Free Will Paradox (No Troll)

[Gray]

So stop trying to prove me wrong because you think that I'm wrong when you can't logically prove that I'm wrong when I say I'm right.
Dance puppet, dance.

[Reav3R]

So stop trying to prove me wrong because you think that I'm wrong when you can't logically prove that I'm wrong when I say I'm right.
Dance puppet, dance.

I can't prove you're wrong, but I technically proved you can't be right.

[Gray]

I can't prove you're wrong, but I technically proved you can't be right.

You just proved that you have no free will, nothing more nothing less.
Do you want to know what you are experiencing is called? It's called an existential crisis and the word you're actually looking for is doubt.
This statement is true.

[Eternity]

[Mokou-Sama]

THis makes no goddamn sense @Reav3R... but thats because I'm still half asleep.... I think

[Reav3R]

Do you actually expect a paradox to make sense? @gamer4evere
lol @whitelight1997

You just proved that you have no free will, nothing more nothing less.
Do you want to know what you are experiencing is called? It's called an existential crisis and the word you're actually looking for is doubt.
This statement is true.

What were you expecting exactly? I made my point clear from the start.

[Eternity]

You are like arguing with everyone on this thread just shut up and die

[[MPGH]arunforce]

What you're saying is there's only a binary option in which one option doesn't make logical sense to do, so there only one choice therefore there isn't free will.

Free will is debated because it's ultimately impossible to prove, but not by that. That's just silly nonsense. Maybe I decide to drink a drop of the poison and live happily ever after. Maybe I drink it all and then have my stomach pumped and live happily ever after. Maybe I don't drink the poison and end up inhaling the fumes.

[Darakath]

I read that long post.

Your Welcome.

[Gray]

It's not technically a paradox either.
It's called determinism.

[Reav3R]

It's not technically a paradox either.
It's called determinism.

It has nothing to do with that, and has nothing to do with what's been said before. If you had actually read what I wrote, that means if you prove free will does exist, it at the same time proves that it does not.

What you're saying is there's only a binary option in which one option doesn't make logical sense to do, so there only one choice therefore there isn't free will.

No, you got it the other way around. I'm not talking about options, what I'm saying is it doesn't matter how many options there are or how many of them you can take. If you want to prove free will exists, you have to prove you have to ability to chose up to n-1 options from a set of n options. When the only way to prove you can do something is by doing it, you would have to do the entire n (not n-1 or less) options just to prove you could've done it. If you do that, you would then invalidate the definition of free will because if you do all the options there would be nothing else left to do, therefore there would be no choice to make.

Maybe I decide to drink a drop of the poison and live happily ever after. Maybe I drink it all and then have my stomach pumped and live happily ever after. Maybe I don't drink the poison and end up inhaling the fumes.

It makes no difference, you still can't drink it and don't drink it at the same time. Whatever you do, you can't prove you could've something different. That's my point, the actual choice you make makes no difference at all.