Pictures are changing too often - it distracts from the speech and you can't make it to follow them anyway... so if I want to hear your speech, I have to scroll down not to see the pictures cause after one minute it already makes me feel dizzy
Pictures are changing too often - it distracts from the speech and you can't make it to follow them anyway... so if I want to hear your speech, I have to scroll down not to see the pictures cause after one minute it already makes me feel dizzy
First of all, a nice video with Interesting arguments and thoughts. Personally I think the most important thing to realize as a religious person is that you only have your own personal belief, and you cant KNOW if there is a god and what god is. You cant even know if Free will exists. Hell, you cant even know if the world (as you know it) "exists". Another interesting paradox that you touch upon is the paradox of an omnipotent being, can an omnipotent being limit itself?
i watched your videos for the third time around and one thing keeps coming up in my mind. what do you think will happen 12-21-12? im not going to base my whole opinion on your answer, but im just wondering. mabye make a video to explain your view point of 12-21-12? i hope for find the time to answer my call.
If my definition holds, then clearly God is not responsible for the sin in the world.
if you define responsible as simply "the cause of something" then clearly that would mean God is responsible, but good luck finding someone who would use the term to only mean "the cause of something".
look up the word in a dictionary or even a philosophical dictionary. It will define the term in the way I have.
Your charge of a contradiction is overturned if you cannot refute my definition.
Your definition may be internally consistent but not consistent overall. Again, he is creating evil, causing it. You just admitted that if we use my definition god would be responsible, therefore god is responsible for evil. This is inconsistent with the definition of god, with YOUR definition, as you claimed that god "hates evil" even though it only exists because he causes it.
Being responsible for something IS being the cause. If you are going to just argue we are responsible because someone has the power to punish us then that's missing the point.
The point is that if I build a robot and program it to shoot you, do you blame the robot or do you blame me? The robot didn't do anything wrong, it did only what I made it do. If god makes us do something, then he is the cause. You are arguing that god causes evil to occur so he can punish those he made perform the act.
You are saying that causing something to happen is being responsible for it. I disagree and so do most dictionaries.
More importantly, in my system I define it differently. You have to judge my system for internal consistency to determine if my arguments are sound, not tell me what I mean when I use a word. I have been clear in saying that I do believe God causes evil, and I have been clear to explain what responsibility is in my system (which how most dictionaries define the word too).
You do not understand the role of the will and of knowledge, both of which are important in discussions on responsibility.
Humans knowingly do wrong things, and God predestined that to occur. God punishes humans for knowingly doing evil by their choice. Their choice was predetermined/decreed by God, but agency is not eliminated. I am not a pantheist.
The person who sins sins. God does not sin. He causes the person to sin. When people eat, God does not eat, but God causes the people to eat.
"When people eat, God does not eat, but God causes the people to eat. "
If I press a button that detonates TNT, true that I did not detonate, but I did cause the explosion and destruction. This means that evil only exists because god causes it. You are saying that god causes something he doesn't want only to hold the person responsible for the thing he caused them to do. If he caused it though, it means he wanted them to do it, and that means he wanted evil to occur, yet he hates it.
God wants evil to happen for His purposes. I never denied that God desires evil to happen.
I say He hates evil, which means He always punishes it when it does exist. Evil creates a debt to God that must be paid. Punishment satisfies the debt and expiates the guilt, thus taking care of the "divine book keeping" that displays God's attributes.
He doesn't punish "evil" but those he forces to commit evil that have no relation to it than he made them do it.
Also, it doesn't exist with out him making it happen. This would be akin to me saying I hate the word "FAHNAWTaHanfnanZZZ" that I just made up and no one knows how to write it, then grabbing someone's hand, making them write it then killing them because of it and then rewarding everyone who he didn't make write the word because he has "mercy" to not make them do the thing he hates.
First, God does not coerce men to do evil. He causes them to do evil willingly.
Secondly, all men commit evil (not just those whom He condemns). The elect have sinned and do sin every day until they die. The mercy of God is not that He prevents the elect from sinning and allows them to do good and then rewards them for it, for that is not mercy, that is simply the just reward of merit.
Your problem seems to be that you do not understand the idea of moral agency whereby wills exist, make choices, and are responsible while being without a freedom from God's decrees.
Biblical Theistic determinism does not prevent creatures from acting willingly. Their wills are directed by God's decree.
You also reject God's right to create men for the purpose of causing them to be evil so that He can DISPLAY His hatred of evil by punishing moral agents who are guilty of evil.
Justice depends upon the law of God, there is no higher standard, and men are created as moral agents under the law. the law demands that breakers of the law pay the debt of life and that keepers of the law be be paid the wage of life. This is justice, the reward of good and the punishment of evil.
God displays His justice by demanding the debt for sin. All men are sinners under the law (except for Christ).
God enacted His law as judge through contract by his right over His creatures.
But the only thing that determines whether break the rules or not is the actions of god. Again, this is like me decided to hate a word I invented and in order to display my hatred force someone to write the word so I can punish them. He would then not be displaying his hatred of evil but his hatred of those that perform evil, even though it his own fault that it even exists in the first place. To display his hatred of evil he would remove it from existence, which would be within his power.
That IS a very interesting passage. Still philosophically wrong but I'm going to have to ask gambleor about this as he asserts that the bible is pro-free will.
Because the analogy used doesn't work. A potter may mold clay for a "bad" purpose but he does not think the clay itself is bad, nor does he punish the clay or hold him accountable. If god wants to pre-destine us for evil so be it but to then judge us harshly for doing exactly what he wanted in contradictory. As well, if this is the case, then why all of the references to forgiveness, for no one would require forgiveness as they are only doing what they were meant to do.
responsibility does not require free will. Responsibility requires knowledge of sin and someone hold you responsible. that is where you fail philosophically.
the analogy of the potter is meant to carry one literal point, namely that god has absolute property rights over you.
God created men good and decreed that they should choose to do evil. men do evil. men are punished for committing evil deeds.
God's providence dose not require the inference that He is responsible for the events He predestines. God is the cause. He is not responsible because there is no one to hold him responsible.
Accountability/Responsibility requires someone to hold one accountable/responsible.
Predestination is not contrary to responsibility. You are imposing your assumptions into a system that does not lead to the conclusions you are drawing.
God's primary purpose for creating evil was to show His mercy toward the elect, mercy being impossible without transgression, and secondly to show His hatred of evil which heightens the value of His mercy.
The Bible teaches the absolute predestination of all things by God before creation. God chose, for example, who would receive and (more importantly) believe the word that is preached. God also determined who would not believe (obviously).
Why would he create something for the purposes of torturing it for all eternity? He's literally creating something in such a way that he'll not love it. This makes little if any sense.
God created the reprobate for the purpose of demonstrating His hatred of evil. God created the elect for the purpose of displaying His mercy. He enjoys this. This is His good pleasure.
You are saying he created evil to demonstrate his hatred of it? And what purpose does his hatred serve in tortuing? Then, what purpose does it serve in torturing for eternity?
The torture is punishment as just vengeance upon transgressors of the law of God. The display of justice in the punishment of evil. The Bible says that God's chief purpose in creation is the display of His attributes unto His glory.
God fulfills justice when showing mercy to other sinners by coming as a man to suffer under His own wrath in their place.
The eternalness of the punishment shows God's changeless attitudes and the grievousness of sin against an infinitely holy and righteous God.
But they transgressed because god wanted them to transgress. That isn't even transgressing! That's doing what you were supposed to do. This is why this doesn't make any sense.
If I program a computer to do something and it does it, it's my own fault that it did it. God can't do this because it would be him causing sin!
God does cause sin. God does not himself sin by causing sin.
God gives the law as a basis of ethics. Providence is not the basis of ethics. His decree (what he choose shall come to pass) does not determine what is right for a person to do and what is wrong for a person to do. His law does.
Your objection is based upon the fact that you think your maker should not have the right to make you and judge you for how He has made you. But He has the right to make you for whatever purpose He chooses.
About free will, Your actions being influenced by outside sources does not invalidate free will. A being knowing what you will decide, does not invalidate free will.
I do agree that outside influences affect once´s actions but within that context, we also have the ability to chose. So if by free you mean ¨decision making process that is 100% free form any influence¨, then I agree with you. However, I see no reason to define it in such strict terms.
I don´t think our choices are controlled as much as they are influenced. There is a certain influence in everything we do, but that does not invalidate free will.
HD, do you really think that if the initial conditions were the same at the time of your birth, you would be the same person you are today if your whole life would be played over again?
It is true that we are influenced by our surroundings, but these surroundings also have the ability to decide how to influence us.
Yes I do believe I'd be the same person. Why would I be any different? Everything I have done has been for a reason and if the situation is not changed and the information is not changed, why would I make a different decision?
"t is true that we are influenced by our surroundings, but these surroundings also have the ability to decide how to influence us. "
That's true, though I would say "deduce" instead of "decide" because their decisions were based on previous influences, and so on.
Great series man, you should present more videos in this format because it was very well done.
One thing that I take away from this is that even though I am a theist and a christian, I agree with most of what you said here. In other words, your argument is not as much anti-christian as it is anti-fundamental christianity.
Actually I just redid these videos because I got so many complaints on the format. People felt it took away from the message, but I'm glad you liked it. It was a lot of work.
There is somewhere where sea and ocean touches themselves and they do not mix. Water is salted from the ocean and when you cross the invisible line in the water, it becomes mild or unsalted. its written in the quran. Also written that the sex of a baby is determined from the sperm and not from the mother or both. and they found that out just recently or well... way after the Quran came on Mohammed (pbuh) Look for miracles of the quran youll see. Can you precise the deism you talk about plz?thx!
