Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 0:11:39 GMT
tpfkar
I've been arguing the same thing consistently as it is the only thing that fits both sense and the current evidence. I don't care about your punts to pigeonholing definitions from religious sites and political board style gutter tactics in lieu of substantive debate. We are of course affected and driven by our wants and traits, as we're not the bizarre infinitely regressive amorphous blobs that no one has ever associated with what people call free will. The only "meaningful" free will is what we have, making choices based on who and what we are, and that will stand until something more than clumsy ponderings, gross overstatement and purposeful distortions are flung at it.And no type of free will can exculpate God from the problem of evil, regardless of your buy-in. You should not accept religious indoctrination so readily.
Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong?
"Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise."
Your definition of free will is muddled and ill defined and you've provided NO evidence to support it (you can't even define it coherently and consistently, much less support it with evidence). If you believe that the nature of the individual is what causes a choice, then you must accept that punishment for crime is unjust (even if it is a necessary evil). But you seem to be saying that choices are partly caused by our nature and circumstances, but then there is also this 'free will' part of our brain which contributes to the decision, although you can't say how the causal and acausal factors mesh together.
You've admitted that if someone could turn back time to revisit a decision they had made, but with no knowledge of what they had decided the first time, and with every other parameter identically the same, then they would always make the same decision. That would entail a criminal committing the same crime every time he pressed 'rewind', and from this it can reasonably be concluded that he was helpless to have avoided committing the crime based on his nature.