Molinism answers all atheist objections

ispoketoanangel · #1 by **ispoketoanangel** » Aug 05, 2010 7:39 am

If molinism is true, then God doesn't need to provide more evidence for his existence than he already does. For God knows exactly how we would react if we would have more evidence, perhaps it is that people who currently reject God would not freely love him with more evidence, so there is no reason for God to provide more evidence.

And indeed when I read this board, it's not so much that people don't see the evidence, it's also that they dislike the Christian God. They don't want the Christian God to exist. So God giving more evidence for those people would be unnecessary.

RPizzle · #2 by **RPizzle** » Aug 05, 2010 7:41 am

Thommo · #3 by **Thommo** » Aug 05, 2010 7:43 am

And when you discharge your open condition (the "if" at the start of the sentence), that will be an argument! :thumbup:

UnderConstruction · #4 by **UnderConstruction** » Aug 05, 2010 7:45 am

So much for omnipotence then. :roll:

(And free will for that matter, if what we will believe is predetermined.)

It does seriously beg the question then, why you and your kind insist in trying to convince anyone when apparently we are incapable of changing our minds. :roll:

hackenslash · #5 by **hackenslash** » Aug 05, 2010 7:52 am

ispoketoanangel wrote:If molinism is true,

Molinism isn't true, and nor can it be. Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive (and that's aside from my own objections to free will actually being viable).

then God doesn't need to provide more evidence for his existence than he already does.

More than sweet fuck all?

For God knows exactly how we would react if we would have more evidence,

Any evidence at all would be a start.

perhaps it is that people who currently reject God

I don't reject god. Rejection would require that he actually exist.

would not freely love him with more evidence,

I wouldn't love your immoral celestial peeping-tom if you introduced him to me right now. I'd kick him in the nuts and proceed to berate him for all the fuckwittery he's instigated. Good fucking job for him that he doesn't, and can't, exist.

so there is no reason for God to provide more evidence.

FIFY

And indeed when I read this board, it's not so much that people don't see the evidence, it's also that they dislike the Christian God. They don't want the Christian God to exist. So God giving more evidence for those people would be unnecessary.

I couldn't give a flying fuck whether your cretinous magic man exists or not. That doesn't alter the fact that he doesn't, of course.

pennypitstop · #6 by **pennypitstop** » Aug 05, 2010 7:52 am

If molinism is true, then God doesn't need to provide more evidence for his existence than he already does.

More evidence? Where is ANY evidence?

Mr P · #7 by **Mr P** » Aug 05, 2010 7:52 am

This "argument" seems to boil down to the extemely condescending "you wouldn't understand" routine.

Also this idea seems to imply that the very concept of god is surplus to requirements, nice to see you finally agree with us atheists ISA :thumbup:

blindfaith · #8 by **blindfaith** » Aug 05, 2010 7:57 am

wiki says

Molinists hold that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what would happen if He acted differently than He does.

so god does horrible things anyway, despite knowing the utter desolation and pain that he will be incurring, wot a caring sharing god u have

also any theological word salad is meaningless, as this all presupposes a/your god exists, which it dont!!!
unless u can provide evidence to the contrary?

xrayzed · #9 by **xrayzed** » Aug 05, 2010 8:28 am

If God knows exactly how we'll react, what's the point of giving us a spurious choice? He knew the answers before we were created.

As for not liking the Christian version of god, it depends which version you mean.

If you are referring to the one in the Bible who decides who will and won't worship him, then kills the ones who don't and/or condemns them to hell for eternity just to show how great he is by forgiving a handful of people for acting as they were created: no. That god is a complete cunt.

You may have some other version than the one in the Bible. There are thousands of carefully cherry-picked versions of the Christian god out there, so it's entirely probable.

ispoketoanangel · **#10** by **ispoketoanangel** » Aug 05, 2010 8:34 am

UnderConstruction wrote:So much for omnipotence then.

(And free will for that matter, if what we will believe is predetermined.)

It does seriously beg the question then, why you and your kind insist in trying to convince anyone when apparently we are incapable of changing our minds.

I don't try to convince anyone. Most theists engaged in a discussion with atheists are simply defending their point of view, which is under attack.

I constantly see the objection that God doesn't give enough evidence for his existence, and that a loving god would give more evidence. Molinism answers this objection.

babel · **#11** by **babel** » Aug 05, 2010 8:37 am

ispoketoanangel wrote:If molinism is true, then God doesn't need to provide more evidence for his existence than he already does. For God knows exactly how we would react if we would have more evidence, perhaps it is that people who currently reject God would not freely love him with more evidence, so there is no reason for God to provide more evidence.

And indeed when I read this board, it's not so much that people don't see the evidence, it's also that they dislike the Christian God. They don't want the Christian God to exist. So God giving more evidence for those people would be unnecessary.

Seems more an attempted explanation of why theists fail to come up with evidence then evidence of the existence of god in itself.

Lizard_King · **#12** by **Lizard_King** » Aug 05, 2010 8:47 am

ispoketoanangel wrote:*snip irrelevant non-argument*

And indeed when I read this board, it's not so much that people don't see the evidence, it's also that they dislike the Christian God. They don't want the Christian God to exist. So God giving more evidence for those people would be unnecessary.

I object. First of all, I make no distinction between the christian god and allah, jahwe, thor, odin, jupiter, zeus, apocatequil, horus, ra, shiva, ganesh, the flying spaghetti monster or any other mythological creature (including hobbits, elves, gnomes, unicorns), and I am sure that many people share this view. The evidence for the existence of each one of them is pretty much the same, meaning there isn't any. A rebuttal of one deity/imaginary friend/mythological creature is pretty much a rebuttal of any other deities/etc. alike.

