Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Author: MagicAintReal

Posts

Total: 438
#391
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Guys.
Have a debate on it, I will gladly vote on it, so we can put an end to this.
Debate it and have the people vote on it.

We've agreed that free will is not real - i'm not quite sure what it is 3RU and I disagree over now, but he's definitely wrong!
#392
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
We've agreed that free will is not real - i'm not quite sure what it is 3RU and I disagree over now, but he's definitely wrong!
You seem to be suggesting that "change" is "impossible".

This is demonstrably FALSE.
Topic's author
#393
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
Set up a debate and hash it out.
#394
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
No, because it's a misunderstanding.
#395
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
All events are determined by a linear chain of preceding material causes. True or false?
#396
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
All events are determined by a linear chain of preceding material causes. True or false?
Possibly true and possibly false (unfalsifiable).

A much more durable hypothesis is that some phenomena are caused and some phenomena are uncaused.

The logical conclusion of this (tautological) hypothesis is IN-DETERMINISM.

In a framework of IN-DETERMINISM the future is NOT (even hypothetically) perfectly predictable.

In other words, in a framework of IN-DETERMINISM, perfect knowledge of initial conditions does not inform the ultimate conclusion.

#397
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
So the logical conclusion is indeterminism yet you're a determinist?
#398
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I think i see... we can change and learn.

but we don't have any control over how we change or what we learn - presumably all that stuff is deterministic too.  if i change from liberal-ish to being a neo-con it is becuse that shift was decided on a billion years ago. 
#399
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
So the logical conclusion is indeterminism yet you're a determinist?
I never claimed to be "a determinist".

Logic dictates hypothetical in-determinism.

I side with Logic.
#400
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I think i see... we can change and learn.
but we don't have any control over how we change or what we learn - presumably all that stuff is deterministic too.  if i change from liberal-ish to being a neo-con it is becuse that shift was decided on a billion years ago.
Not necessarily "a billion years ago".

In a hypothetical framework of IN-DETERMINISM, the proximate "cause(s)" of your apparent political shift could be as recent as the nearest "uncaused" quantum event.
#401
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
So you believe that in-determinism is most likely true but firmly believe nobody has free will.

#402
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Your philosophical views don't seem to be logically cohesive.
#403
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
So you believe that in-determinism is most likely true but firmly believe nobody has free will.
I've already explained this.

Pure "cause and effect" is incompatible with free-will.

Pure "randomness" is also incompatible with free-will.

Any conceivable mix of the two is also, by pure logic, incompatible with free-will.

Ipso-facto, free-will is incoherent.

Certainly you have a Qualitative experience of free-will, but this merely leads to the conclusion that free-will is simply a feeling (personal perception, personal intuition) with no detectable basis in fact.
#404
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Your philosophical views don't seem to be logically cohesive.
Please be specific.
#405
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
You just got finished saying that our shift in views could be the nearest UNcaused quantum event. Now you're saying you dont believe in free will because it violates cause and effect.
#406
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
And please dont conflate random with uncaused. The rate of nuclear decay on certain molecules is random but this does not mean uncaused.
#407
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
You just got finished saying that our shift in views could be the nearest UNcaused quantum event. Now you're saying you dont believe in free will because it violates cause and effect.
Pure "randomness" is also incompatible with free-will.


An "uncaused" event is functionally identical to and logically indistinguishable from random.

Please explain how your personal concept of free-will is logically compatible with random coin flips.
#408
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
And please dont conflate random with uncaused. The rate of nuclear decay on certain molecules is random but this does not mean uncaused.
If you are unable to comprehensively identify the factors that contribute to "nuclear decay" you cannot say with any certainty if it is truly "random".

RAndom is not identical to "uncaused", however, the two are functionally identical and logically indistinguishable.

The very term "random" itself is a naked appeal to ignorance.

It is basically a placeholder for "we don't have any flipping clue why it does that sometimes and does this other thing at other times".

Random = Unpredictable = Unknown (and or possibly unknowable or non-existent) Variables and or lack of a proper predictive logical framework.
#409
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
No. An uncaused event is one that has no explanation as to how it occurred. A random event is a description of unpredictability, usually in terms of WHEN the event will happen. A coin flip is not random, the outcome is determined while it's already in the air. 

Random does not mean uncaused. 

#410
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
An uncaused event is one that has no explanation as to how it occurred.
I agree.

If in-determinism is a mix of caused and uncaused events, then free-will is logically incoherent.

The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of uncaused events.

The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of caused events.
#411
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
None of this makes sense. 
#412
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
None of this makes sense. 
Please be specific.

#413
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
All of this:


If in-determinism is a mix of caused and uncaused events, then free-will is logically incoherent.

The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of uncaused events.

The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of caused events.

#414
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Do you personally believe that the concept of free-will is compatible with the concept of uncaused events?
#415
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of uncaused events.

The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of caused events.
The argument can be phrased that 'if it's caused it is not free; if it's uncaused it is not willed'.



#416
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Free will is the ability to choose alternative outcomes. Deterministic processes, like chemistry, cannot choose alternative outcomes. In that sense, material cause and effect is deterministic and does not allow free will. Consciousness, however, is different than a chemical reaction. We can consciously decide which course of action we want to take. If we move in line with our intention this is mental causation, a non-material process. So cause and effect still applies, it's just not a material process. So I would reject the premise that if something is caused, it has no free will.
#417
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
So cause and effect still applies, it's just not a material process.
Nobody stipulated that "cause and effect" is a "material process".

Tautologically, any conceivable non-material force, ghosts, spirits, gods, and or invisible pink elephants either act according to causes or act according to non-causes.

If any conceivable non-material force, ghosts, spirits, gods, and or invisible pink elephants act according to causes, then their actions are not free.

If any conceivable non-material force, ghosts, spirits, gods, and or invisible pink elephants act according to non-causes, then their actions are not willed.

If your mind is controlled by any conceivable non-material force, ghosts, spirits, gods, or invisible pink elephants, then your mind is either not willed or not free. your mind is either not willed or not free. your mind is either not willed or not free.
#418
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
"Acting according to causes" does not refute free will defined as the ability to choose alternative courses of action. 
#419
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
"Acting according to causes" does not refute free will defined as the ability to choose alternative courses of action.
According to your personal opinion, can a dog "choose alternative courses of action"?
#420
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't know if dogs have free will. If they do it's a rudimentary version.