Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But a person is free to enact their own will.
Please present an example of what you would consider a truly free act of will.
And for bonus points, see if you can make it a moral choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A human can choose between this world of the flesh, the passions, the pride of life, of death.
Based on their instincts and biological limitations and imperatives and their experience and some level of possibly non-deterministic influences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Free will is the ability to choose, not immunity from causality.
Not immunity, but rather a mix of deterministic and (possibly) non-deterministic influences.
However that ability is brought about, it is there. There is somehow room for it.
Room for non-deterministic influences? We agree on this.
I can see no good reason for you to reject free will at this point.
Non-deterministic influences and gods influences are both incompatible with human freedom AND human will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
An industrial robot enacts the will of its manufacturer and programmer. It is the ultimate slave wth no freedom.But a person is free to enact their own will.
Even a robot is subject to some level of randomness and does not always function strictly according to its design.
A person acts according to information (including instinct and biological limitations and imperatives) with some level of randomness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
When you say, "who asked you" these are clearly the words of a schoolyard bully.Wtf? Who am I bullying exactly and how am I doing that? We've established in the past your lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, so I'm not expecting much of a lucid answer.
When you say, (essentially) "you're an idiot" these are clearly the words of a schoolyard bully.
If you can't defend your claims with specifics, just say so.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There was an interesting video I saw long time ago. This doctor was studying why couples who were trying to have a child kept miscarrying. What he found (don't recall the %) was that the couple were genetically similar, like brother and sister. To combat this problem the woman was basically given anti-rejection drugs and with that he had an 80% success rate. LOL what a great idea, prevent genetic incest from aborting.So again just because they are preventable doesn't mean they should be because they do happen for beneficial reasons.
Do you believe that "all men are created equal"?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I see what you are saying, but I do not believe there are any laws that require a person to save another, there is no duty in that respect, that I know of.
You have no responsibility to save the life of a total stranger, but you are legally responsible for your own children's health and well-being.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You can't simultaneously attack the law when you don't agree with it and then hide behind it when it suits your mood.attacking which law? not sure what you are talking about here
Civil rights law, Roe v. Wade, any legal ruling you disagree with or argue in favor of changing.
We're talking about preventable miscarriages. Did a woman take every precaution to protect the unborn embryo/fetus?so a miscarriage will mean the fetus/baby whatever will leave the woman's body and die, it's going to die, or is in such a state that it will die, lack quality of life etc, like a person on life support, terminal disease etc DNR applies.
A preventable miscarriage is not the same as a terminally ill patient. With normal care, we would expect to have a living breathing infant within nine months.
What about accidental miscarriages that result from irresponsible or reckless behavior? How are those materially distinct from manslaughter?maybe, dunno, I can certainly see why you would pose such a question and scenario, well done.I think it's possible, however the woman doesn't have to admit or confess to it which is basically the ruling of Roe v. WadeYou maybe technically correct, I could see that, in practicability it would be a very rare occurrence indeed.
Ok, well, thanks and I'm pretty sure a lot of miscarriages are preventable miscarriages.
Is the reason unknown? Ah! It might be to the general public, but thankfully, miscarriage is not such a complete mystery nor is it a normal event, and can often be prevented. A growing number of physicians and Fertility Care practitioners are quietly working on a cure. Small but well-designed studies on women practicing fertility awareness have led some doctors to believe that as many as 95 percent of miscarriages are preventable. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I can see no good reason for you to reject free will at this point.
An uncaused variable is not free. Your freedom is not indistinguishable from random.
An uncaused variable is not willed. Your will is not indistinguishable from random.
By definition, you cannot control (cause, inform, or otherwise initiate) an uncaused variable.
If the uncaused variable is the gods, then we are the gods puppets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Also,
(IFF) free-will is proportional to intelligence (animals have less, humans have more)
(AND) free-will is proportional to moral culpability (without free-will there is no moral culpability)
(THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(IFF) embryo/fetus = child (THEN) Refusing to properly take care of yourself in order to protect your unborn child is child-abuse and if it results in a miscarriage it is murder/manslaughter.that has been addressed with the links to legal discussions and laws I have already posted.
You can't simultaneously attack the law when you don't agree with it and then hide behind it when it suits your mood.
I'm looking for logical coherence.
(IFF) miscarriage is D.N.R. (THEN) abortion is D.N.R.You can't have it both ways.sigh, what aren't you understanding here? Miscarriages happen for natural causes all the time, it's very common and can have nothing to do with neglect or any human purposeful action, unlike abortions.