Deism is a belief in a creator, a "higher power". There are differening varieties but normally each person pursues thier "relationship" with god in their own way, without any religious constraints. It's often just "spirituality". Deists are nice because they usually don't get on anyone's nerves. They acknowledge god so religious people don't mind them, and they don't try to change laws or force their beliefs on others, so the atheists don't mind them.
... because i know that my role is to talk about Islam and say what the real religion is, and everyone make their choice to follow or not, and i, as a muslim respects people. It is interesting to know how people think, i like to know but in a way i dont understand how people can deny that God exist and how people dont see what we see in islam thats so peaceful. =) Thx for your explanations and for sharing what you believe in. i really appreciate it =)
If you look at other holy books, even non-abrahamic ones, if taken allegorically you can take anything and try to make it mean something that matches reality. I've read up on most of the scientific claims of the Qu'ran, and I'm not impressed. Have you looked up the rebuttals to the claims to see if skeptics have anything to say in return? I normally try to look at both sides and see who has the better argument.
ok.. For you, even if a book that was written almost 1400 years ago says stuff that , at that time, couldnt be known by anyone. Because they did not have the technology to do so. And you arent impressed? hmm... What is your theory on how Mohammed (pbuh) did know those scientific stuff?? and the mathematical miracles as well, how ca someone write a book with so much kind of "code" in it, and say "well, youll understand when time comes". I respect everyone even tho they dont believe in Islam ...
Because it seems most read into the Qu'ran, and the Bible, what they want to see. You can take any large volume of words and find code in it. That's been shown.
It seems that often with religious texts the readers will take something vauge and think it means something it doesn't. I don't believe Mohummad actually knew about the big bang, I think he made a mysitcal description that can be associated with actual events. This can be done with virtually every holy book.
I think, believing in God is important, because, when you think about him many times a day, it preserves you from making bad stuff. Anyways, thats what i believe in. I think a life without believing in God has no point. God created us, we must adore him every minute and ask for his forgiveness, and hope to enter paradise. :) Islam isnt what you see on tv. Well, i liked your videos, and ill answer your questions if you have some.. thx for your time HonestDiscussioner.
Well I'm glad you liked my videos, but remember my name. I'm the HonestDiscussioner so discussing this is what I do. Hope you are not offended.
The thing is, we must first establish that god exists in the first place, and then decide whether to worship him.
The idea that without god there is no point is troubling, but its also only an appeal to emotion. It's preferability doesn't make it more or less true, and you could be using the only life you have to adore a fictional character, maybe
I wonder how people can deny the fact that, someone must have created everything, because its in perfect harmony, you should see the videos about the miracles of the Quran if you havent yet. Scientific things are said in it, proofs that its from God, because 1400 before, they could not know that the sky was made with 7 layers, or that the mountains acts like screws, or that the human is created from a sperm and many other things. Also, you surely know about the 2 seas? ...
As well, the idea that belief "preserves you from making bad stuff" is actually oppositly true. In 1st world countries, the more religious an area is, the higher the crime rates, poverty rates, divorce rates, infant mortality rates, and virtually every other negative statistic.
Islam is not the only way to "adore god", which is why I suggested deism in the first place. From my perspective, if god exists, it's likely no book accurately depicts him\her\it. It would be superior in every way.
hmm interesting. And i am not offended and thx for your honesty as well. What i think is, God is the only one that can be worshipped. ( sorry if my english is not always good =) ) When i look at the creation, i see something that cannot have happened by itself. Every little details are perfectly placed. For example the human body, it is so complexe when you really study it, ADN cant have created itself, also every animal has its own way to defend itself, and its own survival mode. ...
Imagine I told you there was no way a man could go underwater 1,000 meters because the pressure was too great? Then I gave other reasons why I didn't think it was possible?
If you were to then show me a modern submarine, explain how it works, and show that it indeed does allow a man to go much further under water than 1,000 feet, I'd have to admit that a man could do that.
It's like that with evolution, we know exactly how everything came to be, and best yet, we have evidence, alot of it
.. so even if i converted to that religion, still all my family arent muslim. The thing that i dont like about any religion, is the fact that everyone is saying , nobody enters paradise exept people in their religion. I dont like the idea of everyone i know, going to hell because they didnt believe in Mohammed. But islam is a religion of adoration of God, the One and Only, everything i do in this religion i do it for God and myself, to preserve me from making sins. ...
I follow what i believe is best for me and hope to enter paradise, but a part of me still hope that God will not only let people of a certain religion enter paradise, because there are some nice people out there, that believe in God, and does great things but arent in a particular religion. Well, only God knows I think.
I think you might have got me wrong there.. Because i really truly believe in God. And as you said, i could not fool him if i was to say " i believe just in case" . the thing is, i was raised in a family where religion wasnt THAT important exept for believing in God. But my mother is catholic and my father is preacher in christian church. I never believed in their stuff, for me, believing that Jesus is God was kind of weird. I did my research and converted to islam 4 years ago. (see next msg)..
wow.. that was interesting.. I must say something tho... Since we can't see with our eyes if God exist, we can still give proof of his existence i think, i prefer to believe in God and follow what I think is the right path, and that is believing that there is only one God and he is not trinity. Because if we die as non-believers, and find out we go to hell because He exist it would be too late to change, no?!
You are basically arguing Pascal's Wager. To follow your own argument in the comment below, no one really knows, which is really Pascal's weakness. Even if you were to play statistics with this, which you really can't, you'd only be decreasing your "hell" chance by a fraction of a fraction. As well, if god's omnipotent, he'll know you're only believing "just in case". You must have a good reason to think your specific beliefs are true, and I'd like to think if God exists, he appreciates honesty
These are excellent.. i asked my dad about why god doesnt show himself to all of us and he said "because it would violate our free will" yet he thinks god answers prayers by influencing other people to get the desired result. You cant win with that kinda thought...
He who created us knows our psychology. That some of us (whether it be due to env or other factors) will not do good-and see the sweetness of doing good to themselves and to others- if they are not severly threatened. Iman and doing good are different levels so you will act on your own to do good without the need of the hell motivation once you are at a certain level of Iman. As to why we are granted Heaven for eternity- this is because our Creator is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
wow... what you wrote was nice.. and i truly hope you are right, are you a muslim?? Do you think that, everyone who has 1 atome of belief in God will enter paradise even after a time in hell, applies to non-muslim???
I really have no idea how I was unaware of your comments for so long. I don't remember getting an e-mail for them.
Anyway while everything you say sounds nice I don't really believe it is biblical. Even if you're right about no one with any good remaining in hell forever, we have paul saying that no one is good, and we also have a lot of reference to eternity in relation to hell. If this wasn't the case, there would be no need to mention eternity. At best you are left with a contradiction
Is your comment begining "I really have no idea how I was unaware of your comments for so long. I don't remember getting an e-mail for them." meant to be to me?
Solid? No. I have been told by one or two, not that this means all or even any other muslims say this, that I can't have a solid understanding of Islam unless I can speak Arabic. At least in some regards.
Ok. that's fine, don't worry about it. I disagree that hell is eternal, even for atheists. I think that the human life and afterlife should be regarded with complexity, and simplifying them, by us deciding who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is arrogant . The final decision is to God alone. God's decision will be just. Allah's top two attributes, are those of Justice and Mercy. Eternity in hell, or even the severity of punishment that many religious people claim, can't be justified.
'Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
There were brought some prisoners to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) among whom there was also a woman, who was searching (for someone) and when she found a child among the prisoners, she took hold of it, pressed it against her chest and provided it suck. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: (cont-nxt-comment)
Do you think this woman would ever afford to throw her child in the Fire? We said: By Allah, so far as it lies in her power, she would never throw the child in Fire. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Allah is more kind to His servants than this woman is to her child.
In my experience, no matter what the holy book, there are dozens of interpretations, each claiming they are the correct one. I have a hard time thinking that the ultimate form of knowledge is conveyed through solid text to be interpreted and taught to the uneducated by biased individuals who often disagree with each other.
Allah has rewarded the person with a faculty of thinking before sending anything down. Our religion is a way of life, and it is suppose to be in harmony with the nature and logic of human beings. I've watched some of your videos, and I like your honesty, objectivity, and sincerity in discussion. If you continue to have these three characteristics you will succeed and there is nothing for you to worry about; that's all Allah asks for.
I've been researching and debating Islam for some time. The claim that one cannot understand the Quran unless you know Arabic is not actually true. In order to understand the Quran, you'd have to know Classical Arabic, which is not even as well developed as modern Arabic. There are very few who can actually read classical Arabic and those that do often must use other resources to understand them.
The argument they give, where they say you cannot know the word of Allah without first mastering Arabic, is based on the fact that translating any text to another language can effect its meaning. However, the same could be said of them, since they are not reading the Classical Arabic from which the book was translated from.
It would be like saying you couldn't understand the Bible unless you could read and understand Latin. It is simply impractical for most individuals.
Well actually the bible was never written in latin. The OT was in Hebrew mainly and the NT was originally mainly in Greek. However this is mere semantics and does not affect your point.
So in short, it is used as a fail safe argument to stop people in foreign nations from scrutinizing their faith. The hypocrisy becomes quite profound when one realizes that while they condemn anyone who scrutinizes the English translation, they are happy to convert people to their religion with the same book they just said doesn't contain the correct word of Allah.
"they are happy to convert people to their religion with the same book they just said doesn't contain the correct word of Allah"
You know, I think that is actually an excellent point. I may have to do a video on such a thing. If I do and forget to credit you, please remind me so you get proper credit for the inspiration.
I've always wanted to do a video on Islam myself, but lack of time to prepare has led me to avoid it and just respond in PMs and in text comments.
