Refute my logic. - Page 4

On September 01 2009 05:32 nomsayin wrote:


I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

On September 01 2009 05:46 citi.zen wrote:


QED? Just kidding... as I hope you are as well.

On September 01 2009 05:56 Wangsta wrote:
to the OP, I assure you, I am every bit as skeptical and analytical of religion as you are, but I can also guarantee you that intelligent christians will be able to refute ANY point that you can come up with. I'm sure you've heard this before, but it really is true. religion can't be proven or disproven, it's a matter of faith.

It has been disproven beyond any reasonable uncertainty that the teachings of Christianity are true.

If God is omnipotent, he should be able to create a universe where free will exists but evil does not. That's the crux of my argument.

As an atheist, I can't agree with your premises. They are as logical to me as stating as an axiom to a discussion, the benevolence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the source of all good in the world.

On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote:

With no further rambling, here is my problem:

I'll give you a good example, and it deals with the central tenet to Christianity: free will. You can immediately see how free will is essential to Christianity in that if man is not responsible for his actions, then man cannot "sin". If man cannot sin, there is no need for Jesus to die for man's sins, thereby reducing Christianity to nothingness.

The contradiction is this. Think for a moment about your mind. What causes you to make decisions? Imagine if you will a few variables. X represents your desires, be they need for power, lust, you name it. Y represents your ability to overcome those desires, your willpower. You can add in any variables you like, as these can't be quantified, all I'm trying to do is establish what in your mind mixes in order for you to make a decision. For example, if X>Y in any given situation(oversimplification as it may be), then your desires will win out over your willpower, and you'll indulge. Add in any variables you like, the point is that we're considering it an equation for the sake of ease.

As a case study, let's consider a man and his son. The man warns his son not to eat the cookies, because they will make him sick. The son, being disobedient, decides to eat the cookies. This is an act of free will against the father, because the son had the free choice to either eat the cookies or not to do so.

It's very important to note at this point that "free will" is defined as: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. Ie, there are no external agents operating on you, "forcing" you to do anything.

Now, if the father had forced the son into either eating the cookie or not, it wouldn't have been free will, would it? Of course not.

One more point is essential to make before we continue: by the nature of God, nothing can exist independently of him. Ie, nothing can simply come into being without being caused by God. Which is pretty intuitive, given that we consider everything made by God, but it's an important premise to list before we go to our conclusion. I hope you're with me so far.

Finally, let's consider Eve and the fruit. Did Eve have free will in deciding to eat the fruit? Well, if we refer to our father-son example, she did. But, there's one crucial difference: the father did not design the son. The father did not set into place the X and Y variables in the son's mind, so, naturally, the father wasn't at all forcing his son to make a decision.

God, however, DID set the variables. He had to, because nothing can exist independent of him. If they simply sprung into existence without God, our entire concept of God is wrecked. God, therefore, put into place within Eve's mind her X and Y variables. She exhibited a weakness for temptation, a willingness to be deceived, corrupted. Is she responsible for this weakness, or is God? By our definition, nothing can exist independent of God, so, by causation, he is responsible for this. This is the crucial point of the case study: her variables couldn't have sprung into existence, they had to come from somewhere, and the only logical place they could have possibly come is from God. So. If the father had FORCED his son into either eating the cookie or not, we would not say that the son was operating of his own free will. How then, given that God is, by having set our variables, forcing us into action, can you say that we operate under free will when we sin? If your car breaks down, who do you blame, the car, or the car maker?

If you consider:
1. God is omniscient and omnipotent.
2. Nothing can existent independent of God.
3. Given premise 1, God does not make mistakes, and he fully understands the consequences of everything he does, since he knows the future.
4. There is a thought process that guides our decision making.
5. Given premise 2, our thought process comes inevitably from God.
6. Given premises 3 and 5, God knows exactly what will happen when he sets the variables.
7. Given premise 1 and 6, God knows what combination will cause us to sin, and, given 2, there are no other factors independent of God.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum: Given your premises, free will is thereby logically defeated.


I appreciate any and all input on the subject.

On September 01 2009 06:22 L wrote:
You disproved "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

Nice.

Guess I'm free to go back to stealing money from grannies.

On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote:
A little introduction.. I'm currently in a relationship with a girl of distinctly Christian beliefs. Now, naturally, she wants me to feel the same way(if you go back through my blogs, you'll see that this is hardly the first time this has happened, I'm a sucker for punishment).

My problems with Christianity don't stem from the fact that I don't want to believe, just that there are things within Christianity that make it illogical to me. I'm going to post one of them, and I'm honestly hoping that my logic WILL be refuted. Yeah, I know, I'm not being objective at all in wanting my logic to be defeated, my thinking is clearly compromised by wanting to be with this girl. It's sad that I acknowledge this and yet can't quite force myself out of the relationship on these grounds.

I'm currently a mixture between a Deist and a Pantheist, and honestly I see no reason to believe Christianity is *the* true religion when there are countless out there with as much claim to truth. If you disagree, post and tell me why.

