The Dink Network

Scratcher:

"...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."

AGAIN, how so? Calling the argument "crappy" while being unable to refute(or seemingly even address it!) is...well, crappy!

"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."

And even if I COULD make sense of what you wrote above, what does this have to do with your committing the straw man? Who even mentioned ad hominems and what does this ambiguous reference to criminals with sound logic have to do with what we are discussing?

"It's possible because it's not impossible, duh."

Circular reasoning much?

" As you yourself put it:

(Me)"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."(/Me)."

What in my above are you having trouble with? In GENERAL it is usually impossible to prove a negative. But this rule does not apply to logically contradictory claims such as deities who are omni-just AND omni-merciful or a God who is omniscient AND has free will. Same thing applies to square shaped circles. These things are not subject to the "can't prove a negative" rule as they CAN be proven.

"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.)"

So you have claimed but until you are able to counter my proof to the contrary your bald assertion holds no water here. A being CANNOT be "omniscient"(as defined by the very monotheists who believe in such) AND able to make decisions. A decision can ONLY be made when knowledge is not certain and since God cannot be uncertain at ANY point, he cannot make decisions.

"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."

I am not the one confused here. Keep your above quote in mind for a minute and I will show you.

(Me)"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."(/Me)

(Scratcher)"I haven't ignored that, on the contrary, I conceded it's the most likely explanation."

Now I refer you back to the emboldened quote of yours above:

"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"

See what you did there? "Beginning of existence itself" does not jive with your new found agreement with my position that existence has NO beginning.

"It's a valid argument for god not being impossible."

False. Try forming that into a syllogistic argument if you think you can. What premises are you drawing this conclusion from? If you are simply going to assert that all things are possible then I do not grant that as a premise(and you would be inviting a whole truckload of other problems which I won't get into in this thread. Sagan already dealt with them anyway in his book Broca's Brain IIRC) because it is nonsensical.

"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.

And this same exact line of non-reasoning works equally well(or poorly rather) to support ANY assertion anyone can possibly make, no matter how silly or stupid. Even primes greater than '2'? Sure...because there may be some Bizarro-universe where math makes no sense and true quantification is impossible. Square shaped circles? Sure...because while such a postulation cannot make any sense rationally we will just dodge the whole matter by saying "Maybe there is a reality where four-sided circles are the norm!"

The obvious problem with such dodging about(aside from the fact that you are quite literally offering up NONSENSE as if it were an argument) is that any reality where logic does NOT hold sway is just as irrelevant as any 'unreal' claim. Such a reality becomes like Sagan's 'Garage Dragon'. What is the difference between an invisible, intangible creature who cannot effect the reality we share and a made up thing?

"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."

You are a determinist then? That is fine(whatever works for you) but it is irrelevant to my argument and our discussion. We are not debating whether free will actually exists in the way you or I might think it does. I am merely pointing out that God cannot be both omniscient and have free will. Saying that NO ONE can have free will does not change this even if I were to agree with such a belief myself(which I do not).

"Think of it from a different angle. Yes, he knows with absolute certainty what he will do, but what is that foreknowledge based on?

That question does not make any sense here. Regardless of what you might mean by the above, the point remains that he cannot have this infallible foreknowledge AND be able to make decisions.

"Who decides the future?

No one does in the concept you are advocating for. In a reality where that God exists, the future would be like a computer program which cannot be deviated from and thus no free will can happen.

"If some kind of preordained fate exists, THAT would undermine free will."

Not just "undermine" but completely THWART it...make it impossible!

"If the knowledge is based on his own personality, however, he would never be forced to go against his will.

WHAT "will"? He could have no "will" to do ANYTHING! That is my point!

And how can knowledge be based on someone's personality?!

"Consciously thinking and deciding on what to do then would be superficial, something he would not need to do even if he could."

He could not. That is my point(which you seem to alternatively agree with except for when you are trying to disagree...).

"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."

But this is irrelevant since the contradiction DOES exist and Has been demonstrated.

" This also brings me to something I heelkick myself in the groin for having ignored in the first place:

(Me)"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."(/Me)

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")."

Wrong. This is exactly why I let THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN An omniscient free-willed deity DEFINE the terms themselves. I am not the one defining "omniscience" here(and I was not the one who provided the above definition of "omnipotence" either). I asked Christians, Jews and Muslims(and a few others as well) and they ALL gave me the same definition of these terms.
Furthermore, if you want to redefine the term "omniscience" in a way that is less problematic for theists then knock yourself out! I have absolutely NO problem with your doing that and I wish you luck in both coming up with a sensible re-definition AND getting the theists to buy into it.

