Do commandments and threats negate free will?

[wellwisher]

Do commandments and threats negate free will?

There is a quote in the bible, " law was not created for the righteous man. Rather it was created for the sinners".

Say there is a bully who enjoys beating on you. He is exercising his free will. So according to many, there should be no law or threat against him. But to the person losing his free will to walk peacefully down the road, he may not mind if a higher power limits the bully's free will so he has more free will.

There is a new law created, thou shall not bully. This was not created for the righteous man but for the sinner. But it will apply to all, but will only restrict the will of the sinner, so he does not restrict the will of the righteous.

Atheism may relate better to the bully, since law was not created for the righteous man and does not apply to righteous. Law was there to restrict the sinners so they don't take away free will from the righteous.

If I steal from you, I restrict you free will. It is not God doing it. Free will can come in conflict with free will. Justice amounts to protecting those who will maximizes the free will of all; righteous man. The sinner reduces net free will.

 

[ughaibu]

Free will has not been empirically proven. . .

We can demonstrate free will, easily. To dispute that demonstration, the denier must abandon at least one essential principle of science. So, free will is neither more nor less "empirically proven" than is the sun.

If free will were directly observable, there wouldn't be any philosophical debate over its existence or nature.

Your claim is false by observation. Why do you think that there is debate about global warming or evolution? Both are directly observable and both have their deniers.

 

[Syne]

We can demonstrate free will, easily. To dispute that demonstration, the denier must abandon at least one essential principle of science. So, free will is neither more nor less "empirically proven" than is the sun.Your claim is false by observation. Why do you think that there is debate about global warming or evolution? Both are directly observable and both have their deniers.

Yeah, I get it, you have no idea what you're talking about. Once again, look up "subjective". It is essential vocabulary for any philosophical discussion, and you will always find yourself at a loss without knowing what it means.

But by all means, demonstrate free will for me. And while you're at it, explain exactly which "essential principle of science" I am supposedly denying. Mind you, I think free will exists, but I'm objective enough to realize what does and does not actually constitute empirical evidence.

A masochist doesn't demonstrate that you'd enjoy pain, would he?

 

[ughaibu]

. . . demonstrate free will for me. And while you're at it, explain exactly which "essential principle of science" I am supposedly denying.

You won't need to abandon any essential principles of science unless you deny that free will has been demonstrated, when it's demonstrated.

Mind you, I think free will exists, but I'm objective enough to realize what does and does not actually constitute empirical evidence.

And presumably you also think that the sun exists. Can you give me any reason to doubt that free will exists?

 

[Syne]

You won't need to abandon any essential principles of science unless you deny that free will has been demonstrated, when it's demonstrated.And presumably you also think that the sun exists. Can you give me any reason to doubt that free will exists?

Ah, the ever-so-powerful argument of "it's demonstrated because it's demonstrated". Redundancy is not evidence.

I'm sure I couldn't possibly give you any reason to doubt free will that you would ever accept. So just go curl up in you subjective blanket and go back to sleep.

 

[ughaibu]

Ah, the ever-so-powerful argument of "it's demonstrated because it's demonstrated". Redundancy is not evidence.

But I haven't made such an argument, have I? What I wrote was this; "to dispute that demonstration, the denier must abandon at least one essential principle of science". It is absolutely clear that this is not an assertion that implies that you are denying anything, yet you replied with this; "explain exactly which "essential principle of science" I am supposedly denying".
My next reply was a second attempt to get the same point over to you, you are now on your own with this. I am not going to spell it out a third time, it is too simple. Convince me that you have understood this or I will assume that my demonstration will be beyond you.

I'm sure I couldn't possibly give you any reason to doubt free will that you would ever accept.

If by this, you mean that you can offer no reason to doubt that free will exists, then say so, clearly. Free will denial is a silly and uninteresting position, I am not going to get involved in a committed exchange about it unless I am given a genuine reason to acknowledge that there is an actual issue. In short, your patronising comments about a supposed subjective/objective distinction, dont even amount to hand-waving a reason. Unless you can give me a reason to suppose that the existence of free will is more in doubt that is the existence of the sun, I will see no reason to waste my time further.

