God knows what we choose because He sees all space-time at once. He knows what we choose precisely because WE choose it. God also knows how He chooses to exercise His power because HE chooses to exercise it. You misunderstand God transcending time: It means ALL times are equally present to Him. Free will is not absolute. It means we have some real alternatives, & WE decide which will be real. God sees the new line of action originating in us & knows we are free. Imaginary numbers are logical.
@dfpolis "You misunderstand God transcending time: It means ALL times are equally present to Him. Free will is not absolute. It means we have some real alternatives, & WE decide which will be real." This statement implies parallel universes which actually eliminates the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being. You could think of parallel universes as an extension of our physics whereas supernaturalism is an absurd notion fabricated by humans!
@FallofDarkness55 Not parallel universes, just real possibilities in this universe. Even if there wrere parallel universes, each would have laws of nature which evidence God. Anya priori limitation on the nature of exist4nce is irrational and unscientific. Peace, DP
@dfpolis The notion of parallel universes is actually not unscientific. It is a part of theoretical physics and a theory called M-theory, which makes god unnecessary! In fact if you think about it mathematically the afterlife would require infinitely many parallel universes due to your heaven and my multi-verse which is actually the same thing. And because of god's so-called benevolence and omnipotence where would hell fit into this picture? It wouldn't! Hell is entirely fictitious!
@FallofDarkness55 I didn't say parallel universes are unscientific, but naturalism's a priori restrictions on reality. If a theory posits unobservable things, it is unfalsifiable, and ipso facto unscientific.Hypotheses must be falsifiable to be scientific. Universes we can't see are the same as leprechauns we can't see. They may be, but it's not science. God exists given any physics including M-Theory. Hawking & Mlodinow are as ignorant of philosophy as they are informed on physics. Peace, DP
@dfpolis Wrong! Hawking and Mlodinow are reputable physicists with Ph.D.'s. They've studied this stuff for a long time! Have you? So before saying they're wrong, i'd think twice about what i said.
@FallofDarkness55 Yes, I have a Ph. D. in theoretical physics, and yes, I have studied this for a long time. More importantly, I have also studied philosophy, which they seem largely ignorant of. Physics does not deal with God or how God relates to the universe. So, studying physics does not qualify anyone to judge whether or not God is necessary to maintain the universe in being. Only studying metaphysics qualifies a person to make rational analyses of such things. Peace, DP
@JustinTheAtheist No. You can only forget things you once knew. No one can know a non-fact. I have not made any videos favoring my faith over all the others that acknowledge the existence of God. If you are going to criticize, stick to what I do. Peace, Dennis
Yes, CartesianTheist is an attention whore who made a video mentioning me, argued with me, blocked me, made another video mentioning me, and now sends a troll to get me to overreact to his nonsense (unless you are CartesianTheist). Comments are sufficient in showing ridiculousness.
CartesianTheist, unless you want to unblock me and actually talk to me as a person, fuck off.
@MrAdversusHaereses Where the hell do you get off telling me that I'm talking about Christianity? "God" as defined on my website GodCannotExist (dot) + COM, is not necessarily tied to a certain religion or a certain person's religious beliefs. I show that "God" doesn't seem to mean ANYTHING of significance on this planet.
This is not the only reason your god does not exist. Look up the rest on my website, and see the arguments for God's existence, too.
@MrAdversusHaereses Are you talking about the video he made in September of last year? Yep, I've corrected him on the video before, but he has neglected to change it.
@MrAdversusHaereses That's exactly what CartesianTheist told me last time he wanted me to see his ridiculous little videos. I saw them, and unfortunately they fail to show any persuading elements.
Sadly, CartesianTheist is an idiot and an attention whore.
