Why God doesn't stop satan?

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly so, and, to the existence of other minds, your belief in a great fairy is no more relevant or useful to that end.  

It's good to know that you would only believe in things because they are useful, not because they are true.

Well, I think that way about gods, to an extent, sure. If, for example, your barbaric god were real, I'd have no use for it, and still wouldn't be a muslim.

 
 Theism is not a solution to the problem of hard solipsism that you see as a problem.  

How is hard solipsism a problem for someone who believes that a god created external reality, with no intent to deceive its creatures? It is you who needs to deal with the possiblity of being stuck in a matrix, not me.

Hard solipsism isn't a problem for a hard solipsist who believes that there is, in fact, only one mind in all of creation - gods.  That's not a solution to the problem of hard solipsism, it's just being a hard solipsist.  I don;t find myself wondering if the wachowskis wrote a documentary anymore than I think the flintstones was historical footage. 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a person who gets his facts from a collection of myths derives his notions about life from movies and cartoons.

I insist, for example, that I only need observe other human existence to believe in other minds.  You assert, to the contrary, that those humans have no proper mind and indeed no free will. That all is the mind of god, all is the will of god - not the will of any or even all men.

Have fun misrepresenting my position. You didn't answer the bit regarding the possibility of reconciling foreknowledge with free will. I'll repeat that again : free will only makes sense when time is taken into account, past the time when an individual can choose between at least two alternatives, "free will" ceases to have meaning. An all-powerful God is capable of permitting choice to an individual at given moments in time. Thanks to his foreknowledge, he knows all the outcomes of all the choices made, and thus can create a reality which corresponds exactly to these outcomes. 

I wasn't asking you for why you believe in other minds.. we all believe in them for the same reason. But about whether you have a complete justification of this belief that can be conveyed in formal terms. Chances are the same justification would be enough or more than enough to accept that a designer exists.

Oh, I'm sorry, is everything not the mind or will of god?  What exists apart from it?  I'm not misrepresenting your position, you believe in a great many mutually exclusive things and this makes you uncomfortable.  Good. Islam hasn;t turned your brain to complete mush yet, though your affliction does seem to have had some persistent effects already.

You do not believe in free will, and yet you insist upon it's reality.

Did I mention before that free will actually requires God? It is under your worldview that free will is impossible, not mine. If there is no god, there is nothing provable other than matter and chemical reactions in our brain, which all happen independently of our will. You are the product of completely mechanical processes and of the input you get from your senses, there is simply no room for choice or freedom. Let's see how you get out of that. 

I searched some entries of atheist activists on Youtube, I admit I was shocked that the founders of Rationality Rules, Cosmic Skeptic, The atheist experience, etc all seem to share the same conclusion, there can't be free will under your godless worldview. Under mine ,there are possibilites of reconciliation, such as the one I tried to present above.

You keep talking about my worldview like I've ever shared it with you.  The Atheist View as though you were one and knew it.....but I only know what you think about this because you won't stop babbling about it, and you don't know very much about anyone else's position on anything. You struggle with your own.

There is no fact about any human ability, in my opinion, that relies on a god in any way. With or without a god, we either do or don't have the thing called free will. It's a question about people, not gods. You may as well claim that people couldn't have ears in a godless worldview..and as silly as that sounds...I bet it's something that you also believe. We wouldn't be here to have ears if there were no god, after all? Right?

[Angrboda]

No, you don't know that! It's really audacious to say that something isn't designed. How can you possibly prove a negative?

Unless you are about to take the position that god hand-designs every snowflake and rock formation; unless you’re going to take the stupidest position imaginable by denying everything scientists have learned about these natural processes; then you are committing an equivocation fallacy. You are equivocating on the word “design,” same as you were six months ago when we had this exact conversation. I can only conclude you were either not paying attention, or you’re arguing disingenuously.

He argues disingenuously. When he realizes he's losing an argument, he disappears so that he can make the same argument at a later date. He's done it several times with me.

He's a thundering Dunning-Kruger and dishonest.

[R00tKiT]

Unless you are about to take the position that god hand-designs every snowflake and rock formation; unless you’re going to take the stupidest position imaginable by denying everything scientists have learned about these natural processes; then you are committing an equivocation fallacy. You are equivocating on the word “design,” same as you were six months ago when we had this exact conversation. I can only conclude you were either not paying attention, or you’re arguing disingenuously.

