Hey theo, since you havent been in the DF room for AGES Its kinda dead now anyways, we've called the OMNIness a paradox for several years. In addition since this paradox applied to god shows that god cant have free will since he cant change and all things are past tense, then the question is, how can god give something to man, that it doesnt have?
I still argue that if its known, there is no choice, if there is no choice then all things are predetermined and in accordance to THE PLAN
What if skepticism canceled out belief? What if we are manifestations of god? I think when thinking of free will we should think of time travel paradoxes, according the science the higgs boson is everywhere, and yet unobserved.
I here people say knowledge is power all the time especially atheists. So, if being all knowing does not make one all powerful. Then I guess knowledge is not power. Yes god is timeless there for immutable. So, god can only do what he wants to do and that never changes. The old lady could change here mind. God if he never wanted to do it then he never will.
P.S does this guys still make vids or not. He looks like we could be related. He looks just like my dad and my bro.
hey scott, in case you were wondering, this argument has was mentioned on the atheist experience (680, bout 27 mins in). you probably made this argument more famous. just used it in a paper recently too. reminds me of... the paradox of omnipotent (god making a rock so heavy that he can't lift), and only theist response is move the goal post. "well... omnipotent only means.... blah blah blah."
But just to be clear, im an atheist and i think youre brilliant! Esp your vids on kalam and TAG :) would love to hear to back from you with what you think of my critique!
Ahh but god simeltaneously parting the red sea and not parting the red sea is a violation of the law of non-contradiction which makes it *logically* impossible, not *physically* impossible and therefore fails for the same reason as the omnipotence paradox
I have heard this argument before and have used it often, but nice to see others popularise it too.
Ps. I have come across a variant of this, saying that god sees 'all possible outcomes' of an infinite-multiverse thus allowing him both omniscient and choice over which track to go down. To this I responded: Is god capable of acting differently to any of these foreseen variants or foresee which track will occur? And we are back to square 1.
There's a gigantic fallacy in your argument that a being could not be both omnipotent and omniscient. That fallacy is that you haven't considered that an omnipotent being couldn't just alter reality to make whatever he thought originally into what he's changed his mind about. For example, if god thought on Day 1 that he would do A on Day 2, then on Day 2 he decided to do B instead of A, he'd simply alter reality to make B the thing he decided to do on Day 1. There. Simple.
@DaGavinX I don't think you quite understand what omnipotence means. I'm saying an omnipotent being could change reality so it was never wrong. That means altering space and time so that it never actually thought the wrong thing.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
There's no possible way for you to be right. Any response you give that includes the words "he can't", "not possible", "doesn't work", "would've still had been wrong" means you still don't get what omnipotence means.
@wtwalker77 Ok, I get your point. But still, how would you answer the question: "Could God ever create a rock so big that even he couldn't move"? If he can, by doing so isn't he giving away his omnipotence?
@iiH3R3T1C You're asking me how I would answer a 900+ year old paradox? Not being omniscient myself, I have no idea what the answer is. My guess is that, if god does exist (I'm agnostic), and there were an answer to the question, most of humanity is generally not capable of understanding it on our own. Therefore, it is meaningless to debate. Of course, I believe an omnipotent being would be capable of getting me to understand the answer, but I digress...
@wtwalker77 I know what it means, but what you're saying is what omniscient being should already be capable of doing (always being right). So, if the god had to alter reality to make himself right that would mean he is indeed omnipotent, but not omniscient.
Point is, god is either always right, but unable to change what he knows is going to happen, or he is not always right, but can change things so he is always right(meaning he was wrong at some point). Can't be both.
@DaGavinX Ok, first question: Are you open to the possibility that your point of view is wrong? If not, that's fine. I won't waste our time any further.
If you are, I would suggest you go back and reread what I've said previously. I'm talking about altering space AND TIME. That means he changes the past so that he was never wrong. Stop thinking of time as linear. Even humans, with our tiny little brains, already know time is not linear.
But, still, in god's point of view, he was wrong, before altering space and time. Though to us it would seem as if anything changed. See it this way: god is wrong---> god realizes he was wrong so he changes the past so that didn't happen ---> god is right.
So I guess we can say that god can be wrong (so he is not omniscient), but has the power to fix it (he is omnipotent).
@DaGavinX Again, you continue to think of this theoretical god's actions as linear. If you think of them as happening at the same time, you will see how it is possible to be both omnipotent and omniscient.
Consider what I'm going to say next my response for every counter argument you make from here on out: To and omnipotent being, everything happens simultaneously, that's how he can be both omnipotent and omniscient.
@wtwalker77 You keep saying that, but you haven't explained how that changes anything. Even if everything is happening at the same time god (kind of what you would expect from a supposedly omniscient being) he was wrong. What you're saying is that god can change the past to make himself right, but that's because he realized he was wrong. So you're arguing for omnipotence, but not omniscience. Meaning he can go against what he knows is going to happen.
@DaGavinX Ok, let's try it this way. If everything happens at the same time, and therefore time doesn't matter, then God could make the sequence of events whatever he wanted them to be. Will you agree with that?
If that is the case, we could say the sequence of events is as follows: 1) God thinks to do B (right thing), 2) God does B, 3) God changes reality of his thinking from to do A to doing B, 4) God thinks of doing A.
In that sequence, God is omniscient and omnipotent.
@wtwalker77 I half agree. If everything happens at the same time, that means you only live in the present, not that time doesn't matter. So there wouldn't be any "sequence of events" that god could change. But, yeah, god could change any event he wanted.
In your "sequence", though, it seems like you would need to gods for that to happen. One god for which B is what he is going to do and can't change it, and another for which A is the right thing.
@wtwalker77 It would be quite incoherent to argue that god does A and B at the same time and that both are true. For example, if A were creating the universe and B not creating the universe, your "sequence if events" wouldn't make sense. Either he follows through with B a or realizes he is wrong a changes it to A.
TBS, I found your phone example a little strange. Because if god knew with infalibel certainty that you were going to pick ut the phone before you even existed, the it was never your choice to pick it up. It would be only you going according to god's scenario in which you pick up the phone. Thus, your free will would be illusory. It's not merely a prediction.
This is a response to the notion that god doesn't want to do anything he can't do. First of all, how can that opinion possibly be verified? In addition, if the biblical god does actually exist, how can we possibly know that he isn't lying to us? He may want to tell us the truth, but he just can't help but lie to us. He may want to spend eternity with us but be incapable of preventing himself from casting us into hell. The whole bible could be part of his inescapable path of damning us all.
If god knows for sure that I'd pick up the phone - it means that I HAVE NO FREE WILL! I might live with the PERCEPTION, the ILLUSION of free will, but I'm enacting a scenario!
"God can be either omniscient or omnipotent" - NONSENSE again!...
"However if God is simultaneously knowing. everything and acting out his free will..." -How can God do anything simultaneously if he exists in a timeless state as you claim? Simultaneously means "at the same time".
The argument that God is omnipotent and omniscient are contradictory is flawed for this reason. God doesn't exist within time. If He did, then He would work sequentially and 'know' what He's going to do before He does, thus limiting his omnipotence as you claim. However, if God is simultaneously knowing everything and 'acting out His free will,' there isn't a problem. God doesn't work 'linearly', but works everything both at once, and throughout an eternity because time is insignificant to God.
Here is a funny idea of mine, while watching this video and listening to your letter from the future thing and how to express your free will the best was to not open the letter at all. What if god is like that person not opening the letter? What if God CAN know everything he just chooses to not know so he can keep his own free will and thus be all powerful? I know this does not prove or disprove anything, just a funny thought.
Well there is another thing to consider, and it relates to the your 2nd argument. See, God CREATED the universe, with specific exact start conditions that led to today's specific end results. But God was never free to chose those starting conditions, he ALWAYS would by your argument, and we would ALWAYS end up here. If God has no free will, he cannot grant it. We are mere characters in a book God had no choice but to write. God is not the omniscience bystander, he is the omniscient instigator.
I just made this argument with a couple other atheists. I hate this so called contradiction some try to bring up with omniscience and free will. There's so many better arguments, like the ones I pointed out that you got to at the end of your video. Good to know there are still some intelligent atheists out there ;)
@travlr3000x what is an atheist i dont believe in god but i dont renounce it either i believe there are aliens but i have no proof maybe im just confused but i will not change without proof.the bible is not truth what religion is this or is it a religion at all i might be retarded im not sure ?
Imagine a very very long number. That number will contain every letter that is typed tomorrow from every person on earth. If you knew that number, you would know what every newspaper on earth would contain in tomorrow's news. If you do nothing tomorrow, then that knowledge becomes truth. Knowledge of the future can only become truth, if you do nothing to change it. Thus a being with knowledge of everything. must do nothing for that knowledge to remain true
i like this argument but i don't think it's concrete because apologists always pull out that god is timeless card. any time god violates a law of existence theists give the excuse that that law doesn't apply to god. also i wanted to say, i came up with this same argument years ago but i wasn't using it to argue against god, i was using it to argue against the movie minority report. the precog's see murders in the future, and then the police go stop the murders from happening. it makes no sense!
i like this argument but i don't think it's concrete because apologists always pull out that god is timeless card. anytime god violates a law of existence theists give the excuse that that law doesn't apply to god. also i wanted to say, i came up with this same argument years ago but i wasn't using it to argue against god, i was using it to argue against the movie minority report. the precog's see murders in the future, and then the police go stop the murders from happening. it makes no sense!
The theist will respond to your second argument saying god is not in time. His acts are not ordered sequentially thus he can't know them before he does them, because there is no before.
Sure, they could advance that argument, but that would only then agree with the paradox of omniscience and omnipotence. Omniscience, traditionally defined, would mean infinite, limitless knowledge. In effect, this "outside of time and space" argument means that God's omniscience would be limited- thus not truly omniscient, therefore the paradox holds.
