Where's everyone coming from

[Kyle]

1. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God (which I’m just going to call a tri-omni God from now on) could have created a world in which everyone freely chose to do the right thing. A common definition of all-powerfulness is having the ability to actualize any possible world. A possible world is one in which there are no logical contradictions. Thus a world in which there is a rock to heavy for God to lift is not a possible world. As there is no contradiction in a world in which everyone freely chooses to do the right thing, then a tri-omni God could have created such a world.

I have to admit you lost me on this one. What is the contradiction? I agree God could create a world in which everyone freely chose to the right thing. Are you implying because there are people that don't choose the right thing that God is not all-good?

Understandable. I notice I did fail to set up any contradictions using the argument. A few more premises are necessary:

A. In the actual world people make morally wrong choices rather often.
B. A tri-omni God would prefer a world in which people made morally correct choices.
C. A tri-omni God could have created such a world instead of this one.
D. Therefore a tri-omni God does not exist.

 

[Kyle]

I noticed that there was a lot of stuff in what you quoted me as saying that I didn't actually say. I'm pretty sure I figured out what was going on though and I separated stuff out into a more comprehensible form.

Paradoxes are just stuff that seems contradictory to us. This is different than a logical contradiction.

How is it different from a "logical" contradiction?

It only seems to be logical contradiction but is not.

If two statements logically contradict each other they cannot both be true at the same time. Nature is filled with seeming contradictions, not actual contradictions.

"Logic" can also be filled with seeming contradictions, especially when the former of the "proof" uses bad assumptions. Are you saying you are using no bad assumptions in your argument?

There is a difference between the logic being bad and the argument being bad. It is the difference between soundness and validity. Here is an example of an argument that is logically valid but is not sound because it has a false premise (namely the first one if it's not obvious, don't go questioning the second one:rolleyes5cz.

1. If someone is intelligent then they are a Hawkeye fan.
2. I am intelligent.
3. Therefore I am a Hawkeye fan.

In some of the arguments I put up there is a contradiction among the premises, which means that one must be false.

I always figured simple was better. Why use a complex argument when you can use a simple one? I'm still curious how it is incorrect.

In this case simple = simplistic. You can simply demonstrate using logic terms the existence of Euclidean geometry, and then Riemann comes by and destroys your entire paradigm.

Um, no you can't. Regarding geometry, Euclid's 1st 4 postulates are usually just taken as given. The fifth one (that parallel lines never intersect) cannot be proven from those four, and substituting other postulates for this one allows for a number of internally consistent geometries.

You are making the assumption that "good" and "evil" are exact opposites. What if "perfection" involves the existence of both? A question: How would you define "good" without the existence of "evil". Short answer, you could not. There can be no "good" without the existence of "bad" or "evil."

This is actually one of the better rebuttals, namely that there cannot be good without the contrasting of evil. The responses to this are:

1. It is not entirely obvious that this is the case. Does this mean that in the beginning God was not good? Will there always be evil for all of eternity?
2. The amount of evil required for this contrast should be fairly small. The amount of evil in the world is greater than what would be required to show what is good.

The special theory of relativity can be demonstrated to contradict fundamental logic. Something cannot be both infinitely massive, infinitely foreshortened, and exhibit time dilation just based on frame of reference.

Which is why the theory says nothing can reach the speed of light.

And can it be possible that a perfect God can exist, even if a puny man's tiny mind cannot grasp it?

Seemingly such is possible. If someone wants to just throw their hands up and say it is too difficult to comprehend how God can exist but still go on believing that is an option. That seems a rather specious way of belief formation to me though. Not to mention, if a God existed that wanted people to believe in him it wouldn't make much sense for there to be unresolvable arguments against his existence that his creation could understand.

One of the problems with the dialectic, is that "the winner takes all." Use of "superior" logic in an argument is assumed to "prove" "right" and "wrong", when in reality, all superior logic infers is that the user is a better logician.

Thats a rather cynical view, but probably right with regards to arguments among small numbers of people. However, if you know of a better way to debate I'd love to hear it.

 

[Kyle]

You are making the assumption that "good" and "evil" are exact opposites. What if "perfection" involves the existence of both?

