This single proposition transformed me into an agno-theist;
A sentient abstraction that can do anything and everything, that is capable of all actions simultaneously, will perform all actions simultaneously. Anything and everything, possible or impossible, has happened, because this thing, the God, that is so beyond the comprehensions of all other consciousnesses, that is so beyond the capacity of any lesser sentience, has done anything and everything, possible or impossible.
An infinity of im/possible things exist, in which this linear time-stream is an infinitely minute part of.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
What about God commanding genocide when the Hebrews conquered Canaan, betraying and slaughtering their erstwhile allies? Do you stand by that?
Do you understand why God said to do that?
Let's take a look at exactly who those people that dwelt in that land were:
"And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:27-28, 33)
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
The Canaanites and the other people that God told the Israelites to wipe out were the "post-human" fallen ones, the nephilim. God had caused the flood to eradicate them before, but as it says in Genesis 6, they were in the earth in those days "and also after that."
Originally posted by DigiWhile I don't disagree with what you're saying, that we are a by product of our tangibles both in nature and nurture, and that ideas should be freely dissected I don't think it excuses someone whose actions have brought about 'bad' consequences for others. I'm not saying everyone should be super punished either or that we should not try and reform. That's not a conversation I'm attempting to have.
Fair enough. But it's not the person's fault. We're all just products of our upbringing, genetics, environment, and education. Very, very few set out with the idea that they will do evil in the world with an idea or tool, as you put it. The most hateful evangelists think they're doing good. To us, Bat Dude sounds uninformed, condescending, and hateful, but to him he's doing God work. He's trying to make the world the better place, as he sees it. It's tough to stomach from the opposite perspective, but it's hard for me to say "No, don't do what you think is right and good. You're a terrible person." It is the idea that needs deconstructing, not the person, even if the person is off their rocker.But then if you pull out the big guns tearing down an idea, mincing no words, you inevitably end up in personal insults sometimes. Comes with the territory, and I'm no saint in that department. But it's a goal to strive for.
I'm also not saying all ideas fall into this notion that's its the person and not the idea itself that is flawed.
What I'm saying is that much like a knife, a very helpful tool even to this day, the person wielding the idea can turn it into something that can either be used for help or hurt and that almost nothing falls out of this notion. Even science used in the hands of fanatics can be used for pain. Simply because they chose to bend it to their will and other people blindly follow(I don't mean faith I mean blindly following the orders of another man) regardless of whether the person themselves feel they are doing good.
I'm not trying to say religion is the same as science either but to me the same notion of twisting and abusing science and all manner of ideas or thoughts follows religion as well.
Originally posted by Bat Dude
Do you understand why God said to do that?Let's take a look at exactly who those people that dwelt in that land were:
"And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:27-28, 33)
"There were giants in the earth in those days; [b]and also after that
, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.The Canaanites and the other people that God told the Israelites to wipe out were the "post-human" fallen ones, the nephilim. God had caused the flood to eradicate them before, but as it says in Genesis 6, they were in the earth in those days "and also after that." [/B]
New low for you.
Originally posted by Newjak
While I don't disagree with what you're saying, that we are a by product of our tangibles both in nature and nurture, and that ideas should be freely dissected I don't think it excuses someone whose actions have brought about 'bad' consequences for others. I'm not saying everyone should be super punished either or that we should not try and reform. That's not a conversation I'm attempting to have.I'm also not saying all ideas fall into this notion that's its the person and not the idea itself that is flawed.
What I'm saying is that much like a knife, a very helpful tool even to this day, the person wielding the idea can turn it into something that can either be used for help or hurt and that almost nothing falls out of this notion. Even science used in the hands of fanatics can be used for pain. Simply because they chose to bend it to their will and other people blindly follow(I don't mean faith I mean blindly following the orders of another man) regardless of whether the person themselves feel they are doing good.
