Even if you are in jail you can still make an attempt at doing whatever you feel like
You cannot walk out of the jail. Freedom of movement is severely restricted.
Free will is only being restricted if some authority is removing your opportunity to try.
You capacity to make decisions regarding your routine and activities are made for you within prison.
I site books by Sam Harris, Ayn Rand, and Leonard Piekoff(basically all three's bookography) arguing that mankind's survival and the capacity to thrive are contingent upon the usage of our faculties of reason. I would also argue that flaws in a particular system do not constitute the dismissal of the entire system. You don't stop calling a school bus yellow just because it has other colors of lesser distinction.
God gave guidelines on hypothetical situations, attempting to give what was seen as property rights.
The diction here is problematic and I cannot address it correctly without the danger of serious misconstruction.
The whole of Exodus 20 does not say that, in fact, it says that if one hits a slave and damages him, the slave is to go free.
You must have a version of Exodus 20 that I've never seen. Perhaps you meant 21, but if that's the case you run into a plethora of moral inadequacies.
It would be voluntary socialism, which isn't necessarily impossible I suppose .
Not much of a rocker. I'm a blues type of guy. Trying to become a jazz player to earn a living doing something I enjoy.
Absolutely, those crazy nuts with their freedom and their refusal to coerce you..........................
Wait, we're supposed to get their number after? I've been doing this so wrong.................
, because that means the more data we get, the more it is analyzed until we can fit it into our theory
Well, yea. Observations must be made and evaluated as to their causal properties and such. Data that is found relevant to the question is added to the theory slightly changing the model.
You sounded just like a confessed Christian there.
I don't see how. We have all these observations, and the big bang model is the current model in which all these observations appear to consistently point towards a conclusion. This model will change as new observations are made or old ones are found to be missing important information. It is not yet infallible, just the best current model for explaining the current state of the universe. It is not an article of faith however(unless you use such a weak definition of faith that is basically becomes trust), because we are necessary dealing with issues of made observations and evidence.
In my opinion being intellectually honest is not sending out any theory until we have a complete understanding of its implications, especially when the cornerstone hasn't been proven, the corner stone being the dark matter, which is the theories drive.
Hence the word theory, in other words "work in progress". The model itself still makes predictable implications that we see in reality, so we wouldn't be justified in discarding it as a whole.
Atheists do that all the time.
The point was that it is an unconvincing argument, even to you.
How much time must I fail before I find out this is untrue
There is a separation between failing to find something and it being untrue. Which is way experiments must be made, fail, changed, and tried again.
Science claims to be more impartial than religion, it looks as if the field is not impartially searching but trying the "tinted glass view" like religion.
The difference is, when another model comes around that not only falls into line with observable phenomena but does so more effectively and consistently than the big bang model, it will be recognized as such. Not really a tinted glass view at all.
If I can't find dark matter after multiple experiments, it is there, all I have to do is keep looking.
You misconstrue the scientist who explores dark matter's position. HIs assertion is not or should not be that it is as a matter of fact there, but that it should be there as indicated by the present model and conducts experiments until either he succeeds or another model better answers the question.
It is all faith.
There you go again. You mentioned prayer and likened it to failed experiments, except prayer is noticeably absent in its dealing with evidence as opposed to scientific inquiry and experimentation. It is not faith because science necessarily deals with evidence.
Slave owners would not punish their slaves severely because of the punishment that would result from the death of the slave.
I don't see that as implied whatsoever. The restriction upon killing doesn't restrict brutal beatings.
The second part of the verse is not inhumane either: if someone is misbehaving, then this someone needs to be punished.
How dare those slaves misbehave. Torture them, get em in line.
Well there are degrees of restriction. Jail is an obvious restriction to free will, you still have actions you can choose to do within the jail, but as a whole you lack the capacity to make decisions for yourself.
You alone care about your cat, the law does not intervene and say "Because it is your cat, you must take care of it and its life."
Who said the Bible holds a Libertarian view as property? It obviously does not, and it should be no surprise that the Christian God seeks to control how you manage your property.
Instead, it forces you to take care of it on the premise of it otherwise being inhumane.
I can't believe that people try to justify this. It reads(with so little room for interpretation) that you can beat a person as brutally as you wish, and the consequences will only occur if he doesn't die. Torture is inhumane.
If that authority denies your the capacity to exert power for your own being, then yes, you are being denied free will.
Same reason I care about the continued living of my cat. It is mine, and my interests are best served if it continues to exist. Or any other property.
imply capacity to succeed in such actions.
I don't think that even plays into the issue. I hold free will is a question of power. You have free will if the power being exerted is your own for your own being. The success of any action you do under such circumstances is irrelevant to whether or not you are even in that criterion.
Informal guitar instructor . Started by teaching chicks and just went on from there.
That is silly though. If there is evidence against something that is so large then why say because we have more points for it it should stand?
That is the way scientific theories are. They are models of reality that change with the evidence until they are repeatedly internally consistent. People who behave as though the theory is infallible are indeed misguided, but the observations made that form parts of the Big Bang theory don't disappear because of some as-of-yet uncovered holes. We must continue to be intellectually honest about what we know and continue to strive to reach that model of reality that hits the spot and becomes a scientific law.
If there are so many failed attempts at finding its exist, why persist? This sounds like someone trying to use there imagination to find a spec of truth that isn't there.
Imagine an atheist using that argument towards god? Just because you fail doesn't mean you should cease trying. That is why all endeavors of intellect are valid and vital to progress, whether they yield results in the long run or not.
Exodus 21:20-21
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
You can define the particulars of old testament slavery as you wish, but this verse is absolutely inhumane and terrible.
Well, if you agree to my definition of free will being the capacity to make decisions without power being exerted upon you, than you can have free will taken away from you. If you define it merely as particular state of mind, then you're correct.
When individuals become wealthy through a free marketplace(necessarily devoid of government favoritism, loopholes, etc.) they do so through being a consistently preferable provider of services. In order to guarantee the continuing of personal prosperity, the healthy purchasing power of the consumer base is very important to the individual with wealth. They are more likely to take part in providing a safety net that isn't dependent on immoral means(theft and other forms of coercion).
Even natural rights do not exist.
I refer you to my main post on this thread regarding natural rights.
However the argument becomes problematic when property has no meaning in the case of most nomadic tribes or certain religious groups such as Buddhist monks.
Even in Nomadic tribes, the concept of property exists as a collective property.
And in the latter personal pleasure is denied from their lifestyle.
And thus they denying themselves a natural right, which doesn't absolve them of possession of that right.
That seems to use a different version of free will fro my own. I define free will as having the capacity to make decisions without having power(defining as having control over the actions of others) being exerted upon you. Of course actions have consequences.
Atlas Shrugged hold her entire philosophy in a fictional setting, but if you prefer non-fiction as I do than I would recommend The Virtue of Selfishness.