@mason19atheist The response is that there is no temporal tense to god's actions, so to know them "before" he does them is a logical impossibility, and therefore there is no such actual knowledge, because only logical possibilities actually exist. Thus there is no knowledge he does not know. Besides most theists assert god's omnipotence to mean "knowing the truth of all propositions".
Yes, I understand that, but that means only then that omniscience as understood by most theists does not in fact exist. If God cannot understand his "future" actions "before" his act in doing so, then his omniscience is limited- which negates a traditional understanding of omniscience.
So in this sense of God knowing the truth of all propositions, that would exclude any future actions of his, or his before decisions. Okay, but then his omniscience is limited.
But this objection leads to difficulties in the theists reply. While God may exist timelessly, and therefore there is no before or after or future for him; but yet they always describe God's actions temporally.
For example: God created the universe. Okay, that implies he did so "after" the decision to do so. But that implies temporality. So this response has God acting temporally in a non-temporal context. So the theist has the burden to clarify this point.
@mason19atheist Are you willfully ignoring the point? There is no tense to god's actions, so there is no limitation to not knowing what is logically impossible to know. And if omniscience is being defined as knowing the truth of all propositions, and god's "past" and "future" actions have no propositional value, how is god's knowledge of the truth of all propositions limited by not knowing them?
Willfully ignoring your point? Hardly. My first point was that this places limits on infinite omniscience. My second, was that this made your argument is problematic. How does God act at all without using terms like "before" or "after"? For example: God created the universe. That implies a timeless being doing something "after" he did not do so. So God's "future" actions are not really in the future in time, yet they follow from previous "befores" that did not exist. See the problem?
Basically your in a catch-22 here. You say God is timeless when it helps you dodge an argument showing an inconsistency in God's charcter, but in doing so you make phrases like "God created" or "God decided." incoherent.
So you say God is timeless, okay, then here's a challenege. Explain creation without reference to any frame of time- at all. No "same time", no "before", no "after." See the problem? In saving the God concept, you've made "God acting" itself incoherent.
I use the omniscience vs. predestiny argument & I've never had a theist debunk it, but when you say it's a bad argument, I stop and listen. But I don't understand what you're saying.
Since god is perfect and has perfect omniscience, why wouldn't that cause predestiny?
In the beginning of the video, you said you agree with 5th watcher that it's a bad argument, but later in 1 scenario, I thought u said the same thing I did about it causing predestiny, so I'm confused. I wish you'd kindly explain.
I do use the argument you said not to, for this reason. God (Judeo-Christian) if he existed, not only has omniscience, but also created the universe. He set up the initial conditions, which control all variables to our lives. Even if he set up a 'free will mechanism' in humans, he determined how that mechanism operates. All actions we make result from things he implemented, and he knew what all of those decisions would be when he implemented them. If this is true, there can be no free will.
See, this is exactly my point too. I've used the omniscience = no free will, or, causes predestiny. (They both mean the same thing). So when TBS says it's a bad argument to use, I just don't understand. When I 1st saw this video, I was forced to rethink my argument bcuz I know Scott knows his stuff, but I'm just as confused bcuz I don't see any valid rebuttal to the omniscience vs. free will argument, and yet Scott says it's a bad argument. Maybe I'm missing something?
The problem is that ultimately knowing what will happen in the future does not mean that agents involved are not free. For example: "Sarah, no cookies before dinner." If I knew Sarah and her behavior, I would know that she will steal a cookie. Does that mean she is not free to do otherwise? No, because my knowing something will occur does not affect her free choice to do so.
In Hinduism, they know perfectly well that free will is an illusion. Ramesh Balsekar made this point very clear. Search him on YouTube. Omniscience doesn't work like that, it's intuitive omniscience, not intellectual omniscience. So, trying to humor a person who has this experience of intuitive omniscience is pointless. Of course, I'm talking about the mystical experience. God is not viewed as entity in Hinduism. The divine is viewed rather something more like a higher resonance of reality.
Hard determinism cannot currently be proved, but it seems inevitable (pun intended) to me. At what point can anything be random ? Start by thinking about things like tossing coins, then playing pool, leaves blowing in the wind, fluid dynamics. As you get more and more complex, you can see that no point can be identified where randomness is introduced, this surely extends to the chemical, atomic, and subatomic level, meaning it includes consciousness, and so called decision making.
@Abu7929 yeah. its pretty mind blowing to think about things like that, though. it is, however, unfalsifiable in the sense that a 'free will' universe and a 'fatalism' universe would be impossible to tell apart... but it does make a very convincing argument, particularly if you have a strong scientific education and are acutely aware that every process in the universe is driven by quantifiable processes documented (though, admittedly, incompletely understood) in the field of physics.
Unfortunately, the idea that consciousness extends back to quantum mechanics has be discussed by physicists Stenger and Tegmark and proved effectively that the brain operates classically. Besides, even if quantum events played a larger role in the chemical processes of our brain, it would not leave an opening for free will because then it just means that my decisions are determined by certain probabilities.
As in obeying the tradtional laws of Newtonian physics and electromagnetism.
As of yet, no evidence has been produced that quantum mechanincs plays any major role in consciousness or neurological activities- and in fact, Stenger and Tegmark's objection have left much to doubt about the assertion otherwise.
Picking up your phone didn't prove you have free will. Perhaps you think you made a choice, but maybe you were always going to have that particular thought process culminating in picking up the phone, all part of an almost infinitely complex, but inescapably linear causal chain.
Nice, but I'm not sure your 'dueling omnis' argument is not just akin to 'can God create a rock so heavy even he could not lift it'? Or 'God can't create a stone that is not a stone'. Could one argue that the future actions of God, of which he is aware, are essential conditions to his 'Godness'? In effect this would then turn the apparent omni-contradiction into a non-sensical complaint that God is unable to perform the impossible, not by any limitation of power but by definition?
@ngatfield Not entirely sure, just 'typing out loud'. It's 1am and I need sleep. If I remember tomorrow I will give it some more thought. Let me know if you have any preliminary input. Cheers!
Sure, but then you would have to beg the question. Because rather that showing the paradox is not a paradox, you've only special pleaded your case for God and made this an argument: "God is God." That doesn't solve the paradox, only defends the contradiction by appealing to God's nature. Which is also the same thing we are calling into question here.
@ja524309 I'm not missing the point at all, you are.
There is no before or after if God is timeless, its hard to imagine this from our limited perspective but makes perfect sense in countering this argument.
@ja524309 I don't think you are going to understand the timeless issue so lets just table that. The rock example is an infinite regression and doesn't contradict anything.
@ja524309 Because "god" could keep creating bigger and bigger rocks ad infinitum and you'd never get to a point where there is a biggest rock to see whether he could lift it or not.
@ja524309 Actually nobody who makes this argument makes the assumption that all rocks are not liftable, they don't really care whether God can't lift a rock he created or can't create a rock he can't lift - the goal is to force their opponent into admitting one of the two isn't possible.
The scenario just isn't a good argument - if god creates a rock and lifts it you still have no reason to believe he can't create a bigger rock, its an infinite regression.
@ja524309 lol so when I prove your statement wrong you say "well duh"?
Good one...and I already explained it - you just didn't comprehend it and I have no interesting in devoting anymore time to educating you, your professors should be doing a better job.
I suggest you just take a little more time to think about it because I've already given you more than enough to figure it out on your own.
@ja524309 I don't recall granting you the assumption that "there will always exist some rock he cannot lift" and frankly that statement just comes out of nowhere as far as I can tell.
Lets just cut to the chase because your argument is more semantic than anything else in my opinion. You are essentially citing the law of non contradiction when you say stuff like "it is a simple logical fact that God cannot do what he doesn't do" - I don't grant you that either, God transcends logic.
@ja524309 uh... I just did..this is actually hilarious.
Do you not see the problem with applying the law of non contradiction to an omnipotent being? its just not coherent - by definition you can't have an omnipotent being that is bound by any limitations and if it were subject to logic, laws of thought, logical absolutes or whatever you wish to call them then it could not be omnipotent.
@ja524309 You can't just assert that God can't do something because it would break the law of non contradiction - its stupid, you strike me as someone who doesn't even know what people refer to when they suppose an ominpotent being.
@ja524309 Its superfluous in that it doesn't address all the counter claims that could be made but it certainly deals with the whole argument regarding Gods actions and forethought quite easily, I dropped it long ago because you didn't understand and as I said its not airtight to every example. You could just say "god cannot be timeless and untimeless" and it would have been a better way of saying God is subject to logic.
I'm sorry you don't see that is what your argument boils down to.
@gary83uk Well, let's stop cluttering this guy's wall. I'm going to delete all of my comments with you, and I suggest you do the same. Instead, I'm going to send you a personal message restating my argument, to which you may respond.
@ja524309 Oh and I'm curious...what do you think omnipotence is anyway? the dictionary says:
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
How can a being with unlimited authority and power be limited? my defintition is fine, if you are talking about an omnipotent being that is limited by logic (or anything for that matter) you are the one with absurd definition.
@ja524309 Well just think it over for awhile, let it roll around inside your brain, think about what the existence of a timeless being would be like - there isn't a past or future there is just "present" at every point in time. All its actions would be known to it at any given point in our time.
You have taken 2 hours at most to consider it so I don't think you are justified in requiring me to explain something you have bearly thought about it seems.
But then you have the problem of explaining activities liked "God created" or "God decided" without reference to time. Crawl out of one hole and into another.
@mason19atheist You have no idea what you are talking about, why would a being who is not contingent on time have trouble creating something within it?
For calling me out for having no idea what I'm taking about (bullshit!) you clearly had no idea what my point was. My point was this- God is a timeless entity, fine, but then you make phrases like "God decided to create the world" incoherent. Was the decision before his act of creating, according to you- yes and no. No because he is timeless, but yes because he did it. Okay- which is it? By calling God timeless, you dodge the paradox but then incoherently describe God's actions.
