1. The all powerful vs heavy object argument, rather than answer it you say "God simply is not able to be put in those sort of situations", which is basically dodging the question altogether.
2. All knowing vs free will, again you dodge the issue. If God really is "all knowing", then creation in itself is utterly pointless, as He is already aware of the outcome as well as everything that happens between creation and The End.
Either God isn't "all that", or God must truly, truly be bored
I think your argument makes sense. I also think God knows the ultimate result of your decisions, and all the possible routes that could get you to that destination, but allows you to choose which path to take.
A Question Calvinist can't clearly directly answer, if you asked a black man in the USA, say from 1700 to 1950, do you believe in election? how many would say yes? that would be zero.....get it yet? probably not... . wait, another clue, chances are highly likely you are a white male, correct?....get it yet? still probably not. You might reply with, “so what does color of skin have to do with anything?”.....see, point made, you can't answer clearly
see polopowers1 no such thing as free will. God is alot more than 2 attributes power and knowledge. God can know all create new knowledge within Himself and remain immutable Knowledge would not make His virtues different. God controls not by power alone but all His virtues combined mercy love kindness etc. You limit God to 2 attributes impossible/God is omniscience perpetual not stagnant God is perpetual knowledge not stagnant No outside event influences God's determined will
@polopowers1 A Question Calvinist can't clearly directly answer, children that are beaten, some raped and even murdered, God preordained this before their birth is what a true Predestined Elected Calvinist believes, but will not admit it. examples are JonBenét Ramsey, Dennis Rader and John Wayne Gacy, Jr. who molested and killed 33 teenage boys. Since we live in the New Testament now, thus sins are not passed down through parents, what possible answer is valid from a Calvinist? None
Revisit 1:40-2:01, Can an omniscient omnipotent being create a being so complex that he doesn’t know what actions it will make. Well he can’t do that, because it is not possible to create a being with the attribute of being so complex that an omniscient being cannot know what it will do.
One way to think about it, i think, is to think in terms of different 'levels' of truth. Does the sun rise in the east or Does the earth revolve around the sun? Simple. Both. Only based on which 'reference point', so to say, is taken to explain the phenomenon. Similarly, Omniscient, omnipotent and OMNIPRESENT God and man's free will are just different levels of reality, different 'perspectives', so to speak. :/
God knows which decisions you will make, he is beyond space and time, supreme. you are looking at it linearly while trying not to. You stated fact. but not entirely, God knows each outcome of each decision, he knows everything that is logically possible according to each infinite circumstance. Yes you have free will, you are not controlled. however, you are specifically placed. The decision of god creating you and everyon else brings out the outcome of the known future, he knows all decisions.
Here's what Jesus said...."You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you"-John 15:16... "No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him" -John 6:44..."But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep"- John 10:26...
PLEASE SEE THE VIDEOS: ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION, VIDEO 1 AND VIDEO 2 AND SUCH DEALS WITH THE WILL OF MAN, FROM MAYBE A PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU NEVER HEARD BEFORE, AND THE CHANNEL IS MOSESESESESES.
simple he loves us no matter what we do that he gave us free will he does know all all has to include future.
big bang theory funny you talk about this and God all in one i am guessing you think he is part of this big bang theory . if so that huge slap in His face.
@Yanirakarola well perhaps he is not bounded by logic but why ask this i mean God we should not demand for mercy but beg and plead for it . demanding it only going to show selfish heart .
Hi.Thanks.You have said a lot yes.. I would just like to add to this that free will is always independent of outer circumstances. My legs dont determine my free will but certainly they influence my will.Maybe they are not healthyand the doctors tell me things which are scary Its important to move one step upward..into the spirit realm not the cirmumstances.God notonly knows everything but also LETS HAPPEN everything.Both is Gods free will. He also offers His free will to us.We can know thefuture
Ok so your saying that god is limited to logic and he can only do what is logicly possible. But logic says that something has a beggining and an end but if god does exist it means he is eternal and has no beggining or end or he was created by something else. P.S i am strict agnostic.
How does the "logically possible" come into it? That simply negates the omnis to begin with. You "limit" it therefore you turn it to nonsense.
Your solution simply begs the question- if the future is not set then there is no omniscience.
All you do is make a joke of the concept of the magic man in the sky emphatically claimed in the Bible. But as theology is all make believe - just make up what you want!
Of all sources I think Forrest Gump has provided the clearest understanding, and quite revelatory in itself, of how God injects His actions into a reality under its own forces. In the next to last scene at Jenny's grave, Forrest says, in so many words, that Divine Will (destiny) and randomness (accident) are two processes acting both at the same time. Usually proponents of either side accept one to the exclusion of the other, but I now embrace the confluence of God and randomness.
Which came first God's Spirit or His Nature Virtues (mercy, love, truth, etc.)They are simultaneous. God is His Virtues by Spirit.He cannot separate from His Spirit and suspend any Virtue at any time or He would not be self existing Life.If you understand free will you understand it holds to the suspension of God's Virtue or attributes for man to make an independent choice based on knowledge (a virtue,) or power(an attribute) God cannot suspend His Spirit Nature and therefore,there no free will
Here's a better explanation from Scriptures: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Free will exists when man has the ability to either please God or reject him. Because of the curse of sin, man lost the ability to please God and with it his free will. God had to come in the person of Christ to restore that free will. Genuine freedom exists when man is freed from the bondage of sin. Without the saving grace of Jesus, man is a slave, with no real freedom. For God there is no paradox.
@mpenaco Which came first God's Spirit or His Virtues (mercy love truth etc.) They are simultaneous.God cannot suspend His knowledge or any Virtue for man to exercise a knowledge independent of God.If God suspends His knowledge or power so man can have power not belonging to God. Then God is suspending His self existing Life which is impossible .All fee will is a supposed suspension of God which cannot happen. God is simultaneous Virtue and Spirit without pause.Think it through and God bless
you were close tho rjswolfman but it doesnt mean god cannt know it only means we cant because of how we look and measure particle. yes i know i spelled particles wrong earlier
rjswolfman you dont fully understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle it states that pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, of a partical cant be certain only because we measure the partical we mess up the data that we get. we can tell a paricals postion but not is momentum likewise we can tell a particals momentum but not it postion at any certain point in time
npage85 you should look a little into quantum physics it would help you in your solution to the paradox. look into stuff about parallel universes to explain the probable outcomes of a choice someone makes. maybe god knows every probable outcome of every universe
Saying God doesn't know which future is going to be realized is an awfully large bullet to bite, severely weakening his knowledge of the future. As you said, nondeterministic free will would allow tons of branching futures. I think this would severely interfere with God's ability to plan anything.
Also, the idea of nondetministic free will seems unclear. What is the cause of your choices? Is your will simply random? If it's random, how would that be free?
I don't happen to think either god or free will do exist but I agree that if there was an omniscient god then that would not necessarily contradict free will.
you did not fully explain your position on free will vs. god's omniscience, so are they in contradiction?
i did however very much enjoyed the video, even though your position wasn't clear.
you did hint at god not knowing "the future" but only knows all the possible out come. problem is god's omnipotence is what will cause future possibilities to occur in the first place because god is the first cause and therefore he has to know the last out come(omniscience) from that first cause.
since god's first cause caused all other causes he is responsible for all out comes. so the PARADOX w/o quotation marks, as it should be, still remains. Free will does can't exist with an all powerful creator!
this is just a little off-topic, but because of the Heisenberg uncertainty prinicipal (that certain pairs of information about a partical cannot both be known with precision), a completely omniscient god is impossible without it breaking its own rules, which renders apologetics mute, as at that point god might as well be given the attribute of being able to make free will while doing things that would logically lead to its destruction.
Granted, I haven't finished watching this video yet, but why would you post this as a response to my "Omni VS Omni" video, when it clearly doesn't address the argument I actually make?
Granted... I *do* understand that the *purpose* of this video wasn't meant to address the free-will paradox of God, but I think that it does nonetheless.
If the future doesn't exist, then God couldn't possibly know what He was going to do even if He *was* omniscient.
@TheoreticalBullshit The way I see things, he addresses your argument by positing a new definition of omnipresence: not knowing exactly what will happen, but what is possible. Then again, I suppose that's not addressing your argument at all, if he's not willing to keep with your established definitions, but in another sense this video is successful, insofar as it establishes a non contradictory god with both omnipotence and omnipresence.
@TheoreticalBullshit Further, I think it would be most interesting for you to combat this new definition as well if you haven't already done so elsewhere.
if god "produce" the future just as just as you "produce" the future wen you drank that pepsi after 3 sec... then god KNOW the future because he know what he will "produce" 2000 years ahead ... or am I missing your point there? (exuse my english) And if he know what he will produce even god has no free will. Correct me if I am wrong :)
As a bonus, you could argue that yes the future does exist. Einstein showed this by proving time was actually relative to the frame of reference. I can "go into" the future simply by moving at near the speed of light. The longer I stay like that, the further into the future I go.
Basically what Im saying is that time is not independant of everything, so exactly under what frame of reference is god? Thereby proving free will doesnt exist if god does.
And it isn't that God is "limited" by our free will at all... after all, he *could* just take our free will away, right?
If he did that, he could make the world perfect... but we'd be a bunch of zombies.
And I have absolutely *no* idea why my response on prophecies would make many Bible verses errant. Please explain instead of rambling off accusations.
