Argument from free will

[No0ne]

...There is no such thing as having one choice...

But you will allway's have three choice's.

1.To do
2.To not do
3.To make your own.

But you would only have one option depending on the PERSONAL CHOICE OF YOUR MORAL VALUES AND PHILOSOPHY, hence you choose to have only one option depending on the choices that you make in the way how and how not you wish to live or not live your life.

So, to put it in a small amout of word's, You make the choice to only have one option, or choice to choose from, due to the choice's that you made on how you wish to live and not live.

Duality Of Choice, yet there is allway's a neutral in each side that is not of that side...

I insure you...such a "god" that you speak of will allway's pick three...

Therefore such a "god" has choosen not to do 1&2.

(A Related threed on the topic on freewill if anyone's intrested)
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...html#post20363

[iconoclast]

Thanks for your reply no-one - but I think it fair to wait upon the author of the line I quoted to offer his reply.

That said: If God can

neither choose nor not choose.

I insure you...such a "god" that you speak of will allway's pick three...

If I understand you correctly, the third option: 'none of the above' is not an option.

[mashiaj]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

The notion of choice does not apply to an all knowing being. So God can neither choose nor not choose.

Besides, I think your definition of Free Will is shaky. Please respond to the first portion of my post.

yes you think, and i think that your notion of goth is shaky.

ok the god im talking about is not only christian but from many religions.

Originally Posted by de Silentio

So God can neither choose nor not choose.

then in that case i feel sorry for god for beign an autonomous slave.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by mashiaj

look nameless im not trying to evangelize someone into mi truth. just looking for some opinion about this, and i admire jesus.

Your OP attempting to 'disprove' the Xtian god, is an 'evangelization'. An 'evangelization' for 'logic', for the belief in the universality (godlike) of the 'laws' of logic ('law' of identity, etc...). More, you are attempting, by that particular method, to 'coerce/seduce/argue' the 'believer' from their 'belief' (in a 'god'), to your's. Yes, that can certainly be interpreted as 'evangelism'.
You can 'admire' the concept of a 'Jesus' (unless Mexican, and he lives next door), but there is no evidence that he actually existed, so it must be the 'concept' or 'belief' that you 'admire'.

[Critz]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

What makes you think God chooses. An all knowing being is not restrained by having to make a decisions. He would know what to do, and just do it, he is all knowing.

Originally Posted by mashiaj

1. a god that cannot choose has no free will.

so you are saying that god has no free will because of his omniscience.

I don't like where this is going. Just because a being (God) knows the future, it doesn't me (s)he[it] couldnt choose (therefore indicating free will) how that future developed. If we accept that there is a God, and he has control over the outcome of the future, his knoweldge of that outcome, although may have effected the way things happened, do not imply there was no choice.

I see where you are coming from, but i see the flaw in the statement. To me its like saying "If a magician rigs a deck of cards, he knows the outcome therefore has no free will." In Reality the free will existed when he rigged the deck, before the trick is underwent.

In the same way, if God predicts everything happening, assuming he is all powerful, he had (at one point) influence AND CHOICE over everything that happened.

I agree, this is more then just omniscience, you indicate that you are focusing on the christian god, whos package also contains being all powerful, all knowing, and all encompassing.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

nameless,

Speaking for myself, I think correct conceptualization important to correct decision making, and thus to the state of the world.

'The' world? You mean 'the' world as in 'the' world that I Perceive? From this Perspective? 'This' world? The "state of (your) perceived/conceived world" at any particular moment?

Thus I oppose incorrect conceptualization where I find it.

Hmmm, I'm smelling the assumption of a 'one-size-fits-all' world that 'you' Perceive, over and above all others, 'correctly'? And if something 'works' for someone else that conflicts with the notions of your concepts/Perspective, it must, therefore, be 'wrong'?
How can there possibly be 'incorrect conceptualisation' when every Perspective is unique unto itself? Many areas of Perspective can be in 'common' with other Perspectives, to one extent or another, but in totality, all are unique. So, who can arbitrarily and say that one Perspective/conceptualisation is 'incorrect' or another 'correct'? Would that not simply be a manifestation of ego?

Religion is a systematic source of incorrect conceptualization,

Having said the above;
I cannot 'believe' in 'cause and effect', so I might interpret what you are saying (I think) as; as a particular religion is basically a 'congregation' of similar 'beliefs'/Perspectives. Wherever one finds a gathering of similar Perspectives, one can find certain common manifestations of (some) thought patterns and 'concepts'. As you would be from a differing 'congregation/grouping' of similar Perspectives, instead of a 'churchful' of 'believers' in Jesus or Allah, you MIGHT be one of a 'lab-full' of 'believers in 'empiricism/objectivity' and 'cause and effect', which would all have to be 'beliefs' by definition.
Again, incorrect according to what criteria? What 'one-size-fits-all-universal' standard? Besides ego?

but there are other, individual intances that may have nothing to do with religion, faults of reason, logic, or just plain ignorance that I will seek to correct with equal enthusiasm.

