Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

You can't mean "knows." You must mean "arranges." "Knowing" never makes anything happen.

I do mean "knows". You said God knows the future, and I explained what I thought the logical consequences of that would be. God arranging the future was one possibility, but not the only one.

Well, unless you're thinking that "knowing" automatically entails "arranging," that is simply not possible to put in any form that even looks logical. So we'll have to disagree about whether we can equivocate "knowing" into "arranging."

Or, you could give me the syllogism that you think works.

God couldn't know the future unless the future is predetermined, that is what I am saying. I am not saying that God predetermines the future.

The lack of God does not mean a deterministic universe

Prove that.

You are the one making the claim. You said that if there is no God, then the universe has to be deterministic. You prove that

What non-mechanistic means do you think could have possibly created the universe...other than God, of course.

I haven't got the faintest idea.

It's unavoidable, for the secularist. If there's no God, then something else must account for the existence of the universe, and you and me. That's bound to be some impersonal, natural force. And that force is certain to be fatalistic and predetermining of everything.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I haven't come to it.

You will, when you think about it carefully.

No I won't; there is simply too much that is not known to be able to arrive at a conclusion.

So we're back to the problem: as a Non-Theist of some sort, how can you believe in the existence of ANY amount of free will? Have you abandoned rationality completely? Because the only possible reasoning available to a Non-Theist would entail that free will is utterly impossible.

Thus, if any free will exists at all, all forms of Non-Theism are false. And if they are true, then there is absolutely no possibility that free will of any kind exists.

I don't agree with you, I'm afraid. But that doesn't matter, because it isn't what we were discussing. The only point I wanted to make was that it is impossible to know a future that isn't already fixed. So either God does not know the future, or we are part of a deterministic system. Those are the only logical possibilities that I can think of.

[Immanuel Can]

God couldn't know the future unless the future is predetermined, that is what I am saying. I am not saying that God predetermines the future.

Again, since you can't resolve the conflict between "knowledge" and "making happen," that's not a coherent thing to believe. So we'll have to simply agree to disagree on that, I suppose.

The lack of God does not mean a deterministic universe

Prove that.

You are the one making the claim.

You are, actually. It's you who's claiming that lack of God could be rendered in a way that is not deterministic. See above.

What non-mechanistic means do you think could have possibly created the universe...other than God, of course.

I haven't got the faintest idea.

Is it possible that that's because there IS no such thing? That would certainly be one reason you'd find it hard to know.

So we're back to the problem: as a Non-Theist of some sort, how can you believe in the existence of ANY amount of free will? Have you abandoned rationality completely? Because the only possible reasoning available to a Non-Theist would entail that free will is utterly impossible.

Thus, if any free will exists at all, all forms of Non-Theism are false. And if they are true, then there is absolutely no possibility that free will of any kind exists.

I don't agree with you, I'm afraid.

Well, maybe you ought to be afraid. Maybe it's a pretty fearful thing to start to realize that the thing you've been believing cannot be made rational. It would mean one has to change one's mind -- a thing one cannot possibly do in a Non-Theistic universe, since everything is predetermined -- and would have to rethink one's position.

[Harbal]

I don't agree with you, I'm afraid.

Well, maybe you ought to be afraid. Maybe it's a pretty fearful thing to start to realize that the thing you've been believing cannot be made rational. It would mean one has to change one's mind -- a thing one cannot possibly do in a Non-Theistic universe, since everything is predetermined -- and would have to rethink one's position.

It is your irrational believe that God knows everything about the future that is the subject in hand. I have explained what I think the implications of that belief are, which you of course will not accept, but you haven't been able to show that my conclusions are wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't agree with you, I'm afraid.

Well, maybe you ought to be afraid. Maybe it's a pretty fearful thing to start to realize that the thing you've been believing cannot be made rational. It would mean one has to change one's mind -- a thing one cannot possibly do in a Non-Theistic universe, since everything is predetermined -- and would have to rethink one's position.

It is your irrational believe that God knows everything about the future that is the subject in hand.

No, we've settled that. You can't render your argument as any kind of syllogism, without equivocating "know" and "made happen." So that's settled, at least so far as logic is concerned...unless you can do it now.

...you haven't been able to show that my conclusions are wrong.

I've been able to show two ways they're wrong, actually: first, your belief that you can be a Non-Theist and have a rational belief in free will of any kind has been shown to be wrong; and secondly, I've been able to demonstrate your equivocation of "know" and "make," and you've been unable to fix it.

Which argument is better? Well, one can be rendered logical, and the other cannot, apparently. Now, will any of that convince you? Maybe not. That's a different question, since you're no longer relying on logic, obviously.

[FlashDangerpants]

syllogism

If the future is not predetermined, God could be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
God cannot be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
Therefore the future is predetermined.

Something like that?

[Harbal]

Well, maybe you ought to be afraid. Maybe it's a pretty fearful thing to start to realize that the thing you've been believing cannot be made rational. It would mean one has to change one's mind -- a thing one cannot possibly do in a Non-Theistic universe, since everything is predetermined -- and would have to rethink one's position.

It is your irrational believe that God knows everything about the future that is the subject in hand.

No, we've settled that. You can't render your argument as any kind of syllogism, without equivocating "know" and "made happen." So that's settled, at least so far as logic is concerned...unless you can do it now.

I'm not sure that anyone else who has been following the conversation would see things quite like that, but if you have no more to say on the subject of God's omniscience, we will leave it there.

[Immanuel Can]

syllogism

If the future is not predetermined, God could be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
God cannot be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
Therefore the future is predetermined.

Something like that?

Well, that sort of form, maybe...but the obvious error in premise 1 would make that syllogism invalid. It does not follow that God has to make things happen deterministically in order to foresee them, since seeing is not the same as making happen. So the amphiboly error that Harbal made would simply be reproduced in that syllogism.

[Immanuel Can]

It is your irrational believe that God knows everything about the future that is the subject in hand.

No, we've settled that. You can't render your argument as any kind of syllogism, without equivocating "know" and "made happen." So that's settled, at least so far as logic is concerned...unless you can do it now.

I'm not sure that anyone else who has been following the conversation would see things quite like that, but if you have no more to say on the subject of God's omniscience, we will leave it there.

Well, fortunately, logic isn't a popularity contest. It's strictly a matter of rational consistency. So what "anyone else" would say would only be as good or bad as their ability to remain logical. But yes, I can see we are a bit stuck here, and we can agree to disagree. If I have a new thought that may prove helpful, I'll introduce it when it appears.

[FlashDangerpants]

syllogism

If the future is not predetermined, God could be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
God cannot be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
Therefore the future is predetermined.

Something like that?

Well, that sort of form, maybe...but the obvious error in premise 1 would make that syllogism invalid. It does not follow that God has to make things happen deterministically in order to foresee them, since seeing is not the same as making happen. So the amphiboly error that Harbal made would simply be reproduced in that syllogism.

My syllogism didn't say that God makes thing happen. It just says that the future must be predetermined if God cannot be mistaken when he predicts the future. The bit where God is responsible for that would just go into a second syllogism.

[Harbal]

If the future is not predetermined, God could be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
God cannot be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
Therefore the future is predetermined.

Something like that?

Well, that sort of form, maybe...but the obvious error in premise 1 would make that syllogism invalid. It does not follow that God has to make things happen deterministically in order to foresee them, since seeing is not the same as making happen. So the amphiboly error that Harbal made would simply be reproduced in that syllogism.

My syllogism didn't say that God makes thing happen. It just says that the future must be predetermined if God cannot be mistaken when he predicts the future. The bit where God is responsible for that would just go into a second syllogism.

My argument didn't say that God makes things happen, but IC doesn't seem to see that as a reason to stop insisting I was saying that. In fact, the more I didn't say it, the more determined he seemed to be that I did say it.

[Immanuel Can]

If the future is not predetermined, God could be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
God cannot be mistaken when predicting future happenings.
Therefore the future is predetermined.

Something like that?

Well, that sort of form, maybe...but the obvious error in premise 1 would make that syllogism invalid. It does not follow that God has to make things happen deterministically in order to foresee them, since seeing is not the same as making happen. So the amphiboly error that Harbal made would simply be reproduced in that syllogism.

My syllogism didn't say that God makes thing happen.

No, that's true. You're right...it didn't explicitly say that. But it assumes it. It assumes that prediction (which is a form of knowledge, obviously) entails predetermination (which entails the arranging or engineering of a result). That's what's called, "assuming the conclusion," and it's a logical fallacy. The place where they argument has to prove its case is in the conclusion; it can't merely assume it from the first premise.

[Harbal]

No, we've settled that. You can't render your argument as any kind of syllogism, without equivocating "know" and "made happen." So that's settled, at least so far as logic is concerned...unless you can do it now.

I'm not sure that anyone else who has been following the conversation would see things quite like that, but if you have no more to say on the subject of God's omniscience, we will leave it there.

Well, fortunately, logic isn't a popularity contest. It's strictly a matter of rational consistency. So what "anyone else" would say would only be as good or bad as their ability to remain logical. But yes, I can see we are a bit stuck here, and we can agree to disagree. If I have a new thought that may prove helpful, I'll introduce it when it appears.

So if anyone agrees with me, it is not because of my argument, it's because they like me more?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, that sort of form, maybe...but the obvious error in premise 1 would make that syllogism invalid. It does not follow that God has to make things happen deterministically in order to foresee them, since seeing is not the same as making happen. So the amphiboly error that Harbal made would simply be reproduced in that syllogism.

My syllogism didn't say that God makes thing happen.

No, that's true. You're right...it didn't explicitly say that. But it assumes it. It assumes that prediction (which is a form of knowledge, obviously) entails predetermination (which entails the arranging or engineering of a result). That's what's called, "assuming the conclusion," and it's a logical fallacy. The place where they argument has to prove its case is in the conclusion; it can't merely assume it from the first premise.

My syllogism didn't say that God makes thing happen. It also didn't assume such. Nor does it rely on same.
If there is no predetermination though, then there must be the possiblity of predictions not being accurate.

You are eating cake you claim to still have.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure that anyone else who has been following the conversation would see things quite like that, but if you have no more to say on the subject of God's omniscience, we will leave it there.

Well, fortunately, logic isn't a popularity contest. It's strictly a matter of rational consistency. So what "anyone else" would say would only be as good or bad as their ability to remain logical. But yes, I can see we are a bit stuck here, and we can agree to disagree. If I have a new thought that may prove helpful, I'll introduce it when it appears.

So if anyone agrees with me, it is not because of my argument, it's because they like me more?

Yes, you're quite lovely. And it's a real challenge to an ugly duckling like me to compete.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, that sort of form, maybe...but the obvious error in premise 1 would make that syllogism invalid. It does not follow that God has to make things happen deterministically in order to foresee them, since seeing is not the same as making happen. So the amphiboly error that Harbal made would simply be reproduced in that syllogism.

My syllogism didn't say that God makes thing happen. It just says that the future must be predetermined if God cannot be mistaken when he predicts the future. The bit where God is responsible for that would just go into a second syllogism.

My argument didn't say that God makes things happen, but IC doesn't seem to see that as a reason to stop insisting I was saying that. In fact, the more I didn't say it, the more determined he seemed to be that I did say it.

He does have a distinct talent for first wishing things were a certain way and then believing them to be that way without the need for the world to actually conform to his wishes or his beliefs.