Once more on the compatibility of normativity and determinism

[trick0171]

@migkillertwo

Sorry but you are way off on this entire video.

"Shouting moral commands in a deterministic universe has no meaning to it"

The point is that thoughts and communication are causal elements. They cause memes that align with "good" "bad', etc. Good/bad, right/wrong can be determined entirely causally, and our alignment with those morals (ethics) can be entirely causal as well. Free will is not needed for this.

(MORE)

[trick0171]

You keeps saying that nothing normative can exist in a deterministic universe, and yet you make no point that logically supports this claim.

Also utilitarianism is not incompatible with determinism. Suffering happens in a causal universe (it is caused), and people can (causally) desire not to suffer.

You make claims but support them with nothing but other unsupported claims.

[WayOfTheBastard]

Mig I am totally making you a response, I hope I hear something from you.

[HonestDiscussioner]

No Mig, I said it SHOULD exist to deter crime. I didn't speak as to its intention. Perhaps its result, or perhaps what its intention should be. That's about it.

[darktango78]

Mig,

To say that a justice system based on deterrence presupposes people's free will is like saying that firing a flare to avoid a heat-seeking missile presupposes the missile has free will.

[NotWhollySane]

I'll try one more time to explain to you why determinism is not self refuting. This time I'll use an example that you must grant as possible. Suppose you have a collection of rocks on the beach. And the wind blows just right through the rocks in order to say "this is just a randomly generated sentence caused by random wind blowing through rocks". Would the rocks be right? Yes or no? You don't need freewill to come to a correct conclusion. We are good at using logic because evolution demands it.

[jemerson85]

mig,

Why do you believe that God must be a free agent rather than one who is deterministic in nature?

If one holds to the idea of an immutable God, what is the use in also calling that God a free agent when he has no ability to choose anything other than good?

Please help me understand.

[BurntTreeProduct]

That's a good book shelf.

[MCTMD1]

Morality is a set of rules we use to live. Meaning is something we assign to reality. It has no metaphysical existence. Reason and logic is simply a method of integrated perceptions and concepts in a knowledge base, objectively. Causality does not negate choice. Choice is simply a mental calculation, a tool our brains use. There is no magic in the brain to initiate a first thought. Thoughts are dependent on existing memories and perception.

[MCTMD1]

It appears that you think determinism is wrong because it makes you uncomfortable. Of course it does; you rely on willful ignorance for guidance and this is contrary to logic and reason. Everything has a cause. Everything.

[Antisyncretism]

was that word "willful" ;)

[MCTMD1]

Yes! Not freewillful, but intentional. Faith is willful ignorance.

[Antisyncretism]

Intention requires will.

Faith is willful ignorance? Where did that come from, please don't add words to a definition, Faith isnt your word, don't pretend you can make it what you WANT it to mean

[MCTMD1]

Believing in something without any evidence and being proud of it is willful ignorance. Will is different than freewill. Man, are you behind.

[Antisyncretism]

Firstly there is evidence for the Truth of Christianity, and to believe the contrary only shows a lack of research or inquiry on your part.

To say someone is willingly ignorant is to say they choose to be ignorant.

[MCTMD1]

You are doing that. You are lost. We're done.

[Antisyncretism]

Again how can I be willingly CHOOSING to be ignorant if freewill does not exist, be consistent and dont speak that way then.

[WayOfTheBastard]

You don't understand what determinism means. Has nothing to do with will or choice, but whether your will or choice are free. You can will and choose all day long and still be determined.

[Antisyncretism]

But you cannot will something unless YOU will it, what you are describing sounds like compatibilism, which I think is true :).

To have will the will must be your own for the will to be your own it must come from you and therefore be of you and under you, hence your control and your will.

But nvm what you describe as determinism I believe I accept (unless I misunderstood your description) as compatibilism as I don't see determined causal events and freewill as contradicting but coexisting

[WayOfTheBastard]

Are you a Calvinist?

[Antisyncretism]

I wouldn't call myself a calvinist as I quite simply do not know exactly what doctrines must all be together to be called Calvinist, I disagree with the calvinistic Limited Atonement (because this supposed that there is like a measuring stick of how much redemption Jesus' death was and 'measuring' the bloods availability seems an odd thing to suppose a doctrine on).

I do agree with Predestination though (well even the word itself is in the Bible), yes God saves.

But short answer: no.

[Antisyncretism]

Intention is an expression of will.

Again don't try to redefine Faith.

And why do you use the word willful if you don't believe in freewill, shouldnt you admit that it is ot possible to be 'willfully' anything let alone ignorant

[KnownNoMore]

`people's outcomes CAN be altered and herded towards some ideal.`

which itself was determined due to genetics and predetermined circumstances

[GwydionMapDon]

The lack of *free* will does not imply that people can't want things, such as to be free of suffering. Determinism only says that our wills are a part of, and subject to, a causal framework. The effect this has on morality is that it would change one's moral perspective in what I think is the right direction. That is, it forces us to consider moral questions in light of circumstances. We can no longer even consider judging each action in a vacuum, a major problem of Christian ethics.