From a theists standpoint....God created the universe, time, and space. Why should god be limited by any of those? Especially time? Considering the fact that he somehow existed in timelessness
(I personally dont understand timelessness, but thats another discussion)
and your response on prophecies means that god is NOT actually making prophecies. Which means that many verses in the bible are in error.
You completely missed the central point. You are suggesting that god is limited by something that he created....quite literally, a new wording of saying
"God cant lift the rock that he made too heavy for himself to lift"
Reworded to:
"God isnt in control of a construct he created (time)"
oh I noticed another thing, if god cant tell the future, then god is also not omnipotent, as he is not even in control of his own creation. (in which case I would have to ask is it even a god at all?)
Lastly, as explained in my video response to this video, God would still be capable of prophecy, although it would mostly be due to his omnipotence in causing one of the many possibilities to come about.
You bird analogy is not even on the mark at all. God knowing all possibilities does *not* mean that he wouldn't be able to know which are more likely. That's a pretty silly claim.
So I'm sorry, but I still don't see any meaningful critiques of Open Theism from you yet.
Sorry for the multiple comments but I had to elaborate on several ideas..
And as a side note, god would be incapable of prophecy or stating anything in absolute in the future, if the future doesnt exist (which god apparently does in the bible)
lastly, assuming that the future truely is unknowable, simply results in the obvious answer that nothing is omniscient. It doesnt permitting you to change the definition so that you can still call god omniscient.
The problem I have with your argument that god can only do things that are logically possible, is that you apply a constraint on god that is based on what is logical in our universe Why would god have such a constraint (assuming he created "logic"? Seems a rather arbitrary assumption.
Your part on free will could have just been summed up as:
"God doesn't know whats going to happen he just knows whats possible"
Therefore hes not omniscient. You dont actually refute the paradox
How is saying that God knows everything that is possible to know mean that he wouldn't be omniscient?
After all... if the future doesn't exist as a definite thing, and only as possibilities, then how could an omniscient being even know it?
When I look at comments of people who say things like that, it always makes me wonder if they realize that they are asking "why can't an omniscient being know something that is impossible to know?"
you havent yet established that the future doesnt exist...only that we dont know if it does (a common creationist mistake, to confuse not knowing with impossible)
Therefore, there response is not asking
"why cant god know the unknowable (because it isnt established as unknowable)"
Even if you did, that would again restate that omniscience is not one of gods properties. Knowing possibilities doesnt make you omniscient. It leaves god (in many cases) less capable of predicting the future.
The reason I say it leaves god less capable of predicting the future, is that god has an infinite number of possibilities to choose from in any event making him infinitely unlikely to get it right. Something as simple as asking,
"where will this bird fly next"
When it is looking at a mouse leaves people with an obvious answer. Swoop down and grab the mouse, but god would then have to contend with all possibilities, therefore even less capable than us of getting the future right.
I don't disagree at all with what you are trying to say. I think it already has a name in academic theology, that being Molinism. It has very much to do with God being engaged with circumstances. The next level of omniscience, might then be called Open Theism. Have you heard of these 2 concepts? Two brilliant current proponents of Molinism are Phd's. William L. Craig, and Alvin Plantinga...
God is omniscient. God knows everything, including all of the decisions he himself will make. So, if god already knows all of the decisions he himself will make, then god himself does not have free will and is only doing what god already knew he would do.
"if god already knows all of the decisions he himself will make"
-- Fail for you right there...
God doesn't know the future in my solution because the future doesn't exist... making it logically impossible for God to know future events with certainty.
I get tons of these comments from people just like you all the time... it hurts my head.
Whoops, but the future does exist to an omniscient being. Knowing all means knowing all. Now, you can try to excuse God with your bullshit twisted logic, but, sorry, omniscience means all knowing. So, if god knows all, then god knows all the actions he/she/it will itself make and is itself not free.
Again, I understand YOUR position that you try to tell us that it is only possible for to do the things that are LOGICALLY possible to do, thus limiting the very word.
That hurting in your head, by the way, is your logic fighting your attempts to excuse god from the paradox. Don't worry, though, your attempts here are nothing more than the typical christian trying to square the circle of the paradox. You can't, of course, unless you ARE a believer and then, well, it's GOD so he/she/it gets a pass on anything that the believer needs to give it a pass on to continue their idiotic delusions.
Etymology: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia
Date: circa 1604
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
Websters
So, we can see that the ACTUAL defintions of omniscience has nothing to do with TOTAL KNOWLEDGE with the proviso that as long as it is logically possible or not having knowledge of the future.
Instead, we see that omniscient means: One having total knowledge.
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
Now, when you attempt to CHANGE the definition of the word to suit YOUR argument, you then are guilty of...yes, that's right, a logic fallacy. In this case that of begging the question. You change the definiton of the word. Then, amazingly, the argument you make from the changed definition of the word...
...AMAZINGLY fits the definition of the word you changed to fit the argument.
Now, you do TRY to make logical arguments ( you fail...but you try) so please look at how your convuluted logic flows from your false premise and please TRY to realize your illogic.
Yeah...sorry, but you don't get the "god is above logic" card. If god is truly omniscient, then he knows all the actions he himself will take and thefore is bound to only do what his omniscience has already shown him he will do.
Try looking up the defintion of "omniscient" before posting something back to me, r-tard.
Ah, but I am not speaking of omnipotence. I am speaking of omniscience. I can see where you are, therefore, getting confused r-tard. What an interesting paradox arises, though. Omniscience means total knowledge. There is nothing outside of this. God knows everything. This means he knows all of his own actions as well, and, therefore, is bound by his own omniscience to do what he has already seen he WILL do. However, we also attribute to this already ridiculous concept that he is OMNIPOTENT...
...therefore he is ALL POWERFUL and can sidestep what he has already seen he will do because he has ALL the power to do so. However, we then have a fun paradox...how can he be said to have been ALL KNOWING if he didn't forsee that he would use his ALL POWER to sidestep his being bound by being ALL KNOWING?
Sorry, you aren't going to win this one any more than the r-tard author of this video.
Time and causal effects with God & the spiritual realm is beyond our comprehension, It's different. So, we can't apply or compare our world with that one.
So, let me ask you this. Do you agree with the author of this video that God can only do that which is logically possible or is god capable of anything (omnipotent) and knows everything?
Ah, but you see, I have checked the theologians on this matter. The whole reason that "free will" ever came up, for instance, is because of St. Augustine who tried to fight the idea of predeterminism with the idea of free will but then arose the problem of omniscience vs the free will. St. Augustine himself acknowledged that giving god the complete knowledge of all that is, was or ever shall be flies in the face of free will.
St. Augustine, and the author of this video (unlike you) understood that if god indeed does know all that was, is or ever shall be then free will is impossible. God knows all the actions you will ever take, therefore. You cannot do anything that God hasn't already known that you WOULD do. There then arises the idea of predeterminism. That is, since god knows all things (according to you) then god knows from the moment your soul is created all the actions you will take and your ultimate fate.
Right, everything is predetermined by God. I have said previously that God & the spiritual world is outside of (our) time.
So, what is known and set by Him has no bearing on what one chooses to do in this life here. Time is just a human limit because we are finite. Get it?
No, kub, it is you who doesn't get it...no big surprise. We aren't speaking of time or control or any of the OTHER bullshit that you have been trying to spout. No, instead what we are talking about is your definition of god knowing all things and how this means that there is, in fact, no free will. YOU yourself has said that all things are predetermined by god. This means that god already knows all the actions you will take throughout your life and what your final fate means.
So, we find that r-tards like yourself lose the argument immediately. EITHER God is or isn't bound by the laws of logic. If god ISN'T bound by the laws of logic, then we are back to the paradox of free will, and, by the way, the fun paradox of the rock and god That is, can god create a rock that he himself cannot lift? Well, if he isn't bound by the laws of logic, then yes...but, he also is omnipotent, so he can lift anything, but wait, that does mean he can create anything as well...
This would, in fact, be what PREDETERMINED means. But why would I expect your retard ass to know that any more than knowing what omniscient means. Go away, r-tard, you boor me.
...and so around and around you go on the paradox of free will and the paradox of omnipotence. IF, on the other hand, we try to limit these propositions as the author of the video does, we then find that we are only engaging in special pleading. That is that we are defining the terms so that they fit the conclusion.
So, sorry, either way, no way out of this problem.
Let me ask you this...did God create time and therefore exists outside of time (AND inside of time for that matter)? If your answer is that God CREATED time, then God doesn't NECESSARILY see events in sequence and your point about God not knowing the future is in need of much more support than you've given. Where do you stand on the in inerrancy of scripture? Thanks for posting, I like the way you think.
You're obviously a really smart dude! And I really enjoy thinking of God's sovereignty in this way...you didn't really get me until the end where you said that God excercises HIS freewill (the only being that truly possesses it) to affect his purposes. By the way I agree with the Calvinist doctrines, and I don't think you explanation goes against. I would say though, that you are taking a bit of a leap in saying that he DOESN'T know the future. I think he very well could know it in BOTH senses.
could you define the two "futures" in more detail and how he knows one and not the other. also would you say that God is in Control of ALL things including man?
wow, i found this very interesting, but i believe that God is an "Imaginary friend" and that he is there if you want him to be there. But this is just one of those things we will never know unless like God comes down and tells us. lol but i really like your point and it has allowed me to expand my knowledge about God
so you are saying that when jesus predicted he would be betrayed, it was a gamble?
also, does your idea of what all knowing is, not include knowing the future future.
personally i think the mind is a very physical thing. the more and more we poke and prod at what is perceived as chaotic, the more we learn that things such as human behavior is very predictable.
