Quote (majorblood @ Aug 6 2025 12:55pm)

when I logically proved 10 times his statement of "the scientific method is the only currently known method for us humans to come to conclusions of truth" is false and internally contradicting

he begrudgingly moved the goalpost to "empirical science is humanity’s most successful method for understanding the world." without even fundamentally understanding why he is wrong


and when he said "Listen: Give me ONE example, just ONE logic example in which knowledge that is not aquired does not equal causation. If you can do that, then I retreat my case."

after giving a clear example of God's statement of "I AM THAT I AM" (God knows who he is and did not cause himself to exist as he is eternal) he replies "Sure, God knows about himself and he always was."

which agrees with my point precisely and fulfills his request, yet he does not "retreat his case" or admit he's wrong.

it doesn't come off as a genuine attempt at learning when you constantly shift goalposts instead of just admitting you were wrong saurod


when using modal logic to prove necessity vs certainty he just replies with the same incoherence and lack of basic understanding, it just all comes off as either complete ignorance or extreme bad faith

Quote (Chainsaw47 @ Aug 7 2025 12:11am)

Of course you have free will. It doesn’t mean the decisions you make can’t be influenced by genetics, your upbringing, education, religion and other experiences, but in the end YOU are responsible for YOUR actions and outcomes. Though some people tend to "go with the flow" it doesn’t mean there is no free will, just that some people are more strong-willed.

Quote (El1te @ Aug 6 2025 11:38pm)

It's almost like he has zero interest in listening or advancing his perspective, and just wants to "win" for his own perceived ego. It's almost like he is the evidence that the human psyche is naturally emotional and irrational and consequential of free will aimed in the wrong direction.

Quote (TiStuff @ Aug 6 2025 05:19pm)

its not his fault though. he has no free will to agree with you

Quote (SwamiVivekananda @ Aug 6 2025 03:28am)

Let's be real you don't bring anything substantive to this conversation. You posed one of the most BASED questions of all time and then when I gave you the truth you say shit like, "Your ad hominem crap doesn't impress me or intimidate me at all".

Who are YOU again?

You are the EGO and you identify with the reality around you using symbols, numbers, etc. to try and make sense of the world around you. You are not separate from that existence. That consciousness that permeates all of existence.

When someone like you even THINKS once you are already GONE. When a human being tries to "hold on to a concept/idea" it leads you NOWHERE because you are a NOBODY. The scientist using the micro/macro scopes will dig all the way down to the quartz and dark matter just like the astronomer will stare out into the stars through a telescope.

Who is the observer and who is the observed?

Do you think human beings throwing a bunch of symbols/numbers to simplify life actually encapsulates the true essence of existence itself? FUCK NO.

People like you have all the answers at your fingertips but you can't read a book and there's literally thousands on free will alone.

I'm glad you think I'm trying to impress or intimidate you. I'm trying to educate you.

You've deflected literally every question I ever directed towards you because you don't know how to conversate with someone whose "thought out" the whole "thought process".

My mind is always on God because God is all that exists and we are merely the instrumentation. If you try and hold on to ideas/concepts you will only get lost. God alone exists and there is no separation in existence everything varies by degree and not of kind.

Let me know when you can get passed all the semantics "scientific" types like yourself have.

Vedanta is a philosophy that utilizes intense logic/high science and the wisdom of the ancient scripture to reveal a great truth to you. You are God and yet you go around saying "I can't be that". That's because your definition of God up until I smacked you over the head with a Buddhist hand gesture was, "A magical man in the sky". You didn't know some people don't ascribe or bane their existence on the Abrahamic centric world view.

I don't think you can fathom that you've only studied one side of this discussion. Still can't admit that which is insane to me. Fuckin crack head shit, "I ascribe to this"......."Who are you?" is the question you need to ask yourself. You never have and if you did you wouldn't sound so pretentious and scared.

edit: God forbid you have to do the research yourself to see and experience that truth.

Vedanta literally translates as, "the end of knowledge" because when knowledge ends realization begins. You stop pretending you can understand existence better then existence can understand itself.

What's more likely happening ^Saurod is God having an experience through you or are you having an experience through God?

Quote (Saurod @ Aug 7 2025 06:13am)

We talked a lot already, so I know you a bit by now. Not as a person, but as a character here on d2jsp.
I know that your argumentation shifted to this direction because I annoy you or you dont want to take me seriously. You keep painting the picture of a mindless zombie and ridicule the "No free will" - argument.

When I say I dont believe in free will, I dont mean that we are all mindless zombies or that we dont have desires, intentions, or preferences. What I mean is that our decisions and thoughts arise from processes in our brain that we dont choose.

We dont choose our genes, our upbringing, our environment, or the moment-to-moment brain activity that gives rise to thoughts and impulses.

So yes, it feels like I am choosing freely, but that feeling itself is the result of prior causes.

In this view, free will is more of an illusion. We feel like authors of our choices, but the mechanisms behind them are not under our conscious control.

That doesnt make us lifeless automatons. It just means our sense of control is a story our brain tells us, rather than a literal power to act independently of cause and effect.

