The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

EMA, whether or not there are many choices, more often than not, certain uncontrollable conditions can push some irrational and regretable decisions such as murder to a likelihood upwards of 90%- pretty damn close to deterministic if you ask me.Yes, I am pulling percentages out of my ass but honestly, isn't this what you have experienced? If someone is angry, they are more likely to choose something that they would not have otherwise wanted and would later feel sorry about.If this is "free will," then I have to severely question your interpretation and definition of the word. If however, it is, as Oni said, deterministic........T&U

quote:

---

You cant be serious in this statement. My question was if God purposely and directly hardened his heart with no choice of Pharoahs, why give him a choice in the first place?

---

And I replied, because that's the way God wanted to do it per Exodus 10:1 and 11:9. (And Exodus 7) I didn't make up why God did it that way, it is all right there in the book. God did it his way, not your way.Even though you didn't consider my statement serious, if Pharaoh had let the Israelites go the first time he was ordered, the story would have been very uneventful. No miracles, no passover, no parting the waters. God wanted to flex his muscles and to do that Pharaoh had to be stubborn and not let the Israelites go until the time was right for God.

quote:

---

here is another simple question. If Pharoah had obeyed God, wouuld it be necessary for him to do any of the plauges?. Think about it logically

---

It's irrelevant, but I already covered that in Message 291. You didn't take the thought seriously. God wanted to do it that way. Read the story.Right at the beginning of the story God says he will harden Pharaoh's heart. (Exodus 4:21) In the story, God is very clear why he caused Pharaoh to be stubborn. It served a purpose.From Message 298

quote:

---

Maybe, just maybe, (call me crazy)God gave Pharoah a choice because that is the normal, natural, logical and reasonable thing to do in the first place, as a rational. longsuffering God. Call me nutty.

---

What true choice was Pharaoh given without interference? (Verses please.)Moses asked him to let the Israelites to go to the desert to worship.Pharaoh didn't know who God was. How can there be a choice. All Pharaoh saw was the loss of his slave labor. The first warning isn't really aimed at Pharaoh. God wanted to show his strength to Pharaoh and the Israelites. Whether you agree with God's methods or not, that's what the book says several times. God had a plan to show his power to Pharaoh and the Israelites. Pharaoh didn't have a choice in the Exodus event.If I understand what Onifire is saying, God caused a determining factor that dictated what Pharaoh would choose to do. Pharaoh was a pawn for the plan.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Hi T&U,Thanks for joining in, and great posts btw. If we go a little deeper than that, what does the bigger picture imply?Well, that everything, even human cognition (the process of thinking), is determinitic. In fact, not being deterministic, and free willed solely from the persons mind - without cause, would break the law of cause and effect.Everything we do is because we did something else, its all cause and effect. Every thought is reactionary, our behavior is reactionary, our decisions and actions - all of it.Free will, to me, has always implied a seperation of cognent humans from their environment - which is not true. Our environment is as much a part of our cognition as our cognition is a part our environment - we are a part of the envirnment and the environment is a part of us too.So, all I would need from EMA is a situation where a decision was made that wasn't deterministic. My first comment to EMA about "freewill" made my position clear: Message 207IMO, the way we experience reality makes it seem like we have free will, but at the cellular level (neurons, etc) it is all deterministic.- Oni

Sorry, I was talking to EMA.My bad. Thanks T&UEdited by Teapots&unicorns, : Quotebox issueEdited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

EMA,I am really getting sick and tired of your ad hominem quips, i.e.: Stick to the rules of debate. If you can't argue your side without making snide, hypocrytical, self-righteous remarks it usually shows that you do not have ammunition to defend your position. This is what everyone is pointing out to you and you still continue to do it.I am asking politely that you stop. It's annoying and childish. This goes for everyone else as well.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Thanks to TU, ONI and Purpledawn, for your last responses, I have started my responses and should have them out later this evening, thanks for your patienceEAM

What about the random walk of an electron or boiling water molecule or Brownian motion, etc?I think sentience, itself, could be, or could be the the result of, the breaking of determinism and thus the emergence of free will.This ain't on topic though

TU writesPart of freewill is anything you feel like doing depending on the information from the outside. That’s the whole point of freewill, its starts interternally. All he needs to do is show that in a normal situation another choice could not have been made. His task is impossible, because in any normal situation, there is always another choice, that’s why its called freewill, your contrived definition notwithstanding These examples do not apply to normal situations. He provided this example to sidetrack the original question by myself. Im not talking about these extremes and he knows it, because he cannot provide an answer for the original question put ot him and he knows it.In any normal situation a person does have a choice, determining factors are not primary, they only help influence the decision making process You are wrong once again, it is about choice, choices right or wrong,or otherwise,choice by the individual and whether or not the individual has his ability as a result of freewill. Gods part is not in question at this point, we are talking strickly about freewill and what it involves. Until we arrive at a agreement about that it is irrelevant how God is responsible . Your verboseness does not remove the fact that people , NOW WATCH, ARE PUNISHED when it is determined NO malfunction or insanity is involved, to which the court understands and responds to their
actions as free thinking persons I understand what he is saying son, I am simply pointing out that he is wrong about murder always involving some kind of brain defect, that is just liberal nonsense. It can be easily demonstrated that a
person is acting of their own volition or by choice, free of any defect to accomplish this act.As I have said before we are not talking about these extreme examples,he brought this up as misdirection to sidetrack my
original point. This is a total misrepresentation of what actually takes place at times and you know it. Many people are executed due to the nature of the crime, as in the case of Tim Mcveigh, not whether they can fit back in or not. You have deliberately misrepresented that situation with regard to as why people are executed, you have deliberatley left off the other reasons Demonstrating extreme examples to remove the fact that we do not have choices in normal situations does not accomplish your task.. If as you suggest, choice is a part of freewill then my point is made by without any assistance from me. We are not talking about fringe situations Influence is not the final decision making process, your choice is the final reult of the influence. Again, you are demonstrating my point, I myself willed myself to quit smoking, through no programs or assistance from programs or the such like, my best friend did the samething and quicker than I did. so to answer your question, yes, a person DOES have the willpower and the motivation, it only remains to be seen if they will exercise that choice.Again, you are pointing out extreme examples to avoid a very simple point. the point is, that in most normal situations A PERSON HAS a choice that is determined by itself witht he assistance of outside
influences You know this is not what we are discussing and it does not apply to choices and freewill. The doctor wouldnt ask you why you kicked her the first place, he would know why you did and he would know yopu
did not make a choice. This is why it is called a INVOLUNTARY REFLEX. Choices do not fall within that context. Please be serious. Thank you and there is no reason to believe that choices are so controlled by outside influences, to the degree that they are uncontrolable, or not a rational choice due to subconscious or unconscious predilections, "a tendency twords a favorable thing". the choice remains, a person in a normal situation has the ability decide between one thing or another, that is the essence of freewill. it you think otherwise you will need something other than the extreme and fringe situations you have provided. Wrong and this is what you would need to demonstrate otherwise. All indications are that this behavior is progressive and takes a long period of time with attitudes that move in that direction. the person could choose to be more reasonable and objective at any point I agree but it is not the overriding factor in the DECISION making process. the choice IS and usually can be demonstrated to be simply a decision based on sound decisions. Sometimes a choice is nothing more than an appeal to personal preference verses something else.Burger King verses Mickie DeesEAMEdited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box

ONI writes:Oni I am only talking about punishment because you brought up these extreme situations. I was only speaking about, simple, and for all intents and purposes, normal situations, and making decisions in that context. T&U seems to agree with this simple observation, unless I am totally misunderstanding himBesides this punishment is relevant if you are assinging guilt or trying to show responsibility Because the thing that motivated the thought in the first place was faulty, then the thought is no longer based on a valid, rational choice, there is no actual choice because the rational process of the mechanism was faulty in the first placeI didnt mean to imply a thought wasnt there in that situation, but that the choice is overriden by delusion, or emotional whatever.As I said before this has nothing to do with the simple situation I am presenting.Heres a scenario for you. You say that when a person murders someone, there must be, has to be emotional embalance or a neurological malfunction, it could not be done when the person is rational or thinking correctly., as you say. So are you saying that when a person does not murder someone they are angry at, that they are NORMAL and that there are no emotional embalances or disorders?In other words, how do you decide what normal behavior is from a neurological standpoint. If I were to turn the other cheek after a person said or did something to me, of say, a negative conotation, would myactions be considered NORMAL or my EMOTIONS BALANCED CORRECTLY?Remember, you are saying something is wrong in thier process when they do commit murder. No because freewill and thoughts are abstractions, a by product of the mental process. even if they were not, the malfunction would not make God responsible, or the rational mind that commits murder would be responsible to itself, due to a decision based on a rational process and free moral choice. Its you responsibility to show how in normal situations, how outside or internal factors, so greatly influence a decision as to make it not a rational valid choice. Your task is impossible.Further the malfunction as you call it is a product of Sin in the first place, as result of the degradation as described in Romans chapter 8. Creation and the human condition went from perfection to
imperfection. the possiblity for the mind to malfunction was due to sin in the first place.While this is true, God does not hold a person accountable in those circumstances and this has nothing to do with what I am discussing anyway. You can disregard your extreme examples, they dont apply.remember it is you stating that there must be malfunction if someone murders, it doesnt take a giant in logic to see that if no murders is commited that there be a situation where a NORMAL situation exists. No God created a perfect system in which he told man to not disobey him or CONSEQUENCES would follow. the consequences were imperfections which were not possible, in the previously perfect system.The imperfection was a direct result of sin, NOWS HERE THE KICKER, which was a direct result of a choice made by a rational mind, based on freewill. It comes and came full circle. Man is responsible for all the sin and all the problems, not MY GOD No God created him perfec, initially, man made the CHOICE to become less than perfect. Thats nonsense, they all have determining factors, but you have made determing factors, the god of freewill, but you have not demonstrated this in any real fashion. I give you the example of my quiting smoking, the biological desire was and is still there but my decision of a rational nature overides the internal or external factors. My choice is to not do it because of possible consequences, but at any point I can override EVEN this contemplation and GO in the opposite direction. Its just a choice and my choice I have already done this several times. however, had I not, it would not matter, your scenario does not address my original question, which was to demonstrate in a normal situation where a choice in the opposite direction was not possible, you have still failed to do that very thing unless you can demonstrate how and why a choice in the opposite direction is not possible in any normal situation your statement makes no sense. of course other factors are involved but they are not the god you are requiring of them, you havent demonstrated this point, yougave a few extreme examples that do not apply overall You do see the words, "because he didnt WANT TO CAUSE............" in your sentence, correct?. Thats called a choice ONI, he made a choice, not determined by the burning hot coffee but by another factor called a decision of his mind. I have just demonstrated my point beyond any doubtIt was another choice besides the one you demanded of the situation. This is really silly, all you have done is replace the word CHOICE, with deterministic, it doesnt change the fact that a choice is real and possible ibn any normal situation They are made in CONJUNCTION with determining factors, but another choice is always possible, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, can you? All youve done to this point is show in some extreme situation
that another choice may not have been possible. In one of your examples no choice was made due to malfunction in another you did not demonstrate that another was not possible, you simply speculatedthat it MAY NOT be possible, this is not the same as demonstrating it as impossible.
You examples do not speak to situations overall and you know it. Your misdirection will not work here No my point was that, reality dicates by reason of common sense that ANOTHER CHOICE is always possible in any normal situationEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Yes, EMA, "free will" does start internally; however, it does not start consciously, and in fact we are mainly influenced by sub- and unconscious predilections our mind may already have. And yes, in a normal situation, another choice could have been made, but we're not talking about a normal situation, are we? If someone has free will once, they have it always. Once again, on your statement about normal situations, see above. As per the determining factors, they are not absolute; however they are primary and in fact determine what choices you are more likely to make. If you can do choices A, B, C, and D, and your unconscious all but eliminates B and D, then you will be very likely indeed to choose either A or D. All choices are probabilistic; this what you are missing. Actually, we are bringing God into it. Follow this logical process:1. God gives humans free will
i. Free will enables us to sin
ii. God desires that we have the choice to sin, but does prefers goodness and healing
over sin and suffering.
2. Sociopaths are likely to murder.
i. Their desire is not a result of free will.
ii. Murder is a sin and an undesirable action.
3. Because murder is a sin but is not motivated by free will, then God would want to prevent it.This argument can even be continued:4. God prevents sociopathic murder.
5. Sociopathic murder exists (contradiction).
6. God does not prevent sociopathic murder and thus, as defined above, does not exist. We are not talking about sane people. We were talking about those unable to control their actions.Stick to the topic at hand please. You seem to misunderstand us. By "brain defect" we do not mean retarded in any way; we simply mean with a higher amount of chemicals in the brain corresponding to irrational and violent decision making, thus singling the individual out as more likely to be violent.Whether extreme or not, they are relevant, and you seem unable to explain them. You, once again, are failing to see what I was getting at. Capital punishment is used because if placed back in society, the criminal would most likely murder again and/or feels no remorse for what he did.I hope that people like you can move past the viewpoint of having to violently or otherwise hatefully respond against those who have wronged you or society. That is not justice. That is revenge. We are not talking about just fringe situations; we are talking about all possible situations. Which, unfortunately for you, include extremes. Conscious choice is a part of "free will," as you say; this much I will give you. However, if your choices are unconsciously narrowed down (probabilisticly) from A, B, C, and D to A and D, then how "free" is your choice? Once again, you are expressing your ignorance of the probability nature of choices. A person who smokes only quits if the probability of wanting better health is greater than the unconscious probability disclosed by the nicotine itself.In addition, you seem to be very confused as to outside influences. I ask: is a child growing up in the ghettoes of New York City more likely to do drugs and smoke then a child born and raised in a wealthy, caring family from Albany? EMA, this is exactly what we are talking about. If a sociopath has all choices but murder (at a percentage of, say 98%) eliminated, then is that really a choice? Or is it more of a, as you put it, an involuntary reflex. In certain situations, humans put aside choices and act either on instinct or pure reflex. That is why you hear about fathers beating their kids because: "It's the only thing they know." That kind of action has become so ingrained in their mind that they do it without thought. Not uncontrollable; just so much more likely by outside influence. See many, many of my examples and others' from above and earlier. Yes attitudes move in time, but that is a normal development in people, kind of like puberty . And, you seem to forget, how many change of worldviews are triggered by outside influences like the death or betrayal of someone close, or perhaps the loss of a great oppurtunity? No way. Wendy's pwns. T&UEdited by AdminPD, : Fix quote box

As experienced by us, yes, I agree. But not at the neuro level, because there must be a cause before the effect.Cognition and sentience are the result of billions of neurons firing in the brain, causing us to become conscious of the reality we experience. Those neurons need a reason for action; the reason is stimuli. So we are cognent because of our environment - because of stimuli - without it we wouldn't have a notion of free will.It almost has to be deterministic. Experiencing reality, and thus having causes for all of our thoughts, actions, dreams, etc., leads us by default into a deterministic world.Question: Does someone who has no use of their sensory functions have free will? It is. If I can prove determinism then humans have no fault (in theory) for their actions, and thus Hell (a punishment by god to his faulty creation) doesn't seem just.- Oni

Hmmm. Cool question.If someone loses all their sensory functions then I think they would. They could choose to remember and reflect on certain experiences.A brain that has never experienced any external stimuli at all.....? Well I think that would be a significanly different brain to those of most "normal" humans. Whether any internal thoughtlike form of "free-will" would be possible is an interesting question. A question that I have no idea as to the answer to. But the brain in qustion would be highly undeveloped and incapable, I suspect, of many/most types of thought processes that we take for granted.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. The taking of a human life is not normal, there must be some emotional trigger (whether current or repressed), from a psychological perspective.This doesn't mean the person is faulty or that their brain has a built in malfunction - this is the burden of having emotions that work at a chemical level. Chemicals which are uncontrolable, because, we have NO free will over them. If you admit that its a by-product of the mental process, then how can you disagree that without the mental process you have no free will or thoughts (or choices, feelings, emotions, etc.)...?It's a by-product of it, therefore it exists because of it - there's no way around that.And again, thoughts are not abstract. What YOU recognize is abstract (consciousness), they themselves (cognition) is real. But we are talking about a decision made by a rational human being in a moment where he lost control of his own emotions - it was out of his hands, he lost his free will.This isn't a case of free moral choice; this is a case of no other choice because he couldn't control his internal chemicals that made him do what he did.To have free will would mean that you have control of your internal chemical reactions that cause you to often do things that under normal circumstances you would not - thats the point, free will is control over everything that directs your actions - we don't have that.You want me to give examples "under normal situations," but for anything out of your control to actually happen, it often means that it went past being a normal situation. But as humans experiencing the world we live in, IF we have free will, then we should have free will for ALL situations. We don't though, and that's the issue. I do not accept this as an answer. I know this is your faith, but its complete bs.If this is how you will deal with my argument then we can end it here. Thank you, then the world we exist in is deterministic - no free will, its all pre-determined by your interaction with your environment.I have no further points to make.- Oni

Just following in your footsteps, bro. lol I didn't think of it being lost or born with ... that adds a new aspect to the question.I'd agree that the person would still be conscious (don't know for how long, or even what consciousness would develop into in the long run with no sensory stimuli) - but, I don't see what you'd have free will over?To be conscious, sentient, in fact human, is to have a sensory system - I believe the term for not having them is a veg? Yea, I agree. I can't see having free will (as we experience it - which I agree we do have that feeling) without ever having any stimuli.I didn't have any argument for or against the question I asked CS, I was just curious if he could seperate free will from the mind/sensory functions and the environment we exist in and what his answer would be. I'm just guessing myself.To me, it all seems deterministic though.- Oni

I have no evidence at all on which to base this claim but let's imagine.....If my brain was removed from my body and placed in a jar, given sufficiant nutrients, oxygen etc. etc. with which to function as if it were still in a body but without all external sensory input.....Then I think I would still be me in some sense. I would miss my son, my wife, my body and my ability to interract with the world. I may well go mad. I may well lose myself in the necessity of fantasy based on past memory. But I don't think I would lose all free-will about what I decided to think about. As such.Maybe I am an inherent dualist? But still the idea that removing all sensory input removes all sense of mind and self I think is counter-intuitive and thus requires some explanation even if intuition in this case is unjustified.Sorry to be the pain in your theory here but I think the question you have posed is genuinely intriguing and worthy of some thought.