Free will has also been demonstrated to be false empirically through experiments in neuroscience which can predict a person's decision before they are conscious of making the decision, so good job god, you made thinking, feeling automata and treated them as if they were otherwise. But our experience is still important to us, and it's going to suck burning in hell for the inability of my biological machinery to believe in Jesus. I'm like the droids in Star Wars that get turned into scrap metal.
Free will and prophecy is a huge problem, if things are fated to happen then things would be out of mankind's control or act as puppets to act out this prophecy. If mankind has free will then these prophecies can be averted through actions of mankind and independently screw up god's plan. So it really depends on how much power fate has and how much freedom man has.
If God has made prophetic claims in a holy book, then not only does God have a diary of future events, but so do many religious people. If the future must map to the prophecies in the bible or the koran, then we don't have the power to do otherwise. I demonstrated this to a Christian, who had to admit that we absolutely can't have a nuclear war that kills off human civilization because that contradicts the prophecies in the bible.
I was gonna try to watch this video, but after a minute of it I changed my mind. Maybe I will watch it tommmorow. Or maybe something more inteligent will be in my recommended video list.
I'm still not sure I would agree with Locke. If I chose to stay in that kickass party, I would call myself free because I chose it.
Furthermore, God does not necessarily have to have foreknowledge to be God. Does the bible ever say God knows everything we are going to do before we do it?
@whiteunibrow You are missing the point. Even if the man wanted to leave, he could not. He had no choice but to stay. The fact there was a party was pure coincidence. It could have been a naked woman on a bed, or a ball game, or nothing at all, it did not matter, as the only 'choice' was to remain in the locked room.
Your point 2 was addressed in the video, and yes: God is claimed to be omniscient, because if he weren't, he would not be god.
Whats wrong with the conception that God knows all the information that exists, but not the entire future (information that does not exist, assuming we deny determinism)? This is a more biblical viewpoint than the alternative of God knowing the future in its entirety (a point which theologian Greg Boyd explains on his website if you're interested). And it's absurd to be so narrow in your definition of "God" that you make total foreknowledge a necessary condition.
i remember discussing this in my intro to philosophy class the idea of free will and predestination…i am totally cool with no free will and that we are all predestined to eat oatmeal tmr :p it's like the guy who's locked in the room…he doesn't KNOW he's locked in, so he's cool…we may not HAVE free will b/c of predestination but to us it FEELS like do…it's not like we're playing an endless game of simon says…and woot woot for st. thomas aquinas! i know him :p
This only rules out an omniscient God, there's still room for a God that created the universe and that's it. I don't believe this, but it could be true.
Your video was good, but I didn't like "so which is the more attractive option?" at the end, your argument is valid, but the attractiveness of a conclusion has no baring on its validity.
@stripyWitch Ruling out an omniscient God effectively destroys all theistic doctorine. You cannot use the ontological argument, and a God who is limited in this way could not a personal God.
Sure, their could still be a sort of "deistic thing" that created the universe, but most God believers are theists and this entire conversation is really only meaningful if they have no justification to force their beliefs/morals/dogmas onto the rest of society. mission accomplished?
The argument in the video is invalid because Premiss 2, as stated, exploits an ambiguity. This becomes clear if we rephrase the argument in terms of what we "will" and "can" do. If God infallibly foreknows that you will do X, then: either (2a) "It cannot be the case that you will do other than X", or (2b) "It will be the case that you cannot do other than X". The video's Premiss 2 needs to be taken in sense 2a to follow from Premiss 1, but in sense 2b to link to Premiss 3.
@hriliu "(2b) "It will be the case that you cannot do other than X"."
Your time frame is mistaken. It's not that it WILL be the case (as in, at some point in the future) that you lack the power to do otherwise; it IS the case, right now, and at all times, that you lack the power to do otherwise. You can't do otherwise than X now, latter, or ever. That's the equivalent of (2a), and it bridges just fine to (3).
But it's not a temporal issue: if 2a is the correct sense in which to read Premiss 2, at no time is it true that you cannot do other than X. Before the event, you "can" do otherwise (foreknowledge not being causal); during and after the event, you "could have" (counterfactually) done otherwise. 2a, unlike 2b, places no limits on what is "in your power" to do. And 2b doesn't follow from Premiss 1.
Yes it is, that's the whole point: God knows BEFOREHAND what we will do. It's simply false that "Before the event, you "can" do otherwise (foreknowledge not being causal)". It's not the knowledge that causes it, but it being known (beforehand) means it's unchangeable (at any time). For the same reason, false that "during and after the event, you "could have"... done otherwise." No, you couldn't have: that would mean you could have proven God wrong.
Unchangeability cannot be the issue, or any past event would invalidate freewill (as no-one argues). Try a possible-worlds approach (to sidestep temporal issues). Is there a possible world in which you do other than X? 2a says there is (and thus preserves Could Have Done Otherwise), but rules out this world as a candidate. 2b flatly rules out any non-X-doing world. Only 2b rules out CHDO, so it's the sense your argument needs.
@hriliu "or any past event would invalidate freewill"
Umm... That's exactly right. We have no freewill over past events. No one argues we do. The only respect in which we can have free will is with regards to the future. And the only way that's possible is if the future ISN'T set in stone, as the past is. But if God (or anyone) knows the future then it IS set in stone, and hence we have no free will.
@SisyphusRedeemed "We have no freewill over past events. No one argues we do."
Actually, I do. I don't want to introduce a complication into what is already a fascinating and enjoyable discussion, so I'll just mention in passing that it is my view that the Will can be free with regard to events that it cannot affect. For instance, I will that the Holocaust had never happened; I do so freely because I could have a wicked alterna-self who willed otherwise.
@hriliu "I will that the Holocaust had never happened"
This is interesting (as is the whole conversation), but I think you're equivocating on 'will' here. Your will is in the present, not the past, even though what you're willing is in the past. You can change what you will here and now (assuming you have free will, that is) but you can't change what actually happened. That's the sense that matters for our broader conversation.
@SisyphusRedeemed "you can't change what actually happened. That's the sense that matters"
Since I've already taken the stance that unchangeability is not the issue, I can't be expected to accept a restrictiion on the sense of the Will that implicitly recognizes it as the core feature. There's no equivocation: we will states of affairs in exactly the same way, whether they are actualizable or not. Your restriction collapses the meaningful difference between Freedom of Will and Freedom of Action.
@hriliu "Is there a possible world in which you do other than X?"
There is no possible world in which (a) God knows I do X and (b) I do other than X. For any possible world were I do Y, rather than X, in that world God knows I will do Y and I cannot do otherwise than Y. So long as God's knowledge tracks what I will do in any given world, I can never do otherwise than I in fact do in that world.
@SisyphusRedeemed "I can never do otherwise than I in fact do in that world"
You're using "can" in a context that requires "will". Confining your attention to one world precludes counterfactuals, which you need in order to examine what you "can" or "could have" done. In this world, you will not do other than X: any alternatives are going to be counterfactual (and thus located in alterna-worlds).
@hriliu "Confining your attention to one world precludes counterfactuals,"
Exactly! That's my whole point. If God knows what I will do, then there are no (meaningful) counterfactuals, because his knowledge is flawless. Saying I could have done otherwise makes about as much sense as saying 'I could have drawn that circle in the shape of a square.' From God's point of view there IS only one world, and what we call 'possible worlds' as just different aspects of it.
@SisyphusRedeemed 'I could have drawn that circle in the shape of a square.'
Surely a bad example: there is no possible world in which you do such a thing (so it's not a counterfactual); whereas a world in which you choose the cereal rather than the oatmeal (as you will not in this world) is unproblematic.
@hriliu "there is no possible world in which you do such a thing (so it's not a counterfactual); whereas a world in which you choose the cereal rather than the oatmeal (as you will not in this world) is unproblematic."
I'm not sure it is. If we assume there is one God for all possible worlds, and he knows all in all worlds, and which one will be the actual world, then in what sense is any other world 'possible?' The only way it's possible is if it's possible God is wrong.
@SisyphusRedeemed "If we assume there is one God for all possible worlds, and he knows all in all worlds, and which one will be the actual world, then in what sense is any other world 'possible?'"
We've agreed that foreknowledge isn't causal, so God isn't (as far as this argument is concerned) causing this world to be the actual one. So what is? We actualize the world by our free choices. The (merely) possible worlds are, so to speak, depositories of our unchosen choices.
@hriliu It's meaningless to say because there are other worlds where I do otherwise I am free, since in those worlds my action is just as predetermined as it is in this one.
@SisyphusRedeemed "It's meaningless to say because there are other worlds where I do otherwise I am free"
To say I could have, counterfactually, done something simply is to say that there is a possible world in which I do it. If I do X in this world, I could have done otherwise if there is a possible world in which I do other than X. My alterna-self could have done X, because there is a possible world (this one) in which I do X. We're "both" free. Freewill stands or falls with CHDO.
@hriliu Does 'God knows everything' entails that He knows (a) what I will do in every possible world and (b) what I will do in the actual world. If it entails both, then I'm not free, since I am stuck in the actual world. No matter what I do, it's not possible for me to not be in the actual world--that's fixed, so I couldn't, counterfactually choose otherwise. Because of (b) I lack CHDO, as I can't choose any other world. If it doesn't entail (a) and (b), then God isn't truly omnipotent.
@SisyphusRedeemed "it's not possible for me to not be in the actual world--that's fixed, so I couldn't, counterfactually choose otherwise."
The whole point of a counterfactual is that it's not actual. The test is Could Have Done Otherwise, not Can Do Otherwise. I could have done (or would have it "in my power" to do) other-than-X if-and-only-if there is a possible world where I do other-than-X.