Same for the religious argument. God made the decisions doesnt mean we are mindless, it just means theres a hidden determinism, that we dont feel but cant escape from.

In the end you can totally argue that the feeling of freedom is indistinguishable from real freedom. And thats probably true. If you think you are free, you are. No matter if its all determined or not.

Quote (Saurod @ Aug 7 2025 04:53am)

Oh man, you guys love to shoot at me, right? Id like to clarify a few things, as I believe my original statement may have been misunderstood. Sorry this is a bit long, but please read. I cant make it any shorter if I wanna say what I wanna say.

When I said that "there is only one method to verifiably prove things," I didnt mean theres only one discipline. What I meant is that all methodologically verifiable claims that aspire to universal validity must be grounded in logically consistent, transparent structures, namely mathematics, logic, and the scientific method, which in turn relies on those foundations. This wasnt a dogmatic claim, but a description of the current state of epistemic methodology. Religion, intuition, revelation, or subjective experience may be meaningful to individuals, but they do not meet the criteria of universally verifiable knowledge.

As for the other big point you mention, the quote "I AM THAT I AM":

Heres the context. I had argued that all knowledge requires a source. Normally, knowledge is acquired or caused.

Attempting to transfer this principle to Gods existence, i.e., saying “God knows that he is”, doesnt refute my core argument because god has no cause. His knowledge of himself cant be a caused of course because god has no origin. Also, self-awareness isnt knowledge in the traditional sense anyways.

But if God is omniscient, then he already knows all human actions before those humans ever choose or perform them. And since this knowledge is not acquired through observation, but embedded in gods very nature, it is, logically speaking, causal. In other words:

If Gods knowledge is absolute and self-contained, then no decision can take place outside of that knowledge. Thus, there can be no libertarian free will for created beings.

You suggested that Gods knowledge could be acausal. But thats precisely the issue:

Acausality, when paired with concrete, predictive knowledge of specific actions, creates a logical contradiction. Either Gods knowledge is acausal, in which case it isnt determinative and becomes only potential (which undermines the concept of omniscience), or it is determinative and therefore causal, leaving no room for true freedom of will on the part of creatures.

If Gods knowledge is not only vast but perfectly complete and immutable, then logically there can be no actual room for open choice, because all decisions are already fully contained within that knowledge, even before the individual exists, regardless of their experience, thought, or intention.

So I dont deny that God can know that he exists without him causing it. What I deny is that this form of divine self-awareness is a valid analogy for reconciling divine omniscience with human free will. Gods existence is, by definition, without origin, but our decisions are not. And in a fully omniscient reality, their origin is already fully determined.

Quote (Saurod @ Aug 7 2025 08:33am)

Healthy and understandable answer, but it doesnt get to the core of things imho.

I share your feelings about things. The question, or lets say my claim, is in the end a philosophical one as we cant prove or disprove anything here.

So heres where I come from if you havent read through the topic:

If you believe in the biblical god than it is hard to make an argument in favor of free will. The biblical christian god is allknowing. He knows what we all have done, do and will do. He knew it 14 billion years ago and he knows it now and in the future. Time is not a concept of importance for god anyways.

So if god has always known what you will do, he can say he gave us free will as often as he wants, but its, logically speaking, probably not true.
A decision might seem free, but he made that decision for us an eternity ago. His knowledge isnt passive or aquired as that would mean there was a time when he didnt know it. As the source of all things he has to be the source of all decisions or is a passive watcher, which means he would not be omnipotent anymore.

And if you dont believe in god, then theres the determinsim of nature. Everything on the bigger scale is - in theory - predictable. Although some people in here have quite a few intelligent thoughts on that, which question this. But not the extent of disproving it imho.

So, while we both are on the same page when it comes to how we feel about the world, the question about free will remains. I admit that claiming free will doesnt exist was a rather provocative move I cant prove, but it is more conclusive than the opposite from an objective point of view as I would not be able to make a case in favor of free will right now. Not scientifically and not religiously.

Quote (Saurod @ 7 Aug 2025 09:55)

Your problem is this - and I say it as simple as I can:

All you say, you say because you are impressed by some dude - who was impressed by some dude himself. You parrot shit that is absolutely meaningless, because you are unable to actually think about anything yourself.

Indian dude says this, Indian dude says that. What do you say? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Phrases like "we are nobody" are the exact same as saying we are everybody. Its just phrases based on...yap, exactly, based on nothing.

I understand you are impressed by heavy phrases seemingly rich in meaning, but they arent. No one has lesser to say than you in this thread. And no book you read will make you more right than anyone else.

Quote (Chainsaw47 @ 7 Aug 2025 17:19)

It’s an interesting discussion for sure. I think most people have an instinctive answer to that question, though it’s not something that can be proven or disproven scientifically, much like the existence of a god. I’m not personally religious so I can’t elaborate much on that. From a logical standpoint, yes nature is typically predictable, but I’m of the opinion that our will or our resolve transcends "nature". What I can do has physical and practical boundaries, much of which come from basic physics and my education. However, what I can think or wish isn’t bound by these limitations. I can’t fly on my own, but I can have the will to fly and I can visualize it with perfect accuracy. In that sense, I do think we have free will.