rainbow walking

Clutch: Yes, you're free to show this. But what you actually have to do is actually SHOW it. Hence my question, Is there an argument here? Your questions were relevant to, at most, the question of how big a hassle it would be for a god to intervene, to frustrate some attempts to do evil.


rw: And your point being? The questions were directly related to these specific examples submitted by Dr. Rick:

rw: So yeah, they were relevant to those examples, which is all they were intended to be relevant to. Now what is it again that I have to actually show... that omniscient bullets don't exist or that would-be rapists don't just magically poof themselves into jail or fall over in a state of paralysis?

Or that bringing such wondrous feats into existence would have no adverse affect on reality, such as it is? Could you be more specific about what it is you imagine I'm obligated to show here.

Clutch: This is not only a mangling of the notion of omnipotence, .

rw: Uh...sorry but the way I see it, postulating such antics as this is a mangling of the notion of omnipotence as well as a complete disregard of the notion of omniscience.

Clutch: it's a complete non-sequitur with respect to "destroying man's self-determination." Not an argument.

rw: You're joking right? Please tell me that you're joking. Let me see if I'm understanding you here. You actually think that if bullets started displaying, of their own volition, omniscient like characteristics in having the ability to determine their destined target to be an innocent person...

...if jails suddenly started filling with would be rapists,( never mind how anyone would know why they were there, unless they came with a signed full confession to boot), people just popping into jail out of thin air, and all other things remaining the same...that this would have no effect on man, his science, his entire spectrum of existence?

Nah...You can't be serious. You really don't need me to spell this out for you...do you?

Philosoft

Argh. Let me reverse field a moment. Your original definitions:And a clarification of your use of the term "robot":And, from your last post re: the scope of Freedom:With all that in mind, let me reformulate my objection.

Suppose there is world C with properties P, Q and R and world D with properties P, Q and T. Per your last quote, both these worlds are equally Free. However, your "robot" quote indicates that you would consider a metaphysical change from some values of R to some other values of T a violation of Freedom. So then, what qualifies? If we make R='gravitation that prevents humans from flying' and T='gravitation that allows humans to fly,' would that be a violation of Freedom? What about R='children raped at rate X' and T='children raped at rate X-1'?

Clutch

But I didn't say any of that. You did.
Getting warmer. You must indeed actually argue -- premises, conclusion -- that any means of intervention a god made to lessen suffering would have an overall adverse effect. Listing two or three of the weirdest examples that you can think of, and simply announcing, even of these, that they would be "adverse", is not an argument. It is a red herring, with a non-sequitur tacked on.
You are reciting my point for me. Yes, postulating such antics is a mangling of omnipotence. God can do anything logically possible. Omniscient bullets are your own confabulation. Your argument from the silliness of your own examples to the impossibility of an omnipotent god's beneficial intervention, fails to take omnipotence seriously. As I pointed out in my original post.

Glad to see you agree, though.Why would you think that an omnipotent god's options are limited to these two? Why say "no effect", when even your imagined interlocutor would claim that this would have a positive effect? Where is your argument that the net effect of even your silly examples would be negative? Yes, you need to.

[self-edited to remove cross comments]

rainbow walking

clutch:Are you being deliberate obtuse here?


rw: One of us is, that much is obvious. Now pay close attention, please…

Clutch: These inanities are your invention.

rw: No they are not. They were questions formed as a response to Dr. Rick’s inanities. At least try to identify the source of the inanities before slinging mud.

