Debunking Dawkins' Central Argument (1 Viewer)

[Martin]

No, this analogy is totally bizarre. Free will is being able to decide what you WANT to do, not what you CAN do. If you WANT to you fly you're welcome to try it, no one is going to stop you from doing it but CAN you, that's a different question entirely.

Yes, but his whole argument hinges on this premise that we have to have the *ability* to do bad in order to have free will. What if you could think about doing bad things but you couldn't physically do them? You'd be harmless. And people would say you're good, right? Because you don't do anyone harm. So why give us the ability to do harm?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

I just stumbled upon this by the way, and I found it to be a very logical and reasonable answer to Dawkins' argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=related

Dawkins? You mean Planet Lovetron resident, Mr. Chocolate Thunder himself?

 

[Zé Tahir]

Yes, but his whole argument hinges on this premise that we have to have the *ability* to do bad in order to have free will. What if you could think about doing bad things but you couldn't physically do them? You'd be harmless. And people would say you're good, right? Because you don't do anyone harm. So why give us the ability to do harm?

Why does it have to be physical harm btw? You have a desire to physically harm someone?


You're still not making sense here Martin. Free will is the ability to decide what you want with your life. If you want to succumb to the worldly desires or believe in God, that is your choice.

For arguments sake, if you are someone who's thinking of doing 'bad' things then you are obviously not a 'good' person and it wouldn't matter what people thought of you but what you are to God.

 

[Martin]

Why does it have to be physical harm btw? You have a desire to physically harm someone?


You're still not making sense here Martin. Free will is the ability to decide what you want with your life. If you want to succumb to the worldly desires or believe in God, that is your choice.

For arguments sake, if you are someone who's thinking of doing 'bad' things then you are obviously not a 'good' person and it wouldn't matter what people thought of you but what you are to God.

I'm saying what we have is not free will ffs. Where the f is god? Why can't I talk to him? Why can't I destroy him if I WANT to?? No, instead we are inmates in a prison, and god runs the prison. We can't get out and we can't get to him. But he says we have "free will" to behave towards each other however we want to. All the while being enslaved in his personal prison. That's not freedom, that's an unethical science experiment.

If you truly give someone freedom that means you give them the freedom to challenge you, destroy you also. Until you do that, you're just stringing them along while you remain in complete power. It's pure propaganda.

 

[Zé Tahir]

I'm saying what we have is not free will ffs. Where the f is god? Why can't I talk to him? Why can't I destroy him if I WANT to?? No, instead we are inmates in a prison, and god runs the prison. We can't get out and we can't get to him. But he says we have "free will" to behave towards each other however we want to. All the while being enslaved in his personal prison. That's not freedom, that's an unethical science experiment.

If you truly give someone freedom that means you give them the freedom to challenge you, destroy you also. Until you do that, you're just stringing them along while you remain in complete power. It's pure propaganda.

You don't understand any of this because you haven't explored Gods words. This is why atheists/agnostics are so confused and mind-f*cked. I would be just as dazed as you if I didn't find my answers in the Qur'an.

I stress the I above, before I get accused of offending someone.

 

[Martin]

You don't understand any of this because you haven't explored Gods words. This is why atheists/agnostics are so confused and mind-f*cked. I would be just as dazed as you if I didn't find my answers in the Qur'an.

I stress the I above, before I get accused of offending someone.

Do you really want me to read the quran and tell you it's total crap? Is that really what you want? Because I have very little doubt about what is to be found in there. I could do that and come back to you, but I'm quite sure it wouldn't make you happy and I would be wasting a lot of time on nonsense.

 

[Zé Tahir]

Do you really want me to read the quran and tell you it's total crap? Is that really what you want? Because I have very little doubt about what is to be found in there. I could do that and come back to you, but I'm quite sure it wouldn't make you happy and I would be wasting a lot of time on nonsense.

I could care less Martin. You do what you want. Although, it would be nicer to hear you call it 'crap' after you read it rather than before, but that's just my personal view.

 

[Martin]

I didn't call it crap, I said I expect to be calling it crap if I had read it

 

[Zé Tahir]

Well, I look forward to it nonetheless

 

[rounder]

What possible purpose would that serve? God telling the Devil "You see, I told you so"? He would have built the entire universe, would have created man, would have created free will, just to demonstrate his power to.. well.. himself. It's not even an experiment FFS.

Let's say I build a chair. Then I say to my best mate (in casu the devil): "I bet that chair is going to fall over in five minutes.". Next thing you know I push the chair down.

What the fuck is that?

It's about demonstrating power, it's about giving His people an opportunity to live, learn, and hopefully accept Him freely. It's not some type of experiment, if it were then I would agree it would be pointless.

What if I did not want to enter heaven, what if the idea of hell appeals to me more, what if I want to lead a sinful life, what if I enjoy hurting people; I have the power to all of these things freely in this lifetime before suffering the consequences, that's the free will I have.

Not at all. Why shouldn't I have the power to fly just the way I have the power to submerge myself in water? In either direction, up or down, if I go too far I die. A perfect example of free will, wouldn't you say?