It would be great if someone did a video on it, since I've never seen in covered in other videos debating Islam despite it being a fairly common response by Muslims.
read my first comment first...cont-if the students get under a certain avg they'll be punished by being put in a special classroom. Punishment will teach you things. It will purify you from evil. Think of it as an additional learning experiment. When this is done you will get out of hell into an eternal Heaven. Why would God "lie" to us. Well, he didn't lie to us, he just didn't tell us about one rule, that he only knows. Well, you can ask why didn he tell us? He who created us knows...
please read below comment first-I will list this analogy : a professor tells his students that if they don't get less than 5 points in the upcoming exam they will never never never graduate college. However, there is a rule that he doesn't expose to no one. This rule is that the student will automatically get 5 points if they write their name on the exam. It means that no students will be damned not to graduate from college(relate this to that no human will be in hell for eternity).
What do you think of this argument that I present: The concept of eternity in hell seems to be the virus against the logic of religion. What if punishment was finite. God does reveal that no one with one atom of "Iman"(or goodness, because the two terms must be interchangeable for the logic to hold) will remain in hell. All humans will pass the test. Eternal hell is technically for something that doesn't exist. I will list this analogy...
You are an atheist, Calvinist, fundamentalist. That is one scary combination. I take it young earth is the only possible reading of the Bible you would consider rejecting as well?
No, I reject the allegorical version too. I happen to think that much of it WASN'T meant to be allegory, the flood for instance, and what in the hell do you mean I'm a fundamentalist?
Hate to burst your bubble on that one but I can introduce you to a variety of Christians who would consider me quite the opposite thank you very much.
Maybe God had thought experiments of possible outcomes of how many of his children love him. He might have chosen to come to the Mideast based on the fact that the way he did things in our current world there would be more people saved. Maybe he had a thought experiment where he did appear in lets say china and discovered fewer souls would have survived damnation.
True, but this is putting a limit on God. You're saying he could have saved this group of people, but chose to save this other group of people because that group was bigger. Was the bigger group more worthy than the small group based only on their numbers?
If god is also omnipresent there would be no reason he couldn't have appeared in multiple places.
Sending over a few disciples to North America with a miricle would have certainly helped too.
This is ridiculous: He might have chosen to... [have] more people saved.
So God says, "Gee, I think I'll drop babies from this cliff because the terrain below should allow more to survive." Why drop them at all ? Why not cherish and protect them all? Arguments defending an all-powerful, all-knowing God, from responsibility of his actions are bereft of moral understanding.
yes i have no brain but even with my no brain i still understand there must be a god, so shows you where you are at lol. and i dont need to make arguments with you, i have an answer to all your statements but i dont want to debate, trust me what you're saying is just the same stuff someone else has said 1000s or years ago, you are just repeating it, so if you think repeating what someone else came up with is your brain well, well done keep up the good work enlighten us lol
I didn't say you didn't have a brain, I said you weren't using it.
A thousand years ago there were no native american's and the known world was connected via land, so someone could NOT have come up with that argument 1,000 years ago.
If you're not here to have a discussion then you're really just here to make statements and then having nothing to back it up. These are (some) of my reasons for rejecting and whether or not it was already thought of unless I hear the refutation, it stands.
The only thing your comment shows is that you use ad hominims.
Try getting a real argument against what I say. Otherwise you'll have shown your inability to use your brain while I have actually demonstrated the use of mine.
Your insults only hurt your case though, so keep them coming.
One thing that has always struck me as paradoxical is the notion that god is omniscient.
The thing that I always find my self coming back to is...what's the point in this life at all?, most common answer, "God wants a relationship with you"'...this of course raises the question, why can't he present me with a miracle...for he/she/it must know that is the only way I would ever convert. And not just any miracle, one experienced by a number of people so I know I am not going crazy!.
I know you sort of covered this, but it just fascinated me that people can't see there is a major paradox here!.
This life is utterly pointless to any theist if they believe that God is omniscient, and not just because it is an insignificant period to be endured until the after life, but because it is necessity is self contradictory by nature and the nature of god!.
No, see Yahwey can't do that, because that would take our free will away!
Yep, it doesn't matter whether we accept the offer, what earns us salvation is whether or not we accept that a supernatural event happened 2000 years ago. We can't have proof that the deal is valid, because then God would be forcing us to take the deal.
What's revealing about this argument is that Christians admit no one in their right mind would reject it if it was true, so accepting it isn't what's important.
Sorry, is this in reference to my request for a miracle, if so, it seems pretty unfair that anyone in old times that was granted this right should get preference over me?.
Which leads me to Calvinism ;p.
Joking aside, this only adds weight to the argument that even if there's a god, he/she/it is probably the most despicable creature in existence. To let something be born that is going to suffer eternally for a finite crime...is nothing short of repulsive!.
and in any case, this is not free will, it is blackmail!. Surely no one in their right mind would accept that god is an all loving creature if they knew for a fact that they where being blackmailed into loving him...and in any case, you can't make your self love someone, nor can you make your self believe in something. belief occurs when the weight of evidence convinces you of it's validity, if their is no evidence, how can anyone be surprised or even punished for not accepting the premiss!.
Unfortunately that was the end of the Philosophical proofs. I'll probably do a read-aloud version without the pictures at somepoint as many found them distracting. Plus it takes six hours worth of work to make one of these.
I do have other stuff though. If you'd rather wait for new videos I totally understand but if you're bored and want something to watch I'd recommend something from my "Best of HD [in standard definition]" playlist . . . basically the videos I liked and were well received.
Romans 10:18 says everyone even in the days of Jesus knew about his word, lol. So according to the bible all the indians knew about Jesus and denied him. They were just playing dumb when we landed here. ;)
Its obviously absurd but the passage I cited was Romans 10:18 not 3. it says: But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
This is an argument that I realized as a Christian that troubled me for years. It is a problem and fundamentalists do not deal with the severity of the objection.
Also, since god in omniscient he must have known what the snake was saying to Adam and Eve. And therefore he could have stepped in to either stop the snake, or tell Adam and Eve to ignore it. Which means god allowed them to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree, so it's his own fault anyway.
Now THIS is the type of discussion we need! A calm, rational presentation of logic without all the condescension towards "foolish theists". If you arrogantly proclaim another's belief's to be rubbish, they simply tune you out. Why not calmly reach out to religious people with good arguments such as the ones in this video? While I often agree with TheAmazingAtheist, his crude style ruins his message. Bravo on this video, and keep up the good work!
could you try to make it one video so i could video tape, not to use for self gain but to show this to my annoying christian friend who i try to reason with but cant under stand the flaws. this says all proof needed to help me.
"I'll be reposting this without the rapidfire pictures eventually."
I quite liked the "Lord Privy Seal" (or rapid fire picture) style. It gave me quite a few giggles while watching, though it is slightly distracting, and I had to replay a few bits as my brain was focusing on what a picture like "2468" meant (it was "even").
If you do repost please also leave this version up.
...choice doesn't really seem to reflect anything in terms of value judgements, in that the subject doesn't seem to need to make any value judgement call in the process. So it doesn't really measure that, does it?
No, but it shows there is a subconscious process going on for even the simplest of choices, so if THAT requires the subconscious I don't see how value decisions wouldn't be even more effected.
I have no problem with the idea that influences have an effect on the outcome of something, but I don't give it the finality you seem to.
Oh, and I saw your video a while back and had already posted a video response to it back then as well. I'll let you go back and look at that one to see what I think of the "accuracy of the senses" argument.
I also give more weight to the effect of the self on the outcomeof things than you seem to. The experiment you spoke of with the 2 button...
2d. ...You've spoken of a being that can know the exact attribute of every electron, atom, molecule, in existence, and at every instance of the eternity of time. I have no reason to think such a being exists. Such a being would have no free will. This is because all that will happen is set, and even it's attempts to make changes are preordaned. Now, that's a contradiction. To say it has a nature is to limit it. So it has no nature. Also a contradiction. It cannot be limited and unlimited...
Hey, that's not my definition, that's the theistic version of God. My whole point was to show why if that exists we cannot have Free Will . . . and technically if it doesn't exist I still don't think we do. You want to say that version of God is impossible go ahead, I have no interest in arguing against you on that one.
Well, this was the difficulty I was having with your argument. It seems to rest nearly exclusively with the existence of a God as it's support. I don't really care to go into playing with that idea as I've seen no relevance to my existance.
In your vid on the senses, you speak of the "naturalistic world" and make the assertion that its existence invalidates the accuracy of the senses. See my video response to your vid.
No, OTHER PEOPLE were making that argument. I was showing them how they were either wrong, or that if they were right then it would invalidate their entire position.
What would cause a person to make a choice among options are those things the person thought was relevant to the point that was foremost on their mind at the time. That could be, how they feel, what the weather was like, how the outcome of the selection affected their existence, how they view their existence. So, nature, others, and self. The option as to which was foremost also an option.
Yes, all of those things you mention indeed would influence and all together determine the choice. But what determined all of those things you mentioned? Well the things that came before that . . . and then those things were determined by the things before that. You can take this all the way back to before you were born. You can take everything back to the beginning of history and even time and see the first cause, if there was one, determines everything.
1d. Unless you think everything is preordaned, then there is an element of randomness to existence. I understand that everything is interconnected, but the path of the motion of a billiard ball is not the same as the path of motion of a self directed person.
A brain operates more on the level of a hierarchical comparitor than a sequential counter. And the input is not just experience, but also the lack of it that may decide which choosing mechanism we use...
Experience or lack of experience, both of these are outside the self and not controlled by us, not to any strong degree anyway, as our previous choices are built on what came before that anyway.