I do not think you CAN. I never contested the re-definition of "omnipotence" in regards to the "Can God create a rock so heavy...?" problem because that more refined definition simply made sense and did not trample all over existent terms already in use. "All powerful" does not entail the logically impossible because if it did then the term itself loses any real meaning. It becomes an empty word like "perfection" or some such when you strip the logical grounding.

But "omniscience" does not suffer this problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a being who knows the future as well as he knows the past and present and with absolute, infallible certainty.

The problems arise when you try to combine THAT trait with a trait like "free will".

"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.

This is somewhat true, but irrelevant. It does not matter how any particular being defines "good" and "evil" because the problem is with the very EXISTENCE of "evil" coinciding with the omnipresence of an omni-benevolent being.

Check it out:

The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing, Then He is malevolent.
Is He is both able and willing, Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing, Then why call Him God?

And the subjectivity of how "evil" might be defined only goes so far. Every monotheism has a holy book, said to be the word of God and within such are clearly outlined "evils" which God/Allah/Yahweh opposes.

"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."

Yeah but that is irrelevant to the fact that you DID commit a straw man. I did not charge you with "simplifying". I could not care less if you break down or simplify a point I make so long as you do not straw man me(attribute a much more absurd, easier to refute position to me and then tackle THAT construct rather than addressing my actual arguments).

"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."

False all around, as I explained in previous posts. Occam's Razor is NOT "The simplest answer is best/preferred". That is another of those mis-definitions that has crept into common usage. Occam's razor is the principle that one should never unnecessarily multiply entities for explanation.

HUGE difference.

A correct analogy would be:

You find a worm-eaten apple on the ground beneath the apple tree in your yard.

There are several possibilities in your mind as to how it got there:

1)It fell as apples commonly do.

2)Someone picked it and dropped it on the ground.

3)The apple fairies came and left a worm-eaten apple because they do not like you.

The first two possibilities are valid by Occam's razor. The third is invalid because it entails an unnecessary multiplication of entities(which would themselves require explanation and 'Extraordinary evidence' in like with the claim itself).

A common oft-cited example is the "God did it." explanation. Theists will often tell me that THAT is the "simplest" answer to many questions and since they are operating by a common misunderstanding of Occam's razor, they think this makes sense.

"The point was that if it really WAS supernatural and NOT explainable, scientists would never yield to that."

Couple problems with this. First of all, it is simply false and could not be more false if you tried. I am not sure where this bizarre idea came from that scientists are dogmatists who unanimously agree with one another and would not seek to crush the competition(other scientists) by being the first to substantiate some supernatural occurrence but please...stop it!

Secondly, the "supernatural" CANNOT exist so it would be rather pointless to to coddle you with contrary assertions about such. ANYTHING which exists in reality must by definition be NATURAL. Think about it for a minute guy...by what criteria are you able to distinguish the 'imaginary' from the 'real'? I am serious here...provide us with a definition of these two terms that is not ambiguous and by which you would be able to take any sufficiently defined existential claim and classify it as one or the other.

Hint: There are only a couple such criteria by which the 'real' can be distinguished from the imaginary:

1)Sense contents - Real things are concurrently observable, regardless of individual beliefs. You and I are both unable to walk through the same brick wall because it is real and not imaginary.

2)Linear sequence - Real things must abide by the linear cause and effect sequence whereas imaginary things are not bound by such.

Now I have been through this many times so I know full well you will try and object to the above and I also know full well that you will be unable to posit any argument to counter this. In fact I will go so far as to predict that you will be completely unable to cough up any definition of "real" and "imaginary" as per my request above.

"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 is a huge difference between "I am not sure what I just experienced" and "No one can possibly understand *THIS* because it is supernatural!". And there is nothing convenient about being a skeptic guy. We are the most openly vilified minority in existence, precisely because we do not go with the popular sentiments and grant undeserved assent to nonsensical supernatural claims.

Ironically most of your assertions about the supernatural seem to be convenient means of denying the truth about reality which you do not want to accept. As I often point out Reason and truth SELDOM trump belief. People will deny non-fantastic truths regardless of what evidence or argument exists.

" 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."

Name a single thing that "CANNOT" be explained by science/naturalism.

Just one.

Go ahead and try.

Don't you find it a tad ironic(to put it politely) that you are chastising naturalists for NOT assenting to irrational claims that are not in any way inferred by concurrent observation or controlled testing?!

No one wants or wanted for the supernatural to be real more than I did by the way guy. Not you, not J. Z. Knight, Not Shirley McClaine.

I just do not think reality configures itself to be in accordance with my wishes.