But no, I can't fly. If I could have I would have. So how can you call that free will? I'm being completely obstructed, I can't choose what I would have chosen.

I cannot act freely. I cannot even fly. I cannot see or talk to this supposed god. I cannot do any of the things I want. And god could have given me all these things, but he didn't. How is that free will?

Your free will argument is completely unconvincing.

Like I said before and Ze Tahir said previously, you are talking about physical capabilities. This is not related to any way to free will. In fact, what you are doing is suggesting we should have been another species and only in that way can we possibly experience free will. I'm sorry but that's ludicrous.

 

[rounder]

I'm saying what we have is not free will ffs. Where the f is god? Why can't I talk to him? Why can't I destroy him if I WANT to?? No, instead we are inmates in a prison, and god runs the prison. We can't get out and we can't get to him. But he says we have "free will" to behave towards each other however we want to. All the while being enslaved in his personal prison. That's not freedom, that's an unethical science experiment.

If you truly give someone freedom that means you give them the freedom to challenge you, destroy you also. Until you do that, you're just stringing them along while you remain in complete power. It's pure propaganda.

You can't talk to him because if you did, you would know he exists thus you cannot freely accept Him.

You can't destroy him because it would be against the will of nearly everyone else in the world.

Oh really? So when the American government give their people freedom and democracy, are they also allowing their poeple to destroy them? No, in fact they spend billions of dollars to make sure that no one including their people destroy them.

 

[Raz]

You are postulating that that God is an impossibility. I might also add that it is a highly unintelligible statement as well, you cannot assert something like that unless you have absolute evidence to back you up. What is your evidence for knowing that God is an impossibility.

I defended dawkins statment, "who designed the designer" because you dont need to explain this, because the explanation itself concludes that there isnt such god or that god isnt god some of you know, as all knowing and powerful.

 

[rounder]

I defended dawkins statment, "who designed the designer" because you dont need to explain this, because the explanation itself concludes that there isnt such god or that god isnt god some of you know, as all knowing and powerful.

But we do know this God through scripture. God's nature is explained in the Bible for example thus we do know God's nature. The premise that God could exist shuts down Dawkins' argument completely.

 

[Raz]

You can't talk to him because if you did, you would know he exists thus you cannot freely accept Him.

You can't destroy him because it would be against the will of nearly everyone else in the world.

Oh really? So when the American government give their people freedom and democracy, are they also allowing their poeple to destroy them? No, in fact they spend billions of dollars to make sure that no one including their people destroy them.

Oh really? I for one dont mind it, in fact i dont mind for any imaginary thing to be killed. I know a lot of people wouldnt care too.

By the way does this mean that when there will be 51% of atheist then we will have the right to kill this imaginary friend?

 

[Raz]

But we do know this God through scripture. God's nature is explained in the Bible for example thus we do know God's nature. The premise that God could exist shuts down Dawkins' argument completely.

Do you believe that Legolas killed more orcs then Gimlii?

And why is Scientology laughed at and older books not? is it because its new kid on the block? is it because it has something to do with aliens? Or is it that the author of the book was a science fiction writer? Whats the deal with this religion?

 

[rounder]

Oh really? I for one dont mind it, in fact i dont mind for any imaginary thing to be killed. I know a lot of people wouldnt care too.

By the way does this mean that when there will be 51% of atheist then we will have the right to kill this imaginary friend?

I, including more than 90% of the world would care. I was answering a question which to me appeared more cynical than honest. Very much like this question below.

Do you believe that Legolas killed more orcs then Gimlii?

 

[rounder]

Do you believe that Legolas killed more orcs then Gimlii?

And why is Scientology laughed at and older books not? is it because its new kid on the block? is it because it has something to do with aliens? Or is it that the author of the book was a science fiction writer? Whats the deal with this religion?

You're joking right?

 

[Raz]

No its an honest question, based on your logic it seems that if there were 51% or more atheists then our free would be more powerful then theists? Because you implied favoritism to those with higher numbers.

And why is your book more special then others with other stories. You have to believe in god first in order for bible to be as a "creditable" source. So if I were to believe in Lord of the rings universe first, then wouldnt the book be a good source for historical reference?

 

[rounder]

No its an honest question, based on your logic it seems that if there were 51% or more atheists then our free would be more powerful then theists? Because you implied favoritism to those with higher numbers.
And why is your book more special then others with other stories. You have to believe in god first in order for bible to be as a "creditable" source. So if I were to believe in Lord of the rings universe first, then wouldnt the book be a good source for historical reference?

No, I suggested that that may be a solution to Martin's dilema. Other solutions include that God in His nature cannot even be destroyed since He is supernatural, if you fail to understand that then you don't understand the nature of God.

As for your second question, do what ever rows your boat buddy. Frodo can be your Jesus, who am I to judge?

 

[Raz]

No, I suggested that that may be a solution to Martin's dilema. Other solutions include that God in His nature cannot even be destroyed since He is supernatural, if you fail to understand that then you don't understand the nature of God.

As for your second question, do what ever rows your boat buddy. Frodo can be your Jesus, who am I to judge?

Exactly and some day all the people will understand that Jesus is just another Frodo