I'm not trying to say religion is the same as science either but to me the same notion of twisting and abusing science and all manner of ideas or thoughts follows religion as well.
Ok, cool. Your stance is a pretty reasonable one. You're right, though, we're close to a big tangent. I kinda of want to veer this into talking about moral responsibility for right/wrong actions. But we'd be well into left field there, and my views on the subject are somewhat in the minority even among the non-religious (i.e. I don't believe in moral responsibility).
Originally posted by DigiUnderstandable and I will throw you a bone 😛, what exactly about moral responsibility do you not like?
Ok, cool. Your stance is a pretty reasonable one. You're right, though, we're close to a big tangent. I kinda of want to veer this into talking about moral responsibility for right/wrong actions. But we'd be well into left field there, and my views on the subject are somewhat in the minority even among the non-religious (i.e. I don't believe in moral responsibility).
Judging by your previous responses I can guess but I would like to read it in your own words.
Originally posted by Newjak
Understandable and I will throw you a bone 😛, what exactly about moral responsibility do you not like?Judging by your previous responses I can guess but I would like to read it in your own words.
The core of it stems from the implications of a deterministic universe. We have no reason to believe we don't live in a deterministic universe, and most current philosophical debate over moral responsibility (that doesn't have a religious agenda) starts with that as an assumed position.
So then each action is a logical and necessary conclusion to the causes that preceded it, going backward in time ad infinitum. Therefore, no action can be the personal responsibility of the person who enacts it.
To be clear, this isn't to say right and wrong don't exist. They do. Just that the blame or praise is not inherently that person's.
It can be tough to wrap your mind around, because we're VERY trained to take moral responsibility for granted. But I have yet to see a fully coherent version of morality where we're able to reconcile these two ideas.
There are several implications of this, but a common complaint is "if no one is to blame, do we not punish them?" We still would, but not as retributive punishment. "You broke {X law}, therefore {Y punishment}" would go away. Instead, we'd punish based only on the potential for reform and the potential continued danger to members of society. There's a lot more nuance to this line of thinking, but it's actually possible that getting rid of moral responsibility would be a more peaceful and just system.
Detractors come from one of a few camps: religious, which contends that free will exists in a non-deterministic manner (i.e. a miracle happens each time we make a choice); those who hold a naturalistic view (determinism) but see ways for responsibility to find their way in based on future outcomes or societal standards. Some even invoke the abstract that is consciousness and higher-level awareness to disagree. There are others, but I'd likely do them injustice.
There is, of course, much more to this debate, and my summary is just that, a woefully incomplete layman's summary. If you're interested in the topic, here's a great comprehensive treatment of the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Moral-Responsibility-Bruce-Waller/dp/0262016591/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_har?ie=UTF8&qid=1368207553&sr=8-1&keywords=against+moral+responsibility
...my only complaints are niggling ones. The books throws a a lot of terminology at you in a hurry. It's worth reading some cliff's notes online on the free will debate first to get a sense of terms and "camps." Second, he retains use of the term "free will" but does not use it in the same way religions do. This is, likely, a marketing tool...a way to make his ideas seem less foreign. However, it can be a bit confusing if you aren't initially aware that he's re-branding the term.
Originally posted by DigiIt's next to impossible to reconcile this type of topic into a 10000 character post without it being in a woefully incomplete layman's summary.
The core of it stems from the implications of a deterministic universe. We have no reason to believe we don't live in a deterministic universe, and most current philosophical debate over moral responsibility (that doesn't have a religious agenda) starts with that as an assumed position.So then each action is a logical and necessary conclusion to the causes that preceded it, going backward in time ad infinitum. Therefore, no action can be the personal responsibility of the person who enacts it.
To be clear, this isn't to say right and wrong don't exist. They do. Just that the blame or praise is not inherently that person's.
It can be tough to wrap your mind around, because we're VERY trained to take moral responsibility for granted. But I have yet to see a fully coherent version of morality where we're able to reconcile these two ideas.
