Benjamin

-->

@3RU7AL

Do you really believe all humans have a right to die a natural death?

I believe murder is immoral.

I also believe that murder is immoral regardless of you are murdering me, you, a jew, a scientist, or a baby.

If not ALL humans have a right to life, human rights are undermined.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

You believe morality is preordained?

I believe objective morality, based on either a deity or a philosophy - is the basis for morality.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

This is why reason and empathy are good. Most of morality is intersubjective because we’re a social species.
By the way murder is a legal term for the most part.

I give up. You mean that morality does not exist - society just has laws. "Hitler was not evil he just had another intersubjective morality than you and me."

I believe morality is objective (but not necessarily our understanding of it) - therefore my ethics are incompatible with yours.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

Minds greater than you or I have learnt from history and sided against your moral views on abortion.

Give me a source or moral philosophy. As far as society is concerned - those people just have strong opinions and a demanding voice.

Because the world is more complicated than you would like it to be.

Do you think that I could kill you and still be justified? After all the world is complicated. No, you would not - neither would the fetus when it magically becomes a baby at birth.

Is gravity universal? Yes. Does gravity vary depending on what objects are present? Yes.
Do planets orbit stars? Yes.
Do you understand the analogy I’m getting at?

You say that murdering people is morally wrong in your country, but in my country murdering people is morally good - because morality is based on personal opinions, not universal principles.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

What would the morality be based on? I say catastrophic ignorance.

People that disagree with your view could say the same about the current moral system which justifies abortion.

Yet the child has a developed nervous system and is conscious.

You yet again admit that you value people differently based on their physical traits.

People do bad shit regardless

You cannot call an action "bad shit" without a sense of universal human rights. But your view undermines human rights.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

I’m defending our current moral system.

We have no moral system. You are defending current liberal beliefs.

Morality isn’t objective. It’s intersubjective.

This statement undermines universal human rights. If Germany wanted to murder the jews, they are morally justified, they could just create a new moral system.

Also a fetus/embryo isn’t as developed (nervous system) as a child that is born or a fully grown person.

It is clear that you want to value different people differently. I could use the same argument: "a child is not as developed as an adult - therefore they are less valuable"

This statement undermines universal human rights.

Why do you keep on bringing up Jews?

Holocaust is the single biggest symbol of what happens when you disregard universal human rights.

Hitler called the jews "less human" than other people, and thus justified the murder of 6 million jews.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

Do you see where abortion could be morally justified?

When there is a danger to both humans, the mother and the "fetus baby".

Is the above sufficient?

You have not added any moral system - just a lot of moral claims.

The main reason is a fetus infringes on a women’s bodily autonomy.

So what. If you sit in a train that is fully packed - you might end up severely uncomfortable. You cannot just kill the other humans and throw them out to feel comfortable.

"Bodily autonomy" does not triumph over human rights.

You agreed that all with human DNA are humans - that includes a fetus. So if human rights exist it is immoral to legally gass a jew, and immoral to legally kill a fetus.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

Benjamin and I previously agreed to what “Men” means. I didn’t want to create an unnecessary tangent. But yes, women throughout much of history have been treated as second-class citizens/cattle. Conservatism hasn’t helped.

You misunderstand "conservatism". In China, communists are the conservatives. If you think of "conservatism" as the current day American conservatism - YES it helped a lot.

Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights
Except for people that don’t have money for their medical bills, people in comas, prisoners, fetuses, etc, etc, etc.
Overall this is amoral in terms of it doesn’t solely lean one way or the other.

You clearly misunderstand human rights. The important thing is not exactly how people are treated, but that they are treated FAIRLY, aka as equal beings. Yes, the government can't afford good healthcare to people (unlike in Norway), but they are not paying healthcare ONLY for a particular group like jews, women, or layers. Poor people have a higher priority for healthcare not because their human value is greater, but because their ability to fend for themselves is weaker than other groups.

Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights

Except for people that don’t have money for their medical bills, people in comas, prisoners, fetuses, etc, etc, etc.

Overall this is amoral in terms of it doesn’t solely lean one way or the other.

Dodging what exactly?

The question: "What is an ethical system that supports human rights and abortion at the same time?"

You cannot refer to law. Killing Jews is not moral just because in a particular society they did not consider Jews to be humans. Come with a moral theory, like Theweakeredge.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to abortion directly.

So the DECLARATION of human rights has changed?

They began by claiming that "all humans are to be treated as equally valuable - regardless of the individual traits of each person"

But now they make an exception: "humans with a specific trait, being a fetus, do not have human rights".

This change is clearly not a result of "human rights". This is an attempt to justify abortion. Try to explain, using the basic idea of human rights, why abortion is justified?

Also, my challenge still stands: give me a set of principles from which you can explain both human rights and abortion as equally moral.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@fauxlaw

I do not understand what you mean. I know that murder is the killing of a human - and that by definition a "fetus" is a human, just like a "child". What are you trying to tell?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

Can you summarise your moral system alternate to the current one please?

First of all - my moral system has nothing to do with this debate - you (as a defender of abortion) has been challenged to support human rights and abortion at the same time.

Secondly, here is my moral system boiled down:

"All men are created equal, and have been endowned by their creator certain unalienable rights, among them freedom and the pursuit of happieness."

Men: every creature with distict DNA from the species homo sapiens

Freedom: you can do whatever you want

Right: what others should not do to you, you should not do to others - if you don't want to be murdered do not murder others - a right is the opposite to a freedom

Ethics: the rules which humans follow. The important part is that we do not treat different humans differently. I cannot justify murdering ONLY jews, or babies, or anyone

The important thing about Human rights is that it applies to everyone. So if you accept the "termination" of a human fetus, you must also accept every other killing of a human.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Wagyu

AND causality

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Theweakeredge

CLARIFICATION:

You came with a lot of accusations, but for the sake of the debate I will ignore the critique against me personally, without argumentation.

You're just saying, "You're being Hitler."

When I use the term "Hitler" - I refer to a violation of universal human rights. Thus, saying "Youre being Hitler" is an actual argument, I could translate it to: "your moral system does not support universal human rigths."

REBUTTALLS:

baby and fetus aren't synonymous

Correct. Lets check the definitions.

Fetus: An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/fetus]

Baby: A very young child.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/baby]

Child: A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/child]

CLEARLY, A FETUS IS A CHILD BY DEFINITION - BUT A CHILD IS NOT NECESARILLY A FETUS.

fetus's that are aborted do not have personhood

Personhood: The quality or condition of being an individual person.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/personhood]

Person: A human being regarded as an individual.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/person]

Individual: A single human being as distinct from a group.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/individual]

CLEARLY, EVERY HUMAN IS A PERSON -

you are trying to compare abortion to murder, demonstrate that please. Abortion is not murder.

Correct.

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/murder]

Kill: Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)[https://www.lexico.com/definition/kill]

An abortion is a human (the doctor), killing every living cell that belongs to another human.

As abortion is legal, it is not murder, neither was holocaust. But if a fetus is not an innamate object, a plant or an animal, abortion is to kill a human.

You are very incorrect here - no one chooses what does and doesn't have personhood, things either do or do not have them.

Society chooses which humans to call "person" and which humans to call "animal/unwanted/fetus/etc" - therefore society can take personhood from any group.

In our society fetuses are not regarded as persons, and in nazi germany the jews and the handicapped were not regarded as persons - it's the same thing.

What "same thing" are we talking about? Its simple: measuring human value from a standard - like "personhood" or "ethnicity" - instead of having universal human value.

You don't understand how basic personhood works, funny.

As far as the definitions are concerned, I do.

CONCLUSION:

You have failed to provide the necesary moral ground to support universal human rights. Instead you focus on attacking me and my position.