Thus, we don't have a problem with the christian god in particular, and we certainly don't want to ignore him out of existence, simply because such a ludicrous thing would be superfluous. In failing to provide any hard evidence for himself, your g-man friend makes a pretty good case against his own existence.

PS: If you're asking why christianity is a more popular topic on this forum then, say, judaism, it's because most of us live in countries where christianity is the dominant religion. (Pretty obvious if you look at the member's country flags.)

xrayzed · **#13** by **xrayzed** » Aug 05, 2010 8:48 am

babel wrote:
ispoketoanangel wrote:If molinism is true, then God doesn't need to provide more evidence for his existence than he already does. For God knows exactly how we would react if we would have more evidence, perhaps it is that people who currently reject God would not freely love him with more evidence, so there is no reason for God to provide more evidence.

And indeed when I read this board, it's not so much that people don't see the evidence, it's also that they dislike the Christian God. They don't want the Christian God to exist. So God giving more evidence for those people would be unnecessary.

Seems more an attempted explanation of why theists fail to come up with evidence then evidence of the existence of god in itself.

UnderConstruction · **#14** by **UnderConstruction** » Aug 05, 2010 8:49 am

ispoketoanangel wrote:
UnderConstruction wrote:So much for omnipotence then.

(And free will for that matter, if what we will believe is predetermined.)

It does seriously beg the question then, why you and your kind insist in trying to convince anyone when apparently we are incapable of changing our minds.

I don't try to convince anyone. Most theists engaged in a discussion with atheists are simply defending their point of view, which is under attack.

Bullshit!

We are quite used to being preached to by the legions of your maniac skydaddy.

Even ignoring this point though, if it is predetermined who will believe and who will not, why does your position require defence? It will make no difference to the number of people who believe.

I constantly see the objection that God doesn't give enough evidence for his existence, and that a loving god would give more evidence. Molinism answers this objection.

No, it really does not. Because as you have presented it here, it also carries with it some very severe limitations to skydaddy's power. Besides the inherent conflicts between omnipotence and omnicience, this "omnipotent" being is really incapable of convincing even one fence sitter? That would make him inferior to a skilled human orator.

It also seems to boil down to "no evidence for God is evidence for God", which is about as nonsensical as it gets.

xrayzed · **#15** by **xrayzed** » Aug 05, 2010 8:55 am

According to the Bible everybody will acknowledge God eventually. So either:

a) some people will not believe not matter what the evidence, in which case the Bible is false, or
b) everybody will people believe once presented with the correct amount of evidence, in which case Molinism is false.

So which is it?

Animavore · **#16** by **Animavore** » Aug 05, 2010 8:59 am

If God were to give evidence it would look like a wet rag on a dry floor when both had been dry previously, or a vice versa.
I tried it. Nothing happened.

hackenslash · **#17** by **hackenslash** » Aug 05, 2010 9:03 am

ispoketoanangel wrote:I don't try to convince anyone. Most theists engaged in a discussion with atheists are simply defending their point of view, which is under attack.

Ah, so you were forced to come here with your blither, were you?

I constantly see the objection that God doesn't give enough evidence for his existence,and that a loving god would give more evidence.

No you don't. You see the objection that the credulous don't give any evidence for their ridiculous beliefs. To object that god doesn't do this would require, once again, that we acknowledge this ludicrous entity's existence.

Molinism answers this objection.

No it doesn't, it is a fatuous attempt to skirt the objection by suggesting a truly dichotomous proposition, namely the co-existence of two mutually exclusive concepts. Omniscience and free will cannot exist in the same universe.

redwhine · **#18** by **redwhine** » Aug 05, 2010 9:04 am

ispoketoanangel wrote:If molinism is true, then God doesn't need to provide more evidence for his existence than he already does. For God knows exactly how we would react if we would have more evidence, perhaps it is that people who currently reject God would not freely love him with more evidence, so there is no reason for God to provide more evidence.

And indeed when I read this board, it's not so much that people don't see the evidence, it's also that they dislike the Christian God. They don't want the Christian God to exist. So God giving more evidence for those people would be unnecessary.

How would that be different from god not existing?

:whistle:

Ihavenofingerprints · **#19** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Aug 05, 2010 9:11 am

ispoketoanangel wrote:I constantly see the objection that God doesn't give enough evidence for his existence, and that a loving god would give more evidence. Molinism answers this objection.

I completely see where your coming from, i mean even God has trouble with this exact issue:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrX__ILDd3w[/youtube]

byofrcs · **#20** by **byofrcs** » Aug 05, 2010 9:11 am

ispoketoanangel wrote:If molinism is true, then God doesn't need to provide more evidence for his existence than he already does. For God knows exactly how we would react if we would have more evidence, perhaps it is that people who currently reject God would not freely love him with more evidence, so there is no reason for God to provide more evidence.

And indeed when I read this board, it's not so much that people don't see the evidence, it's also that they dislike the Christian God. They don't want the Christian God to exist. So God giving more evidence for those people would be unnecessary.

It would seem that counterfactual conditional claims are promoted here. These what-if situations can only be known if there is no message loss between the communicating agents. If there is message loss then if you apply the Two Generals' problem then there is no solution as to what any agent will decide to do.

So molinism requires not just perfect message fidelity but God knowing the outcome of all situations in which there is no perfect message fidelity. We've already proven that to have no solution when there is message loss.

God is thus restricted to just the extremes of 0% or 100% message fidelity. God cannot solve situations which have message loss rates 0> and <100%. This is a subset of the possible message flows and thus molinism is nonsense.

Molinism answers all atheist objections

Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Re: Molinism answers all atheist objections

Who is online