"proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked"

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Ho hum: you wouldn't know you'd believe.

I wouldn't necessarily believe, or dis-believe.

Which has what to do with anything?

It means I have knowledge of something that's not necessarily true.

Wrong: you had to learn the association.

Isn't that the same thing?

No you haven't: you sidestepped it and ignored the paradox.

Wrong.
I haven't

I see, so I can decide whatever I like but I'm constrained to acting only on what is predetermined?

There is predetermination, we know that, and yes we are
constrained to those predetermination. So yes, you can decide what you
want within the boundaries of existence.
There are 26 letters in our alphabet, no more, no less, but you write what you like within that limitation.

And can it be known (infallibly) what we will do?

I believe it can be calculated, and the ability to calculated requires knowledge.

jan.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

You are free from divine influence.
No need to worry whether God is guiding you or has set you on a predestined path. You are totally dependent on life's experiences to make your choices. There is no debt that is to be paid back.

Whether Gods esist or not... i dont have beleifs that Gods esist... i thank the very term "free-will" is nonsinsical... i thank its dew to ignerence stoopidity or delusion that people thank they can make choises which ant influenced... an i dont haave a prollem wit the idea that the "choises-i-make" are determined.!!!

 

[Jan Ardena]

So i will know what you mean... how do you define "free agent".!!!

To do anything you like without certain limitations (body, mind, etc..)

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Then you wouldn't know, deleted or uninstalled would be the same as not finding out. Isn't that what I said?

"Not knowing" isn't the same as "not being".
If we didn't know anything about god (i.e. not being created) it would not mean that we we hadn't been created. Therefore we could could still have been created (and on predetermined paths): and we still wouldn't have free will.

If we knew (or even simply believed) that we had been created and had someone to answer to that would be merely one more constraint on our behaviour. And that applies even if god doesn't exist but we think he does.
We don't have to conform to the law (but we probably take it into account when we're doing something that may be illegal).
We don't have to consider how our spouse will react if we fancy chatting the blond by the bar (but it's maybe wise).
Similarly, if we think there's a god we consider the possible consequences of doing something he wouldn't like.

In short, not knowing about god would remove one constraint on the "illusion" of free will: it wouldn't mean that we have it. (We may well, but it doesn't follow as a consequence of not knowing).

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Whether Gods esist or not... i dont have beleifs that Gods esist... i thank the very term "free-will" is nonsinsical... i thank its dew to ignerence stoopidity or delusion that people thank they can make choises which ant influenced... an i dont haave a prollem wit the idea that the "choises-i-make" are determined.!!!

I think it's nonsense also but how many times have you heard the term free will without God's name not being mentioned. Time to end the stupidity. People make choices all the time because of influences, so yes free will is not free from it. I am only paying particular attention to the divine portion of the argument. I'm an atheist for crying out loud.

Saying that you have no problem with your choices being predetermined is actually a choice you made. How did you arrive at it?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I wouldn't necessarily believe, or dis-believe.

And now you're backtracking: you stated:

I would know, because you would have told me.
Whether it's true or not, is a different thing altogether.

Simply because I told you something would not mean you had knowledge: if you decided to take me at my word it would be belief until verified.

It means I have knowledge of something that's not necessarily true.

One more time: if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

Isn't that the same thing?

No. You had no knowledge about the association (e.g. "1" meant nothing to you) until you were taught it.

Wrong.
I haven't

You hand-waved past it without addressing it.

There is predetermination, we know that

No we don't know it.

and yes we are constrained to those predetermination. So yes, you can decide what you want within the boundaries of existence.
There are 26 letters in our alphabet, no more, no less, but you write what you like within that limitation.

And you are STILL skirting the issue.

I believe it can be calculated, and the ability to calculated requires knowledge.

Calculated infallibly?

Back to basics:

Can it be known (infallibly: without "perhaps" or "maybe" or "or this could happen") whether, given the "choice" between A and B, someone will absolutely certainly pick A?
If it can be known (before the "choice" is made) then, given that it was known for a certainty they would pick A how could they have, at any stage whatsoever, picked B?
If they could not, therefore, have ever picked B how can there be a claim of "free will"?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

"Not knowing" isn't the same as "not being".
If we didn't know anything about god (i.e. not being created) it would not mean that we we hadn't been created. Therefore we could could still have been created (and on predetermined paths): and we still wouldn't have free will.

