Counter this argument!

[MilesAbove]

If you're muddled thinking is any indication of where you studied logic, I think I'll decline, thanks.

The argument being proposed is that "God" gave man free will. Omniscience and omnipotence are attributes of God, part of his definition. Words have meaning and implication when applied to logic.

You introduced an argument of man creating a limited framework of mazes for a mouse, and drew the conclusion that the mouse still has free will, despite the fact that the man is aware of potential, limited outcomes. I am not contending that this is incorrect. I am stating that man is not equal to God. Man is not all-knowing and all-powerful. Your equivocation fails, regardless of whether or not we agree upon the conclusion, as God's aforementioned characteristics affect the argument.

You cannot divorce God's intentions (as a *creator* with omnipotence/omniscience) from a man's actions.

Do your best to study harder (or at all) in the future. It is not hard to parse the tangent that was taken, by me, to expose the error in thinking by the initial writer.

There is no amount of you wishing for a different argument that can invalidate the argument made to the assertion presented. That's the beauty of logic. One cannot construct a separate argument, knock it down, and claim to have crumbled the initial.

 

[unimackpass]

The god you reference is documented to be the lead purveyor of genocide and petty revenge. (biblically). Unless you have a wildly different idea of what love is your approach is futile.

Ok, now we're onto another discussion. First of all we're still dealing with myth and the progressive nature of revelation over the centuries. I like the discussion but I have to accomplish go something.

 

[unimackpass]

How do you know any of this? It makes literally zero sense. There is no logic in this rationalization. Speaking of synergy before a paradox does no work to explain or describe anything. You cant have everything pre ordained and then magically say that one can have free will. God has cut off all possibility of autonomy by knowing exactly what will happen in advance. It's like opening Lord of The Rings and pretending as if Tolkien wrote a book where Frodo defeats Sauron, yet gave us an open form book in which we can choose the ending.

How do you know it's not true. Your trying to put limited human reson on a God with no beginning or ending. How do you come up with such limitations? Everything isn't preordained. Everything is foreknown. The outcome is inevitable because even though I have freedom to move in chess wherever I want the grandmaster will win every time. He doesn't need to preordain my move to win . That would be a weak player.

This is normal christian theology so I'm surprised you're wondering where it came from. Maybe you started out with the TULIP?
Anyway, I'm off to accomplish something.

 

[hillelslovak87]

How do you know it's not true. Your trying to put limited human reson on a God with no beginning or ending. How do you come up with such limitations? Everything isn't preordained. Everything is foreknown. The outcome is inevitable because even though I have freedom to move in chess wherever I want the grandmaster will win every time. He doesn't need to preordain my move to win . That would be a weak player.

This is normal christian theology so I'm surprised you're wondering where it came from. Maybe you started out with the TULIP?
Anyway, I'm off to accomplish something.

If I have omniscience, and I have total control over everything in the universe I have created, and on top of that, I am at all places at all times, yes, the future is pre ordained. It's like saying "Of course I have free will, because the master says so!!"

I have had this non argument presented to me multiple times, and it has never been convincing.

Your first sentence shows the poverty of your argument. You, who know the attributes of God in many ways, and have a relationship with him, says we cannot understand him. He's consistently ruled by human passions, but when he tells us to dash baby heads against rocks, he's mysterious, and we cant judge him by our standards.

There is no logic to be had in that argument.

 

[Phr3121]

You can speak for god (who doesn't exist). I wonder which god you have chosen to speak for. You are so blinded you don't even see the level of delusion.

God doesn't exist? Really? Are you sure? How would you know? What brought you to that conclusion? And you can speak of His non existence? What makes you different from me? I'm blinded and delusional? You are the one who worships the Devil, Satan, Lucifer and belongs to the Satanic Church. So, the Devil exists but God doesn't. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Yeah, I wonder between the two of us who the really nutty one is?

 

[Phr3121]

Prove life is meaningful.

I already did on my earlier post. Prove life is not meaningful...

 

[mrbaapt]

Ok, now we're onto another discussion. First of all we're still dealing with myth and the progressive nature of revelation over the centuries. I like the discussion but I have to accomplish go something.

I'm not dealing with anything other than the causal vs free will paradox. You've provided nothing but nonsense on the topic, stay away.

 

[IDL]

Can this quagmire be summarized into this claim:

If someone knows what you are about to do, you are not freely doing it.

?

 

[mrbaapt]

I already did on my earlier post. Prove life is not meaningful...

Until you have proof it's meaningful, the default position is that it isn't. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

 

[Phr3121]

That is the logic of creationists themselves! That nothing can't come from nothing.

Oh yeah, lets use that argument. So, what came before the 'big bang' when the universe was created?

I think the Easter bunny is pink and Santa's robe is really purple. You are making shit up. That is not even in ancient scripture that the devil created himself. You are arguing about ferry tales, a delusion not worth entertaining.

Sure, so you don't have to defend the points that are raised. An easy 'cop out' answer on your part. Avoid the real argument with a bullshit answer.

Who created man according to you? God? And evil done by men is inadvertently done by god because he created us. Also all the random volcanoes and natural disasters that killed millions of innocents had nothing to do with man. It was all god's doing.

God created the universe, therefore man was created by God as part of that universe. No, evil done by man is part of choice. Yes, natural disasters are part of nature which was created by God. What does people dying as a result of natural disasters have to do with anything? Like you said, the Earth won't last forever.

No, the better question is why does god exist in the first place? Ask yourself if he allows both good and evil to exist.

Why does anything exist? ‘Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment. Then you will know the true God.’
Of course God allows both good and evil to exist. He allows man to exist does he not?

God is the most unpleasant character in all fiction. A Manacle, genocidal, homophobic, egomaniac.

Yes, I'm sure he can be all that in your fictional god. What about Satan? Is he the opposite?

He knew already before creating Adam that he would sin and be punished and burn. So why create him?

Adam was burned? That's news to me. Has the concept of redemption and forgiveness processed in that little brain of yours yet? The rest of the rubbish you quoted belongs to the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible. I tend to follow the New Testament. But again, both written by man, not God. For a non-believer you have sure spent a lot of time reading the Bible. But the Satanic Bible you do follow? No questions or doubts about that document?

Evolution is a hoax right?

No. How can evolution be a hoax if God created the universe? Evolution is a result of the development of the universe. I'm Roman Catholic, do you think I believe everything the Bible or the Vatican has to say? No, I don't. Again, the Bible was written by man, the Pope is a man. No need to watch your video, I already know where the story is going. My question to you is simple. Why do you think God does not exist but Satan does? What makes you believe in Satan? We both have our belief system don't we? So, what makes your system better than mine?

* Why do you keep changing your avatar between the Satanic star and Robert E. Lee and the Confederate flag? Is it like the flavor of the month? Tired of Satan, going back to Lee, no, tired of Lee, going back to Satan.

 

[Phr3121]

The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

Well, I'm not the claimant so I'm waiting for the proof.

 

[CauseImbetta]

God doesn't exist? Really? Are you sure? How would you know? What brought you to that conclusion? And you can speak of His non existence? What makes you different from me? I'm blinded and delusional? You are the one who worships the Devil, Satan, Lucifer and belongs to the Satanic Church. So, the Devil exists but God doesn't. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Yeah, I wonder between the two of us who the really nutty one is?

I don't worship anything or anyone. I am totally atheist.

The burden of proof is on those who make the claims. You believe in your gods, you need to prove it. Did you see the video I posted for you?

 

[Phr3121]

The burden of proof is on those who make the claims. You believe in your gods, you need to prove it. Did you see the video I posted for you?