@hriliu "I could have done (or would have it "in my power" to do) other-than-X if-and-only-if there is a possible world where I do other-than-X."
Then it seems to follow that there is no possible world in which I do other than X. That follows from God knowing what I will do, and hence it not being in my power to do otherwise.
It looks like we've reached the 'one philosopher's modus tollens is another philosophers modus ponens' point.
@SisyphusRedeemed "That follows from God knowing what I will do, and hence it not being in my power to do otherwise."
It seems to me that you're setting an impossibly high standard for what is "in your power": as if an alternative only counted if there was a way to actually get to it. Yet we all understand what someone means if he says "I could have had toast for breakfast yesterday, but I didn't". An un-actualizable alternative is still genuine.
Well done ole chap, i totally agree with this video, the bible it self states predestination and god knowing eternity . its like god is the athur of a book and we are in it!
That was really interesting, dude! I'm gonna send you my next video on this topic, where I explore the implications of suicide on the question of free will and divine foreknowledge. But your vid has helped me understand the other side of the argument.... thx!
Shelly kagan has GREAT compatibilist defensive arguments I'm sure you've already seen him dismantle William 'retard' Craig? You should check out his stuff, I'd LOVE for you to elaborate on that area, and obviously voice your opinion if you have the spare time :D I'm in a gray area with all that jazz but maybe you could sway my,(and I'm sure many others) thoughts?
"P2: If God knows everything we do, then it is never in our power to do otherwise"
Let's pretend that I have (am?) a Siamese twin. Wouldn't P2 mean that I have no freewill because my twin, attached to me, knows everything I do? So in reality I didn't have the power not to make this comment just by the fact that I am constantly being watched. That doesn't sound right to me.
Perhaps I am overlooking something extremely obvious? (certainly a possibility!)
@RPFS2008 Siamese twins don't know everything their twin will do. It's not like they share a mind. And even if they did, we don't even know everything that we will do, so having access to another's mind won't allow you to predict everything they will do.
Ok, perhaps siamese twins was a bad example, but Isn't there a difference between knowing everything we do (including thoughts aswell as actions) and knowing everything we *will* do (including thoughts aswell as actions)?
I imagine that a god that knows everything we do would basically be a mind-reader who is constantly watching us. He wouldn't know what we will do but he knows everything we do and thus freewill is still a possibility?
Free will is the sin nature. Who actually wants to die when people die? Think about this-God decided to create a planet and made Adam and Eve. Eventually, God determines his work was not just good but very good. When Adam and Eve sinned having their eyes opened-they saw themselves in sin. Why? They were naked and decided they were in sin and needed to rectify this. What God said is very good and Adam disagreed. God outside of time-before the foundation of the world. God created time
@SisyphusRedeemed dude, what if god chooses not to have foreknowledge what were gonna do? knows all our options, but chooses to be ignorant what wewill choose?
@ryan84160 i agree but, he is able to know what we will choose.maybe an omniscient god would be able to know everything but only chooses to know certain things. depends what we mean by omniscience. that he is able to know all knowledge or that he holds all knowledge, including what were gonna choose.
@nickallah That also raises an interesting question. If God does not know everything, can it even be considered a God at all? Or is it just a very powerful being?
@HybridD91@HybridD91 They gave it to themseoves when they ate the forbidden fruit. This allowed Adam and Eve to freely on their own decide what is good or evil according to their new perception apartfrom God. For me, the question becomes-when Godcreated themand nakedthey were-God said it was very good(not dwellingon nudity but is the state God created them) and Adam disagreed with God on them being naked as a good thing-they clothed themselves
These kinds of judgments are far more interesting to compatibilists than declaring an agent "100% Free" or "100% Not free" at any given point in time. There will almost always be degrees of freedom and points of view. When we say that X was free/responsible for a harmful action. We aren't saying anything more than that, we regard it as self evident that X was aware of several possible benign actions and somehow still chose a harmful one, and that we attribute this choice to the agent's nature.
and they could argue from a 3rd person standpoint that it was reasonable to assume that he had to stay because of environmental restrictions. This latter view would lead to a mistaken belief that the individual would have acted differently if more options had been available, but it might be a rational one(and perhaps the most useful one) given incomplete knowledge of the decision making process.
Anyway, the main problem with the example is that it's not really worth more than a shrug, because it's a problem of little or no practical importance when seen in isolation. Had the action of staying at the party involved some hostile action OTOH. Compatibilists could argue both that it was a voluntary choice, so objectively he was free and we should expect the choice to be repeated in similar circumstances in the future...
In terms of assigning responsibility, both imagined and real constraints can be relevant - depending on the situation. And depending on who you are. A first person perspective may come to different conclusions about moral responsibility than a third person perspective because they have different access to the reasoning process that led to a given action and consequently have different opinions about whether the behavior may be repeated etc. Obviously 3rd person also means higher uncertainty.
Not that this impacts your argument in any way, as compatibilist free will is irrelevant to this argument, but...
I don't think the objection addresses the compatibilist idea of freedom at all. Compatibilism is mostly about understanding how and why we assign responsibility and what's actually meant when we use the term "free" in casual conversation about responsibility.(As opposed to logically impossible definitions of freedom involving freedom from your own nature)
Just because I can find out what the makers of Gone With the Wind had done to make the film, doesn't mean they didn't freely choose those decisions. Now that it's past, it's "set in stone," but their decisions at the time were fluid. God would be eternal -- so past, present and future are tenseless: He's neither of these. Foreknowledge is a misnomer since his knowledge would be simply knowledge by definition: absolute
@namesameasu "doesn't mean they didn't freely choose those decisions."
But they can't freely choose those decisions NOW. NOW those decisions are set in stone, they can't change them, they are not free to make different decisions. And if God knew before they made those decisions, they were set in stone beforehand, and they couldn't change them at all. Hence, they were never free.
@SisyphusRedeemed To borrow from St. Augustine's notebook, and I agree with this aspect of it, our infinite time would be God's eternal moment. So that "before" and "after" would be inconsequential for God. God's knowledge wouldn't be dependent on time as ours is. It's just like the scenario I mentioned of the movie from the past. God has seen it before yet God has yet to watch it, too. Imagine knowledge without the limitations of time and space, and that would be God.
@namesameasu "God has seen it before yet God has yet to watch it, too. Imagine knowledge without the limitations of time and space, and that would be God."
All due respect to Augustine, but what he's suggesting here is nonsense. It's more like a zen-koan ('what did your face look like before your mother and father were born?') than a rational argument. The first sentence is a logical contradiction, and the second is incomprehensible. Augustine is just pulling this out of his ass.
@SisyphusRedeemed If God was dependent on logical laws, He wouldn't be God. The law of non-contradiction stipulates time -- so it wouldn't apply to God.
@namesameasu "Nobody said it was going to make sense. "
Which gives rise to an interesting epistemological question: should we believe (indeed, CAN WE believe) in something that by stipulation does not/can not make sense?
If materialism is true, then there is no free will; not even a will whereby we can make choices. Materialism leaves us with strict physical/genetic determinism. With this view, we do not choice to drink Pepsi over Coke it is just an illusion.
“We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes” Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene)
@MrRunge89 "If materialism is true, then there is no free will... Materialism leaves us with strict physical/genetic determinism."
That's fallacious. Materialism does not entail determinism. They're compatible, but they're neither identical, nor inseparable. More to the point, even if you're right, it's besides the point. This isn't an argument FOR free will; it's an argument for the incompatibility of free will and divine foreknowledge.
@SisyphusRedeemed It's not fallacious; it obviously follows. I'm aware that your main point of your is about some problem between free will and divine foreknowledge; however, I was referring to the end of your video, that is, with theism, there is no free will, but with atheism maybe. I disagree with both parts of those statements. Atheism entails naturalism, which gives no explanation how we can even have a will. Moreover is affirms determinism, like a computer program. ...
No, it doesn't. Non-deterministic, random, chaotic physics is perfectly compatible with materialism. Just because there is nothing other than the physical does not mean the physical obeys deterministic laws. In fact, given discoveries in quantum mechanics, it seems quite clear that the physical universe is indeterministic.
"Atheism entails naturalism"
Again, false. Atheism is compatible with non-naturalism. e.g.-Schopenhauer was an idealist and an atheist.
Your right I shouldn't say atheism entails naturalism; however just because some believes both atheism and idealism, it does not mean that they are both logically compatible. Some may believe both, that's no problem; however explaining how immaterial minds come into existence by no God is highly problematic. Thus, atheism probably cannot entail idealism. I actually believe atheism would logically entail total non-existence.
@SisyphusRedeemed Random, chaotic physics does even more harm to the notion of free will. It would just go to show that you do not have control over your so-called choices; rather it is random and chaotic (and your so called choice is still determined by physics and chemicals, it's just not stiff). In order to have free will, there must be determination, but not the kind of that physical determinism (PR) leaves you. PR eliminates the will and ability of choice altogether.
@MrRunge89 "Random, chaotic physics does even more harm to the notion of free will"
You're moving the goal posts. I never said indeteminism allows for free will; I said indeterminism is compatible with materialism, hence materialism cannot entail determinism. Got it?
@SisyphusRedeemed I'm sorry there seems to be a lack of charity between us. Materialism, is a reductionist view, which means that everything has a physical explanation, since matter is all that there is. If that is true, physical determinism follows, which simply put is that everything we do is because of physical reactions. Not only are these two beliefs compatible, but if what we do is not because of psychical reactions, then materialism would be false. I'm not saying.....
@MrRunge89 "physical determinism follows, which simply put is that everything we do is because of physical reactions."
