Mojch - I challenge you!
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2013, 10:05 AM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(22-05-2013 09:09 AM)Mojch Wrote:  God is a real being governed by logic.

1. God planned a perfect world with a single restriction / choice.

2. This choice was necessary to give mankind free will because God is bound by logic. Freewill cannot exist without choice. Mankind initially had limited freewill and was an entirely automated, but conscious, creation.

3. Everything else in Eden was perfect. If man did not "sin" by making the choice that God had forbidden, the entire Universe would proceed deterministically towards a resolution where all human beings enjoyed a perfect existence while possessing only the bare minimum of free will necessary to create consciousness.

4. Man made the one choice that God had forbidden. God, because he exists outside of time, could not alter the effects of this choice because to do so would destroy free will.

5. This choice altered the original plan by causing an event to occur which was unintended. Since the original creation was perfect, the deterministic consequences could not have benefited the Universe and therefore must have been "evil". Through the butterfly effect (a single action influences vast swaths of the Universe), the Universe "fell" from this perfect deterministic future and mankind's freewill increased. As the Bible says, it was that moment that created sin and suffering. God did not create them. They were logically required and man CHOSE them. God has been trying to rescue us from the logical consequences of that choice.

I flip the question to you. Theoretically, the actions of every particle in the Universe could be determined at any point in time. Scientists make such predictions for individual particles (or collections of particles such as planets) all the time. Thus, you lack free will because math could calculate your position in the future if sufficient information was obtained.

Sincerely,

Mojch

Word Count: 300
I don't have a problem with natural laws governing my movement. I have a huge problem with a sentient being controlling me.

I don't believe in Free Will, or at least not in Conscious Free Will.

You have no evidence that God is a being governed by logic. Logically (and Ironically) Logic came from God, therefore, there was a time that God WASN'T subject by logic. Logic is simply a thought process that fits the way the world works. If God existed before the Universe, and therefore, before the creation of ANY LAWS, God wasn't subject to logic.

Does that mean God has somehow become weaker? After the creation of the Universe and the birth of logic?

If God can't alter the choice, then what of miracles? Aren't there numerous occasions where God alters the world to "sway" believers? Or to reaffirm them? Isn't that violating Free Will?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
22-05-2013, 01:06 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Steven:

1. Why do you object to sentient but not non-sentient control over you?

2. Do you believe that I should be punished for murder? Without free will, I could not have avoided it and society could not have prevented it from happening.

3. Quote: "You have no evidence that God is a being governed by logic . . . Does that mean God has somehow become weaker? After the creation of the Universe and the birth of logic?"

I never claimed that I have evidence that God is governed by logic. Your question to me was how I reconcile the existence of MY God with evil. MY God is governed by logic. I cannot prove this but you cannot refute my belief by telling me what I believe. I assert, simply, that my argument is valid. There is a crucial difference between a valid argument and a sound one. See http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html for a concise explanation of this. My arguments soundness can't be proven or disproven. Belief in a valid argument whose premises are not demonstrably false is the heart of faith and is, literally by definition, not irrational.

4. Quote: "If God can't alter the choice, then what of miracles? . . . Isn't that violating Free Will?"

No. If I persuade you to eat pizza by changing your circumstances, have I suddenly removed your ability to make a conscious choice? Remember, free will in the philosophical context relevant to this discussion is not the ability to decide what you want to do without outside influence. It is the ability to make a decision, to not be an automaton. Coercion, no matter how strong, is NOT the same as removing free will.

Sincerely,

Mojch

Word Count: 285
Find all posts by this user
22-05-2013, 02:17 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(22-05-2013 01:06 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Steven:

1. Why do you object to sentient but not non-sentient control over you?

Because, unlike a sentient being, a non-sentient being ISN'T making choices for you, it is limiting your options. Gravity doesn't choose for me whether I can fly or not, it limits me to the ground. A non-sentient being isn't consciously limiting me, and therefore, isn't a problem in mu view. It's more of a personal observation.

