Thread: Who created God?

I already said it is to provide a conscience for those who have none. That doesn't mean the people are punishing out of spite. What happens to people with a conscience when they do wrong? They feel bad, they have action taken against them by their own minds. Your conscience punishes because you have done wrong. That is what the law does. The way they use the word "revenge" is in the concept of action taken against wrong doing, it isn't to make them feel better and out of vindictiveness.

If it were the case that revenge is the real motive behind the law then when a case comes up where someone has tortured someone, we would just torture them right back. I should also add that confidentiality and the specific part of fifth amendment that says you don't have to incriminate yourself would be pretty pointless. Punishment is as much out of the kind of revenge you're ascribing to as being burned when touching a fire would be.

The criminal takes the benefit of the self-restraint of others, but refuses to accept that burden herself: she has gained an unfair advantage, which punishment removes by imposing some additional burden on her. As well as providing the feeling of remorese one would normally feel when found to have commited a crime.

The law exists to keep order, punishment is a part of the law.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Psych, I think you've misunderstood not only Sandform's argument, but also the law itself. If Justice was supposed to be about revenge, then why the process of court and the whole "innocent until proven guilty"? Why abide by objective reasoning and fact-finding in order to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not?

The Justice system is there to first determine who's guilty and who's innocent, and then to punish the offenders, whether through prison or other methods. The aim of the punishment is provide consequence to actions that are construed to be negative towards society, to act as a deterrent to people from making such decisions and then to help reform the offenders from making such decisions again. Sandform's reasoning isn't circular in the first place, and you are simply misconstruing the argument because you don't see eye-to-eye.

I said merely that revenge/retribution was part of the law, not all of the law, and gave an example of how. Which he disputed. The case/trial itself is in exemption to my point as it it is simply establishing who committed the crime. Once this has been proven "beyond reasonable doubt" "revenge/retribution" may come in, hence, "aims of sentencing"; my original argument. Remember, revenge/retribution does not mean unfair.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I already said it is to provide a conscience for those who have none. That doesn't mean the people are punishing out of spite. What happens to people with a conscience when they do wrong? They feel bad, they have action taken against them by their own minds. Your conscience punishes because you have done wrong. That is what the law does. The way they use the word "revenge" is in the concept of action taken against wrong doing, it isn't to make them feel better and out of vindictiveness.

If it were the case that revenge is the real motive behind the law then when a case comes up where someone has tortured someone, we would just torture them right back. I should also add that confidentiality and the specific part of fifth amendment that says you don't have to incriminate yourself would be pretty pointless. Punishment is as much out of the kind of revenge you're ascribing to as being burned when touching a fire would be.

The criminal takes the benefit of the self-restraint of others, but refuses to accept that burden herself: she has gained an unfair advantage, which punishment removes by imposing some additional burden on her. As well as providing the feeling of remorese one would normally feel when found to have commited a crime.

The law exists to keep order, punishment is a part of the law.

Please! You dodged my long post because you know it clearly and utterly contradicts you, and went on to repeat your interpretation of the law?

Originally Posted by psychology student

Please! You dodged my long post because you know it clearly and utterly contradicts you, and went on to repeat your interpretation of the law?

It only contradicts the misrepresentations of my case. All I have said is that the law is not made to spite people but to bring consequence to actions.

The definition of revenge they are using is NOT the same one I am arguing against. This is what they are using. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of
This is what I'm arguing against. A desire for revenge; spite or vindictiveness

First link* "This is the idea of giving a punishment because the defendant deserves a punishment because of their actions." Or in other words bringing consequencefor actons that are taken.

Second link*...I can't open pdfs.

Third link* "is is society's revenge for the offence committed. The sentence should fit the crime and there should be an element of blame on the part of the offender."
This is society's way of providing consequence. The consequence must be of equal detriment.



Fourth link* "Applied to law it simply means recognizing that the criminal has done something wrong and taking revenge on behalf of both the victim and society as a whole." Or in other words, recognizing that someone has done something wrong, and then providing the consequence.



fifth link*"This element is intended to show public revulsion from the offence spelt out to punish the offender for his wrong conduct"
It is to show that we do not think what is done is appropriate, and then bring consequence to action.


