The argument from power.

[Angrboda]

The one I've been patiently explaining to you throughout the entire course of this thread.  What, did you just wake up?

There is no problem as I've shown in reply and as for:

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

That is akin to saying you can't love what you love which is meaningless. You definitely will what you will, and impact future will by what you willed in the past, and will grows depending on us.

The fact that it is analogous and you still don't see the problem is astounding. And no, I don't will what I will. That's absurd. If God's will has no foundation other than that will, then he is no different from any other rationally self-interested being in that he wants what he wants because he wants it. In that, he is no different from any other rationally self-interested being which also wants what it wants because they want it. If you have eliminated the privilege in God's personal self-interest you have eliminated the entire foundation of your argument. It's a shame that Islam doesn't embrace the trinity, because at least that would arm you with a delaying tactic in the form of the Godhead's relationship to itself, no matter how futile that ultimately would turn out to be. Arguing that will and love are magic doesn't by itself make this objection go away. Ultimately, magic or not, God's desires are simply a reflection of his own self-interest and of no import to anyone else if that is the case.

[Mystic]

Substitute the word of will with love. I don't know what your imagining, but, I will my will all the time.

Yeah it's a shame we don't embrace trinity which was an excuse to worship a man and play mental gynamistics with the essence of God's unity and play blind, which comes right out the true loyalty to idol leaders who contradict everything the Torah and Gospels warned pertaining to man-made religious leadership.

---

Love includes generosity btw, and God can will generously as much as he wants.

[Angrboda]

Substitute the word of will with love. I don't know what your imagining, but, I will my will all the time.

I already granted the analogy and answered it. We don't choose love so much as it chooses us. If you will your will all the time then prove it by willing yourself to disbelieve in Allah for the space of a month. If you indeed can will what you will, then there should be no harm done.

[Mystic]

I Can disbelieve, I simply won't give up gratitude for your whims. And that's a choice.

[Angrboda]

You mean that doesn't accord with your will?

[Mystic]

At the moment, and I pray God helps me keep true to it.

[Mister Agenda]

As will power is essential to goodness, it must have a reliable source for goodness to have proper accurate meaning.
Without God giving power it does not have a reliable source.
Goodness has a proper accurate meaning.
Therefore God exists.


The three premises need elaboration, I will post one post per premise elaborating on them.


I will ask people to check validity of argument before the premises are debated or elaborated.

The argument can rephrased:

Praise to have accurate meaning, will power part of it must have a reliable source.
Without God giving power it does not have a reliable source.
Praise has a proper accurate meaning.
Therefore God exists.

Will elaborate on each premise once we get past the over all structure validity.

Hmm. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and the premises are all baseless assertions.

[Mystic]

As will power is essential to goodness, it must have a reliable source for goodness to have proper accurate meaning.
Without God giving power it does not have a reliable source.
Goodness has a proper accurate meaning.
Therefore God exists.


The three premises need elaboration, I will post one post per premise elaborating on them.


I will ask people to check validity of argument before the premises are debated or elaborated.

The argument can rephrased:

Praise to have accurate meaning, will power part of it must have a reliable source.
Without God giving power it does not have a reliable source.
Praise has a proper accurate meaning.
Therefore God exists.

Will elaborate on each premise once we get past the over all structure validity.

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.

Let us look at:

Praise to have accurate meaning (a), will power part of it must have a reliable source (b).
Without God giving power (not c) it does not have a reliable source (not b).
Praise has a proper accurate meaning (a).
Therefore God exists ©.

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!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can't copyright the phrase, 'Therefore, God exists.'

Boru

[Mystic]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can't copyright the phrase, 'Therefore, God exists.'

Boru

Haha true.