Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[Dragan Glas]

Greetins,

@ leroy, determinism is not the same as pre-determined, ie, predestination.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

[or something close enough to free will to be close enough) indeed real there's no logical leap from "Free will" to "therefore God". ".

My original intent was not prove the existence of God thought free will, my origin goal was to show that some atheist make logical contradictions when they deny free will and call themselves free thinkers.


But......Yes there is a “free will” argument that suports the existence of God

Premise 1: the existence of God is possible

Premise 2: If God exist he could have created creatures with free will if he wants

Premise 3: There are creatures with free will

Premise 4: God is the only possible cause for free will

Therefore God is the cause of free will

Therefore God Exist

If you accept all 4 premises you are forced to accept the conclusion “that God Exist” if you what to deny the existence of God, you have to explain which of the premises you think is wrong and why.

 

[Deleted member 619]

3 and 4 both commit the fallacy of bare assertion. I reject them both.

 

[leroy]

That's like saying that it's reasonable to accept solipsism unless other entities can be shown to exist, as opposed to them being internally-generated experiences. Your logical fallacy is a classic onus probandi

Sure, but that is not my problem, that is the problem of those who claim things like “if you can´t prove it, you can´t know it”

When I say that 2 statements are empirically equivalent, what I am trying to show is that apart from the empirical method, there are many other methods and tools that can provide us with knowledge

 

[leroy]

3 and 4 both commit the fallacy of bare assertion. I reject them both.

But you didn´t freely decide to reject number 3 right?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Sure, but that is not my problem, that is the problem of those who claim things like “if you can´t prove it, you can´t know it”

No, it's your fallacy, thus it's your problem. Asserting something blindly and then insisting that somebody else prove you wrong is fallacious.

When I say that 2 statements are empirically equivalent, what I am trying to show is that apart from the empirical method, there are many other methods and tools that can provide us with knowledge

Stating that two things are empirically equivalent doesn't fulfil that function, it only tells us that there's no way to experimentally distinguish between two hypotheses.

As for other methods and tools to provide us knowledge, I look forward to your list.

 

[leroy]

[
As for other methods and tools to provide us knowledge, I look forward to your list.

Logic
Personal experiences
History
Intuition
Etc

 

[Deleted member 619]

Logic on its own doesn't provide any knowledge. Personal experience and intuition are entirely unreliable, as the last century of physics has taught us in spades, and that's even before we get into the empirically demonstrated psychological issues with perception of experience. History is empirical.

Got anything else?

 

[leroy]

Logic on its own doesn't provide any knowledge. Personal experience and intuition are entirely unreliable, as the last century of physics has taught us in spades, and that's even before we get into the empirically demonstrated psychological issues with perception of experience. History is empirical.

Got anything else?

Therefore by your logic, it would be unreasonable for me to conclude that I drank that coffee because my personal experience is not reliable,

Don´t you see anything wrong with your logic?

.

 

[surreptitious57]

Logic on its own does not provide any knowledge

Physics is a branch of science. And the word science is derived from its Latin root scientia which means
to know. And the laws of physics are written in mathematical form. And mathematics is a subset of logic

 

[surreptitious57]

by your logic it would be unreasonable for me to conclude that I drank that coffee because my personal experience is not reliable

Personal experiences are unreliable [ and notoriously so too ] because anecdotes are not actual evidence. But in any case a urine
sample would be evidence that you had drunk the coffee. So your testimony that you had done so would therefore be superfluous

 

[Grumpy Santa]

[or something close enough to free will to be close enough) indeed real there's no logical leap from "Free will" to "therefore God". ".

My original intent was not prove the existence of God thought free will, my origin goal was to show that some atheist make logical contradictions when they deny free will and call themselves free thinkers.


But......Yes there is a “free will” argument that suports the existence of God

Premise 1: the existence of God is possible

Premise 2: If God exist he could have created creatures with free will if he wants

Premise 3: There are creatures with free will

Premise 4: God is the only possible cause for free will

Therefore God is the cause of free will

Therefore God Exist

If you accept all 4 premises you are forced to accept the conclusion “that God Exist” if you what to deny the existence of God, you have to explain which of the premises you think is wrong and why.

Premise 1: Possible, yes, but not demonstrated by the available evidence. Replace "God" with "Bigfoot" and the premise carries equal weight.
Premise 2: Is that true? Let's say this God of your does exist. If he creates creatures with "free will", then he doesn't actually know what their future actions will be. If that's the case, he's not omniscient, which is understood to be a property of God. If on the other hand he is omniscient, then he already knows what their future actions will be and free will becomes illusory.
Premise 3: Admittedly while I consider this to be likely it hasn't been actually demonstrated and again depends a lot on who defines "free will" in what way.
Premise 4: False assertion. The "falseness" is intensified due to the fallacy of premise 1 due to the fact that this God has not been demonstrated to exist. It also rules out the probability that what we experience as "free will" is naturally evolved with no explanation as to why the naturalistic concept is being ignored.
The final two conclusions cannot be logically reached due to the inherent fallacies of the premises.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Logic on its own doesn't provide any knowledge. Personal experience and intuition are entirely unreliable, as the last century of physics has taught us in spades, and that's even before we get into the empirically demonstrated psychological issues with perception of experience. History is empirical.

