Humans are doomed to be free because we are responsible for what we do. As long as human will exists, God's Will is subject to frustration. They are irreconcilable. Subordinating your integrity/wlll/responsibility for passive obedience in order to please denies any Christian argument that we have free will. This makes God responsible for the results of the actions of those who follow Him. Human responsibility makes Christianity useless.
@sirchompsalot great quote, although I will guess most people won't know where it's from, it's Metalocalypse look it up its good fun. Anyway that depends on how you view heaven, more so if you believe in some kind of afterlife at all, but I guess christian heaven probably isn't that great, I rather go to Valhalla and while I'm at it if their so called god is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent why isn't earth a paradise? And since you reminded me back to some Dethklok now
Alright, your video is ignorant--you're not but the premise is based off of ignorance. First off, freewill and God do exist at the same time. I dont know how to say this anyother way so if you still dont understand then oh well. Okay, God will not make Himself known to everyone tangibly, yet for a couple of reasons. The 1st is obvious:We would die because He is Holy and we are not. The 2nd one is:forced love is basically rape and by Him appearing to us--He will be forcing us to acknowledge His
Yes we would all die because he is holy and we are not... right... and your evidence for this is??? Adam and Eve (fictional characters) were in the presence of God and they didn't die. How exactly, scientifically, would we die in God's presence, would seeing him be so overwhelming we would all have heart attacks? or would we all just simultaneously trip over his long grey beard and get brain damage... you obviously don't believe in the laws of science and physics and YOU ARE DELUSIONAL
@nbm953 i dont know if I agree with whoever it is your arguing with in this comment but I'd just like to say as someone who spent years as a die hard christian before reaching my current state of basically agnostic about 2 years ago, there is a very complex theology behind the idea that you would "die" in God's presence and most other religious ideas. Most religions seem very sound to people unchallenged. It would probably behoove you to be a little more sensative and less aggressive.
RabidApe: I stumbled upon your video because I first watched bitbutter's video responce to yours and noticed it. Bitbutter makes some strong arguments about the possibility that Freewill does not exist on the grounds of the theory of "contest of desires" which I all "COD" for short. In the comment section of his videos, I left a series of posts that refute COD. I think you will find it very interesting to read. God cannot be anymore proven than Freewill. But that doesn't mean neither exists.
@SHIBBYiPANDA Then check it out for yourself, I'm not going to rewrite it all here for you, it took many-a-post! There are some things about COD that contradicts itself if applied rigorously. I posted it on the Bitbutter's wall, enjoy!
Good, thought provoking question. I'm afraid the logic of it will go straight over some heads or filtered through the "denial dept." of the brain, if you will.
I don't think people would believe in God even if he appeared. Also, when people ask why isn't God more prevalent in the world, would an architect encase himself in the staircase to prove he exists? No, he shows his built creation (in this case the world) proving his existence.
Horrible analogy. Do people challenge that the architect of the Empire State building existed? Is there any controversy about that?
If God appeared he certainly would be tested and challenged to give us hard evidence that he is who he says he is. Even after all of the tests have been exhausted, he would be opening to questioning again in the future should there be good reason for it. How could we have it any other way?
In science nothing is 100% certain. Reason being, humans have limited capacity to know. God couldn't blame us since he designed us this way.
If he really wanted to to know that he is who he says he is without a reasonable doubt, the only way for that to occur is if he granted us absolute knowledge. Otherwise he would acknowledge that there's no way for us to know 100%. The only way around that is to bypass reason. In other words, have faith.
This is not to say that just because he would be open to challenges in the future that we couldn't at least provisionally grant that he is all the stuff he says he is.
The theory of gravity is not absolute, but we can be as certain as we can about it. Still, should a more effective theory arise, what we know as the theory of gravity would be tossed out of the window.
Greetings. Looking at your page I see you are interested in the philosophy of science. You state here nothing in science is 100% certain. I submit this to you as proof against that claim:
Existence exists, & I am conscious of it.
Which proves 2 irreducible truths. These cannot be refuted- they are axioms, and you must use the concept in attempting to disprove the concept, thereby proving the concept to be more concrete. I see no reason to think man cannot grasp all that exists.
Sup dude (or gal?). Those two claims, which I don't disagree with, are not scientific claims. They are philosophical.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that man can "never" absolutely know everything. But I think it would be premature (at least) to suggest that that is a real high probability given what is currently known.
I like some of Rand's stuff. I came to the conclusion that "Existence is" prior to reading her work. I was pleasantly surprised to see that agreed with me (or vice versa).
But I disagree with her assertion on why objective reality must be objective rather than subjective. To clarify, I actually do think there is an objective reality.
She claimed that consciousness, being dependent upon existence, cannot impose itself onto that which comes before it or transcends it (existence).
This doesn't rule out the possibility (as improbable as it may be) that objective reality may allow a framework for consciousness to manipulate it. So this would still mean that there is an objective existence, but it does not rule out her definition of what a subjective position is (ie the mind controlling things in reality).
It's dude. :) Nice to see you read her work. She called it the "Primacy of Existence", referring to the need for existence to exist prior to consciousness existing to perceive it. A consciousness with nothing to perceive but itself is a contradiction as it would have to exist to perceive itself and.. I'm sure you see the problem here. I find the logic infallible myself. And doesn't science have to have some concrete philosophical base to stand upon? I like thinks as concrete as possible!
When you go deep enough, there seems to always be certain assumptions that must be made. This includes science. But those initial assumptions do not qualify as science or being in the realm of science. This is why there is a "philosophy of science."
Ill address the primacy of existence for a moment. I agree that existence must exist in order for consciousness to exist (& do anything else for that matter). I do not dispute this. I dispute that this does not necessarily mean that consciousness must therefore not be able to manipulate things in reality in the way that Rand describes subjectivism.
Let me clarify. There *must* be an aspect of objective reality in which consciousness must not be able to manipulate it. This is due to the POE. But that only protects that one aspect of existence. It is possible that the framework of some aspect of objective reality does allow this to occur on some level.
I think the POE was given to argue away the idea of a god being with a consciousness that could create things from its will being possible. Keep in mind that Im an atheist and do not necessarily think this is how it is. Im only showing how its possible.
Existence must exist in order for consciousness to exist; therefore consciousness cannot impose itself onto that which transcends it. It is possible for existence to allow consciousness to create things through its will without it necessarily affecting the *nature* of existence itself (eg god creating the solar system with its thoughts). This type of manipulation would not NECESSARILY have to mean that the nature of existence has been affected by the consciousness at any time.
This does NOT show how objective reality isn't objective. It concedes it to objective. But this allows a scenario where the subjectivist world can still be reality in this objective reality.
"now you're the one with feces in your mouth".....haha see my point exactly, just think about how ridiculous that statement is. Also my beliefs are based on facts and evidence. haha I'm "tripping"...see you are the one who makes no sense, to claim that I am tripping. It is your belief that I am tripping which is based on NO evidence.
Alright. God already has appeared to mankind. That is why he became a man, Jesus walked the earth, and performed miracles, died and ressurected and lived a sinless life to prove that he was God, and that God was real. So he has come down and appeared. And no that did not take away peoples free will, because many people back them still rejected Jesus and didn't believe he was God. It's that those people didn't want to believe in God, they don't want to be held accountable for things.
What is the point of making a non logical response then? Were you trying to be funny with your comment? Sarcastic? It was really just a childish response. Your comment had more material, haha good one buddy.
Haha nice try but that doesn't enrage me. And your actual comment itself was illogical it had nothing to do with the bad words. And as far as being immature yes I still think it was immature. What is the point of the "bad words" like i said you just need to grow up and should respond the my arguement with facts and evidence. Instead of making a sarcastic remark which makes a illogical fallacy
Come on Rabid ape, you know the common answer is that no one knows what God would look like so even if He appeared to the world, no one would recognize Him. Or half would and the other half would say he is the devil and so forth. Don't know why you atheists keep bringing this up time and time again and putting in your own answers but I am not a christian or of any faith and even I understand that.
"You forgot to mention that a lot of Christians believe that God HAS very obviously revealed himself to them in person. "
So what? He didn't see fit to do it with me or with Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell or Carl Sagan. What has he got against us that he would allow decent intelligent people to go to hell, whilst revealing himself to arrogant sadistic nihilistic knuckle draggers?
My point is that it's hypocritical. On one hand they say God can't reveal himself on a grand scale because it obstructs free-will, yet he can do it to individuals?