'Faults', according to, again, what criteria?
(Juxtaposing 'reason' and 'faith/belief' (as I am inferring) seems like an apples and oranges fallacy.)
To 'correct'? As in to 'evangelize' them to your Perspective of the elephant? Of course, one 'corrects' with enthusiasm, it feels so good (to the ego) to win another 'convert'! Makes Pinnoccio (egoic image) feel like a 'real' boy! *__-

You perhaps may think this high-handed of me but the quid pro quo is that I will not defend an argument I know to be incorrect.

One; it has been said that unless one is conversant with three or four differing ('disagreeing' with your's) Perspectives on/in one's area of interest/study, one really has no understanding at all. That includes being aware of their interpretations of the evidence and reasoning thereof.
Personally, I have found that the more Perspectives that one understands, the 'wider' one's Perspective, the less possible to hold any one 'position' from which to 'argue' or 'defend'.
And how much did you, at one time, 'know' to be 'correct', and defended it vociferously and passionately, only to find, later, that you were not 'correct' after all? You certainly 'did' then, and no doubt you do now (these days). If you continue to exist, you will find that which you 'know' (believe) to be 'correct', Now, to be a 'lie' later. We stand and argue/defend, we 'evangelize', not to upgrade the world, but to attempt to gain some stability for our (ego) own world.

Nor, as in the case of mashiaj's argument, will I defend an argument just because I agree with the conclusion

Of course not; you would be defending what you perceive to be a 'lie'/error. I think that is ethics.

- if I believe the logic to be faulty.

Ah yes, the holy scripture (divinity; perceived universality) of your 'belief community', 'Logic', by which you measure the holy scripture/beliefs of 'them', the non-logical/non-rational (to you, anyway) 'god' of the Xtians.

My fundamental objection here is that one cannot disprove the existence of God using religious concepts

Apples and oranges. The workings of 'belief' manifest differently and by different 'rules' than the workings of 'critical scientific thought', for instance. To demand that one manifest according to the rules of the other is an error in cognition, apples and oranges.
Why even try to 'disprove' something that 'works' for you so well? Do you?

- and the proof of this will come when some slow witted religious nutter realizes you haven't accounted for omnipotence, which is certainly claimed by Christians of thier imaginary God. If it is accounted for your argument will run into contradiction - and this is why religious premises can't be employed. They are inherently contradictory. ...and that's the mystery! adds the Christian with smug condecension.

This is what happens when Xtians are tricked and seduced into your demand for them to step into YOUR appleish arena and play by your applish rules and try to defend their oranges (that need no defence in the first place), and don't stand a chance, as the game was rigged from the beginning. They are seduced so readily due to, perhaps, their ready acceptance and usage of the tools of 'logic/rationality' in areas of their lives unaffected by 'belief'. They do already value logic so... just 'reel' them in for a shearing (ego masturbation). I repeat, the game is rigged!!
They fail, you fail. No one 'evangelizes' the other to conversion (ego vs ego) and the frustrating resultant rancor casts a pall on an otherwise beautiful day for all. No fruit from that tree. The evidence is all over these boards..
Even here, where you react with;

We both know that logic is not your favored ground...
Get stuffed you snotty prick!

(Calling him a 'protty snick', though, might not have incurred the mod's ire.)
A fine illustration of the frustration when the 'kill' doesnt go as planned. *__-

Any 'quality' attributed to a 'god' is easily refutable and always leads to the paradox that is a sure sign of error.

LOGICAL error. Not an 'error', for the 'believers', but a 'necessary' and (emotionally) 'meaningful' quality (of their god). That's why a 'believer' doesn't stand a chance, if he engages by 'your' rules. An easy pluck for a 'weak' ego, though. We all do it at times of egoic weakness.. a shot in the arm, as it were, to walk away from a debate/kill with a 'wet spot' on one's egoic undies...
If the Xtian 'god' is not a 'thing', the Xtians have 'nothing' to defend!
Game's 'rigged'!
Peace

[nameless]

Originally Posted by mashiaj

...autonomous slave.

Got to win the oxymoron phrase of the year!!

[mashiaj]

Originally Posted by nameless

Your OP attempting to 'disprove' the Xtian god, is an 'evangelization'. An 'evangelization' for 'logic', for the belief in the universality (godlike) of the 'laws' of logic ('law' of identity, etc...). More, you are attempting, by that particular method, to 'coerce/seduce/argue' the 'believer' from their 'belief' (in a 'god'), to your's. Yes, that can certainly be interpreted as 'evangelism'.
You can 'admire' the concept of a 'Jesus' (unless Mexican, and he lives next door), but there is no evidence that he actually existed, so it must be the 'concept' or 'belief' that you 'admire'.

Your OP attempting to prove my attempting to disprove the xtian god,
More, you are attempting, by that particular method, to 'coerce/seduce/argue' the 'believer' from their 'belief' (in a 'god'), to your's. Yes, that can certainly be interpreted as 'evangelism'. theres no evidence that jesus actually not existed, so it must be the person that you not belief.

[mashiaj]

Originally Posted by nameless

Got to win the oxymoron phrase of the year!!

yes autonomous slave is an oxymoron phrase, what i tried to say is automaton slave.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by mashiaj

...theres no evidence that jesus actually not existed...

You certainly couldn't have written this... Must be a glitch....
Happy to have provided so much laughter in your life. *__-