"So is it your belief that a logically sound argument can have a false conclusion? "
A logically sound argument relies on pre determined imaginary boundaries. You seemed to be impressed with your ability to imagine your own rules and follow them.
This has nothing to do with the concept of omniscience which like infinity or nothingness we can not hope to understand if they in fact exist.
The mental gymnastics of theists never cease to amaze me. Yes, you can define your imaginary being to avoid a paradox, but that doesn't make him any less imaginary.
"Calling my God imaginary is *just* the same as me telling you that neo-Darwinism is 'all in your head.'"
Um, no, it's not even close. Calling your god imaginary is like calling Harry Potter imaginary. They both come from books written by men, and neither has a shred of evidence supporting their actual existence, while evolution is established scientific fact, and the current theory is as well supported as any in science.
You think god knows everything possible, there are multiple outcomes. This, however, is wrong. Time is a straight line, not a web. Now let me explain why. The universe is made up of atoms, humans included. If you know where every single atom is and it's speed at a precise time you can calculate the future, and the past. This is impossible for us do do because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But god knows both the time, location and speed. And all we ever were, was just zeros and ones....
Free will is a theory. In order for free will to exist
"we" would have to be identified as a distinct and separate force. This has not yet been established. In fact we can not identify exactly what is meant by "we" or "I" "we" are on equal scientific footing with "deities"
Science shows us everything interacts with everything else. "we" are influenced every second of every day.
Defining god is foolishness. We can not even define ourselves.
You must've completely missed the point of this, right?
Like... let me make this simple for you... really, really simple....
People love to bring up this paradox, right? They love to bring it up because they claim it shows that it is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent God to exist.
But... it *isn't* impossible for Him to exist if we have nondeterministic freewill, as I show in this video.
That was the entire point of this video, and nothing you said addressed that.
Just as you know what will happen when you drop an object so it goes with all things. It's just a matter of comprehending the parameters and their effect. Omniscience ensures the knowledge of where things will go and as the maker of all things therefore the determiner of the direction and outcome.
In fact it does. No causal effect stands on it's own.
This is a proven fact. Everything follows natural laws therefore behavior is predictable. It is just a matter of understanding the mechanisms and laws. We are only limited in our personal computational abilities. Computers are eliminating that obstacle. Marketing annalists rely on such technology. They bank on it. :)
"Therefore, one must resort to philosophy" You resort to make believe to determine facts. Not I. Philosophically, whatever premise one believes to be true will determine what is true because it is not real. You can dream up whatever premise you want to fit your wishes, and you do. This is the only factual truth involved. "to see whether naturalism is true or false.."
I go by every fact known to man. Not by facts you imagine. I can imagine my own should I choose to.
"In my arguments I only use those facts which are actually facts... not ambiguous statements."
Free will is not a fact. It is a subjective idea about causal effects. Gods are not facts. Philosophy does not deal in facts. It deals in points of view. Most people find it hard to separate facts from their beliefs. Though points of view exist, fact they do not make.
Perhaps you should begin again and list your facts and the sources from which you attained them.
-- Right... so you are asking me to declare that my God is illogical by His very nature?
That's somewhat absurd... for *right* when I declare that He is above logic, and that He can do illogical things, you would declare His existence to be logically impossible.
Is it really that bad to show how God can logically exist and be omniscient and omnipotent with the existence of free-will?
No... since we are debating about His existence in a logical framework...
"Is it really that bad to show how God can logically exist and be omniscient and omnipotent with the existence of free-will?"
It is neither good or bad to imagine whatever you wish.
"you would declare His existence to be logically impossible."
To confine my god to anything the limited human mind could hope to comprehend would be self defeating concerning the notion of a god in the first place.
-- Go to Merriam Webster Online, and type in "his" in the dictionary. You'll find that the word "his" is commonly used to refer to genderless beings. Basically, I laughed out loud in response to your question just now.
"It is neither good or bad to imagine whatever you wish."
-- I'm not imagining. I'm showing, through logic and reason, that freewill and an omniscient, omnipotent God can coexist without a paradox.
"To confine my god to anything the limited human mind "
-- This implies that you believe "logic" was invented by the human mind, and that it wasn't discovered.
I would contend that you can not know that either way, and that saying that God can not perform a logically impossible act does not restrict His ability at all, since logically impossible things don't exist anyways.
"I'm showing, through logic and reason, that freewill and an omniscient, omnipotent God can coexist without a paradox."
No, you're not. You're removing the paradox via semantics games, by choosing definitions of "omnipotence" and "free will" to suit your rationalization.
"No, you're not. You're removing the paradox via semantics games, by choosing definitions of "omnipotence" and "free will" to suit your rationalization."
-- I'm showing how an omniscient God(one who knows all things) wouldn't know the future if it didn't exist...
Because "the future" wouldn't be a part of "all things," since it doesn't exist.
It's funny how people get so angered over this, when there is *in fact* no rational objection you can possibly bring to the table.
"I'm showing how an omniscient God(one who knows all things) wouldn't know the future if it didn't exist..."
Right, which requires that the Universe is not deterministic, which means God is not long omnipotent. Moreover, you can't show that the future *doesn't* exist -- in fact, Relativity says it *does*, though Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree, so we know one or both are wrong.
"this argument doesn't require the *universe* not be deterministic... it requires your *mind*(a nonphysical object) to not be deterministic."
Your mind is part of the Universe, and can affect the Universe -- if it is non-deterministic, then the Universe is as well. This isn't obvious to you? Really?
Men with twice your IQ have been coming up with far more sophisticated arguments for millennia.
"if it is non-deterministic, then the Universe is as well. This isn't obvious to you? Really?"
-- Umm... you are assuming that the mind has an effect on the universe... but that is really besides the point.
The point here is that you are gleefully overlooking the major point:
The universe behaves deterministically besides the effect of minds. That was my point, and I find it funny that you are almost purposefully misrepresenting me here.
"-- Umm... you are assuming that the mind has an effect on the universe... but that is really besides the point."
Assuming? My mind is having an effect on the Universe right now. These words wouldn't be on your screen if it hadn't.
"The universe behaves deterministically besides the effect of minds."
That's called special pleading, it wasn't part of your original argument, it certainly wasn't the "point"; that's you backtracking and trying to save a desperately failed argument.
"that's you backtracking and trying to save a desperately failed argument."
-- Nope...
When I say that the universe is deterministic, I am obviously referring to the *universe*, which is physical.
I doubt disagree that physical reality has been shown to operate on certain Laws, but that a nondeterministic mind, even though nondeterministic, would not violate those Laws.
In other words, the universe is deterministic insofar as you don't factor in minds.
"In other words, the universe is deterministic insofar as you don't factor in minds."
The Universe is either deterministic or not. If you're going to use that determinism as the basis for an argument, you don't get to wall of evidence to the contrary as not mattering, as being an exception -- that's called special pleading, it's a fallacy.
I just pushed some keys on my keyboard. My body did this at the directly of my mind. If my mind is not deterministic, then neither is the Universe.
If everything is follows strict Physical Laws besides our brains(which behave nondeterministically), how can you say that the "evidence" that the universe behaves deterministically show that your mind is deterministic?
The answer is:
It doesn't.
The universe following specific physical Laws does not mean, logically, that something which interacts with it must also follow those Laws.
"If everything is follows strict Physical Laws besides our brains(which behave nondeterministically), how can you say that the 'evidence' that the universe behaves deterministically show that your mind is deterministic?"
That isn't what I said, dumbass. I said that if your mind is non-deterministic, then the Universe is *necessarily* non-deterministic (unless it could be shown that the mind cannot affect the Universe, in which case this communication would be impossible).
Please, post an argument. Watching you foam at the mouth in impotent rage is entertaining, but not as entertaining as actual debate.
Saying "the Universe is deterministic, as long as you don't factor in minds" is the same as saying "everything needs a creator, as long as you don't factor in God" -- it's special pleading, it's fallacious.
Again... for the *hundredth* time though... by "deterministic" in my self-quoted text above, I was saying the universe could still follow only strict Physical Laws, yet our interacting minds are not.
Dude... if you can't get how you are straw-manning me, then I don't know how to help you.
"by 'deterministic' in my self-quoted text above, I was saying the universe could still follow only strict Physical Laws, yet our interacting minds are not."
*lol* Low IQ theater at it's finest, getting tripped up over semantics. If our minds don't follow "follow strict physicals laws", then neither does the Universe, because our minds are PART OF and AFFECT the Universe.
"If our minds don't follow "follow strict physicals laws", then neither does the Universe, because our minds are PART OF and AFFECT the Universe."
-- Alright... then give me a deductive argument that starts with the premise "minds are nondeterministic," and ends with "the universe doesn't follow strict physical laws."
I assert that you can't... and your assertion that it is so doesn't constitute a valid deductive argument for your assertion.
A valid, or sound one? Because no such argument can be sound, given that 'strict physical laws are deterministic' cannot be shown to be true. However, for the sake of your argument, if 'nondeterministic' means "does NOT follow strict laws", then:
Minds are not deterministic.
Minds affect the course of events in the Universe.