Free will= ability to choose the options available to you not the ability to created options from thin air. For example you do not have the free will to fly but you have the free will to increase your "intelligence" by studying. Hope that makes sense.
It's not about putting other people down because of their beliefs. It's about promoting staying in touch with reality. If someone has the control of WMDs, I'm far more assured if that individual make choices based in reality rather than a falsehood that tells him to annihilate innocent lives.
Our choices affect other people's lives and if someone is deluded and thinks that they must impose those delusions onto others, then it's no longer "just someone's choice". It's now my problem.
Thank you so much for making that crucial point, kaizenrei. That's my biggest fear. In relation, the exploitation of Christianity's gullibility to the "chosen ones." Can we not see the DANGER that the futur could hold in this regard? The political implications (corrupt power) scares me the most in regard to all the religious fundamentalism.
That is part the the problem. Many followers of religion honestly cannot see how they're related. On top of that, many leaders in religion play on the fact and use it to "show" the followers how they're being persecuted, as "evidence" that they are special in some way.
2 dangers that I think can result in major problems in the coming decades:
1) The proselytizing nature of certain religions.
2) The promotion of certain religions to have as many children as possible- born into a mental slavery.
On another note, most Atheist I know want the world to be conducive for all, and recognize how religion is used to not only subjigate the world, but divide us. I think it's sad that a lot of Christians see Atheists as evil, lesser humans, misguided or lost. And leaders who depict atheist as not even worthy of citizenship lets you know as to how marginalization can even be worse than it already is.
One extremely successful meme is the idea of absolute knowledge or absolute faith. It protects itself and associated memes from competing ones, most importantly being the ones based in reason.
Memes are essentially units of cultural information that get passed between minds. The analogy is that it spreads from mind to mind like a virus.
Memes aren't really examined for if they are "good" or "bad" ideas. They are mainly examined for their ability to transfer between minds and thrive (continue to exist).
Absolute knowledge/faith or the idea that these are "good things" have within them a protection mechanism that prevents the individual from ever challenging them, ensuring the continued existence of the meme in them.
Example: "I believe with all my heart that the Bible is the inspired word of God." Therefore anyone who challenges the idea is the work of the devil. That leaves minimal to no chance of reason & logical arguments even being considered as it's automatically categorized as evil.
So having faith means not having a good reason to believe. How can we "choose" through our freewill that which we haven't been convinced is real? Do you have a choice to honestly believe that you're NOT reading this right now?
Why would god provide us no reasonable evidence for his existence and then punish us for not realizing that he's real? If you cannot provide evidence for god, then how do we really have a fair chance to pick your supposed truth over other people's falsehoods?
Well first of all, I think it'd be a valid philosophical question and people often do ponder their own existences.
Second of all. God is an all-powerful, benevolent supreme consciousness, do you really think God is so petty to get butt-hurt if one of his fallible creations had difficulty grasping whether or not he exists?
if God is not of time, space, or matter, they ARE talking to nothing. if God IS all of time, space, and matter, the question itself is completely ridiculous.
if i were God (and worked the same way as He does) and someone asked me "are you real?", i wouldn't be offended in any way because i would understand just how inconceivable my own existence actually is. i wouldn't blame the guy for not being able to cast aside all logic and embrace such a contradicting interpretation of a deity.
going off the basis that there is a God who's all powerful and all knowing it'd be imposible to have free will because before creating the universe He'd know every different universes He could create and what every thing (object/creature) would do and how they could be effected by different circumstances. and since he knows that just by creating the cirtain universe its decisions would be solidified unless this God wanted to tweak things in this universe which would still not allow free will
i think what it comes down to is the fact that we do NOT know our own futures and so we are granted the illusion of free will; most decisions are made by us. in God's view though, the future is set in stone and you will inevitably make those decisions.
of course, free will only becomes an illusion if you accept that the future has already happened or if you believe in a omniscient being.
There is definitely a difference between William Lange Craig and other apologists, WLC is an evidentialist and argues for deism and does 'incremental apologetics' First prove a god, then a loving god, then this then Jesus... its not Biblical, its philosophical.
Christians who approach apologetics Biblically are known as 'presuppositionalists' and we start at Romans Chapter 1 where Paul says the existence of God is obvious and man is without excuse in acknowledging it.
"known as 'presuppositionalists' and we start at Romans Chapter 1 where Paul says the existence of God is obvious and man is without excuse in acknowledging it."
That's cool if it's what gets you through the day, but that totally fails as an "argument".
Well that's just it. The Bible doesn't encourage Christians to argue. Giving a reason for the hope you have does not correlate to trying to prove deism through philosophy... my hope is in Christ and man is without excuse, I can 'defend the faith' without having to prove a Creator, as the Bible says man is without a defense in saying that God does not exist, and that is good enough for me. God never told Christians to prove that He exists, ironic huh?
I was just thinking about this. I don't think anyone comes to knowledge of God with their brain saying, "Ah hah! God does exist." Rather, I think everyone who has ever been called felt an emptiness in their soul that they couldn't explain. Then when they found the Lord, that emptiness went away and tremendous peace remained.
I'm contemplating whether arguing on the internet does anything at all.
Blind faith may rot the brain, but skepticism rots the heart.
"I'm contemplating whether arguing on the internet does anything at all."
It's just another form of conversation. I hope you don't mean to imply that you've never been affected by a conversation you participated in and/or overheard?
I think it's safe to assume that the number of people who READ these comments is somewhere between the number of comments and the total number of views.
God determines that newborn are sinners by default and he supposedly drowns the entire planet (including babies), and simply appearing and saying "believe in me" would be a violation of free will?
Too good for words.
What good is a free will anyway if you're still getting fried eternally for choosing not to believe in him?
...It would cost God His goodness to just wish our sin away. (In particular - justice. Since we've sinned (a cost), somebody needs to pay that cost for us to continue as usual - otherwise God is not just). And although God is almighty, this doesn't apply in the realm of evil. God can do anything but wickedness.
I can't really imagine a world without costs and benefits. It's just logical. As such, I don't think God created them. I don't think God created logic but is rather logical and was always logical. I see it as a necessity. If God was not always logical, where'd He get the logic to say, "I will create logic today"?
BTW, I don't know the mind of God. This is in the realm of speculation and these just SEEM like good explanations. It doesn't mean they're true, necessarily.
As I understand Chrisitian fundamentalist theology, God created everything.
Therefore, he created Satan, therefore he created evil, therefore he allowed evil into the world (via allowing Satan into the magic garden,) therefore he is responsible for sin, which he inexplicably blames on all humans, even those not yet born, for all time and demands repentance. it sounds to me very much like a cruel and malevolent god who enjoys human suffering and enjoys torture for its own sake.
If God didn't Hell and Satan to exist, why do they? Is God not in control? Check yourself my friend. God IS in control. Without God's righteous purpose evil would have no purpose at all.
I think God wanted us to love Him (I mean real love, not just forced love). He created us with that purpose. I think He knew it was going to happen, but He didn't create us so we could sin. He created us to love, and we disobeyed. The natural consequence is hell.
Now, if you're getting into why God created us in the first place, this is VERY mind boggling. Can you even imagine what it would be like to never have existed instead of existing now?
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Romans 9:10-13
This makes it clear that not only does God have total control before we even live, it also proves that He chose to hate Esau even before he could choose against God. If God only looked down the corridors of time to figure out who would choose to love Him then he was just rolling the cosmic dice and with your position you leave reality open to the possibility that Christ could have died for nothing since its possible that no one would have chosen God hypothetically.
I'm pretty sure SadChristian and I disagree on that.
I believe in both, but not under such rigid terms that we define. God is love and God hated Esau, is that a contradiction?
I dont think so. God's love is beyond what we understand love to be, God is said to have natures, so he has a all loving nature and the ability to hate, how all that works out in eternity is probably out of my jurisdiction.
@HoodieNinjaMe101 God's judgment is a setup since Genesis 3 tells us that He failed to give humans the tools of intelligence & cursed them for gaining it. God is responsible for any result of His creation, especially if we allow the fallacious argument of Him knowing the future. God's plans go awry in the Bible. He is often a blunderer. The fact that God failed to forgive humanity without resorting to bloodshed is a refutation of His benevolence. In fact, it drove Him to commit suicide as Jesus.
Check yourself my friend. Hell was a late invention by apocalypticists as part of their failed attempt to reconcile the reality of innocents suffering with the idea of a loving, just creator god. And the central Christian tenet that the ultimate fate of all nonbelievers in Christ is eternal torture remains a repulsive, sociopathetic idiocy of the highest order.
