Saying “you are going to just keep acting like no one has already addressed that very silly argument” clearly implies someone addressed, someone refuted what I said. How can you not see this?
Yes, some do argue that quantum mechanics is a way to get to free will. I don’t think their arguments have gained much traction.
Alright, you’re welcome to your view, and we’ll leave it at that.
But you want to resume the discussion? If this is not the case, then why do the courts allow a plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity”? This demonstrates a distinction between sane people, who are responsible, and insane people, who are not. This implies that sane people are considered real agents, and insane people are not, they are not the authors of the deed for which they are in court, their mental illness caused it.
Repeating what I said, rewording it, is what is a non-answer. And I have previously provided reasons to believe we have a soul, out-of-body experiences, without brain activity, and so on.
Not at all, I meant the courts don’t take a position on the mechanics of thinking and making decisions, how exactly we do this. Nobody knows, actually!
But where is the contradiction? I said psychiatrists are not interesting in the source of our rational thinking, it’s irrelevant to helping clients. Are you really so unperceptive?
I agree that agents are indeed the source of their actions, but I do also insist that an agent needs to also be free to choose between alternatives. You have made a mere assertion to the contrary, and similarly with the claim that “our brains are the source of our actions and also of the basis of our identity as individuals”. These claims need defending. Also, even if these statements are true, they do not how specifically, collections of atoms can become agents. Not all collections of atoms are agents! So how do we make this jump?
I have it on good evidence that the moon was caused by a collision with a Mars-size body, I have a probable, defensible explanation, so I don’t need to examine in detail other explanations, which I only heard about in your post. If this other explanation becomes commonly known, and commonly accepted, then I will consider it seriously. I expect that won’t happen.
So how are Stadler and Tour and Behe untrained? And did you watch the video? Or read Behe’s book? If not, how do you know they don’t have observable, repeatable evidence? Stadler even emphasized that that’s the kind of evidence he seeks.
I appreciate you not resorting to mere claims and innuendo and slander there. And well, maybe your explanation is true, stories do get garbled, such as eyewitnesses disagreeing on whether the Titanic split before it sank. Which was a real event, by the way. I would recommend to you again Habermas and Moreland’s book “Beyond Death”, where they present veridical NDEs, and they mention an article in The Humanist”:
“How have naturalists responded to this research? In an older article in the journal The Humanist, John Beloff argued that the data in favor of life after death was already significant enough that even humanists should admit an afterlife and should attempt to interpret it in naturalistic terms. Beloff declared that the evidence indicates a ‘dualistic world where mind or spirit has an existence separate from the world of material things.’ He also conceded that this could ‘present a challenge to Humanism as profound in its own way as that which Darwinian Evolution did to Christianity a century ago.’ Therefore, naturalists ‘cannot afford to close our minds … to the possibility of some kind of survival.’” (p. 170)