@mason19atheist Its not incoherent, you are just failing to perceive time as a timeless being would - you are applying a strict linear standard to time.
If it helps you try to imagine as all of time being a blank canvas that a timeless being can paint on at any point, such a being would not be subject to time but could still act within it. The problem is that you just aren't viewing time as a seperate component.
"If it helps you try to imagine as all of time being a blank canvas that a timeless being can paint on at any -point-"
lol. I like that you used the word 'point'. What do you mean by that? Any point...in time? Sounds like you were trying to avoid using the word time because it would draw attention to the incoherence of your description. Sounds like you can't describe how a timeless being would act either. And here's the reason- its indescribable because it doesn't exist.
At 5:50 or so, you say "God, being Omniscient, has read the proverbial letter". Well, I don't think that is necessarily the case. To be Omniscient means to have the capacity to know anything, but is this the same thing as actually knowing everything at once, and at any given time? You need to be careful in specifying your concepts, so as to not conflate them. I see knowledge being a disposition to act; i.e. I "know" my locker combination means I can open my locker using said combination.
@De4sher if the whole reason why the concept of free will exists is to make human seem responsible for our fate when god is really responsible, then god would be responsible for atheists not believing in him.
well actually the whole reason why the concept of "free will" exists, is to make humans seem responsible for our fate, when actually god is responsible.
So you yourself are missing the point. Free will isn't the issue here, but whether god is a monster who likes to torture people or not.
i guess you're however smart enough to get this, whereas the 5thwatcher is not.
A bit after 2:35: I've never heard it said that omniscience alone disallows free will. In the traits normally assigned to God He is not only omniscient but made the universe a particular way as well; He'd have to have made the full timeline of all my actions, as opposed to making a slightly different one where my actions are different.
If those two things are true, it would mean my choices aren't really mine, since it was God who really decided on them by knowingly making a particular timeline.
Good video, really enjoyed this. The second part of the video does lean on that assumption that god is linear, much like we are, within time. Since the christian does not believe god is 'within' time but is indeed transcendent then the problem does not apply.
Although I'm a big fan of your work, I think Epydemic2020's response shows that your argument is indeed isomorphic to the "Can god create a stone heavier than he can lift?" situation. Rather, I think it would be better to make an argument against even the feasibility of being able to do anything. Also, since being able to know anything is part of doing anything, it is sufficient to attack the notion of being a "Know-it-all", again, insofar as knowing is in fact doing something.
you were making great sense until you came up with your idea that God can not be omniciant & omnipitant. God knows whats going to happen he always has nothing can change that just because God already knows doesnt change anything God can still do what he wants. For example I can be praying God will heal me and God can then choose to heal me, just because he already knew what was going to happen doesnt limit him at all he just knew thats all. about to pass out so please excuse the spelling
God created the universe knowing I would'nt believe in him, he could have created a universe where i did, but he chose the universe where i did not. If god made the universe knowing everything that would happen in that universe and he could make it any way he chose to make it then everything that happens within that universe is gods choice and not ours.
Of course, regarding God's actions (and essentially God himself) as a single event is very much divorced from the Christian notion of a personal God. Personally, the notion of an entity so alien to us being in any way "personal" has always seemed bizarre.
Were I playing Devil's (God's?) advocate here, I'd probably argue that the notion of "prediction" isn't applicable to a being that isn't subject to time (an omnipotent being by definition is not subject to time, that would be a limitation as you can only directly effect events in the present) God would be acting "simultaneously" (for want of a better term) in all time
From God's perspective, His interaction with the universe constitutes a single, very complex event
What you said is interesting TB. But at the end you make it sound as if there is no reason to pray or believe because all of your problems are pre-decided by God and that no matter what you do God has already decided because he knows what you are going to do. When God created us he did not create our destiny he merely knows it. He did not create one person more equal than another he simply made us out of his love. He did not make any of us more likely to get to heaven it is up to ourselves.
@quickcooper61 If God knew my destiny since before I was even born, then he knows whether or not I'm destined for hell. Assuming I am, then God knows that when he creates me, he has created a being that will inevitably spend eternity suffering. Is it not cruel of him to choose to create beings who's inescapable fate is to suffer for eternity in hell?
@Arkalius80 The point is that God does not design your fate he simply knows it. For him to not create a soul simply because he knows its fate would go against the whole idea of having free will in the first place. God's love for us is so great that even the ones going to hell deserve their time. Only God has the ability to create and destroy souls but he will never destroy souls because of the love he has for all the souls he creates, wether it be in hell, heaven or on earth
Remember it is not him who designs your fate that is all on you and no one else. Like I said he simply knows your fate. It would be wrong of him to never let you have the chance. At some point in your life you learn the rules and it is up to you to decide how you are going to live. He just knows what decision you are going to make but wether he knows that or not they are still your decisions to make. If he never creates you then you never have the opportunity to make mistakes or decisions.
@quickcooper61 If you knew for a certainty that if you let an inmate out on parole that he would commit another crime, would you let him out on parole? Giving someone a chance as you say implies a lack of foreknowledge of what they will do. Creating an individual when you know that they will spend all but the tiniest fraction of their existence suffering endlessly is not "giving them a chance," it's just cruel. It's like breeding a creature just so you can torture it endlessly, but worse.
@Arkalius80 Yes but I am not God so I am not bound to love that person because I have the free will not to hence I will do my best to prevent them from doing future harm to society. It is not God who punishes us, our freewill is what causes pain because for every action there is a consequence. Putting your hand in fire has a serious consequence. I.e. blowing God off has a serious consequence. He doesn't stop loving you ever you simply just walked off proving that you want nothing to do with him
@quickcooper61 You hinder your own argument by implying that God is "bound" to love people, therefore making him not omnipotent. And, you say it is not god who punishes us, but this rings false to me. Even if he doesn't cause us to go to hell, he supposedly has the power to stop it from hapenning, and since he doesn't, that makes him culpable. The fact that he doesn't means he is incapable or unwilling, either of which are incompatible with the omnipotence or omnibenevolence assigned to him.
It still seems like a good argument to me. I guess my main problem with God's omniscience doesn't stem from a conflict with our ability to make mundane decisions. Since the purpose of freewill in a Christian world view is to allow us to choose God or be damned, I still find this line of argument a convincing point against the existence of God. Under this line of thinking, God would create some people to praise him while knowing that won't happen.
@AlexanderDGraham I know that this isn't the exact argument you were talking about, but it does involve freewill and God's knowledge. In light of the intensions behind God giving mankind freewill, I think the argument holds.
I have used this argument before. And I must disagree with you here. All we have is the illusion of free will if an all knowing perfect god exists. You would only be using your free will as god has planned for you to do. So from your point of view you would be using your free will. And from god's point of view you would be doing exactly what he knew you would be doing.
I do agree with the omnipotence omniscience paradox though.
Theoretical response (and tell me if I'm talking nonsense, because I've never done this before).
Assume: God exists, he/she/it is omniscient, and that free will exists. From this, we might conclude that God knew what choices would be made; he would also have known the outcome of every possible action he could take (whether the part the red sea or not, for example), and then exercise his free will to choose the course of action with the most preferable outcome.
If you tell your child that she can choose between going to Disney World or Sea World, but you will beat the crap out of her and tare her toys apart if she chooses Sea World, is that really a free choice? No, you are forcing her. And God is being forced by the most powerful force in the universe. His knowledge of the future. If God knows X will happen, then X will happen. So God can’t make Y happen. That’s the problem.
@Psychodegu In fact, it doesn’t. I realize that my analogy isn’t perfect, because the father doesn’t eliminate the second possibility. She can still choose to go to sea world and have her beat her up. Yes. That is because the father in the analogy is not eliminating the possibility. Just setting up consequences. In the case of God, options ARE being eliminated. If God foresees the future, and sees that outcome X WILL necessarily happen, then outcome X WILL happen; eliminating outcome Y and Z.
@Sjarke98 Interesting that you say "the father is not eliminating the possibility. Just setting up consequences". That is the maintenance of free will, and you your self are admitting it. If your saying that some how God loses free will in your scenario, I find that some what ridiculous. God exists outside of time so everything he does (decides) has already been decided (done) in our perception. Since he has made his choice both entities have exercised free will.
@Psychodegu God exists outside of time so everything he does (decides) has already been decided (done) in our perception.
-
Then tell me. This plan, this pre-determined set of events that this god has already decided, can he change them? If he decided that I will die when I am 76, can he change his mind and kill me this instant? Or is he LIMITED to that single choice of action he had already made? :) Does he have the option of change? Or is he completely bound and limited?
@Sjarke98 your thinking inside of time. To God out side of time, everything he decides he has already done, to him everything is basically instantaneous. If he makes a decision based off of every point in time we will experience, and so would never need to change his mind. We may not know the result of his decision immediately, and he might not give us the result until we get around to asking for it or interacting in a specific way.
@Psychodegu And so would never need to change his mind.
-
I did not ask what this god needs or desires or prefers. I asked you if he had the ability to change the outcome of a predestine event. It’s a simple yes or no question. If it is a part of God’s awesome divine plan that I am to die at age 74, or if God as foreseen, with his omniscience that I will die at age 74, then I ask you. Will I die at age 74, or can God change it so that I die at age 21? Yes or no.
@Sjarke98 That is where your wrong it is not a simple yes or no answer. Hypothetically does God predestining you death at 74 years of age, some how remove your free will, as tho we will our life span? There are plenty of things that God could leave to randomness, in the end does the age you die really effect your ability to make an ultimate choice? Your asking a silly question like can God make a rock so big he can't lift it. Your question is invalid, because it is not internally consistent.
@Psychodegu We are not talking about my free will. We are talking about God’s free will and his ability to exercise it. I’m just gonna repeat the question. It’s fairly easy. Can he do it or not. Can God change what is predestined? Can God make that which is destined to happen not happen? Does God have the power? Is he omnipotent? Or is he bound by what is destined to happen, thus impotent?