There are several implications of this, but a common complaint is "if no one is to blame, do we not punish them?" We still would, but not as retributive punishment. "You broke {X law}, therefore {Y punishment}" would go away. Instead, we'd punish based only on the potential for reform and the potential continued danger to members of society. There's a lot more nuance to this line of thinking, but it's actually possible that getting rid of moral responsibility would be a more peaceful and just system.
Detractors come from one of a few camps: religious, which contends that free will exists in a non-deterministic manner (i.e. a miracle happens each time we make a choice); those who hold a naturalistic view (determinism) but see ways for responsibility to find their way in based on future outcomes or societal standards. Some even invoke the abstract that is consciousness and higher-level awareness to disagree. There are others, but I'd likely do them injustice.
There is, of course, much more to this debate, and my summary is just that, a woefully incomplete layman's summary. If you're interested in the topic, here's a great comprehensive treatment of the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Moral-Responsibility-Bruce-Waller/dp/0262016591/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_har?ie=UTF8&qid=1368207553&sr=8-1&keywords=against+moral+responsibility
...my only complaints are niggling ones. The books throws a a lot of terminology at you in a hurry. It's worth reading some cliff's notes online on the free will debate first to get a sense of terms and "camps." Second, he retains use of the term "free will" but does not use it in the same way religions do. This is, likely, a marketing tool...a way to make his ideas seem less foreign. However, it can be a bit confusing if you aren't initially aware that he's re-branding the term.
So you don't like the idea of moral responsibility(mainly Free Will) essentially because you feel it breaks the logical chain of actions reactions that precede everything?
I do agree with a lot of what you say in terms of looking at the causes of why certain events happen and figuring out ways to provoke less of some actions and more of others instead of just straight up punishing someone and hoping that deters them and others from repeating that action.
That always seemed like treating a symptom instead the illness itself and never made much sense to me.
As for Free Will existing in the same type of universe you prescribe to. Couldn't it be said that Free Will does exist but simply possessing Free Will(Moral Responsibility) does not exclude one of outside circumstances that effect their ability to choose? As in having the ability to do something does not always mean you can exercise that ability?
And I'm not trying to sit here and act like what I'm saying is some big breakthrough I'm sure it's been brought up multiple times before me. I was just asking cause it makes sense to me and wanted to see how you would look at that idea?
Free will as it's commonly understood is that when given two options and needing to choose only one, that we could choose either one. We can't. This is an illusion in a deterministic universe. If you chose A. over B. in a scenario, then rewound time and reset the universe in the exact same setup (with no prior knowledge of the previous iteration, of course), you would choose A. 100/100 times, a million out of a million, etc. Saying that you would sometimes choose A. and sometimes B. is religious free will. Exact same setup, different outcome. Wholly incompatible with a determined universe.
Free will as it is sometimes understood (and how I think you used it) is having the freedom to choose according to your own will. Nobody is forcing you to make a particular decision through coercion, force, deception, etc. The choice is yours alone (free), determined as it may be. This version of the term is compatible with determinism/naturalism.
Moral responsibility almost solely regards the blame or praise due to the person for their actions (or not due, depending on your view). Moral responsibility implies that you should be personally responsible for a determined action. I can't abide that. If A. is the evil choice, and B. is the good choice, and you choose A. every time (from the earlier thought experiment), you have chosen poorly but are not to blame. The action can be corrected, or the impulse that led to it, but we can no more blame a person for the action than we can an apple for falling from the tree prematurely.
Does...does that answer your question(s)? I don't want to repeat what you already know - I know you get the concepts - I'm just trying to put it all in my own terms as clearly as possible.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Genocide is genocide.New low for you.
I don't feel like arguing today (and I'm sure you don't either), so I'll make this short, sweet, and to the point.
What is more merciful?
