AJ: <<So we've just come back to that dreaded brain-injury dilemma again.>>

I don't see the problem, so please clarify.

Dan S de Merengue,

If the God of Genesis were good it would not destroy almost all life on earth by the flood and create conflict among humans by separating them into different language groups. He would not order a man to kill his son to see if a man would be willing to commit an atrocity. Of course if he were omniscient he would know how the man would react, and it would be unnecessary to test him. He would not subject the Egyptians to the plagues. He would just soften Pharaoh's heart instead of hardening it. In the New Testament he would not submit his son to torture. The God of the Bible is a sadistic, arbitrary and evil entity who is not worthy of worship. When I was a child and heard about the binding of Isaac I could not accept the evil entity called God. Maybe there is a good God somewhere. However it is not the God of the Bible. People who accept the evil entity may say we don't know his purposes and his divine plan. However, the Bible says by thy fruits shall we know them. The fruits of God are horrible, and the Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, destruction of native peoples, burning of witches at the stake and other manifestations of intolerance are some of the fruits of Christianity.

You apparently worship that evil God and subscribe to that evil religion. May you be enlightened.

I don't see how I could make it much clearer, grateful.

You said:

"With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324527)

Which is a fairly meaningless statement when you think about it. Not to mention irrelevant to anything we’ve been discussing. Unless, perhaps, you were trying to claim that both religion and free will prove each other.

Which is why I said:

"Neither one proves the other, though. Religion doesn't prove the existence of free will, and free will wouldn’t prove the supernatural claims of religions because of the problems that brain injuries present." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324530)

Which would then have brought us back to the brain-injury dilemma that you are apparently so determined to avoid.

Is that any clearer?

Since I'm here, do you have anything compelling from this Bucaille character? Your evidence for the Qur'an being the evidence for a god does seem to hinge on this guy's claims, after all.

AJ: <<<<With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful.>>

Sounds reasonable enough. Neither one proves the other, though. Religion doesn't prove the existence of free will, and free will wouldn’t prove the supernatural claims of religions because of the problems that brain injuries present. >>

Agreed

<<<<The point of my original argument is the notion of of an existence that is independent of our existence in this world allows free will, as defined by the OED:>>

Oh, okay. Because, before, you were saying that a soul/spirit was essential for free will to be possible. Now it just allows for it? Sounds like you might be backpedaling.>>

At one point, I did put "soul" there as a "place-holder" for "an existence that is independent of our existence in this world" which is probably what lead to your confusion.

<<But sure, by itself, I suppose. But that doesn't mean much when one then introduces the threat of Hell. That is a mighty big constraint, after all.>>

Not for you and many others so it cannot be described as a mighty big constraint". For others, among those who believe, its importance depends on the person's closeness to Allah. The closer they are the more they are motivated by love for their creator and a desire to please him.

<<If you have evidence for this, then I'd love to hear it.>>

Your actions speak louder than your words.

grateful,

If you agree that neither religion or free will are evidence of each other, then what was the point in saying:

"With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324527)

I don’t see its relevance to the discussion.

<<…I did put "soul" there as a "place-holder" for "an existence that is independent of our existence in this world" which is probably what lead to your confusion.>>

‘Soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘an existence that is independent of our existence in this world’. It doesn’t matter what terminology you use. My point, that you had softened your stance, still remains. There was no confusion.

<<[The threat of Hell is not a constraint] for you and many others so it cannot be described as a mighty big constraint".>>

So you’re saying that only atheists have free will? Okay, but this still doesn’t address my question with regards to how precisely the soul functions to provide us with this free will, in light of the brain-injury dilemma.

From the perspective of a god endowing us with free will, however, it would be immaterial as to whether or not atheists realised that the threat of Hell really did exist. That fact that it did in the first place would mean that, ultimately, free will cannot exist because the constraint is still there. Similarly, in tort law it does not matter if a person is unaware that they are free to leave. If they believe at the time that they’re not, then they can sue for false imprisonment.

<<…among those who believe, its importance depends on the person's closeness to Allah. The closer they are the more they are motivated by love for their creator and a desire to please him.>>

The logic in my last paragraph applies here too. Whether or not theists fear Hell is immaterial.

<<Your actions speak louder than your words.>>

Are you suggesting that, despite me asking multiple times, I don’t really want to hear the evidence for why free will requires a soul? What a copout. Admit it, grateful, you don’t have any evidence.

AJ: <<<<Your actions speak louder than your words.>>

Are you suggesting that, despite me asking multiple times, I don’t really want to hear the evidence for why free will requires a soul? What a copout. Admit it, grateful, you don’t have any evidence.>>

I think that is unfair. Firstly, you've simply ignored the point that the argument about free will was not about proving god.

secondly, I have in fact offered evidence. This was in the context of the omnipotence paradox. Your response convinced me that you are very weak when it comes to critical thinking:

<<AJ wrote: "That would be a form of circular reasoning that I spoke of earlier known as ‘Begging the Question’, because you have inserted your conclusion into the premise. It’s fallacious."

The reasoning is not circular because in using the Qur'anic verse I assume the Qur'an is the word of god. If this is the case, then god is informing us that a force that does not belong to God will not occur. A rock that God cannot lift implies a force other than God. It cannot be created because God is truthful and he has informed us it shall not occur.>>

In response you offer the opinion of AJ Phillips and Jayb. AJ Phillips has never read the Qur’an and defers to Jayb for the interpretation of the Qur’an.

I then offer Maurice Bucaille’s "The Bible, the Qur’an and Science” and “What is the Origin of Man”, but you reject him out of hand based on a dot point that was not even authored by Bucaille.

So yes, when critical thinking is required, I’ll be avoiding you. But the paradox discourse was useful. Thankyou.