Why God doesn't stop satan?

[Peebothuhlu]

I don't disagree that I don't have more ainformation 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


I'm


Okay. Give us an alternative solution to hard solipsism. I'll go grab a popcorn.

---

ROFL all you want. Where is your argument in favor of other minds ?

Where is yours?

[R00tKiT]

Neither do you. Can you demonstrate your book exists anywhere else besides your mind?

Of course I can't. I think you misunderstand what I am getting at. I can't demonstrate independently of the theistic premise that other minds exist. My argument is, instead, as follows:

P1 : a theist thinks that a god exists. an atheist doesn't.
P2 :  the axiom "God exists" solves hard solipsism and gives good grounds to believe in an external world and in other minds.

C : a theist has a more coherent set of axioms than an atheist.

[LadyForCamus]

@Klorophyll If you can’t demonstrate that your book, or the people you’re arguing about it with right now on this forum exist anywhere else besides your own mind, then your “argument” is non-starter.

[R00tKiT]

At work.


? My 'Argument?

 I don't 'Need' an argument.  
 Yup, 'Other' minds exist.

Bingo. I can say the exact same thing about God's existence. I don't need an argument, God exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a long winded way to acknowledge that the participants of a replay from any pov have no option to do another thing, don't you think?  The mere possibility of foreknowledge, no matter who has it, and in fact even if no one and no thing has it, precludes free will.  You're fixated on the idea of force, that the knower must somehow force the actor (and this is bad™, I guess, but I can't imagine why it would be or even why it would matter if it were bad, it's not exactly the worst thing you think god will do to lowly human worms...)- but that's not the case nor is it why foreknowledge precludes free will - therefore arguing that a father doesn't force his daughter or a god doesn't force humans is completely irrelevant.  He simply needs to know, for a fact, that his daughter will do x.  The possessor of foreknowledge doesn't have to instantiate this state of affairs himself or itself, it merely needs to be a competent observer of the true fact that some actor absolutely will do a specific thing and no other at some future point.   It's just seeing what is true.  

Well, in the case of God, he clearly instantiated everything, including our choices. My position is that what he instantiated is exactly what we end up doing with our own free will. If the deity instantiates a particular set of actions which isn't the same as those we decide by free will, then it does preclude free will, but there is no way to show that this is the actual state of affairs.

This is only you insisting that god does indeed force humans, and in fact forces everything.  It would be assanine to claim this and then argue otherwise, and particularly so, since it doesn't matter to free will either way.  If god forced humans, conceivably, we could possess a free will but not be capable of or effective in using it.  We do whatever god wills, even if we might otherwise do whatever we willed absent that force. I;ve seen people stumble before trying to use the apologetics above - but, seeing as how you believe god instantiated everything, then he instantiated the state of our wills as well. We want, what god willed us to want. He knows exactly what that is and will be, because he's the author of all creation.

Foreknowledge is an absolute and eternal property of the deity, free will, on the other hand, as I said, really depends on time. I clearly don't have free will relatively to my past actions, but this is not the same as saying I never had free will about anything. 

Are you free to make god wrong in the future, but not the past?  If you believe that foreknowledge is an absolute and eternal property of your god, then you must be wrong about yourself and what abilities you have. 

As a sidenote, although I am no physicist, special relativity clearly shows that the past exists in the present of other reference frames. There is no privileged Present moment because it depends on the reference frame. Namely, there is no concept of time to order the events with.

We can see the Sun's past 8 minutes from our planet, if we have a far enough reference frame (let's call it A)  from which we can see the Earth, we could watch all human history unfold. So, relatively to A, what's happenng now on Earth is the future.

Although I still need to look this up, it seems that foreknowledge is technically possible if we can travel at the speed of light -there is nothing logically contradictory about this, we just need zero mass, photons already do this-. Now, for a deity, it's trivial to move between reference frames or even break the speed of light, and thus have foreknowledge and access what everyone will do throughout their lives, this doesn't seem to preclude free will.

Maybe it is possible, but, again, if foreknowledge is possible, then free will is not.  If god must have foreknowledge, man cannot have free will.

[LadyForCamus]

At work.


? My 'Argument?

 I don't 'Need' an argument.  
 Yup, 'Other' minds exist.

Bingo. I can say the exact same thing about God's existence. I don't need an argument, God exists.

That admission means you understand your world view is no more coherent than anyone else’s. Good job refuting your own premise, lol.

[Angrboda]

At work.


? My 'Argument?

 I don't 'Need' an argument.  
 Yup, 'Other' minds exist.

Bingo. I can say the exact same thing about God's existence. I don't need an argument, God exists.

Uh, no you can't. Because the coherence of your worldview depends upon God's existence; Peebo's doesn't depend on proving the existence of other minds. Additionally, you need to look up the definition of coherent because I think you are systematically using it incorrectly.

[LadyForCamus]

Neither do you. Can you demonstrate your book exists anywhere else besides your mind?

Of course I can't. I think you misunderstand what I am getting at. I can't demonstrate independently of the theistic premise that other minds exist. My argument is, instead, as follows:

P1 : a theist thinks that a god exists. an atheist doesn't.
P2 :  the axiom "God exists" solves hard solipsism

Not if you can’t demonstrate it. That’s no more effective than saying:

P2 : The axiom “hard solipsism is false” solves the problem of hard solipsism.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

? My 'Argument?

 I don't 'Need' an argument.  
 Yup, 'Other' minds exist.

Bingo. I can say the exact same thing about God's existence. I don't need an argument, God exists.

Wait?

I'm pointing AT medical science, physical skulls etc.

You're pointing at........ ?

Oh! only replying to the parts of a post that you WANT to adress?

Good 'Cherry picking there, mate.

As well as being a form of dishonesty.

Ah well. Looks like you've picked up those OTHER bad habits of Christian appologiets which is 'Lying for Jeebus'.

[Nay_Sayer]

---

I would also add that no one can have a coherent view of the world if they don't accept God's existence.

How does belief in the existence of a god make your worldview more coherent than mine?

It doesn't. Luckily my worldview is superior to his, so trust me when I say he's got verbal diarrhea.  Don't let that fact stop you however from attempting to have a conversation with him.

If sea sponges can communicate, I'm sure Kloro eventually can.