(June 10, 2021 at 1:37 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: The world you're describing already exists. Because there are believers who are absolutely convinced that god exists, this world already satisfies your requirements.

This right here, though, is best in show, and deserved it's own post.

Is that what you think?  That this world that exists satisfies an atheists requirements for a world with a god in it.  Even you must know that this is untrue, and hilariously untrue.  If this world satisfied a persons requirements for a world with a god in it, they would be a theist, not an atheist. Their mere existence proves that this world does not satisfy their requirements for a godded world.

How many ridiculous beliefs about atheists, your own abilities, and some djinn...does your worldview depend on? Is this one of those fractal wrongness things?

(June 10, 2021 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: This is only you insisting that god does indeed force humans, and in fact forces everything. 

Okay. Let's stop here. In order to say that agent A (who is capable of foreknowledge) forces agent B to do X, this entails two things:

1) Agent B intends to perform action X
2) Agent A precludes B from performing X and forces him to do Y instead. Y being different from X.

But what if, instead:

1) Agent B intends to perform action X
2) Agent A forces B to perform action X. not Y, or Z. Thanks to agent A's foreknowledge, he pinpointed the action X that agent B would choose because of his free will.

I don't think it would be a problem if God "forces" all human beings to go with their free will.. he is just enforcing free will, which was his intention, after all.

(June 10, 2021 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We do whatever god wills, even if we might otherwise do whatever we willed absent that force.

Why would we do anything other than God's will, which is identical to our free will ? It's just like saying " I don't have a choice but to choose to do X", it's just syntactic ambiguity, there is no real problem.

(June 10, 2021 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Are you free to make god wrong in the future, but not the past?  If you believe that foreknowledge is an absolute and eternal property of your god, then you must be wrong about yourself and what abilities you have. 

Well if you define free will as the ability to change past events, of course we have no free will...... As I said, it's impossible to speak accurately about free will without taking time into account. If God was inside the Spacetime , it would be indeed the case that foreknowledge is impossible. But, reportedly, he's not.

Let's define free will as : the ability to choose between at least two things or scenarios. 

Now here is an example. For a given individual X endowed with free will relativitely to scenario S:

X chooses S1, then S2, then S3. God, being all-knowing, knows this sequence.

God lays out the sequence of events S3, S1, S2 => Foreknowledge contradicts free will.
God lays out the sequence of events S1, S3, S2 => Foreknowledge contradicts free will.
[...]
God lays out the sequence of events S1, S2, S3 (the same sequence X would choose) => Foreknowledge is compatible with free will.

If this example is correct, then, in order to show that foreknowledge actually contradicts free will. One must show that the choices we make differ from those laid out by God. But since we have no access to the latter information. It's impossible to show such a contradction.

(June 10, 2021 at 3:58 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(June 10, 2021 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: This is only you insisting that god does indeed force humans, and in fact forces everything. 

Okay. Let's stop here. In order to say that agent A (who is capable of foreknowledge) forces agent B to do X, this entails two things:
1) Agent B intends to perform action X
2) Agent A precludes B from performing X and forces him to do Y instead. Y being different from X.

But what if, instead:

1) Agent B intends to perform action X
2) Agent A forces B to perform action X. not Y, or Z. Thanks to agent A's foreknowledge, he pinpointed the action X that agent B would choose because of his free will.

I don't think it would be a problem if God "forces" all human beings to go with their free will.. he is just enforcing free will, which was his intention, after all.

 I keep telling you that I don't think god forcing humans is a problem either, and that it;s not the shittiest thing you believe god does or will do..but I wonder why you would argue both ends of that irrelevance, since the use of force isn't why foreknowledge precludes free will.

Quote:

(June 10, 2021 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We do whatever god wills, even if we might otherwise do whatever we willed absent that force.

Why would we do anything other than God's will, which is identical to our free will ? It's just like saying " I don't have a choice but to choose to do X", it's just syntactic ambiguity, there is no real problem.

