Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[Pincho Paxton]

Wrong again. You stated, quite clearly (more than once):



Really?
Then NOTHING can be said about god as we're concerned.


Absolutely wrong.
If god (or anyone else) knows, in any way, shape or form, or even if that knowledge exists (whether known or not) the argument shows that free will can't exist.


What?

I said isn't a Paradox, and made time loop examples to show why, so I automatically went with time loop, and didn't know you were using something I'd never heard of.

Yes.. we can say that a proof requires the correct rules. The rules are Proof that the Christian god cannot exist .. must be a Christian God, and therefore must have rules with Free Will in them. Time loop.

Walk around, pick things up, tell yourself that God knows that you are going to pick this up. It makes no difference. You know that he saw it after you did it, and then went back to the past.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Answer the question, why would he want to make another choice if it is know that he will choose A?

It's quite simple: if he cannot make any other choice then free will does not exist.

As neither of us can say for sure whether or not he can choose otherwise, we try work out why he should change his mind.

Nothing to do with "changing his mind". If he cannot do other than what god knows he will do then he has no free will.

Part of this relies on God knowing what will happen in our future, and would be the only one who knows.

Yet that is exactly what is claimed. Along with free will.
Yet they are mutually incompatible.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I said isn't a Paradox, and made time loop examples to show why

This is another fabrication. You didn't bring time loops into it until mush later. And, has has been shown numerous times, a time loop is nothing more than a diversion ( a specious one at that) from the question.

Yes.. we can say that a proof requires the correct rules. The rules are Proof that the Christian god cannot exist .. must be a Christian God, and therefore must have rules with Free Will in them. Time loop.

This is word salad.
As previously stated: it comes down to EITHER free will OR Omniscience. One or the other. No evidence has been provided either way.

Walk around, pick things up, tell yourself that God knows that you are going to pick this up. It makes no difference. You know that he saw it after you did it, and then went back to the past.

Again, a specious argument:-

Arrant nonsense. If god's knowledge is perfect then he knows the future before it happens.
If the future is known then it is fixed. If it is fixed there is no free will.

No "time loop" required. Whatsoever.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's quite simple: if he cannot make any other choice then free will does not exist.


Nothing to do with "changing his mind". If he cannot do other than what god knows he will do then he has no free will.


Yet that is exactly what is claimed. Along with free will.
Yet they are mutually incompatible.

Explain why, if God knows what choice he will make, means he didn't choose A freely?


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Explain why, if God knows what choice he will make, means he didn't choose A freely?
jan.

How many more times?
If god knows BEFORE THE CHOICE was made then he cannot choose anything other than what god knows he will.

If the future is known then it is fixed. If it is fixed there is no free will.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How many more times?
If god knows BEFORE THE CHOICE was made then he cannot choose anything other than what god knows he will.

If the future is known then it is fixed. If it is fixed there is no free will.

You've just stuck two unrelated points together.

God knows the future.
The future is fixed.

You seem to think that knowing something affects that thing.
I'm asking you to explain why this is so?


jan.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

This is another fabrication. You didn't bring time loops into it until mush later. And, has has been shown numerous times, a time loop is nothing more than a diversion ( a specious one at that) from the question.


This is word salad.
As previously stated: it comes down to EITHER free will OR Omniscience. One or the other. No evidence has been provided either way.


Again, a specious argument:-

No "time loop" required. Whatsoever.

Why are you so eager not to use the time loop... because you know it allows Free Will?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why are you so eager not to use the time loop... because you know it allows Free Will?

It does not allow free will.
If the future is known (i.e. true) then it is fixed.
Address that.

Oh, and one more time: you yourself dismissed the "time loop" as unworkable.
It was, from the start, a specious introduction anyway. It doesn't matter a jot how the knowledge is acquired.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You've just stuck two unrelated points together.

Wrong.

God knows the future.
The future is fixed.

Correct.

You seem to think that knowing something affects that thing.

Wrong again.

If the future is known then it is true (it cannot be knowledge if it isn't true). Therefore whatever is known must be true. And can never be wrong.
That can only occur if it is fixed: predestination.
If predestination is true then free will does not exist.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

It does not allow free will.
If the future is known (i.e. true) then it is fixed.
Address that.

Oh, and one more time: you yourself dismissed the "time loop" as unworkable.
It was, from the start, a specious introduction anyway. It doesn't matter a jot how the knowledge is acquired.

No.. I said God working it out logically was unworkable, because it requires cause, and effect, and if he could calculate Cause, and Effect we wouldn't have Free Will. The time loop is fine.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No.. I said God working it out logically was unworkable.

Another lie:

Not in time, that's different to to cause and effect. It doesn't matter anyway. Time travel doesn't exist. We may as well not think about it.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2851126&postcount=1744

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Another lie:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2851126&postcount=1744

I was talking about real life, not God. If we are talking real life then I have already figured out where we came from, so I wouldn't bother posting.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Wrong.


Correct.


Wrong again.

If the future is known then it is true (it cannot be knowledge if it isn't true). Therefore whatever is known must be true. And can never be wrong.
That can only occur if it is fixed: predestination.
If predestination is true then free will does not exist.

If the it was known that the person would choose A, and the person did choose A, meaning that the future was fixed, why does it mean that the person didn't choose to pick A?


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I was talking about real life, not God.

Then why bother saying it since the entire discussion has been about god?

If we are talking real life then I have already figured out where we came from, so I wouldn't bother posting.

Yeah right.

Regardless, your "time loop" is red herring.
It still doesn't allow free will.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Then why bother saying it since the entire discussion has been about god?


Yeah right.

Regardless, your "time loop" is red herring.
It still doesn't allow free will.

I said it after I said we were wasting our time in a thread with no science in it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If the it was known that the person would choose A, and the person did choose A, meaning that the future was fixed, why does it mean that the person didn't choose to pick A.

Because he couldn't choose anything else, regardless of what he might have thought at the time.
It's really quite simple.
If it was infallibly known beforehand that A would be chosen then ALL "choices" have already been made and all we're doing is, as I have said, is following a pre-written script. We aren't any more "real" than characters in a book. We just think we're "real".

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I said it after this post.....

Anyway, this is like that bendy wheel thing. We are trying to calculate some God like physics. It is better to stick with real physics.

Which was supposed to mean we should stop wasting our time.

 

[purethought]

they sit within sight of one another and yet they argue here. there is a name for that

 

[NMSquirrel]

And another introduction of something not in the original.

so you dismiss the time argument because it doesn't suit you?(oops..posted before seeing that there was 5 more pages to read..)

you are not the authority on what is right and wrong..specially when we are discussing concepts that have no proofs..
IOW there is no right and wrong.



Dyw, why is it so important that you are right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Because he couldn't choose anything else, regardless of what he might have thought at the time.

You've acknowledged that he made his choice.
So why would he choose something else?

If it was infallibly known beforehand that A would be chosen then ALL "choices" have already been made and all we're doing is, as I have said, is following a pre-written script.

If he made the choice, then he has freewill.
Or are you saying he didn't make the choice?

We aren't any more "real" than characters in a book. We just think we're "real".

You are distinguishing us from characters in book by stateing we are like them. So how can we ever be like them?

jan.