Clutch I can see why you'd want to distance yourself from such foolishness, but please don't project it onto me. I don't want it.

rw: Hey, you’re the one what decided to challenge my questions so don’t blame me if you suddenly find yourself involved in a project which you’ve, thus far, displayed an amazing lack of clarity or comprehension of what’s been said in response to who. [/b]

Clutch: Getting warmer. You must indeed actually argue -- premises, conclusion, rationality, try it sometime -- that any means of intervention a god made to lessen suffering would have an overall adverse effect.


rw: I have and do, when the examples given demand it. But when they are so obviously flawed I generally dismiss them with mildly sarcastic humor. And NO, I don’t have to cover ANY means of intervention when I’m dealing with specific examples such as these. I deal with the examples as they come. I don’t launch into an argument covering ANY for the simple reason that I’m not omniscient either and can’t predict every single example someone might drop in the fray. I think it more economical just to deal with each as it comes.

Clutch: Listing two or three of the most stupid examples that you can think of -- and you do seem to have a gift for them –


rw: Are you sure you’re not aiming this at Dr. Rick? I’m not the one who listed the examples. I’m the one who demonstrated the ludicrousness of them with sharp, defining questions. Questions that you’ve now managed to twist around as being examples. If anyone’s personifying “stupid” here…well, it ain’t me.

Clutch: and simply announcing, even of these sophomorisms, that they would be "adverse", is not an argument. It is a red herring, with a non-sequitur tacked on.

rw: I’m truly amazed that you’re still taking this position. As far as I know bullets having the ability to determine the moral character of their target would require the abrogation of almost every natural law we’re aware of. As would people popping into jail out of thin air. Yet you seem to find this perfectly consistent with the world you now live in, as though such phenomenon would be nothing more than another meteor shower. What puzzles me even more is that folks arguing PoE never seem to think out the ramifications of their arguments when arguing along this line. They always inevitably end up abrogating natural laws to justify enforcing human ones. Does the end justify the means? If natural law is violated you think this will have no ultimate negative effect on man’s autonomy? If you destroy cause and effect you see any reason science can continue? Governments can function or people will be motivated to do anything? Without the assurance that ones labors, the cause, will produce any benefits, the effect, what’s to prevent man from becoming an abject dependent on a god he suddenly now has evidence exists?

Clutch: Would you like to recite my point for me again?


rw: Sure if it’ll help get through your thick skull that the antics, (a term YOU incorporated into this discussion) I was referring to were Dr. Rick’s examples.

Clutch: Yes, postulating such antics is a mangling of omnipotence.


rw: Well thank you for agreeing with me.

Clutch: God can do anything logically possible.



rw: Never said he couldn’t. Last time I checked, abrogating one law to enforce another was not logical.

Clutch: Omniscient bullets are your own confabulation.


rw: Uh…no…they are Dr. Rick’s confabulation. I just defined them for what they are based on what they are doing. Here’s Dr. Rick’s example again:

rw: Now Einstein, why don’t you practice what you preach and tell me how inanimate bullets are suppose to determine in the milliseconds before they reach their target, that it is an innocent person…never mind the loaded connotations in the “innocent” aspect of it. And then, while you’re at it, detail all the natural laws to be abrogated for them to wink out of existence. Sounds nice on paper but has all the ear markings of another Enron to me.


Clutch: Your argument from the stupidity of your own examples


rw: And the stupidity you are demonstrating in claiming these are my examples, when I’ve made every effort to show you from whence they originate is…well embarrassing. I didn’t invent the examples. I just defined them for what they are. You got a problem with the examples take it up with the inventor before he applies for a patent.

Clutch: to the impossibility of an omnipotent god's beneficial intervention, lamely fails to take omnipotence seriously.



rw: My response to the examples given was directed at the examples given. It merely goes towards showing the effect those examples would have. I’m not arguing that this god can’t do it, that it’s impossible. As I’ve already said ad nasuem, I’m arguing for the effect it would have on man’s autonomy of will. Big difference. If you insist on erecting these idiotic straw men, based on your lack of common sense reading of the effects such intervention as that specifically listed, would have, well, I can’t help you. Since you’ve demonstrated a total inability to even get the facts strait in this discussion I’m not surprised you’d resort to a straw man to leverage your ass out of the hole you’ve dug.