There was more than one condition levied by me in my first post here today. Not knowing God created you was one. Yes but I also stated that not being created by God or not believing that He did was also cause for freeing up your will. Whether God created you or you didn't know He did both have the same affect.

I think what you're saying is that if I didn't know God created me then that is something I would know about God. If this is the case then please explain again.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I think what you're saying is that if I didn't know God created me then that is something I would know about God. If this is the case then please explain again.

I thought I had explained.
Not knowing says nothing at all about whether or not you have been created.
And if you have been created then you are subject to constraints whether you know it or not: hence no perfect will.
If god has created us it makes no difference what (if anything) we know about him: we don't have "perfect free will" because we're nevertheless subject to whatever constraints were built in.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Saying that you have no problem with your choices being predetermined is actually a choice you made. How did you arrive at it?

Well... dew to the genes an envioment i have... i havent see any evidence that "choises" ant determined by cause an effect... an dew to those sam rasons (genes/enviroment)... i foller the evidence what ever concluson it leads to.!!!

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
...how do you define "free agent".!!!

To do anything you like without certain limitations (body, mind, etc..)

How do you define "free-will".???

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I thought I had explained.
Not knowing says nothing at all about whether or not you have been created.

Agreed

And if you have been created then you are subject to constraints whether you know it or not: hence no perfect will.

Knowing this would definitely negate free will. By not knowing, I am free to choose without a known influence, free to become an atheist. At the time I typed my first post I originally was going to not print the last two conditions and maybe I should have. However I was deliberating whether God would predestine my choice to be an atheist. It seemed so contrary and bizarre that perhaps I let it muddle my thinking. Was I a victim of knowing about God?

As with my first condition, perfect free will is only possible if God never created you. Now this does not prevent you about hearing about God, whether true or not doesn't matter. There's is still a chance that God could influence your will even if He didn't create you. This is why I added the other conditions....not knowing that God is going to bust your ass regardless, frees you from His influence. In this vein I equated not knowing with not creating. C'est la vie.

 

[Dywyddyr]

By not knowing, I am free to choose without a known influence, free to become an atheist.

There's the crux - "known influence".
That's what I was disputing the "perfection" of the free will. There could well be influences hard-wired in (one way or the other regarding god's will) that we were not aware of if we had been created but still knew nothing about god.
(I also subscribe to the idea that there are unknown influence anyway - not woo woo stuff, simply that we don't know everything we could about the mind and what behaviour really is).

As with my first condition, perfect free will is only possible if God never created you.

Nope, see above: just because god doesn't exist it doesn't mean that we're free of other influences.
If god doesn't exist you still have to consider your wife's reaction when you fancy chatting up the blonde, for example.

God existing precludes free will, but his absence doesn't automatically confer it.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Nope, see above: just because god doesn't exist it doesn't mean that we're free of other influences.
If god doesn't exist you still have to consider your wife's reaction when you fancy chatting up the blonde, for example.

God existing precludes free will, but his absence doesn't automatically confer it.

Just so we're clear..... I said God didn't create. Big difference between not creating and existing. I also said we would not be free of some type of influence in this case. That is why I added the other two conditions. If you don't believe in or know God then I agree you could be preprogrammed but as I said, I was having trouble convincing myself that God pushed me towards atheism. My hope was that by not knowing or believing that it ultimately freed you from any influenced choices. If I don't know or believe in God then I have no reason to be influenced by Him. ( pre-program aside...good one on your part, never considered it) Gotta Go.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Just so we're clear..... I said God didn't create. Big difference between not creating and existing.

Ah, okay: apologies, I went back and saw where you'd realised you'd equated the two.

My hope was that by not knowing or believing that it ultimately freed you from any influenced choices. If I don't know or believe in God then I have no reason to be influenced by Him. ( pre-program aside...good one on your part, never considered it) Gotta Go.

Without god, or the knowledge, or the belief we'd have more chance being free from influences.
Later dude.

 

[scifes]

i'm starting to have enough...

