|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Endless false assertions about the "God the iron worker' argument
Posted on: February 9, 2007 - 1:18am
    Offline
Endless false assertions about the "God the iron worker' argument
St. Michael's endless rants about everything my arguemnt is not..
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
The entire argument.
Sorry, but that's not what my argument does. I don't simply assume predestination, I show how it's a necessary ramification of christian god claims.
What I say is that the christian god, as defined as the omnipotent, omniscient creator, must be perfectly responsible for every parameter of existence. This is inescapable, unless you want to posit another creator. If you want to run to the 'god's nature' argument, you merely push the problem back a step: can 'god' change his nature?
Anyway, once you get past that theological game, it then follows that this 'god' cannot escape being perfectly responsible for his own creation. Ergo, any attempt to divert responsibility from this god to his own creation must fail. The free will argument then fails, for this 'god' is responsible for creating free will, for granting it to his creation (obviously without their choice!) and for shaping every facet of existence that influences choice, including the limits of free will itself, this despite the full knowledge of what would occur! So the free will defense fails once you look at the logical ramifications of omnipotence and omniscience: perfect ability leads to perfect responsibility.
I already made all the points above, so I would appreciate it if you respond to the argument if you intend to post further.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
First you say,
Then you say,
Oh the irony. You are clearly stating here the presumption that these qualities necessarily lead to predetermination of will. But you give no reason why they ought to. God does create all things, but He does not determine free will. He creates free agents. He can do so omnipotently, defining every aspect of existence and knowing every future free actions that they make in time, but it does not necessitate that He does so eliminating their free choice. Their choice can still be free. There is no reason it cannot.
No.
God, however, creates it precisely as free. Just because He creates it as free does not mean that it is thus not free. There is no way the argument follows. God cannot, then, "shaping every facet of existence that influences choice" because He wills free will to be precisely free. If He really does the latter, then He does NOT shape every facet of existence that influences choice - He leaves the will free to choose. Further, God does not judge people based on absolutely what they could have done, but only what is in their power; you assume the opposite.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
There's no irony, only a minor error in your reading comprehension. I said I didn't simply ASSUME IT, instead, I argued it. My points are a ramification of god claims.
See the difference?
Ready to apologize?
Now, can you explain to me how an omnipotent, omniscient creator ISN'T responsible for every parameter of existence?
I am clearly arguing it, yes. Not just assuming it.
Get it now?
My argument is that an omnipotent, omniscient creator must be perfectly responsible for his own creation. This follows because such a creator has 'no limits' in ability or foreknowledge, ergo there can be no error. Ergo there is perfect responsibility.
Now, cue the irony! I do in fact give reasons why this is so.
That's a non sequitur. If 'god' creates all things, then he must create every aspect of existence that influences free will. An omnipotent, omniscient "god' can't escape himself, nor have his responsibility pared off to another entity.
My argument holds that by creating all things, including the nature of the being and the being's environment, he thus obviates free will.
By creating free agents, he creates every aspect of their existence that favors one choice over another.
The argument before you is that his omnipotence and omniscience and status as creator of existence lead to perfect responsibility for all outcomes.
Let's also remember that you yourself hold that 'god' necessarily defines every aspect of existence. Agreed. This is the problem.
So you assert. But we are here to argue.
Then you've defined a limit for god, and "god' is no longer omnipotent.
My argument exists to demonstrate the flaw in this very claim. Whatever element within 'you' that allows you to 'freely choose' would be created by this god, with perfect forethought, perfect responsibilty.
The fact that you have free will, the limits of free will, the elements of your nature and that of your environment, are all perfectly chosen by a perfectly responsible creator.
See the problem?
You're not arguing a point, you're just naysaing mine.
I've shown you that even if this 'god' creates a free will, he's responsible for creating it, along with it's limits. I've shown how this, along with the fact that this god controls every aspect of existence (which you have agreed with above) necessarily leads to this 'god' being perfectly responsible for his own creation.
So even if 'god' were to 'create free will', his omnipotence and omniscience would obviate it as this god must also be perfectly responsible for his own creation.
If you wish to continue to discourse, please 1) get my points straight 2) actually read my argument and 3) actually present a counter argument and for your own sake 4) stop refuting yourself!
The argument does follow, in that it shows an internal contradiction in the christian claims. This 'god' must be perfectly responsible for his own creation, which means that 'free will' cannot co-exist in a universe with an omnipotent, omniscient creator UNLESS you special plead past logic itself.
