(April 25, 2017 at 2:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: Broadly logically possible: Through logic alone, it is possible. Logic alone does not preclude it from being true. 
Actually possible: Can it actually exist in some possible world.

They're the same thing, Steve. What you mean to say is that the distinction is between "logically possible without context" and "logically possible given a certain context".

Quote:I am claiming that the premise: "It is logically possible for God to create a world where everyone always chooses good" is broadly logically possible. However, because it is a contingent proposition (on free will), it seems like it is not actually possible. In other words, there is a factor in addition to logic that might make it impossible.

What is this necessary factor that makes this impossible in any possible world? Assuming that libertarian free will is logical: if you possess libertarian free will, then you should be free to choose good all the time, and this should apply to all human beings possessing this free will. Therefore, this should be the case in at least one possible world, unless there is a necessary factor that I am unaware of that prevents such a world from being possible. But you can't just argue it's unintuitive. Human intuition is often useless when arguing metaphysics and such. That's why we have logic.

And it's not just me saying this is "actually possible". The author(s) from the link I provided above (who clearly seem to be academic and well-versed in philosophy) agree that there is a possible world in which humans can choose good all the time, and they refer to the story of Adam and Eve to make their point. The page is dead now for some reason, but when it's back online, go there and scroll to the part where the author(s) discuss Plantinga's W4.

Quote:3. We need to tighten up the definitions/positions for discussion purposes (these taken from the first sentence of each of the articles from Wikipedia):

Physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event.
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. 
Dualism or duality is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. 

I am a non-physicalist, non-deterministic, dualist-interactionist. And as such I believe that the immaterial mind has actual free will to make real choices not always influenced by some prior cause.

Then it's sometimes by chance alone, so when this is the case, it's not really a choice. So we go back to the logically incoherent definition I provided earlier, and so wonder how you can even think that this is a logical concept. The free will you speak of makes no logical sense.

(April 27, 2017 at 1:20 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(April 25, 2017 at 2:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: Broadly logically possible: Through logic alone, it is possible. Logic alone does not preclude it from being true. 
Actually possible: Can it actually exist in some possible world.

They're the same thing, Steve. What you mean to say is that the distinction is between "logically possible without context" and "logically possible given a certain context".

Quote:I am claiming that the premise: "It is logically possible for God to create a world where everyone always chooses good" is broadly logically possible. However, because it is a contingent proposition (on free will), it seems like it is not actually possible. In other words, there is a factor in addition to logic that might make it impossible.

What is this necessary factor that makes this impossible in any possible world? Assuming that libertarian free will is logical: if you possess libertarian free will, then you should be free to choose good all the time, and this should apply to all human beings possessing this free will. Therefore, this should be the case in at least one possible world, unless there is a necessary factor that I am unaware of that prevents such a world from being possible. But you can't just argue it's unintuitive. Human intuition is often useless when arguing metaphysics and such. That's why we have logic.

And it's not just me saying this is "actually possible". The author(s) from the link I provided above (who clearly seem to be academic and well-versed in philosophy) agree that there is a possible world in which humans can choose good all the time, and they refer to the story of Adam and Eve to make their point. The page is dead now for some reason, but when it's back online, go there and scroll to the part where the author(s) discuss Plantinga's W4.

Quote:3. We need to tighten up the definitions/positions for discussion purposes (these taken from the first sentence of each of the articles from Wikipedia):

Physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event.
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. 
Dualism or duality is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. 

I am a non-physicalist, non-deterministic, dualist-interactionist. And as such I believe that the immaterial mind has actual free will to make real choices not always influenced by some prior cause.

Then it's sometimes by chance alone, so when this is the case, it's not really a choice. So we go back to the logically incoherent definition I provided earlier, and so wonder how you can even think that this is a logical concept. The free will you speak of makes no logical sense.

A place were people have free will but can't do evil . If William Lane Craig (not sure if he still believes this) is right then Christians  already accept such a place it's called heaven.

And yes I agree with you Grand if it's chance then it's not really a choice . And the idea that a choice is not influenced by something else physical or not is absurd .


And  no Steve choices influenced by prior causes are just as "real" as any other choice .

(April 27, 2017 at 3:49 am)Orochi Wrote: A place were people have free will but can't do evil .

Or even won't do evil (Plantinga's W4).

Quote:If William Lane Craig (not sure if he still believes this) is right then Christians  already accept such a place it's called heaven.

Which makes me wonder what's the point of natural or moral evil in the first place. It's so clear to me that this world is the way it is because there is no God of the type Steve and NeoScholastic and other Christians worship, NOT in spite of his existence.

SteveII Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:So God has a physical presence? As in spiritually omnipresent but physically in a particular location? Kind of like Odin on his magic throne from which he can see all the Nine Realms? Where do you get that from?

And if true, why the need to only have good people in heaven, wouldn't his presence guarantee everyone's goodness regardless of past history? And why wasn't that enough to keep a third of the angels from rebelling? Was God out that day? 

It really seems like you're making this stuff up as you go along, inserting whatever occurs to you to answer the objection of the moment, without considering the implications. Talk about raising more questions than you answer....

Well, I go by verses like this:

Quote:REV 21:1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying:

“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man, and He will live with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. 4He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.”

5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are faithful and true.” 6And He told me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give freely from the spring of the water of life.

and further down...

22But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23And the city has no need for sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp. 

Don't know much about angels, but it seems they were not always in the presence of God (see Job 1). 

See...not making stuff up. Do you really think these questions haven't been discussed for millennium?

So no free will in heaven as long as you stay within God's effective radius. And you turn out to be a literalist. God is omnipresent and located in heaven. God is a spirit and likes to sit in a chair. Good thing you believe he can only do the 'actually possible' or who knows what sleight of reality you'd have him doing.

(April 27, 2017 at 8:24 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: So no free will in heaven as long as you stay within God's effective radius. And you turn out to be a literalist. God is omnipresent and located in heaven. God is a spirit and likes to sit in a chair. Good thing you believe he can only do the 'actually possible' or who knows what sleight of reality you'd have him doing.

Your definition of omnipresent is off. The idea is that God is aware of all points in the physical universe--not that he is in them. I posted this awhile back:

Quote:Before you go saying that God is everywhere, that is not going to hold up. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? Additionally, the universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? No, God does not occupy space and is therefore not literally everywhere. I believe he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space.

Additionally, the verses are clearly describing a new reality (read the whole chapter), so any imagined conflict with this reality is just that, imagined.

---

(April 27, 2017 at 1:20 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(April 25, 2017 at 2:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: Broadly logically possible: Through logic alone, it is possible. Logic alone does not preclude it from being true. 
Actually possible: Can it actually exist in some possible world.

They're the same thing, Steve. What you mean to say is that the distinction is between "logically possible without context" and "logically possible given a certain context". [1]

Quote:I am claiming that the premise: "It is logically possible for God to create a world where everyone always chooses good" is broadly logically possible. However, because it is a contingent proposition (on free will), it seems like it is not actually possible. In other words, there is a factor in addition to logic that might make it impossible.

What is this necessary factor that makes this impossible in any possible world? Assuming that libertarian free will is logical: if you possess libertarian free will, then you should be free to choose good all the time, and this should apply to all human beings possessing this free will. Therefore, this should be the case in at least one possible world, unless there is a necessary factor that I am unaware of that prevents such a world from being possible. But you can't just argue it's unintuitive. Human intuition is often useless when arguing metaphysics and such. That's why we have logic.

And it's not just me saying this is "actually possible". The author(s) from the link I provided above (who clearly seem to be academic and well-versed in philosophy) agree that there is a possible world in which humans can choose good all the time [2], and they refer to the story of Adam and Eve to make their point. The page is dead now for some reason, but when it's back online, go there and scroll to the part where the author(s) discuss Plantinga's W4.

1. No, they are not--and you explained why they are not. If you are going to critique and discuss logically arguments, you have to understand the terms.

2. That is what I have been saying. I don't disagree with this statement.  However, that does not mean what you think it means. "Possible world" just means broadly logically possible. But the proposition is only contingently true (see link below for def). The PoE argument needs the proposition to be necessarily true (also see link for def) to succeed. 

http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/modallogic.html

---

(April 27, 2017 at 1:20 am)Grandizer Wrote:

Quote:3. We need to tighten up the definitions/positions for discussion purposes (these taken from the first sentence of each of the articles from Wikipedia):

Physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event.
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. 
Dualism or duality is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. 

I am a non-physicalist, non-deterministic, dualist-interactionist. And as such I believe that the immaterial mind has actual free will to make real choices not always influenced by some prior cause.

Then it's sometimes by chance alone, so when this is the case, it's not really a choice. So we go back to the logically incoherent definition I provided earlier, and so wonder how you can even think that this is a logical concept. The free will you speak of makes no logical sense.

Tell me precisely where this definition is logically incoherent so I can figure out where the disconnect is:

Definition of Free Will: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

(April 25, 2017 at 6:36 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(April 25, 2017 at 7:13 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: [edit]

Steve, protip: When you qoute mine, don't link to where you're quote mining from because it confirms you as the shitty little idiot liar and slanderer that you are.

[edit]

And I get called rude (or something similar) for using the word "fantasy".

I gave up being nice with Steve a long time ago, back when I realised that he wasn't, despite his constant protestations to the contrary, interested in having a debate, but just simply ramming his unevidenced assertions down everybody else's throats as fact.

(April 27, 2017 at 10:22 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(April 25, 2017 at 6:36 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: And I get called rude (or something similar) for using the word "fantasy".

I gave up being nice with Steve a long time ago, back when I realised that he wasn't, despite his constant protestations to the contrary, interested in having a debate, but just simply ramming his unevidenced assertions down everybody else's throats as fact.

Me thinks Stevie doth protest to much and this may be more than it appears.

(April 26, 2017 at 10:13 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 26, 2017 at 7:01 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Nobody is talking about you personally, you do care too to some degree or you wouldn't be here trying to "discuss" your old book of myth. Now don't tell me that doesn't frustrate you one bit in your head to have someone call it a book of myth, even if you don't call for their silence in real life or threaten them physically in real life for calling it a book of myth.

ITS A BOOK OF MYTH........ Not my fault someone convinced you otherwise.

That does bother you regardless if you don't react to it physically, it still bothers you others are not buying your claims.

Myth myth myth myth myth myth myth.

No such thing as magic babies with super powers.

Nobody survives rigor mortis after dying from the act of torture the death myth would have you believe.

Don't hand me any bullshit that my blasphemy doesn't bother you. 

Don't feel bad, the ancient Egyptians falsely believed that Horus would rise to heaven and sit next to Osiris under the sun God Ra in judgment of the dead. Beautiful artwork, and they had a good run for 3,000 years, but for what? Nonsense that was never true. 

Silly you thinks your Jesus character will be remembered in 5 billion years long after our species goes extinct. Hate to burst your bubble buddy, but Jesus will be just as remembered in 5 billion years as Osiris and Horus and Ra. Sucks to be you buddy.

It doesn't bother you that I blaspheme your claims? HA HA HA HA HA HA...... Sure, care to take a polygraph?

Quote:
Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present everywhere. This property is most commonly used in a religious context as an attribute of a deity or supreme being.

The omnipresence of a supreme being is conceived differently by different religious systems. In monotheistic beliefs like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam the divine and the universe are separate, but the divine is present everywhere. In pantheistic beliefs the divine and the universe are identical. In panentheistic beliefs the divine interpenetrates the universe, but extends beyond it in time and space.

wiki

You don't get to re-define our words, Stevie.  If you want make up new words for your fairy tales.  The rest of us don't need your bullshit.

(April 27, 2017 at 9:24 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. No, they are not--and you explained why they are not. If you are going to critique and discuss logically arguments, you have to understand the terms.

There is no meaningful distinction between "logically possible" and "actually possible", no matter how many times you try to argue against this.

Quote:2. That is what I have been saying. I don't disagree with this statement.  However, that does not mean what you think it means.

Ok, Mr. Psychic, you tell me what I think it means then.

Quote:"Possible world" just means broadly logically possible.

Not just broadly, no. A possible world is a world that's logically possible but not necessarily actualized. Therefore, there is at least a possible world where all humans freely choose to do good all the time, unless there is a necessary factor that prevents such a world from being a possible world. The question is, what the hell is that factor? You haven't bothered to address this in all your red herrings.

Quote:But the proposition is only contingently true (see link below for def). The PoE argument needs the proposition to be necessarily true (also see link for def) to succeed. 

http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/modallogic.html

Steve, you must be confused.

The proposition "all humans freely choose good all the time" is contingently false according to the link you provided. But what this means therefore is there is at least one possible world in which this is indeed the case (that all humans freely choose good all the time). We don't need all possible worlds to correspond with the proposition. Only one possible world is needed for the objection containing this proposition to work.

From the link you provided:

Quote:Contingent falsity. A proposition is contingently false if it is false and in addition there are possible circumstances in which it would be true.

Quote:Tell me precisely where this definition is logically incoherent so I can figure out where the disconnect is:

Definition of Free Will: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

There is no disconnect that I can see here, but this seems to fit well with compatibilism and if it's meant to be describing libertarian free will, it doesn't seem to provide a sufficient description.

The disconnect, if you need one, is in the elaboration you provided in this quote below:

Quote:I am a non-physicalist, non-deterministic, dualist-interactionist. And as such I believe that the immaterial mind has actual free will to make real choices not always influenced by some prior cause.

I already explained what's wrong with this description in my previous response.