Upon looking over my last post I realize I didn't fully answer this point, and it is a good one. One response to the problem of evil (which is far superior to the free will defense imo) is that evil is necessary for the existence of higher order goods, such as compassion, forgiveness, and bravery. I think someone advancing this argument and the existence of a tri-omni God still has to contend that the amount of evil in the world is "just right." In other words, that every instance of evil has a purpose. This argument is suspect imo, because it would seem that there is gratuitous and purposeless evil in the world. However, I can't prove that this is the case, which leaves open the possibility for this response to the problem of evil to be valid. That is why I change the argument a little into a "problem of eternal damnation." It is less susceptible to this type of challenge.

 

[tigershoops31]

3. The above arguments aren’t even the best ones IMO. My favorite comes from the nature of causation. If you are familiar with the theory of causal determinism this argument will sound familiar to you. However, I will also contend that the falsity of causal determinism doesn’t help the cause for free will either. The argument starts with the basic premise that:

A.For any event, there are either sufficient conditions to bring it about, or there are not sufficient conditions to bring it about.

An event is defined as any change over time. The above premise is necessarily true as it is of the form of “A or not A.â€￾ If there are sufficient conditions to bring about an event then that event must happen. If there are not sufficient conditions to bring about an event then it is at least partially uncaused. Either of these is rather damning to the case for free will.

If there are sufficient conditions to bring about every event (which would include a choice or action) then it would not be possible for anything to happen other than it does. Every action would be determined, thus why this theory is called determinism. On this worldview, one could also trace the responsibility for anything that happens back to God, as he would have been the one to set everything in motion. (Although if this theory is pursued to its logical conclusion even God’s actions would be determined.)

On the flip side, if there are not sufficient conditions for an event to occur, and yet it still does, then it was at least partially uncaused. Why did it happen? Who knows? The event just sort of randomly occurred. This is not to say that events of that type are not statistically predictable though (some theories of quantum mechanics would take this view). So, if an event (read choice) occurs without cause how exactly is that any more “freeâ€￾ than one which is determined? Additionally, how is it exactly that God would hold a person responsible for a choice that just randomly happened to be the way it was. Essentially, that person just got unlucky. Additionally, what about a world in which there is randomness would appeal to God such that he would create it that way?

I think you present some pretty valid questions. I believe that just because the sufficient conditions exist for an even to occur doesn't mean that it will occur. You could use an example of an alcoholic being in a room by themselves with a fully stocked bar. While it is pretty likely that they will drink, it is still their choice. I would argue that if they truly believed that there was a good reason for not drinking the alcohol (ie: somebody that they loved and who loved them and desired them not to drink), then the chances of their drinking the alcohol would be much less (although the chance/opportunity is still there).

Also to respond to your idea that God could have created a world in which there was free choice but that every choice was good and contained no evil, I would compare it to an incredibly rich guy that acts like he's not. If he were to let everybody know he was rich, they would likely gravitate towards him and treat him differently. Most people want to know that people like them for who they are, not what they have. I believe that in a (somewhat) similar way, God could have made us all love and worship Him, but He would much rather know that we are choosing to do so out of true love for Him rather than being forced to do so.

I know that the rich guy example isn't perfect because the rich guy isn't forcing everybody to love him, but it's the way I sometimes think about free will. Maybe a better example would be the difference between a rich guy's butler hanging out with him during the day when he's being paid, or choosing to come back and hang out after work just because he likes his boss's company.

 

[herbiedoobie]

Upon looking over my last post I realize I didn't fully answer this point, and it is a good one. One response to the problem of evil (which is far superior to the free will defense imo) is that evil is necessary for the existence of higher order goods, such as compassion, forgiveness, and bravery. I think someone advancing this argument and the existence of a tri-omni God still has to contend that the amount of evil in the world is "just right." In other words, that every instance of evil has a purpose. This argument is suspect imo, because it would seem that there is gratuitous and purposeless evil in the world. However, I can't prove that this is the case, which leaves open the possibility for this response to the problem of evil to be valid. That is why I change the argument a little into a "problem of eternal damnation." It is less susceptible to this type of challenge.

You seem to be fixated on "the amount of evil that is necessary". This implies that you, I, or any mere mortal can judge that. Perhaps we should argue about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".

And, yes, dilectics have absolutely no relevance vis-a-vis existence arguments.

Don't believe it?

