RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
March 18, 2022 at 11:26 am
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2022 at 11:34 am by R00tKiT.)
(March 17, 2022 at 4:24 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nonsense. If God is able create people with free will, he could have chosen to create only people who, through their own free will and without coercion of any kind, would freely choose not to commit injustice.
A good objection that has been dealt with in the literature. Plantinga argued that a possible world like a sinless world with free will is not logically possible, the detailed argument is very technical (heavy use of modal logic, I don't fully understand it myself), just type "transworld depravity" to find out more about it.
If a sinless world with free will is not logically possible, then it's not a possible world that God can actualize. But since omnipotence only entails actualizing possible worlds, none of that is a threat to theism.
(March 18, 2022 at 11:23 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Klorophyll I’m still waiting. You implied that atheists use their unreliable brains to conclude that a god likely doesn’t exist, and that that’s not reasonable. So which method did you use to conclude that he does?
That's not what I said, as atheists are usually agnostics, not strong atheists... I am simply alluding to the evolutionary argument against naturalism. Simply put, naturalism and evolutionary theory can't both be true if our brains are reliable.
(March 18, 2022 at 11:17 am)Rahn127 Wrote: If a god existed, it could ensure that all human beings were structurally sound.
This would in no way interfere with free will.
Are you referring to a possible world where people are both sinless and act freely? Again, you're asking the same question as @BrianSoddingBoru4, Plantinga refuted this possibility using his notion of "transworld depravity", I don't know more about it or how he did it to elaborate.