Killing those that are unredeemable (meaning they cannot get saved. It is literally impossible for them to be saved) to:
a) spare those that ARE redeemable from being corrupted
b) spare those unredeemable souls (like the nephilim) from an even worse punishment in the lake of fire (for corrupting those that were)
or
Allowing those that are unredeemable (such as the nephilim) to corrupt everything and everyone (like they did in Genesis 6) and make everything unredeemable and an abomination?
What you have to remember is that the nephilim were half-demon and half-human. They CANNOT be saved. They were also pretty much pure evil. As it says in Genesis, their thoughts were only evil continually. And they corrupted mankind so much that mankind (outside of Noah and his family) became unredeemable. God had to wipe everything out and start over with Noah.
I'm sure you would have no problem with a serial killer, that killed something like 15 people, being put to death. Now imagine someone even worse. Adolf Hitler, for instance. He had millions of people killed in the name of "natural selection". I'm sure you would have no problem with him being executed for his crimes.
The nephilim were even worse, and they couldn't be redeemed in any way. No matter how much you evangelize. No matter how much you pray for them. No matter how much you witness to them. They will never get saved. Ever.
Originally posted by Digi
This is an illusion in a deterministic universe. If you chose A. over B. in a scenario, then rewound time and reset the universe in the exact same setup (with no prior knowledge of the previous iteration, of course), you would choose A. 100/100 times, a million out of a million, etc. Saying that you would sometimes choose A. and sometimes B. is religious free will. Exact same setup, different outcome. Wholly incompatible with a determined universe.
I kind of disagree. The free will universe person would still chose whatever option they were going to chose, 99.9999 out of 100 times. (Because their experiences and knowledge would lend itself to a very particular choice at that very moment in time, almost every time, but the uncertainty factor of "true" free will would still play a small role).
Here's a variation of your setup: let each of the testees* know that time was rewound and they chose a particular option in future but do not reveal which option they chose.
In the Free Will universe, the person would supposedly go back and forth, being unable to determine which option they may have chosen due to the uncertainty of "true" free will (the uncertainty would play a larger role in this setup partially because I arbitrarily say so because I am assigning this particular attribute to free will and also because uncertainty of the person in making this decision plays a much larger role in the decision: in fact, the point of this setup is to maximize uncertainty while they try to determine which setup they chose in the future). The deterministic universe would still have the person picking the same option (over and over, no matter how many times this new setup is repeated) regardless of the knowledge that they chose a particular option (but the option they chose this time could be opposite...heck....even in a deterministic universe, the variance could be that some people chose the same option despite knowing in the future, they chose a particular option....and some people chose the opposite option....and then you must determine if this is another objective truth you just discovered and decide if you really live in a deterministic universe).
So here's the plan: you create a reliable time machine, I'll setup the test, and we run this experiment. No worries: I'll compile the data in absurdly detailed excel spreadsheets. Do you want to be the testee* or should I be the testee*? Wait, we can both be the testees*.
*teehee...balls. WEEEEEEE!
Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't feel like arguing today (and I'm sure you don't either), so I'll make this short, sweet, and to the point.What is more merciful?
Killing those that are unredeemable (meaning they cannot get saved. It is literally impossible for them to be saved) to:
a) spare those that ARE redeemable from being corrupted
b) spare those unredeemable souls (like the nephilim) from an even worse punishment in the lake of fire (for corrupting those that were)or
Allowing those that are unredeemable (such as the nephilim) to corrupt everything and everyone (like they did in Genesis 6) and make everything unredeemable and an abomination?
I'm sure you would have no problem with a serial killer, that killed something like 15 people, being put to death. Now imagine someone even worse. Adolf Hitler, for instance. He had millions of people killed in the name of "natural selection". I'm sure you would have no problem with him being executed for his crimes.The nephilim were even worse, and they couldn't be redeemed in any way. No matter how much you evangelize. No matter how much you pray for them. No matter how much you witness to them. They will never get saved. Ever.
