Let's think this through ... God

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
101

Well, I made the point that God creating the universe doesn’t entail him creating all causes and effects, and doesn’t entail him being aware of all things, and thus your entire argument is null and void. So there’s that.

Who cares where it came from? It doesn’t make any sense, and people who actually defend the existence of free will don’t agree with it, and your definition of free will doesn’t interact with my rebuttal in anyway. You’re simply off on some retarded tangent again.

It goes with you changing the subject, whining and crying about your mental/spiritual state, and in general doing everything you can to avoid addressing the points that have been made. Like it always does, because you are mentally unfit to do this sort of thing.

102

You made the point Uccisore, unlike me, you never argued it. Easy to look like a debate master when you don’t argue anything except the other persons reputation, with some points sprinkled here and there that were never argued!!

You never addressed my argument once, just said the opposite of the point, claimed it was true, and then called me mentally unfit, like some Gestapo …

It matters, because everyone who is discussing free will in the public eye, is using this definition.

You have an extremely narrow mind of not only philosophy, but of people… Most, not all, things you say about others is you transparently yelling at yourself.

I think I have a quote about that in my sig

103

God’s creating the universe doesn’t entail him creating or knowing every cause and effect. That’s the point. I’ve demonstrated it. It destroys your argument. You haven’t refuted it yet, because you can’t. If you were a sane, competent adult, I would have argued more strongly for my point by now because you would have said something to challenge it. Instead, you’ve done this.

I’m discussing free will in the public eye, and I’m not using that definition. Alvin Plantinga discusses free will in the public eye, and he doesn’t use that definition. Plenty of other folks too, but those two are sufficient to make my point. We’ve been over this: when you assert that ‘everybody does this’ or ‘every book says that’, you just look like a moron because obviously you don’t know so.

The idea that free will means writing your own experiences is absurd. That’s the part you added that ruins the definition.

104

Without a universe there is no cause and effect.

Obviously, if you create cause and effect, you know what it is. Duh!

I said that because the most public debates that EVER happen about religion is atheists inviting theists to debate…

Have you ever ONCE heard of a theist inviting an atheist to a debate!?!?!?!

105

Creating the universe doesn’t entail creating every cause and every effect within the universe. I’ve already demonstrated this. If the molinists are right about free will, God isn’t the cause of the things people do. If Nagel is right about inner lives, God is unaware of what it’s like to be creatures that he is not. That’s why your argument doesn’t work.

Yes, William Lane Craig invited Richard Dawkins to debate, and Dawkins refused. This was big news, it was reported all over the place at the time. why are you asking me this?

106

I asked you because you pointed out that my comment on everyone using that definition was absurd.

So I pointed out that the best debates on theology happen when and because atheists invite very brave theists to debates … Never heard the Dawkins story though. Even with Dawkins refusing … I am far from being out of line in saying that the most interesting and public theological debates occur because of atheists. I concede the absolute, but not the point.

Creating the universe means minuscule detail of every cause and effect, it entails… no universe, no cause and effect …

Let me explain it this way …

People want to use God as a reductive quality.

But from Gods point of view cause and effect have the same quality …

You can’t have your cake and eat it, if God can be reductive, so can cause and effect. (Not causes and effects)

107

Right, because you made something up in your head and demanded that it was the absolute truth. That’s what you always do. It just so happens in this particular case it was easier than usual to prove you’re wrong.

Of course you’re out of line, because you haven’t provided any evidence or reason to believe it.

Not to the molinists, and you brought them up. Not to anybody else who believes in free will, either. You’re simply wrong.

I don’t know what that means. I suspect it doesn’t mean anything. What does it mean to ‘use’ God as a ‘quality’, reductive or otherwise? It’s word salad.

So God can’t tell the difference between His having caused the universe, and Him being an effect of the universe? This seems like more gobledegook.

Again: If free will exists, then God doesn’t create all causes and effects. This is completely consistent with his having created the Universe.

108

This thread is dead now Uccisore, you just lost the debate.

I know you don’t believe it, or ever will…

But the last part of your post has serious contradictions and logical errors, and then you polish it off saying the effect “that’s not what people of free will believe”

People of free will don’t believe god exists FYI

What’s it like to have your debate tactic used against you…

But I actually respond to posts because of my conscience, so here we go…

You used an always in the first section, and criticized me for using it!! Honestly Uccisore!! It’s like you’re belligerent !!

Molonists believe everyone has free will until “the end”… Depending on what people do, God changes his plan at “the end”, which solves as God being the only being with free will.

You really don’t know what reductive means!?!?!

It means GOD instead of “gods”

It’s reductive!!!

In terms of CREATING cause and effect, it means cause and effect, not causes and effects…

My last point was so over your head and so simple , it’s actually scary.

I’m sure God could tell the difference, because there is a difference, that’s completely irrelevant to God knowing all of it.

109

Either everyone has free-will or nobody does.

Unless God gives some people free-will and denies it from others. :-k
But in that case, the free-will people wrongly believe that God does not exist.

110

Holy shit you’re retarded. Thanks for reminding me why I chased you out of my section of the forums. You are right about the thread being dead, though.

111

And that sums up Uccisore in this whole thread…

Barely responding to arguments (he just uses points)

And then calling me retarded and skipping out.

I said the thread was over because you can’t win your debate with your argument structure (aside from the point no argument structure can - which would shock me). Yours is so bad though, that I called it with your last post

112

In this context, “Free-will” refers to being free from satanic manipulation and coercions of the flesh.

113

So no humans, then.

114

I misspoke by saying the thread was dead.

You see, with Uccisore, he has anti social personality disorder, he’s like “you’re an insane moron, stop talking and dig ditches!”

I’ve met APD’s smarter than Uccisore, I’m very familiar with the disorder.

If anyone, even Uccisore WANTS to continue, I’ll continue as well.

115

Ecmandu

Do you mean here that the universe itself shows evidence for cause and effect or are you putting the cart before the horse ~~ saying that there was the universe before there was cause and effect?
That would make no sense.
God or what we call God is considered to be the first Cause which effected the Universe in due time.

Speaking for the human, there are many who create causes which have effects/influences on the world, but they actually have know idea what they did.

I myself can’t really know this. Show it.

I kind of intuit that it has happened often. Hasn’t it even occurred on ILP? and vica versa?

116

It’s interesting that you say God effected the universe in due time… Creation is defined as the creation of the universe and cause and effect, including time.

But a human is not considered to be God

Uccisore refuted my absolute, but not the point.

Debates about God mostly happen and are high profile because of atheists inviting theists to debate.

It’s happened on ILP…

John Bannon made threads for proof of God I think

117

Ecmandu,

Your thread is about God, is it not? For those who believe in a "specific kind of God - this God did create and is continuing to create (even by randomness and destruction) the universe in due time. It was all a process and still is…

I’m sure that there are other definitions for that word…ad continuum.
But what is your point here?

Really, we deify each other very often, don’t we?
There are many who also like to play God. Sometimes it has positive and sometimes it has very negative effects.

What you had said was:

What I said was:

[/quote]
I wouldn’t necessarily say that God “created” cause and effect - IF a God is the Cause, whose to say that much in the universe didn’t come about except as randomness, not necessarily intelligent design. It all kind of blows my mind thinking about it - and it sometimes gives me a headache.
I may not have expressed that well. #-o

118

I think you expressed it well …

I just, as in this whole thread, disagree that a being can create time, cause and effect and not know all about it. I’m not trying to make a human argument here; to literally create all cause and all effect, is much different in scope than the human like arguments others have espoused in this thread

119

Maybe it’s just part of the human psyche that many of us need to believe that God is omniscient and omnipresent/ubiquitous, et cetera. I used to believe that because I needed to believe that.
If God is the creator, one thinks, then by natural reason, this God must know all things as they happen.
I suppose that that IS plausible but I don’t think that we can know that for certain.
Even if in “reality” it was true, we still couldn’t know it. We could only know (in a manner of speaking) what we believe to be true.

I don’t believe that it is such an easy thing to have that kind of knowledge about God.
Basically, we can only know God according to how we know ourselves and “see” things how they work in the universe. But my mind can only take me so far.
But we are not God and don’t have the mind of God. I think it’s Corinthians: …but who has known the mind of God.

Who knows. Perhaps a God threw the so-called dice and turned around and walked away.
Perhaps the dice were created from or were pure randomness though it wouldn’t seem to be based on the universe as it would appear to be.

As i said, it is a plausible assumption but we are still thinking with human minds in human terms.

120

Arc, I think your main counterpoint to me is throwing of the dice.

Something absolutely random cannot have an algorithm to represent it, and also yields no output (it’s a math thing)