Bartricks

It is not clear to me what your answer to the question is. Are you saying that omnipotence involves not being constrained by the laws of logic?

Re your other points - no premise in my argument implies that the world is flat (or that it is flat if enough people believe it to be). So you're atta...

I still don't see how indeterminism in the brain could give any mind associated with it free will. Free will has to be capable of grounding moral resp...

My point is that the view has nothing to be said for it - until or unless we can explain in a rationally satisfying way how it is that an extended thi...

But my claim is not about beliefs. No premise of my argument mentioned beliefs. The claim, is NOT that if enough people believe something that will ma...

That seems question begging in this context, for if omnipotence involves being able to determine what is or is not possible, then the logic would be c...

but then you are just not using the word God in its normal sense. Someone who refers to their teapot as God and insists that on their definition the t...

I think an omnipotent being would be the creator of logic and thus they would have control over what is logically possible. Thus such a being could do...

yes, that would be my view - an omnipotent being would be the arbiter of truth and thus would be capable of anything as what's possible and impossible...

No, exactly what omnipotence involves is the issue under discussion. I am saying that it involves being able to do anything, not just the possible.

Hmm, I think what you've said there is false. It is generally agreed that 'God' with a capital 'G' denotes a being who has at least the following attr...

I also do not understand why you looked to physics for answers to a philosophical question. Whether we have free will and what it involves are philoso...

I do not see how you're addressing my point. If antecedent determination of our decision making processes is incompatible with them exhibiting free wi...

It doesn't challenge the claim that my mind is indivisible. All it does - if it is true, that is, and I see no evidence at all that it is - is show th...

You're just stating that no belief can be known with certainty - that about any belief we can raise a doubt about its truth, yes? But that's false.

I don't understand you - my premise talks about rational appearances, not beliefs. So you now accept, I take it, that what you said does not address a...

I don't know what you're arguing. So you think that the belief "I exist" can be false?

I just did above. Death is a harm. If something harms a person, then it harms them in their life. Therefore death is an event in a person's life.

No, we need cast iron evidence that we have it. An analogy: I have cast iron evidence that my computer is working - it appears (visually) to be workin...

clever replies.

but God is also essentially perfect. Indeed those other attributes flow from that (a lack ofor any one of them being an imperfection). But anyway, omn...

I don't know what you mean. The concept of God is the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of everything. If you are not neces...

Eh? More hot air. Just address the argument I made.

Where's the supposedly stupid argument for dualism? Plus, what's the point in highlighting a stupid argument for a position? Here's a stupid argument ...

It's support in the sense that it may make the argument interpersonally effective, but other than that this is an ad populum argument, so far No, it i...

But God is perfect and it would be an imperfection to have not existed for some time. So any god that comes into being won't qualify as God. And God i...

Your last point - you said that you were interested in being shown how free will is an objective possibility. If we have free will, then it is an obje...

Wittgenstein was wrong, I think. Imagine buying a book about Wittgenstein's life and finding that it said nothing whatsoever about his death. You'd be...

The thought "I exist" will always be true, whenever and wherever it occurs. So that thought, at least, can't be mistaken.

I am not entirely clear about what you are claiming. You say that you are not trying to prove that knowledge is impossible or that we can "reliably kn...

I am not an atheist, though I used to be. But I would say that it is just as well that you stopped reading those people, for only one of those four is...

How does assuming everything is conscious help explain how a lump of meat can be? It's no explanation at all. Plus, the 'problem' is not explaining ho...

Perhaps it is not 'your' theory in that you do not endorse it, but all that means is that you're rejecting one of my premises because it is inconsiste...

I don't follow. Which premise are you disputing?

This overlaps with what i've said in another thread - but an event will not be wholly the product of prior causes and/or chance if the event is caused...

No, you are rejecting a premise because it conflicts with your theory. Like I say, you need to provide an independent argument for the thesis that my ...

I didn't say that other people's intuitions count for more. They count the same, other things being equal. That is, if my reason represents X to be th...

Re what you say about the credibility of rational intuitions and the other things being equal clause - well, first we know in advance that we can't di...

Yes, I mean my mind by 'I'. I think the argument probably does establish that your mind needs to be a necessarily existing thing (and thus establishes...

re what you say about premise 1 - yes, but that's not real moral responsibility. Incarcerating someone solely to protect others (and/or the criminal) ...

I am not clear on your last point - if we have overwhelming evidence that we have free will (our reason, which is our ultimate guide to what's what, r...

No, you really don't have a clue.

And no, that's not what evidence is. Anyway, I'm tired of this now as this is going nowhere and I'm clearly dealing with an asserter not an arguer.

Four independent arguments that appear to prove that X is the case. Four independent witnesses come forward and say "James did it". You can't raise a ...

er, yes it is. Explain how it isn't.

I have now presented four arguments - each one valid, each one with premises that no-one has raised the least doubt about - that all imply the same th...

It is not rational to remain agnostic once someone has presented you with powerful evidence that P is the case. If there is a lot of good evidence tha...

Question begging. You're just assuming the mind is the brain again (I think - not sure quite what you mean, though)

That doesn't address my point. Did you boil your pork in vodka or something? The point is that you can't make someone morally responsible by holding t...

if you think you can make someone blameworthy by blaming them, you're nuts.