If by 'late invention' you mean very clearly demonstrated by Old Testament scripture then you have a point. Stop listening, soaking up, and poorly regurgitating Christopher Hitches, be an original 'free thinker' at least.
Have never read Hitchens, as I find him something of a windbag. Hell is a concept foreign to most of the writers of the Tanakh, and as I said before, this idea that non-Christians will be tortured forever for the temerity of not believing in your Zombie messiah is repulsive and sadistic. Under you beliefs, a goat-buggering, mass-murdering cannibal who accepts Jesus before he dies goes to eternal paradise while his victims, if they are not Christian, fry forever.
A - The Bible teaches that even some of those people who believed themselves to be zealous followers of Jesus will also end up in Hell because they didn't walk the walk, so not just non-Christians per se.
B - Salvation is a gift from God, so there is nothing you or I can do to receive it apart from the grace of God. That being said, if God wanted to save the mass-murderer in question then yes He could.
The man could also be fooling himself by thinking a simple prayer does something...
So, what you are saying is your religion is doubly repulsive and you, like so many shitwit YouTube Christians, are arrogant enough to think yours is the one TRUE Chrisitianity. Fuck you very much for the enlightenment provided.
True - the Hebrews didn't seem to have much of a concept of an afterlife: the focus was on worldly success and descendants, not 'heaven' and 'hell'. This probably explains the long lifespans of the patriarchs. Mortal life on Earth was what mattered.
By the time the xians split off from the parent body, pagan ideas about an afterlife had already infected the original religion of the Jews.
The reason God doesn't reveal Himself has little to do with free will. If God revealed Himself, THERE WOULD BE NO SALVATION! We've sinned, there are consequences. The only way for us to be forgiven is some route other than works (for all have sinned). God chose the route of faith.
Why doesn't God just wink at you to make you forgiven? This would take away from God's goodness. Every benefit comes with a cost (nothing in life is free)...
wouldnt it make more sense that BECAUSE he would wink our sin away, that would make him good because hes taking it away?!?!? that does not take away from his goodness. sounds like a cruel punishment to say, hey, believe in me or u burn in hell
Well, it wouldn't actually violate free will for God to make his presence obvious, it would just violate free will for him to compell us to worship him. Merely saying "here I am, worship me if you want to" is not a violation of free will.
i don't think we can use common human knowledge, which basically is primal animal like knowledge, to explain why he doesn't appear to the world. cuz we are obvious infants to this strange world, so thinkin' we can logically understand how God operates is illogical.
God making an appearance would violate our free will? That doesn't make any sense. Under the common definition of God, he/she/it is already violating our free will since he is omniscient. If he knows everything and made everything....then he planned everything and has a set course of existence already planned out! So if anyone, RabidApe, makes that sort of argument from a direct revelation of God, they are completely and utterly wrong.
But not everyone uses the same concepts. I've heard people say that they think God knows everything past and present, but because of our "free will" he can't know the future (which I realize is in total contradiction to everything else they say, but is still what they used to try and justify their beliefs). Of course this makes it so God isn't omniscient, and probably also means he can't be omnipotent, but that kind of logical problem doesn't tend to faze the average believer.
Not only that but the idea that god gives you complete choice to worship him or not, but if you choose not to worship him youll be punished for eternety for it. It's just Ridiculous nonsense.
It's equivelent to me saying: "you can go down that road and ill kill shoot you, or you can go down this road and i won't. But hey no pressure its completely your choice i dont want to push you in either direction."
Hey Ape! Now that you have that giant world atlas on your wall behind you, it would be really cool if you got a ton of thumb tacks and did that subscriber location project you were talking about! That would make two projects completed this year! :D
The easiest way to counter the free will argument is to say that even if god appeared, we would still have the free will to choose whether or not to worship him/her/it. Therefore god's appearance would be acceptable, though theists still wriggle about when you bring this up.
the whole concept of god not showing himself because it might interfere with freewill is ridiculous.god has appeared to people in one form or another in the past if you go by the bible(burning bushs and such) so if god exists and there is any truth at all to bible stories the whole freewill issue is shot to hell already
but if god actually cared abut not "Violating free will" why would he make the bible?
the most logical (but still crazy) and funny answer i could come up white is that god needs the bible to sort out who the stupid ppl are and then makes them go bat shit insane to make evolution work faster (yes dead ppl don't carry there genes forward).
Adam & Eve ate from the tree of "knowlege of good and evil" Gen 2:17. It logically follows that before eating from that tree, they had no knowlege of good or evil, hence they could not understand that it was evil to disobey God.
That means they had no free will to choose, they had to mindlessly obey.
If the snake was Satan as is commonly believed, then free will is a gift from Satan and not God.
"If the snake was Satan as is commonly believed, then free will is a gift from Satan and not God. "
Yeah, and did you ever notice that the snake never lies? God does. He tells Adam and Eve the fruit will kill them. But it doesn't. All the snake ever does is give them accurate and useful information. never even tempts them. He lets them choose. I could go on for hours about the fallacy of the garden snake "demon" idea.
ye if the bible is truly the word of god, then god is the "good" oppressor who spread lies to make ppl do things, sometimes good, but mostly bad and then call them good and righteous anyway. and not blindly following a dictator is bad somehow? WTF.
i just don't get it, doing bad shit and calling them good to make ppl do more bad shit and think they are doing something good, is good? by that logic adolf hitler is the most good man ever.
all the millions of contradictions makes my head hurt. if it is like gonyea12 seed and the bible sees the snake thats believed to be satan gave us the ability to not be slaves under the self contradicting bible, isen't that kinda like the bible is saying first
"I'm god, I'm truth, I'm pure good, I'm knowlege" then goes
"truth is evil, knowledge is evil"
i think its safe to say the only sane message the bible gives are that self contradiction is stupid and pointless
I honestly think the "free will violation" is one of the biggest copouts ever. I mean, think about it, you're supposed to believe based on texts and peer pressure! That puts believing in God on the same level of smoking ciggarettes when there's no proof of a miracle... maybe a bad example, but... you know.
god should just come right down and bitch slap me at 7billion tines the speed of light, across the universe. he can do anything right? back in the day there were constant zombie, dragon, and witch attacks and infanticide! did god get tired, or bored with punishing us in such spectacular and dramatic ways? com one god, put up or shut up!!
lol! Considering that a million years is as a second to God, he sure has the worst case of A.D.D. I've ever heard of. He works for six days, rests on Sunday, come monday he works less than a second and gives up. In that time he has a spastic bipolar fit: changes his mind several times, threw several fits, decided to forgive and finally got bored and went away all in a split second... so... god is crazier than Charles Manson.
Actually it makes perfect sense. God appeared to people in the past, therefore if god can appear to people then without violating free will, he can do it now.
If God does exist then I'd rather he came down and said 'here I am'. We'd might as well get it over with and accept reality because there would be no escape from God.
If god came to someone and gave them a new message, how would you know that person is spreading the word of God? take it on faith Miracles? Paul wasn't known for miracles. People just trusted on faith. So... God told me to tell the world not to eat McNuggets after May 23 until the recall is over or it will kill them. What separates me from Paul when he started is I have never been paid to kill christians and I don't have a hatred of judaism. Lucky for Paul his "Jesus" served the ego of Saul too
Pointless for God to appear. The first problem is: would he be the god of the bible? Which interpretation? Second, how do I know he's not a liar, claiming to be the only god? (maybe he's an outcast of a pantheon that could really care less about earth so they ignore him and his "creation") Fourth, what is a god? He could claim to be all powerful and not be. We wouldn't recognize the difference. Finally, maybe he's just a member of a significantly more advanced species.
Daniel Dennett is actually a compatiblist. He just rejects many ideas of freewill and says the kinds worth having are able to work within an entirely physical universe. Source: Elbow Room by Daniel Dennett
People who use the freewill argument do not think it through. Is the freewill of a child predator (the real kind (kidnap, rapeing and murdering children) not the To Catch a Predator Kind (Their are not predators, they are perverts (that dose not take away the wrongness though))) more important the freewill of a 5 year old? Their god thinks so apparently.
Why do we need free will? Supposedly so that we can serve god from our own will and so earn whatever. If so, suppose someone doesn't know about god, how will 'will' help? Because if you have no knowledge of god, than free will won't make you serve him and it's not his fault!
Now if you know god from life experiences, you supposedly still have free will. Than why would god showing himself reduce free will. And if it does, than it means anyone believing in him
doesn't have any free will either! Because they all say that they 'know' god exists...