The course of events in the Universe is deterministic.
Swap in your bogus definition for "deterministic".
"Oh yeah... use *one* more fallacy in *any* of your posts... and you are blocked."
One MORE fallacy? Where's the first?
*rofl* You've been name-calling from the very start, calling me ignorant, arrogant, laughing at me, and more. Apparently it pisses you off to have your arguments dismantled, so you're going to block me. You do realize that that is typical behavior of theist on YouTube.
I haven't posted any fallacies, you just fail at debate, and now you're showing your true colors.
-- You've used a straw-man in your rebuttal to a comment where you equivocated on the word "deterministic," taking it out of the context of what I was saying and instead going *way* out into left-field with it.
You *continue* to maintain that straw-man to this very moment.
Oh, and as to the name calling:
That's hilarious... I'm going to keep this entire debate just to marvel at your lack of sound reasoning.
"you equivocated on the word "deterministic," taking it out of the context of what I was saying and instead going *way* out into left-field with it."
No, YOU did that, redefining "deterministic" as "follows strict physical laws". I already correct you on this, and rather than address that, you threaten to block me and repeat your strawman accusation.
Deterministic means that given enough knowledge about the state of a system NOW, we can DETERMINE it's state LATER. Do you disagree
"redefining "deterministic" as "follows strict physical laws". I already correct you on this"
-- *You* don't get to decide what definitions *I* am using.
If I explain to you what I actually *meant*(which would be obviously true if you added the assumption that I can actually think things through), then the only way to claim that I am wrong is to call me a liar... which is pretty much lame.
"Deterministic means that given enough knowledge about the state of a system NOW, we can DETERMINE it's state LATER. "
In other words understand what the future will hold before it happens. Which is logical. And historically we have proven the more we understand about systems the better we are able to predict. Therefore logically an omniscience being would know the future. And because it designed things would have predetermined their outcome.
"Naturalism is a presupposition, not a demonstrated fact."
Science doesn't require philosophical naturalism, but it does require methodological naturalism for practical reasons. If something exists "outside" of nature (whatever *that* means), such that it doesn't interact with our universe in any detectable way, then it's indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is worthless.
1. The all powerful vs heavy object argument, rather than answer it you say "God simply is not able to be put in those sort of situations", which is basically dodging the question altogether.
2. All knowing vs free will, again you dodge the issue. If God really is "all knowing", then creation in itself is utterly pointless, as He is already aware of the outcome as well as everything that happens between creation and The End.
Either God isn't "all that", or God must truly, truly be bored
BLAMExTHExLAG 3 days ago
I think your argument makes sense. I also think God knows the ultimate result of your decisions, and all the possible routes that could get you to that destination, but allows you to choose which path to take.
kailaywilkins 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A Question Calvinist can't clearly directly answer, if you asked a black man in the USA, say from 1700 to 1950, do you believe in election? how many would say yes? that would be zero.....get it yet? probably not... . wait, another clue, chances are highly likely you are a white male, correct?....get it yet? still probably not. You might reply with, “so what does color of skin have to do with anything?”.....see, point made, you can't answer clearly
hemet92544 1 month ago
I accept the logic of this argument.
Imperativism 1 month ago
see polopowers1 no such thing as free will. God is alot more than 2 attributes power and knowledge. God can know all create new knowledge within Himself and remain immutable Knowledge would not make His virtues different. God controls not by power alone but all His virtues combined mercy love kindness etc. You limit God to 2 attributes impossible/God is omniscience perpetual not stagnant God is perpetual knowledge not stagnant No outside event influences God's determined will
polopowers1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@polopowers1 A Question Calvinist can't clearly directly answer, children that are beaten, some raped and even murdered, God preordained this before their birth is what a true Predestined Elected Calvinist believes, but will not admit it. examples are JonBenét Ramsey, Dennis Rader and John Wayne Gacy, Jr. who molested and killed 33 teenage boys. Since we live in the New Testament now, thus sins are not passed down through parents, what possible answer is valid from a Calvinist? None
hemet92544 1 month ago
If god is limited to logic, then he can't be omnipotent.
dumbo2021 2 months ago
Revisit 1:40-2:01, Can an omniscient omnipotent being create a being so complex that he doesn’t know what actions it will make. Well he can’t do that, because it is not possible to create a being with the attribute of being so complex that an omniscient being cannot know what it will do.
bradkey98765 3 months ago
u don't make sense and need to study more and go back to school before u talk about things you don't know about.
internet sucks. any idiot with a camera has an opinion
jesse8258 3 months ago
I have the answer to the paradox ! ... God does'nt exist !
brindow1 4 months ago
One way to think about it, i think, is to think in terms of different 'levels' of truth. Does the sun rise in the east or Does the earth revolve around the sun? Simple. Both. Only based on which 'reference point', so to say, is taken to explain the phenomenon. Similarly, Omniscient, omnipotent and OMNIPRESENT God and man's free will are just different levels of reality, different 'perspectives', so to speak. :/
the3dguy2 5 months ago
God knows which decisions you will make, he is beyond space and time, supreme. you are looking at it linearly while trying not to. You stated fact. but not entirely, God knows each outcome of each decision, he knows everything that is logically possible according to each infinite circumstance. Yes you have free will, you are not controlled. however, you are specifically placed. The decision of god creating you and everyon else brings out the outcome of the known future, he knows all decisions.
BobTheNecrophile 7 months ago
Here's what Jesus said...."You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you"-John 15:16... "No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him" -John 6:44..."But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep"- John 10:26...
DougCameraMan 8 months ago
PLEASE SEE THE VIDEOS: ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION, VIDEO 1 AND VIDEO 2 AND SUCH DEALS WITH THE WILL OF MAN, FROM MAYBE A PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU NEVER HEARD BEFORE, AND THE CHANNEL IS MOSESESESESES.
moseseseseses 11 months ago
if it says he knows every hair on our head you really think hes going not care about how we treat this earth we are renting from him persay.
matthewchachi 1 year ago
simple he loves us no matter what we do that he gave us free will he does know all all has to include future.
big bang theory funny you talk about this and God all in one i am guessing you think he is part of this big bang theory . if so that huge slap in His face.
matthewchachi 1 year ago
Why is God bounded by Logic?
Yanirakarola 1 year ago
@Yanirakarola well perhaps he is not bounded by logic but why ask this i mean God we should not demand for mercy but beg and plead for it . demanding it only going to show selfish heart .
matthewchachi 1 year ago
@matthewchachi what i mean is becareful how we question God or ask for proof or we not see the proof we already have.
matthewchachi 1 year ago
Hi.Thanks.You have said a lot yes.. I would just like to add to this that free will is always independent of outer circumstances. My legs dont determine my free will but certainly they influence my will.Maybe they are not healthyand the doctors tell me things which are scary Its important to move one step upward..into the spirit realm not the cirmumstances.God notonly knows everything but also LETS HAPPEN everything.Both is Gods free will. He also offers His free will to us.We can know thefuture
clovek456 1 year ago
Ok so your saying that god is limited to logic and he can only do what is logicly possible. But logic says that something has a beggining and an end but if god does exist it means he is eternal and has no beggining or end or he was created by something else. P.S i am strict agnostic.
MagnetThunder3528 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You cannot escape determinism
jpmahone 1 year ago
How does the "logically possible" come into it? That simply negates the omnis to begin with. You "limit" it therefore you turn it to nonsense.
Your solution simply begs the question- if the future is not set then there is no omniscience.
All you do is make a joke of the concept of the magic man in the sky emphatically claimed in the Bible. But as theology is all make believe - just make up what you want!
dbes02 1 year ago
the future exists on multiple levels, different universes
Wannafent 1 year ago
kool mate
mutore1 1 year ago
Of all sources I think Forrest Gump has provided the clearest understanding, and quite revelatory in itself, of how God injects His actions into a reality under its own forces. In the next to last scene at Jenny's grave, Forrest says, in so many words, that Divine Will (destiny) and randomness (accident) are two processes acting both at the same time. Usually proponents of either side accept one to the exclusion of the other, but I now embrace the confluence of God and randomness.
mwngw 1 year ago
Which came first God's Spirit or His Nature Virtues (mercy, love, truth, etc.)They are simultaneous. God is His Virtues by Spirit.He cannot separate from His Spirit and suspend any Virtue at any time or He would not be self existing Life.If you understand free will you understand it holds to the suspension of God's Virtue or attributes for man to make an independent choice based on knowledge (a virtue,) or power(an attribute) God cannot suspend His Spirit Nature and therefore,there no free will
polopowers1 1 year ago
Here's a better explanation from Scriptures: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Free will exists when man has the ability to either please God or reject him. Because of the curse of sin, man lost the ability to please God and with it his free will. God had to come in the person of Christ to restore that free will. Genuine freedom exists when man is freed from the bondage of sin. Without the saving grace of Jesus, man is a slave, with no real freedom. For God there is no paradox.
mpenaco 2 years ago
@mpenaco Which came first God's Spirit or His Virtues (mercy love truth etc.) They are simultaneous.God cannot suspend His knowledge or any Virtue for man to exercise a knowledge independent of God.If God suspends His knowledge or power so man can have power not belonging to God. Then God is suspending His self existing Life which is impossible .All fee will is a supposed suspension of God which cannot happen. God is simultaneous Virtue and Spirit without pause.Think it through and God bless
polopowers1 1 year ago
you were close tho rjswolfman but it doesnt mean god cannt know it only means we cant because of how we look and measure particle. yes i know i spelled particles wrong earlier
TheGodsucks 2 years ago
rjswolfman you dont fully understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle it states that pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, of a partical cant be certain only because we measure the partical we mess up the data that we get. we can tell a paricals postion but not is momentum likewise we can tell a particals momentum but not it postion at any certain point in time
TheGodsucks 2 years ago
npage85 you should look a little into quantum physics it would help you in your solution to the paradox. look into stuff about parallel universes to explain the probable outcomes of a choice someone makes. maybe god knows every probable outcome of every universe
TheGodsucks 2 years ago 2
Saying God doesn't know which future is going to be realized is an awfully large bullet to bite, severely weakening his knowledge of the future. As you said, nondeterministic free will would allow tons of branching futures. I think this would severely interfere with God's ability to plan anything.