Please prove that I do not have a dog. Feel free to use any modern or historic logical or scientific method to do so. And, take whatever time you need to do so.

The problem is, you are not in a position to "prove" that I have a dog or not.

Likewise, I propose that you, nor any philosopher or scientist or theologian are in a position to "prove" that God does not exist. On the basis of belief, I reject the entire framework you put forth. The entire attempt to "disprove" the existence of God is so far outside the realm and capabilities of human existence, why try?

Unless the possible existence of God is so terrifying that scientists and philosophers must, like ancient cavemen gathering around the fire for protection against wild beasts in the dark, feel compelled to make this argument as a spell against the possibilities that they are not the center of the Universe, and their rejection of God could cause their eternal damnation.

 

[CloneFan65]

Very funny. :laugh8kb:An "omniscient" God, who, by nature of being "all-powerful" CREATED TIME, cannot see into the future? Predestination is a very short-sighted "work around" created by folks with a very limited view of God. It humors me greatly when humans attempt to force God into a small box that they can understand better. Why can we not be happy with the unknowable?

Dogmatic doctrine which limits what God can or cannot do, is just as bad as atheistic rantings about "belief."

Let's see if I understand:

Herbiedoobie believes God created time.
If God created time he knows the future.
If God knows the future, the future has been determined (Predestination).
If someone believes in predestination they are short-sighted.

Therefore Herbiedoobie is short-sighted.

:laugh8kb:

I doubt this was your intended message, but this is exactly what you said.

You may need to re-read my post, or perhaps I need to explain it to you a little more clearly so you can understand.

 

[Kyle]

You seem to be fixated on "the amount of evil that is necessary". This implies that you, I, or any mere mortal can judge that. Perhaps we should argue about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".

Perhaps we cannot judge that with absolute certainty (which I admitted btw), but that does not mean we have no evidence to go by and that it doesn't make sense to use that evidence in the formation of beliefs.

And, yes, dilectics have absolutely no relevance vis-a-vis existence arguments.

Don't believe it?

Please prove that I do not have a dog. Feel free to use any modern or historic logical or scientific method to do so. And, take whatever time you need to do so.

The problem is, you are not in a position to "prove" that I have a dog or not.

This is far from an analogous argument. I don't have any evidence by which to make a judgment. However, I would contend that we have the information and tools necessary to at least meaningfully discuss, and often make conclusions about, all of the premises I put forth.

Likewise, I propose that you, nor any philosopher or scientist or theologian are in a position to "prove" that God does not exist. On the basis of belief, I reject the entire framework you put forth. The entire attempt to "disprove" the existence of God is so far outside the realm and capabilities of human existence, why try?

This is a bit of a cop-out imo. As I pointed out above, we have enough information to at least meaningfully debate all the premises of my argument. As Galileo said, " I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Unless the possible existence of God is so terrifying that scientists and philosophers must, like ancient cavemen gathering around the fire for protection against wild beasts in the dark, feel compelled to make this argument as a spell against the possibilities that they are not the center of the Universe, and their rejection of God could cause their eternal damnation.

Everyone searches for reasons to support their beliefs. Christians have been doing it for centuries, and have come up with some really awful arguments for God's existence. Besides that, what good are your beliefs if they have just been blindly accepted vs. formed through critical inquiry.

 

[ISU_phoria]

It all depends how the words are defined. I've seen too many arguments over it and am really fine with either one. If asked the question "Do you believe there is a god?" I would answer no. I figure this qualifies as atheist. If asked if it is possible for there to be a higher power of some type I would answer yes. Synthesize those into whatever label works. I went with agnostic atheist for a while. Something to keep in mind though is that a Christian who admits the possibility that there is not a god could be labeled an agnostic too if it is defined loosely. I've never heard the term agnostic Christian before, but it could make sense.

I certainly don't mean to criticize, but rather explain why I disagree about the possibility of an "agnostic Christian"

To be truly Christian means that one believes Christ (Jesus) is God. Someone might call themselves a Christian, but if there is no belief in Christ being God, then they are not truly Christian. Thus, someone describing themselves as agnostic, not knowing whether a God exists, could not be a Christian. Believing that Jesus was a real person, but not God, does not qualify as being a "Christian"

It would then be impossible for an "angostic Christian" to exist. This would be an oxy-moron.