Consequently, the only person than can get rewards for serving god is a person who doesn't believe and him and consequently still has free will!!!
Therefore, assuming that even after knowing god exists you still have free will, than to be fair he should show himself. And since we would still have free will, all the people that will serve him and not give into worldly temptations should get rewards!
For God to demand blind faith, belief with no proof, prior to death, then to send unbelievers to His hell, makes Him a tyrant....For god, throughout the bible, killing off humanity, killing off tens of thousands of men, women and children beacuse He is "angry", makes him a tyrant.
For God to just appear and tell us He exists wouldn't just violate free will but also the concept of faith. You have no choice but to believe if He appears. God wants people to choose to be with Him. Jesus said back in the NT the people who believe without having seen Him are blessed.
In Christianity God will eventually show Himself to the entire world.
The Christian God clearly violates free will. Free will only means anything if your actions have no consequence. Although you get some 70-80 years of "free will" or sometimes 90 or 100 years, the "free will" God grants you can only be used within very specific boundaries, as you are told if you break any of these that you are to depart into everlasting fire.
As the theology goes, Satan knows God exists. Does he lack the free will to follow or not follow? If so, then he can't be to blame for any evil he causes - he's just an evil machine created by God. Thus God would be evil.
Doesnt god supposedly go out of its way to make itself known in the bible with plagues, disasters, and appearing to people alone? If god doesnt do demonstrations how does anyone know it exists in the first place? Some 2000+ year old books are the best demonstrations an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity is going to give? It can't even decide on a uniform appearance or philosophy.
These ideas often come from the same people. They say there's plenty of evidence for God until you show that the evidence they offer is unreliable, doesn't lead to the conclusion they think it does (hence my comment on your last video about how proving a first cause wouldn't prove the first cause was any sort of god), etc.. Only then does this 'God can't make it obvious' thing show up. So what was all the business about evidence then? Faith is the bridge from their evidence to their conclusion.
See Rabidape just put up a video, an awesome video in my opinion, a few days ago.
Therefore you can't be him because it hasn't been more then two or three months since that video. I think this could be breaking some sort of funademental law of phyisics or something :-P.
i dont really think it is a disconnect more or less an addendum to the first point a sort of a "god cant do that because of your free will. but he did give us some evidence you just freely refuse to accept it" style of arguement
Also, I would also add to your argument that god's existence and his nature of being all powerful, all knowing and everywhere would make it impossible for there to be free will. When he makes you, he'd know your future and how you would act. With god's traits there can be no free will.
When you hear the term "free will" you have to realize that to a theist the "free" means "free of any and all deterministic physical influence."
zarkoff45 2 months ago
Free Will seems to be a plot device similar to the Prime Directive on "Star Trek". Neither is mentioned unless it is integral to the storyline.
txvoltaire 7 months ago
Humans are doomed to be free because we are responsible for what we do. As long as human will exists, God's Will is subject to frustration. They are irreconcilable. Subordinating your integrity/wlll/responsibility for passive obedience in order to please denies any Christian argument that we have free will. This makes God responsible for the results of the actions of those who follow Him. Human responsibility makes Christianity useless.
mreous333 10 months ago
@mreous333 "Humans are doomed to be free ..."
Free of what?
zarkoff45 2 months ago
I'd rather DIE than go to heaven.
sirchompsalot 1 year ago
@sirchompsalot great quote, although I will guess most people won't know where it's from, it's Metalocalypse look it up its good fun. Anyway that depends on how you view heaven, more so if you believe in some kind of afterlife at all, but I guess christian heaven probably isn't that great, I rather go to Valhalla and while I'm at it if their so called god is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent why isn't earth a paradise? And since you reminded me back to some Dethklok now
NewsamuraiBR 4 months ago
Alright, your video is ignorant--you're not but the premise is based off of ignorance. First off, freewill and God do exist at the same time. I dont know how to say this anyother way so if you still dont understand then oh well. Okay, God will not make Himself known to everyone tangibly, yet for a couple of reasons. The 1st is obvious:We would die because He is Holy and we are not. The 2nd one is:forced love is basically rape and by Him appearing to us--He will be forcing us to acknowledge His
Ambassador4Christ100 1 year ago
Yes we would all die because he is holy and we are not... right... and your evidence for this is??? Adam and Eve (fictional characters) were in the presence of God and they didn't die. How exactly, scientifically, would we die in God's presence, would seeing him be so overwhelming we would all have heart attacks? or would we all just simultaneously trip over his long grey beard and get brain damage... you obviously don't believe in the laws of science and physics and YOU ARE DELUSIONAL
nbm953 1 year ago
@nbm953 i dont know if I agree with whoever it is your arguing with in this comment but I'd just like to say as someone who spent years as a die hard christian before reaching my current state of basically agnostic about 2 years ago, there is a very complex theology behind the idea that you would "die" in God's presence and most other religious ideas. Most religions seem very sound to people unchallenged. It would probably behoove you to be a little more sensative and less aggressive.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Ambassador4Christ100 u know not how ignorant you sound.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
this guys a huge stoner
scroatem 2 years ago
RabidApe: I stumbled upon your video because I first watched bitbutter's video responce to yours and noticed it. Bitbutter makes some strong arguments about the possibility that Freewill does not exist on the grounds of the theory of "contest of desires" which I all "COD" for short. In the comment section of his videos, I left a series of posts that refute COD. I think you will find it very interesting to read. God cannot be anymore proven than Freewill. But that doesn't mean neither exists.
yistackness 2 years ago
@yistackness i bet u didn't because that sounds impossible.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Then check it out for yourself, I'm not going to rewrite it all here for you, it took many-a-post! There are some things about COD that contradicts itself if applied rigorously. I posted it on the Bitbutter's wall, enjoy!
yistackness 1 year ago
Good, thought provoking question. I'm afraid the logic of it will go straight over some heads or filtered through the "denial dept." of the brain, if you will.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"...although I'm not.. really demonstrating that.. right... now... am I?"
I just realized where that character comes from; Johnny Depp as Willie Wonker, Charlie and the Chocolate factory... Nice!
VirgilFoxMusic 2 years ago
Just out of curiosity, where do you attend college?
hitballfootler 2 years ago
I don't think people would believe in God even if he appeared. Also, when people ask why isn't God more prevalent in the world, would an architect encase himself in the staircase to prove he exists? No, he shows his built creation (in this case the world) proving his existence.
JarodSaucedo 2 years ago
Horrible analogy. Do people challenge that the architect of the Empire State building existed? Is there any controversy about that?
If God appeared he certainly would be tested and challenged to give us hard evidence that he is who he says he is. Even after all of the tests have been exhausted, he would be opening to questioning again in the future should there be good reason for it. How could we have it any other way?
pr0reality 2 years ago
In science nothing is 100% certain. Reason being, humans have limited capacity to know. God couldn't blame us since he designed us this way.
If he really wanted to to know that he is who he says he is without a reasonable doubt, the only way for that to occur is if he granted us absolute knowledge. Otherwise he would acknowledge that there's no way for us to know 100%. The only way around that is to bypass reason. In other words, have faith.
pr0reality 2 years ago
This is not to say that just because he would be open to challenges in the future that we couldn't at least provisionally grant that he is all the stuff he says he is.
The theory of gravity is not absolute, but we can be as certain as we can about it. Still, should a more effective theory arise, what we know as the theory of gravity would be tossed out of the window.
pr0reality 2 years ago
Greetings. Looking at your page I see you are interested in the philosophy of science. You state here nothing in science is 100% certain. I submit this to you as proof against that claim:
Existence exists, & I am conscious of it.
Which proves 2 irreducible truths. These cannot be refuted- they are axioms, and you must use the concept in attempting to disprove the concept, thereby proving the concept to be more concrete. I see no reason to think man cannot grasp all that exists.
Objectivist2112 2 years ago
Sup dude (or gal?). Those two claims, which I don't disagree with, are not scientific claims. They are philosophical.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that man can "never" absolutely know everything. But I think it would be premature (at least) to suggest that that is a real high probability given what is currently known.
pr0reality 2 years ago
I like some of Rand's stuff. I came to the conclusion that "Existence is" prior to reading her work. I was pleasantly surprised to see that agreed with me (or vice versa).
But I disagree with her assertion on why objective reality must be objective rather than subjective. To clarify, I actually do think there is an objective reality.