@Sjarke98 Your question is not logically valid. I'll try to show why. A timeless being (God) would see all events at once, make all decisions at once, and carry out all actions at once (from his view point). Can you kill a rabbit, then decide to also kill the rabbit at later 'time'? Does you inability to dekill then rekill the rabbit remove your free will to make the first choice? See how weird these questions are, they really don't make sense.
@Psychodegu I must of course assume that since you are arguing this, you believe that God is omnipotent AND omniscient. Otherwise, why would you argue? But technically, I guess I don’t even know if that is what you believe.
@Psychodegu Your argument is making predestination to be something out side of God as opposed to something created by him. If he decides to make something predestined to us then he still uses his 'free' will. Words like predestined are defined with temporarily, and don't really apply to an a-temporal being. What is the point of doing an action one way, then undoing it and doing it another way when you know the results of both paths. Your basically asking me if God is indecisive which is silly.
Great video, made me think... The difference between God and your crazy woman friend is God is perfect and all powerful so... everything that happens is part of His perfect plan. God isn't limited in power because of His knowledge of everything that will happen. Everything that will happen is part of his perfect plan from the begining. Why would a perfect God want to change a perfect plan?
@sandman66ohio If everything that happens is part of God's perfect plan then he must have known before I was even born that my atheism would result in an eternity burning in the fires of hell. At the very least that makes God a sadist (if you believe that it is he who gave me life in the first place). It also doesn't seem to be in any way a 'perfect' plan...
@jamied007 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16:4) God has a purpose for everything. Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. (Ephesians 1:4) How we live and die was decided before time. And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day. (John 6:39)
@jamied007 Ask yourself this, why does one person read these verses and accepts them while another reject and hates them. Everything happens for a reason and as for me I see that I was given an opportunity to share why I have the hope that I do. As for you, only you can answer that. Maybe God has put a burning in you to seek truth and purpose for your life. For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. Philippians 1:6
I hold to the position that a technical free will cant exist even if god exists. He cannot make something logically contradictory like free will. We have choice, a local free will, but not technical free will. That is as far as my compatabilism extends.
In his video "Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge" SisyphusRedeemed presents very good arguments about incompatibility of god's omniscience and free will:
You really have lost me with this argument, are you talking about prophecy and the fact that God can't lie? If you are then this is actually part of His nature and His perfection this is not a limitation at all.
God has a plan for man, He will carry it out, He is not a God of confusion. Does knowing our response make His plan any less of His own?
This is something that I sort of thought of on myself as well, as pertaining to the end of the video. If God knows everything, especially the future, that means he knows what he will do in the future as well. That means that the Future is set because of his own nature, and his own actions are set and could never be changed. He cant make any real decisions because by his own nature they were already made. How could God give us free will when he doesnt even have it himself?
@TBS Sorry, going to disagree with this argument. God would be the author of events. God would be outside time. There would be no separation to God between him planning the events and making them happen, they would only appear as separate to us. He would know the infinite outcomes of setting things up different ways and would set things up to unfold how he wanted them to. It would be like planning your weekend and doing it at the same time, knowing every possible outcome. Free will is intact.
Sounds to me like you've just argued that your god is not omniscient, only omnipotent.
Problem is, omnipotence necessarily includes omniscience. If such a god were not omniscient, it cannot be omnipotent because the lack of ability to know with certainty the future, especially his own future, means this god is limited in some way and an omnipotent god cannot be limited by definition.
@stimpson65 First, not my god - I'm atheist. To clarify: If you have two choices, and you know exactly what the outcome of either will be, you still have free will when you choose one. If God knows the outcome of every possible choice, then yes he knows exactly what will happen as a result of his actions, but that doesn't mean he wasn't free to choose other actions, the results of which were also known to him. The only thing he can't do is surprise himself.
@stimpson65 If you want to use other arguments why God is not omnipotent that's fine. But to say he does not have free will because of his omniscience is not one of them. There are lots of things a supposedly omnipotent God couldn't do, and many logical contradictions within omnipotence itself. Not to mention the list of self-contradictions of the Christian god. I'm not defending God, just saying this particular argument doesn't work, so I wouldn't recommend using it against a theist.
@stimpson65 I did logically demonstrate my point, though it seems to be lost on you. You are the one who did not demonstrate a logical fallacy with my argument. This argument can only be logically demonstrated if God's foreknowledge is only of what WILL happen, but doesn't work if he knows EVERY possible outcome and chooses which one he wants. That is logically sound and not special pleading, the original argument is. Most theists won't think of this response, though, so you're probably safe.
Whether he knows all possible outcomes or not has no bearing on the fact that he also already knows which choice he WILL make. THAT is the problem that makes free will in such a being problematic.
@stimpson65 Oh dear. You've just argued a choice is not a choice. Your problem is confusing choice with execution. If you are going somewhere, you look at the map and see all possible options. You plan your route (choice) and when you're on the road you execute. You know when you're going to turn a corner but that doesn't mean you don't have free will, you've just already exercised it when planning. Not to mention God is not temporal, so making the choice and executing it are not separate events
Dude, no one is this thick. I take that back. Theists are this thick.
If you have perfect foreknowledge of every choice you will ever make, that means you are no longer free to make any other choice than the one you already know will be made. In other words, you would already know all your future EXECUTIONS. Hence, no free will.
And I don't believe for one second that you are an atheist.
Your channel has every attribute of a sock account that belongs to a theist.
@stimpson65 Dude, 1. There would be no precedent for changing his mind - nothing could happen that he didn't foresee that would make him change his mind, and his rational would be perfect the first time, hence no reconsidering. 2. Being a-temporal, there is no "think-decide-execute" timeline, they would all happen at once, hence no ability to slip "reconsider, change mind" into the equation. This argument and the famous Epicurus argument are the only times I've played "God's advocate".
This is similar to another argument I have heard of. It was originally proposed by John Stuart Mill and I'm sure you've heard of it. A God that is both benevolent and omniscient could not create a
Hey theo, since you havent been in the DF room for AGES Its kinda dead now anyways, we've called the OMNIness a paradox for several years. In addition since this paradox applied to god shows that god cant have free will since he cant change and all things are past tense, then the question is, how can god give something to man, that it doesnt have?
I still argue that if its known, there is no choice, if there is no choice then all things are predetermined and in accordance to THE PLAN
debateyourfaith 2 weeks ago
Wow, I've never really thought about how both omni's cannot coexist, doesn't really surprise me though, as alone they are self-contradictory anyway.
TwistedLemniscate 1 month ago
What if skepticism canceled out belief? What if we are manifestations of god? I think when thinking of free will we should think of time travel paradoxes, according the science the higgs boson is everywhere, and yet unobserved.
StandardAI 1 month ago
I here people say knowledge is power all the time especially atheists. So, if being all knowing does not make one all powerful. Then I guess knowledge is not power. Yes god is timeless there for immutable. So, god can only do what he wants to do and that never changes. The old lady could change here mind. God if he never wanted to do it then he never will.
P.S does this guys still make vids or not. He looks like we could be related. He looks just like my dad and my bro.
machinedean100 1 month ago
hey scott, in case you were wondering, this argument has was mentioned on the atheist experience (680, bout 27 mins in). you probably made this argument more famous. just used it in a paper recently too. reminds me of... the paradox of omnipotent (god making a rock so heavy that he can't lift), and only theist response is move the goal post. "well... omnipotent only means.... blah blah blah."
anyways, props for awesome video.
Bitsofchips 1 month ago
But just to be clear, im an atheist and i think youre brilliant! Esp your vids on kalam and TAG :) would love to hear to back from you with what you think of my critique!
messakg123 1 month ago
Edit to previous comment, i meant to say "therefore your argument fails for the same reason as the omnipotence paradox"
messakg123 1 month ago
Ahh but god simeltaneously parting the red sea and not parting the red sea is a violation of the law of non-contradiction which makes it *logically* impossible, not *physically* impossible and therefore fails for the same reason as the omnipotence paradox
messakg123 1 month ago
Hi. Great video.
I have heard this argument before and have used it often, but nice to see others popularise it too.
Ps. I have come across a variant of this, saying that god sees 'all possible outcomes' of an infinite-multiverse thus allowing him both omniscient and choice over which track to go down. To this I responded: Is god capable of acting differently to any of these foreseen variants or foresee which track will occur? And we are back to square 1.
Thanks again. :)
Desophistic 1 month ago
There's a gigantic fallacy in your argument that a being could not be both omnipotent and omniscient. That fallacy is that you haven't considered that an omnipotent being couldn't just alter reality to make whatever he thought originally into what he's changed his mind about. For example, if god thought on Day 1 that he would do A on Day 2, then on Day 2 he decided to do B instead of A, he'd simply alter reality to make B the thing he decided to do on Day 1. There. Simple.
wtwalker77 1 month ago
@wtwalker77 But is the being did that, he would've still had been wrong. Which would be contradictory if he supposed to be omniscient.
DaGavinX 1 month ago
@DaGavinX I don't think you quite understand what omnipotence means. I'm saying an omnipotent being could change reality so it was never wrong. That means altering space and time so that it never actually thought the wrong thing.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
There's no possible way for you to be right. Any response you give that includes the words "he can't", "not possible", "doesn't work", "would've still had been wrong" means you still don't get what omnipotence means.
wtwalker77 1 month ago
@wtwalker77 Ok, I get your point. But still, how would you answer the question: "Could God ever create a rock so big that even he couldn't move"? If he can, by doing so isn't he giving away his omnipotence?
iiH3R3T1C 1 month ago
@iiH3R3T1C You're asking me how I would answer a 900+ year old paradox? Not being omniscient myself, I have no idea what the answer is. My guess is that, if god does exist (I'm agnostic), and there were an answer to the question, most of humanity is generally not capable of understanding it on our own. Therefore, it is meaningless to debate. Of course, I believe an omnipotent being would be capable of getting me to understand the answer, but I digress...
wtwalker77 1 month ago
@wtwalker77 I know what it means, but what you're saying is what omniscient being should already be capable of doing (always being right). So, if the god had to alter reality to make himself right that would mean he is indeed omnipotent, but not omniscient.
