Why does FREE WILL inevitably lead to evil? (soul, zealous, believer)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

You have already accused me of ignoring/purposely failing to respond to your points. This is the second time you have alluded to so called "tricks." I take these assaults on my integrity seriously.

I'm kindly and politely going to insist that you cease and desist from making such accusations as they do nothing towards moving the discussion forward. I believe that by now I have demonstrated my ability to throw back whatever is thrown at me - let's not allow the discussion to degenerate into something immature.

I have explained exactly what this 'trick' is. It is a logical fallacy of equivocation and has no place in a discussion which is supposed to have any merit. If you don't use it in your argument, I shan't keep on about it. If you refuse to recognise it as a logical fallacy, I can only assume that you are are being tricky and dishonest and I shall continue to say so.

I am honestly trying to respond to all of your points. If you feel that I've missed any, please list them an I'll be all too happy to put in my 2 cents. As far as the so called "tricks," as previously stated, I have no motivation whatsoever other than to give straight answers with the hope of getting some in return. If you are concerned because of the open nature of the discussion board I would be more than willing to continue the exchange via private e-mail.

I'm quite happy for it to be open. I would prefer it to be open so that all can see what's logical argument and what isn't. I don't know why you are even suggesting going private. This should be of interest to all. If you think it might be off topic, start an appropriate thread.

As stated, I'm looking forward to it.

To what? I have set out my argument for atheism being logical, rational and based on evidence. You should now either agree or contest it. What are you 'looking forward' to?

I didn't argue that the characteristics are that it is male. I provided a quote from the Bible with the phrase: 'It seems to me..." as in, it would appear that because of (a) it would logically follow (b). Let's allow the reader make up their own mind about what the Bible states and whether or not the Eternal Being is male or female or neither.

Come on, if you don't want me to talk about you pulling tricks, don't pull them. YOU used the Bible quote as evidence. It therefore forms part or YOUR argument. I say it is no evidence at all. It is not a book of science (as the theist apologists so often say) so why does that John quote have any weight at all?

I am oh so tricky. Tricky tricky tricky.

Of course this is MY definition. It's MY opinion and it's MY world view. Of course you see it as a logical fallacy. So what about it?

I would love to help you avoid logical fallacies and argue logically and reasonably. I'd be happy to co-operate with you in objective evaluation of the whole Christian thing - pros and cons. but, where the argument is fallacious, I have to say so.

I don't have to vindicate myself to you. I am providing reasons and logic for my assertions and will continue to do so. As stated, if you expect this to happen in a simple sound bite or two, it simply isn't going to happen. You didn't mention anything about there being a time or page limit.

You certainly don't have to vindicate yourself to me. I have no power or authority. But, if you are putting forward an argument and making claims, even if you get them from other sources, they have to be justified if you want your case to be taken seriously.

The idea of more than one TITEB is utterly absurd and ridiculous -think about it.

Actually, YOU should think about and say why it is absurd. In fact, there's an argument that a number of gods would make more sense as there's a lot to do and sometimes it appears that there's a bit of conflict. Certainly, to use the human example, a counter-deity has to be postulated to explain why things don't always go the way a god or goddess might want. The greeks made sense on seeing the problem of evil as the result of Gods with differing agendas.

And, since you argue for a male God, that would imply that a female God is neccessary. And presumably they'd have the patter of liitle goddy feet, in due course. To reject the idea of male and female gods as absurd would seem to put us back to postulating an 'It'.

Over to you.

I've already addressed the 'neuter' question.

Looks like you'll have to address it again.

I agree, that at this stage in the discussion, you have no reason to recognize the Bible as evidence based upon the assertions I have thus far made. My mention of the Bible was only in order to explain the nature of my world view - a view that I understand you take exception to. That's all.

That is fine. Or it would be, if you had not already produced a quote from it and presented it as evidence - that the TITIE or whatever is male. If you do that, you have got to say why anyone should accept a Bible quote as having any weight or accept that it has none.

I already stated my reasoning. Matter and effects are something that we can observe. Finitude means a beginning and an ending. This logically leads to the need for a cause.

Perhaps you can now logically explain how it would be possible to have "an eternal matter or out-of-nothing matter theory. Perhaps you could logically explain your specific idea of exactly what 'nothing' is.

The fact is that none of the alternatives seem very 'logical' which is why logic can do no more than say 'I don't don't know", which is what I said. Now, you have argued that, since eternal matter or self - created matter is not feasible, an eternal non-matter being must be the only solution.

I can reasonably say that I don't see any of them as being very believable and opt for 'I really don't know' and thus agnosticism. However, I'll explain as much as I can. I don't see how a non - matter intelligence of evident power and complexity could have always existed.