 

[Syne]

But I haven't made such an argument, have I? What I wrote was this; "to dispute that demonstration, the denier must abandon at least one essential principle of science". It is absolutely clear that this is not an assertion that implies that you are denying anything, yet you replied with this; "explain exactly which "essential principle of science" I am supposedly denying".
My next reply was a second attempt to get the same point over to you, you are now on your own with this. I am not going to spell it out a third time, it is too simple. Convince me that you have understood this or I will assume that my demonstration will be beyond you.If by this, you mean that you can offer no reason to doubt that free will exists, then say so, clearly. Free will denial is a silly and uninteresting position, I am not going to get involved in a committed exchange about it unless I am given a genuine reason to acknowledge that there is an actual issue. In short, your patronising comments about a supposed subjective/objective distinction, dont even amount to hand-waving a reason. Unless you can give me a reason to suppose that the existence of free will is more in doubt that is the existence of the sun, I will see no reason to waste my time further.

What have you "spelled out"? You made some vague reference to a demonstration you never provided and an essential scientific principle you have yet to name. I can't very well dispute what you haven't provided. So what demonstration?

Oh, I see. You're just a troll weaseling out of have to support any claim you make. You're now just finding excuses NOT to provide this "easily" demonstrated free will. Not that I think it will it actually get you to provide any demonstration of free will, but there is plenty of reason to entertain the notion that free will does not exist. I think it does exist, mind you.

If the universe is truly deterministic then all current actions have direct past causes, including apparent human choices. Strictly past causes preclude current free-agency.

 

[ughaibu]

there is plenty of reason to entertain the notion that free will does not exist. . . . .
If the universe is truly deterministic then all current actions have direct past causes, including apparent human choices. Strictly past causes preclude current free-agency.

However, there is no non-psychological reason, that I can think of, to espouse realism about determinism. Whereas there is a shit-pile of reasons to think that we do not live in a determined world.
By the way, the circumstance that "all current actions have direct past causes" neither entails determinism nor threatens free will. Determinism and causality are independent notions.

 

[Syne]

However, there is no non-psychological reason, that I can think of, to espouse realism about determinism. Whereas there is a shit-pile of reasons to think that we do not live in a determined world.
By the way, the circumstance that "all current actions have direct past causes" neither entails determinism nor threatens free will. Determinism and causality are independent notions.

Care to give any of this "shit-pile" of reasons? Science has demonstrated that most physical phenomenon is causally deterministic. A deterministic physical system very much does rely on causality.

Granted, causality doesn't preclude free will, but you have yet to support your, as yet, purely subjective opinion. There is ample evidence of physical phenomenon where all causes can only have single effects, and thus causally determine what will occur. If I hit my cup hard enough it will inevitably fall to the floor, cause determining effect quite clearly.

So provide a single clear example of free will, on par with the evidence for the sun, as you claim, or I'll just write you off as a troll who refuses to support his own claims.

 

[ughaibu]

Care to give any of this "shit-pile" of reasons?

Determinism fails to arguments from circularity, incommensurability, irreversibility, observation, randomness and regresses.

Science has demonstrated that most physical phenomenon is causally deterministic.

Of course it hasn't. Determinism is a metaphysical thesis, it is outside the scope of science. You appear to have confused deterministic models with the phenomena which they model, and you also appear to have overlooked the fact that such models predict the probabilities of making specified observations.

A deterministic physical system very much does rely on causality.

Determinism is a global claim. For the free will question, that is what we're concerned with.

There is ample evidence of physical phenomenon where all causes can only have single effects, and thus causally determine what will occur. If I hit my cup hard enough it will inevitably fall to the floor, cause determining effect quite clearly.

And rather obviously, a lot of human behaviour is outside the set of such phenomena, so you will need to provide a good reason to suppose that all phenomena are, contrary to appearance, actually such phenomena.