She claimed that consciousness, being dependent upon existence, cannot impose itself onto that which comes before it or transcends it (existence).
pr0reality 2 years ago
This doesn't rule out the possibility (as improbable as it may be) that objective reality may allow a framework for consciousness to manipulate it. So this would still mean that there is an objective existence, but it does not rule out her definition of what a subjective position is (ie the mind controlling things in reality).
Sorry to switch topics. Feel free t ignore this.
pr0reality 2 years ago
It's dude. :) Nice to see you read her work. She called it the "Primacy of Existence", referring to the need for existence to exist prior to consciousness existing to perceive it. A consciousness with nothing to perceive but itself is a contradiction as it would have to exist to perceive itself and.. I'm sure you see the problem here. I find the logic infallible myself. And doesn't science have to have some concrete philosophical base to stand upon? I like thinks as concrete as possible!
Objectivist2112 2 years ago
I meant "things" as concrete as possible, of course!
Objectivist2112 2 years ago
Sorry, you'd think I could check your profile.
When you go deep enough, there seems to always be certain assumptions that must be made. This includes science. But those initial assumptions do not qualify as science or being in the realm of science. This is why there is a "philosophy of science."
pr0reality 2 years ago
Ill address the primacy of existence for a moment. I agree that existence must exist in order for consciousness to exist (& do anything else for that matter). I do not dispute this. I dispute that this does not necessarily mean that consciousness must therefore not be able to manipulate things in reality in the way that Rand describes subjectivism.
pr0reality 2 years ago
Let me clarify. There *must* be an aspect of objective reality in which consciousness must not be able to manipulate it. This is due to the POE. But that only protects that one aspect of existence. It is possible that the framework of some aspect of objective reality does allow this to occur on some level.
pr0reality 2 years ago
I think the POE was given to argue away the idea of a god being with a consciousness that could create things from its will being possible. Keep in mind that Im an atheist and do not necessarily think this is how it is. Im only showing how its possible.
pr0reality 2 years ago
Existence must exist in order for consciousness to exist; therefore consciousness cannot impose itself onto that which transcends it. It is possible for existence to allow consciousness to create things through its will without it necessarily affecting the *nature* of existence itself (eg god creating the solar system with its thoughts). This type of manipulation would not NECESSARILY have to mean that the nature of existence has been affected by the consciousness at any time.
pr0reality 2 years ago
This could all be done on a superficial level of existence. Hope I explained that clearly.
pr0reality 2 years ago
One more:
This does NOT show how objective reality isn't objective. It concedes it to objective. But this allows a scenario where the subjectivist world can still be reality in this objective reality.
pr0reality 2 years ago
"now you're the one with feces in your mouth".....haha see my point exactly, just think about how ridiculous that statement is. Also my beliefs are based on facts and evidence. haha I'm "tripping"...see you are the one who makes no sense, to claim that I am tripping. It is your belief that I am tripping which is based on NO evidence.
pricer5 2 years ago
lol...brilliant point.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
Alright. God already has appeared to mankind. That is why he became a man, Jesus walked the earth, and performed miracles, died and ressurected and lived a sinless life to prove that he was God, and that God was real. So he has come down and appeared. And no that did not take away peoples free will, because many people back them still rejected Jesus and didn't believe he was God. It's that those people didn't want to believe in God, they don't want to be held accountable for things.
pricer5 2 years ago
get that piece of crap out of your mouth
you're spilling it all over the comment section
matereymate 2 years ago
Haha wow, way to make a logical response. Very immature.
pricer5 2 years ago
whenever did i say i was making a logical response?
and just for the lulz
my comment had more material in it than the guy i responded to.......
matereymate 2 years ago
What is the point of making a non logical response then? Were you trying to be funny with your comment? Sarcastic? It was really just a childish response. Your comment had more material, haha good one buddy.
pricer5 2 years ago
Well what was the point of the comment i responded to?
my point was clear, and only because it has 'bad words' you describe it as illogical and immature
sure buddy,
fuck off you cunt licker, bla bla
that oughta enrage you
matereymate 2 years ago
Haha nice try but that doesn't enrage me. And your actual comment itself was illogical it had nothing to do with the bad words. And as far as being immature yes I still think it was immature. What is the point of the "bad words" like i said you just need to grow up and should respond the my arguement with facts and evidence. Instead of making a sarcastic remark which makes a illogical fallacy
pricer5 2 years ago
say what? see? now you're the one with feces in your mouth
you have just made completely no sense at all
how do i respond against no facts and no evidence? he just stated his BELIEFS, with NO evidence
dude you're tripping big time
immature? call it what you want, you made no point what so ever
matereymate 2 years ago
Come on Rabid ape, you know the common answer is that no one knows what God would look like so even if He appeared to the world, no one would recognize Him. Or half would and the other half would say he is the devil and so forth. Don't know why you atheists keep bringing this up time and time again and putting in your own answers but I am not a christian or of any faith and even I understand that.
aljimilah 2 years ago
You forgot to mention that a lot of Christians believe that God HAS very obviously revealed himself to them in person.
BlackstarSirius 2 years ago
"You forgot to mention that a lot of Christians believe that God HAS very obviously revealed himself to them in person. "
So what? He didn't see fit to do it with me or with Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell or Carl Sagan. What has he got against us that he would allow decent intelligent people to go to hell, whilst revealing himself to arrogant sadistic nihilistic knuckle draggers?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
My point is that it's hypocritical. On one hand they say God can't reveal himself on a grand scale because it obstructs free-will, yet he can do it to individuals?
BlackstarSirius 2 years ago
seriously. you're fantastic. do you have a facebook page/fan club of any sort?
LibbyInTheSky 2 years ago
Free will= ability to choose the options available to you not the ability to created options from thin air. For example you do not have the free will to fly but you have the free will to increase your "intelligence" by studying. Hope that makes sense.
LoneAmerican 2 years ago
i believe you shouldn't try to convince ppl if god exists or not.
society cant give someone faith.
it's all good if you do believe,
but it's also good if you cant.
dont put ppl down for their choice =/
xEpicsoldier 2 years ago
It's not about putting other people down because of their beliefs. It's about promoting staying in touch with reality. If someone has the control of WMDs, I'm far more assured if that individual make choices based in reality rather than a falsehood that tells him to annihilate innocent lives.
Our choices affect other people's lives and if someone is deluded and thinks that they must impose those delusions onto others, then it's no longer "just someone's choice". It's now my problem.
kaizenrei 2 years ago
oh yea, about the WMD'S, i agree wif you.
i was just talking about the whole religion versus disbelief and stuff.
xEpicsoldier 2 years ago
Thank you so much for making that crucial point, kaizenrei. That's my biggest fear. In relation, the exploitation of Christianity's gullibility to the "chosen ones." Can we not see the DANGER that the futur could hold in this regard? The political implications (corrupt power) scares me the most in regard to all the religious fundamentalism.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
That is part the the problem. Many followers of religion honestly cannot see how they're related. On top of that, many leaders in religion play on the fact and use it to "show" the followers how they're being persecuted, as "evidence" that they are special in some way.
2 dangers that I think can result in major problems in the coming decades:
1) The proselytizing nature of certain religions.
2) The promotion of certain religions to have as many children as possible- born into a mental slavery.
kaizenrei 2 years ago
I absolutely agree.
On another note, most Atheist I know want the world to be conducive for all, and recognize how religion is used to not only subjigate the world, but divide us. I think it's sad that a lot of Christians see Atheists as evil, lesser humans, misguided or lost. And leaders who depict atheist as not even worthy of citizenship lets you know as to how marginalization can even be worse than it already is.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
One extremely successful meme is the idea of absolute knowledge or absolute faith. It protects itself and associated memes from competing ones, most importantly being the ones based in reason.
pr0reality 2 years ago
Ok now you've went completely over my head. While I'm familiar with "memes" I've not studied the concept. Protects itself?
Please elaborate if you get the chance.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
Memes are essentially units of cultural information that get passed between minds. The analogy is that it spreads from mind to mind like a virus.
Memes aren't really examined for if they are "good" or "bad" ideas. They are mainly examined for their ability to transfer between minds and thrive (continue to exist).
pr0reality 2 years ago
Absolute knowledge/faith or the idea that these are "good things" have within them a protection mechanism that prevents the individual from ever challenging them, ensuring the continued existence of the meme in them.
Example: "I believe with all my heart that the Bible is the inspired word of God." Therefore anyone who challenges the idea is the work of the devil. That leaves minimal to no chance of reason & logical arguments even being considered as it's automatically categorized as evil.
pr0reality 2 years ago
This conception that Atheists are "not worthy of citizenship" indicates how skewed someone can see things due to these type of memes.
