- Jul 24, 2011
- 757
- 22
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Contradictory. Would need to destroy many criminals to make life tolerable.
We'll leave it at that
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then find a way to make it enjoyable for you and your fellow passengers. You only get one trip on the Merry-Go-Round.
Some genuine free will is my current best guess. Thats not faith.
Yes, neither viewpoint can be empirically tested, so there is no way a truth claim can be made either than, "This is my unsubstantiated opinion and I believe..."Pre-destination is a big deal to another sect of christianity, that being Calvinism, and that same sect also believes we have a soul.
Then you understand that man is not autonomous, he is ultimately governed by the laws of the universe.Beyond that, we don't have the free will to wildly violate the natural laws of the universe. We can't decide that we will suddenly start floating in mid-air, contrary to the laws of gravity. The way I look at it, we don't have the free will to decide which way a roller coaster is going to go next, but we still enjoy the ride. We might as well enjoy the life experiences that we get instead of lamenting a universe that doesn't exist.
I totally agree.Being that free will cannot be measured empirically, anything we say or think about it is a shot in the dark.
Free will is the capacity to make a decision that to some degree originates within your self.... and to some degree is not contingent on prior conditions.I have no idea how to define free will....
Is free will a metaphysical magical force that exists mostly independently from the body (while acting upon it in a limited way) or is it purely the product of chemical and physical forces in the universe?
We'll start with that. Eventually we'll have to question why some people make good choices and other people make bad ones.
HOW do you know that?Neither, because there is no free will. Free will need not necessarily be defined as either.
I've thought about it. It makes plenty of sense.Because free will doesn't make much sense once you think about it.
Because free will doesn't make much sense once you think about it.
I've thought about it. It makes plenty of sense.
What I cant tell is whether we really "have" it or not. But sense isnt a problem.
Someone looking at the early universe would surely come up with all kinds of objections as to how the systems and capacities of LIFE could never develop from "inert" matter.Yeah, it's kind of a paradox. An agent created by determined causes outside of its control, developed by determined causes outside of control, and responding to determined causes outside of its control somehow has the ability of control.
Thats an excellent objection to free will.Whenever someone makes a decision, ask why. If they say feeling, ask why they have that feeling. If they say belief, ask why they have that belief. If you keep asking why to everything, it becomes apparent that the origin of an action does not cone from within a person (however that works), but from something outside of their control.
I totally agree.
Thats why I make a best guess, rather than a firm conclusion.
So, not faith.
Its possible. It feels right. I prefer it. Thats my investment.Are you willing to argue about you guess? If you are, it seems you have a personal investment int it.
That should be a no brainer. One needs to understand one's desires in order to fufill that desire. You can't fufill your desire to drink if you have no knowledge of what a drink, cup, or water or pop is. You cannot fufill your desire for thrist if you do not know how to move your body in the way to take a drink. To desire something is to be disposed to take whatever actions that will bring about the desire. One must understand how to go about taking whatever action, he must know what that means as far as consequences. Desires are correlated to action and actions are correlated to the brain and mind and our mental ability to understand our actions. To desire then is to really comprehend our reasons for acting and what the consequence will be.How does one need to understand desires in order to have them? I don't need to understand the biology and neuroscience behind thirst to know I am thirsty and aim unimpeded to fufill that desire. How is that not free?
I agree that our reasoning capabilities enable us to understand our actions, their consequences, and morality. I also agree we need to socially hold others responsible for actions and hold ourselves responsible. However, this is for nothing more than a utilitarian function morally and a reinforcement/punishing force psychologically. In reality, no one is morally responsible beyond the responsibility we place upon them for moral reasons.
The murderer is not truly responsible for his action. He has merely been dealt a bad hand in life: a mix of genetics, past and present environment, and mental states created by those genetics and past and present enviornments, that ultimately led him to murder. Our punishment should only aim to reeducate and rewire the murderer to a more proper conduct and to protect society from a force for harm. It cannot be to punish him for revenge or retribution.
I've thought about it. It makes plenty of sense.
What I cant tell is whether we really "have" it or not. But sense isnt a problem.
Yeah, it's kind of a paradox. An agent created by determined causes outside of its control, developed by determined causes outside of control, and responding to determined causes outside of its control somehow has the ability of control.
I don't see how there is much room for randomness if determinism is true, so you mean "either-or." Unfortunately for this train of thought it is a false dilemma to assume this conclusion. There are many possibilities to consider here. One is the idea that randomness co - exist with free will. One other such idea is that determinism co - exist with free will.There is only randomness and/or determinism.
I don't see how there is much room for randomness if determinism is true, so you mean "either-or."
Unfortunately for this train of thought it is a false dilemma to assume this conclusion. There are many possibilities to consider here. One is the idea that randomness co - exist with free will. One other such idea is that determinism co - exist with free will.
Why are each of those false? I mean we can think they are but without expressing why or considering them first is pretty black and white thinking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?