Re: Futurama logically PROVES God has no free will

What you add to one side, you must add to the other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3nF69AHKcw&feature=g-u&context=G2b8ea...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Futurama
• free
• will
• god
• logic
• logical
• William
• lane
• craig
• robs
• of
• linda
• screams
• choice
• funny
• lulz
• lol
• comedy
• philosophy
• bullshit
• proof
• without
• evidence
• in
• reality
• pointless
• and
• crazy
• philosophical
• Christian
• mormon
• islam
• muslim
• mohammad
• has
• none
• either
• Humour
• Debate
• thunderfoot

[blackacidlizzard]

@peanarchist

Yes, I am aware that once one defines determinism as ":cause and effect" it is needed for free will.

this is not at all new to me.

[peanarchist]

@blackacidlizzard

I think you've missed the point. The idea is that determinism makes (what we presume is) free will possible and not vice versa, contrary to popular delusion.

[siggyboss]

Good stuff.

[SUPERKNOWZ]

wow very complex -- how bout this -- the universe by success or failure and in an attempt to live longer will find the most efficient way to dissipate energy. much like water flowing down hill . -- lost my thought -- damn weed

THE KNOWZ

[blackacidlizzard]

@peanarchist

I don't see how this clarifies anything other than the reality that we do not know.

And I already know that I don't know.

So if there is a point in that metaphor, it is not a point which I was in need of being told.

[peanarchist]

@blackacidlizzard

Does will have a cause? Or is it stripped of this axiom in a pre-determined world?

Have you considered Hegel's compass analogy?

If a compass had human conciousness it would think it's ability to move the cause for free will and the fact that it always lands on North as a barrier of this freedom (or will).

We all know the opposite is correct, right?

[blackacidlizzard]

@peanarchist

I think what you are saying is that in order for will to act, there must be cause and effect relationships, is that correct?

if so, then it is simply a matter of having some things which function within a strict set of causal patterns (at least close enough for the purposes of what the will is attempting) and some things which are not so tightly bound.

Which, by the way, seems to be exactly how the universe is.

[peanarchist]

@blackacidlizzard

Let's assume non-pre-determinism. Now how can you determine anything, let alone free will?

Like the "randomisation therefore free will" argument, the lack of an opposition doesn't make an argument right, it actually rather distorts it.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@jbc

so the identity of an object has nothing to do with "time." objects can only be distinguished via their shape and location.

if you start with universes which contain the same objects with the same relationship to one another then you've said nothing about how these objects behave. if in retrospect you assume that they interact differently and conclude that they have different identities, then it follows that they never had the same identity in the first place.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@jbc

what is it that you are "adding" to both universes? what does it mean physically to "add time?" what you gave us was a statement of the facts, ie, two originally identical universes which diverge. where in this is there any adding of "time?" time is just a comparison of two different motions, its a concept, it has no structure and it presents no surfaces.