We're talking about preventable miscarriages. Did a woman take every precaution to protect the unborn embryo/fetus?
Did the woman act in an irresponsible or reckless manner?
to purposefully cause a miscarriage is the same as an abortion, that's what the morning after bill does for instance. Self induced abortion.
What about accidental miscarriages that result from irresponsible or reckless behavior? How are those materially distinct from manslaughter?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If someone poisons or otherwise neglects their child to death (preventable miscarriage), a D.N.R. will not fix the problem.sure but you didn't qualify it the first time so......to prevent a miscarriage a woman may have to stay off her feet for months, she may wish not to do that and let nature take it's course, aka DNR
(IFF) embryo/fetus = child (THEN) Refusing to properly take care of yourself in order to protect your unborn child is child-abuse and if it results in a miscarriage it is murder/manslaughter.
(IFF) miscarriage is D.N.R. (THEN) abortion is D.N.R.
You can't have it both ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Decree 3We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause.
So humans are predestinated from the beginning of time, but for a very good reason? How can anyone be condemned or exonerated before they're even born? What is the "very good reason" if they haven't even been born yet?
For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}.
If god wants all people to be saved, then what is preventing all people from being saved?
But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other.
Who made these evil humans again? Who gave them a desire to do evil things?
And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing [or, prevenient] grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace.
If everyone gets an equal measure of "Divine goodness" do people also get an equal measure of "Divine badness"?
If god wants everyone to be saved, can't it just fix this ratio before the evil people are born?
This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.
There but for the grace of god go I. [LINK]
But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter [of Cyril's' Confession] to which this answers — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promises the believer salvation through works, yet supposes God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestows without preceding works, to show to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate with it, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain salvation. He takes not away the power to will — to will to obey, or not obey him.
Why do people sin again? Where do evil desires come from?
But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High?
Seriously? (EITHER) god is omnipotent (OR) god is NOT omnipotent.
We do know that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him. we do confess that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is justly decreed condemnation.
Who made impenitent hearts?
But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.
In other words, if you think god is a baddie, you will be excommunicated.
Who made satan? Who made hell? What prevents an omnipotent being from fixing this? Who has tied the hands of god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We understand that part of what it means to be made in the image of God is to have free will.
How do we know this? Do you have some scripture or canonical document that makes this explicit claim?
How do you know god has freewill? It's still incoherent whether you assign it to gods or ghosts or magic invisible mechanical elves.
So it is really quite the opposite of being a God puppet. Part of what makes us human is the ability to reject God and the grace that is freely offered to us.
But (IFF) we act in a deterministic way, generally as we know we do, and the only PCVSUOUFAOFAPCUPWWNBIFR is god (THEN) god is the only thing that contradicts determinism and is therefore either intentionally or unintentionally CAUSING any of your actions that are not purely deterministic (THEREFORE) for better or for worse, we are god puppets.
And I don't see how this couldn't fit into what you call an "indeterminate framework".
Does god act intentionally or unintentionally or some combination of both? Does got have freewill?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
An embryo/fetus cannot sign a D.N.R.you don't know what a D.N.R. is then or how they work, medical power of attorney etc it's all related.
If someone poisons or otherwise neglects their child to death (preventable miscarriage), a D.N.R. will not fix the problem.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you are really off your game, 2 people having consensual sex isn't anything remotely related to someone being in the country illegally or determined by a court to have insufficient reason to stay in the U.S.
These conversations have been largely theoretical, devoid of names and faces. No U.S. government body monitors the fate of deportees, and immigrant-aid groups typically lack the resources to document what happens to those who have been sent back. Fear of retribution keeps most grieving families from speaking publicly. In early 2016, as the director of the Global Migration Project, at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, I set out, with a dozen graduate students, to create a record of people who had been deported to their deaths or to other harms—a sort of shadow database of the one that the Trump Administration later compiled to track the crimes of “alien offenders.” We contacted more than two hundred local legal-aid organizations, domestic-violence shelters, and immigrants’-rights groups nationwide, as well as migrant shelters, humanitarian operations, law offices, and mortuaries across Central America. We spoke to families of the deceased. And we gathered the stories of immigrants who had endured other harms—including kidnapping, extortion, and sexual assault—as a result of deportations under Obama and Trump.
