Why God doesn't stop satan?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh, I dont..... I don't admire a single solitary thing about the person that Kloro has presented himself as, on these boards.  He is and has always been, in effect, trying to convince us that he's a fucking loon....and I still don't believe him when he says it.  Apparently, I think better of him than he thinks of himself, let alone me..in the idea that he could sell a petulant lie that he himself lacks the conviction towards.

I have many disagreements with the faith, but my fundamental disagreement with the faithful is that they consistently fail to instantiate a life or a position which fully expresses what they contend to believe.   They all bullshit us... on themselves....and then, expect others to believe them - and even to believe that the ridiculous shit they assert is obvious to all?  Get the fuck outta here....... that's not a serious position held by actual human being who understands......well....seriousness.  It's the assertion of some animal presupposition in contradiction to facts that they themselves otherwise accept.

Kloro, very obviously, doesn't believe that we have free will.  There can only be gods will.  But, for whatever reason, he feels compelled to lie not only to us, but to himself, about a thing which he could not convince himself of.  Qeulle surprise.....

True enough. Any discussion with him is just humoring an idiot who thinks he's a genious.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, ofc he's an idiot, but that doesn't concern me. Plenty of idiots think that they're brilliant. What concerns me is what idiots are willing to do on account of believing that they are, in fact, brilliant.

I've seen it, I've shot them dead for it. They leave the intervening group with no other choice no matter how detestable, than exterminating them. This feeds into their delusions, explicitly.

[R00tKiT]

But, as has been explained to you over and over here, appearance of design is not a reliable method for detecting design,

The sentence in bold really seems strange. How else would one suspect design, then ? If you see lots handwritten and meaningful sentences in a notepad, doesn't that point both to the existence of a pen AND of an intelligence..?  you certainly wouldn't call it an appearance. Why can't we say likewise about all things around us ?  

because some things that appear designed are designed, and some things aren’t.

No, you don't know that! It's really audacious to say that something isn't designed. How can you possibly prove a negative?

The argument is "if you accept one unprovable thing as true, you must accept them all".

The existence of other mind isn't "unprovable", it's supported by analogical and inferential arguments. The argument from design relies on inference too. If one accepts the former, then they should accept the latter.

Exactly so, and, to the existence of other minds, your belief in a great fairy is no more relevant or useful to that end.  

It's good to know that you would only believe in things because they are useful, not because they are true.

 
 Theism is not a solution to the problem of hard solipsism that you see as a problem.  

How is hard solipsism a problem for someone who believes that a god created external reality, with no intent to deceive its creatures? It is you who needs to deal with the possiblity of being stuck in a matrix, not me.

I insist, for example, that I only need observe other human existence to believe in other minds.  You assert, to the contrary, that those humans have no proper mind and indeed no free will. That all is the mind of god, all is the will of god - not the will of any or even all men.

Have fun misrepresenting my position. You didn't answer the bit regarding the possibility of reconciling foreknowledge with free will. I'll repeat that again : free will only makes sense when time is taken into account, past the time when an individual can choose between at least two alternatives, "free will" ceases to have meaning. An all-powerful God is capable of permitting choice to an individual at given moments in time. Thanks to his foreknowledge, he knows all the outcomes of all the choices made, and thus can create a reality which corresponds exactly to these outcomes. 

I wasn't asking you for why you believe in other minds.. we all believe in them for the same reason. But about whether you have a complete justification of this belief that can be conveyed in formal terms. Chances are the same justification would be enough or more than enough to accept that a designer exists.

You do not believe in free will, and yet you insist upon it's reality.

Did I mention before that free will actually requires God? It is under your worldview that free will is impossible, not mine. If there is no god, there is nothing provable other than matter and chemical reactions in our brain, which all happen independently of our will. You are the product of completely mechanical processes and of the input you get from your senses, there is simply no room for choice or freedom. Let's see how you get out of that. 

I searched some entries of atheist activists on Youtube, I admit I was shocked that the founders of Rationality Rules, Cosmic Skeptic, The atheist experience, etc all seem to share the same conclusion, there can't be free will under your godless worldview. Under mine ,there are possibilites of reconciliation, such as the one I tried to present above.

[Abaddon_ire]

But, as has been explained to you over and over here, appearance of design is not a reliable method for detecting design,

The sentence in bold really seems strange. How else would one suspect design, then ? If you see lots handwritten and meaningful sentences in a notepad, doesn't that point both to the existence of a pen AND of an intelligence..?  you certainly wouldn't call it an appearance. Why can't we say likewise about all things around us ?  

Can you give an example of something which is NOT designed?

[R00tKiT]

Also, his argument sucks because being willing to accept other minds is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for any old nonsense. The goal here is to sneak god in through the back door and little else. Could he be more disingenuous?

Your language is indicative of how much you read about other minds.... I frankly feel discouraged when I get replies of the type ("his argument sucks") after trying to give detailed explanations of my argument, which is why I end up not presenting my case fully. The truth is, I expect the other party to do some research on their own before they start insulting. If you did, you would know that there is an underlying analogical argument aiming to prove that belief in God and belief in other minds are logically equivalent, it's nevertheless very technical. Given the level of this discussion so far, I unfortunately don't think it's worth delving into these details, if we can't agree on general facts...

So I don't know what to tell you Helios, go pick a grammar textbook, it seems to be a better use of your time, and maybe of mine too...