But he is, as the omnipotent, omniscient creator, shaping every facet of existence that influences choice, right?
See the problem? In order to achieve his 'goal' he must cease to be responsible for all of existence.
He must cease to be god.
Of course, there's an alternative: he can cease to be 'logical'....
Yet he must, right?
Except that this would undermine his necessary perfect responsibility.
So something has to give, Mikey.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Because He freely renounces His action in one area, allowing the creature to be self-determinate. It is the definition of free will.
He causes it to exist, but there is no necessity that He determines its outcome. Again, that is precisely the definition. God freely limits His action in this area.
It is an argument. Yours is the primary argument that there is a logical contradiction in the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient God creating free will. I am arguing that there is not. I outlined why no necessity exists. It's your job to defend that that necessity exists.
Omnipotence is not the ability to do the impossible, but to do all things that are absolutely possible. Changing His nature is not one of those things that are at all possible.
There is no necessity. That is precisely my point. God determines certain effects as free! He freely and omnipotently creates a free being whose action is self-determined.
There is no necessary reason why omnipotence and omniscience automatically leads to necessarily determining all actions in the universe. It necessitates that God causes all things, but He could just as easily and freely allow a creature to be its own cause of will.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
It's a definition with a major problem.
You say he freely renounces his actions? Well then, how does this work? How are there parts of a universe - 'souls' I am guessing, operating without god? What does this even mean? And how would that change the fact that his 'god' was responsible for these souls in the first place, for their nature, etc.
And one other problem: as your 'god' is responsible for 'withdrawing' himself when he need not, he is still responsible for any outcomes! He still knows what will happen, he still chooses to allow it to happen by 'removing himself' and he is the one responsible for creating a universe where it could happen!
It is also still his 'choice' to grant this free will, he is still its author as far as its limits! Nothing is solved here. The problem remains. "god' is still responsible for 'free will' ,for the fact that you have it, its limits, and of course, all the possible outcomes!
So, are humans themselves co-gods, literally stepping outside the boundaries of the god governed universe, and creating themselves ex nihilo when they freely choose or does 'god' in fact bear responsiblity for our character and our environment?
Seems your answer rings a bit hollow if you bother to examine it.How so? How can he be perfectly responsible for every aspect of existenced, and yet not be responsible for it?
Yep. I give it above.
Now you've got me salivating for meat.
What decides what is possible? Is it god?
What creates this metaphysical or even physical law, that the supernatural creator must follow?
(Cue the music from Jaws.)
So you assert.
Why not deal with the argument rather than just naysay it?
My argument: Whatever element within 'you' that allows you to 'freely choose' would be created by this god, with perfect forethought, perfect responsibilty. It's conceptualization is from 'god' , it's nature is from god, its particulars are from 'god'.... and so on...
The fact that you have free will, the limits of free will, the elements of your nature and that of your environment, are all perfectly chosen by a perfectly responsible creator.
See the problem?
Look, this naked assertion stands in bold contrast to the points I've made here - which you ignore. However, if you want to assert that 'omnipotence' allows 'god' to do the 'illogical' - to be both necessarily perfectly responsible for every aspect of your existence, that influences your choices, but not responsible for your choices, well you can assert to this, but you've denied this above, in that you've placed a limit of 'logic' on omnipotence.
I've already explained why above, your naysaying is not a proper response, Michael. I've given you an argument, show the flaw in the argument if you can, don't just naysay the conclusion.
You also failed to apologize for your error. Oh, the irony.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Because God created their natures to be free. He allowed them to determine themselves.
God does not withdraw Himself in a way to override human freedom; again, it is the definition. It is precisely this withdrawing of determination in the will that allows the will to be free. Knowing that something will happen or is happening gives no necessity to the action itself. For example, if I see Ken in the chair and see him sitting, I do not make it necessary that he sits in the chair. He is free to get up, or do anything else.
I am not sure what you mean by limits, but it is irrelevant along with these other considerations. The basic fact is that God did not set any determining factors to free will. That is, again, the definition. The will is free, as created by God. He did not create the limits or necessary possibility of human action. Human beings are free in their choices, as are spirits. It is His choice to grant us free will, but I don't see how that at all impacts on the argument. It is irrelevant if He grants it to us, as we are still free and responsible moral agents on our own.
