A 'proof' of God's existence - free will

[Succubus#2]

Magilla,
I think that what you're arguing here would be a difficult challenge for Bible literalists and maybe the folks at the church down the street from you. But it doesn't address the God that theologians and philosophers have written about, from Plato and Aristotle, through Anselm, Pseudo-Dionysius, up to modern mystics like Boehme and Blake. Nor is the God that atheist philosophers like Derrida, Zizek, or Badiou discuss at all like the one you describe.

Here you are again trying to redefine god into existence, I don't know how you can do this with a straight face.

How many of these people from the church down the street:



Have even herd of, or give a fuck about these?

Plato. Died 1300 ya.
Aristotle. Died 1300 ya.
Anselm. Died 900 ya.
Pseudo-Dionysius. Died 1400 ya.
Boehme. Died 400 ya.
Blake. Died 1827.
Derrida. Died 2004.
Zizek.  Not dead yet.
Badiou.       "           .

The god these 2.2 billion people believe in is, according to you, the wrong one.
What jaw dropping arrogance! Even for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can assume for the sake of argument that whatever is possible to do could be done by any god, of any description.

That's all the consideration of a god's existence or nature required to engage with an argument from free will. For the argument to be compelling, specific things must be true of free will, not of god. It must be possible, we must possess it, and it must be otherwise inexplicable. A failure at any point would amount to a compelling argument against a god if we asserted, as the arguments fundamental premise does, that there's an inferential relationship between the hypothetical existence of a god and the actual (or observed, if we prefer) state of something called free will.

The form here, is that free will facts imply something about god facts. Premise to conclusion, not the other way around.

[Abaddon_ire]

Magic book describes the character god in many, many ways.  Christians who believe in magic book describe him in more ways still.  Other people describe their gods in just as creative and varied a way.

Still can't fathom why it would matter what color the dragon's scales are.

What? Surely you would want the scales to match the colour of paint in your garage, no?

[The Grand Nudger]

I hear that red is a popular color for invisible things.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm not at all convinced that what professional philosophers have to say about gods and gods-related topics (like free will) amounts to a bucket of spit.  How many 'influential' philosophers have there been in human history?  10 000? 20 000? Compared to the billions of rank-and-file believers, this number pales into insignificance.

Unlike science, religious belief is largely a democratic process. Religion is what believers believe it to be, not what Aquinas or Blake or even Bentham have to say about it.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Serious christian theologians are still christian. They still believed and believe in the silly godman.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Serious christian theologians are still christian.  They still believed and believe in the silly godman.

But they aren't the ones who determine what Christian belief is.

Aquinas can prattle on all he wants about how God can't act in a way contrary to his nature, but that doesn't have a lot of impact on the two billion day-to-day believers who will continue to believe that there is - literally - nothing God can't do.

You know who 'serious Christian theologians' influence the most?  Other serious Christian theologians.  Theology is an echo chamber writ large.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC not, and they didn't. Saint Tommy believed in the silly godman just like the rest.

Believing in the god of magic book or in the gods of pre-christian philosophers-as though they were the god of magic book doesn't actually necessitate a position on free will in any case. Different sects argue over whether we have it and how effective it is if we do. As mentioned, even for a christian...serious or silly.... step one to this argument is to show that free will is possible. No characteristic of any god is relevant to that asserted fact.

If the existence of free will is asserted to mean something with regards to the existence of a god - then we'd better produce some free will facts - not god facts. If, instead..there will never be any elaboration or demonstration of free will, then we have an appeal to negative consequences - not an argument. Proof only that the arguer is ignorant and uncomfortable, buttressing their belief in the divine by the conceptual avoidance of a negatively valued state of affairs regardless of whether that state of affairs is the true state of affairs in mere reality. It's not an enviable position, because even after they summit the peak of this monumentally high bar, literally all of their work will still be ahead of them in establishing that god explains this hypothetically existent free will, rather than the creature who allegedly possesses it.

Human beings are a powerful and undeniably existent explanation for human abilities..whatever they may be.

[AniKoferBo]

I hear that red is a popular color for invisible things.

I vaguely remember hearing something about that we in the future wont be able to see the color red (i think it was red, not sure) because we are moving through the universe, and will in time reach other wave lengths (or something) that wont allow us to see it anymore.
This is really long time ago i heard about this, so unfortunately i cant remember the details, so i could be totally wrong here.

[The Grand Nudger]

I was thinking more the red thread of fate.

an East Asian belief originating from Chinese mythology. It is commonly thought of as an invisible red cord around the finger of those that are destined to meet one another in a certain situation as they are "their true love".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_thread_of_fate