Why indeed?  Can we, though.....can we even do anything other than gods will?   Do we have that choice?  

Quote:

(June 10, 2021 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Are you free to make god wrong in the future, but not the past?  If you believe that foreknowledge is an absolute and eternal property of your god, then you must be wrong about yourself and what abilities you have. 

Well if you define free will as the ability to change past events, of course we have no free will...... As I said, it's impossible to speak accurately about free will without taking time into account. If God was inside the Spacetime , it would be indeed the case that foreknowledge is impossible. But, reportedly, he's not.
Let's define free will as : the ability to choose between at least two things or scenarios. 
Now here is an example. For a given individual X endowed with free will relativitely to scenario S:

X chooses S1, then S2, then S3. God, being all-knowing, knows this sequence.

God lays out the sequence of events S3, S1, S2 => Foreknowledge contradicts free will.
God lays out the sequence of events S1, S3, S2 => Foreknowledge contradicts free will.
[...]
God lays out the sequence of events S1, S2, S3 (the same sequence X would choose) => Foreknowledge is compatible with free will.

If this example is correct, then, in order to show that foreknowledge actually contradicts free will. One must show that the choices we make differ from those laid out by God. But since we have no access to the latter information. It's impossible to show such a contradction.

So, yes you do have free will and yes you can make god wrong?

(June 10, 2021 at 3:18 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(June 10, 2021 at 3:10 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Of course I can't. I think you misunderstand what I am getting at. I can't demonstrate independently of the theistic premise that other minds exist. My argument is, instead, as follows:

P1 : a theist thinks that a god exists. an atheist doesn't.
P2 :  the axiom "God exists" solves hard solipsism

Not if you can’t demonstrate it. That’s no more effective than saying:

P2 : The axiom “hard solipsism is false” solves the problem of hard solipsism.

Well, the axiom "hard solipsism is false" is exactly equivalent to "There is certainly at least one mind other mine", which is not very far from the necessary being we usually call God. All other contingent beings can't be shown to exist by logical arguments.

I don't know, I think I just have to see another human to know that one. On a scale of 1-10, being our closeness to god, where do we rate? Are we a near god like 9....or a lowly 1...or?

Let's say a world didn't have gods in it, but did have humans in it. Do you think that this would be a sufficient basis for accepting the existence of other minds as a fact? Let's say a world had a god, but no humans. How about then, are there...other minds in that world?

Even further afield, if we were to contend that all of this, properly, is just one mind, gods mind - is that a solution to the problem of hard solipsism..or a full throated invocation of it being true?

(June 10, 2021 at 4:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(June 10, 2021 at 3:18 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Not if you can’t demonstrate it. That’s no more effective than saying:

P2 : The axiom “hard solipsism is false” solves the problem of hard solipsism.

Well, the axiom "hard solipsism is false" is exactly equivalent to "There is certainly at least one mind other mine", which is not very far from the necessary being we usually call God. All other contingent beings can't be shown to exist by logical arguments.

No, there are actually quite a bit of extra assumptions between “I accept that you exist,” and “I accept that a supreme being who created reality, maintains it, interacts with his creation, loves and has a plan for them, and will dole out ultimate justice in an afterlife exists.” Which is what you believe.

(June 10, 2021 at 4:05 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't know, I think I just have to see another human to know that one.  On a scale of 1-10, being our closeness to god, where do we rate?  Are we a near god like 9....or a lowly 1...or?  

Let's say a world didn't have gods in it, but did have humans in it.  Do you think that this would be a sufficient basis for accepting the existence of other minds as a fact?  Let's say a world had a god, but no humans.  How about then, are there...other minds in that world?

Yes it would be a sufficient basis for accepting other minds. I am not advocating that people turn into solipsists and live alone in psychiatric hospitals, either.... The problem of other minds is only important because it doesn't have conclusive logical arguments, but only arguments of analogical or probabilistic type... An atheist's position is usually just that with regards to God. We say that apparent design around us is sufficient basis to accept there is a God, they want more... well, if you want more about God, why didn't you ask for more about other minds...?

