Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Tiberius]

I've explained that to you, but just dismiss it.
Why not just say that you don't believe that God can know what we will choose of our own free-will .. because that is what it boils down to.

I admit it freely. That's been my position all along - a God who knows the future is incompatible with free will. Have you not actually been reading my posts?

Both you and I believe that our choices determine the future.

..but you insist on claiming that a known future means they don't.
You claim it as the only rational position. That is your opinion.

Such a "rational" argument cannot be accepted in court, so why bother!?

Yes, it is the only rational position. Because to say that a known future and free will coexist is to say that the future is set in stone, but at the same time it can be anything we want it to be.

 

[muhammad_isa]

the future is set in stone..

Yes, the future is "set in stone" .. it is just that we don't know what it is.
At least I don't .. do you?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Yes, the future is "set in stone" .. it is just that we don't know what it is.
At least I don't .. do you?

If you were to say God knew every instance we would be offered a set of options to choose from. Also, that He knew the 'optimal' or 'best' of the decisions we could make within each of those choices. Then it would not contradict the idea of us also having free will.

Happy Birthday!

 

[Sheldon]

Why not just say that you don't believe that God can know what we will choose of our own free-will .. because that is what it boils down to.

It's axiomatic that no atheist believes in any deity, yet you keep repeating it to atheists as if it means something? It's just bizarre...

Both you and I believe that our choices determine the future.
..but you insist on claiming that a known future means they don't.

Again your canny knack for espousing positions we know to be true, is rather bizarre. Most know what their own position is in debate, why you keep repeating it back to them?

You claim it as the only rational position. That is your opinion.

Your argument violates the law of non-contradiction, ispso facto it is irrational by definition. The contradiction has been explained din detail multiple times by multiple posters, and all you have in response nuh uh.

Such a "rational" argument cannot be accepted in court, so why bother!?

Why bother with debate, in a debate forum, did you really just ask that? Here are a couple of facts you seem unaware of, firstly we are not in court, and secondly courts don't lend much credence to unevidenced claims about inexplicable magic.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, the future is "set in stone" .. it is just that we don't know what it is.

It's hard to imagine how anyone could not understand, that a future "set in stone" would entirely negate any notion of free.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Then it would not contradict the idea of us also having free will.

The only thing that prevents us having free-will is people saying so.
I see that God knowing what we will freely choose cannot take away our free-will .. by definition.

Happy Birthday!

Thankyou..

 

[Sheldon]

If you were to say God knew every instance we would be offered a set of options to choose from. Also, that He knew the 'optimal' or 'best' of the decisions we could make within each of those choices. Then it would not contradict the idea of us also having free will.

I think it would bring into question how much autonomy we had, but this is not the claim that muhammed isa and TB have been making, MI has claimed that a deity knows exactly which choice we will make, and has always known, and that we cannot possibly choose other then the exact one the deity knows we will choose.

That would netirely negate any notion of free will, as it would render all choices an illusion. When this is explained they either vacillate between two contradictory positions, or muhammed isa uses his nuh uh response.

An easy hypothetical is us having two choices which we will call A and B, if a deity knows I will choose A, then I cannot choose B, and any choice would be an illusion, and of course the same would be true if a deity knew I would choose B.

No rational explanation has been offered beyond bare denials and lining up more unevidenced claims in tandem.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's hard to imagine how anyone could not understand, that a future "set in stone" would entirely negate any notion of free.

The past is "set in stone" .. it is your perception that the future "has not happened yet" that causes you to think how you do.

 

[Sheldon]

I see that God knowing what we will freely choose cannot take away our free-will

Yes, the future is "set in stone" ..

Which is it?

 

[Sheldon]

The past is "set in stone" .. it is your perception that the future "has not happened yet" that causes you to think how you do.

Again you seem to be telling me my own position as if it is news to me?

You claimed the future is "set in stone, and that we have free will to alter it, so it's not my rationale that contains an axiomatic contradiction.

 

[muhammad_isa]

MI has claimed that a deity knows exactly which choice we will make, and has always known, and that we cannot possibly choose other then the exact one the deity knows we will choose.

Yes a deity knows "exactly which choice we will make" .. more accurately, exactly which choice we will make of our own free-will.
Naturally, there is only one choice we are going to make, so your conclusion and rhetoric doesn't mean what you imply.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, the future is "set in stone" .. it is just that we don't know what it is.
At least I don't .. do you?

It doesn't matter if we know or not.

If it's set in stone, we can't possibly have free will, even if we think we do.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it's set in stone, we can't possibly have free will, even if we think we do.

Intuitively, you are right.

That is because something that "has not happened yet" cannot be known as far as we are concerned.
If it IS known then we feel it MUST be responsible for our choice.

It is all about the concept "set in stone". We feel that it must be set by something other than our choices as it was known before we made them.

So there we go. I can understand your viewpoint .. but you cannot understand mine.
..nevermind..

 

[Tiberius]

So there we go. I can understand your viewpoint .. but you cannot understand mine.
..nevermind..

Perhaps it's an indication as to which one of us has the most reasonable viewpoint...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Perhaps it's an indication as to which one of us has the most reasonable viewpoint...

From a material reality point of view, your view is the rational one.

However, along with most believers, I do not believe our physical reality is all there is. I believe that it IS possible for God to know what we will choose of our own free-will.
It's not rocket science.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes a deity knows "exactly which choice we will make"

You also claimed we cannot avoid that choice with any other, as you believe the deity cannot be wrong. This would axiomatically make our perception of all other choices an illusion.

Naturally, there is only one choice we are going to make,

You claimed it is set in stone, and we can't make any other choice than the exact one a deity knows we will choose. Ipso facto we would have no choice, any notion of free will would be negated.

Again your "nuh uh" defence is not a very compelling argument.

 

[Sheldon]

If it's set in stone, we can't possibly have free will, even if we think we do.

I feel your pain, sadly when one has an enormous emotional investment in a belief, reason is never going to dent it in my experience. If they had something beyond "because we say so" or the "nuh uh" defence, but that is literally all that has been offered. No rational explanation of how something can both be set in stone and can be changed by free will, though to be fair I'm extremely dubious there is any rational explanation that will remove such an obvious contradiction.

 

[Tiberius]

From a material reality point of view, your view is the rational one.

However, along with most believers, I do not believe our physical reality is all there is. I believe that it IS possible for God to know what we will choose of our own free-will.
It's not rocket science.

However, such a conclusion would require that we are wrong about an aspect of the world that we know is correct.

If reality and one's faith contradict each other, then one must adjust their faith, because they certainly can't adjust reality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If reality and one's faith contradict each other, then one must adjust their faith...

Of course not.
That is a materialist view of the nature of reality.

Your view of reality is different from mine.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course not.
That is a materialist view of the nature of reality.

Your view of reality is different from mine.

How can one believe that reality is correct while also believing that a religious viewpoint that contradicts reality is also correct?

Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.