So provide a single clear example of free will, on par with the evidence for the sun, as you claim

You have yet to offer a reason to think that free will is in any doubt. For example; if I state that there might be a mischievous demon removing my free will, including any compatibilist free will, then I have offered a stronger threat to free will than determinism is, but that doesn't make it more of a reason to doubt the reality of free will, because there is no good reason to suppose that there is such a demon. Similarly, that there are people who believe that we inhabit a determined world is not a reason to think that they might be correct. Just as the presence of theists is no reason to think that there's a god. So, by mooting the highly implausible possibility of determinism, you haven't offered a reason to doubt free will. After all, free will has a far higher prima face plausibility than determinism has.

I'll just write you off as a troll who refuses to support his own claims.

That's your affair, and if you do, frankly, I won't give a fuck.

 

[Syne]

Determinism fails to arguments from circularity, incommensurability, irreversibility, observation, randomness and regresses.Of course it hasn't. Determinism is a metaphysical thesis, it is outside the scope of science. You appear to have confused deterministic models with the phenomena which they model, and you also appear to have overlooked the fact that such models predict the probabilities of making specified observations.Determinism is a global claim. For the free will question, that is what we're concerned with.And rather obviously, a lot of human behaviour is outside the set of such phenomena, so you will need to provide a good reason to suppose that all phenomena are, contrary to appearance, actually such phenomena.You have yet to offer a reason to think that free will is in any doubt. For example; if I state that there might be a mischievous demon removing my free will, including any compatibilist free will, then I have offered a stronger threat to free will than determinism is, but that doesn't make it more of a reason to doubt the reality of free will, because there is no good reason to suppose that there is such a demon. Similarly, that there are people who believe that we inhabit a determined world is not a reason to think that they might be correct. Just as the presence of theists is no reason to think that there's a god. So, by mooting the highly implausible possibility of determinism, you haven't offered a reason to doubt free will. After all, free will has a far higher prima face plausibility than determinism has.That's your affair, and if you do, frankly, I won't give a fuck.

First, I am not making the argument for determinism, only that there exists no incontrovertible proof of free will with which to objectively decide the matter in an obligatorily consensus. Second, as I've told you several time now, I don't doubt free will. Not in the least. I'm just intellectually honest enough to recognize what constitutes proof.

Quite to the contrary, I think a libertarian free will is highly likely and that it is logically compatible with causality. But there is no doubt that causal determinism is evidenced by our ability to make very accurate predictions in many cases. Yes, this causal determinism has a specific domain. Never said otherwise.

So I'll just let your straw man die here rather than continue this devil's advocate exercise.

 

[ughaibu]

there is no doubt that causal determinism is evidenced by our ability to make very accurate predictions in many cases.

Determinism, that threatens free will, is not suggested by the ability of human beings to make certain predictions. On the contrary, that they can make such predictions is at variance with a determined world, because it requires that the world also be determined to include those predictions.

I'm just intellectually honest enough to recognize what constitutes proof

I haven't talked about "proof", on this thread. What I have said is that we can observe free will. That is an empirical claim. Obviously deniers can appeal to metaphysical positions which exclude free will, just as deniers of the sun can, but I see no more reason to take the first group of deniers any more seriously than I do the second. In my experience, free will denial is based on either special pleading or mistakes in reasoning, if you have no reason to doubt the reality of free will, and not doubt other observable phenomena, then I will decline the opportunity to spend needless time on the demonstration.

 

[Balerion]

Brilliant post, ughaibu.

 

[Syne]

Determinism, that threatens free will, is not suggested by the ability of human beings to make certain predictions. On the contrary, that they can make such predictions is at variance with a determined world, because it requires that the world also be determined to include those predictions.

I haven't talked about "proof", on this thread. What I have said is that we can observe free will. That is an empirical claim. Obviously deniers can appeal to metaphysical positions which exclude free will, just as deniers of the sun can, but I see no more reason to take the first group of deniers any more seriously than I do the second. In my experience, free will denial is based on either special pleading or mistakes in reasoning, if you have no reason to doubt the reality of free will, and not doubt other observable phenomena, then I will decline the opportunity to spend needless time on the demonstration.

