I don't see how it could be naive realism. — MikeL
In just the same way as we naively imagine there must be objects independent of our experience, and yet just as we experience them; so it is with the idea that "a path was walked" independent of our experience and understanding. This cannot be anything more than a groundless assumption. — Janus
Well anyone can call supernatural natural. — Rich
But you can say anything you want. — Rich
I can skip to the end of time and look at all the choices you made and the path you took. It's just you can't see it yet. Time is a curtain obscuring it. — MikeL
We walk only one path. The fact you chose to go left instead of right tomorrow was written in history the day after tomorrow, but it was written- or from today's point of view, will be written. I can go to the day after tomorrow and see that you did it - and you had complete free will in doing so. — MikeL
I disagree. I think the language sharply differentiates with different words between different concepts. If "natural" can be called "supernatural", as you suggest, then sonic could be called supersonic, imposed could be called superimposed, and so on. But these things are definitely different from each other. So is "natural" from "supernatural".
It is unnatural to call natural supernatural. — szardosszemagad
What is this philosophy in which ''you can say anything you want''? — TheMadFool
Any Determinist should feel very comfortable in a Calvinist church as long as they substitute the phrase Natural Laws for the word God. I mean, we are all grown ups. No need to play games here. You have your faith in fate and you are entitled to it. Worshipping Natural Laws that are omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicient, and never changing is quite OK. — Rich
Where do you get this cheap crap? that I need to worship anything? — szardosszemagad
And that God = deterministic universe according to the Calvinist faith? — szardosszemagad
Natural laws are not omnipotent, — szardosszemagad
Natural laws are not all-powerful. The meaning of "omnipotent". You also said natural laws are omniscient. A law is not a sentient being that can know anything. Omniscient means "all-knowing". — szardosszemagad
They are your God. An adjusted Calvinism so you can feel so very scientific. You do have Faith that they exist, correct? — Rich
Everyone is making up stories to fit their goal. — Rich
What's your favorite story about determinism? — Rich
I'm not denying free will but I am saying there are rules to the entire process (laws of nature, social interaction, etc) and so, even if there is free will, it's restricted for the most part. — TheMadFool
This choice can only made based on preferences. — TheMadFool
Thanks for displaying a low IQ level. Now I know how you are able to cling to your false belief. I told you that laws know nothing, and yet you insist they do.They are the Laws that are everywhere, unchanging and eyeball, know everything that is happening, and guide everything. — Rich
So the future does not exist? — MikeL
Is your assertion that the future does not exist? If it does then it must be determined. If it does not, then we open up a new direction in the discussion. — MikeL
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.