 

[Kyle]

Let's see if I understand:

Herbiedoobie believes God created time.
If God created time he knows the future.
If God knows the future, the future has been determined (Predestination).
If someone believes in predestination they are short-sighted.

Therefore Herbiedoobie is short-sighted.

:laugh8kb:

I doubt this was your intended message, but this is exactly what you said.

I would dispute the truth of your fourth premise.

 

[Kyle]

I think you present some pretty valid questions. I believe that just because the sufficient conditions exist for an even to occur doesn't mean that it will occur. You could use an example of an alcoholic being in a room by themselves with a fully stocked bar. While it is pretty likely that they will drink, it is still their choice. I would argue that if they truly believed that there was a good reason for not drinking the alcohol (ie: somebody that they loved and who loved them and desired them not to drink), then the chances of their drinking the alcohol would be much less (although the chance/opportunity is still there).

If there are sufficient conditions for an event to occur then that event is guaranteed to occur. It does not just mean there is a "chance." Another way to think of it is that if there are sufficient conditions for the occurrence of every event then the true probability for every event that will occur is 100%. We just do not have sufficient information to accurately predict them. In the example you give, if it turns out that the guy chooses not to drink then there were not sufficient conditions to cause him to choose to drink.

Also to respond to your idea that God could have created a world in which there was free choice but that every choice was good and contained no evil, I would compare it to an incredibly rich guy that acts like he's not. If he were to let everybody know he was rich, they would likely gravitate towards him and treat him differently. Most people want to know that people like them for who they are, not what they have. I believe that in a (somewhat) similar way, God could have made us all love and worship Him, but He would much rather know that we are choosing to do so out of true love for Him rather than being forced to do so.

I know that the rich guy example isn't perfect because the rich guy isn't forcing everybody to love him, but it's the way I sometimes think about free will. Maybe a better example would be the difference between a rich guy's butler hanging out with him during the day when he's being paid, or choosing to come back and hang out after work just because he likes his boss's company.

If God created a world in which everyone freely chose to follow him how would those people be any less free than we are now?

 

[CloneFan65]

I would dispute the truth of your fourth premise.

I would too. That was Herbiedoobie's premise.

 

[CloneFan65]

Besides that, what good are your beliefs if they have just been blindly accepted vs. formed through critical inquiry.

Although we have reached different conclusions (I'm a Christian and you're an atheist), I agree 100% with this statement! :yes4lo:

 

[iowastatefan1929]

Considering that Catholics are truly Christians and Protestants are simply a heretical offshoot, then there should probably be a separation in the poll choices. You either accept the Catholic Church as the full truth, or you completely reject it. Furthermore, if you die with a unrepented mortal sin on your soul, you will go to Hell. Hell is forever. The only way to be forgiven of a mortal sin is through the sacrament of confession, followed by repentance. Beg you creator for mercy, so as to avoid the eternal fire of Hell.

 

[CloneFan65]

Furthermore, if you die with a unrepented mortal sin on your soul, you will go to Hell. Hell is forever.

Bummer. :sad9cd:

 

[Kyle]

Bummer. :sad9cd:

I'm pretty sure this guy spewed the same stuff on Strangetalk for a while. I'm sure lots of people converted because of it too. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away? :dull8ay:

 

[tigershoops31]

If there are sufficient conditions for an event to occur then that event is guaranteed to occur. It does not just mean there is a "chance." Another way to think of it is that if there are sufficient conditions for the occurrence of every event then the true probability for every event that will occur is 100%. We just do not have sufficient information to accurately predict them. In the example you give, if it turns out that the guy chooses not to drink then there were not sufficient conditions to cause him to choose to drink.

So you're saying if the conditions are there that something COULD happen or is likely to happen that it eventually WILL happen?

If God created a world in which everyone freely chose to follow him how would those people be any less free than we are now?

Exactly, I wasn't saying that He created a world that everyone "freely chose" to follow Him. I was saying that I would guess to Him it would be a lot more meaningful if they CHOSE to follow Him than if they were forced to because they didn't have any other sinful options. My thought is that this is why He gave us free will to decide for ourselves between fellowship with Him or separation from Him.