And about the "idiot who thinks he's a genious" bit.. I am starting to get this remark a lot in this forum, maybe it's due to my use of english language which may tend to be pedantic or overly academic, but english isn't my native language, what can I say, tough.. these silly remarks are nevertheless quite indicative of your moral character as educated atheists...

[The Architect Of Fate]

Whatever Khloroform. Just keep babbling  

[HappySkeptic]

Did I mention before that free will actually requires God? It is under your worldview that free will is impossible, not mine. If there is no god, there is nothing other than matter and chemical reactions in our brain, which all happen independently of our will. You are the product of completely mechanical processes and of the input you get from your senses, there is simply no room for choice or freedom. Let's see how you get out of that. 

I searched some entries of atheist activists on Youtube, I admit I was shocked that the founders of Rationality Rules, Cosmic Skeptic, The atheist experience, etc all seem to share the same conclusion, there can't be free will under your godless worldview. Under mine ,there are possibilites of reconciliation, such as the one I tried to present above.

Free will is like God only in one way -- they both are so ill-defined that a rational discussion about them is impossible.

Definitions:

Free-Will = uncaused action

This one is likely impossible, but even if it were possible, it would be a purely random event.  It would not imply agency of any type.  If a god makes uncaused choices, it is literally tossing unknowable dice for a living.

Free-Will = ability for agency

This one I will accept, but what is agency?

Agency = the ability to recognize the self and the world, and make purposeful choices.  One can argue that even plants have agency, but I am going to focus on human agency.

Under this definition, we all have free will, but it is not uncaused.  Uncaused actions are merely random.  Agency seems to require a higher-order state than simple input->output.  It seems to require a re-entrant state.

Re-entrant states are interesting because their behavior over time cannot be predicted perfectly.  They become, to some degree, their own cause.  Logic and mathematics become incomplete when they allow self-reference (Godel's incompleteness theorem).  Chaos theory is based on re-entrant states.  I read an article about a Quantum Mechanics paper that says that re-entrant states become resistant to quantum noise -- essentially partially sustaining their own causality.

So, no, I don't need a God to have Free Will, and I don't need freedom from causality to have Free Will.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Did I mention before that free will actually requires God? It is under your worldview that free will is impossible, not mine. If there is no god, there is nothing other than matter and chemical reactions in our brain, which all happen independently of our will. You are the product of completely mechanical processes and of the input you get from your senses, there is simply no room for choice or freedom. Let's see how you get out of that. 

I searched some entries of atheist activists on Youtube, I admit I was shocked that the founders of Rationality Rules, Cosmic Skeptic, The atheist experience, etc all seem to share the same conclusion, there can't be free will under your godless worldview. Under mine ,there are possibilites of reconciliation, such as the one I tried to present above.

Free will is like God only in one way -- they both are so ill-defined that a rational discussion about them is impossible.

Definitions:

Free-Will = uncaused action

This one is likely impossible, but even if it were possible, it would be a purely random event.  It would not imply agency of any type.  If a god makes uncaused choices, it is literally tossing unknowable dice for a living.

Free-Will = ability for agency

This one I will accept, but what is agency?

Agency = the ability to recognize the self and the world, and make purposeful choices.  One can argue that even plants have agency, but I am going to focus on human agency.

Under this definition, we all have free will, but it is not uncaused.  Uncaused actions are merely random.  Agency seems to require a higher-order state than simple input->output.  It seems to require a re-entrant state.

Re-entrant states are interesting because their behavior over time cannot be predicted perfectly.  They become, to some degree, their own cause.  Logic and mathematics become incomplete when they allow self-reference (Godel's incompleteness theorem).  Chaos theory is based on re-entrant states.  I read an article about a Quantum Mechanics paper that says that re-entrant states become resistant to quantum noise -- essentially partially sustaining their own causality.

So, no, I don't need a God to have Free Will, and I don't need freedom from causality to have Free Will.

But remember ....GOD DONE IT is the only answer 

And because Klor can pour magic god sprinkles on things that makes him right

[purplepurpose]

It is said in the bible that satan "roams the earth and seeks who to devour". Meaning, they end up in hell. Why God doesn't stop this madness? What is he waiting for?

According to Islam, God is the creator of Satan, and the maker of this scenario we are living.
He knew that Satan would rebel even before he made him.

Look at this Quranic verses:

Sura 2, The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 35 )   And We said, "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat therefrom in [ease and] abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers."

( 36 )   But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, "Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time."

( 37 )   Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.

This life is a mere test against Satan. Why would God stop the main problem in our test?
Satan will always exist in this life, and our whole life is "a battle against him".

So the question doesn't make any sense according to Islam's message.

Christians want their God to be caring and loving. If Islam is openly stating that satan works under God to cause suffering to people, or test their loyalty towads Gods holy law and plan, THEN God is evil, if he directs satan to cause so much suffering. It will cause rebellion among conscious and thinking christians. It's is for the reason that Satan is a rebellious and isn't Gods employee, according to so many sermons by christians preachers.

[LadyForCamus]

because some things that appear designed are designed, and some things aren’t.

No, you don't know that! It's really audacious to say that something isn't designed. How can you possibly prove a negative?

Unless you are about to take the position that god hand-designs every snowflake and rock formation; unless you’re going to take the stupidest position imaginable by denying everything scientists have learned about these natural processes; then you are committing an equivocation fallacy. You are equivocating on the word “design,” same as you were six months ago when we had this exact conversation. I can only conclude you were either not paying attention, or you’re arguing disingenuously.