Point is, god is either always right, but unable to change what he knows is going to happen, or he is not always right, but can change things so he is always right(meaning he was wrong at some point). Can't be both.
DaGavinX 1 month ago
@DaGavinX Ok, first question: Are you open to the possibility that your point of view is wrong? If not, that's fine. I won't waste our time any further.
If you are, I would suggest you go back and reread what I've said previously. I'm talking about altering space AND TIME. That means he changes the past so that he was never wrong. Stop thinking of time as linear. Even humans, with our tiny little brains, already know time is not linear.
wtwalker77 1 month ago
@wtwalker77 Yes, I may be wrong.
But, still, in god's point of view, he was wrong, before altering space and time. Though to us it would seem as if anything changed. See it this way: god is wrong---> god realizes he was wrong so he changes the past so that didn't happen ---> god is right.
So I guess we can say that god can be wrong (so he is not omniscient), but has the power to fix it (he is omnipotent).
DaGavinX 1 month ago
@DaGavinX Again, you continue to think of this theoretical god's actions as linear. If you think of them as happening at the same time, you will see how it is possible to be both omnipotent and omniscient.
Consider what I'm going to say next my response for every counter argument you make from here on out: To and omnipotent being, everything happens simultaneously, that's how he can be both omnipotent and omniscient.
wtwalker77 1 month ago
@wtwalker77 You keep saying that, but you haven't explained how that changes anything. Even if everything is happening at the same time god (kind of what you would expect from a supposedly omniscient being) he was wrong. What you're saying is that god can change the past to make himself right, but that's because he realized he was wrong. So you're arguing for omnipotence, but not omniscience. Meaning he can go against what he knows is going to happen.
DaGavinX 1 month ago
@DaGavinX Ok, let's try it this way. If everything happens at the same time, and therefore time doesn't matter, then God could make the sequence of events whatever he wanted them to be. Will you agree with that?
If that is the case, we could say the sequence of events is as follows: 1) God thinks to do B (right thing), 2) God does B, 3) God changes reality of his thinking from to do A to doing B, 4) God thinks of doing A.
In that sequence, God is omniscient and omnipotent.
wtwalker77 1 month ago
@wtwalker77 I half agree. If everything happens at the same time, that means you only live in the present, not that time doesn't matter. So there wouldn't be any "sequence of events" that god could change. But, yeah, god could change any event he wanted.
In your "sequence", though, it seems like you would need to gods for that to happen. One god for which B is what he is going to do and can't change it, and another for which A is the right thing.
DaGavinX 1 month ago
@wtwalker77 It would be quite incoherent to argue that god does A and B at the same time and that both are true. For example, if A were creating the universe and B not creating the universe, your "sequence if events" wouldn't make sense. Either he follows through with B a or realizes he is wrong a changes it to A.
DaGavinX 1 month ago
@DaGavinX Think of it this way: to an omnipotent being, everything is happening at the same time.
wtwalker77 1 month ago
@wtwalker77 but the fact that he changed his mind about something would mean that he was wrong in the first place, so he wouldn't be omniscient...
iiH3R3T1C 1 month ago
@iiH3R3T1C See my response to DaGavinX. If you still don't understand, let me know and I'll try again.
wtwalker77 1 month ago
TBS, I found your phone example a little strange. Because if god knew with infalibel certainty that you were going to pick ut the phone before you even existed, the it was never your choice to pick it up. It would be only you going according to god's scenario in which you pick up the phone. Thus, your free will would be illusory. It's not merely a prediction.
DaGavinX 2 months ago
I think the idea of free will is the problem here. What does it actually mean?
I have looked into free will and found this conclusion: the will likes to feel free.
2Jax 3 months ago
I guess it's a sign of pretty good objectivity on your part, that I can't tell whether you're religiously inclined or not. Nice work.
wptte 3 months ago
This is a response to the notion that god doesn't want to do anything he can't do. First of all, how can that opinion possibly be verified? In addition, if the biblical god does actually exist, how can we possibly know that he isn't lying to us? He may want to tell us the truth, but he just can't help but lie to us. He may want to spend eternity with us but be incapable of preventing himself from casting us into hell. The whole bible could be part of his inescapable path of damning us all.
lunagalapogos 4 months ago
@lunagalapogos There an interesting video by Syssyphusredeemed (I probably misspelled it) that talks about that possibility.
DaGavinX 2 months ago
If god knows for sure that I'd pick up the phone - it means that I HAVE NO FREE WILL! I might live with the PERCEPTION, the ILLUSION of free will, but I'm enacting a scenario!
"God can be either omniscient or omnipotent" - NONSENSE again!...
grozde 4 months ago
I thought this argument was popular. I guess this video came out 3 years ago so times have caught up :D
truckcompany 4 months ago
Can omniscient God,
who knows the future,
find the omnipotence,
to change his future mind?
Tis a conundrum for the big "G" methinks.....
eronfas101 4 months ago
That is so simple... it's amazing.
0rockerboi85 4 months ago
@caseydague1
"However if God is simultaneously knowing. everything and acting out his free will..." -How can God do anything simultaneously if he exists in a timeless state as you claim? Simultaneously means "at the same time".
msuders 4 months ago
The argument that God is omnipotent and omniscient are contradictory is flawed for this reason. God doesn't exist within time. If He did, then He would work sequentially and 'know' what He's going to do before He does, thus limiting his omnipotence as you claim. However, if God is simultaneously knowing everything and 'acting out His free will,' there isn't a problem. God doesn't work 'linearly', but works everything both at once, and throughout an eternity because time is insignificant to God.
caseydague1 5 months ago
If only I knew a woman as logical as you,
ultradevon04 6 months ago
Dane cook never told us he sneezed on his mirror.
GeneralHumanGenocide 6 months ago
Here is a funny idea of mine, while watching this video and listening to your letter from the future thing and how to express your free will the best was to not open the letter at all. What if god is like that person not opening the letter? What if God CAN know everything he just chooses to not know so he can keep his own free will and thus be all powerful? I know this does not prove or disprove anything, just a funny thought.
jotver 6 months ago
does that mean the bible was wrote by a woman ? in your opinion of course i really dont care im just curious
watchforfinger 6 months ago
Well there is another thing to consider, and it relates to the your 2nd argument. See, God CREATED the universe, with specific exact start conditions that led to today's specific end results. But God was never free to chose those starting conditions, he ALWAYS would by your argument, and we would ALWAYS end up here. If God has no free will, he cannot grant it. We are mere characters in a book God had no choice but to write. God is not the omniscience bystander, he is the omniscient instigator.
nickrose83 6 months ago
I just made this argument with a couple other atheists. I hate this so called contradiction some try to bring up with omniscience and free will. There's so many better arguments, like the ones I pointed out that you got to at the end of your video. Good to know there are still some intelligent atheists out there ;)
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x what is an atheist i dont believe in god but i dont renounce it either i believe there are aliens but i have no proof maybe im just confused but i will not change without proof.the bible is not truth what religion is this or is it a religion at all i might be retarded im not sure ?
watchforfinger 6 months ago
good point at the end. I don't want to breath fire like a dragon all over my best friends. Doesn't mean I can do it.
feee99 7 months ago
Imagine a very very long number. That number will contain every letter that is typed tomorrow from every person on earth. If you knew that number, you would know what every newspaper on earth would contain in tomorrow's news. If you do nothing tomorrow, then that knowledge becomes truth. Knowledge of the future can only become truth, if you do nothing to change it. Thus a being with knowledge of everything. must do nothing for that knowledge to remain true
Rahn127 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i like this argument but i don't think it's concrete because apologists always pull out that god is timeless card. any time god violates a law of existence theists give the excuse that that law doesn't apply to god. also i wanted to say, i came up with this same argument years ago but i wasn't using it to argue against god, i was using it to argue against the movie minority report. the precog's see murders in the future, and then the police go stop the murders from happening. it makes no sense!
maikeru01 9 months ago
i like this argument but i don't think it's concrete because apologists always pull out that god is timeless card. anytime god violates a law of existence theists give the excuse that that law doesn't apply to god. also i wanted to say, i came up with this same argument years ago but i wasn't using it to argue against god, i was using it to argue against the movie minority report. the precog's see murders in the future, and then the police go stop the murders from happening. it makes no sense!
maikeru01 9 months ago
The theist will respond to your second argument saying god is not in time. His acts are not ordered sequentially thus he can't know them before he does them, because there is no before.
Theftz22 9 months ago
@Theftz22
Sure, they could advance that argument, but that would only then agree with the paradox of omniscience and omnipotence. Omniscience, traditionally defined, would mean infinite, limitless knowledge. In effect, this "outside of time and space" argument means that God's omniscience would be limited- thus not truly omniscient, therefore the paradox holds.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
@mason19atheist The response is that there is no temporal tense to god's actions, so to know them "before" he does them is a logical impossibility, and therefore there is no such actual knowledge, because only logical possibilities actually exist. Thus there is no knowledge he does not know. Besides most theists assert god's omnipotence to mean "knowing the truth of all propositions".
Theftz22 9 months ago
@Theftz22
Yes, I understand that, but that means only then that omniscience as understood by most theists does not in fact exist. If God cannot understand his "future" actions "before" his act in doing so, then his omniscience is limited- which negates a traditional understanding of omniscience.
So in this sense of God knowing the truth of all propositions, that would exclude any future actions of his, or his before decisions. Okay, but then his omniscience is limited.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
But this objection leads to difficulties in the theists reply. While God may exist timelessly, and therefore there is no before or after or future for him; but yet they always describe God's actions temporally.
