3 ms·
Yes.
by krapp 1mo ago
Yes.
- david-gpu 1mo agoOkay, let us see your homework.
- krapp 1mo agowhat homework?
- david-gpu 1mo agoPrecisely.
- krapp 1mo agoPrecisely what? I don't see you citing any sources.
- AnimalMuppet 1mo agoNo, but you're the one who made the initial claim. Under normal debate rules, you have the burden of proof.
- david-gpu 1mo agoYeah, I don't even have an opinion on this debate, other than it is a complex subject where people tend to have strong opinions with little to back them up.
- krapp 1mo agoThis isn't a formal debate, this is a discussion forum. There is no burden of proof here.
- AnimalMuppet 1mo agoEven so, it feels a bit unfair for you to make the initial claim, the other guy disagrees, and then you demand proof from him, when you have supplied none and you went first. Not a formal debate, still not quite cricket, as the Brits would say.
- 0134340 1mo agoThat's an awfully deterministic answer. The kind of answer that always tends to come up with these free will questions which is proof enough to doubt it.
- krapp 1mo agoIf you have a proof, please demonstrate it. Otherwise the question of the definition, much less existence, of free will is just one opinion against another and it's better to nip a tedious and fruitless philosophical conversation in the bud.
- 0134340 1mo agoI said proof enough because sure enough the comment chains wind up like this, including your reply. Some people, as if on cue, deterministically say yes, some no, and a few like yours saying that it's all a waste of time. Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise.
- krapp 1mo ago>Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise. Nothing at all is actually being proven either way. That's kind of the point.