@jakeblueman Then he should have created us to comprehend him and with that said, how do you know about him and why talk about him? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I am not sure that this works. If God is infinite knowledge, he would know that he changed the future to something else before he does it. Saying he could not is as if he lives on his own timeline, when he not only knows everything but is eternal. If one believes in free will, then just because something happens does not mean it was necessary to happen; a person just happened to choose for it to happen. Also, your argument seems to pressupose dynamic time when you say that God
can only observe the present. Static time theory is also an option. It is good that you admit that your argument depends on very strict definitions; theologians have probably already changed them. Omnipotence now means being able to do what is logically possible and omniscience might mean being able to know what is logically knowable. I direct you to the wiki page of this argument, where it appears that there is enough criticism of the argument to make it invalid.
Free will does not make sense to me anyway, even though I am not quite sure that this argument is valid. It is just another one of those superpowers that theologians give God.
Please explain how omniscience can exist without predetermination. Without predetermination, nothing can be known. For God to truly know Everything, then Everything must be able to be known. If the future is unable to be known for certain, then God cannot possibly know it.
I'm just offering a viable definition of complete knowledge. If the definition is correct but rules out the hyper-ambitious concept of omniscience required by adherents of monotheism, that's not a problem for me ;-)
If my definition is the maximal definition to which sense can be given, then this is just further proof that monotheism is.... incoherent and misguided nonsense. Shucks, how unfortunate.
Ah, okay. Yeah, it all depends on the definitions being used. I use strict definitions to get at the root of an idea, but I realize that there are alternative opinions out there.
Complete knowledge could be defined as knowing all possible states of affairs, and their relative probabilities, without it being already determined which sequence of events would be instantiated. Which sequence, ∑, will in fact be instantiated may be considered a further possible state of affairs. But there may be no set of facts, S, which has such a sequence as a necessary consequence [ie P(∑│S) =1], and hence what the actual world is may, in fact, be merely a matter of probability.
I'm very aware of the argument that the universe is not predetermined, but rather based on probability. However, if this is so, then God cannot know everything. Simply saying that there is something that one cannot know shows that God cannot know everything. For God to literally know everything, we must exist in a predetermined universe.
Also, you are not considering the very respectable compatabilist models of free will, which do not equate free choice with some of our mental events AND/OR actions being outside causal chains.
I merely described freewill in my video as being completely free. Yes, I know there are other definitions of freewill in which the person may make the choice freely but without any knowledge or control. I don't consider that Free.
You can have the knowledge and the control. The latter is possible, because your act of choosing features in the causal chain that also contains, eg, your bodily movements.
Check out, for instance, Michael McKenna's quality entry on "Compatibilism", in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Wait, so you're saying that it is indeed possible to have the knowledge and control needed for true freewill to exist? We cannot have control over our own existence. We did not choose to exist, and we did not choose how, when, or where to exist. We only don't choose our environments that we exist in. How then can we possibly have freewill? And we certainly don't know everything about the choices we make. If we did, then we wouldn't make foolish choices that were guided by ignorance.
Wait ...remember I should be going to be in London; it's 1:45am ;-)
Complete control AND/OR future knowldege are also an unreasonable requirments. Merely reasonable prediction of the consequences of ones actions, within moderately proximate time frames. The kind of prediction that might well have been reasonable at the time one acted, yet might subsequently prove to have been mistaken.
This is the kind of human and workable scale that I can understand and live with.
Yes, I understand that the requirements I'm asking for are are unreasonable, but that is what it would take for true freewill to exist. I'm merely taking a philosophical look at these concepts to see what each quality needs and demands and what hinders its existence.
God knows what we choose because He sees all space-time at once. He knows what we choose precisely because WE choose it. God also knows how He chooses to exercise His power because HE chooses to exercise it. You misunderstand God transcending time: It means ALL times are equally present to Him. Free will is not absolute. It means we have some real alternatives, & WE decide which will be real. God sees the new line of action originating in us & knows we are free. Imaginary numbers are logical.
dfpolis 10 months ago
@dfpolis "You misunderstand God transcending time: It means ALL times are equally present to Him. Free will is not absolute. It means we have some real alternatives, & WE decide which will be real." This statement implies parallel universes which actually eliminates the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being. You could think of parallel universes as an extension of our physics whereas supernaturalism is an absurd notion fabricated by humans!