For example: God created the universe. Okay, that implies he did so "after" the decision to do so. But that implies temporality. So this response has God acting temporally in a non-temporal context. So the theist has the burden to clarify this point.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
@mason19atheist Are you willfully ignoring the point? There is no tense to god's actions, so there is no limitation to not knowing what is logically impossible to know. And if omniscience is being defined as knowing the truth of all propositions, and god's "past" and "future" actions have no propositional value, how is god's knowledge of the truth of all propositions limited by not knowing them?
Theftz22 9 months ago
@Theftz22
Willfully ignoring your point? Hardly. My first point was that this places limits on infinite omniscience. My second, was that this made your argument is problematic. How does God act at all without using terms like "before" or "after"? For example: God created the universe. That implies a timeless being doing something "after" he did not do so. So God's "future" actions are not really in the future in time, yet they follow from previous "befores" that did not exist. See the problem?
mason19atheist 9 months ago
@Theftz22
Basically your in a catch-22 here. You say God is timeless when it helps you dodge an argument showing an inconsistency in God's charcter, but in doing so you make phrases like "God created" or "God decided." incoherent.
So you say God is timeless, okay, then here's a challenege. Explain creation without reference to any frame of time- at all. No "same time", no "before", no "after." See the problem? In saving the God concept, you've made "God acting" itself incoherent.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
I use the omniscience vs. predestiny argument & I've never had a theist debunk it, but when you say it's a bad argument, I stop and listen. But I don't understand what you're saying.
Since god is perfect and has perfect omniscience, why wouldn't that cause predestiny?
In the beginning of the video, you said you agree with 5th watcher that it's a bad argument, but later in 1 scenario, I thought u said the same thing I did about it causing predestiny, so I'm confused. I wish you'd kindly explain.
Cootabux 9 months ago
I do use the argument you said not to, for this reason. God (Judeo-Christian) if he existed, not only has omniscience, but also created the universe. He set up the initial conditions, which control all variables to our lives. Even if he set up a 'free will mechanism' in humans, he determined how that mechanism operates. All actions we make result from things he implemented, and he knew what all of those decisions would be when he implemented them. If this is true, there can be no free will.
DieiNoctis 10 months ago
DieiNoctis
See, this is exactly my point too. I've used the omniscience = no free will, or, causes predestiny. (They both mean the same thing). So when TBS says it's a bad argument to use, I just don't understand. When I 1st saw this video, I was forced to rethink my argument bcuz I know Scott knows his stuff, but I'm just as confused bcuz I don't see any valid rebuttal to the omniscience vs. free will argument, and yet Scott says it's a bad argument. Maybe I'm missing something?
Cootabux 9 months ago
@Cootabux
The problem is that ultimately knowing what will happen in the future does not mean that agents involved are not free. For example: "Sarah, no cookies before dinner." If I knew Sarah and her behavior, I would know that she will steal a cookie. Does that mean she is not free to do otherwise? No, because my knowing something will occur does not affect her free choice to do so.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
I love this simple argument. It removes one of the premises and leaves just the two that matter.
So omniscient and omnipotent gods are out.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
In Hinduism, they know perfectly well that free will is an illusion. Ramesh Balsekar made this point very clear. Search him on YouTube. Omniscience doesn't work like that, it's intuitive omniscience, not intellectual omniscience. So, trying to humor a person who has this experience of intuitive omniscience is pointless. Of course, I'm talking about the mystical experience. God is not viewed as entity in Hinduism. The divine is viewed rather something more like a higher resonance of reality.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
Hard determinism cannot currently be proved, but it seems inevitable (pun intended) to me. At what point can anything be random ? Start by thinking about things like tossing coins, then playing pool, leaves blowing in the wind, fluid dynamics. As you get more and more complex, you can see that no point can be identified where randomness is introduced, this surely extends to the chemical, atomic, and subatomic level, meaning it includes consciousness, and so called decision making.
Abu7929 11 months ago
@Abu7929 yeah. its pretty mind blowing to think about things like that, though. it is, however, unfalsifiable in the sense that a 'free will' universe and a 'fatalism' universe would be impossible to tell apart... but it does make a very convincing argument, particularly if you have a strong scientific education and are acutely aware that every process in the universe is driven by quantifiable processes documented (though, admittedly, incompletely understood) in the field of physics.
Dragon0007 10 months ago
@Abu7929
Unfortunately, the idea that consciousness extends back to quantum mechanics has be discussed by physicists Stenger and Tegmark and proved effectively that the brain operates classically. Besides, even if quantum events played a larger role in the chemical processes of our brain, it would not leave an opening for free will because then it just means that my decisions are determined by certain probabilities.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
@mason19atheist What do you mean by "classically" ?
Abu7929 9 months ago
@Abu7929
As in obeying the tradtional laws of Newtonian physics and electromagnetism.
As of yet, no evidence has been produced that quantum mechanincs plays any major role in consciousness or neurological activities- and in fact, Stenger and Tegmark's objection have left much to doubt about the assertion otherwise.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
@mason19atheist Thanks i'll look into it.
Abu7929 9 months ago
Picking up your phone didn't prove you have free will. Perhaps you think you made a choice, but maybe you were always going to have that particular thought process culminating in picking up the phone, all part of an almost infinitely complex, but inescapably linear causal chain.
Abu7929 11 months ago
time travel in the the opposite direction of normal flow is impossible by the second law of thermodynamics
ghjurx452 11 months ago
Nice, but I'm not sure your 'dueling omnis' argument is not just akin to 'can God create a rock so heavy even he could not lift it'? Or 'God can't create a stone that is not a stone'. Could one argue that the future actions of God, of which he is aware, are essential conditions to his 'Godness'? In effect this would then turn the apparent omni-contradiction into a non-sensical complaint that God is unable to perform the impossible, not by any limitation of power but by definition?
ngatfield 11 months ago
@ngatfield Not entirely sure, just 'typing out loud'. It's 1am and I need sleep. If I remember tomorrow I will give it some more thought. Let me know if you have any preliminary input. Cheers!
ngatfield 11 months ago
@ngatfield
Sure, but then you would have to beg the question. Because rather that showing the paradox is not a paradox, you've only special pleaded your case for God and made this an argument: "God is God." That doesn't solve the paradox, only defends the contradiction by appealing to God's nature. Which is also the same thing we are calling into question here.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
Its not a contradiction to be both omniscient and omnipotent if you accept that a God is not contingent on or subject to time.
Its just a really bad argument - thats why nobody uses it.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 I'm not missing the point at all, you are.
There is no before or after if God is timeless, its hard to imagine this from our limited perspective but makes perfect sense in countering this argument.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 I don't think you are going to understand the timeless issue so lets just table that. The rock example is an infinite regression and doesn't contradict anything.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 Because "god" could keep creating bigger and bigger rocks ad infinitum and you'd never get to a point where there is a biggest rock to see whether he could lift it or not.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 Actually nobody who makes this argument makes the assumption that all rocks are not liftable, they don't really care whether God can't lift a rock he created or can't create a rock he can't lift - the goal is to force their opponent into admitting one of the two isn't possible.
The scenario just isn't a good argument - if god creates a rock and lifts it you still have no reason to believe he can't create a bigger rock, its an infinite regression.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 lol so when I prove your statement wrong you say "well duh"?
Good one...and I already explained it - you just didn't comprehend it and I have no interesting in devoting anymore time to educating you, your professors should be doing a better job.
I suggest you just take a little more time to think about it because I've already given you more than enough to figure it out on your own.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 I don't recall granting you the assumption that "there will always exist some rock he cannot lift" and frankly that statement just comes out of nowhere as far as I can tell.
Lets just cut to the chase because your argument is more semantic than anything else in my opinion. You are essentially citing the law of non contradiction when you say stuff like "it is a simple logical fact that God cannot do what he doesn't do" - I don't grant you that either, God transcends logic.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 uh... I just did..this is actually hilarious.
Do you not see the problem with applying the law of non contradiction to an omnipotent being? its just not coherent - by definition you can't have an omnipotent being that is bound by any limitations and if it were subject to logic, laws of thought, logical absolutes or whatever you wish to call them then it could not be omnipotent.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 So you do or don't agree? or do you just want to ignore it so you can argue?
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 You can't just assert that God can't do something because it would break the law of non contradiction - its stupid, you strike me as someone who doesn't even know what people refer to when they suppose an ominpotent being.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 Okay on second thought you are right...
God isn't omnipotent because he violates the law of non contradiction...you win.
lmfao!
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 Its superfluous in that it doesn't address all the counter claims that could be made but it certainly deals with the whole argument regarding Gods actions and forethought quite easily, I dropped it long ago because you didn't understand and as I said its not airtight to every example. You could just say "god cannot be timeless and untimeless" and it would have been a better way of saying God is subject to logic.
I'm sorry you don't see that is what your argument boils down to.
gary83uk 11 months ago
@gary83uk Well, let's stop cluttering this guy's wall. I'm going to delete all of my comments with you, and I suggest you do the same. Instead, I'm going to send you a personal message restating my argument, to which you may respond.
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 Oh and I'm curious...what do you think omnipotence is anyway? the dictionary says:
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
How can a being with unlimited authority and power be limited? my defintition is fine, if you are talking about an omnipotent being that is limited by logic (or anything for that matter) you are the one with absurd definition.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 Well just think it over for awhile, let it roll around inside your brain, think about what the existence of a timeless being would be like - there isn't a past or future there is just "present" at every point in time. All its actions would be known to it at any given point in our time.
