Arguments you should not use

[The Thinker]

Again, Oxford, responsible: Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

No only is there no moral responsibility there is no responsibility, no blame or credit in your world. So when a man rapes a child he is not responsible - no blame.

He is the proximate cause of it, and putting him in jail will prevent him from doing it again, and it will discourage others from doing it. We've been over this several times.

[The Thinker]

Thinker, on this topic, is a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. He thinks he is an expert on this while everyone else clearly sees that his is not only wrong, but so wrong that he is ridiculous. As bad as Darfius or Jorge or John Martin, and can't see it.

That's completely absurd. You have not shown a single logical or coherent argument that refutes anything I've said about LFW being incoherent. You literally just assert we have it and appeal to arguments ad populum and arguments from consequence.

Sigh.

[Sparko]

No, it's because you have no legitimate argument. They literally rely on logical fallacies, informal or not. That's all you have. You just assert that you have free will. There is no argument whatsoever. Do you seriously think you've made the case for LFW? I've debated this issue to death and I know there is no way you can win. You're arguing for a square-circle.

On your PS, if D is caused by C, and C was caused by B, and B was caused by A, and so on and so forth, then D was determined to happen by the chain. The only way it isn't is if it was uncaused by C, B or A. You'd have to deny causal regularity and believe that the same exact events can lead to a completely different effect with no explanation. That requires acausality - which negates LFW since by definition you cannot have control over something uncaused.

You really need to study the subject matter more because you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know any of the science it seems to be, and you definitely don't know the philosophy.

Define free will. Using an actual philosophical definition, not something you made up.

You have defined it so that there is no way to falsify your claim that free will cannot exist. Because basically under your system, we make choices that we believe are free will choices but you define to be an illusion so that we just imagine we are making free will choices when in fact we are being made to make those choices by some magic predestination. In other words your idea of determinism appears for all intent and purposes like free will, but is in fact the exact opposite.



Like I said, you are as bad as Darfius and his "great delusion" where things have been changed in the past so that we remember them differently. If we don't remember them differently why then that is proof that it worked! and if we do have memories of things being different, that is not evidence of bad memory, but that things were changed!

[seer]

He is the proximate cause of it, and putting him in jail will prevent him from doing it again, and it will discourage others from doing it. We've been over this several times.

Nonsense, he is still not responsible in any real sense of the word. And how just is it to take ones liberty away for doing what he could not help?

[shunyadragon]

Is your god omnipotent and all knowing Shuny? Does that make your god responsible for evil?

First the view of the Baha'i Faith and free will nor the question of evil is not the one we are debating here. The Baha'i Faith does not propose that God predestines all the events in Creation, and pretends humans have free will and all choices are known in advance. In other words the Baha'i view has not been presenting so far. I am arguing against the Christian and Islamic view presented.

[shunyadragon]

no. because knowing the actions doesn't mean causing the actions. logical fail.

God determines that his omnipotent foreknowing indeed is the cause of ALL actions as a matter of fact of the nature of an omnipotent being as described previously IF God indeed predestines all the event past present and future.

[seer]

First the view of the Baha'i Faith and free will nor the question of evil is not the one we are debating here. The Baha'i Faith does not propose that God predestines all the events in Creation, and pretends humans have free will and all choices are known in advance. In other words the Baha'i view has not been presenting so far. I am arguing against the Christian and Islamic view presented.

The fact is Shuny, your religion teaches basically the same thing as we do, as matter of fact they use Christian scripture to make their point:

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-71.html

[shunyadragon]

The fact is Shuny, your religion teaches basically the same thing as we do, as matter of fact they use Christian scripture to make their point:



http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-71.html

Wonderful reference!! What is lacking is the predestination of ALL events and actions as previously described in many Christians and Muslims.

As usual you do not believe in the Baha'i Faith and you selectively cite the writings to justify what you want, and you fail every time, because you do not understand the writings as a whole.

Source: http://www.bahaistudies.net/predestination.html

"Fate is of two kinds: one is decreed, and the other is conditional or impending. The decreed fate is that which cannot change or be altered, and conditional fate is that which may occur....
"But conditional fate may be likened to this: while there is still oil, a violent wind blows on the lamp, which extinguishes it. This is a conditional fate. It is wise to avoid it, to protect oneself from it, to be cautious and circumspect. But the decreed fate, which is like the finishing of the oil in the lamp, cannot be altered, changed nor delayed. It must happen; it is inevitable that the lamp will become extinguished."
-- `Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p.244

As I see it, predestination (or fate) is really another way of referring to the various expressions of God's Will. We sometimes experience them as "tests and difficulties," and they are often expressed as types of prophecy.

For the most part, our actions, both individually and collectively, function within the framework of conditional or impending predestination. God provides us with certain possibilities ("doors"), and we either work toward them or we do not. However, certain manifestations of God's Will may be irrevocable or decreed. They are not contingent on human choice or behavior.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Wonderful reference!! What is lacking is the predestination of ALL events and actions as previously described in many Christians and Muslims.

But most Christians, including myself, do not believe that God predestines all events. That is a Calvinist position, and that is the minority view in Christendom. I actually don't have a problem with your quote from Abdu'l-Baha, it sounds very Christian.

[Sparko]

God determines that his omnipotent foreknowing indeed is the cause of ALL actions as a matter of fact of the nature of an omnipotent being as described previously IF God indeed predestines all the event past present and future.

say what? You should avoid run on sentences.

[shunyadragon]

But most Christians, including myself, do not believe that God predestines all events. That is a Calvinist position, and that is the minority view in Christendom. I actually don't have a problem with your quote from Abdu'l-Baha, it sounds very Christian.

The belief being discussed was that ALL events and actions are predetermined. I fully acknowledge that there are different views in Christianity and yes many beliefs are compatible to Baha'i beliefs, but there is one unified view in Baha'i beliefs. Among Baha'i philosophers there is more discussion on the degree of free will, but as far as predestination of all events and acts this is rejected. The discussion began concerning Islam.

I do not consider it necessarily a minority view in Christianity. In fact some Twebbers believe this.

[shunyadragon]

say what? You should avoid run on sentences.

What ould I do without the anal grammarian. I am not planning to publish at present. The meaning does not change regardless.

[Sparko]

What ould I do without the anal grammarian. I am not planning to publish at present. The meaning does not change regardless.

well you 'ould' post something comprehensible instead of nonsense. That 'ould' help greatly.

[seer]

I do not consider it necessarily a minority view in Christianity. In fact some Twebbers believe this.

Since I have studied this issue I know it is the minority view. Arminians and Catholics don't how this view, most Evangelicals don't. It is almost exclusively held in the Reformed camp.

[demi-conservative]

That's very easy. The descriptions tell us what is possible and impossible, and given the description, that means certain possibilities are ruled out. With a description we can indeed say what should and should not be the case. That's exactly how scientists make predictions dufus.

And so how do predictions of scientists prevent miracles from happening?

Equivocations on "rule out", "description", ducking and weaving just to avoid point. But that's what we expected from you, "thinker".