Why God doesn't stop satan?

[Astreja]

*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...

Stop. Right. There! Usefulness and uselessness have nothing to do with whether or not something was designed.

[Abaddon_ire]

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. 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.

Oh that gives rise to even more fun. It used to be claimed that every snowflake was unique. Therefore gawd. Then science, through hard work and research, discovered this was not true. What did the god-botherers do? Admit defeat? Concede?

Hell no. God was merely using a template like you or I would with a Word document. Now they have to account for why their god is some sort of lazy bastard and omnipotence goes right out. Omnipresent goes as well, because god simply writes a script or macro and foxtrots right oscar without a care. Let the script barf the snowflakes, god don't care. Omni-benevolent? Well if the bitch can't be bothered, that becomes rather suspect as well. god might as well create Santa. At least Santa is reliable. Or more reliable than god.

---

*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...

Stop. Right. There!  Usefulness and uselessness have nothing to do with whether or not something was designed.

Interesting that Kloro is invoking dominionism, a christian doctrine.

[Angrboda]

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.

Why would it matter -- you've selectively avoided answering my posts like the coward you are. You just can't handle the truth, loser.

Or would you like to answer the following now:

I don't disagree that I don't have more access to information than an atheist has. But the set of axioms by which I view the world is more coherent than that of an atheist, this is the only difference

Which axioms would those be, for you and the atheist?

[LadyForCamus]

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.

LOL. The only one question-begging here is you. You’re entire argument amounts to: “Obviously, everything is designed because, der.”

[R00tKiT]

Stop. Right. There!  Usefulness and uselessness have nothing to do with whether or not something was designed.

Yeah that's what I just said, LOL. What then, according to you, enables us to discern design from non-design, aside from usefulness of course.

Oh that gives rise to even more fun. It used to be claimed that every snowflake was unique. Therefore gawd. Then science, through hard work and research, discovered this was not true. What did the god-botherers do? Admit defeat? Concede?

Hell no. God was merely using a template like you or I would with a Word document. Now they have to account for why their god is some sort of lazy bastard and omnipotence goes right out. Omnipresent goes as well, because god simply writes a script or macro and foxtrots right oscar without a care. Let the script barf the snowflakes, god don't care. Omni-benevolent? Well if the bitch can't be bothered, that becomes rather suspect as well. god might as well create Santa. At least Santa is reliable. Or more reliable than god.

Keep shouting. It's not my problem that you don't understand the limits of science and observation.

Which axioms would those be, for you and the atheist?

Aside from God's existence, we all share the first principles of thought (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle) and our own existence as axioms. Unfortunately they are not enough to prove that there is an external reality, that's why Descartes was a theist, he understood that without presupposing God we are just stuck with solipsism.

[no one]

It's so easy when you already have the answer and you force those pieces into place.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I'm already convinced that your religion is real.....you do exist, after all.  If you think that arguing your god into existence would make me or anyone else a muslim, well..you couldn't be more wrong about a fairly simple thing.  So yeah, that would be completely pointless.  I have no use for, no interest in, and nothing but disgust for your religion.  It's not an issue of whether or not your club exists, or even your clubs fairy president existing.  You are either right about a god existing and belong to a dumspter fire of a faith, or you are wrong about a god existing and still belong to a dumpster fire of a faith.

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.

What problem?  Again, how is hard solipsism a problem to a hard solipsist, and how does asserting it's truth solve whatever problem that is?  I don't personally have a hard solipsism problem, nor do I assert it's truth.  I think that there are other minds, minds apart from gods, even.   Do you?

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're not presenting any reason why they would be compatible, and to be fair..I don't expect you to come up with any, because they're mutually exclusive concepts.  You're babbling about force and imagining that other people..and not you (lols) are the solipsist in this exchange.

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.

Correct, I don't think that there are any gods in this world.  I think that there are humans in this world, so, it seems to me the answer to the question of whether a human has some, any, or a particular ability - like free will, will ultimately refer back to something about..well, humans.  

Gods existing has literally nothing to say on the subject of whether people have free will.  Not believing in gods doesn't force any conclusion about human ability, and believing in gods doesn;t force people to believe in free will, for that matter, either. It's simply what you imagine you would believe if there were no gods.  It doesn't appear to be irrelevant, it is irrelevant.

I bet that if you asked, you'd find that happening alot.  That you believe I must think this or that thing on account of not believing in your god..and would routinely be wrong about that.  For you, god is an underlying premise of everything, and so it would seem to you that every belief would be effected by not believing in your god...but to me, no belief is effected by my not believing in your god.  You should have some experience with this as well, when you consider other peoples gods and your own beliefs.

