What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[SteveII]

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.

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.

"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.

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, as you say, only contingently true. 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.

The hangup you have is that a possible world does not mean a complete possible alternate reality. It is a term used in modal logic to test propositions- and could be paraphrase as "logically speaking, the world could have been this way". 
One last try from a different angle: Possible world =/= feasible world. Feasible worlds are a subset of possible worlds. So while the proposition that everyone always chooses good is true in some possible world, it very well might not be feasible for God to create such a world because when God creates the actual world (notice I don't say "that world" because there is no such thing as that world) it very well might out that the 8th person freely chooses to do evil and the chain reaction of that evil has trillions of consequences. And, if in his foreknowledge, God can arrange the 8th person not to be tempted by x, it might be that that action causes the 7th or the 435th person to make a different choice...and so on.

[GrandizerII]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

Magic.

[Brian37]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

Magic.

BINGO both "magic" and "miracle" are really the same thing. Swallow first suspend criticism and that allows you to buy the fantastic claim.

[SteveII]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

The thing is if I dumb it down, then I have to explain more because the next person will spot the gaps.

[Brian37]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

The thing is if I dumb it down, then I have to explain more because the next person will spot the gaps.

No you aren't dumbing it down, what you are really admitting is that the more elaborate you make it, you hope someone smart enough cant peal back the layers of the onion so you need to keep your elaborate tripe complex, that is why you fell for it yourself. 

You came in here thinking we were easy pushovers and hadn't run into any elaborate tripe before. We can spot the gaps even without you watering it down.

[SteveII]

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:

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.

Then it seems you are asserting that only physical brain states are responsible for decisions. The only support I know for that conclusion is to presuppose naturalism (it can be no other way). If that is your reasoning, it is question begging. Is there another reason to believe that that is all that is happening?

[GrandizerII]

The hangup you have is that a possible world does not mean a complete possible alternate reality. It is a term used in modal logic to test propositions- and could be paraphrase as "logically speaking, the world could have been this way".

Go to this link:
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/facult...ES2006.pdf

How do they define possible worlds? Like this:

Possible worlds are complete ways that things might be.

Want a dictionary definition instead? No problem.

(in modal logic) a semantic device formalizing the notion of what the world might have been like. A statement is necessarily true if and only if it is true in every possible world

From:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio...ible-world
 

One last try from a different angle: Possible world =/= feasible world. Feasible worlds are a subset of possible worlds. So while the proposition that everyone always chooses good is true in some possible world, it very well might not be feasible for God to create such a world because when God creates the actual world (notice I don't say "that world" because there is no such thing as that world) it very well might out that the 8th person freely chooses to do evil and the chain reaction of that evil has trillions of consequences. And, if in his foreknowledge, God can arrange the 8th person not to be tempted by x, it might be that that action causes the 7th or the 435th person to make a different choice...and so on.

Ignoring the "possible world vs. feasible world" red herring, we still have the problem of you not demonstrating that it is not feasible that all human beings can choose good all the time. All you did basically was speculate about consequences of one person choosing good vs the same person choosing evil. Speculating is not demonstrating. Try harder next time please.

[LadyForCamus]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

The thing is if I dumb it down, then I have to explain more because the next person will spot the gaps.

Or...you could just answer the question.

Also, please explain how you reached your conclusion that causing things to happen without being present is a more reasonable notion than that of being present everywhere, all the time. Also, if god is 'causally active' in our universe, why can't we find any evidence of his activities?

[Brian37]

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:


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

Then it seems you are asserting that only physical brain states are responsible for decisions. The only support I know for that conclusion is to presuppose naturalism (it can be no other way). If that is your reasoning, it is question begging. Is there another reason to believe that that is all that is happening?

Um no, evolution and neurology as sciences don't claim that everything our bodies do is either only subconscious or or only always aware. Our brain stem regulates all our organs and that part we have no control over. It is not either/or but depends on what we are talking about. Your brain allows both conscious and subconscious decisions. 

I can chose to type this sentence, I cannot chose to have my fingertips feel the keyboard unless I amputate my hand and I cant chose to have a neurological disease, not that I have one, but I cant chose that which could cause me to lose neurological control over parts of my body or my senses.

And stop projecting the word "presuppose" on us. That is your bullshit, not ours. Evolution is proven science, neurology is proven science. If scientists want to prove something they don't have to simply mentally masturbate, they can prove it in a lab.

Presupposition is just another bullshit word for apology that theists use.

[GrandizerII]

Then it seems you are asserting that only physical brain states are responsible for decisions. The only support I know for that conclusion is to presuppose naturalism (it can be no other way). If that is your reasoning, it is question begging. Is there another reason to believe that that is all that is happening?

Don't be dense. I asserted no such thing. Can you not see how it is a logical contradiction to make a choice with no prior determining factor? I am trying to argue logic with you, without presupposing naturalism. Focus, Steve.