OK, than please explain how it can occur without referring to God.
Definitely not. Even mono-zygotic twins have no identical genes if I understand things correctly, Their environment is far from identical.Kenny original example is spot on and why people that really look into free will believe that there is free will.
If all we are are by-products of our environment or genes then people raised the same way, exposed to the same environments, would choose the same choice and they do NOT.
I have tried to explain this several times but you don’t comment, only repeating your argument.
Look, they are certain behaviors and choices that are predictable, simply because choices are finite and people can be predictable.
None of that means that people don't freely choose and by that I mean make the decision to choose A instead of B for WHATEVER reason.
If there was truly NO free will and a person has NO CHOICE in what they decide how on earth would you ever hold anyone accountable for their actions from a logical perspective?
Why hold a thief accountable for stealing when he had no choice BUT to steal ?
There was NO CHOICE but for that person to steal, they have no other alternative !
Assume that you find convincing proof that there is no objective moral. Would you then argue that we shouldn’t try to stop theft? No, you would still argue that we have to stop criminals by threatening them with punishment.
#322 Post by PaulSacramento » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:38 am
"I think that Nils believes that if he is predisposed to certain choices that, somehow, that means he has NO CHOICE in what he chooses.
Is that correct Nils?"
Yes, “predisposed” I think means exactly “having nu choice”. That’s semantics, not philosophy.