Well since you're lending so much credence to determinism by so seeking to refute it, you have demonstrated your own criteria for providing a demonstration or evidence for free will. If it is indeed empirical then it is testable and objective, which would avoid any observational or cognitive biases likely of purely subjective experience.

But your just a troll, so never mind.

 

[ughaibu]

Well since you're lending so much credence to determinism by so seeking to refute it. . . . your just a troll. . . .

1) you brought up determinism, I did not.
2) I have made no move to refute determinism, on this thread.
3) rather than offer a reason to doubt the reality of free will, you have made personal insults.
4) you have demonstrated a paucity of understanding concerning the relevant issues.
5) I will not be replying to you, further, on this thread.

 

[Syne]

1) you brought up determinism, I did not.
2) I have made no move to refute determinism, on this thread.
3) rather than offer a reason to doubt the reality of free will, you have made personal insults.
4) you have demonstrated a paucity of understanding concerning the relevant issues.
5) I will not be replying to you, further, on this thread.

Yes, I'm sure you'll continue to think whatever you like. Subjective confirmation bias is like that.

 

[Greatest I am]

Compatibilists simply define free will as the determinate character acting "freely" without any coercive enforcement or inhibition. IOW, one determinate will acting without interference of another.

Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". -Schopenhauer​

Well if you're going to use the Bible as you sole, authoritative reference, afterlife penalties did not exist until the law was given to man.

"Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break." -Romans 5:13(NIV)​

People were informed, with the law, when the penalty changed, so all conditions were always knowable.

So when the penalty changed, it was a new law and this was applied to A & E who broke the old law and should have been given the old consequences, not the new from a new law that they did not break.

God was punishing arbitrarily before the law said he could and that is not legal or moral.

Would you tell your child that he will be grounded for a day for something and then when he does it, ground im for a month and call it a new law?

If you would then you would be just as much of a dick as God.
You and God would lose the trust of your children.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

There is a quote in the bible, " law was not created for the righteous man. Rather it was created for the sinners".

Say there is a bully who enjoys beating on you. He is exercising his free will. So according to many, there should be no law or threat against him. But to the person losing his free will to walk peacefully down the road, he may not mind if a higher power limits the bully's free will so he has more free will.

There is a new law created, thou shall not bully. This was not created for the righteous man but for the sinner. But it will apply to all, but will only restrict the will of the sinner, so he does not restrict the will of the righteous.

Atheism may relate better to the bully, since law was not created for the righteous man and does not apply to righteous. Law was there to restrict the sinners so they don't take away free will from the righteous.

If I steal from you, I restrict you free will. It is not God doing it. Free will can come in conflict with free will. Justice amounts to protecting those who will maximizes the free will of all; righteous man. The sinner reduces net free will.

You have a new law written after the fact of bullying. Then the unrighteous is known and the law written to deal with him and the consequences are written into the law.

That is not that case with A & E.
The law was written before hand and penalties show but the moment A & E broke the law, new and arbitrary penalties were added on and that is not lawful and is defiitely immoral on God's part.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

So when the penalty changed, it was a new law and this was applied to A & E who broke the old law and should have been given the old consequences, not the new from a new law that they did not break.

God was punishing arbitrarily before the law said he could and that is not legal or moral.

Would you tell your child that he will be grounded for a day for something and then when he does it, ground im for a month and call it a new law?

If you would then you would be just as much of a dick as God.
You and God would lose the trust of your children.

Where do you find that A&E suffered the consequences laid out with the new laws? You cannot support your claim without specifics. What sin; what punishment?

 

[Greatest I am]

Where do you find that A&E suffered the consequences laid out with the new laws? You cannot support your claim without specifics. What sin; what punishment?

The eating of the tree of knowledge was the so called sin.
The known penalty was --though shalt surely die.

The imposed penalty and the new law that no one knew of, except perhaps for the talking snake, who seemed to know God had left some consequences out, a sin of omission to me.

God spoke of one penalty, death, yet arbitrarily added on a bunch more after the fact.
Quite immoral that.

Would you do that to your child?

Regards
DL