As the database grew to include more than sixty cases, patterns emerged. Often, immigrants or their families had warned U.S. officials that they were in danger if sent back. Ana Lopez, the mother of a twenty-year-old gay asylum seeker named Nelson Avila-Lopez, wrote a letter to the U.S. government during Christmas week in 2011, two months after Immigration and Customs Enforcement accidentally deported him to Honduras. Nelson had fled the country at seventeen, after receiving gang threats. He’d entered the U.S. unauthorized and been ordered removed, but an immigration judge then granted him an emergency stay of his deportation so that he could reopen his case for asylum. An ice agent told his family’s legal team that Nelson was deported because “someone screwed up,” and ice alleges that the proper office had not been notified of the judge’s stay. [LINK]
How many deportations directly cause a death and how many abortions directly cause a death?
There is no mechanism to protect the safety of deportees. Abortion deaths can be eliminated if we invest in ectogenesis technology.
Preventable miscarriage = child abuse and murder/manslaughter.Preventable miscarriage = D.N.R.
An embryo/fetus cannot sign a D.N.R.
A preventable death in a hospital environment is considered criminal malpractice and wrongful death.
(IFF) embryo/fetus = child (THEN) there is no reason to treat a preventable miscarriage any differently than any other preventable death.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Deportation can often be a death-penalty.dude come on, that is so lame, seriously, deportation doesn't have to end in death, abortions do, it's not even a comparison or argument.
After Guerrero, 28, was detained by ICE in March, his wife told officials that if Guerrero was deported, he would be murdered. Despite her warning, ICE deported Guerrero in June. After being kidnapped in front of his family by armed men, Guerrero’s body was found last week on the side of a road in San Luis de la Paz, Guanajuato, near where he had lived with his wife’s family since being deported, the Austin American-Statesman reported. It is believed the same gangs that prompted the family’s move to Austin are the ones responsible for his murder. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter.that's just retarded, death of natural causes DOES NOT = manslaughter
(IFF) embryo/fetus = child (THEN) embryo/fetus malnutrition, alcohol poisoning, reckless endangerment leading to death = child malnutrition, alcohol poisoning, reckless endangerment leading to death.
If you saw a dead baby on the side of the road, would you ASSUME it probably died of natural causes?
Some miscarriages may be unpreventable, but many are preventable. Only a team of forensic detectives can tell the difference.
Preventable miscarriage = child abuse and murder/manslaughter.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
would the doctor get prison time or just loose is licence and ability to practice medicine in that state? I'm not sure what the proposed punishment is, I haven't looked into it that deeply.
If Alabama’s near-ban on abortion takes effect, performing an abortion would become a Class A felony, which carries a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison — the same minimum sentence as severe sex crimes like first-degree rape and sexual torture, under Alabama law. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The classic example is quantum flux. Historically it has been referred to as an "uncaused cause" or "first cause" or "causa sui".Sounds like God, even related to our essence/energies in Orthodox theology.
Sounds like noumenon. Also sounds like "beyond our epistemological limits". Also sounds like "we have no flippin' clue".
Determinism is the foundation of science and thought. Without cause-and-effect, all logic goes completely out the window.However, there are unknown variables, and whether or not they are "random" is an open question, so in order to be perfectly comprehensive, I trade the term "determinism" for the more comprehensive "indeterminism" (which includes all possible caused (known) and uncaused (unknown) variables).I would like to kind of make an observation concerning the identifying of unknown variables as uncaused variables. Not so much an argument, but an observation to give an idea of what this kind of looks like.I think it is a reflection of your worldview, which from my perspective exalts science or knowledge in such a way that is not truly reasonable, that you would call unknown variables "uncaused". I noticed this also earlier when you interpreted me saying that you could not conclusively prove anything as being random as an indication that random does not exist.
I was being imprecise. What I probably should have said was "possibly caused by some unknown or unknowable forces and or factors and possibly completely uncaused phenomena which would necessarily be indistinguishable from random" (PCVSUOUFAOFAPCUPWWNBIFR).
I do not believe that something exists because it is known.
I do believe that something exists because is unknown. But obviously we can't say much about it precisely because it is UNKNOWN.
I do not believe that something exists by being known. In fact, I don't truly believe that anything in the universe is actually random. I do believe in chaos.
Nothing is random, everything is complex. This doesn't seem to support your freewill hypothesis.
I do however believe that God fulfills the essence of what an uncaused variable is, but I do not take God as a placeholder for anything outside our knowing, as sometimes it seems that you do when you use words like noumenon.