You're making an assumption here, that I support capital punishment. I do, but only in rare cases as a means of preventing others' deaths, since as a deterrent it's not worth it's price, and vengeance is a feeble, antiquated concept that I don't belongs in modern law. You're also Godwinning the discussion by bringing up Hitler, but I agree--I would have no problem with Hitler being executed.
However...
There is no reason for us to believe that the Nephilim existed, and that the people of Canaan were sinful beyond belief, or even as cruel and savage as the Hebrews who exterminated them. Now, at this point, I should admit that it's disingenuous to bring up an event from the Bible of uncertain historicity (the aforementioned genocide) and then discount another part of the Bible--the Nephilim--however, as I mentioned above, I see the Bible as a semi-historical literary text, and I can believe that there was a desert tribe whose "God" gave them the green light to slaughter an entire people. I'm talking about God qua concept (think of a book character), not qua being, as you would probably always discuss him. To me, the concept of the Hebrew God is disgusting: a callous, jealous, spiteful, hateful, misogynist. Whether or not he exists, I think he is immoral and petty based on how he is described.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I kind of disagree. The free will universe person would still chose whatever option they were going to chose, 99.9999 out of 100 times. (Because their experiences and knowledge would lend itself to a very particular choice at that very moment in time, almost every time, but the uncertainty factor of "true" free will would still play a small role).Here's a variation of your setup: let each of the testees* know that time was rewound and they chose a particular option in future but do not reveal which option they chose.
In the Free Will universe, the person would supposedly go back and forth, being unable to determine which option they may have chosen due to the uncertainty of "true" free will (the uncertainty would play a larger role in this setup partially because I arbitrarily say so because I am assigning this particular attribute to free will and also because uncertainty of the person in making this decision plays a much larger role in the decision: in fact, the point of this setup is to maximize uncertainty while they try to determine which setup they chose in the future). The deterministic universe would still have the person picking the same option (over and over, no matter how many times this new setup is repeated) regardless of the knowledge that they chose a particular option (but the option they chose this time could be opposite...heck....even in a deterministic universe, the variance could be that some people chose the same option despite knowing in the future, they chose a particular option....and some people chose the opposite option....and then you must determine if this is another objective truth you just discovered and decide if you really live in a deterministic universe).
So here's the plan: you create a reliable time machine, I'll setup the test, and we run this experiment. No worries: I'll compile the data in absurdly detailed excel spreadsheets. Do you want to be the testee* or should I be the testee*? Wait, we can both be the testees*.
*teehee...balls. WEEEEEEE!
Your longest paragraph there got a bit hard to follow. But if you adhere to a model in which someone would choose option A. 99.9999 out of 100, the onus is still on you to show how identical conditions could logically lead to anything but A. Simply appealing to "uncertainty" doesn't explain the how.
You also mention awareness of iterations of such a test. Obviously if we allow for that, it won't always be the same choice, because knowledge of past iterations changes the starting conditions.
In your one scenario, where they're told they picked a certain option, but not which choice they made, iteration #1 of the test would possibly have a different outcome than iteration #2, because the starting conditions are different (there was no "you made a choice" announcement before #1). But in each subsequent iteration, the choice made would be the same as in iteration #2, presuming the message is presented in the same way and the subject isn't allowed to know how many iterations they've been through.
Essentially, you're not adding any nuance, you're just changing various iterations. We could make a test where sometimes it's choice A., sometimes B. and sometimes the subject punches himself in the face and calls it a day. But it would only be because the causes preceding those different outcomes were different, even if it's only in subtle ways. The central principle remains the same: identical starting conditions = identical outcome. If you agree with that, you're a determinist, because that's a handy thought experiment to describe how it works. Call it cause & affect, naturalism, determinism, whatever. It just means that the physical laws of the universe determine our actions, and to have any actual "choice" (i.e. classical free will) is to transcend, circumvent, or defy those rules. And it is, according to the best of our current knowledge, the universe we live in.