Got anything else?

Therefore by your logic, it would be unreasonable for me to conclude that I drank that coffee because my personal experience is not reliable,

Don´t you see anything wrong with your logic?

.

The problem with your "coffee" argument is a matter of scope to be honest. If it's known that you're a coffee drinker than it's reasonable to assume you had a morning cup even though the possibility exists that you forgot on a particular morning. There is a reasonable expectation of a trend maintaining itself to be true and the scope of the event is so minor that additional verification would likely not even be sought after. Plus there's the chance you have a false memory of drinking a morning cup simply due to the fact that it's your normal routine. So your example fails basically due to a matter of scope. If it's far more likely to be true than false it's reasonable to assume true unless an exception is otherwise demonstrated. Logic doesn't provide the knowledge that you had a cup this morning, experience tells us that it's likely true.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Logic on its own does not provide any knowledge

Physics is a branch of science. And the word science is derived from its Latin root scientia which means
to know. And the laws of physics are written in mathematical form. And mathematics is a subset of logic

I would argue that that isn't "logic on it's own" however. The knowledge gained from physics is due to continual research and experimentation, sometimes getting results that defied what we thought was logical. (See quantum physics.)

 

[MarsCydonia]

I have not read the others comment yet but I am sure others have pointed out the double-face-palming worthiness of your post.

Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Examples of logical contradictions that some atheist makes all the time,

Logical contradictions according to someone who does not understand logic? That can only go well:

I don´t believe in free will, but I am a free thinker.

By definition, you can´t be a free thinker if there is no free will

Someone must have pointed out that your definitions must be wrong. By definition, I do not see a logical contradiction here because these definitions do not contradict each other.
Freethinker: "a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition"
Freewill: "The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will"

My personal note: freethinkers make choices and come to conclusion that are not dictated by dogmatic authorities such as the choices and conclusions demanded by religions so no contradiction here.

I don’t believe in free will, but creationists are dishonest and/or faith is dishonest

Honesty by definition implies that there is free will, you can´t be dishonest without free will

Oh, here's that "by definition" again...
Honesty: "The quality or condition of being honest; of not being deceptive or fraudulent".
Where is it implied in this definition that honesty implies freewill? If someone designed a computer program that is not fraudulent or deceptive with the data (and most programs are, hence their creation), by your unprovided "definition", it would imply that these honest computer programs have freewill?

There are no objective moral values, but religion/God/Bible is morally wrong

If there is no objective morality, you have no basis to claim that something is wrong

That makes absolutely no sense to. What do you mean by morality? How woud having no "objective morality" prevent one from having a basis to make a moral evaluation? etc.

I have yet to meet a theist, apologist, christian, etc. who could argue about morality in any coherent and meaningful fashion.

My brain was not intelligently design; I trust my brain

If the brain was created by a mechanism that was not even trying to create a reliable brain (evolution) then there is no reason to assume that your brain is reliable, therefore you can´t trust your brain when you conclude things like “God does not exist”

1. Evolution does not try since it is not an entity with objectives that it is trying to attain. That does not mean that the brain cannot have evolved to be reliable.
2. And if the brain was intelligently designed, it does not mean that it was designed to be reliable so why assume we can trust it when anyone says "god does exist"? The fact is, there are men who purposefully designed some things to be unreliable. To assume the brain was designed be reliable is one assumption that needs to be stacked unto the assumptions that god had the desire to design a reliable brain, the capacity to design a reliable brain, etc. And when so many people disagree on his existence, how reliable can the design be?

So in neither case should reliability be assumed but why would you dismiss the possibility with evolution and assume with ID?


I am sure a lot of people answered these questions. So Leroy, the contradiction in your post would appear to be that you assumed those were logical contradictions without evaluating them with logic before posting them...

 

[leroy]

by your logic it would be unreasonable for me to conclude that I drank that coffee because my personal experience is not reliable

Personal experiences are unreliable [ and notoriously so too ] because anecdotes are not actual evidence. But in any case a urine
sample would be evidence that you had drunk the coffee. So your testimony that you had done so would therefore be superfluous

Atheist forums are the only place in the world where you can make that kind of redicoulous claims without being mocked by everybody.

you are saying “since I haven´t donde any urine test, I can´t know if I had that cofee or not” I challenge you to make such an statemnt in your facebook account and see how many people laught at you.

 

[leroy]

[The problem with your "coffee" argument is a matter of scope to be honest. If it's known that you're a coffee drinker than it's reasonable to assume you had a morning cup even though the possibility exists that you forgot on a particular morning. There is a reasonable expectation of a trend maintaining itself to be true and the scope of the event is so minor that additional verification would likely not even be sought after. Plus there's the chance you have a false memory of drinking a morning cup simply due to the fact that it's your normal routine. So your example fails basically due to a matter of scope. If it's far more likely to be true than false it's reasonable to assume true unless an exception is otherwise demonstrated. Logic doesn't provide the knowledge that you had a cup this morning, experience tells us that it's likely true..

