Wow. Free will is messed up.

“Allah’s omnipotent will is more powerful than Allah’s omniscient mind”

Thats worrying, but it does make sense… It would be interesting to get a Muslim Theologians perspective on this I think…

“I think the underlying assumption of your response is that the only possible source of truth is “the most careful philosophic consideration together with the best understanding of natural science”. I wasn’t assuming that; I was simply ruling out some of the possible avenues.”

I said that you monotheists are gonna have trouble convincing me… not that God, if God exists and wishes to convince me, would have trouble. I think that rational and logical discussion will be able to convince me… but we just asserted that philosophical consideration won’t be able to convince me… so… unless you have a revelation up your sleeve for me… Good luck.

“The trouble is that there’s a lot of chaff in the air when it comes to revelation”

Oh yes, indeed there is, in fact… it might all be chaff, eh?

““abductive reasoning”” It’s really called that? Like, the best explanation for the person going missing is UFO abduction? Harharhar… but really. Best explanation? Best explanation given our current knowledge base you mean? This is essentially guesswork, if educated guesswork, and I wouldn’t stack either my life or undying soul on it. But it has a more logical base though, I’ll give it that.

“I’d have to agree — such a god wouldn’t and couldn’t communicate with us, so there’s no point in doing anything about it except wait for a possible communication in the possible afterlife, and don’t worry otherwise.”

And while I’m waiting I won’t take sides, thanks!

“The only thing this god cannot have is arbitrariness: all of its actions would have to be based on the same singular plan for the universe. No creating, observing, and meddling; rather, all the interventions would be planned as part of the original creation.”

I like this loophole, it’s interesting… and plausible given the premise that God exists outside of time etc. Maybe God set the whole thing up as a kind of Chess playing computer… If (insert human here) chooses (insert action needing punishment) then (insert proper smiting technique) unless years existed is (insert time here, ex 33AD). It could go on and on and still preserve “free will” in one of it’s better forms… I’m just tossing random junk out here now.

“That sounds similar to the idea of Necessary Existence.”

Never heard of it.

“That resembles what your friend was saying.”

Ah. I just found it an intriguing idea.

“It seems you’ve already conceded that point — you think it’s probably philosophically necessary, and just a matter for revelation.”

Whaaaat? If there is actually a God it’s a matter for revelation… if there isn’t than… well… there isn’t going to be any actual revelation. There doesn’t have to be a God at all. If there is a God, fine… and I’ve said it is technically possible, but where did I say it was a “Philosophical necessity?”

“contrary to your implication above, neither it is negative evidence,”

Never said it was, just said it’s wishful thinking. Wishful thinking never proved anything to me.

“it may well be positive evidence, although nothing close to sufficient. The fact that humanity overwhelmingly wants a god to exist may be a revelation, or the remains of a revelation, from a deity.”

Or it could also, once again, demonstrate that humans, from a young age etc etc etc, have a tendency to attribute purpose and… a kind of intelligence or will… to things that are inanimate… like wind and trees and other things… This is as easily evidence for a number of other things…

“it’s NEVER true that this is the ONLY reason people believe God exists”

Uh… careful with the generalizations there… but, essentially… yes, I agree (after thinking more clearly about it, I am revising my original opinion)… and if there are people who are like that… well, no reason to actually bring them into the discussion. There is also how people are brought up, or “Brainwashed” at a young age… (I know brainwashed sounds harsh, but it happens to everyone as a child, religious or not, how else do we get what we believe in? Okay, there are more ways, but…). You live in a religious household then you will be swayed early on to believe in a God. But you already mentioned this and society. Totally “inadequate” as you say… now… on to the good stuff…

Tradition… well… Machiavelli had a few things to say about tradition and religion. Best way to control someone. Ever. Worked for the early Romans, and it certainly worked for Moses (so says Old Nick anyway). And in “On the Geneology of Morality” Nietzche had some interesting ideas about how religion and deities arose (not that those ideas are necessarily accurate).

