yes, but that is not getting the context of what I wrote. Given that we do not know, you and I, we can only look at the various positions. One irony of the determinist position is they are basically saying they have no idea what their own real motivations are for believing what they believe -including the belief in determinism. This is not true for people advocating other positions. The position itself should entail an admission that they really cannot know if they are being logical in arriving at their opinion determinism is the case.
See?
Of course if determinism is the case, we are all in that position. But from our current vantage, you and I, we see different people advocating different positions. We do not know which is true. We can however note this irony about the determinist position.
a non-physical determinism simply means that one does not believe that all substrance is physical, but still you believe all events are determined entirely by past ones. Calvinists would be an example of such a belief system. They did believe in a soul that had an afterlife, but they believed, given God’s omnicience, that this afterlife was already decided long ago.
In other words:
It’s not different.
I will try this one more time, then I will give up.
As far as I can tell you have claimed two unpleasant results of determinism being the case:
- I am just dominoes, everything that will happen could only have happened and nothing else. The belief in/acceptance of the fact of determinism affects my mood negatively because determinism means…
- People have no reason (or even less) to be nice/moral, since everything is natural. The belief in/acceptance of the fact of determinism affects how people will ACT negatively because determinism means…(all acts are natural, etc)
I utterly agree that one is the case if determinism is true. At least for you and me and likely many other people.
I disagree that 2 is the case.
I keep trying to show why 2 is not the case and or I ask you to demonstrate 2 is the case.
You respond to this by focusing on 1, most of the time. You defend 1, in response to my questioning about 2.
I have acknowledged that one can make arguments based on determinism that everything, every action is natural. But I argued against this being a concrete result of the belief in determinism. I do not find it to be the case that determinists are more prone to immoral behavior and I think that given that we are social mammals that even in the absence of a notion of free will, there are plenty of causes to make us be good.
Sure.
Obviously. Mammals minds can change, including our minds. This happens. No one disputes this in the practical sense of a kind person can end up being cruel and vice versa.
Yes, if D is true.
Yes, if D is true.
I don’t know how to determine that.