God does not grant us omnipotence or anything else. But we are created in His image. Hence, our souls have free wills and intellects. Our free will is not outside of God's creation, but is squarely within it as a reflection of God's freedom.
I never claimed He was perfectly responsible for creation, YOU did. Free will is precisely the fact that God creates moral agents that are free and responsible on their own, undetermined by God.
God is Himself subsistent existence and hence He is the source of all ontological/metaphysical law. He is not following these laws; He is being. He cannot contradict Himself.
God does not do the illogical. There is no absolute logical contradiction in the fact that God creates human beings and spirits free. I never claimed God was perfectly responsible for creation. God causes all creation, but some things He causes are caused as free, not as determined.
Lastly, I do not know what error you are talking about.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Mike, your responses are childish. I give you an argument, you just naysay.
I asked you to explain yourself, as usual, you fail to do so.
Again, your definition fails. And again, you fail to deal with the argument before you.
Again you just assert, without even dealing with the argument before you.
I've given you an argument, either respond, or stop wasting my time.
Another assertion. And I've explained why my argument differs, subtly from the one you are responding to...
My argument is that omnipotence and omniscience lead to perfect responsibility. Why do I need to just keep repeating myself over and over? Can you just read the original argument and either respond to it, or stop wasting my time?
Again, I already deal with this error in my main argument! You are not omniscient, you are not omnipotent, you are not responsible for creating the situation itself. You are leaving out the components of a perfect creator that lead to perfect responsibility. Which is what theists typicaly do in this case. Which is why my main argument above even cites someone who makes this same observation!
I will now demonstrate that what you've said here was already refuted above:
"Here's a nice follow up on this point written by Knight of Baawa:
Which is why all the xer sects save Calvinism (with their doctrine of predestination) are dishonest on this point. I have yet to meet an xer who will deal with their god being both omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of everything at the same time in an argument. They always leave a part out while making their claims, e.g. "Just because god knows everything doesn't mean he forces you to act in a certainway", leaving out of course the notion that god created everything.
They simply can't deal with all the concepts at once, so they leave one out and imagine that they've taken care of everything. And when called on it, they scream at you and retreat into "it's just god's will/god works in mysterious ways", in essence conceding the point.
Such is the problem with mutually-exclusive and self-contradictory concepts trying to be shoehorned onto a tribal phallic symbol.
This describes YOU, Mike. It describes you and your inconpetent ways. Your inability to respond to the actual argument, your childish naysaying of conclusions, rather than dealing with arguments, and your tendency to just assert 'That it's not X, it's Y" without showing any functional difference between X and Y.
You're just not capable of having this discussion. Your inability to even properly read my arguments has been proven here. This proves what the other poster noted: that you clearly haven't even read the argument.
You don't know what it means, but you decide without knowing that it's not relevent.
Again, I can't take you seriously.
I've given you an argument that demonstrates that an omnipotent, omniscient creator is necessarily perfectly responsible for his own creation.
In return, you naysay it's conclusion, without giving an argument.
Sorry, but you yourself have conceded that 'god' is responsible for all the facets of existence. This would include the nature of human action and the nature of free will.
You're inability to follow a simple logical necessity is just a further waste of my time. In my response to this post, I already know I can look forward to repeating that you yourself have refuted yourself here.
Again, for the fourth of fifth time, your 'god' would create the concept of free will, the limits of free will (what is physically possible, what isn't) your god would be responsible for granting it to his creation, he would also be responsible for every parameter of existence that influences choice: our personalities, our environments.
Nothing is outside of his responsibility. The attempt to say that 'god somehow magically steps aside' even fails, for 1) this god is still fully responsible for all the factors of existence that shape outcomes - your character, your free will, and its limits, and even the possible options and ramifications for choices and 2) This god would still be responsible for the decision to step aside in the first place, while knowing what would happen!
You just can't absolve an omnipotent, omniscient creator from having perfect responsibility for his own creation, logically. You can only appeal to 'omnipotence' in it's true sense: a complete lack of limits.
Ah, I'm not saying that you do. I'm using 'responsible' in two senses here.
How can your 'god' be the creator of all existence, (responsible for creating existence) and not be responsible for his own creation - i.e. any ramifications of his actions?
How? Remember that any attempt to magically move 'god' out of the picture fails.
