The Dink Network

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

I'm not going to repeat myself after every quote, try reading the whole post.

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?

There was no strawman. I was essentially saying you are too sure of yourself, attacking your person instead of the argument you're putting forth.

scratcher: "When talking of highly theoretical concepts, god, the universe, how can you be so certain your logic and laws will always be absolute and flawless?"

SkeleTony: Straw man.

You cannot hide nonsensical postulations behind the constructed straw man of some self-important guy who thinks his ideas are "flawless" and such because that has no bearing on MY case.

Scratcher: some self-important guy who thinks his ideas are "flawless"

That is what you've been coming across as.

SkeleTony: 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.

Scratcher: 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.

SkeleTony: 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?

As you can see, it was you brought up the criminal example as well.

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?

Absolutely nothing, I brought it up because YOU seem to be having trouble with it:

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.

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.

There's no need to repeat what you said earlier, especially when I haven't disagreed.

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 have already countered your proof. Pretending that I've just been saying "FALSE" after every quote does not make your beliefs more convinvcing.

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.

Uh-huh. That I was talking about the beginning of existence before I conceded your view makes sense does not change it into me having talked of something else. You are welcome to read the relevant parts of the posts again, I really don't understand what is not completely obvious about what I was talking of here.

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.

As you yourself have said at least twice now, it's impossible to prove a negative (unless it violates the law of non-contradiction).

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!"

Yes, indeed, valid reasoning to support the fact we do not know things for sure. The limitation is this reasoning can't be used to argue that a four-sided circle, or anything else is MORE believable than any other contradictory claim.

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?

Irrelevant how? Oh, and the difference is clearly that the other exists outside our imaginations. I'm sure it makes a rather big difference to that creature.

You are a determinist then?

I feel no need to label myself as such. If I were to say "yes, I am a determinist" that would mean adopting or at least being thought of as believing in whatever views that label encompasses. If my views seem to go hand-in-hand with deteminism, that's cool, it just means other people agree with them.

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.

Yes, the meaning of words is irrelevant to a sentence built up of those words. Wait, what? Hahahahahaha.

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).

I have not said that. That is merely from your point of view, that is, "total omniscience is incompatible with free will, when we assume free will to mean that one can at any point freely choose between different options."

This is fine to have as a belief, but WHEN YOU TRY TO PASS YOUR POINT OF VIEW AS UNIVERSAL FACT IT DOES NOT QUITE HOLD UP.

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.

Again, I am using two sentences following each other to explain my position better, and you are cutting the sentences apart and responding like they are two completely different claims.

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 no one does, how the duck can god even DO anything? He can't decide anything, he's not acting based on the programming that he has in his own head, there is no fate. He would just be... frozen.

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

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

If he knows he will do SOMETHING, the knowledge of the SOMETHING he will do must come from SOMEWHERE. If there is no origin, he could never see himself do anything at all, he would just be, stay still.

That doesn't seem like a bad argument against total omnisciene being possible, actually. But it's not what you've been saying.

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

I agree with that, I do not disagree with it, as long as we are talking of total omniscience. What YOU don't realize is that my point of view doesn't necessitate being able to do that.

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

Bullshoot.

And before you can tell that "saying that it hasn't been demonstrated isn't a good argument", saying that it HAS been demonstrated isn't a good argument either. I have countered your demonstration multiple times, and your primary defence seems to be saying FALSE and repeating what you have already said over and over again.

If you just don't agree with me, that's cool. But that's the whole point, your demonstration is just a BELIEF that you have no way of proving to be a FACT.

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 am not trying to redefine omniscience, there's just no single mutually-agreed definition of it. I'm sure all religionists, even those believing in the same god, don't agree with each other on exactly what omnipotence and omniscience encompass. That "some people you asked about them" agreed with each other isn't saying much.

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".

And if we assume that free will exists in the fullest sense of the word, it's logically impossible for god to know with absolute certainty what he will do in the future. Then something IS inherently wrong with that definition. You're just assuming that omniscience is possible by default, but we can just as well apply that assumption to free will.

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.

"Good" loses it's meaning without "Evil". Maybe it's a... necessary evil. Perhaps god wants to test people to determine who should get to heaven and who should not, as Krisknox said. Maybe the existence of evil is good for us on the grand scale. Maybe we still need to be punished for having sinned back in da garden.

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?

The most objectionable part of this riddle is the "Is He able, but not willing, Then He is malevolent." part. Not preventing evil does not automatically render him evil as well. The reasons for why he might not want to do this are numerous, a few of which I listed above.

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.

Yeah, you are right.

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).

Not what you said before:

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).

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.

Not really.

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).

The only difference between this and my example is that you add another, completely absurd option. The second option ALSO entails an unnecessary multiplication of entities, someone needs to come and pick the apple, of which having happened absolutely no evidence exists of. Occam's razor/law of parsimony still dictates that we pick the first option, the first and the second one are not equal. And by all means, the first option is the MOST LIKELY explanation, but that doesn't mean the second option is impossible.

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!

Not what I'm saying here. A supernatural occurrence wouldn't be provable, so scientists would (likely) never be able to prove it's an unexplainable phenomenom. And before you restart what we've already been through, this is not a bad thing, this is just how it is.

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.

Why would I when you do it for me? Should I disagree...? Concurrently observable doesn't mean it has to be explainable, so this definition does not make supernaturality impossible.

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.

There is, but if you do experience something you can't explain, you should seek to find logical explanations for why it happened, NOT just conclude the matter at that point because one MUST exist because you do not believe in the supernatural.

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.

I'll have to disagree, most people aren't so deluded and unreasonable with their beliefs as you seem to think. Most people, even most religionists, will admit truth IF you can demonstrate it to a reasonable degree. That's why most religionists have bent back to put god "in the gaps" and claim that evolution doesn't contradict creation, et cetera. Once you can really prove that god is impossible, most people will admit that too even if they wish to believe in him.

As for me denying the "truth" because I do not want to accept it, seeing as I don't really believe in the existence of a supernatural world, that's just not it.

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

Just one.

Go ahead and try.

Ghosts! Plenty of evidence (photos, videos, sounds) exist to support that these things do exist.

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?!

Not assenting is one thing, flat-out refusing because you do not believe it's possible is another. I'll have to take back something I said in the last post:

SkeleTony: 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.

scratcher: 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.

I was wrong to have leaned towards your argument. In order to stay unbiased, you DO need to consider all manner of silly claims. Even if it's a very short consideration, this is a necessary step in order to maintain your integrity.