Preordained, no. I think everything is inevitable. What happened could not have happened any other way, for there was nothing that could have caused it to happen any other way. Think of the Universe as a 4-D painting. If you change anything it pushes everything else around it.
7b. I have no idea how you could say that any influence eliminates the posibility of the existence of the capacity to make choices. A choice is making a selection among options. The options are part of the influence. The main option of a living thing is to choose between life and death. But you say they are not choices, as they are influences.??? Did I hear you right? There are no choices because there are influences? I'm sorry, but that is completely bizaar to me.
If our conscious minds are not the determinate of our choices, then our will is not free. What determines our choices? An intesting study hooked people up to a brain scanner while giving them the choice between two buttons. Eventually by studying the brain scans, the scientits were able to predict with 70% accuracy (far above what it would have been if it was just random guessing) what choice the people would make. The scientists knew what they'd do before they did.
1c. One of the arguments you repeatedly use, and I'm paraphrasing, is that it doesn't matter about the infrequency of an occurance, it matters only that it does happen. Yet, here you say the numbers matter. Now, how do you determine when it matters except that you want it to support your view that there is no choice. Perhaps the problem is that you're hung up on "free will", and forgot about "free will not". ;) Don't forget, God only made a scape goat. What ever happens, it's your fault...
Forgive me, I'm not really following what you mean here. The numbers in the study weren't what was important, beyond showing that the results were not due to blind chance. If they were you'd expect them to get it righ 45-55% of the time. The whole point was to show that we make our decisions sometimes more than a minute before we realize that we have made them. The subconscious is controlling us, and we are not aware of the subconscious for the most part, it takes in info and rolls with it.
Well, you see, studies can be fun to prove something you beleive in as well. All you need to do is ask the right questions. So, if the scientist wants a certain outcome, he just has to ask a question he knows will be answered a certain way, a higher percentage of the time. So the numbers, as well as the questions, are important. By your own proposal, the scientist in the study have no choice but to create a procedure that will give them their desired outcome.
Your making jumps with my argument that you can't make. My "proposal" doesn't tell you "what" will happen, only what does happen was inevitable. You have to show that the scientists were in fact biased first before you claim they had no choice to be. There may very well have deduced that it is in their best interest to ask unbiased questions. Which one was it? Well let's look at the study . . .
The question the scientists asked was "choose which button to press". There was a button on the left and a button on the right. They asked it, scanned their brain waves, made a prediction as to what they would choose based on the scan, and were right way more times than if it was just chance. Can you point to the bias? Where could it possibly be?
Studies are peer reviewed, so if they are biased, it will be pointed out by those who disagree with them and it won't get published. Science works.
1e. Good point. But the issue of cause and effect, and interpretation, can mislead. As I said before, there was a time when it was commonly thought man only used a fraction of his brain because of the research they were doing. It had to do with images of the activity in the brain. But the correct interpretation would be more along the lines of, under these cercumstances, we only see this much activity in the brain in only this region. From what you're telling me, the reading are giving...
Actually that's a pop culture myth. We use most of the brain most of the time. There are times we only use a portion, but more times than not we're using all of it.
Wow, what brings you back here? Revisiting my arguments for your video?
Umm, no I don't think so. It's like the bodies muscles. Certain activities require only some muscles to pull it off, others require the majority working in unison. Only with the brain many things require most of it to pull it off.
I think we need to hone in on the part when you said a choice is making a selection among options. That would have to include that when people make a choice, they could have made a different choice. However what would have caused them do that? When they made the choice, they evaluated all of the options and then chose what they thought was the best one. There was nothing that would have caused them to think otherwise. Their "choice" was a deduction, and the result was inevitable.
2c. No, because there is also the option to not make a choice, to "Oh fuck it. I don't feel like choosing." and letting someone else choose for you, or forgo choosing at that time. But you do seem to think everything is so tightly wound that there is no options. Spin the wheel; throw the dice, someone says. Creating another element of randomness. Also, they don't alway weigh in all options. Options don't always have to be weighty either.
You've used the word "random" a lot when discussing my points and I have to say that I don't beleive there is anything "random". It's not a dice throw, it's a precisional calculation. Our brains are like mathematical factors, our experience is the input and our actions are the output. Put an exact value for the input and you'll get a specific output. The result was inevitable. Also, "not choosing" is itself a choice\decision. It's not "lack of a choice".
4b. ... or to protect them from the elements, and by opposing end them...
Tis a consumation devoutly to be desired. Or does desire play any role in the universe you describe. I do disagree that positive or negative matters not. Those are the core of influence. For my life; against my life. Are we using the postulation that, God is the determinant, as part of our proof? Afraid I have trouble going there.
3b. ...who has pointed out an aspect of life that distinguishes it from all other matter, and points to the much sought source of the code of ethics theists deny all others. That distinction is the fact that life can go out of existence, and that it's existence is conditional. That matter and energy exist unconditionally. This is where the fundamental choice lies. To be, or not to be. That is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the input of the receptors...
2b. ...And that identity depends on both the presenter, and the recipient. Then there is the context of knowledge. Then there is the influence of the environment. Then there is the influence of the relative health of the beings involved.
When it comes down to it, there are too many alternatives presented to us to make it posible to say that there are no choices. Influences, yes, but determinants? I have great difficulty with that.
I will tell you that I have been influenced by someone...
3a. ...I'm still convinced I chose to let you guide me here. ;)
How about this question. Was God gay? Oh wait, we moved off that page. ;)
I'm going to have to ask you this as I may have missed it, but do you define free will here? I didn't see it. You and I were discussing choice, and whether we have it of not. Is it one and the same; or are they two different topics?
Did you watch the other two parts? Free will must be free. Which means free from influence, which is technically impossible. Think about the decisions\deductions you've made in your life, and how different they would be if the people around you were different. What you are was not inevitable, if it were possible that others would have chosen differently. The smallest action can have huge effects in the world. What if Arch Duke Fredinhand had ducked at the last minute? Where would we be now?
1b. Yes, indeed I did. I must say that I find your philosophical proofs to be deeply influenced by religious thought instead of trying to draw from, shall we say, natural influence. I do agree with aspects of influence, and would say we all influence those we influence. ie, come into contact with, personally, or electronically, as in what we are doing here. Those influences can be positive or negative. Which will it be? I think part of that depends on how they identify positive and negative...
Whether the influence is positive or negative matters not, only that it is influence. The influce itself, that it exists, is imporant, for it is inevitably the environment and in relaton to our genetics, that determines our actions. Both of theses factors would be controlled by God, if he exists, therefore Free Will cannot exist.
5b. Fundamentally, I find there are three major influences in ones life; nature, man, and self. I don't see self as merely a conglomeration of chemical reactions. I'll presume you mean by "free will" the ability to make choices. Now, I could stop making choices, if I thought we didn' t have them by your proposals, but, of course, by your proposals, I have no choice but to argue this as it is my chemical make up. Hmm. I could exercise the ultimate choice and purchase a gun. But I'm too cheep...
great series
USERNAMEfieldempty 2 months ago
@USERNAMEfieldempty Thank you!
HonestDiscussioner 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pictures are changing too often - it distracts from the speech and you can't make it to follow them anyway... so if I want to hear your speech, I have to scroll down not to see the pictures cause after one minute it already makes me feel dizzy
wizardica 5 months ago
Pictures are changing too often - it distracts from the speech and you can't make it to follow them anyway... so if I want to hear your speech, I have to scroll down not to see the pictures cause after one minute it already makes me feel dizzy
wizardica 5 months ago
First of all, a nice video with Interesting arguments and thoughts. Personally I think the most important thing to realize as a religious person is that you only have your own personal belief, and you cant KNOW if there is a god and what god is. You cant even know if Free will exists. Hell, you cant even know if the world (as you know it) "exists". Another interesting paradox that you touch upon is the paradox of an omnipotent being, can an omnipotent being limit itself?
ShaftCantDie 6 months ago
i watched your videos for the third time around and one thing keeps coming up in my mind. what do you think will happen 12-21-12? im not going to base my whole opinion on your answer, but im just wondering. mabye make a video to explain your view point of 12-21-12? i hope for find the time to answer my call.
sithlord000 2 years ago
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that anything special will happen on that date.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
ok, thank you for your reply.
sithlord000 2 years ago
If my definition holds, then clearly God is not responsible for the sin in the world.
if you define responsible as simply "the cause of something" then clearly that would mean God is responsible, but good luck finding someone who would use the term to only mean "the cause of something".
look up the word in a dictionary or even a philosophical dictionary. It will define the term in the way I have.
Your charge of a contradiction is overturned if you cannot refute my definition.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Your definition may be internally consistent but not consistent overall. Again, he is creating evil, causing it. You just admitted that if we use my definition god would be responsible, therefore god is responsible for evil. This is inconsistent with the definition of god, with YOUR definition, as you claimed that god "hates evil" even though it only exists because he causes it.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
You have offered no definition of responsibility.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY RESPONSIBILITY?
this is clearly key to the debate. I already offered you my definition, but here it is again:
Responsibility is the ability to be judged or held accountable for one's actions.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Being responsible for something IS being the cause. If you are going to just argue we are responsible because someone has the power to punish us then that's missing the point.
The point is that if I build a robot and program it to shoot you, do you blame the robot or do you blame me? The robot didn't do anything wrong, it did only what I made it do. If god makes us do something, then he is the cause. You are arguing that god causes evil to occur so he can punish those he made perform the act.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
You are saying that causing something to happen is being responsible for it. I disagree and so do most dictionaries.
More importantly, in my system I define it differently. You have to judge my system for internal consistency to determine if my arguments are sound, not tell me what I mean when I use a word. I have been clear in saying that I do believe God causes evil, and I have been clear to explain what responsibility is in my system (which how most dictionaries define the word too).