Sure, sure, ok, that's great. But doesn't that make us all "god puppets"?
And I mean, does god have freewill? Is there another god behind god popping PCVSUOUFAOFAPCUPWWNBIFR into that other gods causal chain?
I am not really debating you here. I get that you are saying the question of random variables is an open question. I'm just giving you an idea of how I am interpreting what you are saying.
And I greatly appreciate your candor and tenacity.
Think about it. How does a random impulse = human will? Is your will random?Think about it. How does a random impulse = freedom? Is your freedom random?I wouldn't use the word random, I don't truly believe in the existence of random. I would perhaps say that there is an aspect of our will that is free. I say aspect, because it should be apparent that our will is tempered by our flesh, the world, etc.
Think about it. How does a PCVSUOUFAOFAPCUPWWNBIFR impulse = human will? Is your will PCVSUOUFAOFAPCUPWWNBIFR?
Think about it. Howe does a PCVSUOUFAOFAPCUPWWNBIFR impulse = freedom? Is your freedom PCVSUOUFAOFAPCUPWWNBIFR?
It has been referred to in the writings of the church as a "divine spark". So while we are indeed subject to causality, there is still something in us that allows us to defy predictability. We can choose to make decisions that go against what is expected.
If that "divine spark" is god, then we are essentially god puppets.
And god is (EITHER) acting logically and according to strict deterministic influences (OR) an indeterministic mix of PCVSUOUFAOFAPCUPWWNBIFR.
And it appears to me that the idea you have of uncaused variables in an indeterminate universe makes room for this possibility.
Sure it does, god puppets are well within the boundaries of an indeterministic framework.
And so, you may be thinking in such a way that perhaps will lead to the reconciliation of these concepts that seem mutually exclusive.That is what it looks like to me.
Surprisingly, we appear to be approaching a possible consensus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"Our inability to turn the clock back is independent of whether free will exists or not. seems like a red herrring to me"I agree.
Please explain.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Mostly because the woman seems to get the lion's share of the blame.news flash, life isn't fair lol
So you don't think that the male should be "responsible for their own actions"?
Why didn't you just say that in the first place. If you don't have a principled position, just be honest about it.
And if you do have a principled position, please explain it.
Simply saying, "life isn't fair lol" is an argument against all laws.
The purpose of abortion isn't to kill. The purpose is to remove the embryo. Ectogenesis for the win!!regardless, you know by "deporting" a fetus/baby/human/person it/they will die, TOTALLY different than sending an illegal back home
Not really. People are deported into war-zones and desperate situations in which they fear for their lives.
Deportation can often be a death-penalty. The anti-immigration fervor doesn't seem to give a rip about the lives of the deported.
Besides, the development of ectogenesis technology will make it possible to extract an embryo or fetus from a womb AND KEEP IT ALIVE.
In a pro-lifer's view it would be exactly like taking a child from an unfit parent and making them a ward of the state.
Let's see Dr goes to prison. Women go to prison. Baby daddy nothingthe woman doesn't go to prison and see above, life in fact is not fair, that's just how it is. Unless you want to give the baby daddy a say on whether to abort or not then sure he'd be responsible, want to go there?
(IFF) a man impregnates a woman who doesn't want a child (THEN) they are both equally responsible for the unwanted pregnancy and any punishment imposed on the woman should also be imposed on the man (for their irresponsible behavior).
(IFF) a doctor (hit-man) gets 99 years for performing an abortion procedure (baby murder) (THEN) the woman (mob boss) who requested that procedure (contract hit) should get 99 years.
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) abortion punishment = murder punishment.
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It takes 2 so no idea why you'd bring up just one sex.
Mostly because the woman seems to get the lion's share of the blame.
The purpose of deportation isn't to kill is it? Siberia isn't near the U. S.
The purpose of abortion isn't to kill. The purpose is to remove the embryo. Ectogenesis for the win!!
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
no but if you invite someone in and they bring someone you didn't anticipate you can't kill them.
But you can certainly deport them. And even if it's the middle of the Siberian winter (or a war zone) and they have no other place to go.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There is no reasonable excuse to shirk your responsibilities of your actions.
Are you talking about the responsibilities of the male?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Snow leopards can't exist because you can't make a leopard from snow!
That is correct. Freewill is an emotion. Nothing more. It is divorced from all logical analysis and has nothing to do with either "freedom" or "will".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I think I see your point. Specifically, "fear of the unknown" does not in and of itself = god(s).No, at this point I'm just asking him to explain how the survival of a caveman due to extreme caution relates to belief in a god/creator.