 

[Kyle]

So you're saying if the conditions are there that something COULD happen or is likely to happen that it eventually WILL happen?

If the conditions are sufficient then the event will happen. Here is a hypothetical argument that utilizes a sufficient condition.

1. If you are routing for the Hawkeyes you are foolish.
2. You are routing for the Hawkeyes.
3. Therefore you are foolish.

If the first premise is true, then routing for the Hawkeyes is sufficient to ensure that you are foolish.

Exactly, I wasn't saying that He created a world that everyone "freely chose" to follow Him. I was saying that I would guess to Him it would be a lot more meaningful if they CHOSE to follow Him than if they were forced to because they didn't have any other sinful options. My thought is that this is why He gave us free will to decide for ourselves between fellowship with Him or separation from Him.

The thrust of that argument is that he could have created a world in which people had the same option to deny him and just as meaningful of a choice as we currently have, except in which everyone just made the right choice. People in such a world would not be forced to do anything to any greater extent than we are in this world.

 

[CloneFan65]

Understandable. I notice I did fail to set up any contradictions using the argument. A few more premises are necessary:

A. In the actual world people make morally wrong choices rather often.
B. A tri-omni God would prefer a world in which people made morally correct choices.
C. A tri-omni God could have created such a world instead of this one.
D. Therefore a tri-omni God does not exist.

I see the argument now. I would challenge the B premise. I believe God prefers a world in which humankind has the freedom to choose its own path, even if we don't make morally correct choices. I think of free will as a gift. Even though he knows I won't always make the right choices, He's there to help guide me. And personally I'd rather have the free will than to be programmed to always make the right choice.

 

[tigershoops31]

If the conditions are sufficient then the event will happen. Here is a hypothetical argument that utilizes a sufficient condition.

1. If you are routing for the Hawkeyes you are foolish.
2. You are routing for the Hawkeyes.
3. Therefore you are foolish.

If the first premise is true, then routing for the Hawkeyes is sufficient to ensure that you are foolish.

Ok I get what you're saying about sufficient conditions now...I thought you were meaning sufficient conditions in that there were enough things present to make the outcome possible or likely, such as:

1) The Hawkeyes aren't very good.
2) The Clones are good.
3) Therefore the Clones have a chance (and a good one) to win the game.

Now that I know what you have been meaning by sufficient conditions I can properly argue my thoughts on your theory (which I think is a well-thought out one by the way). While I think it's unwise to speculate what God does or doesn't do/think, I think slightly differently than your premise A (A tri-omni God knows everything perfectly, and hence perfectly knows, and cannot be wrong about, the future.). I believe that God knows when we are all going to be born, when we're going to die, and has a perfect plan for each of our lives (even the non-believers). However, I believe that we have the choice to follow that plan or to stray from it. In that way, I think that our lives can turn out in very different ways than what God plans. I believe that He is always watching and trying to help us back to His perfect plan, but it is ultimately our decision. He desires for each of us to live our lives on Earth as He intended us to, and then to be with Him for all eternity. However, the free choice is what causes many non-believers to remain separated from Him, despite His constant desire to have them walk with Him. I don't believe that He ever gives up on any of His creation, and that it is very painful for Him to watch our mistakes and know how different our lives could be if we followed His plan for us (even the believers). So I guess to me He still knows the ultimate future, but it doesn't always happen how He intended because we have the choices to make.

 

[CloneFan65]

3. The above arguments aren’t even the best ones IMO. My favorite comes from the nature of causation. If you are familiar with the theory of causal determinism this argument will sound familiar to you. However, I will also contend that the falsity of causal determinism doesn’t help the cause for free will either. The argument starts with the basic premise that:

A.For any event, there are either sufficient conditions to bring it about, or there are not sufficient conditions to bring it about.

An event is defined as any change over time. The above premise is necessarily true as it is of the form of “A or not A.â€￾ If there are sufficient conditions to bring about an event then that event must happen. If there are not sufficient conditions to bring about an event then it is at least partially uncaused. Either of these is rather damning to the case for free will.

In terms of physics I would agree with this premise. But in terms of free choice it seems like a circular argument.

The American Heritage dictionary definition of "free will" is

1. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

In making your argument the assumption is made that under the exact same circumstances an individual has exactly one choice, you seem to have already made the assumption that we don't have free will.