Well then, you've left theism altogether. Welcome to pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism, no less. Spinoza would be proud.
So now, a question:
If your 'god' responsible for these laws or not? If not, 'who or what is'?
If he is, he can change them. And you're refuted
If not, he's no longer 'god'. And you're refuted.
I'm really not interested in your answers however.... Because your 'answers' only lead to me having to repeat my refutations of your arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
You're using 'existence' as a predicate? Do you realize how basic an error that is?
Nevermind.
You love turning to these word games, but you never, ever, ever bother to examine them. He's not following the laws, he 'is' the laws,.... well, how do your terms differ? If he is the law, the he's 'following' the law unless he can change the law.
So, did he choose the laws? OR does he have no choice in changing them?
Again, I couldn't care less for your preposterous answer.... I'm just using the questions rhetorically.
Then 'god' is limited by basic metaphysics, he must follow physical laws. Bye bye miracles. Welcome to pantheism.
Now, tell us, who created the limit?
Yes, there is, I've given you the argument as to why, and you refuse to even read it, let alone respond to it.
I never said you did, you read me wrong. Again.
That makes no sense, because the latter part of your statement does not follow from the first.
Again, the argument before you is this: an omnipotent, omniscient creator is necessarily perfectly responsible for his own creation. This is inescapable. There's no way to absolve such a creator from responsibility. Even attempts to argue that such a god can somehow magically place himself outside the situation fail, since this god is responsible for choosing whether or not to do this, knowing full well what will happen either way, and also being fully responsible for creating the potential for either outcome (something you keep leaving out)!
The only way out of the mess is to insist that god can do the illogical.
Point one in my last post.
Please don't waste my time further in this thread.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Why does it fail? Why is it naysaying? If I say that God can create a free being, why is that naysaying? Show me from your knowledge of God's nature why He must impose necessity on created beings. You yourself claim that no knowledge of God is possible. How are you going to demonstrate it? I can demonstrate the opposite. There is no reason why God cannot create causes that ordain their own action. NONE. Unless you present some reason, you are just asserting these points. I am not the one making the positive claim of necessity, YOU ARE. Defend it.
Your argument is not necessary.Omnipotence and omniscience do not impose necessity. The ability to do all things and knowledge of all things does not entail together any necessity on what is willed by God. Just saying that they do is not an argument. It is YOUR point and you need to prove it. What leads to this necessity? You can't just claim a necessity without substantiating it. HOW does omnipotence and omniscience lead to this? I know perfectly well your point that God creates all parts of every circumstance that a human being with free will goes through. But that still imposes NO NECESSITY on the will. Even if God created the will and knew its future actions from His vantage point of eternity, it still doesn't impose ANY necessity on the will's outcomes. NONE. NADA. ZERO. If you maintain that there is a necessity there, show how the necessity arises. Your argument seems to think that God's providental knowledge of future act implies the determination of every act. But that is not true at all. There is no reason you present why it ought to be true. None.
No you don't. You argue that God created all things (which is different from omnipotence, by the way - you keep committing that error), and that He has perfect knowledge of all events past, present, and future. From this, you conclude that there is necessity imposed on the events themselves. Here, I'll symbolize it for you to make it clear:
a] God creates all things.
b] God also has knowledge of all events, including free ones.
:: God must predetermine all free events.
But, you see, premise (a1) is missing, namely, "a1] Creation entails predetermination of all events." There is no proof for this premise, at all. God knows all future free acts, but His creating them as free imposes no necessity on their action. For example, I stand on a hillside and look at the paths travelers can take in the valleys. I see their movements from my vantage point and know all their actions. I could even have designed the hills and valleys and roadways. But my knowing which paths they will take does not determine the OUTCOME of their freedom, nor does it eliminate their freedom, any more than watching a man sitting does not determine the fact that he sits. The exact premise you are assuming without justification is that this action entails predetermination, which your premises do not support.
God's creating act has no bearing on the free outcomes of decisions made by free beings. ZERO. There is no necessity here. You are assuming a missing premise. You, to use the phrase you are so fond of, beg the question.
It is not "just God's will/God works in mysterious ways;" it just has to do with the fact that your conclusion does not follow. There is no reason God's having created all things and His knowledge of future free events imposes any necessity whatsoever on free actions. You have not presented a reason, nor has anyone else. You assume it.