This is not the correct. Determinism is the idea that every event follows necessarily from prior causes. Z is determined by prior event Y, which is determined by prior event X and so forth. Given A, there was no option other than for B to follow. Indeterminism is the idea that given A, all sorts of things other than B could follow. Materialism is compatible with either.
I'm not saying that you said indeterminism allows for free will. I'm the one trying to be careful and say that some sort of determinism is required for true free will, but not of the kind of physical determinism. I hope my clarifications help. Also, I've been giving and defending a different view of what free will really is, then this concept of libertarian freedom (which is self-incoherent and not logically possible). I believe that your choices must be determine by your nature to be free.
Free will must be deterministic as in your choices flow from your nature. If you do something that is contrary to you who are, then it is not according to your will, but because of some external force. Thus, free will is the ability to make choices that reflects your wants and your heart (your very essence). Tomorrow, you will make a lot of choices, like what to eat, do, say and so on; the point is, it is you who will me making the choices, thus free will, even if God knows beforehand.
@SisyphusRedeemed On the other hand, I believe God could actually explain how certain beings have a will, by being a source make us and give us a soul, granting us the ability of choice. Also, that a God with foreknowledge would not conflict with free will. The category of knowledge has nothing to do with a persons ability to make choices. Just because God will know what will happen, doesn't mean he forces a people to do anything against there will....
@MrRunge89 "I believe God could actually explain how certain beings have a will, by being a source make us and give us a soul, granting us the ability of choice."
I think you should be more explict here in step two. (Do a google image search on that phrase, if you don't get the reference).
"Just because God will know what will happen, doesn't mean he forces "
Did you watch my video? He doesn't HAVE to force people, he just has to KNOW what they' do. That eliminates the power to do otherwise.
There is only 2 answers for this. Ether God (The all knowing) exsit or don’t exist. So can his existence be proven. watch my video and do a mathematical and logical calculation on it.
Its called ‘’Proof of the existence of God the all knowing (Islam & Science)’’
I defy anyone to tell me even what free will could possibly BE! I'm aware that at least some things are "caused." I'll say that at least some things can occur randomly. But I've never heard of any other "event generators" other than cause and random. What's "free will?"
Actually...I fail to understand why christians bother to look both ways before crossing the street. Obviously, I've happened to notice only those christian street-crossers with little actual faith.
Another problem with foreknowledge is that it would contradict God's eternal nature; what I mean is that all events (future, present, and past) are not only present to God's knowledge but also causes God to know them (otherwise, how can you explain that God knows them?), but if God is uncaused then events cannot cause God to know them. If events cannot cause God to know them then it follows that even future cannot do this. Therefore God is not foreknowledgeable.
@philonous09 God’s eternal nature actually explains how God has foreknowledge. Because God is before and outside of time his perspective of time is not restricted by time, thus he is able to view the whole continuum of time, even before there was time. God's foreknowing does not make Him any less self-contained (ucaused) Moreover, God would have his purpose for creating (a plan) in his eternal mind, thus would know all that shall come to pass, even before there was anything, but God.
@MrRunge89 The definition of foreknowledge is "Knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence" but if all time is present to God then the definition of foreknowledge does not seem consistent with God's eternity. This definition only makes sense if I was observing the future from the present, but since God is independent of all time the future is not "not-occurred-yet" since it seems as if God did observe it to occur.
I agree with the determinist view of the world but as free will goes I think it is a problem of semantics. One might say they choose to do X but I think we might just observe ourselves doing X and the knowledge a possible Y creates the illusion that Y could be the outcome instead of X. Thus making choice just an observation with knowledge of other possibilities with no effect on the outcome.
Give me a pride obliterating philosophical slap if I need it,but I can't see a flaw in this possibility
But both atheism and theism struggle with this. If there is no god two possible options are available, the universe is deterministic (in a Newtonian sort of framework), or it is not (in a QM sort of framework). If first, same argument. If second, then you just have a 'molecules in motion' sort of illusion of free-choice anyway because randomness doesn't add depth to choice. Also, omniscience doesn't mean it is possible to know the unknowable.
@SisyphusRedeemed But should God exist, then even setting aside foreknowledge, free will cannot exist because the only thing that can happen is that which God allows to happen, and as Locke argues, that is not exactly a free choice. I cannot fathom a format where a tri-omni deity and free will can coexist. It just doesn't logically make sense.
Of course, quantum mechanics doesn't make sense, but if we were to dispense with all logic as a result, we would be left with no basis to argue anything.
A Calvinist ought to be a theistic compatalist, that is, man has a will by which he is able to make choices that are in accordance with his nature, thus these choices that are not coerced, but flow from who they are; thus making man responsible for their actions.
What is free will? The ability to make choices without coercion, willfully? If so, then this kind of freewill would be in line with Calvin's teaching as well as the Bible.
But if something is unknowable it is not required to know it in order to be omniscient. i.e God wouldn't know the shape of a four-sided triangle, or the last decimal in the square root of seven. In the same way, God wouldn't have to know an undecided future.
Seems if you take liberty with the definition of knowable then that would be correct. The square root of seven is not knowledge so is not knowable. But the ability to calculate all cause ability from a single cause would make you omniscient.
You cant just presuppose that the future is "undecided" when I was just saying in a deterministic universe the future is not "undecided". Because otherwise you have to except the concept of randomness, which has not been proven.
It wasn't what reality is that we were talking about (but randomness has actually been proven--I didn't believe it either until I took a QM course). We were talking about the definition of omniscience, and whether that includes knowing the unknowable. It seems obvious that it doesn't include such things, so omniscience is possible whether or not the future is knowable or unknowable. Therefore, omniscience is possible in an non-deterministic universe. QED.
Sorry randomness(or event without cause) has not been proven, everything I had ever read about QM makes the distinction between "without cause" and "without observable cause". As you are probably aware the observation can be a cause.
I was taking randomness as non-deterministic--not the same as uncaused. I don't want to discuss the issue because I only partially understand it myself, but look up Bell's theorem, Bell's version of the EPR/Bohm experiment, Bell's inequality, or perhaps EPR paradox. Basically it shows that QM is complete and that no local hidden variable is possible to make QM deterministic. But the fact that you focus on asides rather than the meat of my statements says enough. You won't hear from me again.
I would argue that the world can be deterministic while at the same time allowing for free will. There is a video with Daniel Dennett in my faves somewhere to back this up.
Lets say we let time pass untill the end of time comes. Looking back every single choice WOULD be set in stone. But at the time each action was taken it was a free choice or at least it felt as such to us. And at the same time we would know the outcome if we saw it from the future.
@itsjustameme At the time the decisions were made, they were free, but not determined; after the fact, they are determined and no longer free. I'm not free to decide to go to a different undergraduate university; that ship has sailed. But when I made the decision (assuming we have free will in the first place) then that decision was, at the time, made freely.
Has anyone ever advanced the notion that, in essence God knows everything in the sense that the world of every possible choice exists in God's mind -- and our "world" is simply one of those virtually limitless worlds?
Thus, when I have a choice between chocolate and vanilla -- in fact I choose both -- and in the process, two whole universes form (in God's mind) each following near parallel paths through to the end of existence.
(cont'd) (2) Of course, this would mean that there is no difference between a "thought" in God's mind and the thing itself. His "thought" of me -- is me. And inherent in God's mind is every conceivable version of me and of the consequences of every possible choice I and everyone else might ever have made, embodied in particular unique universes -- and, of course, every version of every possible universe, etc.
Of course, this is just mental fiddling -- I'm an atheist.
Strictly speaking, there's at least one another possible conclusion. Theists can still claim that the premises are true, but we just don't *know* enough to refute the argument. Maybe there are additional premises that only God knows, but we, in our worldly limitations, don't. I call this the path of magic.
@ChristJesusReigns If rocks and humans are both made of matter then they are comparable in at least one sense: namely, they are both made of matter. You have made the blanket claim that they are not comparable at all. This clearly shows your claim to be false.
hehe. Just let the world know when you find a rock that can make choices and decisions, and can love others. lol. This is too much. You're talking about free will here. Stop trying to change the subject. (as all atheists do). Again, any sane, rational person can see that humans make choices, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Move alone with your attempts to draw attention to yourself. As I said just when I thought I've seen it all. Wow. :)
@ChristJesusReigns I have never said that rocks can made choices. You have given no argument that humans do, either; you are simply assuming they do, which is called begging the question. But that is besides the point, as you are the one who has changed the subject: l never claimed we have no free will. I have argued that free will is incompatible with divine foreknowledge. Perhaps you care to address that argument.
LOL. U made a choice to make this video. The argument is won by your own actions. I don't live by assumptions. That's your worldview. A worldview of nothing but philosophical assumptions, without a lick of Absolute Truth.
Again, just because God knows doesn't mean you don't have a choice. He gave U a choice to reject or accept Him, and U rejected Him, so He granted your request. Would U like to change your choice? Of course U wouldn't. So be happy. He gave U what U wanted.
Again, you're begging the question. You can't simply assert this, anymore than I can simply assert that rocks make choices. Either claim needs an argument.
"just because God knows doesn't mean you don't have a choice."
You're simply asserting that. Try actually addressing the argument I've made in my video. Until you do, I will assume you can't.
Ok, if you don't want to believe you made a choice to make this video, so be it. The rest of us will continue to live in reality, where people make good choices, and bad choices, based on their inner convictions. I already addressed your silly video argument. You just don't like the answers I'm giving you, that's all. No answer will ever be good enough for "YOU". This is the whole reason why you've rejected Christ to begin with. Because everything in life is about YOU
@ChristJesusReigns "if you don't want to believe you made a choice to make this video"
I never said that. All I've said is that you need an argument. You can't simply beg the question.
