Determinism vs Free Will

[Violet]

My point is that if somebody murders someone do you say "Oh, they're not really responsible for the murder, they couldn't help it"? No, it's absurd.

Blame rests entirely upon no one thing. The merest change in circumstance could have prevented a murder. Is this to suggest that a person be blameless? Of course not: they were a cause, and they should be treated accordingly. I see doing otherwise to be absurd

People need to be held responsible for their actions, it's not a question of right or wrong, but responsibility within a society.

And yet... should that one actor be held responsible for the performance of the theatre, and the act which was put on within it? I am hardly suggesting that people be free of blame for what through them has occurred... I intend only to suggest that there are many cogs at work within the great clock, and calling a single one out for any action does a disservice to the rest of the cogs. /end allusive speech. ^_^

Further... holding people as responsible implies that a thing was 'right' or 'wrong' for which they are being held responsible in the first place.

---

"I disagree entirely already. In fact... determinism has throughout the ages been primarily considered as religious."

In that case, I was referring to YHWH. I admit, I made the err of assuming I knew something about other religions which in all honesty I don't. My knowledge of religion pretty well starts and ends with christianity, because that's what I primarily hear about in my geographical location. My apologies.

Even among christians... many of them believe that some god has a plan for them. Whilst many would claim that they believe in free will... both cannot be true. ^_^

"I cannot speak for the rest of the atheist community, although I am quite sure that most atheists have no capacity to believe a damn thing. It's hard to believe things when you don't have a brain, after all"

Sorry if I've misinterpretted this. Are you claiming that atheists are mindless? That seems like a harsh assertation as it pertains to a sterotypical assumption.

Hardly. ^_^ Every single rock, water molecule, and 'sour cream and onion' chip that I am eating: is an atheist. Of course, i am assuming that rocks, water molecules, and these delicious chips all have zero capacity for thought

"Then I am filled with mercy... Very well... I shall not shred the above quote ^_^ (hints: 1: science "proves" nothing, it only provides evidence for belief. 2: We need not prove a thing to come to a scientific conclusion of its fact, else we would have no scientific conclusions. 3: there is no argument for free will... only misunderstandings about what determinism means. 4: lingual pedantry: please don't capitalize 'cause', 'effect', or 'science' excepting grammar.)"

Okay, my mistake. In that case what I meant to say is that science has demonstrated the liklihood of cause and effect. Now, obviously there is an argument for free will, because otherwise people wouldn't believe in it. Perhaps there isn't a scientific argument, but what I'm interested in is people's individual arguments. My apologies about my grammer, I admit that I am not perfect.

That's better ^_^

However... why would belief necessitate a reason? So many theists claim that faith is this reasonless belief... I do not agree with them, of course ^_^ When I said that there is no argument for free will, i was jokingly suggesting that the only people who believe in free will do so intuitively. There are arguments for anything, observe:

Pikachu is sapphire because Portal 2 will be an awesome tiger.

^ However... few arguments (in comparison) are sensible. I know not of any sensible argument for free will

"As you have defined 'free will' and 'determinism', they cannot be compatible. By your definition of 'determinism', all things come from prior causes. By your definition of 'free will', will is free of determinism. Hence: incompatibility. You either have incomplete determinism... or you have determined will... and neither of which is what you would appear to imply."

Perhaps then it would be fair to allow people to define the terms however they see fit. I was simply asserting my own definition of the terms. I merely included compatibilism so that people were aware of the argument's presence.

I did allow your own definition... it was the one i used. See the bold in what you quoted. Your definitions are hardly 'off'... they just aren't 'all inclusive'

"I do not believe that free will necessarily cause either guilt or self-contempt. Why would this be so? "

Some people fall prey to the notion that they are ultimately in control and can will themselves to do anything. (Free Will). When they discover that they can't will themselves to do anything they blame themselves, because they feel like they're choosing to fail.

I can understand that. But then there are people who never discover this (or at least, have not yet done so), and perhaps more that do otherwise. Hence why it is not necessarily (in my understanding) true of all believers in free will

"I actually am precisely the person I want to be... rather I am concerned with the status of my platform."

That's great! You must be quite content.

Hardly. The person I am is at odds with my state of existence, and this drastically reduces my contentment generally.

"Who is this "we"? Why would there not be people who are always happy, or without fear? How would the lacking of existence of such contradict 'free will'?"

We is in reference to humanity as a whole. The reason I think that free will implies that there would be no unhappy people and no fearful people is because my basic understanding of humans is that we pursue happiness and avoid pain. Feel free to argue that if you wish.

Masochist: pursue both baths at once!

I'm not likely to argue against that ^_^ However, it not only applies to humans, but to most (if not all) life that can feel either pleasure or pain.

So, assuming that people do in fact want to be happy and do in fact wish to avoid pain then people with free will should be free to will themselves into happiness and it would seem reasonable that they'd be inclinded to do so.

That will is free does not mean it is all-powerful... only that it is capable of acting on its own Hence: even if one wills the spoon to move with all their might... they may have accomplished nothing more than a headache ^_<

Perhaps you regard freewill differently. It could be regarded as the freedom to will without pre-emptive, restrictive measures to prevent that will, but I regard it as the freedom to will whatever you please without emotional, psychological, neurological barriers.

I don't disagree... there are many ways to understand 'free' as it relates to one's will... but I warn you that my will is neither free nor for sale. I don't want you killing me for a free will >_^

I honestly regard free will as silly. I once believe it to be true... and that was silly ^_^ Indeed... I am very silly ^_<

"I'd rather give my 2 cents to a friend who could turn it into 1000 USD inside of a year... but there is my opinion for you."

Is that comment for the sake of showing your cunning or are you mocking the fact that I'm willing to express my opinion and hear out yours?

No no... it was a joke ^_^ I do that a lot ^_^