We might as well be soldiers of Satan trying to torture their children to these folks. And personally, I'd never worship Satan. The guy's a theist.
pr0reality 2 years ago
Dont know if this has been mentioned, but God can't reveal himself or it negates the whole concept of God wanting us to have faith.
thegaminggoose 2 years ago
So having faith means not having a good reason to believe. How can we "choose" through our freewill that which we haven't been convinced is real? Do you have a choice to honestly believe that you're NOT reading this right now?
Why would god provide us no reasonable evidence for his existence and then punish us for not realizing that he's real? If you cannot provide evidence for god, then how do we really have a fair chance to pick your supposed truth over other people's falsehoods?
kaizenrei 2 years ago
which is funny because God has apparently revealed himself to many christians.
tickitytak 2 years ago
God has allegedly revealed itself many times - did that violate the free will of Adam, or Moses, or Jonah or whoever?
Jesus did all kinds of 'revealing' in the New Testament, so that *also* violated the rules laid down by religious apologists.
Numerous 'prophets' even today claim to meet their gods (in secret of course) to get new schemes to raise money from the faithful.
Really, this whole 'free will' thing is a bad ad hoc attempt to save god from being revealed as a silly notion altogether.
proudfootz 2 years ago
People ask God if he exist.
If you then put yourself in Gods position,
and someone asked you: "Do you really exist", like they was talking to nothing, how would you feel?
ingej32 2 years ago
Well first of all, I think it'd be a valid philosophical question and people often do ponder their own existences.
Second of all. God is an all-powerful, benevolent supreme consciousness, do you really think God is so petty to get butt-hurt if one of his fallible creations had difficulty grasping whether or not he exists?
BlackstarSirius 2 years ago
"God is so petty to get butt-hurt if one of his fallible creations had difficulty grasping whether or not he exists?"
According to Bible he does.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
if God is not of time, space, or matter, they ARE talking to nothing. if God IS all of time, space, and matter, the question itself is completely ridiculous.
if i were God (and worked the same way as He does) and someone asked me "are you real?", i wouldn't be offended in any way because i would understand just how inconceivable my own existence actually is. i wouldn't blame the guy for not being able to cast aside all logic and embrace such a contradicting interpretation of a deity.
tickitytak 2 years ago
also if this God was all knowing it would be impossible for Him to be suprized by the actions of His created beings
pourcho101 2 years ago
going off the basis that there is a God who's all powerful and all knowing it'd be imposible to have free will because before creating the universe He'd know every different universes He could create and what every thing (object/creature) would do and how they could be effected by different circumstances. and since he knows that just by creating the cirtain universe its decisions would be solidified unless this God wanted to tweak things in this universe which would still not allow free will
pourcho101 2 years ago
i think what it comes down to is the fact that we do NOT know our own futures and so we are granted the illusion of free will; most decisions are made by us. in God's view though, the future is set in stone and you will inevitably make those decisions.
of course, free will only becomes an illusion if you accept that the future has already happened or if you believe in a omniscient being.
tickitytak 2 years ago
ask donexodous2 he should be able to help you out lol
CHASCHARLTON 2 years ago
There is definitely a difference between William Lange Craig and other apologists, WLC is an evidentialist and argues for deism and does 'incremental apologetics' First prove a god, then a loving god, then this then Jesus... its not Biblical, its philosophical.
Christians who approach apologetics Biblically are known as 'presuppositionalists' and we start at Romans Chapter 1 where Paul says the existence of God is obvious and man is without excuse in acknowledging it.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
"known as 'presuppositionalists' and we start at Romans Chapter 1 where Paul says the existence of God is obvious and man is without excuse in acknowledging it."
That's cool if it's what gets you through the day, but that totally fails as an "argument".
RabidApe 2 years ago
Well that's just it. The Bible doesn't encourage Christians to argue. Giving a reason for the hope you have does not correlate to trying to prove deism through philosophy... my hope is in Christ and man is without excuse, I can 'defend the faith' without having to prove a Creator, as the Bible says man is without a defense in saying that God does not exist, and that is good enough for me. God never told Christians to prove that He exists, ironic huh?
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Very nice KeezeeD,
I was just thinking about this. I don't think anyone comes to knowledge of God with their brain saying, "Ah hah! God does exist." Rather, I think everyone who has ever been called felt an emptiness in their soul that they couldn't explain. Then when they found the Lord, that emptiness went away and tremendous peace remained.
I'm contemplating whether arguing on the internet does anything at all.
Blind faith may rot the brain, but skepticism rots the heart.
SadChristian 2 years ago
"I'm contemplating whether arguing on the internet does anything at all."
It's just another form of conversation. I hope you don't mean to imply that you've never been affected by a conversation you participated in and/or overheard?
I think it's safe to assume that the number of people who READ these comments is somewhere between the number of comments and the total number of views.
RabidApe 2 years ago
Really? I would say it's maybe 15% --
Just a personal estimate.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
God determines that newborn are sinners by default and he supposedly drowns the entire planet (including babies), and simply appearing and saying "believe in me" would be a violation of free will?
Too good for words.
What good is a free will anyway if you're still getting fried eternally for choosing not to believe in him?
Hypocrisy in all it's grandeur eh?
StormbringerRuler 2 years ago
(continued from below)
...It would cost God His goodness to just wish our sin away. (In particular - justice. Since we've sinned (a cost), somebody needs to pay that cost for us to continue as usual - otherwise God is not just). And although God is almighty, this doesn't apply in the realm of evil. God can do anything but wickedness.
Hope that helps,
Peace!
SadChristian 2 years ago
Your whole argument presupposes a lot of "laws of supernatural physics" for lack of a better term:
"salvation", "sin", "god", specific consequences for what happens if "god revealed himself".
You even claim to know the mind of this "god":
"God chose the route of faith."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this thing exists, couldn't it have "set up the rules" however it wanted?
Who decides what "sin" is, and what it's "consequences" are?
RabidApe 2 years ago
I can't really imagine a world without costs and benefits. It's just logical. As such, I don't think God created them. I don't think God created logic but is rather logical and was always logical. I see it as a necessity. If God was not always logical, where'd He get the logic to say, "I will create logic today"?
BTW, I don't know the mind of God. This is in the realm of speculation and these just SEEM like good explanations. It doesn't mean they're true, necessarily.
Peace!
SadChristian 2 years ago
As I understand Chrisitian fundamentalist theology, God created everything.
Therefore, he created Satan, therefore he created evil, therefore he allowed evil into the world (via allowing Satan into the magic garden,) therefore he is responsible for sin, which he inexplicably blames on all humans, even those not yet born, for all time and demands repentance. it sounds to me very much like a cruel and malevolent god who enjoys human suffering and enjoys torture for its own sake.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
I think you're ignoring our free will. God didn't create evil, He created man and man (with his free will) created evil.
SadChristian 2 years ago
That's not what the Bible says...
Ask yourself this:
If God didn't Hell and Satan to exist, why do they? Is God not in control? Check yourself my friend. God IS in control. Without God's righteous purpose evil would have no purpose at all.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Typoe... "If God didn't (want) Hell and Satan to exist, why do they?"
KeezeeD 2 years ago
I think God wanted us to love Him (I mean real love, not just forced love). He created us with that purpose. I think He knew it was going to happen, but He didn't create us so we could sin. He created us to love, and we disobeyed. The natural consequence is hell.
Now, if you're getting into why God created us in the first place, this is VERY mind boggling. Can you even imagine what it would be like to never have existed instead of existing now?
SadChristian 2 years ago
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Romans 9:10-13
KeezeeD 2 years ago
This makes it clear that not only does God have total control before we even live, it also proves that He chose to hate Esau even before he could choose against God. If God only looked down the corridors of time to figure out who would choose to love Him then he was just rolling the cosmic dice and with your position you leave reality open to the possibility that Christ could have died for nothing since its possible that no one would have chosen God hypothetically.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
"The natural consequence is hell."
Couldn't an omnipotent being change that "rule"?
That's something I don't get about you folks (not to overgeneralize).
I don't believe that this "God" thing exists.
But if you think it does, I don't understand how you reconcile omnipotence and omnibenevolence with a phrase like "The natural consequence is hell."
Who decides what is "natural"?
You make it sound as if "God" is subservient to an even HIGHER power.
RabidApe 2 years ago
Ape,
I'm pretty sure SadChristian and I disagree on that.