Yes that is exaclty what I am saying, I am surprised to see that most atheist would disagree

 

[leroy]

Freethinker: "a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition"
Freewill: "The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will"

My personal note: freethinkers make choices and come to conclusion that are not dictated by dogmatic authorities such as the choices and conclusions demanded by religions so no contradiction here.

Exaclty, “free thinking” implies that we have choices, free thinkers freely descided to adopt a world view based on evidance and not based on dogma. You can´t call yourself a free thinker and deny free will.

The same is true with the “dishonesty” example, to be dishonest implies that you knew the correct answer, but you willingly descided to lie.
Computers are not dishonest, they might provide incorrect information, but there is a difference between being wrong and being dishonest.

About the morality example, well it doesn´t apply to you, the logical contradiction only applies for those who claim that morality is relative and then argue that the bible is objectivly worng.

About the brain being reliable: Evoluton would produce a brain that optimices survivor, answering correctly question like “where did we come from” doens´t seem to have any survival advantage, therefore there is no reason to assume that our brian Is a reliable tool to answer those questions.
If an engeer has both the hability to craate a reliable calculator and an unreliable calculator, it makes sence to assume that this engeer made a realible calculator, ¿why would he create an unreliable calculator? ¿why would God create an unreliable brain? Okams razor tells us that God would create a reliable brain rathe than an unreliable one.

 

[leroy]

Grumpy Santa Premise 2: Is that true? Let's say this God of your does exist. If he creates creatures with "free will", then he doesn't actually know what their future actions will be. If that's the case, he's not omniscient, which is understood to be a property of God. If on the other hand he is omniscient, then he already knows what their future actions will be and free will becomes illusory.

Free will is defined as: The hability to make choices weather if others know what your choices will be in the future is irrelevant. There is no incompatibility between knowing the futer and free choice.

With this said, do you have any other objection with premise 2

 

[MarsCydonia]

Exaclty, “free thinking” implies that we have choices, free thinkers freely descided to adopt a world view based on evidance and not based on dogma. You can´t call yourself a free thinker and deny free will.

Another assertion that is unsbtantiated. Again, where is the contradiction? You state there is one but it is absent from your comment. Free thinkers do make choices. They make choices free from authority or tradition, that is the definition of "free thinkers".

Why don't you start by defining "free thinkers" and by defining "free will"? I am sure that if you ask Aron Ra or anyone else, they would define their terms, why can't you? You "defined" free will as the ability to make choices but it must be more than this, surely. If not, then why don't you provide the definition "free will" as Aron Ra defines it to be? Be careful not to misrepresent him.

Now, about your definition? Is it that you are saying that without free will there are no choices? How does that follow? How would free will allow someone to make choices? Unless you define your terms, it is a meaningless assertion.

The same is true with the “dishonesty” example, to be dishonest implies that you knew the correct answer, but you willingly descided to lie. Computers are not dishonest, they might provide incorrect information, but there is a difference between being wrong and being dishonest.

But see, if being dishonest "implies that you knew the correct answer, but you willingly decided to lie", do you know what that implies? It implies causality.

However, the way you're going about "free will"'s implications, it looks like you're defining "free will" as "choices free from causality", so your statement is still completely nonsensical to me.

About the morality example, well it doesn´t apply to you, the logical contradiction only applies for those who claim that morality is relative and then argue that the bible is objectivly worng.

Ok, so you were wrong on this one. I have never seen someone argue "There is not objective moral values hence therefore this is objectively wrong"

About the brain being reliable: Evoluton would produce a brain that optimices survivor, answering correctly question like “where did we come from” doens´t seem to have any survival advantage, therefore there is no reason to assume that our brian Is a reliable tool to answer those questions.
If an engeer has both the hability to craate a reliable calculator and an unreliable calculator, it makes sence to assume that this engeer made a realible calculator, ¿why would he create an unreliable calculator? ¿why would God create an unreliable brain? Okams razor tells us that God would create a reliable brain rathe than an unreliable one.

If you assume (assumption #1), that the engineer has the ability to create a reliable calculator, you then need to assume (assumption #2) that the engineer also had the desire to create a reliable calculator. Again, it's an assumption to say "God would create a reliable brain", just because he could does not mean he would. You have to then assume he would unless you find a solid reason he would.

But indeed, it does seem our brain seem to be unreliable when it comes to the answer "where do we come from" because so many of us disagree. You would think that if our brain was designed to be reliable, we would reliably come to the same conclusion.

Also, unless you can provide the source for where Aron Ra said those words, then this "citation" you are using in your signature is misrepresenting him, which is an outright lie and you should cease to use it.

Finally, I would suggest to the mods to move this thread because it clearly has nothing to do with science.