I think the problem between you and I is what our usage of the word revenge means. There are a few of them...do you ascribe spite to revenge? If so you aren't assigning the appropriate definition of the word at the right time when point these out. And if you don't, then the point of our arguing doesn't exist. Revenge in the sense that they are using is just providing equality for actions.

Like I said, if you are ascribing to spite, then we would be torturing torturers as we speak. This would be the literal "eye for an eye." You know, that thing you brought up so many times with the "just deserts" examples?

So first "punishment" does not equal revenge/retribution, in your opinion.

I give examples and prove that it does.

So now, having conceded on fallacy one, you agree that it means revenge/retribution, the latter being actively cited in many articles. But instead you change your story and now when the law
says "revenge/retribution", it actually does not mean "revenge/retribution".

Originally Posted by psychology student

So first "punishment" does not equal revenge/retribution, in your opinion.

I give examples and prove that it does.

So now, having conceded on fallacy one, you agree that it means revenge/retribution, the latter being actively cited in many articles. But instead you change your story and now when the law
says "revenge/retribution", it actually does not mean "revenge/retribution".

No, read definitions. Revenge can mean many things, and from the very beginning I made it clear that I believe "It is a you made your bed now lay in it mentality. If you do something bad, you have to own up to your mistakes." Which leaves only the definition of spite left to be arguing about if I'm saying the law doesn't use. From the start it was clear I was using the spiteful definition, and the sources your using are not.

Here are some examples about how the word means different things at different times.

1. The act of taking vengeance for injuries or wrongs; retaliation.
2. Something done in vengeance; a retaliatory measure.
3. A desire for revenge; spite or vindictiveness.
4. An opportunity to retaliate, as by a return sports match after a defeat.

I have literally used the word spite repetively to make sure you understood the definition I was using.

Source 1:


"RETRIBUTION
This is the idea of giving a punishment because the defendant deserves a punishment because of their actions. It is not a punishment that will try and reduce this type of crime or try to stop the offender from reoffending.
In the 19th century Kant expressed his views in The Metaphysical Elements Of Justice, where he wrote:
åJudicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crimeπ.
From this we can derive that retribution is only concerned with the offence that was committed and making sure that the punishment given to the defendant is in direct proportion to the offence.
Retribution can also be seen in the bible where it is written åan eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a lifeπ. When a murder was committed and the death penalty was the punishment, this is how it was justified.
In the White Paper of 1990, Crime, Justice and protecting the public, reference was made to the need for sentences to achieve åjust desertsπ, and also stating that punishments should match the harm done, and also show societyπs disapproval of that harm.
But the problem with retribution is that other external factor can intervene with their sentence. For example, if a defendants sentence is to pay a fine, but they cannot afford to pay it as they are too poor they could end up serving a prison sentence.
The choice of punishment can also be affected by whether the offender comes from a stable background with a job, they are more likely to get a non-custodial sentence than those without".


Source 2:


"Retribution
• “An eye for an eye…..”
• Based on the idea of punishment because the
offender deserves it.
• No attempt to alter D’s future behaviour".

Source 3:

Retribution (Punishment)
This is society's revenge for the offence committed. The sentence should fit the crime and there should be an element of blame on the part of the offender. This means that a mentally ill person, for example, would not be punished, i.e. should not be subject to retribution.

Source 4:

Within the English legal system there are six different aims of sentencing. They will be considered when trying to place an appropriate sentence and will be present within that decision either alone or in combination. Retribution is one of the six aims of sentencing and is defined as the punishment inflicted in moral outrage or personal vengeance. Applied to law it simply means recognizing that the criminal has done something wrong and taking revenge on behalf of both the victim and society as a whole. Retribution is a priority in most sentences and In the White Paper of 1990, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, reference was made to the need for sentences to achieve 'just desserts', stating that punishments should match the harm done. Retribution is also based on the idea of tariff sentencing and that each particular offence should have particular guidelines...

Source 5:

Punishment
sometimes referred to as Retribution.
This element is intended to show public revulsion from the offence (this has been a constant theme since the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1953) spelt out to punish the offender for his wrong conduct R v Blake [1962] QBD George Blake an infamous spy was given 42 year prison sentence
Lord Hilbery:
"This sentence had a threefold purpose. It was intended to be punitive, it was deigned and calculated to deter others, and it was meant to be a safeguard to this country."

I am right.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Source 1:
I am right.

That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just because you chose to ignore the way I was using the word, doesn't mean I'm incorrect.

Yes you are.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yes you are.

So then the law is about spite?

Originally Posted by Sandform

So then the law is about spite?

There are elements of revenge/retribution within it.

Originally Posted by psychology student

There are elements of revenge/retribution within it.

And when you say revenge/retribution, you mean spite?(yes or no)

Originally Posted by Sandform

And when you say revenge/retribution, you mean spite?(yes or no)

No, when I say revenge/retribution, I mean revenge/retribution.

Originally Posted by psychology student

No, when I say revenge/retribution, I mean revenge/retribution.

And revenge has spite in as one of its definitions. I was arguing against spite, I even made it clear...

Originally Posted by sandform

I think maybe we should clarify here...what I'm saying is that the law isn't to make the people enforcing the law feel better...it is to force people to take responsibility."

By punishing people they feel better (in other words spite, of feeling a need to see others suffer).

This whole argument was over a semantic principle.

Originally Posted by Sandform

This whole argument was over a semantic principle.

My argument was consistent from the beginning; you say that now, but, you are the one who contested the word in the first place; and now you are trivialising the debate that you started.

Originally Posted by psychology student

My argument was consistent from the beginning; you say that now, but, you are the one who contested the word in the first place; and now you are trivialising the debate that you started.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Doing things out of vindictiveness is wrong.

Castrating a molester. Justice or vengeful?

Vengeful if because your angry.

Justifiable if because you want to prevent him from molesting further children. Though I'm sure if he still felt like it there are other ways.

It was pretty obvious which word I was using the word vindictive which means "Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful."

After this point, ever further time you tried to argue was you trying to spin semantics.

I brought the words into conversation anyway to refute the idea that a deterministic world is a get out of jail free card. Without a vindictive spirit, the law is still the law, and you seem to think that we punish people out of a desire to see them suffer for our own benefit, such is the only thing that would not be allowed in a deterministic viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Sandform

It was pretty obvious which word I was using the word vindictive which means "Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful."

After this point, ever further time you tried to argue was you trying to spin semantics.

No! I only used the words retribution/revenge/vengeance. All words consistent with the aim of sentencing I was trying to show you to prove my point. You were the one who was playing politics with semantics.

Originally Posted by psychology student

No! I only used the words retribution/revenge/vengeance. All words consistent with the aim of sentencing I was trying to show you to prove my point. You were the one who was playing politics with semantics.

Here is the thing, I was defining what I was saying (because there are double meanings)`, so if at any point when I was referring to what I was believing you were believing I was incorrect, you should have told me, it would have saved a lot of trouble so we wouldn't have this stupid debate over nothing.

The point remains that incurring consequence for some one's crimes is still allowable under deterministic theory, you provide consequence to provide a separate conscience, to keep order, and to prevent further infractions from not only them but others. The specific punishment is based on what they deserve for the infraction. If they hurt someone, they deserve to make reperations, if they violated the law and did something that caused damage to society, they deserve to do something to make amends, by serving time or fines or whatever else. When a person does something that causes negative effects on society, they must make amends, which is how you determine what they "deserve." This is in no way changed under a deterministic view in society, as you would say it does.


Edit: The punishment is based on what they must do to make amends, or in otherwords based on what they deserve, the reason they are punished is to deter crime. Or I should say, the reason there is punishment. When you cause "pain and suffering" in order to make amends you must do something that incurs pain and suffering upon yourself. This is not done out of spite but out of need for a necessity in order to keep balance in society. This means in a deterministic view point, the law still works.

I will give an honest and short answer to the thread question, Who created God?

We did.

In my honest opinion, we created God in thought, he is an idea, nothing more nothing less. God is an idea which gives humans hope, something to look forward to...something to give them positive thoughts about death.

God was created to create a sense of security in early human civilizations, early humans were fascinated by the stars and the sun and the weather the seasons....etc

They could not explain what made these forces work, so they created a being which would in turn make people feel safe, people had something concrete to believe in, which brought humans together, it created bonds between people.

But in my opinion, God is outdated, our new God is physical evidence from science to all these questions we once had as a species.