Thread: God doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Free_will

here's a better link, it explains the thing I was trying to explain much better.


Also, I believe we're all wrong in trying to apply logic to a sentient being.


I want to ask everyone who reads this post something.


Are you a christian?

If yes, then does this picture pretty accurately describe why?

That argument has been thoroughly debunked so many times Knee. I also don't think most Christians DO provide that as a reason for their faith.

The argument is invalid because it provides a false choice. To be fair you would have to include what would happen if Muslims are right, Jews are right, Buddhists are right. What about Wiccans? What about Satanists, what about people who believe in Zeus or Odin?

I guess we might as well all take a cosmic lottery card and hope we're the lucky ones who end up in heaven.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

That's silly. That's not free will, especially if you believe that God designed you and your desires. You can call it whatever you like, but it doesn't change the fact that an omniscient god is only compatible with a predestined universe.

It's not silly and you're right, it's not libertarian free will. I would also agree that an omniscient God is only compatible with a foreordained universe. I am Reformed, after all.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

You can play around with words and redefine "free will" like in Sosiego's argument, but that's just sidestepping the point.

Tell you what. Before you go saying that I'm "redefining" something, do me a favor and go read up on how long this debate has been going on in both in and outside of religious circles (try starting with Stoics such as Epictetus for libertarian free will and Chrysippus for compatiblist free agency). Seriously, the majority of polls I've read over the past have philosophy majors, both religious and non-religious, vouching for compatibilist free agency (click here to read a 15 page paper on the rise of compatibilism within philosophical schools of thought). Why? Because libertarian free will is simply not an option unless you believe that the future isn't real. At that, even if you don't believe the future is real, you'll still (in my opinion) have a hard time of arguing against libertarian free will not being able to account for motives and being able to be reduced down to arbitrary choice.

Look at it from a non-religious perspective. Do you believe the future is real? If so, do you believe it is subject to change? If not, then do you still have free will as you are defining it (i.e. libertarian free will)? Let's say in one minute you're going to put a stick of gum in your mouth. Now, you don't know that you're going to put a stick of gum in your mouth but (assuming you believe the future is real) for the sake of the argument that it is going to happen. Can you do otherwise?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I'm not suggesting that the argument doesn't exist, but that it doesn't pertain to the Christian definition of "free will." The Christian definition of "free will," for example, is used to explain why Adam bit the apple, and why God allowed him to do so. If libertarian free will were active, then God, who designed Adam and his desires, doomed Adam to certain punishment.

There is a Christian definition of "free will" for both the pre-Fall world and post-Fall world. There have been a lot of discussions concerning the type of "free will" that Adam and Eve had in the garden. I've seen people say they had libertarian free will and I seen people say they had some type of sui generis free will. In the post-Fall world, that is where you have discussions over free will concerning doctrines such as original sin and the depravity of man (i.e. theological anthropology).

As for God "dooming Adam to certain punishment," welcome to the lapsarian debate. Seriously, this has been discussed amongst Christians for a long, long time now.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Of course it's been debated, the dogma contradicts itself. They'll debate for another 2000 years before they can explain away that logical inconsistency.

Which dogma contradicts itself? Also, since I'm nit picky about using words that have such strong, negative ties to Roman Catholicism, it's doctrine and not dogma.