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
The dictionary uses both of our definitions actually. Very well, let's get on to sheer internal consistency then.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
You do not understand the role of the will and of knowledge, both of which are important in discussions on responsibility.
Humans knowingly do wrong things, and God predestined that to occur. God punishes humans for knowingly doing evil by their choice. Their choice was predetermined/decreed by God, but agency is not eliminated. I am not a pantheist.
The person who sins sins. God does not sin. He causes the person to sin. When people eat, God does not eat, but God causes the people to eat.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
"When people eat, God does not eat, but God causes the people to eat. "
If I press a button that detonates TNT, true that I did not detonate, but I did cause the explosion and destruction. This means that evil only exists because god causes it. You are saying that god causes something he doesn't want only to hold the person responsible for the thing he caused them to do. If he caused it though, it means he wanted them to do it, and that means he wanted evil to occur, yet he hates it.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
God wants evil to happen for His purposes. I never denied that God desires evil to happen.
I say He hates evil, which means He always punishes it when it does exist. Evil creates a debt to God that must be paid. Punishment satisfies the debt and expiates the guilt, thus taking care of the "divine book keeping" that displays God's attributes.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
He doesn't punish "evil" but those he forces to commit evil that have no relation to it than he made them do it.
Also, it doesn't exist with out him making it happen. This would be akin to me saying I hate the word "FAHNAWTaHanfnanZZZ" that I just made up and no one knows how to write it, then grabbing someone's hand, making them write it then killing them because of it and then rewarding everyone who he didn't make write the word because he has "mercy" to not make them do the thing he hates.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
First, God does not coerce men to do evil. He causes them to do evil willingly.
Secondly, all men commit evil (not just those whom He condemns). The elect have sinned and do sin every day until they die. The mercy of God is not that He prevents the elect from sinning and allows them to do good and then rewards them for it, for that is not mercy, that is simply the just reward of merit.
The Mercy of God is His saving of some sinners.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Your problem seems to be that you do not understand the idea of moral agency whereby wills exist, make choices, and are responsible while being without a freedom from God's decrees.
Biblical Theistic determinism does not prevent creatures from acting willingly. Their wills are directed by God's decree.
You also reject God's right to create men for the purpose of causing them to be evil so that He can DISPLAY His hatred of evil by punishing moral agents who are guilty of evil.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Justice depends upon the law of God, there is no higher standard, and men are created as moral agents under the law. the law demands that breakers of the law pay the debt of life and that keepers of the law be be paid the wage of life. This is justice, the reward of good and the punishment of evil.
God displays His justice by demanding the debt for sin. All men are sinners under the law (except for Christ).
God enacted His law as judge through contract by his right over His creatures.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
But the only thing that determines whether break the rules or not is the actions of god. Again, this is like me decided to hate a word I invented and in order to display my hatred force someone to write the word so I can punish them. He would then not be displaying his hatred of evil but his hatred of those that perform evil, even though it his own fault that it even exists in the first place. To display his hatred of evil he would remove it from existence, which would be within his power.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
This same discussion we are having occurs in Romans chapter 9, especially verses 11-24.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
That IS a very interesting passage. Still philosophically wrong but I'm going to have to ask gambleor about this as he asserts that the bible is pro-free will.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
How is it philosophically wrong?
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Because the analogy used doesn't work. A potter may mold clay for a "bad" purpose but he does not think the clay itself is bad, nor does he punish the clay or hold him accountable. If god wants to pre-destine us for evil so be it but to then judge us harshly for doing exactly what he wanted in contradictory. As well, if this is the case, then why all of the references to forgiveness, for no one would require forgiveness as they are only doing what they were meant to do.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
responsibility does not require free will. Responsibility requires knowledge of sin and someone hold you responsible. that is where you fail philosophically.
the analogy of the potter is meant to carry one literal point, namely that god has absolute property rights over you.
God created men good and decreed that they should choose to do evil. men do evil. men are punished for committing evil deeds.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
This is what you posit:
1. God predetermines what each person will do. This means he is responsible.
2. We are held responsible for our actions.
This is a contradiction, which is why you fail.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
God's providence dose not require the inference that He is responsible for the events He predestines. God is the cause. He is not responsible because there is no one to hold him responsible.
Accountability/Responsibility requires someone to hold one accountable/responsible.
Predestination is not contrary to responsibility. You are imposing your assumptions into a system that does not lead to the conclusions you are drawing.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
God's primary purpose for creating evil was to show His mercy toward the elect, mercy being impossible without transgression, and secondly to show His hatred of evil which heightens the value of His mercy.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
The Bible does not teach free will.
The Bible teaches the absolute predestination of all things by God before creation. God chose, for example, who would receive and (more importantly) believe the word that is preached. God also determined who would not believe (obviously).
The Bible alone is the Word of God.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Yea, try telling that to gambleor.
Even if you are right, you have god torturing the creations he loves for doing exactly what he wanted to do.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
God does not love those whom he sends to hell.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Why would he create something for the purposes of torturing it for all eternity? He's literally creating something in such a way that he'll not love it. This makes little if any sense.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
God created the reprobate for the purpose of demonstrating His hatred of evil. God created the elect for the purpose of displaying His mercy. He enjoys this. This is His good pleasure.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
You are saying he created evil to demonstrate his hatred of it? And what purpose does his hatred serve in tortuing? Then, what purpose does it serve in torturing for eternity?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
The torture is punishment as just vengeance upon transgressors of the law of God. The display of justice in the punishment of evil. The Bible says that God's chief purpose in creation is the display of His attributes unto His glory.
God fulfills justice when showing mercy to other sinners by coming as a man to suffer under His own wrath in their place.
The eternalness of the punishment shows God's changeless attitudes and the grievousness of sin against an infinitely holy and righteous God.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
But they transgressed because god wanted them to transgress. That isn't even transgressing! That's doing what you were supposed to do. This is why this doesn't make any sense.
If I program a computer to do something and it does it, it's my own fault that it did it. God can't do this because it would be him causing sin!
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
God does cause sin. God does not himself sin by causing sin.
God gives the law as a basis of ethics. Providence is not the basis of ethics. His decree (what he choose shall come to pass) does not determine what is right for a person to do and what is wrong for a person to do. His law does.
Your objection is based upon the fact that you think your maker should not have the right to make you and judge you for how He has made you. But He has the right to make you for whatever purpose He chooses.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Do you know what Calvinism is?
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
This was an AMAZING series. But I think you got hit by a vote-bot. There's no logical reason you should be sitting at 3 stars.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
Yep. Twice.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
About free will, Your actions being influenced by outside sources does not invalidate free will. A being knowing what you will decide, does not invalidate free will.
I do agree that outside influences affect once´s actions but within that context, we also have the ability to chose. So if by free you mean ¨decision making process that is 100% free form any influence¨, then I agree with you. However, I see no reason to define it in such strict terms.
solid444 2 years ago
But our ability to choose is given to us by things outside of our control, so even how we choose is controlled.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I don´t think our choices are controlled as much as they are influenced. There is a certain influence in everything we do, but that does not invalidate free will.
HD, do you really think that if the initial conditions were the same at the time of your birth, you would be the same person you are today if your whole life would be played over again?
It is true that we are influenced by our surroundings, but these surroundings also have the ability to decide how to influence us.
solid444 2 years ago
Yes I do believe I'd be the same person. Why would I be any different? Everything I have done has been for a reason and if the situation is not changed and the information is not changed, why would I make a different decision?
"t is true that we are influenced by our surroundings, but these surroundings also have the ability to decide how to influence us. "
That's true, though I would say "deduce" instead of "decide" because their decisions were based on previous influences, and so on.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Great series man, you should present more videos in this format because it was very well done.
One thing that I take away from this is that even though I am a theist and a christian, I agree with most of what you said here. In other words, your argument is not as much anti-christian as it is anti-fundamental christianity.
solid444 2 years ago
Actually I just redid these videos because I got so many complaints on the format. People felt it took away from the message, but I'm glad you liked it. It was a lot of work.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Really good series. Thank you.
templarart 2 years ago
You're welcome!
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
There is somewhere where sea and ocean touches themselves and they do not mix. Water is salted from the ocean and when you cross the invisible line in the water, it becomes mild or unsalted. its written in the quran. Also written that the sex of a baby is determined from the sperm and not from the mother or both. and they found that out just recently or well... way after the Quran came on Mohammed (pbuh) Look for miracles of the quran youll see. Can you precise the deism you talk about plz?thx!
Jamila32 2 years ago
Deism is a belief in a creator, a "higher power". There are differening varieties but normally each person pursues thier "relationship" with god in their own way, without any religious constraints. It's often just "spirituality". Deists are nice because they usually don't get on anyone's nerves. They acknowledge god so religious people don't mind them, and they don't try to change laws or force their beliefs on others, so the atheists don't mind them.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
... because i know that my role is to talk about Islam and say what the real religion is, and everyone make their choice to follow or not, and i, as a muslim respects people. It is interesting to know how people think, i like to know but in a way i dont understand how people can deny that God exist and how people dont see what we see in islam thats so peaceful. =) Thx for your explanations and for sharing what you believe in. i really appreciate it =)
Jamila32 2 years ago
If you look at other holy books, even non-abrahamic ones, if taken allegorically you can take anything and try to make it mean something that matches reality. I've read up on most of the scientific claims of the Qu'ran, and I'm not impressed. Have you looked up the rebuttals to the claims to see if skeptics have anything to say in return? I normally try to look at both sides and see who has the better argument.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
ok.. For you, even if a book that was written almost 1400 years ago says stuff that , at that time, couldnt be known by anyone. Because they did not have the technology to do so. And you arent impressed? hmm... What is your theory on how Mohammed (pbuh) did know those scientific stuff?? and the mathematical miracles as well, how ca someone write a book with so much kind of "code" in it, and say "well, youll understand when time comes". I respect everyone even tho they dont believe in Islam ...