You have taken 2 hours at most to consider it so I don't think you are justified in requiring me to explain something you have bearly thought about it seems.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@ja524309 No your argument is just so poorly contructed that it can't even withstand iteration.
gary83uk 11 months ago
Comment removed
ja524309 11 months ago
@gary83uk
But then you have the problem of explaining activities liked "God created" or "God decided" without reference to time. Crawl out of one hole and into another.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
@mason19atheist You have no idea what you are talking about, why would a being who is not contingent on time have trouble creating something within it?
gary83uk 9 months ago
@gary83uk
For calling me out for having no idea what I'm taking about (bullshit!) you clearly had no idea what my point was. My point was this- God is a timeless entity, fine, but then you make phrases like "God decided to create the world" incoherent. Was the decision before his act of creating, according to you- yes and no. No because he is timeless, but yes because he did it. Okay- which is it? By calling God timeless, you dodge the paradox but then incoherently describe God's actions.
mason19atheist 9 months ago
@mason19atheist Its not incoherent, you are just failing to perceive time as a timeless being would - you are applying a strict linear standard to time.
If it helps you try to imagine as all of time being a blank canvas that a timeless being can paint on at any point, such a being would not be subject to time but could still act within it. The problem is that you just aren't viewing time as a seperate component.
gary83uk 9 months ago
@gary83uk
"If it helps you try to imagine as all of time being a blank canvas that a timeless being can paint on at any -point-"
lol. I like that you used the word 'point'. What do you mean by that? Any point...in time? Sounds like you were trying to avoid using the word time because it would draw attention to the incoherence of your description. Sounds like you can't describe how a timeless being would act either. And here's the reason- its indescribable because it doesn't exist.
NGOrchestra 9 months ago
At 5:50 or so, you say "God, being Omniscient, has read the proverbial letter". Well, I don't think that is necessarily the case. To be Omniscient means to have the capacity to know anything, but is this the same thing as actually knowing everything at once, and at any given time? You need to be careful in specifying your concepts, so as to not conflate them. I see knowledge being a disposition to act; i.e. I "know" my locker combination means I can open my locker using said combination.
ja524309 11 months ago
@De4sher if the whole reason why the concept of free will exists is to make human seem responsible for our fate when god is really responsible, then god would be responsible for atheists not believing in him.
EvilHamSandwich 1 year ago
well actually the whole reason why the concept of "free will" exists, is to make humans seem responsible for our fate, when actually god is responsible.
So you yourself are missing the point. Free will isn't the issue here, but whether god is a monster who likes to torture people or not.
i guess you're however smart enough to get this, whereas the 5thwatcher is not.
De4sher 1 year ago
A bit after 2:35: I've never heard it said that omniscience alone disallows free will. In the traits normally assigned to God He is not only omniscient but made the universe a particular way as well; He'd have to have made the full timeline of all my actions, as opposed to making a slightly different one where my actions are different.
If those two things are true, it would mean my choices aren't really mine, since it was God who really decided on them by knowingly making a particular timeline.
HelplessVictim 1 year ago
Good video, really enjoyed this. The second part of the video does lean on that assumption that god is linear, much like we are, within time. Since the christian does not believe god is 'within' time but is indeed transcendent then the problem does not apply.
jstrain1992 1 year ago
Although I'm a big fan of your work, I think Epydemic2020's response shows that your argument is indeed isomorphic to the "Can god create a stone heavier than he can lift?" situation. Rather, I think it would be better to make an argument against even the feasibility of being able to do anything. Also, since being able to know anything is part of doing anything, it is sufficient to attack the notion of being a "Know-it-all", again, insofar as knowing is in fact doing something.
ja524309 1 year ago
you were making great sense until you came up with your idea that God can not be omniciant & omnipitant. God knows whats going to happen he always has nothing can change that just because God already knows doesnt change anything God can still do what he wants. For example I can be praying God will heal me and God can then choose to heal me, just because he already knew what was going to happen doesnt limit him at all he just knew thats all. about to pass out so please excuse the spelling
coolvideo28 1 year ago
God created the universe knowing I would'nt believe in him, he could have created a universe where i did, but he chose the universe where i did not. If god made the universe knowing everything that would happen in that universe and he could make it any way he chose to make it then everything that happens within that universe is gods choice and not ours.
brucebaucom 1 year ago
In the very least that argument is valid as a counter argument to the theists claim that materialism leaves us without freewill.
nospacesallowed 1 year ago
Of course, regarding God's actions (and essentially God himself) as a single event is very much divorced from the Christian notion of a personal God. Personally, the notion of an entity so alien to us being in any way "personal" has always seemed bizarre.
MrCommentingisfun 1 year ago
Were I playing Devil's (God's?) advocate here, I'd probably argue that the notion of "prediction" isn't applicable to a being that isn't subject to time (an omnipotent being by definition is not subject to time, that would be a limitation as you can only directly effect events in the present) God would be acting "simultaneously" (for want of a better term) in all time
From God's perspective, His interaction with the universe constitutes a single, very complex event
MrCommentingisfun 1 year ago
What you said is interesting TB. But at the end you make it sound as if there is no reason to pray or believe because all of your problems are pre-decided by God and that no matter what you do God has already decided because he knows what you are going to do. When God created us he did not create our destiny he merely knows it. He did not create one person more equal than another he simply made us out of his love. He did not make any of us more likely to get to heaven it is up to ourselves.
quickcooper61 1 year ago
@quickcooper61 If God knew my destiny since before I was even born, then he knows whether or not I'm destined for hell. Assuming I am, then God knows that when he creates me, he has created a being that will inevitably spend eternity suffering. Is it not cruel of him to choose to create beings who's inescapable fate is to suffer for eternity in hell?
Arkalius80 1 year ago
@Arkalius80 The point is that God does not design your fate he simply knows it. For him to not create a soul simply because he knows its fate would go against the whole idea of having free will in the first place. God's love for us is so great that even the ones going to hell deserve their time. Only God has the ability to create and destroy souls but he will never destroy souls because of the love he has for all the souls he creates, wether it be in hell, heaven or on earth
quickcooper61 1 year ago
Remember it is not him who designs your fate that is all on you and no one else. Like I said he simply knows your fate. It would be wrong of him to never let you have the chance. At some point in your life you learn the rules and it is up to you to decide how you are going to live. He just knows what decision you are going to make but wether he knows that or not they are still your decisions to make. If he never creates you then you never have the opportunity to make mistakes or decisions.
quickcooper61 1 year ago
@quickcooper61 If you knew for a certainty that if you let an inmate out on parole that he would commit another crime, would you let him out on parole? Giving someone a chance as you say implies a lack of foreknowledge of what they will do. Creating an individual when you know that they will spend all but the tiniest fraction of their existence suffering endlessly is not "giving them a chance," it's just cruel. It's like breeding a creature just so you can torture it endlessly, but worse.
Arkalius80 1 year ago
@Arkalius80 Yes but I am not God so I am not bound to love that person because I have the free will not to hence I will do my best to prevent them from doing future harm to society. It is not God who punishes us, our freewill is what causes pain because for every action there is a consequence. Putting your hand in fire has a serious consequence. I.e. blowing God off has a serious consequence. He doesn't stop loving you ever you simply just walked off proving that you want nothing to do with him
quickcooper61 1 year ago
@quickcooper61 You hinder your own argument by implying that God is "bound" to love people, therefore making him not omnipotent. And, you say it is not god who punishes us, but this rings false to me. Even if he doesn't cause us to go to hell, he supposedly has the power to stop it from hapenning, and since he doesn't, that makes him culpable. The fact that he doesn't means he is incapable or unwilling, either of which are incompatible with the omnipotence or omnibenevolence assigned to him.
Arkalius80 1 year ago
It still seems like a good argument to me. I guess my main problem with God's omniscience doesn't stem from a conflict with our ability to make mundane decisions. Since the purpose of freewill in a Christian world view is to allow us to choose God or be damned, I still find this line of argument a convincing point against the existence of God. Under this line of thinking, God would create some people to praise him while knowing that won't happen.
AlexanderDGraham 1 year ago
@AlexanderDGraham I know that this isn't the exact argument you were talking about, but it does involve freewill and God's knowledge. In light of the intensions behind God giving mankind freewill, I think the argument holds.
AlexanderDGraham 1 year ago
If God can *either* be omniscient or omnipotent, then he cannot be omnipotent since he cannot be omniscient as well.
Phage0070 1 year ago
I have used this argument before. And I must disagree with you here. All we have is the illusion of free will if an all knowing perfect god exists. You would only be using your free will as god has planned for you to do. So from your point of view you would be using your free will. And from god's point of view you would be doing exactly what he knew you would be doing.
I do agree with the omnipotence omniscience paradox though.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Theoretical response (and tell me if I'm talking nonsense, because I've never done this before).
Assume: God exists, he/she/it is omniscient, and that free will exists. From this, we might conclude that God knew what choices would be made; he would also have known the outcome of every possible action he could take (whether the part the red sea or not, for example), and then exercise his free will to choose the course of action with the most preferable outcome.
Thoughts?
KaptainFail 1 year ago
@KaptainFail God knew what choices would be made.
-
If you tell your child that she can choose between going to Disney World or Sea World, but you will beat the crap out of her and tare her toys apart if she chooses Sea World, is that really a free choice? No, you are forcing her. And God is being forced by the most powerful force in the universe. His knowledge of the future. If God knows X will happen, then X will happen. So God can’t make Y happen. That’s the problem.
Sjarke98 1 year ago
@Sjarke98 What if the child really wants to go to Sea world. That just ruined your argument.
Psychodegu 1 year ago
@Psychodegu In fact, it doesn’t. I realize that my analogy isn’t perfect, because the father doesn’t eliminate the second possibility. She can still choose to go to sea world and have her beat her up. Yes. That is because the father in the analogy is not eliminating the possibility. Just setting up consequences. In the case of God, options ARE being eliminated. If God foresees the future, and sees that outcome X WILL necessarily happen, then outcome X WILL happen; eliminating outcome Y and Z.
Sjarke98 1 year ago
@Sjarke98 Interesting that you say "the father is not eliminating the possibility. Just setting up consequences". That is the maintenance of free will, and you your self are admitting it. If your saying that some how God loses free will in your scenario, I find that some what ridiculous. God exists outside of time so everything he does (decides) has already been decided (done) in our perception. Since he has made his choice both entities have exercised free will.