Quote:2. Do you believe that I should be punished for murder? Without free will, I could not have avoided it and society could not have prevented it from happening.

Do I believe you should be punished for wrong doings? Yes. Do I believe you aren't responsible for your own actions? Nope, because your consciousness is also subject to natural laws, and therefore, if you "choose" (Again, I don't believe in CONSCIOUS free will, Free Will is a topic we could get into later) to kill, you are still responsible. You seem to be under the illusion that Natural Laws make you a murderer, it doesn't. It just simply gives you the predisposition to. Again, this is my opinion, and it is subject to change.

Quote:3. Quote: "You have no evidence that God is a being governed by logic . . . Does that mean God has somehow become weaker? After the creation of the Universe and the birth of logic?"

I never claimed that I have evidence that God is governed by logic. Your question to me was how I reconcile the existence of MY God with evil. MY God is governed by logic. I cannot prove this but you cannot refute my belief by telling me what I believe. I assert, simply, that my argument is valid. There is a crucial difference between a valid argument and a sound one. See http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html for a concise explanation of this. My arguments soundness can't be proven or disproven. Belief in a valid argument whose premises are not demonstrably false is the heart of faith and is, literally by definition, not irrational.
Asserting is meaningless . I can assert anything I want to. Ever heard of an untestable argument? They are useless, and almost as meaningless as positing Garry the Unicorn as the explanation for everything.

"An unfalsifiable (untestable) argument is a useless one" -Christopher Hitchens (Paraphrasing)

Quote:4. Quote: "If God can't alter the choice, then what of miracles? . . . Isn't that violating Free Will?"

No. If I persuade you to eat pizza by changing your circumstances, have I suddenly removed your ability to make a conscious choice? Remember, free will in the philosophical context relevant to this discussion is not the ability to decide what you want to do without outside influence. It is the ability to make a decision, to not be an automaton. Coercion, no matter how strong, is NOT the same as removing free will.


You said God CAN'T interfere with free will, but influencing choices is exactly that. Removing free will is NOT the same as violating it. Just like violating a law is not the same as removing it. I am sorry that you didn't clear that definition with me, perhaps that would have been a bit helpful. Because FREE WILL IS A VAGUE TERM. Each person has a general idea of what it is, but not every definition is the same. I really had no clue that your definition of FREE WILL is philosophical. Perhaps letting me know that from the get-go would have been a good thing,yeah?

Also, If I strap you down, and give you no choice in the matter, does that make you an automaton? Also, we haven't even presented any evidence of Free Will to begin with, so we, in this argument, have no idea if such a thing even exist.

Sincerely,

Steven

-P.S I had to break the 300 word count, but I couldn't explain it any other way, unless I made two posts.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
22-05-2013, 02:49 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Steven:

I am going to break the rules here to ask for clarification. In your last post you claim that I said God can't interfere with free will. Could you please quote where I said this? I did say God cannot DESTROY free will but since your entire final response is based on my asserting interference and not removal (destruction=removal), I want to know specifically where I claimed this before defending it. In truth, I think you are claiming I took a position I never did and thus your response to that position is meaningless.

I will not post again tonight. My full response will be tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
22-05-2013, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2013 03:03 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(22-05-2013 02:49 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Steven:

I am going to break the rules here to ask for clarification. In your last post you claim that I said God can't interfere with free will. Could you please quote where I said this? I did say God cannot DESTROY free will but since your entire final response is based on my asserting interference and not removal (destruction=removal), I want to know specifically where I claimed this before defending it. In truth, I think you are claiming I took a position I never did and thus your response to that position is meaningless.

I will not post again tonight. My full response will be tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Mojch

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was at school, and I hastily made a response to you that may not have been accurate.

You did indeed say that God couldn't interfere because that would destroy free will. My apologies.

Edit: Allow me to post a video on why exactly I believe that even without Free Will, we won't act like automatons.




