Thought Experiment

[Eightcrackers]

The ideas of right and wrong are abstract concepts that will occur to creatures capable of abstract thought, much like numbers and logic. Then what is right or wrong is thought of in the same way. That's where morality comes from, you don't need a morl God.

Unfortunately human nature can rationalise what is good or bad according to societal norms of the time and self interest.

Morality only needs two things:

1. Sense of harm to the self, and
2. Empathy.

That's it. To say that these couldn't come about without a god, is a stretch.

 

[El Cid]

A multi-tarian creator should not be able to make anything that's not multi-tarian, if your fingerprint rule applies.

No, a cause can produce things that are either less complex than it is or equally complex.

Thus, there should be no unitarian individual humans.
And there are.

See above.

 

[The Pixie]

No, a cause can produce things that are either less complex than it is or equally complex.

That is an interesting claim. I wonder what it is based on.

Are a husband and wife limited to two children? Three people will be more complex than two, right?

Certainly they cannot produce a child who is brighter than them, or who knows more than them.

How many works of art can an artist produce in his lifetime before his oeuvre is as complex as he is and he has to stop?

 

[Eightcrackers]

No, a cause can produce things that are either less complex than it is or equally complex.

Is the aftermath of an explosion, more complex than the explosive itself?
Yes.

Thus, a cause can also produce things that are more complex.

 

[El Cid]

If 99.9 % of humans believe that torturing babies is wrong, then it is probably true that humans think torturing babies is wrong. So it is with free will.

You sneaked something in, here:

"If 99.9 % of humans believe that torturing babies is wrong, then it is probably true that humans think torturing babies is wrong. So it is with free will."

The "... that humans think..." completely invalidates your claim to objectivity.

I didnt say it was objective, I just said it was evidence.

If 99.9% of humans think that they have free will, then it is probably true that humans think that they have free will? So what?
You have made absolutely no progress towards proving your assertion that this thought is correct.

I never claimed I could prove it, I just said there is evidence for free will.

Without a free will you cant make arguments based on reasoning or evidence.

Why?
What if I have no choice but to do so?

Because without a free will your brain is just operating according to the rules of Chemistry. Your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, not on the weighing of evidence or argument.

But they are evidence as seen above.

No, they aren't.
The thoughts of the majority do not constitute fact.

I said evidence not a objective fact.

There is strong evidence that Animals actually are deterministically programmed and they dont have common sense and their experience doesnt tell them anything regarding free will.

What is this evidence?

Because they cant engage in abstract reasoning. Their behavior is just based on chemistry and instinctive reaction to stimuli.

Everytime we use the laws of logic we are transcending the laws of physics.

Prove it.

If our brains operate according to the laws of logic, we have free will and reasoning ability.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Because without a free will your brain is just operating according to the rules of Chemistry. Your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, not on the weighing of evidence or argument.

But that doesn't preclude those conclusions from being true, no matter what they're based on.

Because [animals] cant engage in abstract reasoning.

How could you possibly know that?
Are you an animal telepath?

If our brains operate according to the laws of logic, we have free will and reasoning ability.

Prove it.

 

[Whatsisface]

If our brains operate according to the laws of logic, we have free will and reasoning ability.

What do you mean by this? Brains operate according to the behaviour of neurons, which are ultimately bound by the laws of physics.

 

[El Cid]

This assumes that determinism is true as you think it. Define what you mean by determinism and give an argument that shows your view is true.

Determinism is where everything operates according to natural laws. But since our minds can operate according logic then it is not determined.

 

[El Cid]

Prove it.

~A --//-->A only A -----> A

 

[El Cid]

The ideas of right and wrong are abstract concepts that will occur to creatures capable of abstract thought, much like numbers and logic. Then what is right or wrong is thought of in the same way. That's where morality comes from, you don't need a morl God.

Unfortunately human nature can rationalise what is good or bad according to societal norms of the time and self interest.

Numbers and logic existed long before human minds did. For example, two rocks existed under a tree 65 mya. So also morality. How can morality just occur to creatures capable of abstract thought?

 

[Whatsisface]

Numbers and logic existed long before human minds did. For example, two rocks existed under a tree 65 mya. So also morality. How can morality just occur to creatures capable of abstract thought?

Because the ideas of numbers and logic need a mind to realise them, just the ideas of right and wrong need a mind to be realised. It's not hard to realise when we're treated unfairly or when we're wronged.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Numbers and logic existed long before human minds did. For example, two rocks existed under a tree 65 mya. So also morality.

How was morality instantiated 65 million years ago when there were no moral agents (that we know of)?

 

[Whatsisface]

If there is no moral God then there would be no moral agents. Morality cannot come from amorality.

Bu amorality is already a moral position.

 

[El Cid]

That is an interesting claim. I wonder what it is based on.

Are a husband and wife limited to two children? Three people will be more complex than two, right?

Certainly they cannot produce a child who is brighter than them, or who knows more than them.

How many works of art can an artist produce in his lifetime before his oeuvre is as complex as he is and he has to stop?

The number of something caused or created is not measure of complexity but rather of power. For parents, their sexual power and stamina determines the number of children. Though parents are not really the direct cause of the child. A better example is someone that designs cars, can only produce a large number of cars if he has the power to access a factory. So the ability to design cars requires greater understanding of complexity than producing large numbers of cars. Same with your example of the artist. The number of paintings has more do with his physical strength and stamina than his complexity.

 

[The Pixie]

The number of something caused or created is not measure of complexity but rather of power.

Okay, perhaps you can say exactly how you are measuring complexity here. I was thinking that if you have twice as much of a thing, then that must be more complex. For example a 1000-piece jigsaw is more complex than a 500-piece jigsaw.

For parents, their sexual power and stamina determines the number of children. Though parents are not really the direct cause of the child. A better example is someone that designs cars, can only produce a large number of cars if he has the power to access a factory. So the ability to design cars requires greater understanding of complexity than producing large numbers of cars. Same with your example of the artist. The number of paintings has more do with his physical strength and stamina than his complexity.

But the artist's painting have complexity, right?

And you are saying he cannot produce more complexity than he has. So, while I agree strength and stamina are an issue, if you are right they will come a time when he hits his complexity limit.

Another example would be an AI that produces pictures (some examples here). There is no strength or stamina involved, but they still produce images with complexity. Each AI will hit a point where it grinds to a halt because the complexity of the images it has produced has equalled its own complexity - if you are right.

 

[El Cid]

Morality only needs two things:

1. Sense of harm to the self, and
2. Empathy.

That's it. To say that these couldn't come about without a god, is a stretch.

But how can random impersonal processes produce a self and empathy?

 

[Eightcrackers]

But how can random impersonal processes produce a self and empathy?

Evolution is not random.

 

[Caroljeen]

Evolution is not random.

it's determined by nature.?

 

[Eightcrackers]

it's determined by nature.?

Yes.

 

[El Cid]

Is the aftermath of an explosion, more complex than the explosive itself?
Yes.

Thus, a cause can also produce things that are more complex.

Hardly, look at the apartment buildings blown up by Russian missiles in Ukraine. Entropy goes up exponentially after an explosion.