I provided a simplistic theistic moral ground: "all humans have the same creator - therefore all have the same value". This is a relgious reason for human rights.

I want you to explain why your moral system can support human rights and still deem abortion moral. You have the burden of proof.

Also, you syllogism does not explain why killing another human is wrong. It is a reason for morality, not an actual system.

Ultimately: my point still stands.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Barney

I speaking against legally forcing women to carry fetuses to term

A women is not forces to carry, carrying is a biological necesity. The difference is that the government would not pay for the big abortion industry - if abortions were immoral.

legally forcing them to have abortions

I am not sure this is possible even if it was written in the law.

If human rights exist as you defined them, you are equally valuable to Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

Am I not? I have the same human value to both of those people - neither of us should be murdered or enslaved.

The verry idea of human rights is that no matter your oppinion about someone, they share the same value and rights as you do.

Human rights will not work if one starts to rip certain groups of their rights because of a society's oppinion about them.

This includes the jews and unborn babies. Jews were considdered to be less valueable, but they were not - they were maybe a different culture and were called animals, but they had human DNA.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@fauxlaw

I would argue that the very idea, that human value is dependent on their viability, is bad. A 2 year old cannot survive without the parents. Can they kill it or even starve it to death? No, obviously not. So what is the difference between a two-year-old and a two week old?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

So why are you perfectly moral Ben?

I am not. Neither are you. If you claim to be a perfectly moral being then nobody will ever believe you.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Theweakeredge

You failed to explain why your theory supports universal human rights.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Theweakeredge

Sorry for this critique. The theory just has an innate flaw: dividing between "humans who have a clear personality" and "humans without human rights".

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

REBUTTALS:

P1: Humans value their own well-being

Correct.

1. Can you prove that a baby cannot have well being?

2. A baby right before and right after birth are basically the same. Is post-birth abortion acceptable? What about child murder?

3. Well being is an ill-defined term. Well-being

P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs

1. Not necessarily. Hitler did not "ought" to respect other peoples well being.

2. Animals can also have well-being, but we still do not think that hunting is immoral. We would never put an animal as more valuable than actual humans?

3. What does "respect" mean in this case? Its a substitute for moral duty, not an explanation for it.

4. This allows for people to be immoral if they do not desire their well being to be respected.

Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being

This is exactly what you said in P1. - your logic is circular.

CRITIQUE:

this system is dependent on human personhood

It is based on a feeling animals can have but many humans do not have. A rat can have the well-being a human baby cannot have (according to pro-choice arguments).

without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for morality

This is exactly what Hitler thought, he called the Jews insects and rats, and by doing that he removed their personhood - then he killed them in the absence of human rights.

forcing the impregnated to keep their fetus and violate their bodily anatomy

I have bodily autonomy, I could kill people. Would you force me to stop and violate my bodily anatomy?

is you claiming that terminating a fetus or embryo is inherently more wrong

Yes. Killing a human being, even if that human being is not as developed as me, is morally wrong.

CONCLUSION:

without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for morality

Exactly - this moral theory can allow abortion as morally permissible.

Under this theory, a society can choose which humans should deserve human rights and who should not - by choosing who is a "person" and whom to call "animal/fetus/etc"

Conclusion: this theory does not support human rights. Therefore this theory fails to meet my criteria.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

@Theweakeredge

As nobody has been able to support such a morality - we can assume it does not exist.

Therefore, I proceed with my argument:

All humans are created equal, and they are endowned by their creator certain inalienable rights, among them the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness
So all humans are equally valuable regardless of sexual orientantion, age, body, personality, ethnicity, religion, language, etc.
Since all humans are equally valueable - everyone should be treated equally - this is called human rights.
A right is the same as the removal of a freedom: you have a right to life so you have no freedom to murder.
Humans have a right to die a natural death - therefore humans have no right to kill each other, including through abortion

If a moral system does not accept every being with human DNA to have human rights, then that moral system undermines human rights. This is what Hitler did, he limited human value to only be applicable to humans with certain biological traits (such as not being a jew). I see no difference between a jew and an unborn baby with regards to their humanity.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@fauxlaw

It will never be anything else but human at birth

Brilliant argument.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Selective and variable morality.......Deal with it.