However, I believe "an abundance of caution" might contribute to a susceptibility for people to fall victim to the "Pascal's wager" scam.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
An agreement to engage in intercourse is not an invitation to host an embryo.you know and accept the risk, so yes it is an agreement, just because you regret your choice doesn't mean you didn't enter into it knowingly and willfully.
An invitation to dinner is not an invitation to live at someone else's house for nine months.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The second component is that the victim must be attempting to commit or have committed an unlawful entry into the defendant’s home.(that could potentially apply to rape, but nothing else)
An agreement to engage in intercourse is not an invitation to host an embryo.
Created:
-->
@YeshuaRedeemed
If you can shoot [or deport] an intruder, I can abort one.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Who asked you.
It's pretty strange that you would choose to attempt to bully someone out of a public forum instead of supporting your claim with specifics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
What lies are you accusing me of?All of them. There are too many to count. Your posts are filled with them. I have no idea why you lead your life chasing lies. Seems rather absurd.
Please be slightly more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Our inability to turn the clock back is independent of whether free will exists or not. seems like a red herrring to me.
Let's inspect this for relevance.
The freewilly says, "I know freewill is really really realz because I could have acted otherwise and caused another outcome"...
The indeterminist says, "How do you know this? Are you perhaps simply imagining things?"
The freewilly says, "red herring".
Pointing out that your opponent's "evidence" is basically an appeal to ignorance is not a red-herring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Give me an example of a non-causal variable.
The classic example is quantum flux. Historically it has been referred to as an "uncaused cause" or "first cause" or "causa sui".
Also, how can you make the leap to call chaos "random"?
I understand that "chaos" is generally "overwhelming complexity" and not necessarily "random".
If an event is "uncaused" then it is 100% divorced from the previous chain of causes and events and as such could not be context sensitive, and would therefore be essentially random.
Also, maybe it would be a good thing for you to clarify what it is that you mean by determinism, because I don't see how random variables can exist if everything that ever happened and ever will happened has been determined. Determinism usually actually means "pre-determinism" or that the future has already been determined.
Determinism is the foundation of science and thought. Without cause-and-effect, all logic goes completely out the window.
However, there are unknown variables, and whether or not they are "random" is an open question, so in order to be perfectly comprehensive, I trade the term "determinism" for the more comprehensive "indeterminism" (which includes all possible caused (known) and uncaused (unknown) variables).
I also don't see how you could flat out reject freewill as being illogical when a concept such as "non-causal variable" seems like an opening for free will to be snuck in.
Think about it. How does a random impulse = human will? Is your will random?
Think about it. How does a random impulse = freedom? Is your freedom random?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
'Many people' would say a leaf blowing in the wind does not have free will because it has no preferences or desires.
But does a spider have preferences or desires?
One of the key problems with freewill is the idea that it is a property only possessed by adult humans in an attempt to link it to moral culpability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How on earth could we know if we can take a different course of action than we actually take? We will only take the course of action we do take after all.
One is real, the action we actually take, and the other is imaginary, the action we imagine we "could have taken".
We intuitively imagine that "the road not taken" is somehow "just as real" as our actual action.
This conflates what is real with what is imaginary. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If their is a difference between brain and mind then both are still either causal or indeterminate. This does not magically make freewill logically coherent.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
You can treat people kindly regardless of their legal status
I believe people should be treated kindly regardless of their legal status.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
And this is where i absolutely agree. Both conclusions lead to one ultimate conclusion... i'm here and i have to deal with it. The difference with spiritually minded people (some at least) is that i like to imagine and strengthen myself for the "if" question. If i do continue being me, i'll have to deal with that too. So, i will imagine i am a god bc why would i imagine anything different. I wouldn't want to be weak, i wouldn't want to be a slave, i wouldn't want to be a servant, etc. If it's nothing, and there is no builder and just this reality... then, easy ending. If it is anything else... that builder better be powerful if he/she thinks it can face me. That's my mentality. But you are absolutely right in that this is all moot. Even in my belief... i am currently in paradise. This world is all i know i have, and what i have... so the builder can f* off and die for all i care... it's my experience here and now that matters.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You haven't explained why you believe this subject is "absurd"I sure have. Because.."...it is impossible to prove conclusively the veracity of either free will or determinism."
