Reply to Re: Religion
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
That is hard to say and also of little import here because unless you can establish that God is NOT impossible we have no grounds to say that it is at all possible or how probable it is. Right now this 'God' is no more possible than a square shaped circle.
...because he can't be both omniscient and have free will. On some different argument about why he can't exist, I might agree, but this one is just crappy.
False. That I WOULD change my mind if I found out I weas somehow wrong only means that I am not dogmatic. I stand by the fact that God, as defined by most monotheisms, is impossible and I have even gone so far as to prove this with sound argument.
Meh, it's just a minor semantic difference again.
Again, this is STILL a straw man fallacy. Reiterating that you happen to believe this or not realize that it is a straw man does not change the fact. If I were to go after you by saying "I don't think you should be defending child molestation!" then it does not matter whether I believe you are "coming across as..." a child molester. I am still beating down a position you do not actually hold adn one that is far easier to beat down than your actual argument/position.
An Ad hominem argument may not diminish the validity of the original argument itself, but it can be used to show that the opposition is biased to holding their position because they are this and that. A criminal defending criminal acts is not very credible even if their logic is sound.
If it is not rational then how do you ascertain it being "possible"?! That does not make any sense. The only way to establish that soemthing is possible is through rationality.
It's possible because it's not impossible, duh. As you yourself put it:
Yes, in MOST cases it is impossible to prove a negative. Santa Claus, giant radioactive dinosaurs etc. would all apply here. But there IS one exception and that is in things which are logically contradictory. To those the 'Can't prove a negative' rule does not apply.
I don't think "omniscience - free will" proves the point that god is logically contradictory. (Furthermore, even if you could prove that, it's still not convincing enough to bury the whole possibility, but that was the "anything is possible" argument.)
When you say "Doesn't the birth of the world itself go against the law of non-contradiction?" you are making the assertion or strong implication that the "birth of the world" is somehow, at the very least improbable. AS if there were some way we could retroactively assign any likelihood other than 100% to the "birth of the world".
I think you're confused by me wording it as "birth of the world". I was talking about the beginning of existence itself and that only.
And while it is not true that the "world" has always existed, you seem to be ignoring the fact that existence ITSELF has always been. Something has ALWAYS existed and given rise to other things in an endless chain of cause and effect.
I haven't ignored that, on the contrary, I conceded it's the most likely explanation.
Well, as soon as you are able to find this other aspect of reality where logic does not apply then we can examine this and try to determine whether God is possible in this 'other reality' but until then you are just offering an appeal to ignorance here. It is even worse than the infamous 'God of the gaps' argument because you are not even referring to an actual 'gap' but rather to a 'potential gap' for which you have no grounds to even think is real.
It's a valid argument for god not being impossible. Not for god existing, but that's not what I've ever said. Appeal to ignorance works both ways too, you can't know that common logic will always apply everywhere/under all conditions with certainty because a large chunk of "everywhere" is still unknown.
False. The very definition of free will necessitates such. If you are NOT pondering decisions then you are merely acting according to your 'programming'/predestination.
The nature of free will is very much a contested subject in itself. I don't think it exists in the sense you think it must, which I have been trying to explain.
So you agree that God could not have both free will and omniscience then? That is my only point here. That a being so defined as having both of these traits cannot exist.
Cannot actively think and decide stuff, no. But free will is a fallacy to an extent anyway.
False. You WOULD lose your free will for the very reasons I have repeatedly outlined for you. If you became omniscient tomorrow then at that point you would KNOW whether or not you walked to the pub for free beer night on Tuesday. Therefore you CANNOT make a decision to do other than what you KNOW you are to do. The future becomes indistinguishable from the past for an omniscient being and you can no more decide on a future course of action than you can decide to un-eat the bowl of cereal you had for breakfast and instead have pancakes yesterday.
Even worse for God since he is defined as being ETERNALLY omniscient. There is NO point in his history when he did not know exactly every detail that would come to pass.
I did understand you correctly then, I thought perhaps we were having a miscommunication somewhere. You certainly don't seem to be getting my view since you have repeatedly outlined something I haven't denied (save for making it sound like that in my first post).