So basicly you are saying: human rights do not matter - you can kill the jews and you can take an abortion as long as you see it fit.

This is the worst system of morality ever expressed - it is the same as no morality.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Human rights exist, when it suits....

And morality is a variable human concept.

Hitler would definately agree

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

The same selectively moral system that supports armed conflict as a means to an end.

Not to mention the morally biased system that is currently wholly reliant upon living matter as a source of nutrition.

Well, you need to explain how that system works.

You are bacically saying: abortion is moral - deal with it

I asked you to explain why human rights exist but still abortion is morally acceptable

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

@Wagyu

I must specify what I mean by "free will".

DEFINITION:

Free will: B - the ability to act at one's own discretion.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/free_will]

Discretion: The freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/discretion]

In other words, free will means that your actions are not controlled by someone else. A free person can act solely based on his own will.

EXPLANATION:

Free will means to act based on one's own will. Imagine for a second you create a robot - which will say "hi" every time it hears people say "oh look a robot". This robot can do nothing but react to reality - it will automatically do whatever you want it to do, given that you know the commands. This robot has free will.

Take a person out of the universe and put him in a cell for a thousand years without any outer force working upon him. When you put that person back into the exact situation he once was in, he will be completely different and act differently. Why? Because he has free will. Free will means to act differently based on their own will.

The difference is that between a planet up close and a planet far away. If you look at the earth from afar and know the laws of physics, the earth has a clear pattern, it cannot move unlike you predicted. But humans live here and say we created a big giant engine that pushed the earth away - this would have been impossible to predict from afar- The same difference applies to humans, you cannot predict a mans by looking at the world, you must know the interior of the person.

IMPLICATION

Among other things, determinism is incorrect.

Determinism: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.[lexico.com/definition/determinism]

Why? Because the will is a valid cause for human action. If a murderer kills someone, you cannot say "Oh, he just started killing people because person a did action b" - that is not how it works. Causality only implies determinism if the will does not exist - which it does. If the will is the brain, a mind, a soul - it does not really matter as long at it exists.

DEFENSE:

What is outside of your body and disobeys the laws of physics which can affect your choice and movement.

I think you misunderstand. Free will means that something INSIDE your body or mind can cause you to act as opposed to something from the outside.

This creates an illusion of acausality (like with quantum atoms) but in reality, this is just free will.

In order to disprove of free will, one must prove that by knowing a person's history BUT NOT his actual state, one can predict his future.

This is an invalid argument. Determinism does not mean "the idea that the will is controlled by the laws of physics" - that is called causality.

CONCLUSION:

Free will by definition exists - both in God/the ultimate reality and possibly in reality as a whole.

The debate is how big a part free will play in peoples lives, and I would argue a lot. You could place two different people in the exact same situation and they will act differently.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Therefore, the universe has a beginning and thus a cause.

Sorry. I meant to say this

The universe has a cause:

Everything with a beginning has a cause
Science proves that everything we see in the universe, including matter and space itself, has a beginning
Therefore, the entire universe has a cause

Something with innate existence, must necessarily exist:

Nothing cannot create something
Something exists
Something has always existed

What is this thing?:

Nothing with a beginning can have existed without a cause (infinite)
Something has always existed
Something exists without a cause (God/the ultimate reality)

Therefore, God, or something similar, must necessarily exist. Claiming that the universe is the first cause is illogical as science clearly shows us it has a clear beginning.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Wagyu

Their claim is usually that "everything must have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause".

That is the correct syllogism. "God" is just one of many explanations.