IT IS YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU NEED TO DEFEND IT. How much clearer can I be? You are the one who is assuming this premise. There is no necessary reason to conclude from the bare facts that God creates all things and that He knows all future events that He also predetermines all future events. NONE! Where are you getting it? Where? Prove it.
There is an argument. Prove that your premises, namely, God creates all things and knows all events, means that God likewise predetermines all future outcomes. I can create a pair of dice and determine every facet of their nature and the nature of the table I drop them on. Yet, my design does not determine their outcome. At all. Even if I knew all the outcomes of these dice anytime someone dropped them, I still would not be predetermining the outcome. It is even more true of rational beings. There is no reason God cannot create a freely self-determined cause. NONE so far offered. If He can create a cause that is self-determined, all this goes away. You offer no reason why it is impossible that God do so.
That is precisely the point, as I said in earlier posts. HE DOES NOT DETERMINE ALL FACETS OF EXISTENCE BECAUSE HE CREATES CAUSES THAT ARE NOT DETERMINED - FREE AGENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What more needs to be said? It is not naysaying. It is a criticism of your argument. Why CAN'T God do this? What fact of His having created all things or His knowledge of all outcomes makes it NECESSARY that this follows? There is none.
And, if He creates the concept of free will, does that impose necessity on freedom? How? Why?
If He limits the choices one can make, how does that make the choice any less free? How? Why?
If He grants the ability to self-determine to a being X, why must that being then not be self-determined? How? Why?
This is exactly the premise that remains unsupported.
God is not responsible for free actions in the sense of predetermining them.
In answer to 1: You are assuming that God predetermines the free will when He creates it free. There is no reason it is so. None. Why CAN'T God give someone free will that is really free? It seems to likewise contradict that God is omnipotent, if you want to say that.
Also, even if He defines all limits and possible outcomes, how does that determine the outcome as not being free? Even if I have two distinct choices that God has placed in front of me, and no other, what is the bearing there on my freedom to choose one over the other? There is no bearing on it at all.
In answer to 2: If God knew what free outcomes we would have, what does that do the determine the outcomes? It just means He knows them. Big deal. I admit He knows all outcomes of the free actions of man. And? It is a leap from there to say that He predetermines them. He does not; He only knows them.
Omnipotence is not a complete lack of limits, because then it would not be omnipotence, it would be nothing. There would be no limit and the omnipotent being would likewise not exist. It would be a logical contradiction. Any being that is omnipotent must have existence (from the very fact that it is a being), so that it must have an absolute limit in that fact. There is no other ground.
Likewise, you still need to define what you mean by responsibility. Responsibility in the sense of moral responsibility for all the acts of men and angels is just stupid. He creates free moral agents. It doesn't matter if He knows what they do in advance; He assumes no moral responsibility because they all have independent responsibility. That is the very defining aspect in their creation. It likewise rests on the same unproven assumption from above: that creation entails predetermination.
Because He creates free and moral agents. He assumes no personal responsibility for their actions because He doesn't MAKE them act a certain way. The same premise is assumed but unproven that creation entails predetermination.
No, it is not pantheism. It would be pantheism if I said God was the substance of all things. He is not. He is the source of the existence of all things as subsistent existence itself.
Why is God not God is the laws are identical with His own substance? God is the source of the laws themselves because they are part of His substance. There is no contradiction at all. Nobody else is responsible for creating logic. Logic follows on the fact that God is existing and the source of existence.
There is no error and you continue to claim it without justification.
OK, then He's following the law. That doesn't change anything. His substance is His being and all these laws follow on the fact of His existence. And?
You do this all the time. If you don't want to talk, don't just spout nonsense and then walk away when I question it.
God is limited by absolute possibility. But that does not in any way limit His ability to perform miracles. At all.
Also, read what I said above. Pantheism would be to say that all things ARE God. I never said that. I said that God is the SOURCE all these things. Get your terms straight.
Nobody. It likewise isn't a "limit." It is merely something that follows on the fact that He exists.
Why not? Why doesn't it follow? You again assume creation implies determination, which it does not.
You keep using translating between different senses of "responsibility." Define your terms!
This is still not any argument at all. It just continues the previously mentioned assumption that creation entails determination. There is no reason why this is true. NONE! You offer no proof for it. You just claim that because God did it, it must be determined. WHY?
And? If God created the potential to do one of two things, how does that impact whether or not the choice is free? The choice remains freely choosen between two alternatives. There is no necessity imposed.
Let's just analyze this "abuse" that you want me to apologize for:
You said, initially,
And then I say:
Then you say,
How is pointing out an assumed premise an abuse? You still and continue to assume it! I'll state my point in big letters so you can read it clearly and not forget it:
WHY CAN'T GOD CREATE A FREE AGENT? NECESSITY DOES NOT FOLLOW OF NECESSITY FROM CREATION!
Don't just say you've proven it because it follows from God's nature. HOW/WHY DOES IT FOLLOW?
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
You were warned about not just ignoring my argument, and not just repeating your already refuted assertions.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I already gave this argument above. Your lies about me not having done so are marking you as a troll at this point.
Yes, it is. Perfect responsibility is a necessary ramification of an omnipotent , omniscient creator. I give the reasons why above, and you fail to deal with them. Your naysaying of conclusions without dealing with the argument marks you as a troll.
As usual, you get it wrong. I don't equate omnipotence with creation. What I say is that if there is a creator that is also omnipotent, and omniscient, then this creator has perfect responsibily.
You are demonstratably wrong every time you make such a charge against me. You don't even illustrate an ability to read what I say to you correctly.
You'er wrong about the error. And your error is born of your inability to read properly.
Not quite. I argue for perfect responsibility. You can't even get my argument correct!
Why not quote my actual argument?
This is not my argument.
My argument is for perfect responsibility.
Why do you continually get my argument wrong, when it's right above you?
My argument speaks to PERFECT RESPONSIBILITY, TO CONTROLLOING ALL ASPECTS OF AN A BEING THAT LEAD TO DECISIONS.
You are not able to follow the actual argument before you, making all else moot.
HERE, LET ME TYPE IN ALL CAPS: YOU HAVE A READING DISABILITY.
You must either be lying or unable to read.
My entire argument is based on proving this. My argument is for perfect responsibility. An omnipotent, omniscient creator necessarily is perfectly responsible for his own creation. I go into details, how this creator must control all parameters of existence.
My entire argument deals with this very point.
You are not capable of having this discussion. You simply cannot read an argument, you're not able to follow what is in front of you. Despite the fact that I have corrected this error over and over, you still continue to repeat it.
You are nothing but a troll at this point, and I'm going to have these posts removed from my thread.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
St M. shouted defiantly:
"WHY CAN'T GOD CREATE A FREE AGENT? NECESSITY DOES NOT FOLLOW OF NECESSITY FROM CREATION!"
I'm not todangst but I'll give you my understanding of the problem. Maybe you can use it as a warmup exercise.
When God creates, he pre-selects the choices it can make <Some christians call it "God's plan">. When you can only choose from a list of pre-determined choices are you a free agent?
It would be like putting you in front of a vending machine that offers you the choices of Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, root beer, or Sprite. However, the machine only has Coke loaded into it. Pushing the other buttons gets you nothing. Have I really given you the right to choose what you want to drink?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The problem is addressed in my original post, which St. Michael refuses to read. He continually mistakes my argument for just an argument for omniscience leading to predesintation, when in fact I argue a stronger case: for perfect responsibility.
St. Michael refuses to read the argument, let alone respond to it, and he therefore commits a series of embarrassing blunders in his posts.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
A few more sundry details:
Yet I've given you this argument over and over the entire time I've been here!
Are you a madman?
I have already done so, above.
You again fall to the same error I already adressed in my last post, and in my original argument!
You are not omnipotent nor omniscient, nor do you create all the parameters of existence that shape outcomes. Again, right after reading the refutation of this sort of nonsense, you recreate it!
.
I already answered this. He creates every element of the situation that leads to making the decision, including the existence of choice itself. Whatever you call upon to make a choice in the first place was determined by a perfectly responsible creator... whatever element tips you in one direction, or another, exists because of this creator.
Why do you continually ask for what has already been presented?
You must be mad. The only argument before you is one dealing with supporting this very claim.
You seem unable to even read this, let alone respond to it, or recognize it as my actual argument.
You again repeat the same error.
You fail to deal with the argument:
He sets up all the parameters that lead to a choice.
Please stop wasting my time.
Another distinction without any difference! How do these concepts differ? Answer: they don't. Is this an existent? If so, welcome to pantheism.
And again, if you are just using existence as a predicate: You repeat the same errors.