"I already addressed your silly video argument. "
No, you haven't. You haven't said which of my premises is false, nor have you challenged the logical structure of the argument. Everything you've said could have been said without even watching the video. It's okay to admit that you can't refute it.
@ChristJesusReigns "No answer will ever be good enough for "YOU". This is the whole reason why you've rejected Christ to begin with. Because everything in life is about YOU"
You seem to think you know an awful lot about me. Rather presumptuous of you. And I'm not the one who thinks the entire universe was made for my benefit; that would be you. Between the two of us, you're the one who thinks it's all about you.
Amazing, isn't it Sisyphus, how "nuh uh...free will, free will, FREE WILL" somehow seems to make some sort of sense to believers even when you show them how it simply cannot exist in the face of omniscience. All you got is "nuh uh, because of free will...". Anyway, sorry, I have a feeling that CJR might have been turned on to your channell since it is currently number one on mine and he thinks he is making arugments there.
@MrWonkoSane Thanks for chiming in, sometimes it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall when I ask him to actually address the argument I've made, rather than the one he things I've made. I'd love to blame you for drawing me to CJR's attention, but honestly, I could just ignore people like him if I really, really wanted to. Or then again, maybe that's just the illusion of free will, yet again ;)
God knows what choices you will make, but you don't. It has nothing to do with you not having free will. God is bigger, and smarter than you, that's all. You'll never accept that, so He has granted your request to live a life without Him. Its what you wanted, isn't it?
So just run with it and keep using your free will to reject the Truth.
@ChristJesusReigns And since you believe in free will, and you haven't contested the argument I've made in the video, can I assume that you don't believe God is all-knowing?
Lol. This coming from a person who is comparing rocks to humans :) There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. God is all-knowing, He knows you're against Him, and He has obliged your wishes. U don't want anything to do with Him, so He has granted your request. So u can continue to use your free will to go against Him, out of your humanly pride.
Continue to compare humans to rocks.lol. Just when I thought I'd heard it all. I can't wait to share this with my brothers. Thx :)
@ChristJesusReigns "This coming from a person who is comparing rocks to humans "
Thank you for a classic example of an ad hominem attack.
"God is all-knowing"
Then perhaps you could say what is wrong with the argument in my video? In case you didn't notice, I never said in the video that people don't have free will. If you are committed to the claim that they do, then I have argued that you are also committed to the claim that God does not know everything. Please address that argument.
You compared rocks to humans. Its not an attack, its simply what you stated. So stop trying to play the victim. You aren't. Playing the "victim" role is a common tactic used by atheists. It doesn't work. God knows the decisions humans will make, including yours, which is why He has granted your request to have nothing to do with Him. You don't want anything to do with Him, so just enjoy the only life you think you have. God has given you your desires.
@ChristJesusReigns You've ignored my argument, and instead have simply ridiculed a straw man. Could you please actually address the argument I've made, rather than just bloviating?
@ChristJesusReigns You're the one claiming to know the mind of an all-powerful being, yet I'm the one whose going through life thinking I've got it all figured out? That's rich.
lol I don't know everything about God, but I do know what He's told us in His Word. Yes, you think you've got it all figured out, which is why you spent the time making this video :)
If a man's in jail, he can choose to leave as many times as he likes, but if he walks up to the front gates the guards will stop him. But we don't say a prisoner loses his free will, we say a prisoner loses his freedom, and I think that's an important distinction to make.
Feel free to completely tear down any of this, as I said, I'm no philosopher, but I wanted to maybe get your opinions on these points, see the rebuttals. Thank you, and sorry for so many comments!
One more example: If I lock my keys in my car and don't realise, and then choose to stay home the next day, have I removed my own free will because I wouldn't be able to drive anywhere?
Secondly, and following on from this (although this may just be a matter of semantics), are 'free will' and 'freedom' the same? The man in the locked room may have had the 'will' to leave the room, but not the 'ability'. Surely the ability to choose actions and the ability to follow those through are different?
And if this is the case, who removed it? In Locke's analogy, someone brought the man to the room and locked the door for him specifically - but if you broaden the ideas set forth in the analogy, it seems that anything you do may take away someone's free will. If you get into a car accident, and caused a big traffic jam, would you have taken away someone's free will had they decided to stay at home and not visit friends along that road that day? (Again, another comment! Sorry!)
I have two questions about this: Firstly, say you have planned to go to a concert with a friend - that friend pulls out, and you have the choice whether to go on your own or not. You decide not to, and stay at home. Unknown to you, something drastic had happened at the venue, say, a bomb scare, which meant the concert didn't happen - you couldn't have gone, even if you'd decided to. Do we say then that your free will was removed because you could only 'not go'? (again see, next comment - sorry!)
@finalfan89 In all these scenarios, it's not that 'your free will was removed', but rather 'you did not freely do the action in question.' (e.g.-you didn't freely not see the concert, since no matter what you do you would not have seen the concert.)
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks for the reply! Firstly, how are you defining 'not freely doing the action in question'? I assume that this would still indicate a lack of free will, even though it wasn't 'removed' per se?
Secondly, either way, it would seem that any action we may do could be 'not freely' done, through no fault of our own. You making this video could be not 'freely' done if another action in the situation was unknowingly denied you, surely?
Now I'm no philosopher, so feel free to logically undermine anything I put here, this is just a question out of curiosity.
In Locke's analogy, the man in the room is not free to leave, so his choice to stay in the room is not 'free choice', but his good fortune that what he wants to do. The way I see it, Locke implies The person that locked the door took away his 'free will'.
...eventually be set in stone. We cannot change it once it is made, so it is as if it was predetermined, even though it was not. In other words, your argument is mental masturbation. It means nothing, proves nothing, refutes nothing, does nothing. The existence of god is not contingent on his property of omniscience.
What you are doing here is really not pertinent to the god question. The future, by all means, can be said to be predetermined even if there is no god. This still does not mean there is no free will, it simply means that we will do what we will do in the future. See the point? Think of it this way. What we choose to do in the future will be what we chose in the past. We make the choice, but once it is made, it is set in stone, cannot be unmade. Thus, the future is set because our choice will...
Knowing how something will turn out does not take away free will. I am an atheist, but I disagree with what you are saying nonetheless. For instance, if I know the future, that does not mean you are powerless to do otherwise, it just means that I know what you will do. Now, if I tell you what you will do in the future, then you can choose or not to change it. However, I will still know what you are going to do. So, you are choosing, I just know the choice.
This has been flagged as spam show
Free will has also been demonstrated to be false empirically through experiments in neuroscience which can predict a person's decision before they are conscious of making the decision, so good job god, you made thinking, feeling automata and treated them as if they were otherwise. But our experience is still important to us, and it's going to suck burning in hell for the inability of my biological machinery to believe in Jesus. I'm like the droids in Star Wars that get turned into scrap metal.
StabbyRaccoon 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
StabbyRaccoon 3 weeks ago
Free will and prophecy is a huge problem, if things are fated to happen then things would be out of mankind's control or act as puppets to act out this prophecy. If mankind has free will then these prophecies can be averted through actions of mankind and independently screw up god's plan. So it really depends on how much power fate has and how much freedom man has.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
If God has made prophetic claims in a holy book, then not only does God have a diary of future events, but so do many religious people. If the future must map to the prophecies in the bible or the koran, then we don't have the power to do otherwise. I demonstrated this to a Christian, who had to admit that we absolutely can't have a nuclear war that kills off human civilization because that contradicts the prophecies in the bible.
Pickle900 2 months ago
I was gonna try to watch this video, but after a minute of it I changed my mind. Maybe I will watch it tommmorow. Or maybe something more inteligent will be in my recommended video list.
bigbaddeerhunter 2 months ago
Hi kiki!
choupick 2 months ago
I'm still not sure I would agree with Locke. If I chose to stay in that kickass party, I would call myself free because I chose it.
Furthermore, God does not necessarily have to have foreknowledge to be God. Does the bible ever say God knows everything we are going to do before we do it?
whiteunibrow 3 months ago
@whiteunibrow You are missing the point. Even if the man wanted to leave, he could not. He had no choice but to stay. The fact there was a party was pure coincidence. It could have been a naked woman on a bed, or a ball game, or nothing at all, it did not matter, as the only 'choice' was to remain in the locked room.
Your point 2 was addressed in the video, and yes: God is claimed to be omniscient, because if he weren't, he would not be god.
Again, that's the whole point.
PaulinaPaulino 2 months ago
Whats wrong with the conception that God knows all the information that exists, but not the entire future (information that does not exist, assuming we deny determinism)? This is a more biblical viewpoint than the alternative of God knowing the future in its entirety (a point which theologian Greg Boyd explains on his website if you're interested). And it's absurd to be so narrow in your definition of "God" that you make total foreknowledge a necessary condition.
4iner2 4 months ago
Comment removed
4iner2 4 months ago
i remember discussing this in my intro to philosophy class the idea of free will and predestination…i am totally cool with no free will and that we are all predestined to eat oatmeal tmr :p it's like the guy who's locked in the room…he doesn't KNOW he's locked in, so he's cool…we may not HAVE free will b/c of predestination but to us it FEELS like do…it's not like we're playing an endless game of simon says…and woot woot for st. thomas aquinas! i know him :p
MsOhayoOhio 5 months ago
Comment removed
MsOhayoOhio 5 months ago
Did Locke use the term 'kickass party' :L
ZenoKameno 5 months ago 11
Premise 3 is where we have a problem. That's not the doctrine of free will. I just made a video on this a couple days ago.
mrstevenjake22 6 months ago
This only rules out an omniscient God, there's still room for a God that created the universe and that's it. I don't believe this, but it could be true.
Your video was good, but I didn't like "so which is the more attractive option?" at the end, your argument is valid, but the attractiveness of a conclusion has no baring on its validity.
stripyWitch 6 months ago
@stripyWitch Ruling out an omniscient God effectively destroys all theistic doctorine. You cannot use the ontological argument, and a God who is limited in this way could not a personal God.
Sure, their could still be a sort of "deistic thing" that created the universe, but most God believers are theists and this entire conversation is really only meaningful if they have no justification to force their beliefs/morals/dogmas onto the rest of society. mission accomplished?
playerwithfaith 5 months ago
5:20
The problem here is that he lacks knowledge, not that he lacks free will.
If he knew that he's locked in a room, maybe he wouldn't want to stay in the room then.
xknowledgeisfreex 7 months ago
The argument in the video is invalid because Premiss 2, as stated, exploits an ambiguity. This becomes clear if we rephrase the argument in terms of what we "will" and "can" do. If God infallibly foreknows that you will do X, then: either (2a) "It cannot be the case that you will do other than X", or (2b) "It will be the case that you cannot do other than X". The video's Premiss 2 needs to be taken in sense 2a to follow from Premiss 1, but in sense 2b to link to Premiss 3.
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu "(2b) "It will be the case that you cannot do other than X"."
Your time frame is mistaken. It's not that it WILL be the case (as in, at some point in the future) that you lack the power to do otherwise; it IS the case, right now, and at all times, that you lack the power to do otherwise. You can't do otherwise than X now, latter, or ever. That's the equivalent of (2a), and it bridges just fine to (3).
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "Your time frame is mistaken."
But it's not a temporal issue: if 2a is the correct sense in which to read Premiss 2, at no time is it true that you cannot do other than X. Before the event, you "can" do otherwise (foreknowledge not being causal); during and after the event, you "could have" (counterfactually) done otherwise. 2a, unlike 2b, places no limits on what is "in your power" to do. And 2b doesn't follow from Premiss 1.
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu "it's not a temporal issue"
Yes it is, that's the whole point: God knows BEFOREHAND what we will do. It's simply false that "Before the event, you "can" do otherwise (foreknowledge not being causal)". It's not the knowledge that causes it, but it being known (beforehand) means it's unchangeable (at any time). For the same reason, false that "during and after the event, you "could have"... done otherwise." No, you couldn't have: that would mean you could have proven God wrong.
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "it's unchangeable (at any time)"
Unchangeability cannot be the issue, or any past event would invalidate freewill (as no-one argues). Try a possible-worlds approach (to sidestep temporal issues). Is there a possible world in which you do other than X? 2a says there is (and thus preserves Could Have Done Otherwise), but rules out this world as a candidate. 2b flatly rules out any non-X-doing world. Only 2b rules out CHDO, so it's the sense your argument needs.
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu "or any past event would invalidate freewill"
Umm... That's exactly right. We have no freewill over past events. No one argues we do. The only respect in which we can have free will is with regards to the future. And the only way that's possible is if the future ISN'T set in stone, as the past is. But if God (or anyone) knows the future then it IS set in stone, and hence we have no free will.
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "We have no freewill over past events. No one argues we do."
Actually, I do. I don't want to introduce a complication into what is already a fascinating and enjoyable discussion, so I'll just mention in passing that it is my view that the Will can be free with regard to events that it cannot affect. For instance, I will that the Holocaust had never happened; I do so freely because I could have a wicked alterna-self who willed otherwise.
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu "I will that the Holocaust had never happened"
This is interesting (as is the whole conversation), but I think you're equivocating on 'will' here. Your will is in the present, not the past, even though what you're willing is in the past. You can change what you will here and now (assuming you have free will, that is) but you can't change what actually happened. That's the sense that matters for our broader conversation.
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "you can't change what actually happened. That's the sense that matters"
Since I've already taken the stance that unchangeability is not the issue, I can't be expected to accept a restrictiion on the sense of the Will that implicitly recognizes it as the core feature. There's no equivocation: we will states of affairs in exactly the same way, whether they are actualizable or not. Your restriction collapses the meaningful difference between Freedom of Will and Freedom of Action.
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu "Is there a possible world in which you do other than X?"
There is no possible world in which (a) God knows I do X and (b) I do other than X. For any possible world were I do Y, rather than X, in that world God knows I will do Y and I cannot do otherwise than Y. So long as God's knowledge tracks what I will do in any given world, I can never do otherwise than I in fact do in that world.
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "I can never do otherwise than I in fact do in that world"
You're using "can" in a context that requires "will". Confining your attention to one world precludes counterfactuals, which you need in order to examine what you "can" or "could have" done. In this world, you will not do other than X: any alternatives are going to be counterfactual (and thus located in alterna-worlds).
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu "Confining your attention to one world precludes counterfactuals,"
Exactly! That's my whole point. If God knows what I will do, then there are no (meaningful) counterfactuals, because his knowledge is flawless. Saying I could have done otherwise makes about as much sense as saying 'I could have drawn that circle in the shape of a square.' From God's point of view there IS only one world, and what we call 'possible worlds' as just different aspects of it.
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed 'I could have drawn that circle in the shape of a square.'
Surely a bad example: there is no possible world in which you do such a thing (so it's not a counterfactual); whereas a world in which you choose the cereal rather than the oatmeal (as you will not in this world) is unproblematic.
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu "there is no possible world in which you do such a thing (so it's not a counterfactual); whereas a world in which you choose the cereal rather than the oatmeal (as you will not in this world) is unproblematic."
I'm not sure it is. If we assume there is one God for all possible worlds, and he knows all in all worlds, and which one will be the actual world, then in what sense is any other world 'possible?' The only way it's possible is if it's possible God is wrong.
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "If we assume there is one God for all possible worlds, and he knows all in all worlds, and which one will be the actual world, then in what sense is any other world 'possible?'"
We've agreed that foreknowledge isn't causal, so God isn't (as far as this argument is concerned) causing this world to be the actual one. So what is? We actualize the world by our free choices. The (merely) possible worlds are, so to speak, depositories of our unchosen choices.
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu It's meaningless to say because there are other worlds where I do otherwise I am free, since in those worlds my action is just as predetermined as it is in this one.
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "It's meaningless to say because there are other worlds where I do otherwise I am free"
To say I could have, counterfactually, done something simply is to say that there is a possible world in which I do it. If I do X in this world, I could have done otherwise if there is a possible world in which I do other than X. My alterna-self could have done X, because there is a possible world (this one) in which I do X. We're "both" free. Freewill stands or falls with CHDO.
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu Does 'God knows everything' entails that He knows (a) what I will do in every possible world and (b) what I will do in the actual world. If it entails both, then I'm not free, since I am stuck in the actual world. No matter what I do, it's not possible for me to not be in the actual world--that's fixed, so I couldn't, counterfactually choose otherwise. Because of (b) I lack CHDO, as I can't choose any other world. If it doesn't entail (a) and (b), then God isn't truly omnipotent.
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "it's not possible for me to not be in the actual world--that's fixed, so I couldn't, counterfactually choose otherwise."
The whole point of a counterfactual is that it's not actual. The test is Could Have Done Otherwise, not Can Do Otherwise. I could have done (or would have it "in my power" to do) other-than-X if-and-only-if there is a possible world where I do other-than-X.
hriliu 7 months ago
@hriliu "I could have done (or would have it "in my power" to do) other-than-X if-and-only-if there is a possible world where I do other-than-X."
Then it seems to follow that there is no possible world in which I do other than X. That follows from God knowing what I will do, and hence it not being in my power to do otherwise.
It looks like we've reached the 'one philosopher's modus tollens is another philosophers modus ponens' point.
SisyphusRedeemed 7 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "That follows from God knowing what I will do, and hence it not being in my power to do otherwise."
It seems to me that you're setting an impossibly high standard for what is "in your power": as if an alternative only counted if there was a way to actually get to it. Yet we all understand what someone means if he says "I could have had toast for breakfast yesterday, but I didn't". An un-actualizable alternative is still genuine.
hriliu 7 months ago
Well done ole chap, i totally agree with this video, the bible it self states predestination and god knowing eternity . its like god is the athur of a book and we are in it!
twinturbo955 7 months ago
SisyphusRedeemed , has made his point clear, and it is right.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
Kitty!
zellfalcon31 7 months ago
That was really interesting, dude! I'm gonna send you my next video on this topic, where I explore the implications of suicide on the question of free will and divine foreknowledge. But your vid has helped me understand the other side of the argument.... thx!
Cheers, eh!
metalskinstudios 8 months ago
Philisophical boulder-torcher!!! Greek folk-lore was cool :D
buktomsin 8 months ago
Shelly kagan has GREAT compatibilist defensive arguments I'm sure you've already seen him dismantle William 'retard' Craig? You should check out his stuff, I'd LOVE for you to elaborate on that area, and obviously voice your opinion if you have the spare time :D I'm in a gray area with all that jazz but maybe you could sway my,(and I'm sure many others) thoughts?
buktomsin 8 months ago
If i asked you to pick any (free will) of two hidden cards (i know they are both Ace of Spade), I would know you would pick the card Ace of Spade.
God's actions should not be measured with logic/science (God is unlogical to begin with).
"Religion should not matter"; I totally agree, wether Jesus walked on water or not is unrelevant.
otur1 8 months ago
Comment removed
eulercircles 9 months ago
"P2: If God knows everything we do, then it is never in our power to do otherwise"
Let's pretend that I have (am?) a Siamese twin. Wouldn't P2 mean that I have no freewill because my twin, attached to me, knows everything I do? So in reality I didn't have the power not to make this comment just by the fact that I am constantly being watched. That doesn't sound right to me.
Perhaps I am overlooking something extremely obvious? (certainly a possibility!)
RPFS2008 9 months ago
@RPFS2008 Siamese twins don't know everything their twin will do. It's not like they share a mind. And even if they did, we don't even know everything that we will do, so having access to another's mind won't allow you to predict everything they will do.
SisyphusRedeemed 9 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Ok, perhaps siamese twins was a bad example, but Isn't there a difference between knowing everything we do (including thoughts aswell as actions) and knowing everything we *will* do (including thoughts aswell as actions)?
I imagine that a god that knows everything we do would basically be a mind-reader who is constantly watching us. He wouldn't know what we will do but he knows everything we do and thus freewill is still a possibility?
RPFS2008 9 months ago
Free will is the sin nature. Who actually wants to die when people die? Think about this-God decided to create a planet and made Adam and Eve. Eventually, God determines his work was not just good but very good. When Adam and Eve sinned having their eyes opened-they saw themselves in sin. Why? They were naked and decided they were in sin and needed to rectify this. What God said is very good and Adam disagreed. God outside of time-before the foundation of the world. God created time
daveme7 10 months ago
@daveme7 Yeah... I'm sorry, but you do realize that's all bullshit, right?
SisyphusRedeemed 10 months ago 10
@SisyphusRedeemed dude, what if god chooses not to have foreknowledge what were gonna do? knows all our options, but chooses to be ignorant what wewill choose?
nickallah 3 months ago
@nickallah That's possible, but this type God could not be considered omniscient.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 i agree but, he is able to know what we will choose.maybe an omniscient god would be able to know everything but only chooses to know certain things. depends what we mean by omniscience. that he is able to know all knowledge or that he holds all knowledge, including what were gonna choose.
nickallah 3 months ago
@nickallah An omniscient being is , by definition, one that knows does everything. Even if it could but chose not to, it is not omniscient.
ryan84160 3 months ago
Respond to this video... I meant to say one that does know everything.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@nickallah That also raises an interesting question. If God does not know everything, can it even be considered a God at all? Or is it just a very powerful being?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed tell me do you believe in free will?
ThoseGamerguyz 2 months ago
@ThoseGamerguyz Check out my video "How To Dissolve the Problem of Free Will and Determinism" for the answer to that.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@daveme7 Freewill is the sin nature? Who gave humans freewill?
HybridD91 9 months ago
@HybridD91 @HybridD91 They gave it to themseoves when they ate the forbidden fruit. This allowed Adam and Eve to freely on their own decide what is good or evil according to their new perception apartfrom God. For me, the question becomes-when Godcreated themand nakedthey were-God said it was very good(not dwellingon nudity but is the state God created them) and Adam disagreed with God on them being naked as a good thing-they clothed themselves
daveme7 9 months ago
These kinds of judgments are far more interesting to compatibilists than declaring an agent "100% Free" or "100% Not free" at any given point in time. There will almost always be degrees of freedom and points of view. When we say that X was free/responsible for a harmful action. We aren't saying anything more than that, we regard it as self evident that X was aware of several possible benign actions and somehow still chose a harmful one, and that we attribute this choice to the agent's nature.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
and they could argue from a 3rd person standpoint that it was reasonable to assume that he had to stay because of environmental restrictions. This latter view would lead to a mistaken belief that the individual would have acted differently if more options had been available, but it might be a rational one(and perhaps the most useful one) given incomplete knowledge of the decision making process.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
Anyway, the main problem with the example is that it's not really worth more than a shrug, because it's a problem of little or no practical importance when seen in isolation. Had the action of staying at the party involved some hostile action OTOH. Compatibilists could argue both that it was a voluntary choice, so objectively he was free and we should expect the choice to be repeated in similar circumstances in the future...
Gnomefro 10 months ago
In terms of assigning responsibility, both imagined and real constraints can be relevant - depending on the situation. And depending on who you are. A first person perspective may come to different conclusions about moral responsibility than a third person perspective because they have different access to the reasoning process that led to a given action and consequently have different opinions about whether the behavior may be repeated etc. Obviously 3rd person also means higher uncertainty.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
Not that this impacts your argument in any way, as compatibilist free will is irrelevant to this argument, but...
I don't think the objection addresses the compatibilist idea of freedom at all. Compatibilism is mostly about understanding how and why we assign responsibility and what's actually meant when we use the term "free" in casual conversation about responsibility.(As opposed to logically impossible definitions of freedom involving freedom from your own nature)
Gnomefro 10 months ago
"If the future is known, it's set in stone."
Just because I can find out what the makers of Gone With the Wind had done to make the film, doesn't mean they didn't freely choose those decisions. Now that it's past, it's "set in stone," but their decisions at the time were fluid. God would be eternal -- so past, present and future are tenseless: He's neither of these. Foreknowledge is a misnomer since his knowledge would be simply knowledge by definition: absolute
namesameasu 10 months ago
@namesameasu "doesn't mean they didn't freely choose those decisions."
But they can't freely choose those decisions NOW. NOW those decisions are set in stone, they can't change them, they are not free to make different decisions. And if God knew before they made those decisions, they were set in stone beforehand, and they couldn't change them at all. Hence, they were never free.
SisyphusRedeemed 10 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed To borrow from St. Augustine's notebook, and I agree with this aspect of it, our infinite time would be God's eternal moment. So that "before" and "after" would be inconsequential for God. God's knowledge wouldn't be dependent on time as ours is. It's just like the scenario I mentioned of the movie from the past. God has seen it before yet God has yet to watch it, too. Imagine knowledge without the limitations of time and space, and that would be God.
namesameasu 10 months ago
@namesameasu "God has seen it before yet God has yet to watch it, too. Imagine knowledge without the limitations of time and space, and that would be God."
All due respect to Augustine, but what he's suggesting here is nonsense. It's more like a zen-koan ('what did your face look like before your mother and father were born?') than a rational argument. The first sentence is a logical contradiction, and the second is incomprehensible. Augustine is just pulling this out of his ass.
SisyphusRedeemed 10 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed If God was dependent on logical laws, He wouldn't be God. The law of non-contradiction stipulates time -- so it wouldn't apply to God.
Nobody said it was going to make sense. :}
namesameasu 10 months ago
@namesameasu "Nobody said it was going to make sense. "
Which gives rise to an interesting epistemological question: should we believe (indeed, CAN WE believe) in something that by stipulation does not/can not make sense?
SisyphusRedeemed 10 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed BTW: I liked your DIogenes video. Good sh*t.
namesameasu 10 months ago
@namesameasu Thanks. I'm working on more videos in that series (unsung philosophers).
SisyphusRedeemed 10 months ago
If materialism is true, then there is no free will; not even a will whereby we can make choices. Materialism leaves us with strict physical/genetic determinism. With this view, we do not choice to drink Pepsi over Coke it is just an illusion.
“We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes” Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene)
MrRunge89 11 months ago
@MrRunge89 "If materialism is true, then there is no free will... Materialism leaves us with strict physical/genetic determinism."
That's fallacious. Materialism does not entail determinism. They're compatible, but they're neither identical, nor inseparable. More to the point, even if you're right, it's besides the point. This isn't an argument FOR free will; it's an argument for the incompatibility of free will and divine foreknowledge.
SisyphusRedeemed 11 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed It's not fallacious; it obviously follows. I'm aware that your main point of your is about some problem between free will and divine foreknowledge; however, I was referring to the end of your video, that is, with theism, there is no free will, but with atheism maybe. I disagree with both parts of those statements. Atheism entails naturalism, which gives no explanation how we can even have a will. Moreover is affirms determinism, like a computer program. ...
MrRunge89 11 months ago
@MrRunge89 "it obviously follows"
No, it doesn't. Non-deterministic, random, chaotic physics is perfectly compatible with materialism. Just because there is nothing other than the physical does not mean the physical obeys deterministic laws. In fact, given discoveries in quantum mechanics, it seems quite clear that the physical universe is indeterministic.
"Atheism entails naturalism"
Again, false. Atheism is compatible with non-naturalism. e.g.-Schopenhauer was an idealist and an atheist.
SisyphusRedeemed 11 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Your right I shouldn't say atheism entails naturalism; however just because some believes both atheism and idealism, it does not mean that they are both logically compatible. Some may believe both, that's no problem; however explaining how immaterial minds come into existence by no God is highly problematic. Thus, atheism probably cannot entail idealism. I actually believe atheism would logically entail total non-existence.
MrRunge89 11 months ago
@MrRunge89 "just because some believes both atheism and idealism, it does not mean that they are both logically compatible."
True, but my point was illustration, not proof.
"explaining how immaterial minds come into existence by no God is highly problematic."
It's problematic regardless. Saying 'Goddunit' is not an explanation.
"Thus, atheism probably cannot entail idealism."
It doesn't have to entail it, it just has to be compatible with it.
SisyphusRedeemed 11 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Random, chaotic physics does even more harm to the notion of free will. It would just go to show that you do not have control over your so-called choices; rather it is random and chaotic (and your so called choice is still determined by physics and chemicals, it's just not stiff). In order to have free will, there must be determination, but not the kind of that physical determinism (PR) leaves you. PR eliminates the will and ability of choice altogether.
MrRunge89 11 months ago
@MrRunge89 "Random, chaotic physics does even more harm to the notion of free will"
You're moving the goal posts. I never said indeteminism allows for free will; I said indeterminism is compatible with materialism, hence materialism cannot entail determinism. Got it?
SisyphusRedeemed 11 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I'm sorry there seems to be a lack of charity between us. Materialism, is a reductionist view, which means that everything has a physical explanation, since matter is all that there is. If that is true, physical determinism follows, which simply put is that everything we do is because of physical reactions. Not only are these two beliefs compatible, but if what we do is not because of psychical reactions, then materialism would be false. I'm not saying.....