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

i have some questions, please answer honestly:

1-do you seriously consider the possibility that your question is fallacious, and that your position is wrong, are you ready to admit it if it appears to you so?
as this is a yes or no question, i request of you to continue the rest of the questions if your answer is yes, if your answer is no, then kindly do not bother.

2- can there be more than A and B? for example A, B, C, D....?

3-"A" and "B" are interchangeable in your question, no? i can replace every "A" with a "B" and every "B" with an "A" and it would still mean the same, no?

4-what is the significance of "A" and "B"? what do they represent? and in case more than two letters may exist, what is the "meaning" of each of them?

 

[Dywyddyr]

i have some questions, please answer honestly:
1-do you seriously consider the possibility that your question is fallacious, and that your position is wrong, are you ready to admit it if it appears to you so?
as this is a yes or no question, i request of you to continue the rest of the questions if your answer is yes, if your answer is no, then kindly do not bother.

Fallacious how?
Please explain, I don't know what you mean by the "question being fallacious".
I admit that I could be wrong on the interpretation (e.g. it may not be an either/ or solution and there's something I've missed) or that there's an answer that eludes me: so far it's not been put forward though.

2- can there be more than A and B? for example A, B, C, D....?

Of course there can. How does that alter the question? Can the "choice" be known before it's made?

3-"A" and "B" are interchangeable in your question, no? i can replace every "A" with a "B" and every "B" with an "A" and it would still mean the same, no?
4-what is the significance of "A" and "B"? what do they represent? and in case more than two letters may exist, what is the "meaning" of each of them?

These two have the same answer: A and B represent the possibilities in a"choice". Bus or walk? The blonde or the brunette? Stay in or go out? Sausages for tea, or egg, or sandwiches or pizza?
I simplified it to A and B because the number of possible selections do not alter the question itself: can the end selection be known before the "choice" is made?

Can the result of any "choice" be known before it's made?
Yes or no?

And I put to you your own question:
Do you seriously consider the possibility that your position is wrong, are you ready to admit it if it appears to you so?
Yes or no?

I ask because it appears you're STILL prevaricating.
You promised us an answer two days ago (post 79) and so far haven't provided us one.

 

[scifes]

selective comprehension\reading\memory..

Fallacious how?
Please explain, I don't know what you mean by the "question being fallacious".
I admit that I could be wrong on the interpretation (e.g. it may not be an either/ or solution and there's something I've missed) or that there's an answer that eludes me: so far it's not been put forward though.

should i take that as a yes?
if yes i can, please continue.

These two have the same answer: A and B represent the possibilities in a"choice".

and on what basis are these possibilities divided?
in your original question, which choice would be A and which one(or group) would be B?

 

[Dywyddyr]

should i take that as a yes?
if yes i can, please continue.

Well, yes to being able to admit the position is wrong.

and on what basis are these possibilities divided?
in your original question, which choice would be A and which one(or group) would be B?

Does it matter? It depends on the available choices.
If you continue this then I can only assume you're not serious about answering.
None of that is relevant at all to the basic question:
Can someone's "decision" be known before it's made?
Yes or no?
It's about the general principle, not specific circumstances.

Trying to deflect answering by introducing trivialities does nothing whatsoever to help your case.

 

[scifes]

A and B represent the possibilities in a"choice".

and on what basis are these possibilities divided?
in your original question, which choice would be A and which one(or group) would be B?

Does it matter? It depends on the available choices.

you misunderstood, would you agree that in your original question:

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

A is the choice you pick, also the choice god knows you're going to pick, while B is the choice(s) you do not pick, also, the choice(s) god knew you're not going to pick?
i'm just trying to keep it as simple as possible, do you agree to my "definitions" of A and B? yes or no?

 

[Dywyddyr]

A is the choice you pick, also the choice god knows you're going to pick, while B is the choice(s) you do not pick, also, the choice(s) god knew you're not going to pick?
i'm just trying to keep it as simple as possible, do you agree to my "definitions" of A and B? yes or no?

If A is what you pick (and what god knows you'll pick) then surely it's at least slightly obvious that, given there was only A and B to pick from, B would fall into the category of "not picked and known beforehand that it wouldn't be picked".

You're prevaricating...