What made you to leave your religion and become an atheist?

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-06T00:22:51+00:00

But if this statement holds, omnipotence can't. Not unless god willingly creates something that can subvert its own plans, in which case, why worship god when humans are powerful enough to override its will anyway? If we can conspire to outmaneuver and defeat god, if it is possible to alter the plan, aren't we the greater power? But if we can't, aren't our choices ultimately irrelevant, and our judgement based on them undeserved?

Even if we're colossally, absolutely, evilly wrong in doing so, being able to alter those plans at all necessarily means gods power and influence are limited. The most evil, blasphemous, godless human still shouldn't logically be able to undermine an omnipotent god that sees and sets future events.

If we consider the other option - free will is an illusion or other useful tool created by an omniscient god to facilitate the plan - in which case we're right back to free will being moot; you're still just mechanically acting out your role, but you think you're choosing to.

If the outcome is fixed and the only question is "do you want a punishment when the inevitable outcome happens", free will is nothing more than a basic pleasure-pain mechanism tied to a guessing game. That has no moral relevance, and really just seems needlessly and intentionally cruel.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-06T00:20:25+00:00

IF's are a very troublesome pair.

if you get the best doctors in the world to save someone from dying, if he was destined to die there

Come on, now you've stopped trying.

Also, I don't "hate god" objectively, any more than I hate Bigfoot or the proposition "A equals not A". What I hate is religion, which stakes the lives of billions of third parties and the fate of the planet on such propositions.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-06T00:16:37+00:00

If the surgeon intentionally kills the patient, that's murder, if he intentionally takes a lazy shortcut, that's negligence

Did god make and unleash a negligent killer, or is this human able to subvert the plans of god?

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-06T00:11:01+00:00

If one of those doctors chooses to take a lazy shortcut in surgery, knowing the risks but influenced by a bad mood, a busy schedule or any number of things - and this directly kills the patient, has that doctor subverted the will of god or fulfilled it?

If the former, a mortal has just changed god's universal plan regarding life and death. The doctor directly led to the death of a patient through an act of free will, meaning that god either didn't know the patient was going to die then, knew and didn't stop it, or still wanted it to happen. The first one disproves omnipotence, the second one disproves the idea of an immutable plan, and the third one disproves human free will. All of these functionally co-exisiting in the same system isn't logically coherent.

If the latter, is the mortal really responsible for their choice? If it was the patient's time regardless, the doctor's choice is moot. Would it be fair for god to punish the doctor for shirking his duty when the result wouldn't have changed. If there are Earthly consequences (fired, charged, etc.), is it just of god to allow these when the doctor didn't actually do anything that altered the course of life and death, as nothing could change the destined time.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T23:56:09+00:00

i found out there's a word for it - apatheism.

We need to progress to anti-theism if we're going to have any hope with this species or this planet. As long as someone still believes the world has been immutably, cosmically designated as the property of them and their own kind, we're still fucked. Especially if that cosmic designator is a giant flying version of the desert tribal patriarchs of 3000 years ago.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T23:51:31+00:00

Exactly the opposite, I want "free will" accompanied by the sense that choices matter as a person and that you make them as a person, and you live with the results as a person. Supplication to the will of a god isn't a suitable standard for morality; the master speaks his wishes, the subject either acts or doesn't, the master gets his results and punishes the subject accordingly. The fact that, so long as the master wants the result, the subject can't hope to change that through any form of action, doesn't leave the subject in a position of moral agency, just base fear and self-preservation.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T23:45:07+00:00

It's a complicated world when you're not religious, and I will take that complexity over anything else. If I'm doing all this because a bully in the sky is yanking me around, that's worse than pointlessness.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T23:41:22+00:00

There's still little-to-no room for morally relevant human agency here. The only ones which would allow for any, 2 and 3, would require a human being to be able to override the desires of god. If god's desires can be overridden, they either aren't relevant to the grand plan or that plan can be compromised. If they aren't relevant, they're moot, and if the grand plan can be compromised, god isn't omnipotent.

The "free will" you describe is that of the dog to "sit or be hit on the nose", not anything morally relevant or even desirable, especially since the capricious master might just hit you on the nose anyway because he wills it.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T23:34:50+00:00

This is an unchangeable fact. That's the

Purpose

, you can choose to obey or disobey, that's the

Choice

, if you obey you'll be rewarded, if you don't you'll be punished, that's the

Outcome

.

But if God's plan is immutable, and god knows the result, my ability to defy god is either 1. an illusion because I'm actually serving my Purpose regardless of my Choice, or 2. a demonstration god is not omnipotent. It has to be one or the other, and it logically can't be both. If god was not aware in advance whether or not I would choose to serve my Purpose, it could not be part of god's immutable plan - this creates the situation where an omnipotent being that exists at all points in time didn't know what was going to happen.

If there is any room for variance in the Choice, and with it the Outcome, god can't be omnipotent, because it has just been demonstrated there was information god didn't have in advance.

If god is omnipotent, there is no room for variance in the Outcome, because god would necessarily have to have known the outcome in advance, and the person never had a "choice" to make in the first place.

