Exposing Atheistic Myths

[DBT]

Oh come on!
It's right there in the term itself.
Free
Will

Which word don't you understand?

I think you have to use more than "basic" logic. Dissecting theses words and getting into all sorts of philosophies only to complicate things when the use of these words were perfectly fine in the first place. I'm sure you agree with me that our fellow theists should stop falling for it or realise its not an argument as such.

I can as easily say 'magic will' for what it's worth - "which two words can't you understand?"

Simply using a term doesn't explain what it refers to.

 

[Lion IRC]

Atheists assert that God's omniscience necessarily means that we don't have free will.

This is stock standard counter-apologetics. They (the atheists) assert that predestination is the opposite of free will.

How come they can manage to cobble together an argument which involves the term free will and yet you are somehow mystified by the term when I use it?

 

[Lion IRC]

The legal system somehow manages to understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary. Would you be happy to use their definition of free will?

 

[DBT]

The legal system somehow manages to understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary. Would you be happy to use their definition of free will?

The legal system doesn't delve into the nature of human behaviour and its drivers. We are discussing the underlying nature of human decision making. In this instance in relation to God and Omniscience.

As for the legal system, that is due for an overhaul;

Quote;
''Because most behavior is driven by brain networks we do not consciously control, the legal system will eventually be forced to shift its emphasis from retribution to a forward-looking analysis of future behavior. In the light of modern neuroscience, it no longer makes sense to ask "was it his fault, or his biology's fault, or the fault of his background?", because these issues can never be disentangled. Instead, the only sensible question can be "what do we do from here?" -- in terms of customized sentencing, tailored rehabilition, and refined incentive structuring.''

 

[steve_bank]

The law sees a difference between the ability to have conscious criminal intent and a lack of capacity. The term is Mens Rea(sp?)

In the assisted living place I just moved out of there is a woman who has attacked other residents. Police wee called many times. They could not arrest her because off diminished capacity, she lacked the mens rea as an officer put it . It required a medical and legal process to move her into a different kind of facility. She has dementia.

It is not about free will in theology and philosophy. Free will and legal and moral codes wuld be another thread. If you choose between a Ford and Chevy is that relay complete free will? What is free will?

The legal system is not a moral code. It is intended to maintain order regardless of underlying causes.

 

[DBT]

Somehow a child grows up to become criminal minded and have conscious criminal intent, that intent shaping and generating the conscious will of the criminal. The law doesnt deal with causality, only the final product standing before the judge and jury. The issue of God and omniscience is different.

 

[Treedbear]

It's Gods factory and He hasn't a bar or challenge to reach, since it was non-one elses rules or regulations, creation etc.. Well ok ... apart from the atheists who somehow, seem to devise the bar for failure and definition as the default from what they interpret in their minds from the scriptures. especially for debates - why yours and not ours? Any how... I think He would be quite Gracious to say it was His mistake... His own mistake, by His own judgement and understanding. He repents and grieves in HIs heart ...

Not an issue AT ALL!

Then it would fail to qualify as God according to early Chrisitan philosophers:

The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality.

To say God has made a mistake is to admit that a God would be greater had it not made a mistake.

 

[Lion IRC]

Not really. Only a maximally great, omniscient, omnipotent Being could continuously improve on their own handiwork.

A hypothetical statement of regret by God doesn't imply that God has exhausted the limit of His abilities - which are infinite.

 

[Treedbear]

Go away and think about it and come back later.
Or maybe someone can mssg you privately to explain.

Well, he is a creationist. It's important to him that the flooding event was a sorting process, putting entire species at a certain level of geology. Old, young, eggs, empty shells, footprints, nests, all confined to the same strata, to appear to have lived great distances in time from the mammoth...old, young, partialy chewed, and cave paintings sorted to a different time.

Maybe in his view, the production process sorts detectives to the bottom of a bin. While the evaluation process is another sort, taking samples from the top? THEN a single defective piece might have only one chance in 400 of reaching the top, while the inspector has only one in 400 chance of reaching down to the dinosaur defective level. So that anecdote was a 1 in 160000 chance.

No.
This is pretty basic stuff.
You have 40 widgets to inspect. All laid out before you. Say they're on a conveyor belt. You check them one by one and take any defective ones you find off the conveyor.

Now, the one single defective widget just so happens to be the very first one you inspect, but it could have been the very last one depending on its proximity to the point where you are reaching out to pick up the first item for inspection.

Quite obviously the widgets closer at hand have better odds of being the first one you pick up to inspect. And with 40 objects there are obviously more than 40 different combinations of possible positions in a stack of widgets

The thing is none of those other individual widgets' positions matter. They are essentially identical to each other. Or if it's simpler to visualize, then let's say there are 40 boxes, arranged however you like, and only one contains a widget. The widget can be in any of the identical-looking boxes and can be placed in any one of them. Or the widget can be in one specific box and that box can be moved around to any location. The point is that it doesn't matter where the other widget boxes are located, the possibility of finding the widget in the box at any one location is 1/40th.

 

[Lion IRC]

But that's NOT the anecdote.
There is not an equal chance that the widget at the bottom of the stack and the one at the top of the stack will be picked first.

