Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Nils wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Which strawman will be tackled first...

Please, be more specific.

And note that the subject of my post isn't to discuss Christianity but to describe my position. If you find my short mentioning of a possible relation to a religion not being a correct description of Christianity, well, then you may comment on that, but it is'nt my topic. I would rather prefer that you comment what I am talking about.

Sorry, you lost me.

RickD wrote:Nils,

You are all over the place.

You say we have no free will, and therefore don't choose to do wrong, such as murder. And then you say society should have punishment for murderers, to deter others from committing murder. But how can anyone be deterred from committing murder if they don't have a choice to murder?

First, about free will. I find it metaphysically impossible that we have a free will so that we can truly deserve punishment. We are the result of heredity and environment and perhaps some randomness. It is sheer luck if you are born into a nice family, being intelligent and socially competent. As well as it is not up to you that you look handsome it is not up to you that you are clever. It is sheer unluck if you happened to murder a person when others that had been born with better self-control avoided murdering in the same situation.

Therefore no one deserves to be punished, never.

On the other hand. That I don't have free will does not hinder me from finding out what is my will. I can deliberate to find out what is best to me, or just find out what I desire. In my ordinary life I usually don't think about the metaphysics so I often think that I have a free will even if I know I don't. That's not a delusion, that's just a practical way of thinking. But that requires that you can have two thoughts at the same time (a bit more complicated than only having one idea).

On punishment again. I say that no one deserves punishment but I also know that in a well-functioning society there has to be rules. During the evolution some of these rules have been implanted in those animals that lives in flocks e.g. wolves and chimpanzees. In our human societies those inherited rules are not sufficient and we have to enforce other rules as well. We also have to codify them in laws and punish those that break the laws. But the criminals should not be punished because they deserve punishment (looking backwards) but they have to be punished because we have to deter them and others to break the law in the future. There are also other aspects as isolating dangerous persons, educating them or rehabilitating them. These are forward looking reason to punish. If there were no such reasons we should not punish.

Nils wrote:

RickD wrote:Nils,

You are all over the place.

Yes Rick, the free will question interests me.

You say we have no free will, and therefore don't choose to do wrong, such as murder. And then you say society should have punishment for murderers, to deter others from committing murder. But how can anyone be deterred from committing murder if they don't have a choice to murder?

Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

Nils wrote:Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote:Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I remember speaking to two brothers at different times; one was abusive to his girlfriends, the other kind. The abusive one said he was abusive to women because he grew up seeing his dad beat his mom and that’s all he knew; by watching his dad. The non-abusive one said he grew up watching his dad beat his mom and all he knew was to not be like his dad.

I think the problem with your computer analogy is the computer has no choice but to react to its input because it is incapable of making a decision. People are different; no matter our heredity or environment, we can still choose to do differently because we are capable of making a decision.

PaulSacramento wrote:The problem Nils, is that it has NOTHING to do with YOU.
You view works because YOU have not been brought up in a civilization that actually believes your view.

In short, you can "afford" to view things that way because someone else has already "paid" the price and established a civilization that works.

You sill haven't explained why I should, following your view, not do whatever I want to.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote:Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I remember speaking to two brothers at different times; one was abusive to his girlfriends, the other kind. The abusive one said he was abusive to women because he grew up seeing his dad beat his mom and that’s all he knew; by watching his dad. The non-abusive one said he grew up watching his dad beat his mom and all he knew was to not be like his dad.

I think the problem with your computer analogy is the computer has no choice but to react to its input because it is incapable of making a decision. People are different; no matter our heredity or environment, we can still choose to do differently because we are capable of making a decision.

I like the logical Kenny. Can we please see more posts from him?

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote:Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I remember speaking to two brothers at different times; one was abusive to his girlfriends, the other kind. The abusive one said he was abusive to women because he grew up seeing his dad beat his mom and that’s all he knew; by watching his dad. The non-abusive one said he grew up watching his dad beat his mom and all he knew was to not be like his dad.

I think the problem with your computer analogy is the computer has no choice but to react to its input because it is incapable of making a decision. People are different; no matter our heredity or environment, we can still choose to do differently because we are capable of making a decision.

I like the logical Kenny. Can we please see more posts from him?

I wonder if Nils just thinks we're all being obtuse.

PaulSacramento wrote:

First, about free will. I find it metaphysically impossible that we have a free will so that we can truly deserve punishment. We are the result of heredity and environment and perhaps some randomness. It is sheer luck if you are born into a nice family, being intelligent and socially competent. As well as it is not up to you that you look handsome it is not up to you that you are clever. It is sheer unluck if you happened to murder a person when others that had been born with better self-control avoided murdering in the same situation.

Therefore no one deserves to be punished, never.

On the other hand. That I don't have free will does not hinder me from finding out what is my will. I can deliberate to find out what is best to me, or just find out what I desire. In my ordinary life I usually don't think about the metaphysics so I often think that I have a free will even if I know I don't. That's not a delusion, that's just a practical way of thinking. But that requires that you can have two thoughts at the same time (a bit more complicated than only having one idea).

On punishment again. I say that no one deserves punishment but I also know that in a well-functioning society there has to be rules. During the evolution some of these rules have been implanted in those animals that lives in flocks e.g. wolves and chimpanzees. In our human societies those inherited rules are not sufficient and we have to enforce other rules as well. We also have to codify them in laws and punish those that break the laws. But the criminals should not be punished because they deserve punishment (looking backwards) but they have to be punished because we have to deter them and others to break the law in the future. There are also other aspects as isolating dangerous persons, educating them or rehabilitating them. These are forward looking reason to punish. If there were no such reasons we should not punish.

Metaphysically, you are 100% wrong.
Subjectively, you MAY be right.

I don't think you understand metaphysics...

Nils wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The problem Nils, is that it has NOTHING to do with YOU.
You view works because YOU have not been brought up in a civilization that actually believes your view.

Paul, I am not certain about you what this argument implies even if it were true, but as I wrote earlier
"However, we can hold persons responsible for their act, using a consequential perspective. They are not MR because who they are, what motives they have etc. They are only MR because we need rules how to behave in a society. By adapting this idea we can skip or at least mitigate the feelings of retribution and instead try to rehabilitate the person. This was the official purpose of the criminal system in Sweden about 1940 - 1970. Then the idea of proportionality was introduced, the idea that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. But that idea was part of the criminal system also earlier even if not officially declared."

In short, you can "afford" to view things that way because someone else has already "paid" the price and established a civilization that works.

We are all standing on the shoulder of giants benefiting from what earlier generations have done. Is that wrong? Isn't it positive that we can refine earlier developments. Is it an argument against the validity of a theory that it has evolved gradually?

You sill haven't explained why I should, following your view, not do whatever I want to.

You can do whatever you want, the discussion is about free will i.e. free wanting. You can not control what you want, you desires, your preferences etc momentarily. In the long run you may control some of them given that you have stronger desires etc that overruns you weaker ones. But still what you really want depends on the circumstances, internal and external.

Nils