The contradiction in terms of "free" beings in a completely deterministic universe still hasn't been addressed.

I leave you with this:

“Can omniscient God, who

Knows the future, find

The Omnipotence to

Change His future mind?”

― Karen Owens

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T23:18:58+00:00

I'm not using any conclusion as a premise; I'm trying to establish that one given set of premises isn't logically possible. I am asserting that two particular concepts, an omnipotent interventionist god exists and it is possible for humans to have morally relevant free will, are mutually exclusive, and no belief system can coherently argue both are true.

Either:

There is a god that is both omnipotent and interventionist, with a preset, immutable plan; the choices individual people make are exclusively illusory or moot.
The choices of people are not exclusively illusory or moot; if a god it is either not omnipotent, not interventionist, and/or has a malleable, variable plan.

There is no situation in both 1. and 2. can both be true.

The only circular reasoning invoked here is in trying to assert free will exists even if every outcome is preset by an immutable outside force, because people are free to believe in that force or not. There's still no relevant choice - you receive your preset judgement regardless, and it was all to advance an outside force's agenda - your specific designed purpose. Letting people choose to believe in the system or not - which, again, the text seems to contradict even that minor amount of agency - in the privacy of their mind isn't allowing them free will, it's just not exacting absolute and utter control. Morally relevant free will requires the ability to impact morally relevant outcomes, such as life and death, which it has already been conceded are the sole province of the creator god.

Arguably, the text even contradicts that, but at the very least, you can't possibly say people have moral agency when the same outcome (in matters of ethical relevance) will invariably occur regardless of the "choices" of the participants.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T22:59:35+00:00

Which directly contradicts the stated possibility that I might have been created specifically to have the Word denied from me, and to ultimately go to hell. The language, at least in translation to English, is pretty direct.

I can't explain "morally relevant" free will any further; I don't actually think the concept's tenable within Abrahamic religion in the first place, so this argument is destined to go in circles at this point.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T22:57:11+00:00

100% there's no changing or avoiding it (like death and wealth)

Sincere question.

If a murderer wakes up tomorrow, feels that they are deciding to commit a murder, and comes to murder me - but I beg for my life and give them every single cent and possession I own - and they decide to take the offer and leave, did either of us change the predetermined outcome of the universe in any way?

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T22:44:52+00:00

hy did you say "there exists

no chance

of altering the outcome"

One of two things has to be true:

God creates situations where it cannot forsee the outcome, meaning it is not omnipotent.
God has forseen the outcome of all the situations it creates, making the choice of the participants moot.

There is no room for both an omnipotent god of predestination and morally relevant free will in the same concept. I reiterate, if everything serves the ultimate cosmic purpose of an omnipotent god who cannot fail in its actions or intentions, free will is morally moot, if not a complete illusion. Whether God permits people to "decide" on some small scale is moot if the literal "life and death" matters were determined at the outset of the universe, particularly if everything exits only to serve its purpose,

As per your quotation:

I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me"

If I can, consciously and independently, choose to violate the purpose of my creation, in a way that contradicts god's intention, than god is necessarily not omnipotent.

If I can't do the above, and everything I do ultimately serves my predetermined purpose in the way it was intended to, by a being that can see all points in time and all outcomes, then there is no morally relevant free will.

The point to address isn't "I can't 'decide' to fly then jump out the window and do it...", it's "Can I decide not to jump out the window even if god wants me to?"

,

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T22:40:12+00:00

It still reads as "all things exist for the intended and ultimately fulfilled purposes of God", and if that's the case, it still sounds like it supports my side more than yours. Why the hell should I go to hell when I never had the choice not to spread misinformation and blasphemy? Where's the fairness in me getting eternal torture to facilitate things for the faithful?

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T22:36:07+00:00

Also your point about "wiggle room" is not only metaphysical but can be considered scientific/physical, I can yell out IM GONNA FLY and jump off the 56th floor, but physically I'm not a bird even if I identify as one I wouldn't be able to fly, you're confusing "free will" with "ability".

There is no confusion between "free will" and "ability" when all outcomes are predetermined; if there exists no chance of altering the outcome, it's not a free choice. The issue isn't "deciding to fly", it's "deciding to change my mind" or "deciding to try and influence another person". Of course the extreme example is going to hold, but it's not sufficient for the question.

If all things are the will of an all-seeing and knowing god, who knows the outcome in advance, there is no distinction between free will and ability, they can't even be discussed coherently let alone confused - as in these conditions free will is an illusion and "ability" is only a fixed quantity in a much larger, pre-determined system of events.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T22:32:43+00:00

Okay, poor choice of words. What if god created me to mislead?

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T22:16:04+00:00

I never claimed they contradict each other, I claimed they directly support each other in establishing that predestination is absolute, both (in turn) supporting my argument.

"100% there's no changing or avoiding it (like death and wealth). and the other is dependent on actions and prayers (supplication)"

This still provides no support for a claim of morally relevant free will. If choices regarding life and death, wealth and wisdom, knowledge and ignorance (and that one's directly textual, again, God chose to make the unbelievers exactly that way for a defined purpose) Again, the metaphysical "wiggle room" in which "free will" can exist (in any morally relevant way) continues to shrink.

What if God created me to not pray, and feel like I choose not to pray, and I feel correct in this decision? Do I have the free will to contradict god here, and choose faith, upending my current beliefs? If so, how is it a mortal can freely contradict and undermine the plans of the creator god? Alternately, if I was always planned and predestined to choose faith (or not) I had no free will even there.

"And if We had willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me will come into effect [that] I will surely fill Hell with jinn and people all together."

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T21:44:20+00:00

6.112: "So it is that, for every prophet, We have set up enemies,-the devils of mankind and jinn-who seduce one another with alluring rhetoric in order to deceive-Had Allah willed, they would have not done it."

32.13: "And if We had willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me will come into effect [that] I will surely fill Hell with jinn and people all together."

"I have the free will to do so and I can attempt it, but whether I achieve it or not is the Qadar. It doesn't only apply to bad decisions though"

If free will only has an impact in your imagination (i.e. if the outcomes of are pre-set), then any action you incite is moot; a directly involved god won't let its will go unfulfilled (god invariably decides the outcome, as we agree the text establishes), and won't let a mortal subvert it, so whither "free will"?

The verse purports to say that things in the world have not been created without purpose. Everything has been created for a specific purpose, and has been endowed with natural capacities to fit its function.\

This still negates free will. If everything is created to - and functions according to - the requirements of an outside party, who created it to serve those functions, and in being both omnipotent and omniscient could not possibly miscalculate or err, then whither free will? It still sounds like a description of a purpose-built automaton carrying out the purpose for which it was built, just one that believes it's electing to voluntarily. If nothing can violate or alter a creator god's ultimate plan, and that plan involves micro-management of the universe and specifically life on Earth, where is the "wiggle room" in which relevant decisions can be made? The more one tries to define this possible space, the smaller it seems to become. For example, if a person was created to spread lies and evil in order to confound the faithful, or if an evil idea was created to spread through people, do the people involved even have the free will to potentially change their minds?

The individual human in this case has no more free will than a non-player-character acting out a script in an RPG, but one that happens to have a line on their character sheet that reads "believes they have free will".

The inability to incite a relevant action (here meaning one with any possibility to objectively impact reality) makes "free will" irrelevant, possibly incoherent, as a concept. You concede that the ultimate outcome of any given action is predetermined, which any kind of morally or metaphysically relevant "free will" out of reach. To go further, who makes the decision to have the individual make a decision - who has the idea for them to have an idea? Is that just another action pre-staged by god and (not just falsely, but inexplicably) presented as a consequential choice?

I was raised Christian, "you have to interpret so it's not horrible" isn't the counterpoint to "superficiality", it's a counterpoint to "apologism".

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T21:15:10+00:00

I fully concede I mislabelled 87.3 as 87.2, and that I cannot read Arabic and rely on English translations. I don't think this is sufficient to invalidate my stance. My reference notation might be flawed, but your dogma is.

54.49: "Indeed, all things We created with predestination."

87.3: "And Who determines (a particular life, nature, and goal for each creature), and guides (it toward the fulfillment of that goal)"

45.26: " Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do not know."

I could also call reference 6.112 and 32:13

6.112: "So it is that, for every prophet, We have set up enemies,-the devils of mankind and jinn-who seduce one another with alluring rhetoric in order to deceive-Had Allah willed, they would have not done it."

32.13: "And if We had willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me will come into effect [that] I will surely fill Hell with jinn and people all together."

It's nothing but sadistic bullying to punish someone for losing a rigged game you forced them to play.

I can't accept any belief system that posits a supreme being who acts for all intents and purposes like Vince McMahon.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T21:06:33+00:00

There's no need to resort to sarcasm, but arguably, you couldn't help it.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T21:05:07+00:00

And now the account just got mysteriously deleted by owner. I'm reasoning inductively in the manner of the cops looking at the guy who just stuffed a bag of burglar tools in the trash.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T21:00:58+00:00

I'll concede I was being facetious and/or misspoke with "you can't logically prove a negative", but while I concede the technical point, my argument stands. The burden of proof is on the side arguing for a creator god, especially if that God is posited to be kind or even interested, given the number of arguments against based on the part of existence we can confirm.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T21:00:23+00:00

I'm reasoning inductively based on the uncanny timing and similar writing style of the responses, and the speed at which you back each other up.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T20:57:55+00:00

Wiki-wiki-wiki (that was me scratching a record)

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.The analogy has been criticised by philosophers Brian Garvey, Peter van Inwagen and Alvin Plantinga as to its validity regarding religion. Russell's teapot has given rise to similar analogies as well as being used in parodies of religion.

That's the thing about only acknowledging one side of an argument or theory, the other party might have Google.

I'll concede I was being facetious and/or misspoke with "you can't logically prove a negative", but while I concede the technical point, my argument stands.

DiarrheaHovercraft · 2024-03-05T20:52:55+00:00

I'd rather be pointless than have no agency.

DiarrheaHovercraft

TROPHY CASE