[vbfl920]

Awesome video. Seriously man.

[tooltime9901]

putting aside the fact that i disagree with you, here is why this video sucked: you simply made sweeping statements with little or no elaboration, justification, thought experiments, examination of the relevant ideas/concepts or anything of the sort and expect people to agree with you on the basis of said sweeping statements.

[migkillertwo]

There's plenty of justification. You, for whatever reason, can't quite understand it.

[tooltime9901]

there may be "out there" on the internet somewhere or in some other video you have made, but not in this one. you make sweeping statements which you back with other sweeping statements.

[tooltime9901]

why the fuck do you think that people cannot rationally think through an argument with determinism? are you attacking straw-determinism or something. the idea is that you CAN think things through rationally, but your decision is the result of that process and similar one's and not because of some "free" element which you fail even to define, let alone explain how it is possible.

[migkillertwo]

"why the fuck do you think that people cannot rationally think through an argument with determinism?"

because the doxatic assumption has zero meaning for someone who can't freely choose to reason through an argument(s)

[KnownNoMore]

"the idea is that you CAN think things through rationally, but your decision is the result of that process "

than how does the outcome has any bearing on what is true or not? The outcome is determined on genetics and circumstance. What possible reasoning could occur there? What is the difference between a person with "correct reasoning" and "false reasoning"? it really is just a matter of "luck"

[tooltime9901]

shouting into a formless void? fucking bull shit! as I already pointed out, determined or not, people's outcomes CAN be altered and herded towards some ideal.

you are basically saying that the only reason to make a moral command boils down to so that people can choose or not choose to do it. that's ridiculous!

[migkillertwo]

"fucking bull shit! as I already pointed out, determined or not, people's outcomes CAN be altered and herded towards some ideal."

True, the effects can be realized by shouting commands and giving arguments, but as we understand them, this is because there is meaning in commands and arguments. But there's no room for such arguments and commands to have any meaning. So they're really just grunts.

[tooltime9901]

"But there's no room for such arguments and commands"

another sweeping statement backed by nothing!

[migkillertwo]

*ugh*

Okay, tooltime, if I give you a reason to not be a determinist, were the words I presented meaningful, and the meaning caused you to think and abandon your determinism, or were they simply sounds which act as the cause of "you" "abandoning" a "belief"?

[tooltime9901]

I seriously have abso-fucking-lutely no idea why you think they would be "imply sounds which act as the cause".

I think you have physical determinism in mind here, thus my comments about attacking straw-determinism.

[tooltime9901]

deterrent criminal justice does not involve free will. you either are attacking some straw-man conception of determinism or you simply fail to grasp what the argument actually is.

[Theologica37]

Jezz, you used to terms "reason" and "determinism".

You must be a presuppositionalist.

How could you discuss the preconditions of practical reason and NOT be a presuppositionalist.

[urbanelf]

How indeed.

[Theologica37]

Facepalm. I hope that wasn't serious.

[urbanelf]

Has your TAG series gotten to the part where it proves the existence of God yet?

[Theologica37]

If you have an answer for synthetic knowledge, the problem of universals or the One and the Many, I'd like to hear it. The closest thing I've heard from you is to falsely claim me a presuppositionalist. I'm not sure how many times I've refuted you on that point-- needless to say its getting nauseating.

If what I've argued is true, the argument does very clearly what it aims to do--prove atheism untenable, and Theism the best explanation. That case has been made.

You're welcome to respond.

[urbanelf]

In which video in the TAG series do you make your clearest argument?

You pick and I'll respond.

[Theologica37]

Different videos make different claims.

I have all the respect in the world for you urbanelf. You're one of the smartest YT atheists. But If you plan on responding with poisoning the well tactics like you did the first time, I should warn you not to waste your time. I was severely unimpressed and shocked at your first attempted response. You have consistently distorted my position, ignored the arguments and failed to bring to the table anything of substance.

I hope this will change.

[urbanelf]

Sorry about poisoning the well. It's hard controlling my behavior sometimes, what with being a psychopath and all.

So, different videos make different claims: In which video in the TAG series do you make the clearest argument for your point?

You pick, I respond.

[Theologica37]

Come now. You and I both know that was hyperbole. You are already make excuses and you haven't even responded to any argument yet.

[urbanelf]

Pick a video in the TAG series that you think reflects your most clearly articulated work.

You pick, I respond.

[miglegtr]

tooltime basically said that reason will determine things

[Dhorpatan]

You made a lot of good points in this monologue video Jake.

[tyrantslayer999]

Ha, I literally just had this deabate with my philosophy professor. To me this seems so easy to understand, I don't know why people can't get it.