---

(June 10, 2021 at 4:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: No, there are actually quite a bit of extra assumptions between “I accept that you exist,” and “I accept that a supreme being who created reality, maintains it, interacts with his creation, loves and has a plan for them, and will dole out ultimate justice in an afterlife exists.” Which is what you believe.

I agree it's not the same thing. But "appearance of design pointing to a designer" and "things that look like people point to other minds" aren't really very different. And, no reason to mention love, plans and afterlife for now. I don't claim these arguments lead all the way to a personal God.

(June 10, 2021 at 4:15 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(June 10, 2021 at 4:05 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't know, I think I just have to see another human to know that one.  On a scale of 1-10, being our closeness to god, where do we rate?  Are we a near god like 9....or a lowly 1...or?  

Let's say a world didn't have gods in it, but did have humans in it.  Do you think that this would be a sufficient basis for accepting the existence of other minds as a fact?  Let's say a world had a god, but no humans.  How about then, are there...other minds in that world?

Yes it would be a sufficient basis for accepting other minds.

Well, there you go then.  My accepting the existence of other minds is mundane as my noticing that you exist.  How close to a god are you?

Quote:I am not advocating that people turn into solipsists and live alone in psychiatric hospitals, either.... The problem of other minds is only important because it doesn't have conclusive logical arguments, but only arguments of analogical or probabilistic type... An atheist's position is usually just that with regards to God. We say that apparent design around us is sufficient basis to accept there is a God, they want more... well, if you want more about God, why didn't you ask for more about other minds...?

You say alot of shit, and it never concerns you that the shit you say is demonstrably untrue - design being a great case..but the contents of this thread might work even better at some point.  The Atheists Position, kloro, is that we don't believe in gods.  We're perfectly content to believe that you exist.

So, how about the world where everything that is, is properly, gods mind? Are there other minds in that world? Is hard solipsism true?

---

(June 10, 2021 at 4:15 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Oh! only replying to the parts of a post that you WANT to adress?

 Good 'Cherry picking there, mate.

As well as being a form of dishonesty. Ah well. Looks like you've picked up those OTHER bad habits of Christian appologiets which is 'Lying for Jeebus'.

  Whoosh!

Yup, just blow through the inconvenient aspect of you being disingenuous in your replies to others.



Not at work.

(June 10, 2021 at 4:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Well, there you go then.  My accepting the existence of other minds is mundane as my noticing that you exist.  How close to a god are you?

Nobody here is denying that the existence of other minds is mundane... I am not a solipsist to deny that. But other minds are still referred to in philosophy as a problem.. why, in your opinion..? 

(June 10, 2021 at 4:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You say alot of shit, and it never concerns you that the shit you say is demonstrably untrue - design being a great case..but the contents of this thread might work even better at some point.  The Atheists Position, kloro, is that we don't believe in gods.  We're perfectly content to believe that you exist.

So, how about the world where everything that is, is properly, gods mind?  Are there other minds in that world?  Is hard solipsism true?

Nobody here in this forum managed to give a clear definition of design without begging their position. Contrasting nature with machines already begs the claim that nature is undesigned. This is something that one finds a lot in atheist literature. And it's enough for me to declare that they give dishonest definitions to things to short-circuit our arguments.

Atheists don't believe in a designer, therefore they think aspects of design we see around us are not sufficient... but aspects of things that look like people do point to other minds, you even called this mundane; why shouldn't the existence of a designer be mundane too, for the same reason?? 

(June 10, 2021 at 4:28 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:   Whoosh!

Yup, just blow through the inconvenient aspect of you being disingenuous in your replies to others.



Not at work.

You said you accept there are other minds without arguments. Pointing to physical skulls doesn't help because they belong to an external world, which a solipsist denies entirely. It's understandable that you would accept other minds without good arguments, what's not understandable is why you would require good arguments for anything else.