If god is an existent that follows physical laws, then he's a natural entity. If he is just the 'source' of existence, beyond existence, then it's a basic error in logic to refer to existence as a predicate.
See the problem?
Yes there is if you use existence as a predicate.
You don't know what that means, do you?
Again, you're not even able to respond to the actual argument, so please stop wasting my time.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I don't see why you are so nasty. You are the one who keeps ignoring my arguments. I can do the same and just repost the same arguments ad infinitum in different rooms. I can call you names and just say you are "naysaying" my arguments. You are most certainly not being rational when you do this.
I see no reason to result to name-calling. A clear example of just ad hominem dismissing my arguments.
In specific response, you never prove that determination of all outcomes is a necessary result of creation by God. Never. If you do, cite it again. Even if God creates all situations, there is no reason why the choice is not free.
Anyway, it isn't "naysaying." It's called offering a criticism of your position, and you need to answer it instead of just calling me names.
You very much seem to, as omnipotence in the literal meaning of being able to do all things has no bearing on your arguments. In fact, such an ability would utterly undermine them because an all-powerful God would be able to create a self-determined being. Anything else would be to naysay, to use your term, His ability to do all things. And then that apparently would make you a troll too.
Define perfect responsibility, as I have asked earlier. First, you are defending this position : "Which is why all the xer sects save Calvinism (with their doctrine of predestination) are dishonest on this point. I have yet to meet an xer who will deal with their god being both omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of everything at the same time in an argument. They always leave a part out while making their claims, e.g. "Just because god knows everything doesn't mean he forces you to act in a certainway", leaving out of course the notion that god created everything." albeit in the words of another, but you cite it as a "nice followup." If you want to claim that my arguments do not apply because you are not arguing predetermination, show me the difference.
I am not arguing just predestination, but total predetermination, which is what you seem to countenance. If this is not "perfect responsibility" tell me what it is.
Likewise, you contradict this claim when you say:
Which clearly indicates that predetermination of outcomes is what you argue.
Or,
Stop saying you don't advocate predetermination, when you clearly do, and answer my arguments instead of just insulting me and calling me names. I have not called you a name. I have not dismissed your arguments, even though I could have. You, on the other hand, have consistently done so. And done so, saying that you do not advocate that God predetermines free outcomes, when you DO in other posts.
OK, but then you are just defining an omnipotent and omniscient creator as predetermining all outcomes. That is not an argument. There is no necessity that follows. Even assuming I am an omnipotent and omniscient creator of the dice and I know all their future outcomes and design them in detail, it imposes no necessity on the outcome of the dice. The dice still fall freely and come to a conclusion freely. This is even more true in a being with free will, where the creator explicitly renounces its governance of the person by giving him/her a will. It would be a contradiction to say that God determines a person and likewise gives the person a will. If the person has a will, the will must be able to choose and hence be free. Otherwise, the person has no will at all, and is merely a rock that follow determined designs.
You just repeat this over and over and over and over. Why?
He creates all elements that lead to the decision and the very existence of the choice itself. How, then, does this impose necessity? It does not at all. At all. It might influence the will's choice, but it does not determine it.
The parameters are set, not the choice.
You just ignore what I write and repeat yourself over and over. Think up something new to say. God is not things. That would be pantheism. God's existence is the cause of the existence of things. That is not pantheism at all.
Also, you just assume using existence as a predicate is wrong. No proof or justification at all.
Not physical laws because He is not a body. He is a spirit, without matter. He is the source of existence and existing. He is not beyond existence. He is the source and cause of all other existing things. His existence differs from our existence because He is the cause. You likewise have not shown that existence cannot be a predicate.
Yes, I do. I know what Kant says and I also know he is wrong.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Mike, you've been warned. You refuse to deal with my actual arguments. And I'm tired of your lies.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Because you force me to repeat myself, over and over.
Stop your lying. I've demonstrated that you can't even follow my argument.
Because you make me repeat myself over and over.
This is trolling.
Another lie. The point here is that you can't even follow my argument.
Stop your lying.
Read the actual argument at top.
You don't seem to be able to follow anything I say.
,
I already have.
The rest of your post goes the same way.
You're not able to follow the argument.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
What, exactly, am I ignoring? I see your argument and don't think it's valid because you assume that God predetermines man's will IN ORDER TO PROVE that God predetermines man's will. It is circular logic.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.