I have studied sub-atomic physics a bit and, no matter how small the particles get, one is still left wondering 'what are they made of?'. I have to come to the conclusion that atoms (quite apart from them being pretty empty - the scale model is a golf - ball revolving around a grapefruit two blocks away) the particles themselves must be made or smaller particles - and those particles ...The only thing the mind can stomach (if you will excuse the mixed metaphor) is no-matter, but with the effects of valency or repulsion, since that is what keeps the particles doing what they do. At that stage, they are so much like nothing doing something that to say that they couldn't have come from nothing seems dafter to me than postulating a fully - formed intelligent being made of nothing that has always been there.

Given that we are not likely to agree on this, it has to to remain speculative. And speculation implies 'we don't know'.

I'm happy to hear your claim to be agnostic. I believe this is probably a more accurate title based upon your previous assertions.

Why would a true agnostic be interested in making a logical, reasonable and rational case for atheism?

Because ..I thought I'd explained this.. because agnosticism is a knowledge position. I don't know that there is a god. The evidence has not persuaded me. Therefore I can either believe without good reason (agnostic theism), which is illogical, or not believe until there is good reason. That is a belief - position called atheism.

As for my God belief, I thus far have only begun to make the case for causality. I do not expect you to accept the case for causality as final proof. At this point in the discussion, I'm merely putting it forward as part of my reasoning

Ok. Now I have to agree that the causality argument is more persuasive than most theist arguments. It certainly persuaded poor old Anthony Flew. But, as I say, where it falls down is that it applies to the TITI theory as well. You are contesting that pretty well and I'm answering.

I think you've earned a set of jump wings based upon your apparent ability to 'jump to conclusions.'

I think you had better give an example of that accusation.

Is it your intention to allow me to make a case or not?

I thought that's what you were doing. Making a case for First cause and then trying to give good reason why first cause = Biblegod.

Your not exactly one to be in the position of casting stones. I haven't observed much in the way of logical reasons (for atheism) coming from you.

Well, you wouldn't since you (a) don't seem to understand logic, (b) don't understand atheism and (c) don't seem to be able to remember any of my arguments.

You're apparently very confused. YOU are supposed to be the one explaining the logic of atheism to ME - remember?

I have explained, but it seems to go right over your head. The logic of atheism is that, until a god - belief is given credibility, the logical position is not to credit it. That is what atheism is. I can't help it if you thought it was something else that put the burden of proof on the atheists. They do not have to prove that a god doesn't exist; it is theists making the claim that a god does exist, not to mention a very specific god. So it is for you to substantiate that claim. If you say that you cannot substantiate or refuse to substantiate the god - claim, then that makes that claim a faith - claim without reason or good evidence, renounces any claim to be logical and gives atheism the logic base by default. Is that clear now?

Fine. Please give me your damb reasoning as to how the universe came to exist or as to how it might be eternal.

I have already said I don't know. All I can do is pass around some ideas. None of them are very convincing as I can't say any more than I don't know and nobody knows. Why do you keep asking me to explain something I can't and don't need to ?

AREQUIPA, I repeat and highlight the need for brevity in this discussion. We are getting virtually nowhere and doing it very slowly.

It's because we have no mutual understanding. We can't agree on anything, what is meant by god, what is logic and what isn't who needs to prove what.

I know why. It is because you are arguing from a basic a priori assumption that God exists and needs to be disproved by unbelievers. I am asking for the reasons to suppose that a god exists before the discussion of what it is can even get started. You jumped the gun by quoting from a source in an attempt to define this 'god' or TITTEP or whatever.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I have explained exactly what this 'trick' is. It is a logical fallacy of equivocation and has no place in a discussion which is supposed to have any merit. If you don't use it in your argument, I shan't keep on about it. If you refuse to recognise it as a logical fallacy, I can only assume that you are are being tricky and dishonest and I shall continue to say so.

Let's attempt to settle this before moving on.

I'm going to beg your patience and ask that you please lay out as CLEARLY and CONCISELY as possible, exactly and specifically what sort of so called "trick" I'm playing.

I'm also going to ask you to SPECIFICALLY list all the points/assertions you claim that I have purposely ignored.

I'm quite happy to continue the discussion in open forum. The only reason I suggested private e-mail was due to what I interpreted as your implication of this being some sort of game where someone scores tactical points - or something to that effect.

[TRANSPONDER]

Let's attempt to settle this before moving on.
I'm going to beg your patience and ask that you please lay out as CLEARLY and CONCISELY as possible, exactly and specifically what sort of so called "trick" I'm playing.

here I explained what the fallacy was.-

"Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
So the trick is to postulate a possible creator of the universe, to arbitrarily assign the name 'God' then to use a book about 'God' as evidence as to what 'God' is. It is using the fallacy of equivocation to assign a term or name to two unrelated things TITEB and Biblegod and pretend they are the same."

I called that a rhetorical trick based on a fallacy, which it was and is. I didn't say YOU were tricky.