Also, the idea of nondetministic free will seems unclear. What is the cause of your choices? Is your will simply random? If it's random, how would that be free?
sniperontheroof123 2 years ago
I don't happen to think either god or free will do exist but I agree that if there was an omniscient god then that would not necessarily contradict free will.
jtbovis 2 years ago
you did not fully explain your position on free will vs. god's omniscience, so are they in contradiction?
i did however very much enjoyed the video, even though your position wasn't clear.
you did hint at god not knowing "the future" but only knows all the possible out come. problem is god's omnipotence is what will cause future possibilities to occur in the first place because god is the first cause and therefore he has to know the last out come(omniscience) from that first cause.
sh00008 2 years ago
since god's first cause caused all other causes he is responsible for all out comes. so the PARADOX w/o quotation marks, as it should be, still remains. Free will does can't exist with an all powerful creator!
sh00008 2 years ago
the problem in his solution is that he gives man non-deterministic free-will but who says that is the case.
schwan023 2 years ago
this is just a little off-topic, but because of the Heisenberg uncertainty prinicipal (that certain pairs of information about a partical cannot both be known with precision), a completely omniscient god is impossible without it breaking its own rules, which renders apologetics mute, as at that point god might as well be given the attribute of being able to make free will while doing things that would logically lead to its destruction.
rjswolfman 2 years ago
Granted, I haven't finished watching this video yet, but why would you post this as a response to my "Omni VS Omni" video, when it clearly doesn't address the argument I actually make?
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago 8
@TheoreticalBullshit:
Well... I think that it does.
My video actually answers a whole lot of different arguments.
It answers the free-will paradox of not only humans... but God as well. It answers the paradox of an all-loving god and suffering.
So... I think that it is appropriate. Plus, I wanted to move it from zkeuker's video...
npage85 2 years ago
Granted... I *do* understand that the *purpose* of this video wasn't meant to address the free-will paradox of God, but I think that it does nonetheless.
If the future doesn't exist, then God couldn't possibly know what He was going to do even if He *was* omniscient.
npage85 2 years ago
@TheoreticalBullshit The way I see things, he addresses your argument by positing a new definition of omnipresence: not knowing exactly what will happen, but what is possible. Then again, I suppose that's not addressing your argument at all, if he's not willing to keep with your established definitions, but in another sense this video is successful, insofar as it establishes a non contradictory god with both omnipotence and omnipresence.
ja524309 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit Further, I think it would be most interesting for you to combat this new definition as well if you haven't already done so elsewhere.
ja524309 1 year ago
if god "produce" the future just as just as you "produce" the future wen you drank that pepsi after 3 sec... then god KNOW the future because he know what he will "produce" 2000 years ahead ... or am I missing your point there? (exuse my english) And if he know what he will produce even god has no free will. Correct me if I am wrong :)
pigment777 2 years ago
He only produces the outcomes that he makes in prophecy.
And he doesn't know what he will produce until he produces it, since the future doesn't exist.
So, he is omniscient, in that he knows everything, including the future as it *does* exist (possibilities).
He is also omnipotent, and as such can make prophecy and cause it to come to pass by seeing which actions will bring it about.
npage85 2 years ago
Well... The prophecys in the bible is filled with earthquake, brimstone and fire ... that is what Jehova is pusching us toward... nice :)
pigment777 2 years ago
As a bonus, you could argue that yes the future does exist. Einstein showed this by proving time was actually relative to the frame of reference. I can "go into" the future simply by moving at near the speed of light. The longer I stay like that, the further into the future I go.
Basically what Im saying is that time is not independant of everything, so exactly under what frame of reference is god? Thereby proving free will doesnt exist if god does.
boorens18 2 years ago
boorens18:
First of all, let me express how tired I am of this conversation.
Secondly, if God created us with free will, he *would* be effectively erasing the future.
It's not that God is limited by time, it is that when he created humans with free will, he erased the future.
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont. from above)
And it isn't that God is "limited" by our free will at all... after all, he *could* just take our free will away, right?
If he did that, he could make the world perfect... but we'd be a bunch of zombies.
And I have absolutely *no* idea why my response on prophecies would make many Bible verses errant. Please explain instead of rambling off accusations.
npage85 2 years ago
Sorry... I must also point out that your explanation for why the future does exist is flawed.
If you traveled at the speed of light you are *going* into the future.
You are being shuttled into a future that already exists.
What *is* happening is that you are traveling faster through time than everything else.
That means that while you are traveling, everything else is happening all sped up (from your perspective).
So, no... you aren't traveling into a future that already exists.
npage85 2 years ago
Correction:
"You are *not* being shuttled..."
npage85 2 years ago
From a theists standpoint....God created the universe, time, and space. Why should god be limited by any of those? Especially time? Considering the fact that he somehow existed in timelessness
(I personally dont understand timelessness, but thats another discussion)
and your response on prophecies means that god is NOT actually making prophecies. Which means that many verses in the bible are in error.
boorens18 2 years ago
You completely missed the central point. You are suggesting that god is limited by something that he created....quite literally, a new wording of saying
"God cant lift the rock that he made too heavy for himself to lift"
Reworded to:
"God isnt in control of a construct he created (time)"
boorens18 2 years ago
oh I noticed another thing, if god cant tell the future, then god is also not omnipotent, as he is not even in control of his own creation. (in which case I would have to ask is it even a god at all?)
boorens18 2 years ago
Firstly, I made this video starting with the assumption that we had free will.
Us having free will necessitates that the future doesn't exist.
If the future doesn't exist, then you can't even say that God doesn't know something.
There's nothing to know.
So you can't say that the future is unknowable... the future doesn't exist.
Omniscience is "knowing all things." Since the future doesn't exist... it isn't included in "all things."
I'm not "redefining omniscience" at all.
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont. from above)
Lastly, as explained in my video response to this video, God would still be capable of prophecy, although it would mostly be due to his omnipotence in causing one of the many possibilities to come about.
You bird analogy is not even on the mark at all. God knowing all possibilities does *not* mean that he wouldn't be able to know which are more likely. That's a pretty silly claim.
So I'm sorry, but I still don't see any meaningful critiques of Open Theism from you yet.
npage85 2 years ago
One more thing...
Not only would he know which are more likely, but being god, he would be infinitely wise...
...so much so that he could accurately predict events from the range of possibilities better than the best "guesser" around.
So... not only can he *cause* events to come about (kind of like cheating), but he could guess infinitely well as well.
Get it?
So all prophecy was caused by God to happen, or he knew that the chances of it happening differently were slim to none.
npage85 2 years ago
Comment removed
boorens18 2 years ago
Sorry for the multiple comments but I had to elaborate on several ideas..
And as a side note, god would be incapable of prophecy or stating anything in absolute in the future, if the future doesnt exist (which god apparently does in the bible)
boorens18 2 years ago
lastly, assuming that the future truely is unknowable, simply results in the obvious answer that nothing is omniscient. It doesnt permitting you to change the definition so that you can still call god omniscient.
boorens18 2 years ago
The problem I have with your argument that god can only do things that are logically possible, is that you apply a constraint on god that is based on what is logical in our universe Why would god have such a constraint (assuming he created "logic"? Seems a rather arbitrary assumption.
Your part on free will could have just been summed up as:
"God doesn't know whats going to happen he just knows whats possible"
Therefore hes not omniscient. You dont actually refute the paradox
boorens18 2 years ago
How is saying that God knows everything that is possible to know mean that he wouldn't be omniscient?
After all... if the future doesn't exist as a definite thing, and only as possibilities, then how could an omniscient being even know it?
When I look at comments of people who say things like that, it always makes me wonder if they realize that they are asking "why can't an omniscient being know something that is impossible to know?"
It's kind of unsettling.
npage85 2 years ago
you havent yet established that the future doesnt exist...only that we dont know if it does (a common creationist mistake, to confuse not knowing with impossible)
Therefore, there response is not asking
"why cant god know the unknowable (because it isnt established as unknowable)"
Even if you did, that would again restate that omniscience is not one of gods properties. Knowing possibilities doesnt make you omniscient. It leaves god (in many cases) less capable of predicting the future.
boorens18 2 years ago
The reason I say it leaves god less capable of predicting the future, is that god has an infinite number of possibilities to choose from in any event making him infinitely unlikely to get it right. Something as simple as asking,
"where will this bird fly next"
When it is looking at a mouse leaves people with an obvious answer. Swoop down and grab the mouse, but god would then have to contend with all possibilities, therefore even less capable than us of getting the future right.
boorens18 2 years ago
This is easily the worst argument for the free will paradox that I have ever seen.
