Normal

How?

Again, you decide what is sufficient evidence.
God knows what you consider sufficient evidence.
An act of god to provide sufficient evidence to you removes your free will not to believe.

Where is the argument failing? That god should force you to consider sufficient evidence what he has provided?

Mageth

Originally posted by Normal
How?

On this thread, you've claimed, or tried to claim, both that "god does not force you to consider that evidence sufficient" and that god in providing "sufficient evidence" forces you to believe. Can't you see the contradiction?

Again, you decide what is sufficient evidence.
God knows what you consider sufficient evidence.
An act of god to provide sufficient evidence to you removes your free will not to believe.

Then, for all those who have "decided" that the evidence is sufficient, that consider sufficient evidence to have been provided, God has violated their free will. This is a logical conclusion based on your argument. After all, god would have known what evidence they would find sufficient before providing any evidence at all.

Where is the argument failing? That god should force you to consider sufficient evidence what he has provided?

It fails because you are asserting both "you decide what is sufficient evidence" and that god providing sufficient evidence forces one to "necessarily" believe. As pointed out, by your argument god would have already violated the free will of all those who have decided there is sufficient evidence, as god would have known that they would find the evidence sufficient.

The only way I can see your argument might work, while protecting free will, is if you made the rather bizarre argument that god provided absolutely no evidence of his existence that anyone would ever consider "sufficient", or at least woefully insufficient evidence.

Normal

God doesn't force you to believe which evidence is sufficient, but god knows what evidence you've decided is sufficient.

God only violated their free will if he made them decide that the evidence was sufficient, but as I've said all along, they decided by their own free will that the evidence provided was sufficient. Deciding "sufficient evidence" is rooted in free will.

First premise:

1. Every belief of yours is an exercise of free will, insomuch as you decide what is and what is not "sufficient evidence to believe".

By this premise no one has to accept any evidence for god's existence. God knowing before hand what you view as sufficient evidence and then providing it will violate your free will, but that is not to say god calculated what believers view as sufficent evidence and then provided it. It's analogous to evidence for a tree. No one has to accept the evidence for the existence of trees, but you choose to. No one's free will is infringed upon because it is a choice to accept the evidence for trees. In the same manner, no one has to accept the evidence for god, but to accept or reject it would be an exercise of free will.

You are assuming the evidence provided was an act of god to force believers to believe, but I'm claiming it was an act of the believer's free will to accept the evidence.

Stephen T-B

Normal, I have to say that your arguments are getting more and more convoluted.
First, what’s all this about trees being an abstraction we make real? How we define trees has nothing to do with the part they play in the reality we experience as living beings..
Or are you telling me that if we cease to believe in trees, they’ll just disappear, like the fairies. Is it really the case that you cannot tell the difference between something which will kill you if it falls on you, and an idea, or a “voice” in the head which another human being interprets as instructing him to kill you. The end result is certainly the same - you’re dead - but the voice-in-the-head or idea are abstractions. The tree is a heavy chunk of wood. If it really is the case that you cannot tell the difference, then we have nothing to discuss.

What you are saying about “sufficient evidence” and free will only works if god doesn’t know which way we’ll jump when exercising our free will. But isn’t he omnipotent? If so he must know what will be the evidence limit he can provide an individual, below which that person won’t have enough to believe and above which he will believe. And whether he provides not enough or just enough or more than enough, he is violating that individual’s free will.
He is handing out the evidence in bags: he knows that if he gives Stephen T-B eight bags, Stephen T-B WILL believe. In fact belief won’t come into the picture, because Stephen T-B will have certain knowledge; god also knows that if he gives Stephen T-B seven bags, he will not be able to believe, or not be willing to believe.
OK, you’re god. How many bags do you give Stephen T-B in order that he can exercise his free will, one way or the other?

Mageth

Well, Normal's last post hardly needs refuting, as it's self-refuting:

God doesn't force you to believe which evidence is sufficient, but god knows what evidence you've decided is sufficient.
...
God knowing before hand what you view as sufficient evidence and then providing it will violate your free will.
...
God only violated their free will if he made them decide that the evidence was sufficient, but as I've said all along, they decided by their own free will that the evidence provided was sufficient. Deciding "sufficient evidence" is rooted in free will.
...
In the same manner, no one has to accept the evidence for god, but to accept or reject it would be an exercise of free will.

(emphasis mine)

You are making two contradictory arguments in one post, as you have throughout this thread:

1) God knowing before hand what you view as sufficient evidence and then providing it will violate your free will.

2) God only violated their free will if he made them decide that the evidence was sufficient. (Note that god would know beforehand what "they" would find sufficient evidence).

Normal

Read:

You are assuming the evidence provided was an act of god to force believers to believe, but I'm claiming it was an act of the believer's free will to accept the evidence.

Normal

My point was our definition of "tree" is an abstraction that has no bearing on how trees behave (or even assures the existence of said trees).

Not so. Magerth seems to have the same problem, but the key is that it is possible for you to reject the evidence based on free will too.

To bring the example to an extreme, he will also know if you will kill a guy who insults you enough, or if you won't kill him. Just because the guy comes in front of you and starts insulting you does not mean your free will has been infringed upon when you kill him.

Mageth

OK, I read. But it's you that's argued that god providing sufficient evidence would be forcing me (or, I assume, anyone else) to believe. Yet you also are arguing that it's an act of free will for me (or, I assume, anyone else) to accept the sufficient evidence (as in your reply to Stephen T-B, "the key is that it is possible for you to reject the evidence based on free will too").

You're still making contradictory arguments.

Stephen T-B

Discussing what each of us understands by reality isn’t getting us very far, it is Normal? Let’s just call it a draw and accept that our perceptions of it will never converge. (This has a significance for me because it suggests there is a fundamental difference between us in how we evaluate our experiences; your evaluation leads you to conclude that they have a supernatural element; mine leads me to conclude that they don’t and not even the rack, let alone an internet discussion, could make us change our minds.)
I think there is also a fundamental difference in what we understand by “sufficient evidence” and the maintenance of our free will, but I do ask you to address the question I asked. I said that God knows that if he presents me with eight bags of evidence to support his existence, I am bound to accept it; he knows that if he gives me seven bags, I am bound not to accept it.
Do you agree with that?
I then asked, if you were god and doling out bags of evidence in support of your existence, how many would you give me, while still preserving my free will?

Normal

I hope this answer satisfies both you and Mageth:

It doesn't matter whether there is 7 bags or 8 bags. It is possible for you to accept the evidence and it is possible for you to reject the evidence.

If god knows a guy that comes up to you and calls you a "Jerk" will result in you slapping him, and then a guy happens to come up to you and call you a jerk, and you slap him, is your free will impinged upon?

In the same manner, god knows how many bags of what will cause you to believe, but that you don’t believe or do believe is not a infraction of free will.