With the Occams razor in mind, we can conclude that it is unnecessary to add God to the equation.

No it's not. Since something exit, something must always have existed - we call that thing God - or the ultimate reality for nontheists.

Why not just stop at the universe and say that it just occurred?

The law of causality says that everything that came to be has a clear cause. Therefore, the universe has a beginning and thus a cause.

I believe that the ultimate reality is randomness

Randomness cannot exist in a causal reality.

It may be a surprise, but my argument from a thought experiment includes God. In fact, free will as a concept is impossible.

Wrong. "Free-will" means to act on one's own will. Ones own will is not random, therefore free will is always predictable. Randomness would undermine free will.

Free will is one of my strongest topics and I will be extraordinarily impressed if you can debunk the points I have put forwards.

The fact that human actions are not random but causal supports the theory of free will.

You never answered my actual theory of why God has ultimate free will.

Your thought experiment was an argument for causality, not an argument against free will.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, free will is still a possibility. Additionally, theists can be intellectually honest while still believing free will and ethics objectively exists.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

Do you think morality is objective? I personally adopted the view of inter-subjective morality

That is the same as saying morality does not exist. Morality needs an objective standard. Lenght might be subjective, but ultimately it is objective, you can measure it exactly. The same thing applies to morality if it exists. Therefore, morality can only be measured by humans, it must be created by God or something similar. Morality created by humans would not be morality, it would just be a norm or a law.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

Free will cannot exist if everything is the inevitable result of an unbroken chain of events leading back to the dawn of time

Incorrect. The free will you are talking about is not actually free will, it is randomness.

Free will: the ability to act at one's own discretion.

So as long as your actions are decided by your own mind/brain you have free will. If you could put all people in the same situation and have them all do the same thing that would not have been free will.

As you describe free will, both causality and acausality would undermine it - I do not believe in random free will, I believe in logical free will.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

Causality is the bedrock of determinism. That's why it's called causal determinism.

Other bedrocks also exist, for example, faith, the idea that the history of the world is already written in stone.

But theistic causality would allow for free will and ethics at the same time. If one cannot disprove the existence of any type of god and the mind then free will is possible.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

There is no ethical responsibility. There is no moral agency.

I agree.

But society would still have to put that dangerous robot murderer to jail.

We can make one of three conclusions:

Morality exists and is given by a supernatural deity or force
Morality is created by humans but does not exist
Morality is created by humans and does objectively exist

Of these three only the two first are actually logical.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

I challenge anyone to give me a moral system capable of support the abortion industry and human rights at the same time.

Moral system: A moral standard, a moral authority and a way to measure moral value (who is valuable means who should be treated morally good)

Human rights: The idea that all humans are equally valuable regardless of their position, traits and views.

Human: A being with its own distinct DNA which is a part of the species homo sapiens

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

You have to assume that the person pulling the trolley lever had the option to do otherwise

In fact, no - a murderer would be just as dangerous to society even if he was a robot.

But your point is valid: in a deterministic universe, objective morality does not exist. Because morality does not exist only practical concerns would rule.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

But scientific determinism can be argued with great force

You mean scientific causality - that is not the same. Determinism has as a premise that only external forces decide what you do, but causality allows internal causes to exist.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

The cosmological argument is not an argument for god, it's an argument for a caused universe. You dont get god from that without special pleading.

I did not try to do that. I just demonstrated that theism allows free will to exist. Therefore theism is a solid foundation for morality.

1. If someone acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise
2. If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does
3. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will

If someone acts of her own free will - their will would make the decision. A will is not random, so a person would do the exact same thing in the same situation, this is not a logical statement. In order to change the action you do not need to change the situation, you could also change the will. Acting otherwise would be a random decision, not a decision from free will. BTW randomness can be simulated using causality (mathematics) - so that would still be an option if you wanted a free-will universe that was still deterministic.
Determinism is not the same as causality [1] - a deterministic universe would destroy free will but a causal universe would allow free will.
Therefore, both points are valid but they are incompatible - free will can exist in a causal universe

Determinism: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.
[1] https://www.lexico.com/definition/determinism

If you look closely - the second point includes the conclusion: free will does not exist. As such, this is a null point as the logic is circular.

