"James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
> On 10/10/2011 11:35 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>> "James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> On 10/05/2011 12:49 AM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>> "James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> You have concluded that there can be no purpose to an omnipotent,
>>>> God creating humans with free will. ...
>>> Incorrect, I've explicitly acknowledged the possibility of such a
>>> purpose; but it would have to be one that I would consider evil.
>> And yet, not being omnisceint, you cannot know this.
> Yes I can; God's claimed omnipotence simplifies His options immensely;
> so immensely that it doesn't require omniscience to understand the
> implications of His choices between the available options. An ordinary
> fallible human brain is sufficient to reach the appropriate conclusions.
> Make Him less than omnipotent, and suddenly it's a lot easier for his
> purposes and goals to be beyond my understanding.
I fail to see how omnipotence simplifies his options. Omnisceince might,
but it might also bring in a shitload of new options of which we, not being
omnisceint, cannot be aware. I don't think any ordinary human being can
ever understand either omnisceince or omnipotence, and my biggest problem
with your argument is that it would be right for Him to use his power in the
way you suggest. For all we know, his omniscience tells him this will
result in the worst possible outcome for all concerned.
>>> I've exploring some of the implications of the assumption that He does
>>> exist, I'm not using those implications as part of an argument that he
>>> doesn't exist. I don't believe He exists, but I've said nothing specific
>>> about the reasons for my unbelief, and your claim to know what my
>>> reasons are has no basis that I'm aware of.
>> Then why do you keep saying there is no excuse for an omniscent,
>> being to create beings with free will that is not evil?
> That's not an argument against His existence; it would be entirely
> consistent with that argument that He both exist, and be evil. I
> wouldn't want to live in such a world, but I don't use that as argument
> for the non-existence of such a world. Just because we don't like
> something doesn't justify assuming that it isn't so.
>>> True, but I was talking about a being whose behavior was not monotonous,
>>> not routine, fully in possession of active intelligence, yet inherently
>>> incapable of using that intelligence to reach the conclusion that he
>>> should do something that happens to be wrong. It's nothing an omnipotent
>>> creator of the universe couldn't put together, and the possibility of
>>> putting together such a being makes God's supposed decision to build us,
>>> instead, shoddy workmanship.
>> You just said they would be inherently incapable of using active
> I made no such claim. They can use active intelligence, they are merely
> incapable of using it to make evil decisions.
>> ... yet in another post, you claim they would make better generals
>> and be better at strategy. How does that work?
> I said that they would make better decisions that generals who lacked
> intelligence. I didn't say that they'd make better decisions than a
> general who also had the ability to make evil choices, though I have to
> say I consider it perfectly obvious that this is the case.
Frankly, I do too, but it's isn't true. Generals are faced with decisions
all the time that are the lesser of two evils. A being incapable of chosing
evil would be incapable of making such a decision, and would basically be
frozen, incapable of choosing the better strategy because no matter what
he/she did, it would result in evil.
> Let's simplify it down to three choices, A, B, and C. A is better than
> B, because it achieves the desired goals more efficiently. A and B are
> both better than C, because C is an evil choice. A general with free
> will can evaluate those three choices, and choose the one he prefers,
> which could be any one of those three. The mindless automaton that you
> referred to would not be capable of evaluating any of the choices; it
> would simply choose one. The kind of being I was talking about would be
> inherently incapable of choosing C, but would have the active
> intelligence needed to evaluate A and B, and recognizing that A is the
> better choice.
And what's he/she going to do if the only option is A, which is evil, and B,
which is less evil, but still evil?
> Why is the intelligent being I was talking about not inherently a
> superior choice for an omnipotent creator to create than the one with
> free will?
I don't know. I'm not omniscient. That's been my point all along. I don't
know and neither do you, because you're using human knowledge and logic to
come to your conclusion, and being human, you don't know everything.
>>> such thing as a valid proof of ANY such statement. If you can construct
>>> a valid proof for something, what it proves is necessarily an abstract
>>> statement with no necessary connection to reality, such as 1+1=2. No
>>> proof is any better than it's premises, and there's no way to guarantee
>>> the truth of the premises of a valid proof of a statement about reality.
>>> Note: what I've just said are statements about proofs and logic, not
>>> about reality per se. They are therefore not self-referential.
>> Sorry, I've always concluded reality exists.
> I think so as well, though it can't be proven. However, I wasn't talking
> just about reality's existence, but about it's nature. Any conclusions
> that you may have made about reality's nature are necessarily capable of
> being false; it's not possible to have justifiable certainty about any
> of those conclusions.
Perhaps not, but there is always the law of cause and effect, which can be
applied to human actions as well as chemical, etc, if you know the human
well enough. :P
>>> If, as I've stated earlier, I can't even provide objective proof of my
>>> own existence, how in the world would you expect me to provide objective
>>> proof of God's non-existence?
>> Yet you seem to feel you have subjective proof that he doesn't exist?
> No, just a substantial lack of evidence that should be there if He did
> exist, as well as substantial inconsistencies between the assumption
> that he exists and various other things that I do believe (based upon
> the available evidence) to be true. Those reasons are, in principle, no
> different from the reasons why I believe that Frodo Baggins does not
> exist. I can't prove that, either.
*LOL* For all we know, Frodo Baggins does exist in some alternate reality!
So, you're basing your conclusion that God doesn't exist on a lack of
evidence? I happen to agree that just because a whole bunch of people say
something is so doesn't mean it is. I just don't agree with your conclusion
in this case. Lack of evidence does not prove non-existence. We may just
not have progressed enough to be at the point where we could prove or
disprove his existence. It's rather like saying lack of evidence proves
someone didn't commit a crime.
Seems to me you should be agnostic, not atheist.