Jamila32 2 years ago
Because it seems most read into the Qu'ran, and the Bible, what they want to see. You can take any large volume of words and find code in it. That's been shown.
It seems that often with religious texts the readers will take something vauge and think it means something it doesn't. I don't believe Mohummad actually knew about the big bang, I think he made a mysitcal description that can be associated with actual events. This can be done with virtually every holy book.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I think, believing in God is important, because, when you think about him many times a day, it preserves you from making bad stuff. Anyways, thats what i believe in. I think a life without believing in God has no point. God created us, we must adore him every minute and ask for his forgiveness, and hope to enter paradise. :) Islam isnt what you see on tv. Well, i liked your videos, and ill answer your questions if you have some.. thx for your time HonestDiscussioner.
Jamila32 2 years ago
Well I'm glad you liked my videos, but remember my name. I'm the HonestDiscussioner so discussing this is what I do. Hope you are not offended.
The thing is, we must first establish that god exists in the first place, and then decide whether to worship him.
The idea that without god there is no point is troubling, but its also only an appeal to emotion. It's preferability doesn't make it more or less true, and you could be using the only life you have to adore a fictional character, maybe
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I wonder how people can deny the fact that, someone must have created everything, because its in perfect harmony, you should see the videos about the miracles of the Quran if you havent yet. Scientific things are said in it, proofs that its from God, because 1400 before, they could not know that the sky was made with 7 layers, or that the mountains acts like screws, or that the human is created from a sperm and many other things. Also, you surely know about the 2 seas? ...
Jamila32 2 years ago
As well, the idea that belief "preserves you from making bad stuff" is actually oppositly true. In 1st world countries, the more religious an area is, the higher the crime rates, poverty rates, divorce rates, infant mortality rates, and virtually every other negative statistic.
Islam is not the only way to "adore god", which is why I suggested deism in the first place. From my perspective, if god exists, it's likely no book accurately depicts him\her\it. It would be superior in every way.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
hmm interesting. And i am not offended and thx for your honesty as well. What i think is, God is the only one that can be worshipped. ( sorry if my english is not always good =) ) When i look at the creation, i see something that cannot have happened by itself. Every little details are perfectly placed. For example the human body, it is so complexe when you really study it, ADN cant have created itself, also every animal has its own way to defend itself, and its own survival mode. ...
Jamila32 2 years ago
Imagine I told you there was no way a man could go underwater 1,000 meters because the pressure was too great? Then I gave other reasons why I didn't think it was possible?
If you were to then show me a modern submarine, explain how it works, and show that it indeed does allow a man to go much further under water than 1,000 feet, I'd have to admit that a man could do that.
It's like that with evolution, we know exactly how everything came to be, and best yet, we have evidence, alot of it
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
.. so even if i converted to that religion, still all my family arent muslim. The thing that i dont like about any religion, is the fact that everyone is saying , nobody enters paradise exept people in their religion. I dont like the idea of everyone i know, going to hell because they didnt believe in Mohammed. But islam is a religion of adoration of God, the One and Only, everything i do in this religion i do it for God and myself, to preserve me from making sins. ...
Jamila32 2 years ago
I follow what i believe is best for me and hope to enter paradise, but a part of me still hope that God will not only let people of a certain religion enter paradise, because there are some nice people out there, that believe in God, and does great things but arent in a particular religion. Well, only God knows I think.
Jamila32 2 years ago
You seem to be more of the deist type, not the religious type, based on this here.
Tell me, why is belief in the existance of god so important? Would you rather I believe you exist, or believe that what you believe is correct?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I think you might have got me wrong there.. Because i really truly believe in God. And as you said, i could not fool him if i was to say " i believe just in case" . the thing is, i was raised in a family where religion wasnt THAT important exept for believing in God. But my mother is catholic and my father is preacher in christian church. I never believed in their stuff, for me, believing that Jesus is God was kind of weird. I did my research and converted to islam 4 years ago. (see next msg)..
Jamila32 2 years ago
wow.. that was interesting.. I must say something tho... Since we can't see with our eyes if God exist, we can still give proof of his existence i think, i prefer to believe in God and follow what I think is the right path, and that is believing that there is only one God and he is not trinity. Because if we die as non-believers, and find out we go to hell because He exist it would be too late to change, no?!
Jamila32 2 years ago
You are basically arguing Pascal's Wager. To follow your own argument in the comment below, no one really knows, which is really Pascal's weakness. Even if you were to play statistics with this, which you really can't, you'd only be decreasing your "hell" chance by a fraction of a fraction. As well, if god's omnipotent, he'll know you're only believing "just in case". You must have a good reason to think your specific beliefs are true, and I'd like to think if God exists, he appreciates honesty
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
These are excellent.. i asked my dad about why god doesnt show himself to all of us and he said "because it would violate our free will" yet he thinks god answers prayers by influencing other people to get the desired result. You cant win with that kinda thought...
Aturayd 2 years ago
Well he's right, because it's not like any of his angels ever decided to rebel and . . oops oh wait . . . nevermind . . .
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
He who created us knows our psychology. That some of us (whether it be due to env or other factors) will not do good-and see the sweetness of doing good to themselves and to others- if they are not severly threatened. Iman and doing good are different levels so you will act on your own to do good without the need of the hell motivation once you are at a certain level of Iman. As to why we are granted Heaven for eternity- this is because our Creator is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
abdulzarveen 2 years ago
wow... what you wrote was nice.. and i truly hope you are right, are you a muslim?? Do you think that, everyone who has 1 atome of belief in God will enter paradise even after a time in hell, applies to non-muslim???
Jamila32 2 years ago
I really have no idea how I was unaware of your comments for so long. I don't remember getting an e-mail for them.
Anyway while everything you say sounds nice I don't really believe it is biblical. Even if you're right about no one with any good remaining in hell forever, we have paul saying that no one is good, and we also have a lot of reference to eternity in relation to hell. If this wasn't the case, there would be no need to mention eternity. At best you are left with a contradiction
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Is your comment begining "I really have no idea how I was unaware of your comments for so long. I don't remember getting an e-mail for them." meant to be to me?
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
thanks for replying. I'm a muslim by the way. Do you have a solid background in Islam so I can discuss with you this further?
abdulzarveen 2 years ago
Solid? No. I have been told by one or two, not that this means all or even any other muslims say this, that I can't have a solid understanding of Islam unless I can speak Arabic. At least in some regards.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Ok. that's fine, don't worry about it. I disagree that hell is eternal, even for atheists. I think that the human life and afterlife should be regarded with complexity, and simplifying them, by us deciding who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is arrogant . The final decision is to God alone. God's decision will be just. Allah's top two attributes, are those of Justice and Mercy. Eternity in hell, or even the severity of punishment that many religious people claim, can't be justified.
abdulzarveen 2 years ago
'Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
There were brought some prisoners to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) among whom there was also a woman, who was searching (for someone) and when she found a child among the prisoners, she took hold of it, pressed it against her chest and provided it suck. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: (cont-nxt-comment)
abdulzarveen 2 years ago
Do you think this woman would ever afford to throw her child in the Fire? We said: By Allah, so far as it lies in her power, she would never throw the child in Fire. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Allah is more kind to His servants than this woman is to her child.
Hadith number in Sahih Muslim : 4947
abdulzarveen 2 years ago
In my experience, no matter what the holy book, there are dozens of interpretations, each claiming they are the correct one. I have a hard time thinking that the ultimate form of knowledge is conveyed through solid text to be interpreted and taught to the uneducated by biased individuals who often disagree with each other.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Allah has rewarded the person with a faculty of thinking before sending anything down. Our religion is a way of life, and it is suppose to be in harmony with the nature and logic of human beings. I've watched some of your videos, and I like your honesty, objectivity, and sincerity in discussion. If you continue to have these three characteristics you will succeed and there is nothing for you to worry about; that's all Allah asks for.
iqraa89 2 years ago
Thank you very much for your comment.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
@HonestDiscussioner
I've been researching and debating Islam for some time. The claim that one cannot understand the Quran unless you know Arabic is not actually true. In order to understand the Quran, you'd have to know Classical Arabic, which is not even as well developed as modern Arabic. There are very few who can actually read classical Arabic and those that do often must use other resources to understand them.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
@HonestDiscussioner
The argument they give, where they say you cannot know the word of Allah without first mastering Arabic, is based on the fact that translating any text to another language can effect its meaning. However, the same could be said of them, since they are not reading the Classical Arabic from which the book was translated from.
It would be like saying you couldn't understand the Bible unless you could read and understand Latin. It is simply impractical for most individuals.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
Well actually the bible was never written in latin. The OT was in Hebrew mainly and the NT was originally mainly in Greek. However this is mere semantics and does not affect your point.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
So in short, it is used as a fail safe argument to stop people in foreign nations from scrutinizing their faith. The hypocrisy becomes quite profound when one realizes that while they condemn anyone who scrutinizes the English translation, they are happy to convert people to their religion with the same book they just said doesn't contain the correct word of Allah.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
"they are happy to convert people to their religion with the same book they just said doesn't contain the correct word of Allah"
You know, I think that is actually an excellent point. I may have to do a video on such a thing. If I do and forget to credit you, please remind me so you get proper credit for the inspiration.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
@HonestDiscussioner
Thanks! ^^
I've always wanted to do a video on Islam myself, but lack of time to prepare has led me to avoid it and just respond in PMs and in text comments.