P.S. I'm not gonna bite on the balls thing. {edit} oh wait...
Originally posted by Digi
Your longest paragraph there got a bit hard to follow. But if you adhere to a model in which someone would choose option A. 99.9999 out of 100, the onus is still on you to show how identical conditions could logically lead to anything but A. Simply appealing to "uncertainty" doesn't explain the how.
Simple: maximize the uncertainty of the testing and by the arbitrary powers I am assigning to each universe, we would get less deterministic results.
Originally posted by Digi
You also mention awareness of iterations of such a test. Obviously if we allow for that, it won't always be the same choice, because knowledge of past iterations changes the starting conditions.
No, they will only be aware of 1: their first. And from then on out, they will be observed and recorded.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
This makes a lot of metaphysical assumptions that I really don't care to address because they're morally irrelevant.
I don't see at all how it is irrelevant, but ok.
To me, the concept of the Hebrew God is disgusting: a callous, jealous, spiteful, hateful, misogynist. Whether or not he exists, I think he is immoral and petty based on how he is described.
Callous?
He gave His only begotten Son.
Jealous?
The Lord is a jealous God in the sense that He will have no other gods before Him. There is no other god, and He will not share His glory with gods that don't exist.
Spiteful?
"And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake." (Genesis 18:32)
God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of ten righteous people (in both cities combined).
Hateful?
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:16-17)
Misogynist?
How on earth is He a misogynist? That's ridiculous.
You find God disgusting, immoral and petty?
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)
Originally posted by Bat Dude
Callous?He gave His only begotten Son.
It's Its only begotten Son because It says so in one of the infinite potentialities of existence - yet in all potentialities of existence.
Jealous?The Lord is a jealous God in the sense that He will have no other gods before Him. There is no other god, and He will not share His glory with gods that don't exist.
It is peerless because it says so. It is also transcendental and transcended because It says so. It does all actions, is susceptible to all possibilities, even if they are impossible, for Its capacity is infinite, if It says so. If not, it is finite. Omnipotence is omnipotence.
However in infinity realities It is a spec of dust next to a larger sentience, which both is and is not an extension of Its will.
Spiteful?"And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake." (Genesis 18:32)
God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of ten righteous people (in both cities combined).
In infinite potentialities It'd spare Saddam and Gomorrah for 10 righteous men, in another infinite potentialities It would spare it for infinity and or negative infinity righteous men simultaneously. Omnipotence knows logic but is not confined by logical nature, but both illogical and logical nature, and neither.
-snippet-
What I am getting at is;
In a chaos of infinite existences, everything is a matter of perspective.
You call God just, you say he is this and that, OV says this is this and that is that. Mere relativistic perspectives.
Originally posted by Dolos
This single proposition transformed me into an agno-theist;A sentient abstraction that can do anything and everything, that is capable of all actions simultaneously, will perform all actions simultaneously. Anything and everything, possible or impossible, has happened, because this thing, the God, that is so beyond the comprehensions of all other consciousnesses, that is so beyond the capacity of any lesser sentience, has done anything and everything, possible or impossible.
An infinity of im/possible things exist, in which this linear time-stream is an infinitely minute part of.
So, therefore, the only inherent order in the cosmos is that which is created by perspective.
Sort of like how the brain has been hypothesized to seek out patterns from chaos even they're not there. In the omnipresence of the infinite that is described by most human beings as God, whose to say we aren't being omnipotent ourselves and creating our own order from chaos with every action?
Just giving y'all some perspective. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, they will only be aware of 1: their first. And from then on out, they will be observed and recorded.
Then #2 through #infinity would be the same, unless you're doing something like telling them which # iteration this is, which would create different starting conditions.
You're saying that one of the universes is a "free will" universe. Fine, ok. It exists entirely in the hypothetical, though. If we're to make a case for free will in our universe, that uncertainty you ascribe to it would still need to be explained.
