By completely free I mean you choosing to do one thing over another is completely up to you. I don't refer to stuff like you choosing to like the colour red more than blue.
You do not choose everything in life... which is obvious. so we are not saying that everything is by choice. i think you know that.
No, they don't. I think you are overly simplifying things. There are many instances of people going places together where no one would ever find the body of someone getting murdered. Let's say two friends going on a hike in the middle of nowhere or simply two random people meeting each other in the wilderness. If you look at past human history where the chance of solving a murder was close to none, clearly, people didn't just randomly kill each other for no reason either.
Randomly is your focus?
Then I must have missed your point. How does randomness fit this topic?
Yet, even when there is a huge chance of getting caught today, people still commit murders and rapes etc. So clearly the consequence doesn't prevent it, it obviously reduces it, however, some people still seem to prefer doing it regardless. Look at the vast amount of police violent cases in the US, where the police beat some guy to death despite getting filmed clearly they must be well aware of the consequences by doing such thing.
I think I am confused now. What was your point?
My point is that people have reasons for doing things, and the reason more people do not do some of those same things, is because they don't want to face the consequences.
I think I am getting lost as to where you are going exactly.
Yes, but my point is, that some people, might be hardwired to not end up killing or even consider doing it. While others will react in such a way that they are no longer thinking clearly and therefore will do it.
Might be? Okay, so you have a hypothesis.
All you need to do now is test it. Then we can talk about the results.
Think of it like someone being violent, some people are more violent than others and it takes very little for them to explode into a rage if they feel even slightly provoked, which could potentially lead to the death of someone. Clearly, such a person is differently wired than someone that couldn't dream of hitting another person or think about a person hitting their children or wife, but besides that function normally every day. And in many cases, I think the people are well aware that they are doing something wrong and will apologize afterwards, yet do it again the next time.
Why do you think it has anything to do with being "wired"?
What if it is? Would it be okay if someone said they are under the influence of a supernatural power... influenced by sinful tendencies...
Would you accept that? Or, maybe you dismiss those and say. "No. ...but I don't know."?
How though does that negate free will?
What if we do have sinful tendencies... can we not choose to go against those tendencies, and are not millions of people doing so?
What aids such? Is it not being taught to do so, and then choosing to make an effort to succeed?
Here is another thing to consider.
What if, though wired to have certain negative tendencies, we can connect to another wire, that disconnects us from the negative wire?
You know. Well, maybe you don't know, but this is exactly what is described in the Bible.
Galatians 5:16-26 ;
Colossians 3:5-10
Only, it does not cancel out free will.
Our free willed choices are what determines where we want to be wired.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I'm talking about how people are emotionally or biologically wired differently. Whether it is epigenetic or genetic I don't know, simply that I don't think it is just a matter of making a choice and that is more than simply nurture, even though I do think that it plays a huge role as well, probably 50%/50% or close to it between nature and nurture. But that we can't really change nature, but we might in some cases be able to somewhat suppress some of these emotions if they are not too strong, if that makes sense?
I understand what you are saying too.
Only, you say you don't know, but obviously you are looking for an explanation that scientists can come up with, rather than accept the one the Bible gives.
Moreover, you do not accept the fact that millions of people demonstrate that it is a matter of making a choice. They have done it.
Why then do you think otherwise, when it can be seen clear as day.
Just to give an example... Let's suppose that our nature is to be proud, arrogant, jealous, selfish, spiteful... etc. etc.
If people, work toward overcoming, and conquering those traits, and replacing them with positive traits - opposite, or contrary, would you not agree that the persons doing so, have made a choice to put in the effort needed to do so?
Have they not made a free willed decision, or do you think they are now driven by some force, against their will?
I think we have to be careful not to mix things together.
To not have sex with someone they are not married to is not something that is hardwired into us. What I mean is that you have to track it back to an emotional trait. In this case, you might be convinced that God is real, and therefore it is about deceiving someone you care about. You could equally compare it to cheating on one's spouse, meaning the emotional implications of deceiving someone you care about. Where drugs might be related to an emotion could be to not feeling isolated or as part of the group or it might simply be to have fun. I mean, I have never heard of anyone that just decided to do drugs or start smoking on their own, but usually, these are done in social contexts, like a group of friends etc. And why some people say no while others say yes can vary greatly. I have a lot of friends that used to smoke a lot of hash and were addicted to it etc. yet I have tried it a few times, but never felt it was anything special so I stopped doing it. On the other hand, I do smoke cigarettes, whereas some of them don't and that started in a social context as well with friends, the exact reason for why we did it, I think was because we thought it was fun and we got a bit high from it.
How did the first person start smoking?
Who or what influence them?
What I mean is, that some people are wired, in this case, to do extreme sports and love the feeling of living on the edge and the adrenaline pumping through them when doing these things, while I don't. But I didn't choose to not like it. Just as they didn't either. So the "choice" of me not reaching the conclusion that I want to do it, you might as well say is biological. Thereby the illusion of choice, I choose not to do it because I don't like it, but I didn't choose to not like it.
Nimos, when you demonstrate your hypothesis that people are wired to do extreme sports, and you have the results, rather than the idea, let me know.
As far as I know, extreme sport is new. We did not even have cars in ancient times.
Were there chariot races? Of course? Were there horse races? Likely. Were there human foot races? Yes.
Were they extreme? Not necessarily.
They were sports. Fun and games. Recreation. A time to relax and enjoy something entertaining.
In everything, some people go to extremes.
Even in sex. Some are not satisfied with normal sex. So we have fetishes.
Hmmm... Could there be some force driving people in that direction.
As the above example, the choice you think you make is based on something that you didn't choose. You choose to not eat chocolate ice cream because you don't like it, but you didn't choose to not like it. In some cases, you might be able to force yourself to do something, which doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't normally do it, and that you do it because you feel motivated to go against it for whatever reason. For instance, you might choose to eat chocolate ice cream to prove that you have free will. Yet that doesn't change the fact that you don't like it, and that you are simply willing to do it, because "proving" that you have free will is more motivating for you than the awful taste. Obviously, this also depends on what it is, you might not like to jump from a plane to prove the point because you simply can't convince yourself of it.
I believe that's inherited. It's in the genes, as I said before.
Your body may reject something for reasons you may not understand, but you can adapt.
For example, growing up, my body rejected slime. I could not swallow yam, and okra.
Later, I set my mind to eating these things, and I found creative ways of eating them, and my body adjusted to them.
They say one acquires a taste for "Mauby". It's bitter.
Persons found ways to make it appetizing... Load it with sugar.
No, it's more in regard to the debate about nature vs nurture, where I think it is a mixture of both as explained about. Also the study of epigenetics might be relevant, if you are not sure what that is here is a quick explanation:
Epigenetics, inheritance, and behavior are related because epigenetic changes can be inherited and can affect an individual's behavior. Epigenetic modifications can alter the expression of genes that play a role in regulating behavior, such as those involved in mood, anxiety, and addiction. These changes can be passed down from one generation to the next, potentially influencing the behavior of offspring.
Environmental factors, such as stress or maternal care, can also lead to epigenetic modifications that affect behavior. For example, studies have shown that exposure to stress early in life can lead to changes in gene expression that increase an individual's susceptibility to anxiety-related behavior later in life.
Overall, the relationship between epigenetics, inheritance, and behavior is complex and still being studied. However, it is clear that epigenetic changes can have important implications for an individual's behavior and the behavior of future generations.
And if you want a quick overview of the debate (Don't get fooled by the cartoon drawings, there are a lot of weird words being used
):
Well, I did not use the science term, but I think that is what I described.
It doesn't negate free will though, which is the point I am making.