It would be great if someone did a video on it, since I've never seen in covered in other videos debating Islam despite it being a fairly common response by Muslims.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
You should, it would be interesting.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
read my first comment first...cont-if the students get under a certain avg they'll be punished by being put in a special classroom. Punishment will teach you things. It will purify you from evil. Think of it as an additional learning experiment. When this is done you will get out of hell into an eternal Heaven. Why would God "lie" to us. Well, he didn't lie to us, he just didn't tell us about one rule, that he only knows. Well, you can ask why didn he tell us? He who created us knows...
abdulzarveen 2 years ago
please read below comment first-I will list this analogy : a professor tells his students that if they don't get less than 5 points in the upcoming exam they will never never never graduate college. However, there is a rule that he doesn't expose to no one. This rule is that the student will automatically get 5 points if they write their name on the exam. It means that no students will be damned not to graduate from college(relate this to that no human will be in hell for eternity).
abdulzarveen 2 years ago
What do you think of this argument that I present: The concept of eternity in hell seems to be the virus against the logic of religion. What if punishment was finite. God does reveal that no one with one atom of "Iman"(or goodness, because the two terms must be interchangeable for the logic to hold) will remain in hell. All humans will pass the test. Eternal hell is technically for something that doesn't exist. I will list this analogy...
abdulzarveen 2 years ago
Some excellent tidbits here, maybe too many. I'm sure this series would overwhelm the majority of believers.
Blackmark52 2 years ago
You are an atheist, Calvinist, fundamentalist. That is one scary combination. I take it young earth is the only possible reading of the Bible you would consider rejecting as well?
trafferazabu 2 years ago
DON'T call me a Calvinist.
No, I reject the allegorical version too. I happen to think that much of it WASN'T meant to be allegory, the flood for instance, and what in the hell do you mean I'm a fundamentalist?
Hate to burst your bubble on that one but I can introduce you to a variety of Christians who would consider me quite the opposite thank you very much.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Maybe God had thought experiments of possible outcomes of how many of his children love him. He might have chosen to come to the Mideast based on the fact that the way he did things in our current world there would be more people saved. Maybe he had a thought experiment where he did appear in lets say china and discovered fewer souls would have survived damnation.
boxoftruth 2 years ago
True, but this is putting a limit on God. You're saying he could have saved this group of people, but chose to save this other group of people because that group was bigger. Was the bigger group more worthy than the small group based only on their numbers?
If god is also omnipresent there would be no reason he couldn't have appeared in multiple places.
Sending over a few disciples to North America with a miricle would have certainly helped too.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
This is ridiculous: He might have chosen to... [have] more people saved.
So God says, "Gee, I think I'll drop babies from this cliff because the terrain below should allow more to survive." Why drop them at all ? Why not cherish and protect them all? Arguments defending an all-powerful, all-knowing God, from responsibility of his actions are bereft of moral understanding.
Blackmark52 2 years ago
yes i have no brain but even with my no brain i still understand there must be a god, so shows you where you are at lol. and i dont need to make arguments with you, i have an answer to all your statements but i dont want to debate, trust me what you're saying is just the same stuff someone else has said 1000s or years ago, you are just repeating it, so if you think repeating what someone else came up with is your brain well, well done keep up the good work enlighten us lol
no insult intended :P
aliakber1001 2 years ago
I didn't say you didn't have a brain, I said you weren't using it.
A thousand years ago there were no native american's and the known world was connected via land, so someone could NOT have come up with that argument 1,000 years ago.
If you're not here to have a discussion then you're really just here to make statements and then having nothing to back it up. These are (some) of my reasons for rejecting and whether or not it was already thought of unless I hear the refutation, it stands.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
only thing this logically shows is your missing a brain lol
aliakber1001 2 years ago
The only thing your comment shows is that you use ad hominims.
Try getting a real argument against what I say. Otherwise you'll have shown your inability to use your brain while I have actually demonstrated the use of mine.
Your insults only hurt your case though, so keep them coming.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Bravo!.
Great series!!.
Looking forward to more.
joebot1 2 years ago
One thing that has always struck me as paradoxical is the notion that god is omniscient.
The thing that I always find my self coming back to is...what's the point in this life at all?, most common answer, "God wants a relationship with you"'...this of course raises the question, why can't he present me with a miracle...for he/she/it must know that is the only way I would ever convert. And not just any miracle, one experienced by a number of people so I know I am not going crazy!.
joebot1 2 years ago
I know you sort of covered this, but it just fascinated me that people can't see there is a major paradox here!.
This life is utterly pointless to any theist if they believe that God is omniscient, and not just because it is an insignificant period to be endured until the after life, but because it is necessity is self contradictory by nature and the nature of god!.
joebot1 2 years ago
No, see Yahwey can't do that, because that would take our free will away!
Yep, it doesn't matter whether we accept the offer, what earns us salvation is whether or not we accept that a supernatural event happened 2000 years ago. We can't have proof that the deal is valid, because then God would be forcing us to take the deal.
What's revealing about this argument is that Christians admit no one in their right mind would reject it if it was true, so accepting it isn't what's important.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Sorry, is this in reference to my request for a miracle, if so, it seems pretty unfair that anyone in old times that was granted this right should get preference over me?.
Which leads me to Calvinism ;p.
Joking aside, this only adds weight to the argument that even if there's a god, he/she/it is probably the most despicable creature in existence. To let something be born that is going to suffer eternally for a finite crime...is nothing short of repulsive!.
joebot1 2 years ago
and in any case, this is not free will, it is blackmail!. Surely no one in their right mind would accept that god is an all loving creature if they knew for a fact that they where being blackmailed into loving him...and in any case, you can't make your self love someone, nor can you make your self believe in something. belief occurs when the weight of evidence convinces you of it's validity, if their is no evidence, how can anyone be surprised or even punished for not accepting the premiss!.
joebot1 2 years ago
It's all about perspective vs. reality. At my old job as a waiter, my manager always hit me over the head with "perception is reality".
Many people are disgusted with themselves or their past actions or feel as though there is something wrong with themselves.
Religion not only confirms their beliefs . .as well as their beliefs that no one else is better than they are . . and also gives them a solution.
They'll fight to the death to hold on to that perception.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Unfortunately that was the end of the Philosophical proofs. I'll probably do a read-aloud version without the pictures at somepoint as many found them distracting. Plus it takes six hours worth of work to make one of these.
I do have other stuff though. If you'd rather wait for new videos I totally understand but if you're bored and want something to watch I'd recommend something from my "Best of HD [in standard definition]" playlist . . . basically the videos I liked and were well received.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
sounds good!
joebot1 2 years ago
Wow the pics at 7:04 and 8:49 are badass...
DblOSmith 2 years ago
Romans 10:18 says everyone even in the days of Jesus knew about his word, lol. So according to the bible all the indians knew about Jesus and denied him. They were just playing dumb when we landed here. ;)
fauyd 2 years ago
Well I have heard the argument that the Natives did know Jesus and they just pretended not to, but that is absurd on so many levels.
However the section in Romans you provide seems to be talking about the wickedness of man.
3 18 itself says ""There is no fear of God before their eyes", that does not sound like a statement that all knew of Jesus specifically.
Though I'm pretty sure Matthew says his fame spread far and wide.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Its obviously absurd but the passage I cited was Romans 10:18 not 3. it says: But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
fauyd 2 years ago
Ah, I don't know why the search engine gave me chapter 3.
It does seem to indicate that in a way. Almost as though they didn't know there was another continent.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
This is an argument that I realized as a Christian that troubled me for years. It is a problem and fundamentalists do not deal with the severity of the objection.
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
Also, since god in omniscient he must have known what the snake was saying to Adam and Eve. And therefore he could have stepped in to either stop the snake, or tell Adam and Eve to ignore it. Which means god allowed them to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree, so it's his own fault anyway.
dave28lax 2 years ago
Nice series. I love votebots - without them I might not have got round to seeing your earliest vids.
dave28lax 2 years ago
thank you for "seeing the light" as a priest would say
sithlord000 2 years ago
Now THIS is the type of discussion we need! A calm, rational presentation of logic without all the condescension towards "foolish theists". If you arrogantly proclaim another's belief's to be rubbish, they simply tune you out. Why not calmly reach out to religious people with good arguments such as the ones in this video? While I often agree with TheAmazingAtheist, his crude style ruins his message. Bravo on this video, and keep up the good work!
VidKid40 2 years ago
Thanks. I put a lot of time and effort into this. I'll be reposting this without the rapidfire pictures eventually.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
could you try to make it one video so i could video tape, not to use for self gain but to show this to my annoying christian friend who i try to reason with but cant under stand the flaws. this says all proof needed to help me.
sithlord000 2 years ago
"I'll be reposting this without the rapidfire pictures eventually."
I quite liked the "Lord Privy Seal" (or rapid fire picture) style. It gave me quite a few giggles while watching, though it is slightly distracting, and I had to replay a few bits as my brain was focusing on what a picture like "2468" meant (it was "even").
If you do repost please also leave this version up.
dave28lax 2 years ago
good series HD
tomtom006699 2 years ago
I appreciate that, believe me. It's the basis for my everything.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
...choice doesn't really seem to reflect anything in terms of value judgements, in that the subject doesn't seem to need to make any value judgement call in the process. So it doesn't really measure that, does it?
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
No, but it shows there is a subconscious process going on for even the simplest of choices, so if THAT requires the subconscious I don't see how value decisions wouldn't be even more effected.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
I have no problem with the idea that influences have an effect on the outcome of something, but I don't give it the finality you seem to.
Oh, and I saw your video a while back and had already posted a video response to it back then as well. I'll let you go back and look at that one to see what I think of the "accuracy of the senses" argument.
