Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Metsfanmax]

Our souls transcend the natural world. Our free will is a function of our souls.

It's entirely internally consistent with the other christian premises, which are themselves entirely separate from natural principles.

To defeat the argument you ither have to show why our souls, our very being, is not the bit of us that makes choices, or that somehow the other premises are not internally consistent. I've seen neither so far.

The premise we began with was that a given action was predetermined to happen in the natural world. The burden is on you to show how any of this supernatural nonsense addresses a hard logical fact, which is that if an action (that takes place in the natural world) is known by something that knows everything (about that natural world), then it is predetermined. If it is predetermined, that means that when the action happens, we didn't make a choice, we were fulfilling whatever was predestined to occur. Whether supernatural motives ended up causing this to occur, or instead it was deterministic physical laws that caused it to occur, it had to have occurred, which means we didn't make a choice.

[tzor]

I had some really great coffee the other night. Therefore, there is a God.

Now are you saying this in the vein of Jackie Gleason's “Mmmmboy, that’s some good coffee!”

[crispybits]

God might know everything about the natural world, but that knowledge is supernatural. That's the entire point. If a natural being knew then I'd be agreeing with you, but we're not talking about something being naturally known. If the knowledge of the natural world is outside of the natural world and doesn't have influence on the natural world, then it doesn't cause a paradox in natural laws in the way you describe.

Premise: A natural paradox happens when a natural thing breaks a natural law
Premise: A supernatural thing is not a natural thing
Conclusion: Supernatural things cannot cause natural paradoxes

[Metsfanmax]

God might know everything about the natural world, but that knowledge is supernatural. That's the entire point. If a natural being knew then I'd be agreeing with you, but we're not talking about something being naturally known. If the knowledge of the natural world is outside of the natural world and doesn't have influence on the natural world, then it doesn't cause a paradox in natural laws in the way you describe.

Premise: A natural paradox happens when a natural thing breaks a natural law
Premise: A supernatural thing is not a natural thing
Conclusion: Supernatural things cannot cause natural paradoxes

A key point about the original argument is that it's not the fact that God knows it, that's relevant. It's the fact that this information is known, with absolute certainty. That alone is enough to require that the event will happen with no alternatives, because otherwise it could not be known with certainty (therefore contradicting the assumption).

[crispybits]

Kind of, but still irrelevant. Any supernatural thing could hold the supernatural knowledge of everything natural without violating any natural principle. You're right that it doesn't matter that it's God, but you still haven't showed how anything supernatural could violate a natural law that doesn't act upon it.

Look at those 2 premises and that conclusion and tell me where the fault is.

[oss spy]

I typed out a long post to explain supernatural things, but I realized that I can do it better with a few questions:

If something is supernatural, and if this something exists, then doesn't that make it natural and therefore bound by some laws? Furthermore, why are we assuming that anything is supernatural and why does it matter?

Let's say that God is supernatural. What does that have to do with him knowing the future, and why would it make a difference? If we are to assume that he is supernatural, why would that change his omniscience? What does being supernatural have to do with knowing all outcomes? What difference does it make?

None. None at all. You're putting dots everywhere but you're not actually connecting them...it's honestly not worth the effort to get involved in this specific part of the debate if you're not going to make points and link them together. Although tzor was using faulty arguments, they at least responded to the issue at hand.

[chang50]

I typed out a long post to explain supernatural things, but I realized that I can do it better with a few questions:

If something is supernatural, and if this something exists, then doesn't that make it natural and therefore bound by some laws? Furthermore, why are we assuming that anything is supernatural and why does it matter?

Let's say that God is supernatural. What does that have to do with him knowing the future, and why would it make a difference? If we are to assume that he is supernatural, why would that change his omniscience? What does being supernatural have to do with knowing all outcomes? What difference does it make?

None. None at all. You're putting dots everywhere but you're not actually connecting them...it's honestly not worth the effort to get involved in this specific part of the debate if you're not going to make points and link them together. Although tzor was using faulty arguments, they at least responded to the issue at hand.

From a theistic standpoint,which neither Crispy or myself share,you have assumed the supernatural,and once you have made that assumption IMHO you can argue all sorts of crazy shit with a degree of plausibility.It's crazy shit but very hard to knock down..

[oss spy]

I didn't assume anything was supernatural. I only said that, if God is omniscient, then there is no free will.

[crispybits]

No, you did the opposite, you assumed that God is natural. If he is not natural then he cannot cause natural paradoxes

(and remember the whole natural / supernatural argument revolves around "exists under natural conditions and obeys natural laws", just because he exists doesn't make him natural, he has to exist within the confines of nature for that to hold, which is pretty difficult when he created it)

(also remember I'm not trying to argue for something I actually believe when I say God is this or God is that, I'm just pointing out that your argument is flawed)

If God is supernatural, and we have supernatural immortal souls, then it is entirely consistent that these supernatural agents can act other than by natural principles, and them doing so doesn't break any natural principles, those laws simply do not apply. Determinism is a natural principle based on both causality and the uniformity of natural laws.

Or, if I'm wrong and you're not arguing against a specifically christian God. can you tell me where you got the idea that God is omniscient that didn't also involve the idea of souls, or a creator God (because without that source you're simply creating a straw man).

[BigBallinStalin]

Indeed - there are much stronger arguments for a lack of God than that one.

For example (and this is just a quick one as I'm back to work today so haven't got a lot of time - boo!) if I know that you're both rational and hungry and I have a bucket full of sand and a bucket full of doughnuts, I know if I offer you the choice you're going to pick the doughnuts. But I haven't removed your free will, you have the ability to pick the sand.

If a person is perfectly rational and picking the doughnuts is the rational choice (debatable given the unclear health benefits of baked goods which are high in sugar and fat), then they have no free will. They are making the choice that rationality dictates that they make. They don't have the ability to pick the sand; if they do, then your original assumption was wrong.

False anthropomorphism. 'Rationality' itself is not a decision-making entity. Rationality cannot 'dictate'. That's just silly.

Sorry, mets, try again.

[MeDeFe]

No, you did the opposite, you assumed that God is natural. If he is not natural then he cannot cause natural paradoxes

Logical paradoxes on the other hand...

[crispybits]

What is logic Mets? (serious question though it may seem spurious - I would say that just like causality all those pages back logic cannot be said to be definitely true outside of a logical universe - supernatural things could easily be entirely illogical)

[Metsfanmax]

What is logic Mets? (serious question though it may seem spurious - I would say that just like causality all those pages back logic cannot be said to be definitely true outside of a logical universe - supernatural things could easily be entirely illogical)

Did you mean to direct that question to MeDeFe?

[AndyDufresne]

What if god is imperfect? http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... rfect-god/

show: Article

--Andy

[crispybits]

What is logic Mets? (serious question though it may seem spurious - I would say that just like causality all those pages back logic cannot be said to be definitely true outside of a logical universe - supernatural things could easily be entirely illogical)

Did you mean to direct that question to MeDeFe?

Sorry yes, slip of the fingers.