But you didn't acknowledge that as a logical fallacy but apparently put it down to personal opinion. That can't be excused as ignorance - I'd just explained it. It can only be trickiness. -

"Again, no "trick" is necessary. I have my current view, you have your current view - shall we proceed?"

Here's another

"I never posited that TITEB is male or that God is male. I didn't invent Jesus or the Bible - however, I did reference both because of my position that it is logical, reasonable and rational to do so."

You put forward this as evidence then apparently suggest that you don't need to explain why it's evidence as you didn't write the Bible. So tricky.

and here

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
You are coming close to being dishonest with your continued insistence that I believe in fairies. That I mentioned fairies first as an example of a being for which there was no evidence is no justification for your continued false jibe that I believe in them.

Originally posted by you

"The record shows that I did not bring up the topic of fairies. The record shows that I would have been quite happy to let the topic go when I suggested that it was having a negative impact on diplomacy. I would be quite alright with setting aside the topic of fairies.

Rather than accept your argument was back to front, you just suggested dropping it, which meant that you didn't have to admit your false logic.

and here

I don't have to justify anything to you or anyone else. I'll be happy to put forward my reasoning as we progress. I will also expect you to do likewise.

Making claims and then pretending that you don't have to justify them? So you just say something and expect it to be accepted just like that?
How tricky.

These posts are getting extremely long. I think that there is something to be said for brevity. Might we agree on how we may go about chopping all this down a little bit?

I was getting a bit suspicious and wondered whether that was a tricky way of getting out of having to answer my points, but I'll give you benefit of doubt on that one.

I'm also going to ask you to SPECIFICALLY list all the points/assertions you claim that I have purposely ignored.

The point about the equivocation trick is the one you purposely ignored as I pointed it out as a logical fallacy and you have not agreed that it is. You need to do that or I can't be sure you won't use it again.
That goes beyond illogic and becomes tricky

Apart from that. I have not accused you of 'purposesly' overlooking arguments. I say they have gone over your head, but have not implied that this is anything but lack of understanding.

Of course. This is really what the squabble between atheism and theism is. Atheism sees no logical reason nor good evidence to believe in an intelligent creator, while theism argues that it is illogical to believe anything else.

And yet you still fail to understand atheism.

Here

Fine. Please give me your damb reasoning as to how the universe came to exist or as to how it might be eternal.

You overlooked repeated explanations that I don't claim to know how the universe began, and I don't need to explain it. Not knowing logically implies not believing.

I'm quite happy to continue the discussion in open forum. The only reason I suggested private e-mail was due to what I interpreted as your implication of this being some sort of game where someone scores tactical points - or something to that effect.

I was saying that was what I didn't want, but that isn't the first argument you have got back to front.

[TRANSPONDER]

Look, maybe we can drop the accusations. I think maybe it's got too heated and maybe I was ill-advised in what I said. I don't doubt that you are an honest and truthful person. It's just the way that theist apologetics goes often means that faith is the basis and science is often pressed into service to support it.

I don't want to put you down mate, but I do want the discussion to proceed along the lines of logic, avoiding fallacies, and I do try to remember what you said and I'd hope you could remember what I said. Otherwise, any hope of profitable discussion is doomed.

[tigetmax24]

My response has been delayed by a very sudden/unexpected development involving my immediate family - I'm usually able to get back at least once a day. My hope is that this has not disrupted the flow. Anyway...

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

here I explained what the fallacy was.-

"Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
So the trick is to postulate a possible creator of the universe, to arbitrarily assign the name 'God' then to use a book about 'God' as evidence as to what 'God' is. It is using the fallacy of equivocation to assign a term or name to two unrelated things TITEB and Biblegod and pretend they are the same."

I called that a rhetorical trick based on a fallacy, which it was and is. I didn't say YOU were tricky.

But you didn't acknowledge that as a logical fallacy but apparently put it down to personal opinion. That can't be excused as ignorance - I'd just explained it. It can only be trickiness. -

Perhaps I don't understand. In order to demonstrate that equivocation of TITEB/"Biblegod" is a logical fallacy, would you not have to prove that there is absolutely no possibility that either a TITEB or "Biblgod" could in fact exist?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

My response has been delayed by a very sudden/unexpected development involving my immediate family - I'm usually able to get back at least once a day. My hope is that this has not disrupted the flow. Anyway...

I have been absent from the boards for a while too (folks don't panick, I'm OK, get back to lighting incense in front of your Michael Jackson shrines) as my connection is not too reliable.

Perhaps I don't understand. In order to demonstrate that equivocation of TITEB/"Biblegod" is a logical fallacy, would you not have to prove that there is absolutely no possibility that either a TITEB or "Biblgod" could in fact exist?