I prefer the explanation that God is outside time-space.
bronx43 2 years ago
I don't disagree at all with what you are trying to say. I think it already has a name in academic theology, that being Molinism. It has very much to do with God being engaged with circumstances. The next level of omniscience, might then be called Open Theism. Have you heard of these 2 concepts? Two brilliant current proponents of Molinism are Phd's. William L. Craig, and Alvin Plantinga...
wpbmark 2 years ago
I'm an open theist...
oh, and by the way, "goshoulddie" has no idea what he's talking about with these concepts.
npage85 2 years ago
So are you saying he knows what will happen if you choose this item but he doesn't know what you will choose?
goatmilk222 2 years ago
Here's a fun thought:
God is omniscient. God knows everything, including all of the decisions he himself will make. So, if god already knows all of the decisions he himself will make, then god himself does not have free will and is only doing what god already knew he would do.
Nice try on solving the "paradox", but fail.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
"if god already knows all of the decisions he himself will make"
-- Fail for you right there...
God doesn't know the future in my solution because the future doesn't exist... making it logically impossible for God to know future events with certainty.
I get tons of these comments from people just like you all the time... it hurts my head.
npage85 2 years ago
Whoops, but the future does exist to an omniscient being. Knowing all means knowing all. Now, you can try to excuse God with your bullshit twisted logic, but, sorry, omniscience means all knowing. So, if god knows all, then god knows all the actions he/she/it will itself make and is itself not free.
Again, I understand YOUR position that you try to tell us that it is only possible for to do the things that are LOGICALLY possible to do, thus limiting the very word.
So, fail.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
That hurting in your head, by the way, is your logic fighting your attempts to excuse god from the paradox. Don't worry, though, your attempts here are nothing more than the typical christian trying to square the circle of the paradox. You can't, of course, unless you ARE a believer and then, well, it's GOD so he/she/it gets a pass on anything that the believer needs to give it a pass on to continue their idiotic delusions.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Let's take a look at this from another standpoint:
om·nis·cient (ŏm-nĭsh'ənt)
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.
American Heritage Dictionary
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
om·ni·scient
Pronunciation: \-shənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia
Date: circa 1604
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
Websters
So, we can see that the ACTUAL defintions of omniscience has nothing to do with TOTAL KNOWLEDGE with the proviso that as long as it is logically possible or not having knowledge of the future.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Instead, we see that omniscient means: One having total knowledge.
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
Now, when you attempt to CHANGE the definition of the word to suit YOUR argument, you then are guilty of...yes, that's right, a logic fallacy. In this case that of begging the question. You change the definiton of the word. Then, amazingly, the argument you make from the changed definition of the word...
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
...AMAZINGLY fits the definition of the word you changed to fit the argument.
Now, you do TRY to make logical arguments ( you fail...but you try) so please look at how your convuluted logic flows from your false premise and please TRY to realize your illogic.
Feel free to say "nuh uh" now.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
If he doesn't know then why does... nvm completely different subject
goatmilk222 2 years ago
You say if " if God already knows everything, including all of the decisions He Himself will make, then God Himself does not have free will ...."
Sorry, that makes no sense. God is way beyond our human limitations & ignorance.
Plus, God only wants to help us.
kub73158 2 years ago
Yeah...sorry, but you don't get the "god is above logic" card. If god is truly omniscient, then he knows all the actions he himself will take and thefore is bound to only do what his omniscience has already shown him he will do.
Try looking up the defintion of "omniscient" before posting something back to me, r-tard.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
"God ....is bound to only what His omniscience has already shown Him He will do".
Again, that is a finite inference that attempts to confine an omnipotent being.
He is not bound by our type of free will.
Also, if God should die- in theory, there would be absolutely nothing.
By your user name, you proclaim to be one of bent logic & lacking a grasp on reality.
kub73158 2 years ago
Ah, but I am not speaking of omnipotence. I am speaking of omniscience. I can see where you are, therefore, getting confused r-tard. What an interesting paradox arises, though. Omniscience means total knowledge. There is nothing outside of this. God knows everything. This means he knows all of his own actions as well, and, therefore, is bound by his own omniscience to do what he has already seen he WILL do. However, we also attribute to this already ridiculous concept that he is OMNIPOTENT...
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
How is it a ridiculous concept that He is omnipotent?
kub73158 2 years ago
...therefore he is ALL POWERFUL and can sidestep what he has already seen he will do because he has ALL the power to do so. However, we then have a fun paradox...how can he be said to have been ALL KNOWING if he didn't forsee that he would use his ALL POWER to sidestep his being bound by being ALL KNOWING?
Sorry, you aren't going to win this one any more than the r-tard author of this video.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Time and causal effects with God & the spiritual realm is beyond our comprehension, It's different. So, we can't apply or compare our world with that one.
kub73158 2 years ago
So, let me ask you this. Do you agree with the author of this video that God can only do that which is logically possible or is god capable of anything (omnipotent) and knows everything?
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Capable of anything, knows everything and made everything. Omniscience & omnipotence go hand in hand.
Check the writings of theologians on this matter.
Also, I didn't mention before- God already died. Only as a human, though. Yet, He resurrected Himself eternally.
kub73158 2 years ago
Ah, but you see, I have checked the theologians on this matter. The whole reason that "free will" ever came up, for instance, is because of St. Augustine who tried to fight the idea of predeterminism with the idea of free will but then arose the problem of omniscience vs the free will. St. Augustine himself acknowledged that giving god the complete knowledge of all that is, was or ever shall be flies in the face of free will.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
St. Augustine, and the author of this video (unlike you) understood that if god indeed does know all that was, is or ever shall be then free will is impossible. God knows all the actions you will ever take, therefore. You cannot do anything that God hasn't already known that you WOULD do. There then arises the idea of predeterminism. That is, since god knows all things (according to you) then god knows from the moment your soul is created all the actions you will take and your ultimate fate.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Right, everything is predetermined by God. I have said previously that God & the spiritual world is outside of (our) time.
So, what is known and set by Him has no bearing on what one chooses to do in this life here. Time is just a human limit because we are finite. Get it?
kub73158 2 years ago
No, kub, it is you who doesn't get it...no big surprise. We aren't speaking of time or control or any of the OTHER bullshit that you have been trying to spout. No, instead what we are talking about is your definition of god knowing all things and how this means that there is, in fact, no free will. YOU yourself has said that all things are predetermined by god. This means that god already knows all the actions you will take throughout your life and what your final fate means.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
So, we find that r-tards like yourself lose the argument immediately. EITHER God is or isn't bound by the laws of logic. If god ISN'T bound by the laws of logic, then we are back to the paradox of free will, and, by the way, the fun paradox of the rock and god That is, can god create a rock that he himself cannot lift? Well, if he isn't bound by the laws of logic, then yes...but, he also is omnipotent, so he can lift anything, but wait, that does mean he can create anything as well...
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
To question if He is bound by logic is preposterous~ our logic is foolishness with God.
kub73158 2 years ago
This would, in fact, be what PREDETERMINED means. But why would I expect your retard ass to know that any more than knowing what omniscient means. Go away, r-tard, you boor me.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
...and so around and around you go on the paradox of free will and the paradox of omnipotence. IF, on the other hand, we try to limit these propositions as the author of the video does, we then find that we are only engaging in special pleading. That is that we are defining the terms so that they fit the conclusion.
So, sorry, either way, no way out of this problem.
Feel free to once again say "nuh uh".
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Lastly, if theists insists that God lives, then I say he should die. Simple premise, eh?
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Why should it matter if anyone insists God lives, it only matters how your soul sees the need.
kub73158 2 years ago
I said He died already- out of His love, forgiveness and mercy.
So why would you want to have Him gone?
kub73158 2 years ago
(from continued)
Let me ask you this...did God create time and therefore exists outside of time (AND inside of time for that matter)? If your answer is that God CREATED time, then God doesn't NECESSARILY see events in sequence and your point about God not knowing the future is in need of much more support than you've given. Where do you stand on the in inerrancy of scripture? Thanks for posting, I like the way you think.
lokelani525 2 years ago
You're obviously a really smart dude! And I really enjoy thinking of God's sovereignty in this way...you didn't really get me until the end where you said that God excercises HIS freewill (the only being that truly possesses it) to affect his purposes. By the way I agree with the Calvinist doctrines, and I don't think you explanation goes against. I would say though, that you are taking a bit of a leap in saying that he DOESN'T know the future. I think he very well could know it in BOTH senses.
lokelani525 2 years ago
You lo0k like Gordon Freeman. Does Gordon Freeman have free will? XD
IggyHazard 2 years ago
could you define the two "futures" in more detail and how he knows one and not the other. also would you say that God is in Control of ALL things including man?
cumbee2006 3 years ago
wow, i found this very interesting, but i believe that God is an "Imaginary friend" and that he is there if you want him to be there. But this is just one of those things we will never know unless like God comes down and tells us. lol but i really like your point and it has allowed me to expand my knowledge about God
brysonlikescheese 3 years ago
There is no such thing as freewill.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
so you are saying that when jesus predicted he would be betrayed, it was a gamble?
also, does your idea of what all knowing is, not include knowing the future future.
personally i think the mind is a very physical thing. the more and more we poke and prod at what is perceived as chaotic, the more we learn that things such as human behavior is very predictable.