Clutch: Why would you think that an omnipotent god's options are limited to these two? Why say "no effect", when even your imagined interlocutor would claim that this would have a positive effect? Where is your argument that the net effect of even your inane examples would be negative?

rw: It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the net effect of violating natural laws on the scale we’re talking here. It would have more than a negative net effect, it would lead to the complete dependency on this god, not only for these two effects but eventually for any effect whatsoever. It would first, and foremost, conclude the question of an omnimax deities existence. His intervention would lead to clamoring for further intervention. He would have to intervene further if his purpose for intervening in this one respect was to alleviate evil and suffering. Just intervening in these two examples wouldn’t make a dent in the net effect of evil and suffering. But once he set the ball in motion why would he stop? Before all is said and done you no longer have a man capable of self determination. You have a congenital dependent simpleton. PoE doesn’t attain. PoE’s line of reasoning from this direction is bankrupt. It doesn’t take into consideration the net effect of any of its claims but just assumes them to be good. It seems to insist that just because a god could do this, he should or else he can’t. I repeat, if PoE destroys man’s freewill to destroy god, it fails to obtain.

Clutch: If by "spell out" you mean, "endow with at least minimal rational force", then yes, you need to.

rw: Yes, I must continually remind myself that not everyone is capable of rational extrapolation from the ridiculous to arrive at the obvious. Thank you for reminding me so eloquently.

Clutch

It's unfortunate that you replied to the intemperate version of my post, which lasted several minutes on the board before I repented of my childish response to your own bile, moderated my post, and apologized. Still, I did the crime, so I'll ignore your continued vitriol now.

Some points.

(1) Why suppose that the universe will lack laws if God intervenes? God is omnipotent, and can build the universe to have whatever laws he wants. He can set it up so that a distinctive tone sounds just before and after he intervenes, rationalizing the abeyence of any erstwhile laws; now there's a regularity for you. Perfectly lawlike. Not a law of the actual world, but then, ex hypothesi God isn't intervening in the actual world. The idea that an interventionist world is one lacking intelligible regularities is simply unargued by you, so far. Asserting it repeatedly does not an argument make.

(2) Why suppose that if a god intervenes sometimes, it must intervene everywhere? You say this, but give no reason to take it seriously.

(3) What sort of effects do you think it is coherent to conceive a god having on the world? If the answer is None, then whatever argument you think supports this should be trotted out; it'll be a great boon to atheism in general. If not, though, how does this square with your assertion that any intervention means all intervention?

(4) What is your obsession with omniscient bullets? Rick didn't say anything about omniscient bullets, so there's no point trying to foist this on him. For bullets to vanish or be deflected or whatever, hardly requires the bullets to know anything -- never mind to be (???) omniscient. Presumably the idea is that it's God who's omniscient. Not the bullets.

You consistently rail that an interventionist god destroys free will. But railing is no more an argument than asserting (or insulting, or fuming, or posturing...). In fact, only arguments are arguments. You haven't given one, that I've seen.

rainbow walking

Clutch: It's unfortunate that you replied to the intemperate version of my post, which lasted several minutes on the board before I repented of my childish response to your own bile, moderated my post, and apologized. Still, I did the crime, so I'll ignore your continued vitriol now.



Rw: Hi Clutch,
O’kay, now we’re getting somewhere. But first allow me to also apologize. I was reacting to what I perceived to be your own incisive brand of vitriol and…well,,,as they say, two wrongs don’t make it right.




Clutch: Some points.

(1) Why suppose that the universe will lack laws if God intervenes? God is omnipotent, and can build the universe to have whatever laws he wants. He can set it up so that a distinctive tone sounds just before and after he intervenes, rationalizing the abeyence of any erstwhile laws; now there's a regularity for you. Perfectly lawlike. Not a law of the actual world, but then, ex hypothesi God isn't intervening in the actual world. The idea that an interventionist world is one lacking intelligible regularities is simply unargued by you, so far. Asserting it repeatedly does not an argument make.

rw: O’kay, the first, and most devastating problem I see here is that a god’s intervention, especially in the way you’ve described it with the distinctive tones ringing, resolves the issue of atheism. No more doubt about the existence of said deity. Atheism must pack up all its arguments, including PoE, and vacate the premises. There goes free thought right out the door. The PoE suffers dramatic setbacks if you go here. Does this qualify as an argument yet, or is it still just repeated assertion?