I believe in both, but not under such rigid terms that we define. God is love and God hated Esau, is that a contradiction?
I dont think so. God's love is beyond what we understand love to be, God is said to have natures, so he has a all loving nature and the ability to hate, how all that works out in eternity is probably out of my jurisdiction.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
@RabidApe God forgives thats why before entering into heaven you are judged for all crimes you have done in your life on earth.
HoodieNinjaMe101 1 year ago
@HoodieNinjaMe101 Lol.
sirchompsalot 1 year ago
@HoodieNinjaMe101 God's judgment is a setup since Genesis 3 tells us that He failed to give humans the tools of intelligence & cursed them for gaining it. God is responsible for any result of His creation, especially if we allow the fallacious argument of Him knowing the future. God's plans go awry in the Bible. He is often a blunderer. The fact that God failed to forgive humanity without resorting to bloodshed is a refutation of His benevolence. In fact, it drove Him to commit suicide as Jesus.
mreous333 10 months ago
"Check yourself my friend."
Check yourself my friend. Hell was a late invention by apocalypticists as part of their failed attempt to reconcile the reality of innocents suffering with the idea of a loving, just creator god. And the central Christian tenet that the ultimate fate of all nonbelievers in Christ is eternal torture remains a repulsive, sociopathetic idiocy of the highest order.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
If by 'late invention' you mean very clearly demonstrated by Old Testament scripture then you have a point. Stop listening, soaking up, and poorly regurgitating Christopher Hitches, be an original 'free thinker' at least.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Have never read Hitchens, as I find him something of a windbag. Hell is a concept foreign to most of the writers of the Tanakh, and as I said before, this idea that non-Christians will be tortured forever for the temerity of not believing in your Zombie messiah is repulsive and sadistic. Under you beliefs, a goat-buggering, mass-murdering cannibal who accepts Jesus before he dies goes to eternal paradise while his victims, if they are not Christian, fry forever.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
Nope.
A - The Bible teaches that even some of those people who believed themselves to be zealous followers of Jesus will also end up in Hell because they didn't walk the walk, so not just non-Christians per se.
B - Salvation is a gift from God, so there is nothing you or I can do to receive it apart from the grace of God. That being said, if God wanted to save the mass-murderer in question then yes He could.
The man could also be fooling himself by thinking a simple prayer does something...
KeezeeD 2 years ago
So, what you are saying is your religion is doubly repulsive and you, like so many shitwit YouTube Christians, are arrogant enough to think yours is the one TRUE Chrisitianity. Fuck you very much for the enlightenment provided.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." - John 15:18
Add me as a friend, and if you ever have a change of heart look me up.
I'll be praying for you.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Beware of the man whose god is in the skies.
- Bernard Shaw
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
True - the Hebrews didn't seem to have much of a concept of an afterlife: the focus was on worldly success and descendants, not 'heaven' and 'hell'. This probably explains the long lifespans of the patriarchs. Mortal life on Earth was what mattered.
By the time the xians split off from the parent body, pagan ideas about an afterlife had already infected the original religion of the Jews.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Hey RabidApe,
The reason God doesn't reveal Himself has little to do with free will. If God revealed Himself, THERE WOULD BE NO SALVATION! We've sinned, there are consequences. The only way for us to be forgiven is some route other than works (for all have sinned). God chose the route of faith.
Why doesn't God just wink at you to make you forgiven? This would take away from God's goodness. Every benefit comes with a cost (nothing in life is free)...
SadChristian 2 years ago
wouldnt it make more sense that BECAUSE he would wink our sin away, that would make him good because hes taking it away?!?!? that does not take away from his goodness. sounds like a cruel punishment to say, hey, believe in me or u burn in hell
dhcrazy333 2 years ago
Well, it wouldn't actually violate free will for God to make his presence obvious, it would just violate free will for him to compell us to worship him. Merely saying "here I am, worship me if you want to" is not a violation of free will.
Arfalarf 2 years ago
Bingo! It amazes me that more Christian apologists don't realize that.
army103 2 years ago
i don't think we can use common human knowledge, which basically is primal animal like knowledge, to explain why he doesn't appear to the world. cuz we are obvious infants to this strange world, so thinkin' we can logically understand how God operates is illogical.
omarlives 2 years ago
God making an appearance would violate our free will? That doesn't make any sense. Under the common definition of God, he/she/it is already violating our free will since he is omniscient. If he knows everything and made everything....then he planned everything and has a set course of existence already planned out! So if anyone, RabidApe, makes that sort of argument from a direct revelation of God, they are completely and utterly wrong.
emofacez 2 years ago
But not everyone uses the same concepts. I've heard people say that they think God knows everything past and present, but because of our "free will" he can't know the future (which I realize is in total contradiction to everything else they say, but is still what they used to try and justify their beliefs). Of course this makes it so God isn't omniscient, and probably also means he can't be omnipotent, but that kind of logical problem doesn't tend to faze the average believer.
FireDragons42 2 years ago
I can never understand the "Free will" argument here =\
People are free to choose whether or not to worship God.
Let's say God reveals himself..
You STILL have the option to worship him. It'd make a lot more sense to, but it's not mandatory.
The more annoying part of this conundrum is that some of these same people try to claim the bible is scientifically accurate, and that proves God.
Isn't that the same fucking thing? The bible is telling you "believe in God"
Where's your free will???
XeliosX 2 years ago
Not only that but the idea that god gives you complete choice to worship him or not, but if you choose not to worship him youll be punished for eternety for it. It's just Ridiculous nonsense.
It's equivelent to me saying: "you can go down that road and ill kill shoot you, or you can go down this road and i won't. But hey no pressure its completely your choice i dont want to push you in either direction."
touchedbydog 2 years ago
God appeared to people in the past, therefore if god can appear to people then without violating free will, he can also do it now.
neil1337 2 years ago
sure he appeared to me when I was playing wow ^^
He then allowed me to do 120234924k crit. And disappeared :D
Unknnnnn 2 years ago
Hey Ape! Now that you have that giant world atlas on your wall behind you, it would be really cool if you got a ton of thumb tacks and did that subscriber location project you were talking about! That would make two projects completed this year! :D
natewheatshelf 2 years ago
The easiest way to counter the free will argument is to say that even if god appeared, we would still have the free will to choose whether or not to worship him/her/it. Therefore god's appearance would be acceptable, though theists still wriggle about when you bring this up.
Cowinspace 2 years ago
the whole concept of god not showing himself because it might interfere with freewill is ridiculous.god has appeared to people in one form or another in the past if you go by the bible(burning bushs and such) so if god exists and there is any truth at all to bible stories the whole freewill issue is shot to hell already
hellshade2 2 years ago
I find your cheerful disposition pleasantly contagious! : )
M0THERKN0WSBEST 2 years ago
but if god actually cared abut not "Violating free will" why would he make the bible?
the most logical (but still crazy) and funny answer i could come up white is that god needs the bible to sort out who the stupid ppl are and then makes them go bat shit insane to make evolution work faster (yes dead ppl don't carry there genes forward).
RoMMeL1337ak47 2 years ago
Adam & Eve ate from the tree of "knowlege of good and evil" Gen 2:17. It logically follows that before eating from that tree, they had no knowlege of good or evil, hence they could not understand that it was evil to disobey God.
That means they had no free will to choose, they had to mindlessly obey.
If the snake was Satan as is commonly believed, then free will is a gift from Satan and not God.
gonyea12 2 years ago
"If the snake was Satan as is commonly believed, then free will is a gift from Satan and not God. "
Yeah, and did you ever notice that the snake never lies? God does. He tells Adam and Eve the fruit will kill them. But it doesn't. All the snake ever does is give them accurate and useful information. never even tempts them. He lets them choose. I could go on for hours about the fallacy of the garden snake "demon" idea.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
ye if the bible is truly the word of god, then god is the "good" oppressor who spread lies to make ppl do things, sometimes good, but mostly bad and then call them good and righteous anyway. and not blindly following a dictator is bad somehow? WTF.
i just don't get it, doing bad shit and calling them good to make ppl do more bad shit and think they are doing something good, is good? by that logic adolf hitler is the most good man ever.