Igotnogod 3 years ago
"So is it your belief that a logically sound argument can have a false conclusion? "
A logically sound argument relies on pre determined imaginary boundaries. You seemed to be impressed with your ability to imagine your own rules and follow them.
This has nothing to do with the concept of omniscience which like infinity or nothingness we can not hope to understand if they in fact exist.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
The mental gymnastics of theists never cease to amaze me. Yes, you can define your imaginary being to avoid a paradox, but that doesn't make him any less imaginary.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
" but that doesn't make him any less imaginary."
-- Haha... I've arrived at an omnipotent, omniscient God existing through *another* of my arguments.... not this one.
Calling my God imaginary is *just* the same as me telling you that neo-Darwinism is "all in your head."
npage85 3 years ago
"Calling my God imaginary is *just* the same as me telling you that neo-Darwinism is 'all in your head.'"
Um, no, it's not even close. Calling your god imaginary is like calling Harry Potter imaginary. They both come from books written by men, and neither has a shred of evidence supporting their actual existence, while evolution is established scientific fact, and the current theory is as well supported as any in science.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
watch?v=eroyjjSYYj0
npage85 3 years ago
You think god knows everything possible, there are multiple outcomes. This, however, is wrong. Time is a straight line, not a web. Now let me explain why. The universe is made up of atoms, humans included. If you know where every single atom is and it's speed at a precise time you can calculate the future, and the past. This is impossible for us do do because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But god knows both the time, location and speed. And all we ever were, was just zeros and ones....
Badblueshy 3 years ago
You are assuming that we do not have nondeterministic freewill in your supposed refutation.
Remember me saying *explicitly* that I was starting with nondeterministic freewill?
Yeah... you must've forgot that...
It was really important, but I guess I should have yelled it out... made it more prominent.
npage85 3 years ago
Oh, and us being made up of atoms doesn't prove *in the least* that all of us is deterministic.
At the *most*, it shows that our *bodies* are deterministic.
What about your mind... you know, that thing that makes decisions?
Oh wait... you're going to tell me that the mind has been proven to be made up of atoms...
Okay, here's a good video for you:
watch?v=xw5lnA-8U2U
You should watch it... and be enlightened.
npage85 3 years ago
Free will is a theory. In order for free will to exist
"we" would have to be identified as a distinct and separate force. This has not yet been established. In fact we can not identify exactly what is meant by "we" or "I" "we" are on equal scientific footing with "deities"
Science shows us everything interacts with everything else. "we" are influenced every second of every day.
Defining god is foolishness. We can not even define ourselves.
Logic requires premise, premise stands on belief.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
You must've completely missed the point of this, right?
Like... let me make this simple for you... really, really simple....
People love to bring up this paradox, right? They love to bring it up because they claim it shows that it is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent God to exist.
But... it *isn't* impossible for Him to exist if we have nondeterministic freewill, as I show in this video.
That was the entire point of this video, and nothing you said addressed that.
npage85 3 years ago
"People love to bring up this paradox, right?"
The paradox is imagined. Free will is a theory.
Science does not support non determinism.
Just as you know what will happen when you drop an object so it goes with all things. It's just a matter of comprehending the parameters and their effect. Omniscience ensures the knowledge of where things will go and as the maker of all things therefore the determiner of the direction and outcome.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"Science does not support non determinism."
-- Watch my video "Science and Dogma - The brain and Mind"
Science does not disprove nondeterminism... it doesn't even come close.
Therefore, the whole rest of your comment collapses under that one false premise.
npage85 3 years ago
"Science does not disprove nondeterminism."
In fact it does. No causal effect stands on it's own.
This is a proven fact. Everything follows natural laws therefore behavior is predictable. It is just a matter of understanding the mechanisms and laws. We are only limited in our personal computational abilities. Computers are eliminating that obstacle. Marketing annalists rely on such technology. They bank on it. :)
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"No causal effect stands on it's own.
This is a proven fact. Everything follows natural laws therefore behavior is predictable"
-- Umm.... haha, that is called Naturalism.
Naturalism is a presupposition, not a demonstrated fact.
To make the claim that nothing is not natural, you are making a claim that you can't substantiate.
You are failing right now.
npage85 3 years ago
"Umm.... haha, that is called Naturalism."
This is called fact. Nothing known contradicts it.
"To make the claim that nothing is not natural, you are making a claim that you can't substantiate."
Nothing known to man has shown to be anything but natural. No evidence of anything unnatural has ever been produced.
You can imagine anything you want but the facts say otherwise.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"This is called fact. Nothing known contradicts it."
-- Your subjective experiences do... according to arguments that I've had on YouTube for more than a year.
(cont. below)
npage85 3 years ago
(cont. from above)
"Nothing known to man has shown to be anything but natural. No evidence of anything unnatural has ever been produced.
You can imagine anything you want but the facts say otherwise."
-- It's funny you want empirical evidence of something that by its very nature would lack such evidence.
Therefore, one must resort to philosophy to see whether naturalism is true or false... and things like your mind and so on show that it *is* false.
You are still failing...
npage85 3 years ago
"Therefore, one must resort to philosophy" You resort to make believe to determine facts. Not I. Philosophically, whatever premise one believes to be true will determine what is true because it is not real. You can dream up whatever premise you want to fit your wishes, and you do. This is the only factual truth involved. "to see whether naturalism is true or false.."
I go by every fact known to man. Not by facts you imagine. I can imagine my own should I choose to.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"You resort to make believe to determine facts."
-- Nope... I resort to using facts to logically figure out what they then entail.
"Not by facts you imagine."
-- In my arguments I only use those facts which are actually facts... not ambiguous statements.
All you are doing right now is stating that I'm wrong over and over again. You really aren't saying anything at all... it's quite hilarious.
npage85 3 years ago
"In my arguments I only use those facts which are actually facts... not ambiguous statements."
Free will is not a fact. It is a subjective idea about causal effects. Gods are not facts. Philosophy does not deal in facts. It deals in points of view. Most people find it hard to separate facts from their beliefs. Though points of view exist, fact they do not make.
Perhaps you should begin again and list your facts and the sources from which you attained them.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"Philosophy does not deal in facts."
-- What?!? lol... don't make me laugh...
"Free will is not a fact. "
-- You know what *you* need to do? You need to realize that what I'm doing in this video is showing how free-will and God does not pose a paradox.
Do I assert that free-will actually exists? No. I show that if it *did* exist, there would still be no paradox.
I think you're getting mighty confused. I think it would be better for you to go take "Critical Thinking" and get back to me.
npage85 3 years ago
"You need to realize that what I'm doing in this video"
Your Gods omnipotents is impotent. It is limited to Logic. So you are inventing your gods limits and contradicting your first imaginative declaration.
Now if you were to make a list of god attributes as variables vs hypothetical free will and discuss them as such you may have something.
Philosophically we can imagine all manor of gods and corresponding attributes.
Nowhere within are facts.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"It is limited to Logic."
-- Right... so you are asking me to declare that my God is illogical by His very nature?
That's somewhat absurd... for *right* when I declare that He is above logic, and that He can do illogical things, you would declare His existence to be logically impossible.
Is it really that bad to show how God can logically exist and be omniscient and omnipotent with the existence of free-will?
No... since we are debating about His existence in a logical framework...
npage85 3 years ago
"by His very nature?"
Now you are limiting your god to a sex?
"Is it really that bad to show how God can logically exist and be omniscient and omnipotent with the existence of free-will?"
It is neither good or bad to imagine whatever you wish.
"you would declare His existence to be logically impossible."
To confine my god to anything the limited human mind could hope to comprehend would be self defeating concerning the notion of a god in the first place.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"Now you are limiting your god to a sex?"
-- Go to Merriam Webster Online, and type in "his" in the dictionary. You'll find that the word "his" is commonly used to refer to genderless beings. Basically, I laughed out loud in response to your question just now.
"It is neither good or bad to imagine whatever you wish."
-- I'm not imagining. I'm showing, through logic and reason, that freewill and an omniscient, omnipotent God can coexist without a paradox.
(cont. below)
npage85 3 years ago
(cont. from above)
"To confine my god to anything the limited human mind "
-- This implies that you believe "logic" was invented by the human mind, and that it wasn't discovered.
I would contend that you can not know that either way, and that saying that God can not perform a logically impossible act does not restrict His ability at all, since logically impossible things don't exist anyways.
npage85 3 years ago
"I'm not imagining. I'm showing, through logic and reason, that freewill and an omniscient, omnipotent God can coexist without a paradox."
Anything we imagine can exist when we invent the premise. Logically if green pigs fly I will get laid by alien sea turtles on fat teusday.
Omniscience does not = reason or logic. This is an assumption there is no way to test.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"Omniscience does not = reason or logic. This is an assumption there is no way to test."
-- So is it your belief that a logically sound argument can have a false conclusion?
npage85 3 years ago
"I'm showing, through logic and reason, that freewill and an omniscient, omnipotent God can coexist without a paradox."
No, you're not. You're removing the paradox via semantics games, by choosing definitions of "omnipotence" and "free will" to suit your rationalization.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"No, you're not. You're removing the paradox via semantics games, by choosing definitions of "omnipotence" and "free will" to suit your rationalization."
-- I'm showing how an omniscient God(one who knows all things) wouldn't know the future if it didn't exist...