In a deterministic universe by definition free will does not exist. You cannot take a part of a worldview and use it to claim that two worldviews are equally based on the fact they both share this single claim. Causality does not imply determinism, there are other options.

As such - the logic is flawed and your point rebutted.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

Free will is not the same as acausality.

It means that an action is taken based on inner, not outer causes.

Therefore God would have ultimate free will. But still, humans (especially if an immaterial soul exists) would have free will.

The difference is that God could choose to not see what happens in the universe, humans cannot.

If a single human brain was put in a closed system, it would be the equivalent of a spiritual "mind", but humans are both mind and body - according to theology.

The point is: free will exists, but the difference we are debating is to what extent.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

I cannot prove God exists - but I proved that whatever exists instead of God would indeed share most of his qualities, except his personality.

Also, I God COULD exist, then free will COULD as well - I am not trying to prove free will MUST exist - just that it very well might.

God can't simultaneously have a determined plan while also allowing person's to choose freely.

I disagree. Humans are able to have a determined plan to create sentient AI but we have no clue how it will turn out. Being omnipotent God could create a mind in a closed system. If Gods omniscience is based on his ability to calculate reality before it happens, he could simply choose not to do so - and thus humans would indeed have free will.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Sum1hugme

The theistic idea of God clearly allows free will to exist - as I proved above.

Also, if humans are created in "the image of God" they can have a copy of free will - thus theism can actually support ethics on a logical basis.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Wagyu

My argument:

If God exists then free will can exist
God, or something similar, must exist
Therefore, free will must be a possibility

1. IF GOD EXISTS THEN FREE WILL EXISTS

Imagine for the sake of argument, that "God" created the universe and that he has a mind similar to human brains. We assume basic logical principles apply (like causality).

There are two options for choosing one among multiple alternatives, as far as we know of:

Randomness (acausality)
Logic (causality)

Nobody has ever claimed that God makes random decisions, so his mind thinking would be governed by the law of cause and effect.

Since God is the first cause, there exists no outer cause able to control his mind. Every "event" in his mind would be controlled by previous events inside his mind.

God is not controlled by outer forces - and his actions are taken solely because of his own thoughts and intentions.

Free will [https://www.lexico.com/definition/free_will]:
b. the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Therefore God - is the definition of free will.

Conclusion: If reality is deterministic, the existence of God would indeed make free will a logical possibility.

2. GOD, OR SOMETHING SIMILAR, MUST EXIST

Let us proceed. We continue to assume that the laws of logic apply to reality, and that reality is causal. But we do not assume Gods existence as a premise.

Let us see how the universe works:

Matter is created and destroyed inside our universe (E = MC2) - matter is not the most basic thing in existence
Space is constantly expanding, and according to many scientists dark matter is spontaneously created in the vacum of space
Therefore, nothing we can deduce using science has innate existence - so our universe has an outer cause

The outer cause created our universe using the law of causality. There are different theories as to what the "ultimate reality" is:

Energy
Information
God (aka an omnipotent being with free will)
Faith
A multiverse
Randomness

Now, these are quite different approaches. Let us put their difference aside for the time being.

The ultimate reality has innate existence. (nothing cannot create something)
The ultimate reality is the reason why non-ultimate realities exist. (humans for example)
Therefore, the ultimate reality must necessarily be 1) a closed omnipotent system 2) our universe which is a closed system as well

So in fact, no matter how we twist or turn philosophy, an ultimate reality must exist that is a closed CAUSAL system.

