DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
OK.I do mean "necessary consequences of a world that allows for free will", not free will itself. World is the cause and natural disasters are the effect.
But I don't see what that has to do with free will.
Unable to parse. I didn't suggest the consequences of unpredictable humans are predictable.So even though humans are not predictable, you envision a world where the consequences of their actions are?
Yeah, sure.And you can somehow distinguish between the wholly human-caused and natural contributing factors, no matter how far down the chain of causation?
Hurricanes are not caused by humans.Was hurricane Katrina a disaster because of nature or human neglect of the levees or choice to live there in the first place? Was the weather, itself, caused by human pollution, and would that have even been a disaster without other human contributions?
Weather is not caused by pollution.
Both these things went on their merry way for eons before humans came along.
Well, we can, so...And if we couldn't distinguish between human-caused and natural contributing factors, wouldn't nature seem essentially as arbitrary as if there was no sufficiently predictable causation?
What?What, even though people completely neglect to protect themselves from the elements, the world would just magically protect them anyway?
I am not sure what you're saying here. You're sort of jumping over too many dots to connect.That would seem to preclude doubt in a god or a reliably predictable natural world (from which we could develop science), both necessary for free will.