Clutch: (2) Why suppose that if a god intervenes sometimes, it must intervene everywhere? You say this, but give no reason to take it seriously.

rw: O’kay, I base this also on PoE’s rationale. It reasons that an omnimax god ought to do something to address evil and suffering. If you inculcate this god’s attributes to do so, you can’t make a dent in evil and suffering by just addressing a couple of pet peeves. For PoE to obtain it must be all or nothing. Intervention on this scale, or intervention in some of the ways that's been suggested, takes us right back to my response to your point 1.

Clutch: (3) What sort of effects do you think it is coherent to conceive a god having on the world? If the answer is None, then whatever argument you think supports this should be trotted out; it'll be a great boon to atheism in general. If not, though, how does this square with your assertion that any intervention means all intervention?

rw: Well, I’m not sure I understand your question here. I’ve never argued, when arguing against one or another of the examples usually given, that the effects would be nil. In fact, I’ve argued just the opposite. The way the world exists now, you have many believers arguing that this god has intervened on their behalf in one way or another and it has had an effect on them. But the way they describe and perceive said intervention leaves them with nothing more than a subjective claim. Nothing concrete enough to conclude the problem of this god’s literal existence...or the problem of evil. Just the way you’d imagine such a being doing things iff self determination were his intended goal for man. God doing it for us ain’t the same as us doing it for ourselves.

Clutch: (4) What is your obsession with omniscient bullets? Rick didn't say anything about omniscient bullets, so there's no point trying to foist this on him. For bullets to vanish or be deflected or whatever, hardly requires the bullets to know anything -- never mind to be (???) omniscient. Presumably the idea is that it's God who's omniscient. Not the bullets.
rw: I was just describing them as he was…by calling a spade a spade. For a bullet to make such a determination as the innocence or guilt of its intended victim means, to me, that it would have to be endowed with some pretty unique qualities. At least it would appear to us, doing the shooting, to be so endowed, unless this god rang a bell every time he stole a bullet, as you suggested above. But then we’re right back to curtains for atheism…and PoE.

Clutch: You consistently rail that an interventionist god destroys free will. But railing is no more an argument than asserting (or insulting, or fuming, or posturing...). In fact, only arguments are arguments. You haven't given one, that I've seen.

rw: Are you sure? Have you checked out my “Revised FWD” thread, or followed some of the discussions between myself and Zadok on this thread?

Dr. Retard

Since when am I named Rick?

rainbow walking

Since when am I named Rick?


rw: Gasp O: So sorry Doc...my bad

Clutch

This appears to the be the substance of your position. It's approaching an argument. Let's help it along:

(1) In the circumstance described, there would be excellent grounds for believing in at least a very powerful, quite benevolent unseen agent.

(2) If one has excellent reasons for believing something, one's free will vanishes.

Therefore,

(3) In the circumstance described, one's free will vanishes.

The thing is, (2) is not only unwarranted, but seems straightforwardly false. So I can make an argument out of your comments, but only a very bad one.

rainbow walking

Hi clutch,
Thanks for your reply. IMO, the question of whether the argument is good or bad is irrelevent. The question is, do the consequences I articulated obtain?

Yes or no.

Would such intervention bring about a state of affairs which negate atheism and hence PoE as a logically consistent argument?

If you're arguing PoE, and I've demonstrated that the consequences of a particular argument lead to PoE's demise, does your argument obtain?


If PoE fails, the question of whether or not man retains some degree of freewill becomes a moot point.