[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2013, 09:42 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Steven:

I owe you an apology for not replying here sooner. However, I hate responding without knowing my opponents argument. Like I told Mark in my other match, I will watch your video this weekend and then get back to you. Is that acceptable?

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2013, 05:55 AM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(23-05-2013 09:42 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Steven:

I owe you an apology for not replying here sooner. However, I hate responding without knowing my opponents argument. Like I told Mark in my other match, I will watch your video this weekend and then get back to you. Is that acceptable?

Sincerely,

Mojch
That is very acceptable.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
26-05-2013, 01:00 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Steven:

You said: "Ever heard of an untestable argument? They are useless."

This confuses science with the search for truth. An untestable assertion is UNSCIENTIFIC, not USELESS. A basic example:

Assertion: You perceive reality correctly.

For obvious reasons, this assertion is untestable. (NOTE: I don't explain why due to word limit. If you don't see why, I can provide explanation or sources.) By your logic, this assertion is USELESS. However, acquiring knowledge supposes this claim is true. Far from being useless, it is the bedrock of scientific understanding and learning. Thus, asserting is NOT useless. It is at the heart of the search for truth. Science can take us only so far. At some point, we move beyond the testable and into the realm of the theoretical. Here, logical consistency is the only tool for evaluating a claim.

Does this make sense? If so, can you logically disprove my prior point? If you can't disprove it, will you concede that my position is COHERENT but UNTESTABLE and thus a POSSIBLE resolution of the contradiction you initially asserted?

To the video...

It appears that the experiment is based on the work of Benjamin Libet. Two points:

1. QUOTE: "Deterministic mechanism leading up to your decision that was inevitable, it could only go one way..."

I think (but an not certain) this supports my worldview. Explaining would take too many words. If you are interested, we can do it later.

2. "...John can six seconds earlier predict what I was going to do..." & "His conscious knows what I am going to do even before I do..."

Since you claim we retain responsibility for actions, doesn't this imply that that God (if he exists) could know our decisions while we retain responsibility for them?

Sincerely,

Mojch

WORD COUNT: 296

NOTE: Per the rules, this is my last response on this question. Assuming you are finding our discussion beneficial and interesting (I am), then please post your new question after your final word post.
Find all posts by this user
26-05-2013, 07:02 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2013 06:57 AM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(26-05-2013 01:00 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Steven:

You said: "Ever heard of an untestable argument? They are useless."

This confuses science with the search for truth. An untestable assertion is UNSCIENTIFIC, not USELESS. A basic example:

Assertion: You perceive reality correctly.

For obvious reasons, this assertion is untestable. (NOTE: I don't explain why due to word limit. If you don't see why, I can provide explanation or sources.) By your logic, this assertion is USELESS. However, acquiring knowledge supposes this claim is true. Far from being useless, it is the bedrock of scientific understanding and learning. Thus, asserting is NOT useless. It is at the heart of the search for truth. Science can take us only so far. At some point, we move beyond the testable and into the realm of the theoretical. Here, logical consistency is the only tool for evaluating a claim.

Does this make sense? If so, can you logically disprove my prior point? If you can't disprove it, will you concede that my position is COHERENT but UNTESTABLE and thus a POSSIBLE resolution of the contradiction you initially asserted?

To the video...

It appears that the experiment is based on the work of Benjamin Libet. Two points:
1. QUOTE: "Deterministic mechanism leading up to your decision that was inevitable, it could only go one way..."

I think (but an not certain) this supports my worldview. Explaining would take too many words. If you are interested, we can do it later.

2. "...John can six seconds earlier predict what I was going to do..." & "His conscious knows what I am going to do even before I do..."

Since you claim we retain responsibility for actions, doesn't this imply that that God (if he exists) could know our decisions while we retain responsibility for them?

Sincerely,

Mojch

WORD COUNT: 296

NOTE: Per the rules, this is my last response on this question. Assuming you are finding our discussion beneficial and interesting (I am), then please post your new question after your final word post.

Hello,

Sorry for the late response, I was just, in effect, busy with social stuff (Memorial Day preparation).