Perhaps I should outline my own particular beliefs first (though you have probably gathered as much so far anyway, I may have even explicitly stated them, but I don’t wanna check): Technically I am an agnostic I suppose. I don’t believe God (or some indescribable thing out there), necessarily exists, but I see no clear evidence that states God does not. Furthermore, I believe that, even if God does exist, then it would be difficult to be sure of God’s particular attributes, so I’m not gonna bother worshiping the wrong thing.

Anyway, let us continue

““God who is hangin’ out all chillin’” to “God who just got angry and fried some poor sap”. ”
This could all be solved by saying that the books are all wrong and that God created the universe etc but didn’t touch it after that. But then why should we bother with God if that’s the case?

I’d have to agree — such a god wouldn’t and couldn’t communicate with us, so there’s no point in doing anything about it except wait for a possible communication in the possible afterlife, and don’t worry otherwise.

Or maybe God can change and this whole thing about It not being able to is utterly useless… except for extending the thread.

I think I’ve explained the “loophole”, which only requires the two attributes a monotheistic god is supposed to have anyhow: omniscience and omnipotence. The only thing this god cannot have is arbitrariness: all of its actions would have to be based on the same singular plan for the universe. No creating, observing, and meddling; rather, all the interventions would be planned as part of the original creation.

“God existing unchanged throughout time seems problematic, because something about God would always be changing from our perspective: his position in time”
Unless he doesn’t actually have a position in time. And maybe we need to be careful about what we mean by “change.”

Exactly — the monotheistic god can’t have a position in time. If it EVER intervenes, it’s the same god in every detail every time. Any apparent change is only in the type of intervention, not in the entity intervening.

Again, unless you can ignore logic entirely or maybe the simple potential of God existing is enough for God to exist, or appear, or whatever.

That sounds similar to the idea of Necessary Existence.

I have heard of an interesting theory about “dimensions” so a fourth or fifth dimensional creature would be able to live any part of it’s existence at once. etc. The fellow who told me about it may have been playing too much D&D though.

As I mentioned, I heard that the Kalaam argument falls down mathematically when there’s more than one time dimension, so that a being existing on that timeplane could have an infinite past. That resembles what your friend was saying.

For topics I propose the following. Convince me God does/doesn’t exist.

It seems you’ve already conceded that point — you think it’s probably philosophically necessary, and just a matter for revelation.

Convince me it would be a good thing for God to exist; after all, I find people believe in God because they want to and for no other reason. That tips the balance for some it seems, simply because a choice between believing something you want to be true vs something you don’t want to be true, many will believe in what they want. Or so it seems.

That’s a non sequitur for both you and them. You’re right that the fact that (say) Christians want God doesn’t prove His existence; but contrary to your implication above, neither it is negative evidence, and it’s not obviously neutral evidence either — it may well be positive evidence, although nothing close to sufficient. The fact that humanity overwhelmingly wants a god to exist may be a revelation, or the remains of a revelation, from a deity.

Now, there has to be more; that’s hopelessly insufficient by itself; on the other hand, it’s NEVER true that this is the ONLY reason people believe God exists. At the very least the additionally inadequate reason is provided that they heard from their society that God exists (in fact, some people believe that God exists because they were raised that way and do not _want_ Him to exist; I’ve met a few).

However interesting these reasons are, they’re also admittedly inadequate. But they can be strengthened (or destroyed) by looking at evidence, primarily historical evidence. It seems to me that the first line of inquiry — looking at how people want God to exists — winds up being subjective and difficult, largely because it’s shaped by what people already believe about God by what they’ve heard from their society. Therefore it seems to me that the best place to start is looking at how people learn about the deities that they (almost universally) believe in. The answer, of course, is tradition. Written, spoken; taught, trained; propositional, narrative… All categories of tradition.

But let’s see if my post makes sense, and anyone agrees or disagrees with what I’ve said so far.

-Wm