In order to have free will you do not need to make a "superficial choice". You have to be able to make a CHOICE. To ponder multiple courses of action and chose one(or more). If you KNOW with absolute certainty that you WILL do *THIS* then you CANNOT choose to do *THAT*.
Think of it from a different angle. Yes, he knows with absolute certainty what he will do, but what is that foreknowledge based on? Who decides the future? If some kind of preordained fate exists, THAT would undermine free will. If the knowledge is based on his own personality, however, he would never be forced to go against his will. Consciously thinking and deciding on what to do then would be superficial, something he would not need to do even if he could.
But that is exactly what I am contesting here. You are asserting that they have "proof"(which is itself absurd!) and going so far to put their poor evidence on equal footing with the rational arguments against God's existence and thus far you only offer the bald assertion fallacy to support this. You are basically saying "Your(meaning MY) argument is just as bad as their arguments!" without showing this to be so.
Proof by contradiction itself is a rational argument, but if the alleged contradiction doesn't exist, it's very much on par with other irrational beliefs like that. This also brings me to something I heelkick myself in the groin for having ignored in the first place:
Not really. One reason I never use the "Can God create a rock so heavy...?" argument is because it does not really apply. "All powerful" does not mean "Able to do the logically impossible". A 'rock' by definition MUST be 'lift-able' or it is not a rock and if it is lift-able then an all powerful being can lift it.
Actually, it seems rather irrational that you would define omnipotence as being relative, but at the same time arguing about complete omniscience being at odds with free will, and claiming this to be proof of something. Relative omniscience (ie. "All knowing" does not mean "Able to know the logically impossible") doesn't cancel free will even if you believe it to exist in the fullest sense (that a person can freely choose between different options "on the fly").
And I wish you luck with disproving my argument. A few have tried over the years...
Braggart.
Wow. I will take that as a compliment since Epicurus' famous 'Riddle'(now commonly known as "The Problem of Evil") remains a sound argument against omnibenevolent gods. But you are again trying a straw man here by painting the "Problem of Evil" in a simplistic light(but you have not done so badly that this is worth getting into).
Both the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Problem of Evil are sound arguments against specific God-concepts being possible. Simply asserting that you don't like them without being able to show them to be flawed does nothing to help your case.
Argh, I should have guessed you would not agree on that. It's an absurd argument to use because it's too complicated, there are too many uncertain variables surrounding it. Evil/good being far from objective values, free will, other entities' influence (hail satan), just to think up a few.
Also, not every simplification/comparison is a strawman argument. That's only if the simplification/comparison is flawed, otherwise it's just getting at the heart of the problem.
Yes, it does! It cannot even BER a "theory" without adhering to the principle of Parsimony/Occam's razor. At best it can only be a groundless hypothetical speculation.
Whatever the terms used, the simplest answer is not always right no matter how you look at it. Say you have an apple tree on a yard, and a wormy apple is lying on the ground.
A) It fell to the ground by itself.
B) Someone removed it from the tree because it's wormy.
Occam's razor favours the first explanation because it assumes less. That doesn't make the second explanation unlikely, it could easily have been what really happened.
Yes and no(and I am perplexed that you think scientists looking for rational/understandable explanations is a BAD thing?!). Science is basically the study of that which exists, regardless of how it exists. Science does not deal with groundless speculations of things which, by definition could not be understood.
The point was that if it really WAS supernatural and NOT explainable, scientists would never yield to that. Seeking to explain stuff is good, but also a convenient way to deny the existence of anything supernatural ever. You've probably experienced stuff that you couldn't explain in your life. There must be a logical explanation, even if you do not know what it was. But that's just an assumption that you make because you don't BELIEVE in the supernatural. The scientific view ASSUMES the nonexistence of this stuff, it's not like things that cannot be explained don't ever happen.
But 'Neutrality' does NOT mean we should believe ALL claims are possible. What you consider "negative" I believe IS the 'neutral' stance of science. We get fooled by the semantics here into believing that the "neutral" stance is to grant an undeserved "possibility" to all manner of silly claims and this is not only false but an absurd way to go about the study of reality.