MrRunge89 11 months ago
@MrRunge89 "physical determinism follows, which simply put is that everything we do is because of physical reactions."
This is not the correct. Determinism is the idea that every event follows necessarily from prior causes. Z is determined by prior event Y, which is determined by prior event X and so forth. Given A, there was no option other than for B to follow. Indeterminism is the idea that given A, all sorts of things other than B could follow. Materialism is compatible with either.
SisyphusRedeemed 11 months ago
I'm not saying that you said indeterminism allows for free will. I'm the one trying to be careful and say that some sort of determinism is required for true free will, but not of the kind of physical determinism. I hope my clarifications help. Also, I've been giving and defending a different view of what free will really is, then this concept of libertarian freedom (which is self-incoherent and not logically possible). I believe that your choices must be determine by your nature to be free.
MrRunge89 11 months ago
Free will must be deterministic as in your choices flow from your nature. If you do something that is contrary to you who are, then it is not according to your will, but because of some external force. Thus, free will is the ability to make choices that reflects your wants and your heart (your very essence). Tomorrow, you will make a lot of choices, like what to eat, do, say and so on; the point is, it is you who will me making the choices, thus free will, even if God knows beforehand.
MrRunge89 11 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed On the other hand, I believe God could actually explain how certain beings have a will, by being a source make us and give us a soul, granting us the ability of choice. Also, that a God with foreknowledge would not conflict with free will. The category of knowledge has nothing to do with a persons ability to make choices. Just because God will know what will happen, doesn't mean he forces a people to do anything against there will....
MrRunge89 11 months ago
@MrRunge89 "I believe God could actually explain how certain beings have a will, by being a source make us and give us a soul, granting us the ability of choice."
I think you should be more explict here in step two. (Do a google image search on that phrase, if you don't get the reference).
"Just because God will know what will happen, doesn't mean he forces "
Did you watch my video? He doesn't HAVE to force people, he just has to KNOW what they' do. That eliminates the power to do otherwise.
SisyphusRedeemed 11 months ago
1)God knows before we are born everything we will do. (Divine Foreknowledge)
2)So if God knows before we are born everything we will do, then it is never in our power to do so otherwise. (powerless)
3)If it is never in our power to do so otherwise then everything is destined. (fate)
4)Therefore there is no luck, chance or choice. (Conclusion)
This is a logical calculation.
There is only 2 answers for this. Ether God (The all knowing) exsit or don’t exist.
ALMayda79 1 year ago
There is only 2 answers for this. Ether God (The all knowing) exsit or don’t exist. So can his existence be proven. watch my video and do a mathematical and logical calculation on it.
Its called ‘’Proof of the existence of God the all knowing (Islam & Science)’’
If you dislike my video then let me know why.
ALMayda79 1 year ago
I defy anyone to tell me even what free will could possibly BE! I'm aware that at least some things are "caused." I'll say that at least some things can occur randomly. But I've never heard of any other "event generators" other than cause and random. What's "free will?"
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Actually...I fail to understand why christians bother to look both ways before crossing the street. Obviously, I've happened to notice only those christian street-crossers with little actual faith.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Another problem with foreknowledge is that it would contradict God's eternal nature; what I mean is that all events (future, present, and past) are not only present to God's knowledge but also causes God to know them (otherwise, how can you explain that God knows them?), but if God is uncaused then events cannot cause God to know them. If events cannot cause God to know them then it follows that even future cannot do this. Therefore God is not foreknowledgeable.
philonous09 1 year ago
@philonous09 God’s eternal nature actually explains how God has foreknowledge. Because God is before and outside of time his perspective of time is not restricted by time, thus he is able to view the whole continuum of time, even before there was time. God's foreknowing does not make Him any less self-contained (ucaused) Moreover, God would have his purpose for creating (a plan) in his eternal mind, thus would know all that shall come to pass, even before there was anything, but God.
MrRunge89 11 months ago
@MrRunge89 The definition of foreknowledge is "Knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence" but if all time is present to God then the definition of foreknowledge does not seem consistent with God's eternity. This definition only makes sense if I was observing the future from the present, but since God is independent of all time the future is not "not-occurred-yet" since it seems as if God did observe it to occur.
philonous09 11 months ago
Theoretical Bullshit does a video about this same thing by the way. It's called Omni VERSUS Omni!, you should check it out if you haven't already.
ja524309 1 year ago
I agree with the determinist view of the world but as free will goes I think it is a problem of semantics. One might say they choose to do X but I think we might just observe ourselves doing X and the knowledge a possible Y creates the illusion that Y could be the outcome instead of X. Thus making choice just an observation with knowledge of other possibilities with no effect on the outcome.
Give me a pride obliterating philosophical slap if I need it,but I can't see a flaw in this possibility
Hexdoll 1 year ago
But both atheism and theism struggle with this. If there is no god two possible options are available, the universe is deterministic (in a Newtonian sort of framework), or it is not (in a QM sort of framework). If first, same argument. If second, then you just have a 'molecules in motion' sort of illusion of free-choice anyway because randomness doesn't add depth to choice. Also, omniscience doesn't mean it is possible to know the unknowable.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 But atheists don't have free will as a key component of their world view. Some theists don't, either (e.g.-Calvinists) but others do.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Very good point
Keeban3 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed But should God exist, then even setting aside foreknowledge, free will cannot exist because the only thing that can happen is that which God allows to happen, and as Locke argues, that is not exactly a free choice. I cannot fathom a format where a tri-omni deity and free will can coexist. It just doesn't logically make sense.
Of course, quantum mechanics doesn't make sense, but if we were to dispense with all logic as a result, we would be left with no basis to argue anything.
balanceseeker 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
A Calvinist ought to be a theistic compatalist, that is, man has a will by which he is able to make choices that are in accordance with his nature, thus these choices that are not coerced, but flow from who they are; thus making man responsible for their actions.
What is free will? The ability to make choices without coercion, willfully? If so, then this kind of freewill would be in line with Calvin's teaching as well as the Bible.
MrRunge89 11 months ago
@MrRunge89 "What is free will? The ability to make choices without coercion, willfully?"
That's one definition, but one way of understanding Locke's point is as an argument that this definition is insufficient.
SisyphusRedeemed 11 months ago
@Keeban3
omniscience is only possible in a deterministic universe because there is nothing unknowable.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll
But if something is unknowable it is not required to know it in order to be omniscient. i.e God wouldn't know the shape of a four-sided triangle, or the last decimal in the square root of seven. In the same way, God wouldn't have to know an undecided future.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3
Seems if you take liberty with the definition of knowable then that would be correct. The square root of seven is not knowledge so is not knowable. But the ability to calculate all cause ability from a single cause would make you omniscient.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll
wrong
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3
What a thought out and meaningful retort.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll
Figured I should respond in kind
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3
You cant just presuppose that the future is "undecided" when I was just saying in a deterministic universe the future is not "undecided". Because otherwise you have to except the concept of randomness, which has not been proven.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll
It wasn't what reality is that we were talking about (but randomness has actually been proven--I didn't believe it either until I took a QM course). We were talking about the definition of omniscience, and whether that includes knowing the unknowable. It seems obvious that it doesn't include such things, so omniscience is possible whether or not the future is knowable or unknowable. Therefore, omniscience is possible in an non-deterministic universe. QED.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3
Sorry randomness(or event without cause) has not been proven, everything I had ever read about QM makes the distinction between "without cause" and "without observable cause". As you are probably aware the observation can be a cause.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
I was taking randomness as non-deterministic--not the same as uncaused. I don't want to discuss the issue because I only partially understand it myself, but look up Bell's theorem, Bell's version of the EPR/Bohm experiment, Bell's inequality, or perhaps EPR paradox. Basically it shows that QM is complete and that no local hidden variable is possible to make QM deterministic. But the fact that you focus on asides rather than the meat of my statements says enough. You won't hear from me again.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3
At least you end on a high note
Hexdoll 1 year ago
This video is the best argument against religion I've ever heard!
Erithlon 1 year ago
I would argue that the world can be deterministic while at the same time allowing for free will. There is a video with Daniel Dennett in my faves somewhere to back this up.
Lets say we let time pass untill the end of time comes. Looking back every single choice WOULD be set in stone. But at the time each action was taken it was a free choice or at least it felt as such to us. And at the same time we would know the outcome if we saw it from the future.
Is that not determinism AND free will?
itsjustameme 1 year ago
@itsjustameme At the time the decisions were made, they were free, but not determined; after the fact, they are determined and no longer free. I'm not free to decide to go to a different undergraduate university; that ship has sailed. But when I made the decision (assuming we have free will in the first place) then that decision was, at the time, made freely.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Why aren't my friends this logical and cogent... at least I get to watch him :)
CodeSculptor 1 year ago
Has anyone ever advanced the notion that, in essence God knows everything in the sense that the world of every possible choice exists in God's mind -- and our "world" is simply one of those virtually limitless worlds?
Thus, when I have a choice between chocolate and vanilla -- in fact I choose both -- and in the process, two whole universes form (in God's mind) each following near parallel paths through to the end of existence.
Thus I am free to choose and "God" knows.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (2) Of course, this would mean that there is no difference between a "thought" in God's mind and the thing itself. His "thought" of me -- is me. And inherent in God's mind is every conceivable version of me and of the consequences of every possible choice I and everyone else might ever have made, embodied in particular unique universes -- and, of course, every version of every possible universe, etc.
Of course, this is just mental fiddling -- I'm an atheist.
prodprod 1 year ago
Strictly speaking, there's at least one another possible conclusion. Theists can still claim that the premises are true, but we just don't *know* enough to refute the argument. Maybe there are additional premises that only God knows, but we, in our worldly limitations, don't. I call this the path of magic.