That's simply not true. Freewill is logically incoherent. Determinism is pure logic. Indeterminism is a tautological apodictic fact.
An appeal to ignorance will not save freewill.
Well, cause and effect seem pretty conclusive. I'm not sure why you would imagine it to be "impossible".Because.."..science itself has conclusively proven that it is impossible to account for all variables. Given our experience, It would seem that the possibility of free will cannot be ruled out."
Even if "it is impossible to account for all variables" it DOESN'T MATTER. Because we know that all possible variables are 100% EITHER causal or non-causal. It doesn't even matter what the ratio is. This mix makes freewill impossible.
Do you think it is beneficial to believe something false if it makes you feel better?No.
I'm glad we can agree on this.
Created:
-->
@Alec
My view of women is people that need to wait until marriage for sex and not give any boy any opportunity for sex until he marries her consensually. This minimizes the spread of STDs and prevents pregnancy.Is that just a personal opinion, or is that a policy proposal?Both.
How do you propose enforcing this policy?
Ok, so do you also believe that throwing embryos in the trash is as bad as murdering a handful of 25 year olds?Not embryos, but killing and trashing priorly living fetuses that were killed is as bad as murdering 25 year olds and disposing of the bodies. If you look at pictures of abortion, you might agree with that.
The embryo refers to the first stage of development of a baby from the moment of fertilization. It is called a fetus from the eighth week of conception. [LINK]
Ok, are you suggesting that you approve of abortion before the 8th week?
Created:
-->
@Alec
I think murdering an old person is as bad as murdering a 25 year old. Otherwise, the penalty for murdering an old person would be less then a 25 year old. But all murder is callous. All murder is evil and all murder must be stopped.
Ok, so do you also believe that throwing embryos in the trash is as bad as murdering a handful of 25 year olds?
Created:
-->
@Alec
Is that just a personal opinion, or is that a policy proposal?My view of women is people that need to wait until marriage for sex and not give any boy any opportunity for sex until he marries her consensually. This minimizes the spread of STDs and prevents pregnancy.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The mother is more culpable than the doctor.early abortion shouldn't be punished because no one knows if the fetus is a person. it's not like it's clear one way or another, so the law should defer on the side of caution and outlaw almost all abortion, but be real enough to aknowledge it's there's not a clear answer. i'm a little extreme in that i dont want to punish women at all, but there aren't many pro lifers who would get into serious punishment for abortion. it's just a matter of degree of difference. i wouldn't be opposed to a slap on the wrist of some kind, on that note.
They should both get the same punishment as they would for the murder of an adult person.
It makes no sense to punish the doctor (hit-man) more than the mother (mob boss).
Created:
-->
@Alec
It is impossible to prove when a person may or may not recover.There should be proof that the person will not recover in a time period of lets say 10 years before I would be okay with pulling the plug on them.
But as a point of curiosity, does this mean you believe it's less of a crime to kill old people?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
in vitro fertilization is where an egg and sperm is combined outside the body and then implanted into the woman to become pregnant. almost always, there are extra embryos that are created that are later destroyed as unused. the doctors choose the best looking embryo to implant. what should be outlawed here? should discarding unused embryos result in the death penalty?
(IFF) human embryo = human person (THEN) killing human embryo = killing human person.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Was the embryo alive to begin with?
Definitely. That would be a YES.
If not, then it's basically the same thing as throwing away a dead person, not something I would do but it's just a dead person.
It's basically the same thing as throwing away a person on life-support, not something I would do, but it's just a person on life-support.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
but i wouldn't punish women in early pregnancy...
Why not?
(IFF) abortion is murder (THEN) paying a doctor to kill your baby is EXACTLY the same as paying a hit-man to murder your 3 year old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Be skeptical of theism AND atheism. Too many atheists are skeptical of one only side, theism, and not the other, atheism.
DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL TO ATHEISM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am arguing that it is impossible to prove conclusively the existence of anything random.
Which sounds like, "nothing is random".
And how that ties in to the topic at hand, I am saying that it is impossible to prove conclusively the veracity of either free will or determinism.
Well, cause and effect seem pretty conclusive. I'm not sure why you would imagine it to be "impossible".
As the debate itself is absurd, I suggest examining the effect of belief in either of these two realities.
You haven't explained why you believe this subject is "absurd".
From my standpoint, belief in free will is far more beneficial in the healing process of an individual.
Do you think it is beneficial to believe something false if it makes you feel better?
Created: