AB,
But I do demonstrate it by freely choosing to contradict your flawed logic - which denies the reality which I am currently demonstrating.
You do that a lot – just tell people that their logic is “flawed” but never bother to explain WHY you think it’s flawed. The logic that undoes you isn’t flawed at all though for the reasons I’ve explained to you many times. Your only way out of the determined vs random binary options is to invoke magic/”miracles”, which is no answer at all.
My freedom is not just a sense of freedom at an experiential level.
How do you know that?
If it were I would not have the freedom to consciously compose this post.
Non sequitur – another fallacy (not that you care). Why would the experience of apparent free will and free will as you wish to it to be feel any different?
Any logical analysis must begin with the conscious freedom essential to contemplate and evaluate the issues under consideration. To presume that this can all happen within subconscious brain activity without any means of conscious verification is highly illogical.
First you don’t have the first clue about how l rhetorical logic works, and second if you think something is illogical nonetheless then why on earth won’t you ever explain WHY you think it’s illogical rather than just assert it to be so?
And please explain precisely what generates the "deeper, logic- and evidence-based explanation for the experience of freedom" and how this source of generation can be presumed to be correct.
It’s “generated” (whatever that means) by the events that led to it, and there’s no need to presume anything when the sound reasoning and evidence justifies the belief.
Notwithstanding how fantastically obtuse and hard of understanding you are, try – really, really try – to grasp the simple principle that experiential free will and explanatory free will can be utterly at odds with each other, but still co-exist quite readily. I know you struggle with analogies, but is the concept still escapes you consider again an analogy I’ve tried before (and that predictably, you just ignored).
Most people are convince that, at an experiential level, they touch things. You touch the keys in front of you, a mother touches her baby, courts prosecute thieves for touching the goods they steal. Diana Ross sang a song called “Reach Out & Touch (Somebody’s Hand)”. An entire practical and social infrastructure works quite readily on the basis that people touch things.
What does science tell us though? Yes, science tells us that nothing ever actually touches anything because of the mutually repellent force involved.
Do you get it now? Sensory, immediate, “but that’s the way it feels” truths function quite readily alongside deeper logic- and evidence-based explanations that show the experiences to be hopeless for explanatory purposes, even though the false explanations the experiences give us have important and practical day-to-day uses.
Now we both know from the form you have here that rather than engage honestly with that basic paradigm you’ll try to divert with some utter irrelevance about “but you cannot compare God with touching a keyboard” as if the object of the belief had any relevance to the basic principle I’ve just set out for you. It hasn’t though, so don’t even bother with it. Instead, why not finally have a rush of honesty to the head and actually deal with the argument that’s been given to you rather than avoid it, misrepresent it as a straw man or just pretend nothing has been said by repeating exactly the same mistakes you make over and over again?
What’s stopping you?