No. You see, logic says that, where a hypothesis is no more than that, it is just an idea; a supposition. As such to take it as anything more than an unproven possibility is illogical. Hypotheses are useful starting points for testing, but if there is no way to test, suppositions they must remain.

We set out the three possibilities and there is some evidence and some supposition. Also they can only be about this Universe and there may be -in fact, I should be surprised if there wasn't - more 'universe' beyond this expanding one which we know about.

I agree that the causality argument is persuasive, but it is no more than a suggestion when we don't know what it applies to or what conditions are outside the universe. If I may re-use a theist argument for the existence of a god 'somewhere'.

"You say there is no possibility of matter coming out of nothing. You say there is no evidence for eternal matter. You say this is based on a scientific law that works here. But to say that applies everywhere in the universe is to claim that you know everything. Well, have you searched everywhere? Have you looked everywhere in the universe? If not, please don't be arrogant."

That a creator/first cause/TITEB or whatever is a possibility is quite true, but it is no more than that. We can't test it and we have no more information than Big Bang and background noise, which could be evidence either way. Causality works in general terms, but we just don't know enough about the universe to say that it must always apply everywhere. Theists are fond enough of twitting scientists for (supposedly) arguing that conditions here apply everywhere else.

So at length, my argument is that not being able to definitively rule out some kind of creator does not make it any more than a possibility and a possibility is no more than that and, as I have explained several times, when one has no more information than that one had to suspend belief.

So agnosticism is logical and the logical belief position arising from agnosticism (1) is atheism. To believe - firmly - in something without evidence is faith, not logic.

However, even if, for the sake of argument, one were to accept the Causality argument and the appended entropy arguments and the watchmaker arguments and accept that some intelligence must have done it, that STILL doesn't get us to a particular god. Certainly there is nothing to say that it is anything more than a universe- sized incorporeal intelligence with the ability to buck causality and make matter out of nothing. One could call it A 'god' but is it "God"?

That it, does it have any interest in religion? If it made the universe, would it care about us, particularly? If it did, as a rather rare intelligent species, would it only approve the religious views of one kind or would it be tolerant about all our views?

To leap from a universe -sized intelligent 'It' to something as specific as male, interested in us and apparently Christian(you said it was) is an illogical leap unless supported by some evidence. Until you provide some (the gospel of John does not Cut It) it has to be an illogical connection between two entities of conceptually different definitions. To connect them by labelling them both 'god' is as illogical as arguing that a computer is a car because they are both 'machines'.

So, to sum up. Believing in a possible First cause is illogical because there is no evidence. It follows that not believing in it logical. I should reiterate that not believing in it is NOT the same as denying even a possibility.

To argue that a first cause (should it exist) has to be Biblegod requires proof. Just labelling it 'God' is unjustified correlation of two different concepts. It is the fallacy of equivocation. I didn't invent logical fallacies, I just learned to recognize them.

Now, is this all clear? I suspect that you may want to start arguing for biblegod from the other end. Theists usually do; having argued the best case they can from Causality, Entropy and Order for an 'Intelligence', they then try to prove the existence of the Intelligence from the Bible and personal experience of God and argue that this is proof positive that the Intelligence exists and is God.

Was it something like that you had in mind?

(1) I ought to mention that some use the term 'agnostic' to denote an alternative to atheism. I used to use the term myself to denote one who was still a God -believer but was not very religious, or was starting to have doubts. I know what they mean, but it actually seems inaccurate use of the term, just as 'Theory' is often used as a synonym for 'hypothesis' but it is actually incorrect usage.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

No. You see, logic says that, where a hypothesis is no more than that, it is just an idea; a supposition. As such to take it as anything more than an unproven possibility is illogical. Hypotheses are useful starting points for testing, but if there is no way to test, suppositions they must remain.

At risk of being accused of ignoring your points, I'm going to continue to concentrate on this "trick" I'm supposedly playing.

The subject hypotheses would merely be an opinion with which you apparently agree. If the existence of God is in fact true, the so called 'God hypothesis' would then cease to be a hypothesis. From a truly agnostic stance, you would have to allow for the possibility of the existence of a TEB/God?

Am I getting off track here?

[texdav]

Because we are sinner down to the last person.If you read the bible it is explained.

[Tricky D]

I don't believe that free will inevitably leads to evil.
But I do agree that it is easier to do evil than it is to do good, simply because the easiest thing to do is do nothing and evil already triumphs when good men do nothing.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by nightflight

C'mon, I mean its you Christians who tell the rest of us that God gives us free will to choose between good and evil. So why is it that your loving god would give us something that would lead us to evil? Romans 6:23 says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". See that? Everyone sins. So God's gift of "free will" leads to damnation.

So why give "free will" if it leads inevitably to "sin" and "evil"? Does your God want people to sin and be punished??

If free will requires evil as a choice, then is there no free will in heaven? Or is there evil in heaven too?