RoMMeL1337ak47 2 years ago
all the millions of contradictions makes my head hurt. if it is like gonyea12 seed and the bible sees the snake thats believed to be satan gave us the ability to not be slaves under the self contradicting bible, isen't that kinda like the bible is saying first
"I'm god, I'm truth, I'm pure good, I'm knowlege" then goes
"truth is evil, knowledge is evil"
i think its safe to say the only sane message the bible gives are that self contradiction is stupid and pointless
RoMMeL1337ak47 2 years ago
I honestly think the "free will violation" is one of the biggest copouts ever. I mean, think about it, you're supposed to believe based on texts and peer pressure! That puts believing in God on the same level of smoking ciggarettes when there's no proof of a miracle... maybe a bad example, but... you know.
sonic8005 2 years ago
new camera? looks great!
TheAist 2 years ago
kinda sorta....
:P
thanks!
RabidApe 2 years ago
god should just come right down and bitch slap me at 7billion tines the speed of light, across the universe. he can do anything right? back in the day there were constant zombie, dragon, and witch attacks and infanticide! did god get tired, or bored with punishing us in such spectacular and dramatic ways? com one god, put up or shut up!!
Bockatadi 2 years ago
lol! Considering that a million years is as a second to God, he sure has the worst case of A.D.D. I've ever heard of. He works for six days, rests on Sunday, come monday he works less than a second and gives up. In that time he has a spastic bipolar fit: changes his mind several times, threw several fits, decided to forgive and finally got bored and went away all in a split second... so... god is crazier than Charles Manson.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
amen
RoMMeL1337ak47 2 years ago
off topic, but I as you are going bald, and I hope you go bald like Bruce willies as stay as awesome as when you had hair
mintyformula 2 years ago
Didn't god appear to several people in the olden days? Obviously, it's not a violation of free will if he did it then!
neil1337 2 years ago
Is that sarcasm? It makes no sense otherwise.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
Actually it makes perfect sense. God appeared to people in the past, therefore if god can appear to people then without violating free will, he can do it now.
neil1337 2 years ago
Ha ha. I thought before you were trying to say that it didn't violate free will when he did it in the past but it would now.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
If God does exist then I'd rather he came down and said 'here I am'. We'd might as well get it over with and accept reality because there would be no escape from God.
joeltcola 2 years ago
[turn off Irony meters, plz]
I think the reason for god not appearing today is because he can't handle the critisism!!!
[irony meter safe to turn back on]
Also, he also cherish the virtue of taking the concept "on faith"...
Paxmax 2 years ago
If god came to someone and gave them a new message, how would you know that person is spreading the word of God? take it on faith Miracles? Paul wasn't known for miracles. People just trusted on faith. So... God told me to tell the world not to eat McNuggets after May 23 until the recall is over or it will kill them. What separates me from Paul when he started is I have never been paid to kill christians and I don't have a hatred of judaism. Lucky for Paul his "Jesus" served the ego of Saul too
mogulwraith 2 years ago
In the end, the god of the bible is evil. So if he appears, I could care less.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
Pointless for God to appear. The first problem is: would he be the god of the bible? Which interpretation? Second, how do I know he's not a liar, claiming to be the only god? (maybe he's an outcast of a pantheon that could really care less about earth so they ignore him and his "creation") Fourth, what is a god? He could claim to be all powerful and not be. We wouldn't recognize the difference. Finally, maybe he's just a member of a significantly more advanced species.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
mogulwraith said: Pointless for God to appear
Well.. yeah, but atleast he can call "DIBS"!
Paxmax 2 years ago
"Well.. yeah, but atleast he can call "DIBS"! "
Hmmm... if he is real, then he already did that :) What kind of a God would want to appear redundant to the lowly mortals?
mogulwraith 2 years ago
Daniel Dennett is actually a compatiblist. He just rejects many ideas of freewill and says the kinds worth having are able to work within an entirely physical universe. Source: Elbow Room by Daniel Dennett
fauyd 2 years ago
People who use the freewill argument do not think it through. Is the freewill of a child predator (the real kind (kidnap, rapeing and murdering children) not the To Catch a Predator Kind (Their are not predators, they are perverts (that dose not take away the wrongness though))) more important the freewill of a 5 year old? Their god thinks so apparently.
solitarycanislupus 2 years ago
I'm a little confused.
Why do we need free will? Supposedly so that we can serve god from our own will and so earn whatever. If so, suppose someone doesn't know about god, how will 'will' help? Because if you have no knowledge of god, than free will won't make you serve him and it's not his fault!
Now if you know god from life experiences, you supposedly still have free will. Than why would god showing himself reduce free will. And if it does, than it means anyone believing in him
MyJk552 2 years ago
cont.
doesn't have any free will either! Because they all say that they 'know' god exists...
Consequently, the only person than can get rewards for serving god is a person who doesn't believe and him and consequently still has free will!!!
Therefore, assuming that even after knowing god exists you still have free will, than to be fair he should show himself. And since we would still have free will, all the people that will serve him and not give into worldly temptations should get rewards!
MyJk552 2 years ago
I don't agree with a lot of things people of my faith does. I think they seem to forget the choice to come to Christ is the individual's choice.
TheAtheisticCatholic 2 years ago
Yes, and then it's your god's choice to send the rest of us to eternal torture.
johnnyk2112 2 years ago
Although I don't agree with Hell it is your choice to make. For God to force you to stay with Him would make him a tyrant.
TheAtheisticCatholic 2 years ago
For God to demand blind faith, belief with no proof, prior to death, then to send unbelievers to His hell, makes Him a tyrant....For god, throughout the bible, killing off humanity, killing off tens of thousands of men, women and children beacuse He is "angry", makes him a tyrant.
johnnyk2112 2 years ago
For God to just appear and tell us He exists wouldn't just violate free will but also the concept of faith. You have no choice but to believe if He appears. God wants people to choose to be with Him. Jesus said back in the NT the people who believe without having seen Him are blessed.
In Christianity God will eventually show Himself to the entire world.
TheAtheisticCatholic 2 years ago
god does not violate freewill but yet christians keep violate, bullying, manipulating, and passing the law against freewill.
pitigam 2 years ago
The Christian God clearly violates free will. Free will only means anything if your actions have no consequence. Although you get some 70-80 years of "free will" or sometimes 90 or 100 years, the "free will" God grants you can only be used within very specific boundaries, as you are told if you break any of these that you are to depart into everlasting fire.
Beefstew2011 2 years ago
lol yeah. christians claim god gave you free will then they try to take it away from you.
greycloud24 2 years ago
As the theology goes, Satan knows God exists. Does he lack the free will to follow or not follow? If so, then he can't be to blame for any evil he causes - he's just an evil machine created by God. Thus God would be evil.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
Doesnt god supposedly go out of its way to make itself known in the bible with plagues, disasters, and appearing to people alone? If god doesnt do demonstrations how does anyone know it exists in the first place? Some 2000+ year old books are the best demonstrations an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity is going to give? It can't even decide on a uniform appearance or philosophy.
Ober0311 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ober0311 2 years ago
I hear Christians say that the reason why God doesn't reveal himself is because if he did, you will die.
Justinfh2point0 2 years ago
These ideas often come from the same people. They say there's plenty of evidence for God until you show that the evidence they offer is unreliable, doesn't lead to the conclusion they think it does (hence my comment on your last video about how proving a first cause wouldn't prove the first cause was any sort of god), etc.. Only then does this 'God can't make it obvious' thing show up. So what was all the business about evidence then? Faith is the bridge from their evidence to their conclusion.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
Wait. Who are you? Where's Rabidape?
See Rabidape just put up a video, an awesome video in my opinion, a few days ago.
Therefore you can't be him because it hasn't been more then two or three months since that video. I think this could be breaking some sort of funademental law of phyisics or something :-P.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
We didn't tell you about the clones?
He figured we'd all be better off if there were an Ape for physics, an Ape for biology, an Ape for YouTube, etc...
RabidApe 2 years ago
how the heck do you get 171 5 star ratings?
this video is horrible!
1 star
GodTheTruth 2 years ago
i dont really think it is a disconnect more or less an addendum to the first point a sort of a "god cant do that because of your free will. but he did give us some evidence you just freely refuse to accept it" style of arguement
kitrana 2 years ago
Also, I would also add to your argument that god's existence and his nature of being all powerful, all knowing and everywhere would make it impossible for there to be free will. When he makes you, he'd know your future and how you would act. With god's traits there can be no free will.
JTS11d6 2 years ago
great vid thanks for the post
hope it makes someone think a little about what they believe
waugzoo 2 years ago
Hey, what does one times one equal?
Oh, if I tell you, it will violate your free will, so I can't tell you.
juliecranford 2 years ago
I don't really see how being presented with evidence is a violation of free will.
Does being shown a rock make you loose Free Will in