Kllrnohj wrote:
Schrödingers cat doesn't decide if it lives or dies regardless of whether or not free will exists or not. I'm not sure you understand that thought experiment. See, the cat gets *KILLED* by a *RANDOM* event. Free will plays no role whatsoever.
See, the decision in your brain gets *MADE* by a *RANDOM* event. Free will plays no role whatsoever.
Quote:
So your point is that since Object A is built out of Object B, Object A can no longer exist? Wow, just... wow....
My point is that if Object A is built out of Objects B, then it is nothing more than a collection of Objects B, and has no more meaning or relevance than any of its individual components
Quote:
Methodological naturalism, of course. You should at least learn the terminology before you decide to classify what is and isn't "basic", as again, you clearly lack a grasp of naturalism.
Methodological naturalism is a cop-out for intellectually lazy deists and agnostics and/or a mechanism for soft-peddling ontological naturalism to theists, and as far as I can tell, irrelevant to a serious discussion of worldview. If you can give me 3 valid reasons why someone would hold to methodological naturalism without also holding to ontological naturalism I might take that claim a little more seriously.
Quote:
It doesn't actually dispute what I said in any way.
Except for your earlier claim that you haven't held contradicting viewpoints.