I also give more weight to the effect of the self on the outcomeof things than you seem to. The experiment you spoke of with the 2 button...
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
2d. ...You've spoken of a being that can know the exact attribute of every electron, atom, molecule, in existence, and at every instance of the eternity of time. I have no reason to think such a being exists. Such a being would have no free will. This is because all that will happen is set, and even it's attempts to make changes are preordaned. Now, that's a contradiction. To say it has a nature is to limit it. So it has no nature. Also a contradiction. It cannot be limited and unlimited...
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
Hey, that's not my definition, that's the theistic version of God. My whole point was to show why if that exists we cannot have Free Will . . . and technically if it doesn't exist I still don't think we do. You want to say that version of God is impossible go ahead, I have no interest in arguing against you on that one.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
Well, this was the difficulty I was having with your argument. It seems to rest nearly exclusively with the existence of a God as it's support. I don't really care to go into playing with that idea as I've seen no relevance to my existance.
In your vid on the senses, you speak of the "naturalistic world" and make the assertion that its existence invalidates the accuracy of the senses. See my video response to your vid.
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
No, OTHER PEOPLE were making that argument. I was showing them how they were either wrong, or that if they were right then it would invalidate their entire position.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
Honing in on choice, as a selection of options.
What would cause a person to make a choice among options are those things the person thought was relevant to the point that was foremost on their mind at the time. That could be, how they feel, what the weather was like, how the outcome of the selection affected their existence, how they view their existence. So, nature, others, and self. The option as to which was foremost also an option.
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
Yes, all of those things you mention indeed would influence and all together determine the choice. But what determined all of those things you mentioned? Well the things that came before that . . . and then those things were determined by the things before that. You can take this all the way back to before you were born. You can take everything back to the beginning of history and even time and see the first cause, if there was one, determines everything.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
1d. Unless you think everything is preordaned, then there is an element of randomness to existence. I understand that everything is interconnected, but the path of the motion of a billiard ball is not the same as the path of motion of a self directed person.
A brain operates more on the level of a hierarchical comparitor than a sequential counter. And the input is not just experience, but also the lack of it that may decide which choosing mechanism we use...
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
Experience or lack of experience, both of these are outside the self and not controlled by us, not to any strong degree anyway, as our previous choices are built on what came before that anyway.
Preordained, no. I think everything is inevitable. What happened could not have happened any other way, for there was nothing that could have caused it to happen any other way. Think of the Universe as a 4-D painting. If you change anything it pushes everything else around it.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
7b. I have no idea how you could say that any influence eliminates the posibility of the existence of the capacity to make choices. A choice is making a selection among options. The options are part of the influence. The main option of a living thing is to choose between life and death. But you say they are not choices, as they are influences.??? Did I hear you right? There are no choices because there are influences? I'm sorry, but that is completely bizaar to me.
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
If our conscious minds are not the determinate of our choices, then our will is not free. What determines our choices? An intesting study hooked people up to a brain scanner while giving them the choice between two buttons. Eventually by studying the brain scans, the scientits were able to predict with 70% accuracy (far above what it would have been if it was just random guessing) what choice the people would make. The scientists knew what they'd do before they did.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
1c. One of the arguments you repeatedly use, and I'm paraphrasing, is that it doesn't matter about the infrequency of an occurance, it matters only that it does happen. Yet, here you say the numbers matter. Now, how do you determine when it matters except that you want it to support your view that there is no choice. Perhaps the problem is that you're hung up on "free will", and forgot about "free will not". ;) Don't forget, God only made a scape goat. What ever happens, it's your fault...
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
Forgive me, I'm not really following what you mean here. The numbers in the study weren't what was important, beyond showing that the results were not due to blind chance. If they were you'd expect them to get it righ 45-55% of the time. The whole point was to show that we make our decisions sometimes more than a minute before we realize that we have made them. The subconscious is controlling us, and we are not aware of the subconscious for the most part, it takes in info and rolls with it.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
Well, you see, studies can be fun to prove something you beleive in as well. All you need to do is ask the right questions. So, if the scientist wants a certain outcome, he just has to ask a question he knows will be answered a certain way, a higher percentage of the time. So the numbers, as well as the questions, are important. By your own proposal, the scientist in the study have no choice but to create a procedure that will give them their desired outcome.
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
Your making jumps with my argument that you can't make. My "proposal" doesn't tell you "what" will happen, only what does happen was inevitable. You have to show that the scientists were in fact biased first before you claim they had no choice to be. There may very well have deduced that it is in their best interest to ask unbiased questions. Which one was it? Well let's look at the study . . .
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
The question the scientists asked was "choose which button to press". There was a button on the left and a button on the right. They asked it, scanned their brain waves, made a prediction as to what they would choose based on the scan, and were right way more times than if it was just chance. Can you point to the bias? Where could it possibly be?
Studies are peer reviewed, so if they are biased, it will be pointed out by those who disagree with them and it won't get published. Science works.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
1e. Good point. But the issue of cause and effect, and interpretation, can mislead. As I said before, there was a time when it was commonly thought man only used a fraction of his brain because of the research they were doing. It had to do with images of the activity in the brain. But the correct interpretation would be more along the lines of, under these cercumstances, we only see this much activity in the brain in only this region. From what you're telling me, the reading are giving...
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
2e. ...the scientists the answer that the subject arrives at. Not necessarily the process by which it is derived.
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
Actually that's a pop culture myth. We use most of the brain most of the time. There are times we only use a portion, but more times than not we're using all of it.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
Is it simply the difference between grey matter and white matter?
UNFFwildcard 3 years ago
Wow, what brings you back here? Revisiting my arguments for your video?
Umm, no I don't think so. It's like the bodies muscles. Certain activities require only some muscles to pull it off, others require the majority working in unison. Only with the brain many things require most of it to pull it off.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
I think we need to hone in on the part when you said a choice is making a selection among options. That would have to include that when people make a choice, they could have made a different choice. However what would have caused them do that? When they made the choice, they evaluated all of the options and then chose what they thought was the best one. There was nothing that would have caused them to think otherwise. Their "choice" was a deduction, and the result was inevitable.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
2c. No, because there is also the option to not make a choice, to "Oh fuck it. I don't feel like choosing." and letting someone else choose for you, or forgo choosing at that time. But you do seem to think everything is so tightly wound that there is no options. Spin the wheel; throw the dice, someone says. Creating another element of randomness. Also, they don't alway weigh in all options. Options don't always have to be weighty either.
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
You've used the word "random" a lot when discussing my points and I have to say that I don't beleive there is anything "random". It's not a dice throw, it's a precisional calculation. Our brains are like mathematical factors, our experience is the input and our actions are the output. Put an exact value for the input and you'll get a specific output. The result was inevitable. Also, "not choosing" is itself a choice\decision. It's not "lack of a choice".
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
4b. ... or to protect them from the elements, and by opposing end them...
Tis a consumation devoutly to be desired. Or does desire play any role in the universe you describe. I do disagree that positive or negative matters not. Those are the core of influence. For my life; against my life. Are we using the postulation that, God is the determinant, as part of our proof? Afraid I have trouble going there.
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
"Are we using the postulation that, God is the determinant, as part of our proof"
I'm sorry I don't know what you mean.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
Comment removed
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
3b. ...who has pointed out an aspect of life that distinguishes it from all other matter, and points to the much sought source of the code of ethics theists deny all others. That distinction is the fact that life can go out of existence, and that it's existence is conditional. That matter and energy exist unconditionally. This is where the fundamental choice lies. To be, or not to be. That is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the input of the receptors...
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
I'm familiar with the quote. I have myself performing Hamlet's third soliloquy in a video on my channel.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
2b. ...And that identity depends on both the presenter, and the recipient. Then there is the context of knowledge. Then there is the influence of the environment. Then there is the influence of the relative health of the beings involved.
When it comes down to it, there are too many alternatives presented to us to make it posible to say that there are no choices. Influences, yes, but determinants? I have great difficulty with that.
I will tell you that I have been influenced by someone...
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
3a. ...I'm still convinced I chose to let you guide me here. ;)
How about this question. Was God gay? Oh wait, we moved off that page. ;)
I'm going to have to ask you this as I may have missed it, but do you define free will here? I didn't see it. You and I were discussing choice, and whether we have it of not. Is it one and the same; or are they two different topics?
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
Did you watch the other two parts? Free will must be free. Which means free from influence, which is technically impossible. Think about the decisions\deductions you've made in your life, and how different they would be if the people around you were different. What you are was not inevitable, if it were possible that others would have chosen differently. The smallest action can have huge effects in the world. What if Arch Duke Fredinhand had ducked at the last minute? Where would we be now?
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
1b. Yes, indeed I did. I must say that I find your philosophical proofs to be deeply influenced by religious thought instead of trying to draw from, shall we say, natural influence. I do agree with aspects of influence, and would say we all influence those we influence. ie, come into contact with, personally, or electronically, as in what we are doing here. Those influences can be positive or negative. Which will it be? I think part of that depends on how they identify positive and negative...
RichardRoy2 3 years ago
Whether the influence is positive or negative matters not, only that it is influence. The influce itself, that it exists, is imporant, for it is inevitably the environment and in relaton to our genetics, that determines our actions. Both of theses factors would be controlled by God, if he exists, therefore Free Will cannot exist.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
5b. Fundamentally, I find there are three major influences in ones life; nature, man, and self. I don't see self as merely a conglomeration of chemical reactions. I'll presume you mean by "free will" the ability to make choices. Now, I could stop making choices, if I thought we didn' t have them by your proposals, but, of course, by your proposals, I have no choice but to argue this as it is my chemical make up. Hmm. I could exercise the ultimate choice and purchase a gun. But I'm too cheep...
RichardRoy2 3 years ago