 

[Treedbear]

It's Gods factory and He hasn't a bar or challenge to reach, since it was non-one elses rules or regulations, creation etc.. Well ok ... apart from the atheists who somehow, seem to devise the bar for failure and definition as the default from what they interpret in their minds from the scriptures. especially for debates - why yours and not ours? Any how... I think He would be quite Gracious to say it was His mistake... His own mistake, by His own judgement and understanding. He repents and grieves in HIs heart ...

Not an issue AT ALL!

Then it would fail to qualify as God according to early Chrisitan philosophers:

The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality.

To say God has made a mistake is to admit that a God would be greater had it not made a mistake.

Not really. Only a maximally great, omniscient, omnipotent Being could continuously improve on their own handiwork.

A hypothetical statement of regret by God doesn't imply that God has exhausted the limit of His abilities - which are infinite.

I disagree. As praiseworthy as his admission might be, it is an admisssion that he could have been greater. That is, in his own mind, as well as ours, a greater God can be conceived of.

 

[Lion IRC]

Sure. But a (the) maximally greatest being simply has to be capable of maximally great achievement. That's what sets the MGB apart from His lesser competitors.

 

[Lion IRC]

God can make a good, better or best chocolate cake.

He doesn't have to always make the best cake every time. In fact to describe Him making the best cake He possibly could would be to limit His infinite baking skills.

 

[Treedbear]

But that's NOT the anecdote.
There is not an equal chance that the widget at the bottom of the stack and the one at the top of the stack will be picked first.

Even if it's always the case that the first one will be picked the chance is still 1/40th. Even if the last one can only be picked. Even is there's only the first one and the last that can be chosen from. Even if there's a 75% chance of picking the first one and 25% chance of picking the last one, or any other one.

 

[Lion IRC]

Nobody is denying that if 40 objects are placed in a circle and you blindfold someone in the center of the circle, spin them around three times and then ask them to point in any direction THEN there is an equal 1 in 40 chance that they might pick the defective one first.

 

[Lion IRC]

...but that's NOT the anecdote.

Bayes' Theorem
Background information.
What are the chances he will pick the widget closets to the top - easiest to reach.

 

[skepticalbip]

...but that's NOT the anecdote.

Bayes' Theorem
Background information.
What are the chances he will pick the widget closets to the top - easiest to reach.

And the odds are 1 in 40 of the defective widget being the easiest to reach... just as the odds are 1 in 40 of it being the hardest to reach, or in any of the other specific positions.

 

[Atheos]

God can make a good, better or best chocolate cake.

He doesn't have to always make the best cake every time. In fact to describe Him making the best cake He possibly could would be to limit His infinite baking skills.

This is totally irrelevant. The premise is not that some god wants to bake a cake and doesn't care how good a cake it is.

The premise involves 3 traits that Christians typically are unwilling to cede about their imaginary friend:

• This imaginary friend is maximally benevolent: Its benevolence is such that no greater benevolence could possibly be achieved.
• This imaginary friend is maximally powerful: There is no limit to its ability to do whatever it wants to do (except some say it cannot create a logical contradiction such as a square circle).
• This imaginary friend knows everything that is knowable: If suffering exists anywhere it would know about it.

Let's call this imaginary friend "God."

If God knows that suffering exists anywhere in the universe and cannot keep it from happening, God could be more powerful. A more powerful God could eliminate all suffering.

If God knows that suffering exists anywhere in the universe and chooses not to keep it from happening, God could be more benevolent. If anything else is of a higher priority to this God than eliminating suffering than there is a way that this God could be more benevolent and less whatever it is that is keeping it from being maximally benevolent.

If God is unaware of the vast amount of suffering that exists in the universe then god could be more knowledgeable. Calling such a God Omniscient is a misnomer.

No solution to this problem has ever been put forth that does not in some way attenuate the maximal nature of either Benevolence, Power or Knowledge. It is impossible to resolve this problem, which is why it has persisted inviolate for thousands of years.

 

[Treedbear]

...but that's NOT the anecdote.

Bayes' Theorem
Background information.
What are the chances he will pick the widget closets to the top - easiest to reach.

You'll need to explain what Bayes' theorem has to do with this. It appears very simple to me:

Let's simplify the situation. There are 4 locations. The probability of choosing the first is .40, the second = .30, the third = .20, and the fourth = .10. Notice they have to sum to 1.00. The chance of the widget being at any of them is 1.00 / 4 = .25. The chance of choosing the one with the widget is .40 x .25 + .30 x .25 + .20 x .25 + .10 x .25 = (.40 + .30 + .20 + .10) x .25 = 1 x .25 = .25 = 1/4th. I think you'll agree that with any 40 locations and any combination of probabilities for choosing any one location that adds to 1.00 the probability would be 1/40th.

 

[Lion IRC]

...but that's NOT the anecdote.

Bayes' Theorem
Background information.
What are the chances he will pick the widget closets to the top - easiest to reach.

And the odds are 1 in 40 of the defective widget being the easiest to reach... just as the odds are 1 in 40 of it being the hardest to reach, or in any of the other specific positions.

That's a different anecdote. (Whether the wigdets are arranged at random.)
IF they are arranged randomly and IF the blindfolded co-worker selects one completely at random,
THEN all have an equal chance of being selected first.

You and Treedbear must surely understand how easy it would be to rig the scenario such that the defective widget will almost certainly be picked 1st. And that's the reason why you have to avoid mocking your religious co-worker"s belief telling them it's only ever 1 in 40