Right, you made the claim that 'life is meaningless'. I'm still waiting for that proof. Did you miss the thread that dealt with God and religion? I talked about my God, my beliefs, and my proof in there. God, as in one, not gods. I don't have to prove anything. People can believe whatever they want. Faith has a lot to do with it, but you don't have it. ...and no need to go into the whole faith is a bullshit argument issue. I've heard that way too many times. I've been in too many of these religious arguments/debates here on Sherdog and it is a 'zero sum game'. Your questions, issues, and claims are nothing new, it has been debated for thousands of years. Did you read what I posted about your video?

 

[mrbaapt]

Well, I'm not the claimant so I'm waiting for the proof.

You claimed life is meaningful. Provide proof. Until there is credible proof there is no meaning. The same goes for your god.

 

[eworden78]

You claimed life is meaningful. Provide proof. Until there is credible proof there is no meaning. The same goes for your god.

If meaning is emergent and subjective, it's existence self evident. Simply stating, "For me, the meaning of life is X." would be proof of the existence of a meaning to at least one life.

Right?

 

[mrbaapt]

If meaning is emergent and subjective, it's existence self evident. Simply stating, "For me, the meaning of life is X." would be proof of the existence of a meaning to at least one life.

Right?

I was careful to mention "credible proof" as in objective and scientifically repeatable.

When backed into a corner Christians usually pull the "personal/secret revelation from god" reason out when they realize how flimsy faith based beliefs are.

 

[helltoupee]

Do your best to study harder (or at all) in the future. It is not hard to parse the tangent that was taken, by me, to expose the error in thinking by the initial writer.

There is no amount of you wishing for a different argument that can invalidate the argument made to the assertion presented. That's the beauty of logic. One cannot construct a separate argument, knock it down, and claim to have crumbled the initial.

False equivalencies are faulty logic.

You committed as much, with an analogy that associated man, with God. (Man knows potential outcomes/God knows THE outcome - Man did not create the mouse with all foreknowledge of it's actions/God does if he is omniscient.)

Therefore, your mouse analogy fails.

Now do me a favor.

1. Re-read your very last sentence above.

2. Next, take a gander at the post which I responded to, which was your attempt at refuting someone else's God argument with a man/mouse/maze analogy.

3. Listen real closely for the irony.

 

[helltoupee]

Can this quagmire be summarized into this claim:

If someone knows what you are about to do, you are not freely doing it.

?

Almost.

Not only does someone know what you are going to do, but they were aware of your actions while (and before) they were assembling you, meaning they built you to behave they way you did. That is not free will.

If I build an engine, having *unfettered knowledge into the future* that the manner in which I build it will perform at 200hp (let's say I have a future vision of it on a dyno machine), then the engine's output is predetermined.

 

[MilesAbove]

False equivalencies are faulty logic.

You committed as much, with an analogy that associated man, with God. (Man knows potential outcomes/God knows THE outcome - Man did not create the mouse with all foreknowledge of it's actions/God does if he is omniscient.)

Therefore, your mouse analogy fails.

Now do me a favor.

1. Re-read your very last sentence above.

2. Next, take a gander at the post which I responded to, which was your attempt at refuting someone else's God argument with a man/mouse/maze analogy.

3. Listen real closely for the irony.

"If the choice is known in advance, the choice is fake."

I attacked this premise with the story of a scientists who gives the rat dual option. Thus, a advanced knowledge of the option. Then noted why you can have both this and free will.

I won't be able to continue babysitting your poor logic. So I hope you take from this and learn... but this is sherdog and you've already shown an aversion to admitting when you misstep. So I'll simply wish you luck on your journey.

 

[IDL]

Almost.

Not only does someone know what you are going to do, but they were aware of your actions while (and before) they were assembling you, meaning they built you to behave they way you did. That is not free will.

If I build an engine, having *unfettered knowledge into the future* that the manner in which I build it will perform at 200hp (let's say I have a future vision of it on a dyno machine), then the engine's output is predetermined.

I dunno. You could build someone with free will but if you are also aware of what happens through time then you could see what they are going to do regardless. It wouldn't be that you built the decisions in, it would be that you can see what happens. I don't see how that violates free will.