Psychodegu 1 year ago
@Psychodegu God exists outside of time so everything he does (decides) has already been decided (done) in our perception.
-
Then tell me. This plan, this pre-determined set of events that this god has already decided, can he change them? If he decided that I will die when I am 76, can he change his mind and kill me this instant? Or is he LIMITED to that single choice of action he had already made? :) Does he have the option of change? Or is he completely bound and limited?
Sjarke98 1 year ago
@Sjarke98 your thinking inside of time. To God out side of time, everything he decides he has already done, to him everything is basically instantaneous. If he makes a decision based off of every point in time we will experience, and so would never need to change his mind. We may not know the result of his decision immediately, and he might not give us the result until we get around to asking for it or interacting in a specific way.
Psychodegu 1 year ago
@Psychodegu And so would never need to change his mind.
-
I did not ask what this god needs or desires or prefers. I asked you if he had the ability to change the outcome of a predestine event. It’s a simple yes or no question. If it is a part of God’s awesome divine plan that I am to die at age 74, or if God as foreseen, with his omniscience that I will die at age 74, then I ask you. Will I die at age 74, or can God change it so that I die at age 21? Yes or no.
Sjarke98 1 year ago
@Sjarke98 That is where your wrong it is not a simple yes or no answer. Hypothetically does God predestining you death at 74 years of age, some how remove your free will, as tho we will our life span? There are plenty of things that God could leave to randomness, in the end does the age you die really effect your ability to make an ultimate choice? Your asking a silly question like can God make a rock so big he can't lift it. Your question is invalid, because it is not internally consistent.
Psychodegu 1 year ago
@Psychodegu We are not talking about my free will. We are talking about God’s free will and his ability to exercise it. I’m just gonna repeat the question. It’s fairly easy. Can he do it or not. Can God change what is predestined? Can God make that which is destined to happen not happen? Does God have the power? Is he omnipotent? Or is he bound by what is destined to happen, thus impotent?
Sjarke98 1 year ago
@Sjarke98 Your question is not logically valid. I'll try to show why. A timeless being (God) would see all events at once, make all decisions at once, and carry out all actions at once (from his view point). Can you kill a rabbit, then decide to also kill the rabbit at later 'time'? Does you inability to dekill then rekill the rabbit remove your free will to make the first choice? See how weird these questions are, they really don't make sense.
Psychodegu 1 year ago
@Psychodegu I must of course assume that since you are arguing this, you believe that God is omnipotent AND omniscient. Otherwise, why would you argue? But technically, I guess I don’t even know if that is what you believe.
Sjarke98 1 year ago
@Psychodegu Your argument is making predestination to be something out side of God as opposed to something created by him. If he decides to make something predestined to us then he still uses his 'free' will. Words like predestined are defined with temporarily, and don't really apply to an a-temporal being. What is the point of doing an action one way, then undoing it and doing it another way when you know the results of both paths. Your basically asking me if God is indecisive which is silly.
Psychodegu 1 year ago
Great video, made me think... The difference between God and your crazy woman friend is God is perfect and all powerful so... everything that happens is part of His perfect plan. God isn't limited in power because of His knowledge of everything that will happen. Everything that will happen is part of his perfect plan from the begining. Why would a perfect God want to change a perfect plan?
sandman66ohio 1 year ago
@sandman66ohio If everything that happens is part of God's perfect plan then he must have known before I was even born that my atheism would result in an eternity burning in the fires of hell. At the very least that makes God a sadist (if you believe that it is he who gave me life in the first place). It also doesn't seem to be in any way a 'perfect' plan...
jamied007 1 year ago
@jamied007 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16:4) God has a purpose for everything. Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. (Ephesians 1:4) How we live and die was decided before time. And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day. (John 6:39)
sandman66ohio 1 year ago
@jamied007 Ask yourself this, why does one person read these verses and accepts them while another reject and hates them. Everything happens for a reason and as for me I see that I was given an opportunity to share why I have the hope that I do. As for you, only you can answer that. Maybe God has put a burning in you to seek truth and purpose for your life. For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. Philippians 1:6
sandman66ohio 1 year ago
But if god knows that the ultimate conclusion of my existence is that I will end up in hell, then why would he create me in the first place?
Master8laster 1 year ago
If you read the letter you could simply change your mind. It would actually allow you to change the conditions of the test.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
I hold to the position that a technical free will cant exist even if god exists. He cannot make something logically contradictory like free will. We have choice, a local free will, but not technical free will. That is as far as my compatabilism extends.
AbusiveAntitheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Omnipotence versus omniscience argument is invalid because God did do everything, he saw every possibility and did every possibility. BAM!
RichGilly 1 year ago
Was anyone else waiting for him to snap his fingers in 30 seconds?
RichGilly 1 year ago
In his video "Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge" SisyphusRedeemed presents very good arguments about incompatibility of god's omniscience and free will:
watch?v=9sWHd3b8Y68
VincentMeis 1 year ago
the omnipotence versus omniscience argument is sound, but unnecessary. both omnipotence and omniscience contradict the laws of physics seperately.
daemonowner 1 year ago
You really have lost me with this argument, are you talking about prophecy and the fact that God can't lie? If you are then this is actually part of His nature and His perfection this is not a limitation at all.
God has a plan for man, He will carry it out, He is not a God of confusion. Does knowing our response make His plan any less of His own?
laurapaloozza 1 year ago
This is something that I sort of thought of on myself as well, as pertaining to the end of the video. If God knows everything, especially the future, that means he knows what he will do in the future as well. That means that the Future is set because of his own nature, and his own actions are set and could never be changed. He cant make any real decisions because by his own nature they were already made. How could God give us free will when he doesnt even have it himself?
PauLWaFFleZ 1 year ago
@TBS Sorry, going to disagree with this argument. God would be the author of events. God would be outside time. There would be no separation to God between him planning the events and making them happen, they would only appear as separate to us. He would know the infinite outcomes of setting things up different ways and would set things up to unfold how he wanted them to. It would be like planning your weekend and doing it at the same time, knowing every possible outcome. Free will is intact.
ArcaneLogic 1 year ago
@ArcaneLogic
Sounds to me like you've just argued that your god is not omniscient, only omnipotent.
Problem is, omnipotence necessarily includes omniscience. If such a god were not omniscient, it cannot be omnipotent because the lack of ability to know with certainty the future, especially his own future, means this god is limited in some way and an omnipotent god cannot be limited by definition.
To argue otherwise is simply special pleading.
stimpson65 1 year ago
@stimpson65 First, not my god - I'm atheist. To clarify: If you have two choices, and you know exactly what the outcome of either will be, you still have free will when you choose one. If God knows the outcome of every possible choice, then yes he knows exactly what will happen as a result of his actions, but that doesn't mean he wasn't free to choose other actions, the results of which were also known to him. The only thing he can't do is surprise himself.
ArcaneLogic 1 year ago
@ArcaneLogic
Can't surprise himself = limitation = not omnipotent = not a god.
Try as you might, you can't twist out of it.
stimpson65 1 year ago
@stimpson65 If you want to use other arguments why God is not omnipotent that's fine. But to say he does not have free will because of his omniscience is not one of them. There are lots of things a supposedly omnipotent God couldn't do, and many logical contradictions within omnipotence itself. Not to mention the list of self-contradictions of the Christian god. I'm not defending God, just saying this particular argument doesn't work, so I wouldn't recommend using it against a theist.
ArcaneLogic 1 year ago
@ArcaneLogic
You say omniscience is not a problem for a "god's" free will but yet you can't logically demonstrate this.
The argument that omniscience IS a problem for free will CAN be logically demonstrated so there is nothing wrong with that argument.
Your argument is all special pleading just like theist arguments.
The argument "works" just fine unless you are trying to use it incorrectly.
Since I use it correctly, it works just fine for me, thank you.
stimpson65 1 year ago
@stimpson65 I did logically demonstrate my point, though it seems to be lost on you. You are the one who did not demonstrate a logical fallacy with my argument. This argument can only be logically demonstrated if God's foreknowledge is only of what WILL happen, but doesn't work if he knows EVERY possible outcome and chooses which one he wants. That is logically sound and not special pleading, the original argument is. Most theists won't think of this response, though, so you're probably safe.
ArcaneLogic 1 year ago
@ArcaneLogic
Whether he knows all possible outcomes or not has no bearing on the fact that he also already knows which choice he WILL make. THAT is the problem that makes free will in such a being problematic.
Do you see it now?
stimpson65 1 year ago
@stimpson65 Oh dear. You've just argued a choice is not a choice. Your problem is confusing choice with execution. If you are going somewhere, you look at the map and see all possible options. You plan your route (choice) and when you're on the road you execute. You know when you're going to turn a corner but that doesn't mean you don't have free will, you've just already exercised it when planning. Not to mention God is not temporal, so making the choice and executing it are not separate events
ArcaneLogic 1 year ago
@ArcaneLogic
Dude, no one is this thick. I take that back. Theists are this thick.
If you have perfect foreknowledge of every choice you will ever make, that means you are no longer free to make any other choice than the one you already know will be made. In other words, you would already know all your future EXECUTIONS. Hence, no free will.
And I don't believe for one second that you are an atheist.
Your channel has every attribute of a sock account that belongs to a theist.
I call troll.
stimpson65 1 year ago
Comment removed
tocrooks 1 year ago
@stimpson65 Dude, 1. There would be no precedent for changing his mind - nothing could happen that he didn't foresee that would make him change his mind, and his rational would be perfect the first time, hence no reconsidering. 2. Being a-temporal, there is no "think-decide-execute" timeline, they would all happen at once, hence no ability to slip "reconsider, change mind" into the equation. This argument and the famous Epicurus argument are the only times I've played "God's advocate".
ArcaneLogic 1 year ago
This is similar to another argument I have heard of. It was originally proposed by John Stuart Mill and I'm sure you've heard of it. A God that is both benevolent and omniscient could not create a