[Abaddon_ire]

Oh that gives rise to even more fun. It used to be claimed that every snowflake was unique. Therefore gawd. Then science, through hard work and research, discovered this was not true. What did the god-botherers do? Admit defeat? Concede?

Hell no. God was merely using a template like you or I would with a Word document. Now they have to account for why their god is some sort of lazy bastard and omnipotence goes right out. Omnipresent goes as well, because god simply writes a script or macro and foxtrots right oscar without a care. Let the script barf the snowflakes, god don't care. Omni-benevolent? Well if the bitch can't be bothered, that becomes rather suspect as well. god might as well create Santa. At least Santa is reliable. Or more reliable than god.

Keep shouting. It's not my problem that you don't understand the limits of science and observation.

I have no need to shout. It is perfectly obvious how you dodge.

Third time of asking.

Can you provide any example of something which is not designed?

If you could, you would have provided one, some, any.

But you fail to do so.

I know why, it is because that you cannot. If you had any such example of anything un-designed then surely it would be trivially easy for you to provide it, right?

Or if you fail to do that, then clearly your your entire basis is false. And you know it is. That is what is so dishonest about this BS. You are knowingly attempting to foist BS on others that you know is BS.

Of course, you could refute me by demonstrating some un-designed thing, but you cannot even struggle up to that, because you know full well that would torpedo your previous claims.

All you have is a weird hose of cards and you have no cards.

ETA: I omitted the u in house, but I left the typo since it seemed apropos.

[Brian37]

I think Bill Maher put it best in basically saying that if you kill off the villain the story ends.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Keep shouting. It's not my problem that you don't understand the limits of science and observation.

I have no need to shout. It is perfectly obvious how you dodge.

Third time of asking.

Can you provide any example of something which is not designed?

If you could, you would have provided one, some, any.

But you fail to do so.

I know why, it is because that you cannot. If you had any such example of anything un-designed then surely it would be trivially easy for you to provide it, right?

Or if you fail to do that, then clearly your your entire basis is false. And you know it is. That is what is so dishonest about this BS. You are knowingly attempting to foist BS on others that you know is BS.

Of course, you could refute me by demonstrating some un-designed thing, but you cannot even struggle up to that, because you know full well that would torpedo your previous claims.

All you have is a weird hose of cards and you have no cards.

ETA: I omitted the u in house, but I left the typo since it seemed apropos.

Klor just keeps digging himself deeper.

---

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.

I'm already convinced that your religion is real.....you do exist, after all.  If you think that arguing your god into existence would make me or anyone else a muslim, well..you couldn't be more wrong about a fairly simple thing.  So yeah, that would be completely pointless.  I have no use for, no interest in, and nothing but disgust for your religion.  It's not an issue of whether or not your club exists, or even your clubs fairy president existing.   You are either right about a god existing and belong to a dumspter fire of a faith, or you are wrong about a god existing and still belong to a dumpster fire of a faith.

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.

What problem?  Again, how is hard solipsism a problem to a hard solipsist, and how does asserting it's truth solve whatever problem that is?  I don't personally have a hard solipsism problem, nor do I assert it's truth.  I think that there are other minds, minds apart from gods, even.   Do you?

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're not presenting any reason why they would be compatible, and to be fair..I don't expect you to come up with any, because they're mutually exclusive concepts.  You're babbling about force and imagining that other people..and not you (lols) are the solipsist in this exchange.

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.

Correct, I don't think that there are any gods in this world.  I think that there are humans in this world, so, it seems to me the answer to the question of whether a human has some, any, or a particular ability - like free will, will ultimately refer back to something about..well, humans.  

Gods existing has literally nothing to say on the subject of whether people have free will.  Not believing in gods doesn't force any conclusion about human ability, and believing in gods doesn;t force people to believe in free will, for that matter, either.  It's simply what you imagine you would believe if there were no gods.  It doesn't appear to be irrelevant, it is irrelevant.

I bet that if you asked, you'd find that happening alot.  That you believe I must think this or that thing on account of not believing in your god..and would routinely be wrong about that.  For you, god is an underlying premise of everything, and so it would seem to you that every belief would be effected by not believing in your god...but to me, no belief is effected by my not believing in your god.  You should have some experience with this as well, when you consider other peoples gods and your own beliefs.

And deeper