"proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked"

[Dywyddyr]

the argument is composed of more than what you replied to, for example, you said nothing about my entity a and entity b example, which is a way of a demonstration of my point.

Oops: you misunderstood.
Your entity A and B did nothing more to further your point than does the comment about "knowing" what the cat is going to do. Or god.
If entity A truly knows then there is no choice, if entity A is merely assuming (as we do with the cat) then he doesn't know.

lol no prob D, does it have to be capital?

Abso-fraggin'-lutely.

examples please. ones we can work on..

I gave illustrations: if it is known that A will be chosen then B cannot be chosen. It's that simple. If B cannot be chosen then there is no actual "choice".

if knowing the outcome of the cat's choice by 80% of certainty doesn't take away 80% of the cat's free will, why would knowing the outcome of its choice with a 100% degree of certainty strip it of it's free will and ability to chose 100%?
hope you are seeing it now..

Because, as stated, we don't know with 80% certainty. We assume and exclude certain "possible" options. The cat might die, the universe might explode. The statement of 80% certainty assumes that some things that could happen happen will not: it's NOT knowledge, it's a statement of, in effect, belief.

possible combinations of "know" and "choose":

Again you're not seeing it correctly. If god KNOWS for certain then that "choice" MUST be the one I make. If that is the One I MUST make then I could not, at any time, pick anything else. The "choice" is an illusion.
It's not a question of "force" it's simply a question "was the choice actually mine?" And the answer would be "No, since it was pre-ordained and I couldn't actually pick anything other than what I did".

'a 'a...cont-ra-diction..
the script is already written that we will "what" A?
why would we not choose B? well because we chose A of course:m:
if wanted to go against the script and choose B instead, the script would turn out to be B and not A, and here you see how crucial it is that we DON'T KNOW what is written in the script, so we can't even claim we are forced on anything, because we don't know what it's we're supposed to do, to try and go against it.

If we could pick B and re-write the script then god couldn't have known beforehand which we'd pick. It's not a question of "force".
It doesn't matter that we don't know, if anyone (i.e. god) knows then the future must be fixed. If the future is fixed then there are no choices.

capitalizing MUST changes nothing,
mister D, you are offered a snickers and a twix bar, listen carefully, you MUST choose your predestined choice, we all know that you're rebellious and a trouble seeker and you don't like being forced into anything, so you'll try to disoby and choose the one other than the one predetermined to you, but uh, the catch is, we don't know which one you MUST choose...heh, it's like saying you MUST choose that which you MUST choose..nothing new there..

Again you're missing the point. If it is absolutely known which I will pick then I cannot pick the other option, otherwise that knowledge wouldn't be knowledge. So I pick whatever is pre-written but still believe that it was a free choice, even though it wasn't.

 

[scifes]

Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.

does the external coercion exist because of the knowledge?
period.

 

[Dywyddyr]

does the external coercion exist because of the knowledge?
period.

You keep coming back to this: there is no coercion.
But if the future is known it is fixed.
Therefore there is no choice, because the "alternatives" are illusory.

 

[scifes]

i'm coming back to the original argument and it's premise, as this thread is debunking it, it is not a new argument with new premises.
so you admit that the premise of cris's argument is false, hence, his whole argument or proof that the christian god and free will can't exist, or form a paradox, is...
FALSE!!
am i correct?

now, if you want to support his same point with a new argument and a new premise,(in which i think you need to state that dictionaries are wrong ), then post a new thread, and i'll join you in it .

:thankyou:

 

[scifes]

which is this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3182

 

[Dywyddyr]

i'm coming back to the original argument and it's premise, as this thread is debunking it, it is not a new argument with new premises.

I know. And you're failing miserably at the debunking.

so you admit that the premise of cris's argument is false

No. I'm showing where, and how, you fail to understand the argument.

hence, his whole argument or proof that the christian god and free will can't exist, or form a paradox, is...
FALSE!!
am i correct?

Also wrong.

now, if you want to support his same point with a new argument and a new premise,(in which i think you need to state that dictionaries are wrong ), then post a new thread, and i'll join you in it .
:thankyou:

There's no need for a new thread.
I've already supported that argument, and now you're claiming (wrongly) to have debunked it.

I'll try to simplify it for you:

If god knows which we're going to do (keep it simple: pick A or pick B) then we do not actually have the choice.
For something to be known it must be true. Therefore if it is true that we will pick A we cannot, under any circumstances, pick B.
Hence the "choice" is an illusion: we cannot pick B whatever we tell ourselves because the selection of A, being true, was, is and always will be true. Even before the "choice" was made.

 

[scifes]

now, i really really don't know how many times do i have to spell it out for you, it's about time you give up and admit D, being stubborn is good, but when you're right, so drop your pride and surrender to truth, you're never too old to learn new things you know, even from a glass ants advocate like me..learn new things you know, even from a glass ants advocate like me..

Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.

does the external coercion exist because of the knowledge?
period.

there is no coercion.

you've just said that his premise is wrong, how can you still keep "but"ting anything about the argument? isn't it done? finished? period?
how can one win against you D? or are you one who has the "it's a goat even if it flew" saying apply to them?
if you, one of the most intelligent atheists i know, can't accept this simple defeat, how can you still speak of how close minded theists are? how brainwashed, arrogant and ignorant, illogical they are?

cris was very clear in his argument, his definitions were so, and my debunkment of it was of similar clarity, choice is independent of knowledge, especially when the chooser doesn't have access to said knowledge, and this is all subject to his own definitions, what are you still trying to achieve here?

the way i see it, you have two choices;
1-either demonstrate on a line parallel to his argument how my objection is wrong, and the argument still holds.
2-give a model for us to work on, you can not do this, because you are wrong.
3-admit that cris's argument is flawed, that i have debunked it, and feel free to pursue his concept in a new thread, i assure you, when you do that, you'll bring nothing new, you'll only question the definition of choice as humans know it, i won't necessarily oppose you there, because it would be more of a philosophical debate than strictly a religious one, because cris's definition of choice is the one known to humans, and his argument is based on that, all that's left to you is to question that - the definition itself-.

i'm also interested in what other readers here think, and who they think is making more sense, me or D.

 

[Dywyddyr]

now, i really really don't know how many times do i have to spell it out for you, it's about time you give up and admit D, being stubborn is good, but when you're right, so drop your pride and surrender to truth, you're never too old to learn new things you know, even from a glass ants advocate like me..learn new things you know, even from a glass ants advocate like me..

And you're still misunderstanding.

you've just said that his premise is wrong

No I didn't.
There is no coercion even if free will doesn't exist.
You persistently misunderstand.

cris was very clear in his argument, his definitions were so, and my debunkment of it was of similar clarity

Cris was (and is correct): your "debunking" is completely specious.

I'll try again: slowly.

IF choice exists then we can choose either A or B.
Right?
If we can choose either then it impossible to know which we will choose.
This follows that the definition of knowledge is that it is a true belief: i.e. it can't be false.

If there is actual knowledge: i.e. it is infallibly known which we will choose the we cannot choose anything other than what that knowledge says we will.

E,g. god knows we will choose A.
Therefore we have to/ must/ will inevitably "choose" A, otherwise god would be wrong.
Got it yet?

 

[Cris]

scifes, Lucy,

*knowing the result of a given choice doesn't stop it from being taken
out of free will.

Yes it does. If an event is known before it occurs then the concept of free-will becomes irrelevant and illusory.

You give your cat two bowls of food, you know which one it'll choose,
doesn't mean it didn't choose it out of its free will.

That is not knowledge, that is an assessment of probability. Such assessments approach knowledge as the time between assessment and event become shorter, but it is still not knowledge until the event has occurred. What happens here if a dog suddenly appears at the very last second and scares the cat away and then eats the food itself? What has happened to your claim to knowledge?

Now if you can tell me with certainty that a specific cat at a time 1 million years from now will choose between one bowl over another then that would be impressive. Let's assume you can do that, what now can we say about the potential free-will choice of the cat, that at the time you have this knowledge, does not yet exist? Does the cat have any choice to do anything other than exactly what you know it will do? No, its exact actions have been predetermined, there is no choice involved.

The very presence of knowledge of future events fundamentally conflicts with any notion of a choice to do anything other than what is known will occur. The paradox highlights the probability that obtaining knowledge of future events is simply not possible except in science fiction. Time does not appear to be a medium through which it is possible to traverse but rather it is no more than a property of existence in the same sense that your breadth, width, and height, are the other primary dimensional properties. One should no more talk about traveling through time than one would discuss traveling through height. The future does not exist, only present time exists. So knowledge of what has yet to occur is not possible. However, if we were to fully comprehend every variable in the universe and how these variables interact with each other then it is conceivable that we could potentially accurately predict future events by examining the very long chains of minute cause and effects that would lead to those future events.

In that light we could hypothesize that a god might have the ability to understand such complexity and be able to predict future events perfectly. That now brings us back to free-will and our cat. If the cat chooses one bowl over another is it free-will or is it entirely the result of a very long chain of causes and effects starting with the start of the universe? In this case the appearance of free will again be no more than a deterministic and predictable event. Free will would again not be the case.

I don't see any debunking yet.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I don't see any debunking yet.

Not bloody likely to either.

