that were given. That does not mean determinism cannot be proven true. Obviously, you either didn't read this part, or you failed to grasp its significance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Determinism cannot be proven or disproven because it is a concept with various meanings and definitions.

Completely wrong. The reason he used death over life is because determinism over free will is the same concept. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time. These are exact opposites, but you have been so confused with words that you actually believe that you can have freedom of the will and no freedom of the will at the same time. It's impossible. The various definitions only contribute to your confusion and why I can't get through to you at all.

Originally Posted by Lessans

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something
false?”


“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it
is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”


“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is — although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving
determinism true, or free will false.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans says that determinism can be proven true, but that's just an assertion. He offers no evidence to support that claim at all. Concepts with multiple meanings and understandings cannot be proven or disproven.

You never grasped why the law of greater satisfaction is not an assertion, so you keep accusing him of this as if you know what you're talking about. You are making yourself look foolish. Listen up: If a definition does not represent reality, IT IS NOT USEFUL. You are so hard headed because you are determined to prove Lessans wrong (and will not be able to do this because he wasn't wrong), you cannot get out of your own way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Proving determinism false would not prove free will true...they are concepts with many possible understandings and definitions.

There could be many possible understandings and definitions, but remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. You can define something any way you want, but that doesn't mean it reflects anything real, therefore it will have no usefulness.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When words represent concepts rather than concrete things definitions mean everything. You can't demonstrate or display or hold or touch free will or determinism. They are not concrete things. They aren't "real" to use your language. In this case you can only explain what you mean using words. If you have a different definition for words than the people you are talking to, then you are not conveying your meaning at all. That's not useful

Hello? Isn't that what I just said?

I'm not talking about the symbol. I'm talking about whether that symbol actually represents something real. If it does, then you can use any symbol as long as both parties understand the meaning of the word in context, but if the symbol does not represent reality, then it doesn't matter what symbol is being used, the representation is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My point stands...proving determinism false would not prove free will true because neither can be proven or disproven at all.

And my point stands that if you were capable of careful reasoning, you would see that this reasoning is very accurate. You are just throwing around words and thinking that your rebuttal is more accurate than Lessans' extremely astute observations. You are arguing with someone who was as capable as Einstein was, in his own right. I know you don't believe this, which is why I really have no desire to talk to you any further unless you can admit that you may be wrong. That your ability to determine what is true and what isn't may not be as up to par as you think.