If you remove a single domino piece, the train of dominoes stops for eternity. This is not possible for the ultimate reality because it's ultimate, no cause can exist beyond its control. As such, we can conclude that

A closed system governed by causality has existed forever - and it is the cause for why our reality exists. AKA = God/something similar must necessarily exist.

3.This is the evidence why free will MUST exist.

I have shown why free will must exist. This is if we define free will as an act that is not determined by outer but rather inner factors.

We have now found common ground, as the christian God, the multiverse, philosophical atheism - all of these must necessarily accept the theoretical existence of a free will. One might say that "God" is another type of free will. But I clearly showed that the only difference between "God" and other ultimate realities is that he would be a person while the other ones would be impersonal. This is actually the entire debate between atheism and theism:

Theists believe that the power which created the universe is personal and can relate to humans - this would allow actual free will to exist.
Atheist believe that the power which created the universe is impersonal
Agnostics refuse to take a position

My argument has hopefully given you some new ideas regarding determinism and free will.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

[1]:https://www.lexico.com/definition/determinism

-->

@Sum1hugme

I disagree.

Determinism: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.[1]

Will: The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action. [2]
Free [3]:
Not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
Able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another.

Faculty: An inherent mental or physical power [3]

Even if determinism is correct, the will does still exist - the brain for example. The only difference would be that "the will" would be determined by strict physical laws.

Does free will mean "acausal will"? This is a question about definitions, but still, it is very important. The problem is that by trying to answer these questions, one needs more and more definitions until we reach the limit of language. It boils down to what you mean by "free".

My logic:

Free will means "personal will"
"personal will" can exist even in determinism
Free will would still exist in determinism.

The thing is that humans might be determined by outer factors, but they are also determined by inner factors, like thinking.

Sources:

[2]:https://www.lexico.com/definition/will

[3]:https://www.lexico.com/definition/free

[4]:https://www.lexico.com/definition/faculty

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Wagyu

There is a fundamental contradiction in humanity's experience. On one hand, humans feel free and responsible for their own actions - on the other hand, science has shown us that reality, with few exceptions, is always governed by rules set in stone. Is this contradiction enough to destroy the fundamental idea of free will?

Some interesting paradoxes might appear:

If we have no free will - we do not choose to not believe in free will.
Would God, if he exists, have free will - if not, why did he create the universe?
If the words "random" and "free will" are both illusions - then they did not create the universe. Therefore the universe is just a link in an infinite timeline.

Wagyu - what is your opinion on the matter?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Causality: The idea that every event has a cause

Free will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/free_will]

Does causality undermnine free will?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheUnderdog

I know

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

May I come with a suggestion:

All people have the same rights to protection - that means that all people should have a certain level of security

Groups that are targeted are in bigger danger and needs more protection

But ultimately, everyone has the same level of security - more treaths mean more protection so it balances out.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

I want to tell everyone, stop faking "Christian" history. If you have no education about it stop spreading supposedly correct information that somehow only non-Christians have access to.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

Christians tend to have privilege.

What? Give me any more information?

If by privilege you mean better lives, are you claiming that Christians are given more opportunities or are you claiming that Christians make better decisions?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

Christian values existed before Christ

No, then they would not be called Christian.

Tell me what values you talk about, are you only talking about basic morality? Like, people did not allow murder even before Christ was born?

you don't get to own all the religious concepts ever cause you god is the newest.

I have only mentioned one:

"We believe that all men are created equal, and bestowed upon by the creator certain inalienable rights - among them ..."

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Actually the Founders who insisted on secularism were not all Christian.

They were not all theological christians. But if you regard Christian as "one who believes in the Christian values" - then every founder was Christian.

And the nations doing better than the US today have little to no religion in the public sector period.

Wait, are you saying USA today is better today? NO! The USA was the best country to live in, period. This was true at least the 200 first years following their Christian constitution.

Secularism: the division between church and state, was a Christian idea, though the roman empire destroyed that initial idea by adopting Christianity as state religion after persecuting Christians and killing them for 300 years.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in: