(June 11, 2018 at 2:47 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 5, 2018 at 5:14 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Hmm. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and the premises are all baseless assertions.

I revised a few times, and to me it seems the conclusion does follow from the premises.

I haven't elaborated on the premises, because I want agreement whether the argument is valid or not.



a -> b.
not c -> not b
a
Therefore b from a->b and a
c from b -> c (contra positive) and b.

C is God giving power, which given it is God existing....

Therefore it seems valid.

Tell me where you disagree!

I have to agree the form is valid, I was wrong about the conclusion not following.

If ducks like hysterical cats, then all hats are edible.

If there isn't any cheese, no hats are edible.

Ducks do like hysterical cats, therefore all hats are edible and there is at least some cheese.

You argument is both as sound and valid as the one above. The problem doesn't lie in the form after all. Good work on that part.

To prove the first premise. I say if it's reliable, there is an ordered way, that when do praiseworthy actions, the will power to do them we have access to. Yet if we access it in unlimited way where we at sheer whim can summon as much power as we want and it would be easy,  then why don't we all do it.

And in this regard the topic of Jacob and his title Israel is important.  But we won't get into that.

We build up on love and love is not just generate at whatever level, like we just turn it up to whatever setting we want. The type and amount and hue of love it has a reality that is justified.

The negation would be if we don't have reliable power, than our actions would still be praiseworthy as they are. But is this true?  If we have no control on the amount of power we emit love wise and bring to action, how can we be praised.

The other thing is the source.  Whether us or God it must be reliable has been proven. If there is no reliability, our actions would be subject to chaos.


Now let us look at why the source must be God. When we do good actions or bad actions, it must have some influence on future actions. Without this, there is no growth or negative falling.

Without that, our enticement to good or evil, would be without any meaning or order, we cannot make ourselves more virtuous over time nor more evil, it would just be actions and we remain the same value wise.

And if that is true, the reliability to improve in will for good or will to avoid evil is not reliable and hence chaotic, and that would not be accountable.

But if we decide the measurement of our actions, we can over estimate our good and underestimate our evil or vice versa, and one property of praise/goodness is that it's will power of love but also a judgement call, and we increase in time with more goodness in vision of judgment.

That is we assess good actions with more meaning the more we grow in love and wisdom.

But our judgement to how much will power we should get if not reliable, then summoning will power is not reliable.  We already showed that chaotic summoning of power makes good and evil meaningless or almost meaningless and takes the value out of praiseworthy states and actions and goals.

Therefore we need something that decides with perfect judgment how much will power we get and to what degree, and generates it, as anything less then absolute vision and perfect judge would to a degree neglect the reality and not account properly with due measure of the exact will power we need.

I will elaborate third premise later.

So much fail.

(June 17, 2018 at 1:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So much fail.

I think simply if we have no reliable way of accessing power and there was not an ordered system in that regard,  then we can't condemn or praise humans, because it would be volatile, random, and chaotic, of which neither praise nor condemnation can apply.

See the post above why God must come into play if there is a reliable way of accessing power.

Ball is in your court.

At work.

Hello again MK!

I must admit to still being a tad bamboozled about even having "Free will" let alone "Will power"

(September 30, 2018 at 11:18 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

Hello again MK!

I must admit to still being a tad bamboozled about even having "Free will" let alone "Will power"

In the case of not having free-will, every time sex happens, it would be rape by definition with no exception

At work.

(September 30, 2018 at 11:22 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(September 30, 2018 at 11:18 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Hello again MK!

I must admit to still being a tad bamboozled about even having "Free will" let alone "Will power"

In the case of not having free-will, every time sex happens, it would be rape by definition with no exception

While I accept your levity qualifyer/descriptor of the ( ) emote I shall stear well clear of any discourse about or even hinting at/with rape.

My point was, and still is, that I'm still struggling to get my head around whether we hage or even if there actually 'Is' such a thing as 'Free Will'.

Cheers.

Will Power is evolved. It was key to our survival. You see will power in aninmals as well. A tiger is hungry and is staring at a deer. It wants to pounce and eat the deer but it waits for the best moment. It exerts tremendous will power.

Will power helped out ancestors get through times of hunger and deprivation. Those without it died earlier.

That view is accounted for and part of the argument is to prove by contradiction, why God is needed. And that view is accounted for in the proof by contradiction.

(September 30, 2018 at 2:51 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: That view is accounted for and part of the argument is to prove by contradiction, why God is needed. And that view is accounted for in the proof by contradiction.

Can we have this in English.