Free Will

neologist wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
. . . As a matter of fact, I did offer. But right about the time I told them I was a registered member of the Church of Satan they seemed to lose interest.
Ya couldn't get rid of me so easy. We have too many points of agreement.

I don't think Jason would have invited me in, though. What do you think?

Yes, you seem to be made of sterner stuff than joe religion.

You are actually somewhat of an oddity in my mind.

0 Replies

If I was not of sterner mettle, I would take this opportunity to poke fun at you both, but my impeccable decorum prohibits such ribaldry!

<is impeccable decorum the signature of free will he wonders aloud>

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Religious leaders have done much to cloud the truth. But the truth is still available to those willing to look.

Indeed. But it is not about the leaders so much as the followers. Many profess their charge of 'spreading the gospel,' but the manner in which they attempt to do so--as well as the mangled version of good news they spread far and wide--does little to encourage anyone to be willing. If anything, that should be the goal. To spur another toward searching and seeking. If we are all able to find the truth, and if God is truly the faithful Creator of mankind--then there should be no need for anyone to try to impress upon another the results of their own search for truth.

What did Paul say? We can do nothing against the truth.
So why not let truth make itself known in its own impeccably wise fashion?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

And what would that truth be?

Good question. I took the liberty of starting a new topic.

What is truth?

0 Replies

There is no Free Will. Everything is predestined on hundred of percents. Each our idea, every feeling that we have influences the cells in our body (and not only them) and each of them is a microspace that has its predestined start, course and the end. All ours feelings are predestined to influence all the cells in the way they influence them.

0 Replies

So what's the start and what's the end?

And it is common to all human souls?

0 Replies

So why punish felons?

0 Replies

Exactly.

I think.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

So why punish felons?

Because our propensity to do so was predetermined.

Seriously, the whole 'if you have no freewill, you are not responsible, and hence there should be no laws and punishment' argument is pretty weak and only holds a small amount of water when left unexamined.
Regardless if a person 'chooses' to be a rapist, or 'ends up' as one, the problem still exists. The rapist still needs to be removed from society, for the good of society.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

neologist wrote:
So why punish felons?

Because our propensity to do so was predetermined.

Seriously, the whole 'if you have no freewill, you are not responsible, and hence there should be no laws and punishment' argument is pretty weak and only holds a small amount of water when left unexamined.
Regardless if a person 'chooses' to be a rapist, or 'ends up' as one, the problem still exists. The rapist still needs to be removed from society, for the good of society.

Of course. But you are making my point, not yours.

0 Replies

I would think any point I make would be my own, or else I wouldn't be making it.
Now would I? Razz

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

I would think any point I make would be my own, or else I wouldn't be making it.
Now would I?

If what you are saying is true, it belongs to all.

0 Replies

'belong' is part of a sociological illusionary construct, much like most of human existence.
Nothing 'really' belongs to anything or anyone, outside of human conceptions.
But it tends to be useful to work within human conceptions when dealing with humans.
Conceptions such as property.

0 Replies

OK, applies to all.

0 Replies

Accountablity is essential for the functioning of society, and it rests on an assumption of free will. But here we have an example of how conceptual fictions can serve real functions. Truth is not always what we need.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Seriously, the whole 'if you have no freewill, you are not responsible, and hence there should be no laws and punishment' argument is pretty weak and only holds a small amount of water when left unexamined.

Why? I think it's a pretty strong argument, and so do a lot of other people who cannot reconcile a lack of free will with the notion of personal responsibility for actions.

Doktor S wrote:

Regardless if a person 'chooses' to be a rapist, or 'ends up' as one, the problem still exists. The rapist still needs to be removed from society, for the good of society.

Society is safer by locking up a rapist only if there's a chance that he'll rape again. If there's no chance, then society is not one whit better off than it was before. Thus, there should be no reason to lock up a rapist who, because he lacks free will, is not determined to rape again. Conversely, if society can identify those persons who will rape in the future because they lack free will and cannot control their actions, then society should lock up those persons now rather than wait for them to commit rape. In a world where there is no free will, incarceration should be reserved for the man who will rape at some point in the future, not for the man who has raped in the past.

0 Replies

Have we ever gotten any Presbyterians in here? I like to watch 'em squirm . . . theologically speaking . . .

0 Replies

Society is safer by locking up a rapist only if there's a reasonable
chance that he'll rape again. If there's no reasonablechance, then society is not likely to be one whit better off than it was before.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Seriously, the whole 'if you have no freewill, you are not responsible, and hence there should be no laws and punishment' argument is pretty weak and only holds a small amount of water when left unexamined.

Why? I think it's a pretty strong argument, and so do a lot of other people who cannot reconcile a lack of free will with the notion of personal responsibility for actions.

Can you think of a causeless effect? Me either.
Freewill implies effect without cause, and thus I find the whole idea quite specious
I don't think predestination precludes justice or responsibility. Justice and responsibility are human constructs invented by humans and exist within the human mind. That has little to do with the actual logistics of reality.

Quote:

Doktor S wrote:
Regardless if a person 'chooses' to be a rapist, or 'ends up' as one, the problem still exists. The rapist still needs to be removed from society, for the good of society.

Society is safer by locking up a rapist only if there's a chance that he'll rape again. If there's no chance, then society is not one whit better off than it was before. Thus, there should be no reason to lock up a rapist who, because he lacks free will, is not determined to rape again. Conversely, if society can identify those persons who will rape in the future because they lack free will and cannot control their actions, then society should lock up those persons now rather than wait for them to commit rape. In a world where there is no free will, incarceration should be reserved for the man who will rape at some point in the future, not for the man who has raped in the past.

If there was a way to predict the future with 100% accuracy, which there isn't. You can't knowwhether a rapist will rape again. Thats why you lock them up (or preferably kill them) to make absolutely sure.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

You can't knowwhether a rapist will rape again. Thats why you lock them up (or preferably kill them) to make absolutely sure.

We may now, or soon be getting to the point where our ability be predictive about a rapist's future actions has merit.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know