Arun45678 1 year ago
If there is no human free will, how did you manage to make this video?
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns If there is no free will, how did the rock manage to fall off the cliff?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
LOL! So a rock is comparable to a human being then? LOL.
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns Depending on the context, anything is comparable to anything. I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Only in your head is a rock comparable to a human being. Most sane people can see that human beings make choices, and rocks don't. Wow! LOL
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns Are rocks and humans both made of matter?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Let me know when you find a rock that has made a choice. LOL.
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns If rocks and humans are both made of matter then they are comparable in at least one sense: namely, they are both made of matter. You have made the blanket claim that they are not comparable at all. This clearly shows your claim to be false.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
hehe. Just let the world know when you find a rock that can make choices and decisions, and can love others. lol. This is too much. You're talking about free will here. Stop trying to change the subject. (as all atheists do). Again, any sane, rational person can see that humans make choices, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Move alone with your attempts to draw attention to yourself. As I said just when I thought I've seen it all. Wow. :)
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns I have never said that rocks can made choices. You have given no argument that humans do, either; you are simply assuming they do, which is called begging the question. But that is besides the point, as you are the one who has changed the subject: l never claimed we have no free will. I have argued that free will is incompatible with divine foreknowledge. Perhaps you care to address that argument.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
LOL. U made a choice to make this video. The argument is won by your own actions. I don't live by assumptions. That's your worldview. A worldview of nothing but philosophical assumptions, without a lick of Absolute Truth.
Again, just because God knows doesn't mean you don't have a choice. He gave U a choice to reject or accept Him, and U rejected Him, so He granted your request. Would U like to change your choice? Of course U wouldn't. So be happy. He gave U what U wanted.
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns "U made a choice to make this video."
Again, you're begging the question. You can't simply assert this, anymore than I can simply assert that rocks make choices. Either claim needs an argument.
"just because God knows doesn't mean you don't have a choice."
You're simply asserting that. Try actually addressing the argument I've made in my video. Until you do, I will assume you can't.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Ok, if you don't want to believe you made a choice to make this video, so be it. The rest of us will continue to live in reality, where people make good choices, and bad choices, based on their inner convictions. I already addressed your silly video argument. You just don't like the answers I'm giving you, that's all. No answer will ever be good enough for "YOU". This is the whole reason why you've rejected Christ to begin with. Because everything in life is about YOU
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns "if you don't want to believe you made a choice to make this video"
I never said that. All I've said is that you need an argument. You can't simply beg the question.
"I already addressed your silly video argument. "
No, you haven't. You haven't said which of my premises is false, nor have you challenged the logical structure of the argument. Everything you've said could have been said without even watching the video. It's okay to admit that you can't refute it.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns "No answer will ever be good enough for "YOU". This is the whole reason why you've rejected Christ to begin with. Because everything in life is about YOU"
You seem to think you know an awful lot about me. Rather presumptuous of you. And I'm not the one who thinks the entire universe was made for my benefit; that would be you. Between the two of us, you're the one who thinks it's all about you.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Amazing, isn't it Sisyphus, how "nuh uh...free will, free will, FREE WILL" somehow seems to make some sort of sense to believers even when you show them how it simply cannot exist in the face of omniscience. All you got is "nuh uh, because of free will...". Anyway, sorry, I have a feeling that CJR might have been turned on to your channell since it is currently number one on mine and he thinks he is making arugments there.
MrWonkoSane 1 year ago
@MrWonkoSane Thanks for chiming in, sometimes it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall when I ask him to actually address the argument I've made, rather than the one he things I've made. I'd love to blame you for drawing me to CJR's attention, but honestly, I could just ignore people like him if I really, really wanted to. Or then again, maybe that's just the illusion of free will, yet again ;)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
God knows what choices you will make, but you don't. It has nothing to do with you not having free will. God is bigger, and smarter than you, that's all. You'll never accept that, so He has granted your request to live a life without Him. Its what you wanted, isn't it?
So just run with it and keep using your free will to reject the Truth.
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns And since you believe in free will, and you haven't contested the argument I've made in the video, can I assume that you don't believe God is all-knowing?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Lol. This coming from a person who is comparing rocks to humans :) There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. God is all-knowing, He knows you're against Him, and He has obliged your wishes. U don't want anything to do with Him, so He has granted your request. So u can continue to use your free will to go against Him, out of your humanly pride.
Continue to compare humans to rocks.lol. Just when I thought I'd heard it all. I can't wait to share this with my brothers. Thx :)
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns "This coming from a person who is comparing rocks to humans "
Thank you for a classic example of an ad hominem attack.
"God is all-knowing"
Then perhaps you could say what is wrong with the argument in my video? In case you didn't notice, I never said in the video that people don't have free will. If you are committed to the claim that they do, then I have argued that you are also committed to the claim that God does not know everything. Please address that argument.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
You compared rocks to humans. Its not an attack, its simply what you stated. So stop trying to play the victim. You aren't. Playing the "victim" role is a common tactic used by atheists. It doesn't work. God knows the decisions humans will make, including yours, which is why He has granted your request to have nothing to do with Him. You don't want anything to do with Him, so just enjoy the only life you think you have. God has given you your desires.
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns You've ignored my argument, and instead have simply ridiculed a straw man. Could you please actually address the argument I've made, rather than just bloviating?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Straw man is what atheists use all the time. Then they accuse others of doing it. That's the irony in it :)
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns You're still not addressing my argument. Until you do, I'm going to assume it's because you can't.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
If you go through life thinking you've got it all figured out on your own, you'll never know the Truth. So enjoy.
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns You're the one claiming to know the mind of an all-powerful being, yet I'm the one whose going through life thinking I've got it all figured out? That's rich.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
lol I don't know everything about God, but I do know what He's told us in His Word. Yes, you think you've got it all figured out, which is why you spent the time making this video :)
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
If a man's in jail, he can choose to leave as many times as he likes, but if he walks up to the front gates the guards will stop him. But we don't say a prisoner loses his free will, we say a prisoner loses his freedom, and I think that's an important distinction to make.
Feel free to completely tear down any of this, as I said, I'm no philosopher, but I wanted to maybe get your opinions on these points, see the rebuttals. Thank you, and sorry for so many comments!
Finalfan89
finalfan89 1 year ago
One more example: If I lock my keys in my car and don't realise, and then choose to stay home the next day, have I removed my own free will because I wouldn't be able to drive anywhere?
Secondly, and following on from this (although this may just be a matter of semantics), are 'free will' and 'freedom' the same? The man in the locked room may have had the 'will' to leave the room, but not the 'ability'. Surely the ability to choose actions and the ability to follow those through are different?
finalfan89 1 year ago
And if this is the case, who removed it? In Locke's analogy, someone brought the man to the room and locked the door for him specifically - but if you broaden the ideas set forth in the analogy, it seems that anything you do may take away someone's free will. If you get into a car accident, and caused a big traffic jam, would you have taken away someone's free will had they decided to stay at home and not visit friends along that road that day? (Again, another comment! Sorry!)
finalfan89 1 year ago
I have two questions about this: Firstly, say you have planned to go to a concert with a friend - that friend pulls out, and you have the choice whether to go on your own or not. You decide not to, and stay at home. Unknown to you, something drastic had happened at the venue, say, a bomb scare, which meant the concert didn't happen - you couldn't have gone, even if you'd decided to. Do we say then that your free will was removed because you could only 'not go'? (again see, next comment - sorry!)
finalfan89 1 year ago
@finalfan89 In all these scenarios, it's not that 'your free will was removed', but rather 'you did not freely do the action in question.' (e.g.-you didn't freely not see the concert, since no matter what you do you would not have seen the concert.)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks for the reply! Firstly, how are you defining 'not freely doing the action in question'? I assume that this would still indicate a lack of free will, even though it wasn't 'removed' per se?
Secondly, either way, it would seem that any action we may do could be 'not freely' done, through no fault of our own. You making this video could be not 'freely' done if another action in the situation was unknowingly denied you, surely?
finalfan89 1 year ago
Now I'm no philosopher, so feel free to logically undermine anything I put here, this is just a question out of curiosity.
In Locke's analogy, the man in the room is not free to leave, so his choice to stay in the room is not 'free choice', but his good fortune that what he wants to do. The way I see it, Locke implies The person that locked the door took away his 'free will'.
(see next comment, sorry!)
finalfan89 1 year ago
...eventually be set in stone. We cannot change it once it is made, so it is as if it was predetermined, even though it was not. In other words, your argument is mental masturbation. It means nothing, proves nothing, refutes nothing, does nothing. The existence of god is not contingent on his property of omniscience.
L571J 1 year ago
What you are doing here is really not pertinent to the god question. The future, by all means, can be said to be predetermined even if there is no god. This still does not mean there is no free will, it simply means that we will do what we will do in the future. See the point? Think of it this way. What we choose to do in the future will be what we chose in the past. We make the choice, but once it is made, it is set in stone, cannot be unmade. Thus, the future is set because our choice will...
L571J 1 year ago
Knowing how something will turn out does not take away free will. I am an atheist, but I disagree with what you are saying nonetheless. For instance, if I know the future, that does not mean you are powerless to do otherwise, it just means that I know what you will do. Now, if I tell you what you will do in the future, then you can choose or not to change it. However, I will still know what you are going to do. So, you are choosing, I just know the choice.
L571J 1 year ago
Can Foreknowledge and Free Will Coexist? Certainly! See youtube.com/watch?v=LUlftj_M4VA and the included discussion from 3:05 to 6:25.
joehardysr 1 year ago