To save us all a lot of time, don't post and tell me that I should just dump the girl, it's plain that I *should* do that, but we both know that I'm not going to. In a rather infantile and immature fashion, I'm in love with her. And yes, it was foolish for me to allow feelings to develop when I knew there was this colossal hurdle to face, but. They have. I can only face what it is and move forward.

With no further rambling, here is my problem:

I'll give you a good example, and it deals with the central tenet to Christianity: free will. You can immediately see how free will is essential to Christianity in that if man is not responsible for his actions, then man cannot "sin". If man cannot sin, there is no need for Jesus to die for man's sins, thereby reducing Christianity to nothingness.

The contradiction is this. Think for a moment about your mind. What causes you to make decisions? Imagine if you will a few variables. X represents your desires, be they need for power, lust, you name it. Y represents your ability to overcome those desires, your willpower. You can add in any variables you like, as these can't be quantified, all I'm trying to do is establish what in your mind mixes in order for you to make a decision. For example, if X>Y in any given situation(oversimplification as it may be), then your desires will win out over your willpower, and you'll indulge. Add in any variables you like, the point is that we're considering it an equation for the sake of ease.

As a case study, let's consider a man and his son. The man warns his son not to eat the cookies, because they will make him sick. The son, being disobedient, decides to eat the cookies. This is an act of free will against the father, because the son had the free choice to either eat the cookies or not to do so.

It's very important to note at this point that "free will" is defined as: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. Ie, there are no external agents operating on you, "forcing" you to do anything.

Now, if the father had forced the son into either eating the cookie or not, it wouldn't have been free will, would it? Of course not.

One more point is essential to make before we continue: by the nature of God, nothing can exist independently of him. Ie, nothing can simply come into being without being caused by God. Which is pretty intuitive, given that we consider everything made by God, but it's an important premise to list before we go to our conclusion. I hope you're with me so far.

Finally, let's consider Eve and the fruit. Did Eve have free will in deciding to eat the fruit? Well, if we refer to our father-son example, she did. But, there's one crucial difference: the father did not design the son. The father did not set into place the X and Y variables in the son's mind, so, naturally, the father wasn't at all forcing his son to make a decision.

God, however, DID set the variables. He had to, because nothing can exist independent of him. If they simply sprung into existence without God, our entire concept of God is wrecked. God, therefore, put into place within Eve's mind her X and Y variables. She exhibited a weakness for temptation, a willingness to be deceived, corrupted. Is she responsible for this weakness, or is God? By our definition, nothing can exist independent of God, so, by causation, he is responsible for this. This is the crucial point of the case study: her variables couldn't have sprung into existence, they had to come from somewhere, and the only logical place they could have possibly come is from God. So. If the father had FORCED his son into either eating the cookie or not, we would not say that the son was operating of his own free will. How then, given that God is, by having set our variables, forcing us into action, can you say that we operate under free will when we sin? If your car breaks down, who do you blame, the car, or the car maker?

If you consider:
1. God is omniscient and omnipotent.
2. Nothing can existent independent of God.
3. Given premise 1, God does not make mistakes, and he fully understands the consequences of everything he does, since he knows the future.
4. There is a thought process that guides our decision making.
5. Given premise 2, our thought process comes inevitably from God.
6. Given premises 3 and 5, God knows exactly what will happen when he sets the variables.
7. Given premise 1 and 6, God knows what combination will cause us to sin, and, given 2, there are no other factors independent of God.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum: Given your premises, free will is thereby logically defeated.


I appreciate any and all input on the subject.

On September 01 2009 06:32 Diggity wrote:
Generally it seems like atheism is a denial of the specific the christian conception of God. There are plenty of other possibilities along the axiom of all-knowing, all-powerful and good

On September 01 2009 06:32 Diggity wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if this world is simply a giant experiment to see truly see if good is more powerful than evil. From that perspective denying evil's existence would be a cop out. But even then I come back to your point about infinite creative power. In the face of omnipotent creative power there could be something else that isn't evil that is given a challenging authority to good and made to be less destructive.

Would we then think of whatever that was as evil? Often times I don't like walking down this line of thought (even though it is interesting) because I feel it loses all grip in reality.

I generally acknowledge pantheist and agnostics point of view, but I have a hard time coming to grips with atheism. Its one thing to say I don't know if a god exists or not. It may be possible but its very possible a god does not exist. Its another to say a god definitely does not exist because I cannot observe it in any scientific experiment which I can conceive.

Taking an atheistic point of view on the start of creation... nothingness with no provocation split itself into matter and anti-matter. That is pretty nuts. (not that I am saying it didn't happen, just saying intellectually this is bizarre) Also to be fair many Christians argue this is the physical representation of the opening line of Genesis

At a certain point though either direction I find it boggling that the very way energy, matter and everything interacts allows for our existence.

For example, water could have just as easily gained density when it freezes. Thus all fresh water would sink to the bottom of the ocean and life on land would be radically different. Taking it a step further back, matter could just as easily have properties that make any form of life impossible. Again I don't like going down these lines of thought too far because they also lose basis in reality. Its also just a giant game of what if at the end of the day.

Personally I find consciousness unfathomable. I know there is no following logic, but generally I point to consciousness as proof of the existence of god. I can definitely understand why people would not agree with this point of view though.