Because "the future" wouldn't be a part of "all things," since it doesn't exist.
It's funny how people get so angered over this, when there is *in fact* no rational objection you can possibly bring to the table.
npage85 3 years ago
"I'm showing how an omniscient God(one who knows all things) wouldn't know the future if it didn't exist..."
Right, which requires that the Universe is not deterministic, which means God is not long omnipotent. Moreover, you can't show that the future *doesn't* exist -- in fact, Relativity says it *does*, though Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree, so we know one or both are wrong.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Nope... this argument doesn't require the *universe* not be deterministic... it requires your *mind*(a nonphysical object) to not be deterministic.
Which, fortunately for me, you can't use any inductive argument to conclude that it is.
npage85 3 years ago
"this argument doesn't require the *universe* not be deterministic... it requires your *mind*(a nonphysical object) to not be deterministic."
Your mind is part of the Universe, and can affect the Universe -- if it is non-deterministic, then the Universe is as well. This isn't obvious to you? Really?
Men with twice your IQ have been coming up with far more sophisticated arguments for millennia.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"if it is non-deterministic, then the Universe is as well. This isn't obvious to you? Really?"
-- Umm... you are assuming that the mind has an effect on the universe... but that is really besides the point.
The point here is that you are gleefully overlooking the major point:
The universe behaves deterministically besides the effect of minds. That was my point, and I find it funny that you are almost purposefully misrepresenting me here.
npage85 3 years ago
"-- Umm... you are assuming that the mind has an effect on the universe... but that is really besides the point."
Assuming? My mind is having an effect on the Universe right now. These words wouldn't be on your screen if it hadn't.
"The universe behaves deterministically besides the effect of minds."
That's called special pleading, it wasn't part of your original argument, it certainly wasn't the "point"; that's you backtracking and trying to save a desperately failed argument.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"that's you backtracking and trying to save a desperately failed argument."
-- Nope...
When I say that the universe is deterministic, I am obviously referring to the *universe*, which is physical.
I doubt disagree that physical reality has been shown to operate on certain Laws, but that a nondeterministic mind, even though nondeterministic, would not violate those Laws.
In other words, the universe is deterministic insofar as you don't factor in minds.
You're hilarious.
npage85 3 years ago
"In other words, the universe is deterministic insofar as you don't factor in minds."
The Universe is either deterministic or not. If you're going to use that determinism as the basis for an argument, you don't get to wall of evidence to the contrary as not mattering, as being an exception -- that's called special pleading, it's a fallacy.
I just pushed some keys on my keyboard. My body did this at the directly of my mind. If my mind is not deterministic, then neither is the Universe.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Let me ask you this:
If everything is follows strict Physical Laws besides our brains(which behave nondeterministically), how can you say that the "evidence" that the universe behaves deterministically show that your mind is deterministic?
The answer is:
It doesn't.
The universe following specific physical Laws does not mean, logically, that something which interacts with it must also follow those Laws.
I think you're failing.
npage85 3 years ago
"If everything is follows strict Physical Laws besides our brains(which behave nondeterministically), how can you say that the 'evidence' that the universe behaves deterministically show that your mind is deterministic?"
That isn't what I said, dumbass. I said that if your mind is non-deterministic, then the Universe is *necessarily* non-deterministic (unless it could be shown that the mind cannot affect the Universe, in which case this communication would be impossible).
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"I said that if your mind is non-deterministic, then the Universe is *necessarily* non-deterministic"
-- Which is why I am demonstrating that you are obviously equivocating(and strawmanning) on the word "nondeterministic."
You are asserting that because I said that the universe is deterministic, but that our minds aren't, that I'm somehow retarded.
However, it is *you* who is ultimately being retarded, because you are misrepresenting precisely what I meant.
Please... get a grip.
npage85 3 years ago
"Please... get a grip."
Please, post an argument. Watching you foam at the mouth in impotent rage is entertaining, but not as entertaining as actual debate.
Saying "the Universe is deterministic, as long as you don't factor in minds" is the same as saying "everything needs a creator, as long as you don't factor in God" -- it's special pleading, it's fallacious.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"Watching you foam at the mouth..."
-- Actually... it's the opposite. I'm ROFLMAO at you trying to equivocate on my use of the word "deterministic."
Even *when* I used the word thusly:
"this argument doesn't require the *universe* not be deterministic"
The funny thing is: it doesn't.
Haven't you ever heard of noninteractionalist dualism?
(cont. below)
npage85 3 years ago
(cont. from above)
Haha... I'm sorry... I'm cracking up.
Again... for the *hundredth* time though... by "deterministic" in my self-quoted text above, I was saying the universe could still follow only strict Physical Laws, yet our interacting minds are not.
Dude... if you can't get how you are straw-manning me, then I don't know how to help you.
npage85 3 years ago
"by 'deterministic' in my self-quoted text above, I was saying the universe could still follow only strict Physical Laws, yet our interacting minds are not."
*lol* Low IQ theater at it's finest, getting tripped up over semantics. If our minds don't follow "follow strict physicals laws", then neither does the Universe, because our minds are PART OF and AFFECT the Universe.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"If our minds don't follow "follow strict physicals laws", then neither does the Universe, because our minds are PART OF and AFFECT the Universe."
-- Alright... then give me a deductive argument that starts with the premise "minds are nondeterministic," and ends with "the universe doesn't follow strict physical laws."
I assert that you can't... and your assertion that it is so doesn't constitute a valid deductive argument for your assertion.
Give me a break, troll.
npage85 3 years ago
"then give me a deductive argument that [...]"
A valid, or sound one? Because no such argument can be sound, given that 'strict physical laws are deterministic' cannot be shown to be true. However, for the sake of your argument, if 'nondeterministic' means "does NOT follow strict laws", then:
Minds are not deterministic.
Minds affect the course of events in the Universe.
The course of events in the Universe is deterministic.
Swap in your bogus definition for "deterministic".
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Let me then translate:
1. Minds do not follow strict physical laws.
2. Minds affect the course of events in the universe.
3. Therefore, the universe does not follow strict physical laws.
Umm... that does not follow.
Would you like me to give you a truth-table for that?
Haha... this cracks me up.
npage85 3 years ago
"Let me then translate:"
Talk about strawman, that was NOT a translation. You altered the conclusion, changing it's meaning.
1. Minds do not follow strict physical laws.
2. Minds affect the course of events in the universe.
3. Therefore, the course of events in the universe does not follow strict physical laws.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"You altered the conclusion, changing it's meaning."
-- Haha... it still isn't deductively valid.
Try again...
Want a truth-table for *that* one?
npage85 3 years ago
Beautiful FAIL.
"My own theology"
So you changed god to fit your delusion.. Congratulations
You failed
Now then, try that withOUT changing god to fit your own delusions.
If everything is known
Everything you do is known
Therefore there is no free will
Surathan 2 years ago
"I think you're failing."
You also think you have a YouTube channel full of intelligent arguments. *lol*
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Oh yeah... use *one* more fallacy in *any* of your posts... and you are blocked.
I tire of your straw-men, your equivocation(combined with a straw man, haha), and all you other fallacies.
Continuing to post like that makes you a troll... so here's your warning.
npage85 3 years ago
"Oh yeah... use *one* more fallacy in *any* of your posts... and you are blocked."
One MORE fallacy? Where's the first?
*rofl* You've been name-calling from the very start, calling me ignorant, arrogant, laughing at me, and more. Apparently it pisses you off to have your arguments dismantled, so you're going to block me. You do realize that that is typical behavior of theist on YouTube.
I haven't posted any fallacies, you just fail at debate, and now you're showing your true colors.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"I haven't posted any fallacies"
-- You've used a straw-man in your rebuttal to a comment where you equivocated on the word "deterministic," taking it out of the context of what I was saying and instead going *way* out into left-field with it.
You *continue* to maintain that straw-man to this very moment.
Oh, and as to the name calling:
That's hilarious... I'm going to keep this entire debate just to marvel at your lack of sound reasoning.
npage85 3 years ago
"you equivocated on the word "deterministic," taking it out of the context of what I was saying and instead going *way* out into left-field with it."
No, YOU did that, redefining "deterministic" as "follows strict physical laws". I already correct you on this, and rather than address that, you threaten to block me and repeat your strawman accusation.
Deterministic means that given enough knowledge about the state of a system NOW, we can DETERMINE it's state LATER. Do you disagree
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"redefining "deterministic" as "follows strict physical laws". I already correct you on this"
-- *You* don't get to decide what definitions *I* am using.
If I explain to you what I actually *meant*(which would be obviously true if you added the assumption that I can actually think things through), then the only way to claim that I am wrong is to call me a liar... which is pretty much lame.
npage85 3 years ago
"Deterministic means that given enough knowledge about the state of a system NOW, we can DETERMINE it's state LATER. "
In other words understand what the future will hold before it happens. Which is logical. And historically we have proven the more we understand about systems the better we are able to predict. Therefore logically an omniscience being would know the future. And because it designed things would have predetermined their outcome.
Provided an omniscient being requires logic.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"Naturalism is a presupposition, not a demonstrated fact."
Science doesn't require philosophical naturalism, but it does require methodological naturalism for practical reasons. If something exists "outside" of nature (whatever *that* means), such that it doesn't interact with our universe in any detectable way, then it's indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is worthless.
Google: The Dragon In My Garage, Carl Sagan
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago