God's judgement and Determinism

Sorry, this post can be deleted (double post). Edited by Arachide, : No reason given.Edited by Arachide, : No reason given.Edited by Arachide, : No reason given.

The idea of not having a free will seems to be counterintuitive. It is hard to get rid of that what one always saw as a 'certainty'.Let me illustrate this so called certainty by imagining a vertical marble game where a marble is being released at the very top. The moment of release can be seen as the beginning of the universe, whether this is caused by a creator or other forces. Each nail stands for a decision. Confronting a nail, the marble goes either left or right.The marble descends and stops somewhere at the bottom. It seems coincidence what this result is, but from the moment it is being released the marble follows exactly the laws of physics (gravity, friction etc). To us it seems there are several options where the marble could end. This is how the illusion of coincidence or free will is created.Edited by Arachide, : No reason given.

That would seem conflicting to me. But i don't think that's an interesting point to debate on, one can agree or disagree with that while it remains an opinion.What intrigues me is that people try to fill in the situation before the beginning point with "god" or the "big bang". So according to the deterministic system it is a believe in something we cannot possibly know. Even if we had all the knowledge in the world, and we had the power to calculate back to the point of beginning it is impossible to go before that point as it is a point where no laws of physics are. Within our frame god per definition is an impossibility as we're talking about something out of our frame. Paradoxical, isn't it?So where does this idea of judgement come from? That would be humanity. It is a logical outcome of the point of beginning and the laws of physics.

quote:

---

Everybody understands the silly marble-drop kind of determinism but we live in a real world.

---

I don't think this answer really regards to the content of my post and from your words i sense some aversion which might indicate what i said before:

quote:

---

The idea of not having a free will seems to be counterintuitive. It is hard to get rid of that what one always saw as a 'certainty'.

---

But to get back...i don't get why you interpret this "silly marble-drop" as not in the real world. I'm talking about a normal situation with all the physics here.Edited by Arachide, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And it isn't in response to your post. It's in response to The Agnostic's.

---

I never indicated it was, and even though it's to The Agnostic i'm still able to react on it.

quote:

---

What has physics got to do with real-world decisions? How does the marble-drop relate to where you decide to allocate your resources?

---

Your real-world decisions are a logical outcome of the physical state of your brain which follows the laws of physics.

quote:

---

It's the things we do in the real world that we are supposedly judged on. How does marble-drop determinism absolve you of responsibility for your actions?

---

The Agnostic marked this before on the first page:

quote:

---

I think we should differentiate between "responsible" in the legal sense and in the moral sense.

​

Legally, the murderer may be responsible for what he has done. There are also many practical reasons to lock up murderers. (E.g. to discourage criminal behaviour, to protect society from dangerous people and to give the relatives of the victim a certain sense of justice)

---

quote:

---

But if we can't follow every bounce of the marble in our real-world decision-making, if we don't know every physical micro-state of our brain which determines our decisions, how is that different from a random marble-drop? In the real world, aren't we dealing with the statistical results of millions of marble drops instead of the minute details of one?

---

Both the simple situation of the marble and the complex situation of our brain follow this deterministic system. Just because we're too limited to fully perceive this complexity doesn't mean it's not true. We see the marble drop, what material it's made of, we can measure it's weight, in what position the nails are, what the angle of the board is and so on - but of course it's more difficult to exactly understand what in our brain causes our behaviour. This happens in way smaller levels but as mentioned also follows the laws of physics.

quote:

---

Then you and/or The Agnostic would have to distinguish between legal and moral in terms of God's judgement.

​

If you spend all your money on luxuries instead of on the poor, how is that not your responsibility?

---

This is interesting, i get back to this later because i have other things to do now.

quote:

---

Then you and/or The Agnostic would have to distinguish between legal and moral in terms of God's judgement.

​

If you spend all your money on luxuries instead of on the poor, how is that not your responsibility?

---

Legal consequences are the result of moral judging behaviour. Is it fair for a god to apply legal consequences (hell/heaven) to a deterministic system where there is only one result (absence of moral)?

quote:

---

You continue to avoid the practical question: If you spend all your money on luxuries instead of on the poor, how is that not your responsibility?

---

Actually i answered the question indirectly but perhaps i should be more specific. Assuming to answer this in a deterministic situation, there is no moral responsibility since there is only one outcome of everything.Let's take an example where a person murders someone. This action is determined at the very beginning of our universe. It is the logical result of the laws of physics that influence the situation from the beginning. So it is long before the murderers grand-grand-grand-parents (and so on) determined that he/she commits the crime.It's not about whether you or me think such a person is legally responsible but if he/she is morally responsible at all, since there is no moral in a system where there is no free will.

quote:

---

How is it "unfair" for God to reward/punish on the basis of one's responsible actions?

​

Similarly, wouldn't God be unfair to do nothing?

---

As mentioned above it seems it would be unfair for a god to reward/punish one for actions that are not influenced by that person self but by the deterministic system.Edited by Arachide, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You're not addressing the issue at all.

---

You: If you spend all your money on luxuries instead of on the poor, how is that not your responsibility?Me: Assuming to answer this in a deterministic situation, there is no moral responsibility since there is only one outcome of everything.You: You're not addressing the issue at all.

quote:

---

If God "programmed" you to do your part in determining his fate, how is God's tweaking of the program "unfair"? For that matter, who is it unfair to?

---

You can ask yourself if it is unfair for us to be judged by a god who created a system where there is no moral.

quote:

---

You're not addressing the issue. Maybe it's just that your assumption doesn't work, but the fact is that there is more than one possible outcome.

---

I state a situation as an assumption and you say the contrary is a FACT? Even if it is a fact you should know the answer. IF there is more than one possible outcome - with a free will - we have a moral responsibility for our actions. IF there is one possible outcome (determinism) - without free will - we don't have a moral responsibility for our actions.

quote:

---

Suppose you're sitting in your big, warm house, stuffing your face with caviar and watching the homeless people starve in the snow. On the judgement day, you tell God, "I couldn't feed them. Physics wouldn't let me."

​

Set aside the marbles for a moment and think about the problem: how does your notion of determinism negate the obligation to make real-world decisions?

---

There are no real-world decisions in a deterministic system since there is no free will. There is no free will because our behaviour is a result of the laws of physics from the beginning.

quote:

---

First, what do you mean by "a system where there is no moral"? Do you mean "morality" or something like that?

---

A deterministic system as explained above. How can there be moral responsibility in such a system?
With absence of moral responsibility i mean the situation where one cannot be held responsible for certain behaviour because he/she did not act self by free will.

quote:

---

Second, regardless of the properties of the system God created, how is it "unfair" of Him to judge how well the system performs?

---

It's not unfair of him to judge how well a system performs. But the question is if it's unfair of him to judge how well the people in a deterministic system perform.

quote:

---

And we know there are real world decisions (feed the poor or don't feed the poor), so you seem to be arguing against determinism.

​

Again, how is "physics wouldn't let me" a defense? You don't know exactly what physics does allow so you have, at the very least, a pseudo-free will.

​

Feed the poor or don't feed the poor. How are you not responsible for that decision?

---

No, no. "Feed the poor or don't feed the poor", that's the illusion of free will. These two options are comparable with the places we see where the marble could end. Just because you see two options "Feed the poor or don't feed the poor" doesn't mean there is a free choice between those two.Regardless if you understand this above or not: do you agree that one cannot be responsible for behaviour he/she absolutely has no influence on?

quote:

---

It's the same question. System performance depends on the performance of the components. One component fails and another starves to death in the snow. How is it "unfair" to call the failed component a failure?

---

If you agree my question above (which i doubt one can disagree unless it's misinterpret because it's a logical argument) it would be unfair to judge a component on that.

quote:

---

I disagree that you have no control over your behaviour. Come down from the ivory tower, forget the marble-drop physics, let go of the schoolboy "logic" and look at the real-world question.

---

The proposition is not "Do you agree we do not have control over our behaviour?". You give answers on questions i don't ask. Once again, "Do you agree that one cannot be responsible for behaviour he/she absolutely has no influence on?". So IF a person does not have control over his/her behaviour, is that person really responsible for that?

quote:

---

Never mind your claims that you have no control over that decision. You've said that. We're all bored with that claim. Say something new.

---

I can't help. If someone asks me the same questions over and over again, i continue to give the same answers.

quote:

---

Having no control over the micro-states of one's brain is not the same as having no control over one's behaviour.

---

One's behaviour is the result of the micro-states of one's brain, so can you explain what you're saying here?

quote:

---

You're overblowing the significance of the word "responsibility". Being responsible for your behaviour isn't necessarily about "blame". It's about facing the consequences of your behaviour. Just as your behaviour is caused by a marble dropping through a maze, your behaviour causes other marbles to drop.

---

Sure one marble causes other marbles to drop. But it's about where it begins. Imagine you're god (or the laws of physics) and you rule a person like a marionette. He has no free will, everything he does and thinks goes by your hand. Maybe you let him murder someone or - as you like - let him spend all his money on luxury instead of poor people. Can you hold him responsible for that? No.

quote:

---

That isn't very productive. If you're trying to defend the OP, you need to think of new and better ways to do it.

---

I'm not 'defending' anything here, i'm willing to make concessions when i'm wrong...but i simply haven't heard any arguments that counter the proposition. And believe me, i'm trying the best and most logical ways to explain.

quote:

---

This would be so much easier if you would just think about the question: Do you have control over how you spend the $100 bill in your pocket? That level of control is the only one that matters. Whatever brain-states may have caused the decision don't matter.

---

Within that illusion of free will, you have control yes. Or better said: you have the illusion of control.

quote:

---

That's where you go wrong. I have tried to get you to think of it as a computer program instead of a marionette. God writes the program but He doesn't control every machine cycle. If there's a bug in the program and it outputs something bad, like a murder, then the programmer certainly can hold it responsible. You're expecting the programmer to throw up his hands and say, "It's all my fault. I put the bug in the program, so nothing can be done about it."

---

"I have tried to get you to think of it as a computer program instead of a marionette. God writes the program but He doesn't control every machine cycle." Up till here i can follow you."If there's a bug in the program and it outputs something bad, like a murder, then the programmer certainly can hold it responsible." The programmer can hold the output responsible for a bug in the program the programmer self wrote?

quote:

---

But you're just explaining the same erroneous marionette scenario over and over again. Address the alternative. Explain how it's "unfair" for a programmer to debug his program.

---

As said before it certainly is not unfair for a programmer to debug his program. But it is unfair to judge (heaven/hell) outputs on actions they do not have influence on.

And what if it is his fault?So, assuming i'm the programmer, if you don't have a free will but i make you do things, it would be okay for me to punish you for bad actions that i have let you done (you couldn't help) which are actually my mistake?And even then, what would be the benefit of that for the programmer? A programmer who debugs his program doesn't doom his bugs to the darkest pits of hell. He adjusts the rules of the system.Edited by Arachide, : No reason given.