And six month ago, I told you that this is exactly my position : that everything is designed, including snowflakes and rocks. I already know we don't agree on the definition of design, although this needs a separate thread to discuss it more thoroughly.

And why would that be a denial to what scientists say about natural processes??? I don't know how many times I will be repeating this : it's possible that God operates through these natural processes. Even if we reach a theory that explains 100% of all observable phenomena in the universe which doesn't need a deity, it will be absolutely irrelevant with regard to whether this deity actually exists.

Well, I think that way about gods, to an extent, sure.  If, for example, your barbaric god were real, I'd have no use for it, and still wouldn't be a muslim.

Thanks for being honest, at least, that you wouldn't accept a religion or an entity even if you were absolutely convinced it's real  -which, by the way, means that arguing with you about anything is irrelevant. I guess that's the real issue we should be discussing, instead of wasting time on abstract concepts. 

And they say I am a solipsist.

Hard solipsism isn't a problem for a hard solipsist who believes that there is, in fact, only one mind in all of creation - gods.  That's not a solution to the problem of hard solipsism, it's just being a hard solipsist.  I don;t find myself wondering if the wachowskis wrote a documentary anymore than I think the flintstones was historical footage. 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a person who gets his facts from a collection of myths derives his notions about life from movies and cartoons.

Don't you get tired of wordplay? Instead of insulting my beliefs and dodging the question, you could've just acknowledged the superiority of theism with regards to this problem. We're not discussing the truth of my beliefs or of theism, So... save your breath, I guess.

Oh, I'm sorry, is everything not the mind or will of god?  What exists apart from it?  I'm not misrepresenting your position, you believe in a great many mutually exclusive things and this makes you uncomfortable.  Good.  Islam hasn;t turned your brain to complete mush yet, though your affliction does seem to have had some persistent effects already.

I don't ever recall using the term "mind of god" which doesn't exist in the Islamic view of God. So have fun anthropomorphising God. I am presenting the reasons why I think free will and foreknowledge are compatible and you're not addressing them, there is nothing else to say until you do.

You keep talking about my worldview like I've ever shared it with you.  The Atheist View as though you were one and knew it.....but I only know what you think about this because you won't stop babbling about it, and you don't know very much about anyone else's position on anything.  You struggle with your own.

There is no fact about any human ability, in my opinion, that relies on a god in any way.  With or without a god, we either do or don't have the thing called free will.  It's a question about people, not gods.  You may as well claim that people couldn't have ears in a godless worldview..and as silly as that sounds...I bet it's something that you also believe.  We wouldn't be here to have ears if there were no god, after all?  Right?

Well, I know at least that you consider this world to be godless. If this is the case, then forcibly there is no free will, you cannot avoid this conclusion simply by saying "atheists don't believe in gods". If they don't, then they are forced towards this sad conclusion, no matter what they say.

It's true that this issue might appear to be irrelevant, but we're only discussing it because of its relation to OP's question. Theism permits free will, atheism doesn't. Case closed.

---

He argues disingenuously.  When he realizes he's losing an argument, he disappears so that he can make the same argument at a later date.  He's done it several times with me.

He's a thundering Dunning-Kruger and dishonest.

Keep poisoning the well, lady. You're doing a great job.

[Astreja]

Unless you are about to take the position that god hand-designs every snowflake and rock formation; unless you’re going to take the stupidest position imaginable by denying everything scientists have learned about these natural processes; then you are committing an equivocation fallacy. You are equivocating on the word “design,” same as you were six months ago when we had this exact conversation. I can only conclude you were either not paying attention, or you’re arguing disingenuously.

And six month ago, I told you that this is exactly my position : that everything is designed, including snowflakes and rocks.

*bursts out laughing* That's such an absurd position to hold that I'm intensely glad to be a non-believer.

[R00tKiT]

Free will is like God only in one way -- they both are so ill-defined that a rational discussion about them is impossible.

Definitions:

Free-Will = uncaused action

This one is likely impossible, but even if it were possible, it would be a purely random event.  It would not imply agency of any type.  If a god makes uncaused choices, it is literally tossing unknowable dice for a living.

Free-Will = ability for agency

This one I will accept, but what is agency?

Agency = the ability to recognize the self and the world, and make purposeful choices.  One can argue that even plants have agency, but I am going to focus on human agency.

Under this definition, we all have free will, but it is not uncaused.  Uncaused actions are merely random.  Agency seems to require a higher-order state than simple input->output.  It seems to require a re-entrant state.

Re-entrant states are interesting because their behavior over time cannot be predicted perfectly.  They become, to some degree, their own cause.  Logic and mathematics become incomplete when they allow self-reference (Godel's incompleteness theorem).  Chaos theory is based on re-entrant states.  I read an article about a Quantum Mechanics paper that says that re-entrant states become resistant to quantum noise -- essentially partially sustaining their own causality.

So, no, I don't need a God to have Free Will, and I don't need freedom from causality to have Free Will.

I don't see how we can have free will if we aren't free of causality. Everything in my physical body follows very precise biological processes and chemical reactions, where exactly is the room for free will ? What specific area in the brain, if any, would you label as a free will area ?

I couldn't find anything about what you call re-entrant states, apart from some concept in computer programming, so I would ask if you could elaborate. 

Besides,  even if there is really a random component in our behavior, then it could be due to some currently unknown factor, how can we rule this out?

---

And six month ago, I told you that this is exactly my position : that everything is designed, including snowflakes and rocks.

*bursts out laughing* That's such an absurd position to hold that I'm intensely glad to be a non-believer.

In what way it's absurd? Rocks and snowflakes are maybe useless to you, but that's it. What makes usefulness to human beings a criterion to discern between designed and undesigned objects. Let me guess : you only consider something to be designed if it's designed by human beings... well, bingo, you are begging your position, you're already excluding nature from the definition of design.

[Abaddon_ire]

Still waiting, Kloro. Can you provide any example of something, anything that is not designed?

Edit: I know Kloro can see the light at the end of that intellectual tunnel, and I know he realises that it is an oncoming train. That is why he dodges so much and avoids the inevitable.

[R00tKiT]

Still waiting, Kloro. Can you provide any example of something, anything that is not designed?

Everything is designed. If God is the prime mover, then everything else is his creation.

[Abaddon_ire]

Still waiting, Kloro. Can you provide any example of something, anything that is not designed?

Everything is designed. If God is the prime mover, then everything else is his creation.

If everything is designed, then you have no basis to decide whether anything is is designed or not. You have nothing to compare it to.

Consider the "Blind Watchmaker" argument of Paley fame. If you were walking on a beach and stumbled upon a watch amidst all the sand, you would know the watch was a product of the work of an intelligent mind among all the sand dunes, right?

[LadyForCamus]

Unless you are about to take the position that god hand-designs every snowflake and rock formation; unless you’re going to take the stupidest position imaginable by denying everything scientists have learned about these natural processes; then you are committing an equivocation fallacy. You are equivocating on the word “design,” same as you were six months ago when we had this exact conversation. I can only conclude you were either not paying attention, or you’re arguing disingenuously.

And six month ago, I told you that this is exactly my position : that everything is designed, including snowflakes and rocks. I already know we don't agree on the definition of design, although this needs a separate thread to discuss it more thoroughly.

And why would that be a denial to what scientists say about natural processes???

Because a snowflake developing via natural processes, regardless of whether or not god spurred those natural processes, is not equivalent to god hand-assembling the snowflake himself in the same way a human assembles a chair, or a car, or any of the other “human-designer” examples you like to trot out as examples of design. You are trying to use the same word two different ways depending on which portion of your argument it suits. You are equivocating. You need to go back to the drawling board and put together a new argument; one that doesn’t contain a logical fallacy.

[R00tKiT]

If everything is designed, then you have no basis to decide whether anything is is designed or not. You have nothing to compare it to.

Consider the "Blind Watchmaker" argument of Paley fame. If you were walking on a beach and stumbled upon a watch amidst all the sand, you would know the watch was a product of the work of an intelligent mind among all the sand dunes, right?

Why would we need to compare anything? If things within the universe exhibit great complexity, we have to look for a good explanation of this complexity. A personal designer is a more likely explanation than any other naturalistic one that relies on extremely improbable occurences that no sane individual should take seriously (the same way you don't expect your computer tu turn on itself and write meaningful emails and messages by mere chance) . And even if there is a good naturalistic theory that accounts for complexity, it needs itself an explanation, this regress must stop somewhere.

And Paley's line of thought is a simple analogy, NOT an argument. Contrasting a watch with sand only proves that the designer of the watch is not the same designer of sand, not that we came to this world by chance and explosions and whatnot