Good point, but problems arise when no consideration is given to claims that do deserve it. As I can't think of a good example, though, this is moot. I'll get back to this if one does come to my mind later.
...because he can't be both omniscient and have free will. On some different argument about why he can't exist, I might agree, but this one is just crappy.
False. That I WOULD change my mind if I found out I weas somehow wrong only means that I am not dogmatic. I stand by the fact that God, as defined by most monotheisms, is impossible and I have even gone so far as to prove this with sound argument.
Meh, it's just a minor semantic difference again.
Again, this is STILL a straw man fallacy. Reiterating that you happen to believe this or not realize that it is a straw man does not change the fact. If I were to go after you by saying "I don't think you should be defending child molestation!" then it does not matter whether I believe you are "coming across as..." a child molester. I am still beating down a position you do not actually hold adn one that is far easier to beat down than your actual argument/position.
An Ad hominem argument may not diminish the validity of the original argument itself, but it can be used to show that the opposition is biased to holding their position because they are this and that. A criminal defending criminal acts is not very credible even if their logic is sound.
If it is not rational then how do you ascertain it being "possible"?! That does not make any sense. The only way to establish that soemthing is possible is through rationality.
It's possible because it's not impossible, duh. As you yourself put it:
Yes, in MOST cases it is impossible to prove a negative. Santa Claus, giant radioactive dinosaurs etc. would all apply here. But there IS one exception and that is in things which are logically contradictory. To those the 'Can't prove a negative' rule does not apply.
I don't think "omniscience - free will" proves the point that god is logically contradictory. (Furthermore, even if you could prove that, it's still not convincing enough to bury the whole possibility, but that was the "anything is possible" argument.)
When you say "Doesn't the birth of the world itself go against the law of non-contradiction?" you are making the assertion or strong implication that the "birth of the world" is somehow, at the very least improbable. AS if there were some way we could retroactively assign any likelihood other than 100% to the "birth of the world".
I think you're confused by me wording it as "birth of the world". I was talking about the beginning of existence itself and that only.
And while it is not true that the "world" has always existed, you seem to be ignoring the fact that existence ITSELF has always been. Something has ALWAYS existed and given rise to other things in an endless chain of cause and effect.
I haven't ignored that, on the contrary, I conceded it's the most likely explanation.
Well, as soon as you are able to find this other aspect of reality where logic does not apply then we can examine this and try to determine whether God is possible in this 'other reality' but until then you are just offering an appeal to ignorance here. It is even worse than the infamous 'God of the gaps' argument because you are not even referring to an actual 'gap' but rather to a 'potential gap' for which you have no grounds to even think is real.
It's a valid argument for god not being impossible. Not for god existing, but that's not what I've ever said. Appeal to ignorance works both ways too, you can't know that common logic will always apply everywhere/under all conditions with certainty because a large chunk of "everywhere" is still unknown.
False. The very definition of free will necessitates such. If you are NOT pondering decisions then you are merely acting according to your 'programming'/predestination.
The nature of free will is very much a contested subject in itself. I don't think it exists in the sense you think it must, which I have been trying to explain.
So you agree that God could not have both free will and omniscience then? That is my only point here. That a being so defined as having both of these traits cannot exist.
Cannot actively think and decide stuff, no. But free will is a fallacy to an extent anyway.
False. You WOULD lose your free will for the very reasons I have repeatedly outlined for you. If you became omniscient tomorrow then at that point you would KNOW whether or not you walked to the pub for free beer night on Tuesday. Therefore you CANNOT make a decision to do other than what you KNOW you are to do. The future becomes indistinguishable from the past for an omniscient being and you can no more decide on a future course of action than you can decide to un-eat the bowl of cereal you had for breakfast and instead have pancakes yesterday.
Even worse for God since he is defined as being ETERNALLY omniscient. There is NO point in his history when he did not know exactly every detail that would come to pass.
I did understand you correctly then, I thought perhaps we were having a miscommunication somewhere. You certainly don't seem to be getting my view since you have repeatedly outlined something I haven't denied (save for making it sound like that in my first post).
In order to have free will you do not need to make a "superficial choice". You have to be able to make a CHOICE. To ponder multiple courses of action and chose one(or more). If you KNOW with absolute certainty that you WILL do *THIS* then you CANNOT choose to do *THAT*.
Think of it from a different angle. Yes, he knows with absolute certainty what he will do, but what is that foreknowledge based on? Who decides the future? If some kind of preordained fate exists, THAT would undermine free will. If the knowledge is based on his own personality, however, he would never be forced to go against his will. Consciously thinking and deciding on what to do then would be superficial, something he would not need to do even if he could.
But that is exactly what I am contesting here. You are asserting that they have "proof"(which is itself absurd!) and going so far to put their poor evidence on equal footing with the rational arguments against God's existence and thus far you only offer the bald assertion fallacy to support this. You are basically saying "Your(meaning MY) argument is just as bad as their arguments!" without showing this to be so.
Proof by contradiction itself is a rational argument, but if the alleged contradiction doesn't exist, it's very much on par with other irrational beliefs like that. This also brings me to something I heelkick myself in the groin for having ignored in the first place:
Not really. One reason I never use the "Can God create a rock so heavy...?" argument is because it does not really apply. "All powerful" does not mean "Able to do the logically impossible". A 'rock' by definition MUST be 'lift-able' or it is not a rock and if it is lift-able then an all powerful being can lift it.
Actually, it seems rather irrational that you would define omnipotence as being relative, but at the same time arguing about complete omniscience being at odds with free will, and claiming this to be proof of something. Relative omniscience (ie. "All knowing" does not mean "Able to know the logically impossible") doesn't cancel free will even if you believe it to exist in the fullest sense (that a person can freely choose between different options "on the fly").
And I wish you luck with disproving my argument. A few have tried over the years...
Braggart.
Wow. I will take that as a compliment since Epicurus' famous 'Riddle'(now commonly known as "The Problem of Evil") remains a sound argument against omnibenevolent gods. But you are again trying a straw man here by painting the "Problem of Evil" in a simplistic light(but you have not done so badly that this is worth getting into).
Both the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Problem of Evil are sound arguments against specific God-concepts being possible. Simply asserting that you don't like them without being able to show them to be flawed does nothing to help your case.
Argh, I should have guessed you would not agree on that. It's an absurd argument to use because it's too complicated, there are too many uncertain variables surrounding it. Evil/good being far from objective values, free will, other entities' influence (hail satan), just to think up a few.
Also, not every simplification/comparison is a strawman argument. That's only if the simplification/comparison is flawed, otherwise it's just getting at the heart of the problem.
Yes, it does! It cannot even BER a "theory" without adhering to the principle of Parsimony/Occam's razor. At best it can only be a groundless hypothetical speculation.
Whatever the terms used, the simplest answer is not always right no matter how you look at it. Say you have an apple tree on a yard, and a wormy apple is lying on the ground.
A) It fell to the ground by itself.
B) Someone removed it from the tree because it's wormy.
Occam's razor favours the first explanation because it assumes less. That doesn't make the second explanation unlikely, it could easily have been what really happened.
Yes and no(and I am perplexed that you think scientists looking for rational/understandable explanations is a BAD thing?!). Science is basically the study of that which exists, regardless of how it exists. Science does not deal with groundless speculations of things which, by definition could not be understood.
The point was that if it really WAS supernatural and NOT explainable, scientists would never yield to that. Seeking to explain stuff is good, but also a convenient way to deny the existence of anything supernatural ever. You've probably experienced stuff that you couldn't explain in your life. There must be a logical explanation, even if you do not know what it was. But that's just an assumption that you make because you don't BELIEVE in the supernatural. The scientific view ASSUMES the nonexistence of this stuff, it's not like things that cannot be explained don't ever happen.
But 'Neutrality' does NOT mean we should believe ALL claims are possible. What you consider "negative" I believe IS the 'neutral' stance of science. We get fooled by the semantics here into believing that the "neutral" stance is to grant an undeserved "possibility" to all manner of silly claims and this is not only false but an absurd way to go about the study of reality.
Good point, but problems arise when no consideration is given to claims that do deserve it. As I can't think of a good example, though, this is moot. I'll get back to this if one does come to my mind later.
