Chriliman
Yes that person chose to kill their self... but they were not free to make any other choice but that one.
I understand our free will is not unlimited. We don't have free will to fly. Our free will is limited to right and wrong decisions which lead to consequences, like someone deciding to kill themselves leads to the consequence of them being dead. Someone deciding to help someone else leads to the consequence of them feeling better about themselves. The question is, why do we have free will to make right and wrong choices and who decides what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong?
Actually no... free will doesn't exist at all because you are not consciously FREE to control any of it. It's all being desired and determined before you are consciously aware of it. #neuroscience
So what exactly is doing the initial desiring and determining? IOW, what is determining what I desire?
It sounds like your creating problems by rejecting the simple truth that we are actually free to desire whatever our hearts desire.
For instance: you will find the truth if you desire the truth.
What if you're thinking about good things like logic, reason and evidence and so forth in the wrong way? What if all good things in life do come from one infinite eternal source? What if everything we perceive as bad is a result of not knowing that infinite eternal source of all goodness? None of what I'm saying is illogical, it just requires an open mind to really think about the implications.
You provided that something is the source of logic thus cannot be evaluated or critiqued or proved by logic.... that undermines logic. You are arguing that logic can possibly be considered moot.. this is illogical.
Logic in this case can only be used to show that something is logically possible or logically impossible. You can't logically show that an eternal infinite God is logically impossible, it's that simple. I'm claiming that if an eternal infinite God exists then it would be perfectly logical in of itself. The only way you could show that this is wrong is if you yourself are perfectly logical, but then you'd become God, thus proving God is perfectly logical and also proving that you are not God.
Again, not if this eternal infinite being is perfect logic in of itself.
You have already established in your example that is being is outside of logic and that we cannot critique it.. not it is perfectly logical... a topic wouldn't be perfectly logical by definition just because the topic is something like heaven or divine power.
These are words that you have put into my argument. I never said that God is outside of logic, I said God is perfectly logical. Try not to force what you want my argument to be in order to help you combat my argument. Try to be objective when reading my comments.
We finite humans can only expect to get so far with our own fallible logic, at some point we have to accept a truth as true since it's logically impossible for us to know everything that's true at all times.
We humans do not have perfect logic, but does that fact mean perfect logic does not exist?
You did not claim that this being was logical, you claimed that our logic could not assess it because of its definition. Saying our logic is not logical also undermines logic itself.
Again, I never said our logic can not asses it because of it's definition. The logic I'm employing is capable of assessing this eternal infinite being, but my logic is limited to my finite self. An eternal infinite being's logic would be limited to truth, therefore, making it perfectly true.
You claim it's wrong, but you can't use logic to show that the existence of this being would be impossible. Why is that?
Actually I can and like I said in the beginning... the evidence is that it's entire concept undermines all the very principles of logic. You break the entire measuring system of world to fit your god in to it. You cannot evidence your god without removing logical rules... why is that? Because it isn't real and its very nature contradicts all that is real.
Logic should be based on what is true and what is false. Therefore, this entire concept of an eternal infinite God
does not undermine all the very principles of logic, but instead shows that logic is a valid tool in finding the truth.
Here, you're implying the answer cannot be discovered.
Wrong. I said there is no guarantee of discovery.
And how do you
know there is no guarantee? The answer is you don't know that there is no guarantee, therefore, you either must assume there is a guarantee or assume there is not a guarantee. It's one or the other because you do not have infinite knowledge.
Now your saying you're not implying anything could not be known. So which is it? Can everything that has meaning be known or not? This is the problem I run into with atheists, they just can't decide what they want to believe when it comes to answers about life. Inconsistent behavior can't be trusted.
You lack comprehension skills (the problem I find with theists).... I specifically said that there is an answer but that it is not guaranteed that it will be discovered.
And how do you
know there is an answer?
You just claimed to know there is an answer, so what's the answer? Do you have infinite knowledge to be able to give the answer? If not, then how can you claim to know there is an answer? Or is that you believe there is an answer?
How about you be rational and just admit you currently don't know the answer, but you hope someday you will know because you believe the answer can be known.
Plus, I never said this being can't be known. I do in fact know this being to be God of all creation.
Earlier you did actually provide that we finite beings are in a place that cannot perceive the infinite being correctly. You've said that more than once/
Logically, a finite being cannot perceive an infinite being in the same way an infinite being perceives itself. But an infinite being can fully perceive a finite being.
Similarly, you can fully perceive yourself, but I can only perceive you in a limited way.
No you do not know anything about this god and you can't even begin to evidence that and you are removing all logical rules from the conversation to accommodate it and saying that since this being is a GOD that it must be "logical" that he not need to fit into any logical rule or method.
It seems you've introduced things into my argument that were never there to begin with in an attempt to help your own argument. The fact that you claim I do not know anything about this god implies you must know everything about this god, which means you must be an infinite eternal being. Do you remember existing before you were born? If not then you're not an infinite eternal being.
I'm starting to think I shouldn't have come back here at all. I've already had another warning. I think I'm going to hang it up forever this time.