The reason why I called an untestable argument as useless one is because it gives us something that we can't determine is true. We have no way to test if this reality is correct, or if even we all exist like we think we do. You are correct in saying that there are assumptions. (Or precieved notions) science relies on to gather the truth, and they are, in a sense, untestable.

However, there is a difference from those, and those which you are positing. Nothing would make sense if these "Assumptions" were not assumed to be true. With God, or your useless, untestable version of him (until evidence is procured which swings in your favor), he isn't needed, and in a sense, the untestable idea of him,or his attributes are USELESS. Other than to hastily explain away problems that we haven't got the slightest clue on (see mythology) or to explain/make us feel better about how things work on the "human" level (evil, intentions, etc).

In a way, yes, SOME untestable arguments aren't useless, but your's are. Also, your point about God being subject to Logic isn't COHERENT. You probably just added that attribute to get around some of the pitfalls of the three O's (Omnipotence, Omnibelevolence,Omniscience). I already stated that, unless you believe God came into existence AFTER the Universe did, God had to have been the one to create logic, and before then, he wasn't subject to it. I can add anything I want to God, and just because it's untestable doesn't mean it is COHERENT. So, l will concede that NOT ALL untestable claims are "useless", but that still doesn't mean your's isn't.

(I think I went over the word limit, and I haven't even adressed the video section of the post, but fuck it.)

We retain our responsiblity because we are our OWN deciders. God isn't deciding for us, WE (our subcioncious part) still are. We are still deciding, just NOT conciously. Our brain is still a part of us, yes? And if our subcioncious and concious comes from our brain, so do our values, likes, and decisions.

Therefore, as a whole, we are still responsible for them. Also, to answer your question: As far as we can tell currently, God would only know the decision 6 seconds before you do. And if we could do that too, what's it matter?

Next topic: A logical God

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
28-05-2013, 10:43 AM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Steven:

Your question "A logical God" is a little vague. I assume you are asking me to discuss what I am saying about God being logical but could you clarify? In the mean time, three points / questions for you. (I know these violate the "final word" rule but we both seem OK with modifying the rules in small ways.)

1. You assert the Christian God would be useless. If he exists, the Christian God is extremely useful because he rescues you from Hell. The Christian God is not useless if he exists. Your argument that he is useless presumes he does not exist. Thus, it is circular. It would be circular on my part as well if I was using it to prove that God is "useful". However, I am not. I realize we are way into the weeds here but if you trace our discussion so far, you will see that I am using it to prove that your initial response to my logical explanation for reconciling God and evil avoided the theory instead of answering it.

2. QUOTE: "You probably just added that attribute to get around some of the pitfalls of the three O's (Omnipotence, Omnibelevolence, Omniscience)." Yes, of course I did. Without this condition, God is illogical. Thus, I modified my conception of God. Why is this a bad thing? Why does the conclusion from a contradiction have to be to throw out the entire theory? Isn't the better process to see if you can modify the theory to remedy the contradiction? This is how all of modern physics (and most other sciences) proceed. No scientist finds a problem with his theory and scraps the entire thing until it is proven that the problem cannot be reconciled. I do not understand the atheist urge to reject the claims of a believer just because he modified his theory. It would seem to me that such modification should be viewed as a GOOD thing by showing intellectual honesty. The atheist can simply assert another contradiction in the revised theory or, if he cannot, admit that the theory is coherent but unprovable.

I note also that my position on the omnipotence of the Christian God is supported by the Bible. The entire point of the death of Christ was that it was NECESSARY to save man. If it was necessary, then God could not save man without it, thus there was something that God could not do, thus God was not "omnipotent" in the traditional sense of the word. The Bible is full of instances which imply limits to God's power.

3. QUOTE: "We retain our responsibility because we are our OWN deciders. God isn't deciding for us..." This one really intrigues me. It seems you are operating from the premises that if God is real, he controls our actions. Why do you believe this?

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: