Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Logic is logically verifiable 

Logic is an axiomatic system.

Please explain why you seem to believe that "rational thought" cannot exist without "choice".

I didn't say that. I said that choices based on rational thought are by definition free will.

Yes, we can have definitions of things that aren't real.

We can have something that is defined by its physical characteristic while it doesn't actually exist. Why is that a problem?

Logic is also abstract and science operates under logical constraints.

Yes, and...?

Please explain why you seem to believe that "rational thought" cannot exist without "choice".

I didn't say that. I said that choices based on rational thought are by definition free will.

(IFF) "rational thought" is logical (AND) logic is predetermined by initial conditions (THEN) "rational thought" is incompatible with choice 

An action taken after rational thought and not because of internal or external influences is what I mean by free will.

Thank you.  Please feel free to modify your definition in any way during the course of our continued discussion.

So any action you take after having a logical (rational) thought, but not because of that rational thought and in no other way directly related to that particular rational thought?

(IFF) "rational thought" is logical (AND) logic is predetermined by initial conditions (THEN) "rational thought" is incompatible with choice 

Can you prove that rational thought can result in only one outcome? I contend that rational thought provides the option of more than one possible outcome in some cases. I can't prove either proposition so where does that leave us? And please don't say that an outcome that didn't happen could not have existed because only one outcome does exist.

Thank you.  Please feel free to modify your definition in any way during the course of our continued discussion.

So any action you take after having a logical (rational) thought, but not because of that rational thought and in no other way directly related to that particular rational thought? 

I'm not modifying definitions.

An action taken after, because of and directly related to that particular rational thought. There, I fixed that for you.

Not an uncaused action. Not random.

You can't verify logic using science.

Ok, this doesn't sound like it's very "free".  This sounds more like what an insect or a robot does.

Again, free only means free from impediment. If that sounds like what an insect or a robot does, you are entitled to that opinion.

"Is it possible to predict what a person's choice will be using only measurements of physical states?"

I knew about libet's previous work mentioned in the article.  I think it goes a long way to telling us what is going on when we make (or seem to make) choices.   And what I really like is that it makes it an empirial issue to be decided by experiment not a word game nor reduce it to logical contradiction.  

Let me suggest we did not evolve to imagine we have free will for its own sake.   We did it to help understand the behaviour of others, such as prey or potential mates.  Although their behaviour is ultimately deterministic, there is no way to get the all the information required to predict behaviour that way - critters behave very much as if they had free will, ie as if they can make choices.  The deep truth - that the world is deterministic - is not important when all you want to do is eat or mate with something.

That remains true.   It is still only of academic interest that choices are in fact pre-determined.  'For practical purposes' the fiction of free will is a very useful one.

Well the choice to punish criminals was also predetermined back at the big bang so we only think we have any choice about doing it!   

If I had all the measurements needed and enough compting power I could work out if we will punish criminals in 100 years - but not if we should punish them or not.

Imagine the scene in court:

Prisoner:  You can't blame me, it was predermined I'd rob that bank!

Judge:  Yes, and it was predetermined I'd give you 15 years hard.   Next!

If what we do is predetermined, it is hard to know what to do at all! 

Although I reject free will as an airy-fairy intellectual, I'd be an idiot to take that into 'real life'.  

It's like the B-theory of time - you can believe in b-theory all you like but you'll still get old and die!

He's right, all future choices would be predetermined at the big bang and no alternate realities would be possible. He's saying that although many believe in the B-theory of time, there's still the illusion of A-theory and people will still die (as if there's an arrow of time). He was making a comparison between B-theory and determinism.

So you believe in unfalsifiable theories 

Judge:  Yes, and it was predetermined I'd give you 15 years hard.   Next!

He's right, all future choices would be predetermined at the big bang and no alternate realities would be possible. He's saying that although many believe in the B-theory of time, there's still the illusion of A-theory and people will still die (as if there's an arrow of time). He was making a comparison between B-theory and determinism.

Entropy is not excluded from tne eternal existences of cause and effect resultants of Space ( )( ) and Observed Time ^v^v.

Entropy { ex dark energy )( and EMRadiation ^v^v } exists as a complemen, or at minimum, a resultant to syntropy { mass-attraction ( ) }.

Occupied space, as energy aka Observed Time cannot be created nor destroyed { lost }  Observed Time Reality may be created via INversions of gravity and dark energy Space and lost, --if only ultra-micro briefly---  however, occupied Space gravity ( ) and dark energy )(  cannot ever{ eternally } be created nor destroyed.

1} 1st consider this following graphic as a minimal { primary great circles } set geodesic Space;

Determining if we should punish criminals is a remarkably simple equation.  You just need to identify your goal.  Ostensibly, the goal of the justice system is to make people feel safe (protect society) and to reduce dangerous and anti-social behavior.

You seem to have your cake and eat it!   What do mean 'identify your goal'?   There's no 'identifying' going on. Whatever I 'identify' as my goal was set before i was even born and 'I' can't change it.   I'm just a cog in some clockworks, a link in a fixed causal chain.

Determining if we should punish criminals is a remarkably simple equation.  You just need to identify your goal.  Ostensibly, the goal of the justice system is to make people feel safe (protect society) and to reduce dangerous and anti-social behavior.

You seem to have your cake and eat it!   What do mean 'identify your goal'?   There's no 'identifying' going on. Whatever I 'identify' as my goal was set before i was even born and 'I' can't change it.   I'm just a cog in some clockworks, a link in a fixed causal chain.

Of course i go through the motions of choosing, deciding, 'identifying' and so on, but I have no more independent volition than a string puppet, with raw causality as the puppetteer.  

You can't have it both ways.