Originally posted by DigiYes that very much answers my questions and thank you for taking the time to write that out.
Free will as it's commonly understood is that when given two options and needing to choose only one, that we could choose either one. We can't. This is an illusion in a deterministic universe. If you chose A. over B. in a scenario, then rewound time and reset the universe in the exact same setup (with no prior knowledge of the previous iteration, of course), you would choose A. 100/100 times, a million out of a million, etc. Saying that you would sometimes choose A. and sometimes B. is religious free will. Exact same setup, different outcome. Wholly incompatible with a determined universe.Free will as it is sometimes understood (and how I think you used it) is having the freedom to choose according to your own will. Nobody is forcing you to make a particular decision through coercion, force, deception, etc. The choice is yours alone (free), determined as it may be. This version of the term is compatible with determinism/naturalism.
Moral responsibility almost solely regards the blame or praise due to the person for their actions (or not due, depending on your view). Moral responsibility implies that you should be personally responsible for a determined action. I can't abide that. If A. is the evil choice, and B. is the good choice, and you choose A. every time (from the earlier thought experiment), you have chosen poorly but are not to blame. The action can be corrected, or the impulse that led to it, but we can no more blame a person for the action than we can an apple for falling from the tree prematurely.
Does...does that answer your question(s)? I don't want to repeat what you already know - I know you get the concepts - I'm just trying to put it all in my own terms as clearly as possible.
I think second version of free will is more to what I adhere to as in it is our choice but there enough outside factors influencing any decision we make. Although considering the mixed life most humans live I think the wide range of factors we consciously or even subconsciously still give a wide range of options to choose from even so that even when making a decision we can still have conflicting factors on that decision.
For the first version of Free Will I see what you're saying and why you are apprehensive about even the possibility of it nor would I think you are alone in your line of reasoning. It's logical although I don't necessarily believe that what you described inherently dismisses the notion of Free Will as described by you in the first paragraph.
If you rewind time perfectly and you put someone under the same circumstances it's next to impossible to sit here and say they will choose a different option because all evidence would point to them picking option A again since we can't rewind time. But ultimately even if we assume someone will always pick option A it doesn't inherently disprove Free Will as described in the first paragraph. What I mean is that even if someone always chooses option A it does not mean they didn't have the ability to also pick option B or the free will to do so. It just means even if they do have Free Will they freely decided to go for A every time.
I hope what I'm saying is clear, I often am able to see the point I want to get to and the gap between it but I have trouble bridging where I'm at to get over the gap to the point I want to make. I've gotten better, I credit the Comic Book Vs Forum for that, but still can have difficulties with it.
Ultimately you can't prove Free Will and we are always under constant influence from outside factors from society to our own biology so that in all choices we make the circumstances of our life will play a key roll in the decision we ultimately make. I can understand why someone would look at that and say Free Will does not exist and it's the perfectly reasonable way of looking at it. And the most constructive things we can change come from taking that reasonable view point and expanding on it. Such as understanding that if we want to change the decisions human beings make we need to look at the cause and effect of why things happen and not so much about punishing the person.
But I understand Free Will as a concept that we can pick and choose different options based solely on our Free Will. So to me Free Will is something that would be considered a perfect concept because the only way to really test it would be to put the concept in a perfect world and observe perfectly. Since we can not do such a thing and observe it we ultimately can not know if Free Will exists or not.
What I'm trying to say and this might be a bit redundant at this point is that Free Will could exist and a person given a choice of option A or B or C could choose all options presented or may even other options not listed yet since we live in an imperfect world we may have the ability of Free Will as the concept describes but not the means to execute it properly.
This is generally how I look at most meta-physical concepts like Free Will and try and reason with them.
I personally think most problems start when people blindly follow the meta-physical concepts to the point where it becomes unproductive and hurtful to society. As in people who only want to punish someone because heh Free Will instead of looking at the circumstances to try and prevent it from happening in the future.