Thought Experiment

He is not an effect so does not need a cause.
When you say "personhood must come from personhood", you are stipulating that personhood is an effect.
No, I was only referring to the form of personhood that exists in the universe.
Nope no violation. Something including persons can logically be a cause but not an effect.
Not if personhood comes from personhood.
See above.
No, I said it would be unlikely from what we know about artistic creators.
Do you know of any unitarian artistic creators?
Yes, a single human artistic creator.
No. So you have absolutely no data on which to base ^this.

None.
See above.
But you claim there no such thing as real objective evil. So you are contradicting yourself.
I am arguing from within your paradigm - you believe that there is good and evil, yet you attribute only the good to your god, and not the evil.

This is cherry-picking.
Evil is not something that is created, it is a lack like shadows are the result of the lack of light. Evil is the result of the removal of the good. Those that try to remove the influence of God the good, are evil.
 
There is evidence it is not, besides NDEs, there is the maintenance of identity thru time. For example, if you replace almost every part of a table it is no longer the same table. But humans lose almost all their cells every 7 years but you are still you.
As Eightcrakers has said, brain cells do not get replaced as you say and it's our brains that are largely responsible for who we are along with various hormones and chemicals in our bodies. For example, the amount of testosterone a male has, a physical thing, affects how aggressively he behaves.
No, see above many brain cells do get replaced, or die. Especially if you drink alchohol or use marijuana. And if transgenderism is real then our brain has very little influence on the mind.
So you believe that a T. rex and a Triceratops can occupy the same space at the same time and in the same relationship and not violate the law of noncontradiction?
No, and that's not an example of the law of non contradiction.
How is it not an example of the law of noncontradiction? I think most people would disagree with you, unless you can prove otherwise.
And the evidence for the existence of good is the same evidence for the Christian God.
This is what you said earlier,

And goodness existed in creation when God called the universe good.
This is the assertion. This is what you are arguing for, but you use it as part of your argument which is circular reasoning or begging the question.
How is it circular reasoning? We also recognize that there is good in the universe. Do you deny this?
 
How is it circular reasoning? We also recognize that there is good in the universe. Do you deny this?
I would disagree - it's not circular reasoning.

It's that you and we mean different things by good.
There was no goodness in the universe as we define good because that requires moral agents.
 
Then your god, a "diversity within a unity", created something unitarian (humans) that lacks the "diversity within a unity" fingerprint.

Thank you for destroying your own argument.
No, God created the first two original humans who are a diversity within a unity. And of course, humanity itself is a diversity within a unity.
 
But there is evidence we are more than brain cells. If we are just the chemicals in our brains, then we dont have free will.
Who says we do?
99.9% of humans. If we dont then all your arguments are self-refuted.
But the evidence says we do have free will.
What evidence?
Besides experience and common sense, we can reason using the laws of logic. Without free our brains will be limited to just operating according to the laws of physics.
 
99.9% of humans.
So what?
If we dont then all your arguments are self-refuted.
Why?
If a thing is true, it's true whether or not we have free will, isn't it?
Besides experience and common sense
Which are anoecdotal, not proof.

If a person is deterministically programmed to think that he has free will, his experience and common sense will be in error, and he will never be able to tell the difference.
we can reason using the laws of logic.
Why is this evidence of free will?
How do you know that we aren't deterministically, programmed to do this?
Without free our brains will be limited to just operating according to the laws of physics.
Please give a single example of a human brain breaking the laws of physics.

This should be interesting...
 
God created humanity, individual humans can be unitarian creators but humanity cannot because it represents the full image of God. Male and Female is the full image.
A multi-tarian creator should not be able to make anything that's not multi-tarian, if your fingerprint rule applies.

Thus, there should be no unitarian individual humans.
And there are.
 
If 99.9 % of humans believe that torturing babies is wrong, then it is probably true that humans think torturing babies is wrong. So it is with free will.
If we dont then all your arguments are self-refuted.
Why?
If a thing is true, it's true whether or not we have free will, isn't it?
Without a free will you cant make arguments based on reasoning or evidence. So you refuted yourself by arguing for not having free will.
Besides experience and common sense
Which are anoecdotal, not proof.
But they are evidence as seen above.
If a person is deterministically programmed to think that he has free will, his experience and common sense will be in error, and he will never be able to tell the difference.
There is strong evidence that Animals actually are deterministically programmed and they dont have common sense and their experience doesnt tell them anything regarding free will.
w ae can reason using the laws of logic.
Why is this evidence of free will?
Because determinism is based on the laws of physics not the laws of logic. Logic requires the weighing of evidence and arguments. Determinism operates on just the causal processes of physics.
How do you know that we aren't deterministically, programmed to do this?
See above.
Without free our brains will be limited to just operating according to the laws of physics.
Please give a single example of a human brain breaking the laws of physics.

This should be interesting...
Everytime we use the laws of logic we are transcending the laws of physics.
 
If 99.9 % of humans believe that torturing babies is wrong, then it is probably true that humans think torturing babies is wrong. So it is with free will.
You sneaked something in, here:

"If 99.9 % of humans believe that torturing babies is wrong, then it is probably true that humans think torturing babies is wrong. So it is with free will."

The "... that humans think..." completely invalidates your claim to objectivity.

If 99.9% of humans think that they have free will, then it is probably true that humans think that they have free will? So what?
You have made absolutely no progress towards proving your assertion that this thought is correct.
Without a free will you cant make arguments based on reasoning or evidence.
Why?
What if I have no choice but to do so?
But they are evidence as seen above.
No, they aren't.
The thoughts of the majority do not constitute fact.
There is strong evidence that Animals actually are deterministically programmed and they dont have common sense and their experience doesnt tell them anything regarding free will.
What is this evidence?
Everytime we use the laws of logic we are transcending the laws of physics.
Prove it.
 
But as far as we believe, there weren't always moral agents.

And the universe itself cannot be good; it can only play host to beings that have a concept of good.
If there is no moral God then there would be no moral agents. Morality cannot come from amorality.
 
If there is no moral God then there would be no moral agents. Morality cannot come from amorality.
The ideas of right and wrong are abstract concepts that will occur to creatures capable of abstract thought, much like numbers and logic. Then what is right or wrong is thought of in the same way. That's where morality comes from, you don't need a morl God.

Unfortunately human nature can rationalise what is good or bad according to societal norms of the time and self interest.
 
Back
Top