I think Scifes knows that God cannot pass any judgments if man is incapable of choice. To do so God would be judging Himself, not us. Unacceptable as that is, it then becomes prudent to inject free will into predestined lives. Scifes cannot admit defeat here even if he is soundly thrashed, too much at stake.

 

[scifes]

alright, i'm thoroughly offended now, cuz i'm either too stupid i'm missing a point you all are seeing, or you're all sticking to your beliefs no matter what, and are playing me for a fool to expect me to actually follow along..

cris, please tell us what you think of my entity a and entity b example, D what do you think of my dying naked possibilities, you (as usual) excluded them from your reply, please counter example.

 

[scifes]

BWAHAHAHA,i've just bought a book called (rough translation): "curing the ill, in matters of fate and destiny, causes and reasons", for an ancient bedwin, you all know those centery old cattle shooers..well one of them is about to obliterate all yer asses..i mean, why knock you out with a stick if i can run you over with a tank?

Tiassa, i care for what you think of this thread, in case you're reading..

 

[Dywyddyr]

alright, i'm thoroughly offended now, cuz i'm either too stupid i'm missing a point you all are seeing

Well we didn't want to be the ones to say it.

D what do you think of my dying naked possibilities, you (as usual) excluded them from your reply, please counter example.

Because they're simply reiterations of previous arguments, but just this once...

1-knowledge, no choice:
god knows you'll die naked, and forces you to die so, you have no choice in the matter, he sends a demon to strip you and slit your throat.

So what? That's coercion.
Knowledge does not mean coercion!

2-choice, no knowledge:
there is no god, the future does not exist, only as it folds into present, you see the biggest meteor coming to wipe up your city, you choose whether to die naked or not.

Yep: that's one way of looking at it (or one possible explanation).

3-no choice, no knowledge:
same as the previous scenario(2), except a junkie across the street pins you to the ground and insists you die naked, or any other thing that is forced upon you and takes away your ability to carry out your choice, like sudden death, or whatever.

Adds nothing to the argument.

4-choice, knowledge:
god knows whether you die naked or not, the meteor is coming your way, you wonder if it'll hurt more if you have your cloths on or not, you hesitate, make up your mind, and do it.
fifty thousand billion years ago, a holy piece of parchment had your name, longitude and latitude coordinates, date and time of death up to the milli second, and the exact size, color, brand name of the cloths you're wearing(or not) at the time of your death.

If there is knowledge there is no choice.

From the bottom, one step at a time:

If god knows that, given a "choice", you will pick A which will you pick?
Which can you pick?
If you claim that that it is possible for you to pick B what does that mean about god's knowledge that you will pick A?

 

[phlogistician]

Those who reject Him spend forever in HELL!

You need to go and re-read your bibles, because they specifically don't say that.

 

[sifreak21]

Wow, yeah. True this is the Science Forums... most people are here to talk about science and there disbelief in the ALMIGHTY.

I also realize that ALMOST no one that comes on these sites is here to LEARN or LISTEN. They are here to SHARE & TELL. My chances of helping anyone see the truth is slim to none. Maybe I should just realize that? lol

As for the MYSTORY lady. I'm afriad you got it all wrong. You are way off. BUT GOOD LUCK TO YA!!!! lol

I didn't just "believe" what my parents told me. I read the bible, study, I have a personal relationship with Jesus. He is in my life, guides me, helps me. It's amazing the things that He does. I'm for sure walking with the Lord. And no one could convince me otherwise.

If you all read what I just wrote in the last 5 posts.... you will see that I believe if God wants you coming to heaven, He'll get you one way or another! He never fails to save those he chooses Praying for you all!

no people are here to state there opinion freely, then there are people like you stating unprovable facts and people here wont keep there mouth shut they will call you out which they should. the bible is in my eyes nothing more than a fiction story passed down over the ages.

im sure a good author could write another book that makes you believe out of fear, what if this is true i may spend eternity in hell, emense suffering! well istead of taking that chance im gonna believe in something there is no proof what so ever of donate 10% of my paycheck so the pastor can buy himself a million dollar mansion and a bently but mroe power to them there screwing believers everywhere, one of the greatest scams of all time.

but back to the point, you say there is proof but yet there is none your believe in faith is from your personal experiences, which im 99% sure whatever they are have a valid explination, and the writings of the bible. but yet you have not one shred of proof. i understand what you have been saying but i dont and unless unrefutible proof that god does all will not believe in a glamorus fiction story im sorry, there is more proof now adays of UFO's /aliens then of god

 

[sifreak21]

You made some very good points, and on the surface I would have to agree.
Let's dig a little deeper than just the surface for a minute.
Using your choice of science as reference point let's take just one example.
Light. You can see it so you believe it's real enough. Right? OK.

But you can only see a narrow spectrum of the actual bandwidth that truly exists.
Ultraviolet and infrared are out of the range of your senses.
What makes you so sure nothing else of material substance is out of your range as well?

Need another?
Science has proven there are entire worlds you can not see without some kind of outside help.
The Micro and the Macro, the speed of molecular vibration.
Slowed down the same molecules that appear solid, "disappear" when they are excited and speed up.
They are still just as real but you can no longer see them.
Just a few examples of how your statements are invalidated by the very science you thought supported you.

How many more examples are out there just beyond the range of your perception.
The Bible speaks of quite a few.

in the field of lasers i thought id chime in on this post ^_^

we can only see the visible spectrum.. you 100% correct, but comparing Ultraviolet and infrared to a being is outrageous.. and we can see them might i add. night vision goggles can see IR light so we know for 100% fact its there and you can see the effects of UV wavelenghts everywhere, i can show you un refutable proof that UV and IR exsist you got something to show me god? not writings not dreams not personal experiences,

On your second part there, you shot yourself in the foot. with outside help we can see these microscopic worlds, with outside help we cant look around and see god walking among us.

as i have not read the bible cover to cover i dont know what exampes of "just out of our range" there are and what ones if any we can prove without a reasonable doubt

 

[scifes]

D, can we say it boils down to order?

i put it like this;
you make your choice, god knew it all along.

you put it like this;
god knows it, can you choose otherwise?

let's try to apply models,

1-you are faced with A and B, you choose one, god knew it all along.

2-god knows you'll choose A, hence you don't have a choice to choose B.

PEOPLE!!
which makes more sense?
now do you see why the avoidance of giving a live example? a model to work on?
cuz then there'll be no place for playing with words..or am i going even deeper down the road of stupidity?
manifestation... i love it.

 

[scifes]

Not bloody likely to either.

I think Scifes knows that God cannot pass any judgments if man is incapable of choice. To do so God would be judging Himself, not us. Unacceptable as that is, it then becomes prudent to inject free will into predestined lives. Scifes cannot admit defeat here even if he is soundly thrashed, too much at stake.

yo psychotic, didn't want to be one who asks for people's opinions then ignores them, so thanks for your time, though you know yourself that you have a choice whether to believe in god or not, as much as you have the choice to admit it or not..so, idk..:shrug:

 

[Dywyddyr]

D, can we say it boils down to order?

No.

i put it like this;
you make your choice, god knew it all along.
you put it like this;
god knows it, can you choose otherwise?

If god knew then there could not have a choice - we couldn't choose otherwise.

let's try to apply models,
1-you are faced with A and B, you choose one, god knew it all along.

2-god knows you'll choose A, hence you don't have a choice to choose B.

You're still not seeing it: if is known before hand then we cannot choose the one that we didn't.
Your "examples" are the same thing: we can't choose differently than god "predicted".

which makes more sense?
now do you see why the avoidance of giving a live example? a model to work on?

Your own "models" show where you're going wrong.
If it is known we cannot go against that choice.

You haven't answered this:
If god knows that, given a "choice", you will pick A which will you pick?
Which can you pick?
If you claim that that it is possible for you to pick B what does that mean about god's knowledge that you will pick A?

 

[scifes]

You haven't answered this:
If god knows that, given a "choice", you will pick A which will you pick?
Which can you pick?
If you claim that that it is possible for you to pick B what does that mean about god's knowledge that you will pick A?

that's coercion of some sort, you see, you know what god knows you're gonna choose, so you can't but choose it, you have to choose A, cuz god knows you're gonna choose it.

but, the key matter is that we don't know what god knows, and hence we're to-tal-ly independent of what he knows, it's as if he isn't there().
you get it now?

if god told us what we are predestined to pick;

Which can you pick?

only what god knows i will pick, which is A.

on the other hand, if god did not tell us what he predestined us to pick;

Which can you pick?

i can pick either:shrug:

for a moment let's pretend that god exists, and that he predetermined what would happen in this world, how does that stop me from choosing whether i brush my teeth before i sleep or not?

are you going to say;"IF god predestined you to brush them, you sure as hell won't sleep till you brushed them, one friggin way or another"?
then i'd agree, BUT, you said, "IF", now what is the alternative to that "IF" being true?
that god predestined me to sleep without brushing my teeth, in which case i also, would in no way brush them before i sleep, no matter what.

now i, when i was about 15 years old i guess, was puzzled and baffled by this, i wanted to try, to experiment, to go against god's predetermination, i wanted to go off the rail, try doing something i couldn't, something i shouldn't, go off god's script..

:scratchin:...
but where's the script?
how can i go against something i don't know?
how can i claim to be bound to something i don't know, if i want to break from it?

was i supposed to brush my teeth or not, according to god's plan?
.....
....
...
..
.
"ahh f*** it, i'll just do what i want"..