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 Not parallel universes, just real possibilities in this universe. Even if there wrere parallel universes, each would have laws of nature which evidence God. Anya priori limitation on the nature of exist4nce is irrational and unscientific. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis The notion of parallel universes is actually not unscientific. It is a part of theoretical physics and a theory called M-theory, which makes god unnecessary! In fact if you think about it mathematically the afterlife would require infinitely many parallel universes due to your heaven and my multi-verse which is actually the same thing. And because of god's so-called benevolence and omnipotence where would hell fit into this picture? It wouldn't! Hell is entirely fictitious!
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 I didn't say parallel universes are unscientific, but naturalism's a priori restrictions on reality. If a theory posits unobservable things, it is unfalsifiable, and ipso facto unscientific.Hypotheses must be falsifiable to be scientific. Universes we can't see are the same as leprechauns we can't see. They may be, but it's not science. God exists given any physics including M-Theory. Hawking & Mlodinow are as ignorant of philosophy as they are informed on physics. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis Wrong! Hawking and Mlodinow are reputable physicists with Ph.D.'s. They've studied this stuff for a long time! Have you? So before saying they're wrong, i'd think twice about what i said.
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 Yes, I have a Ph. D. in theoretical physics, and yes, I have studied this for a long time. More importantly, I have also studied philosophy, which they seem largely ignorant of. Physics does not deal with God or how God relates to the universe. So, studying physics does not qualify anyone to judge whether or not God is necessary to maintain the universe in being. Only studying metaphysics qualifies a person to make rational analyses of such things. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis You forget that God does not exist.
And are you really this intent on converting people to your specific religion?
JustinTheAtheist 8 months ago
@JustinTheAtheist No. You can only forget things you once knew. No one can know a non-fact. I have not made any videos favoring my faith over all the others that acknowledge the existence of God. If you are going to criticize, stick to what I do. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 8 months ago
@dfpolis "If you are going to criticize, stick to what I do. Peace, Dennis"
Criticize? Why would I want to criticize? Stick to what you do? What's that? Trolling and criticizing others?
Apparently I was mistaken on your intent. Clearly you favor trolling and criticizing others more than you favor your god.
True knowledge may not exist, but have some common sense and realize that gods were made up by people.
JustinTheAtheist 8 months ago
@dfpolis Peace, Justin
JustinTheAtheist 8 months ago
@MrAdversusHaereses damned trolls.
Yes, CartesianTheist is an attention whore who made a video mentioning me, argued with me, blocked me, made another video mentioning me, and now sends a troll to get me to overreact to his nonsense (unless you are CartesianTheist). Comments are sufficient in showing ridiculousness.
CartesianTheist, unless you want to unblock me and actually talk to me as a person, fuck off.
JustinTheAtheist 11 months ago
@MrAdversusHaereses Oh, and CartesianTheist blocked after I responded to his nonsense. Yet he still makes videos mentioning me...
JustinTheAtheist 11 months ago
@MrAdversusHaereses Where the hell do you get off telling me that I'm talking about Christianity? "God" as defined on my website GodCannotExist (dot) + COM, is not necessarily tied to a certain religion or a certain person's religious beliefs. I show that "God" doesn't seem to mean ANYTHING of significance on this planet.
This is not the only reason your god does not exist. Look up the rest on my website, and see the arguments for God's existence, too.
JustinTheAtheist 11 months ago
@MrAdversusHaereses He blocked me, but here's my reply:
"If you want to continue mentioning me and talking to me via comments, I think you should unblock me first; don't you?
I can't speak for anyone else you mentioned, but my mentioning was apparently much needed to correct yet another misunderstanding you seem to have.
GodCannotExist (Dot) + COM
You'll see the theistic arguments that assert God's infinite power and knowledge (never-ending), which is absurd. I'll continue if you'd like...
JustinTheAtheist 11 months ago
@MrAdversusHaereses Are you talking about the video he made in September of last year? Yep, I've corrected him on the video before, but he has neglected to change it.
JustinTheAtheist 1 year ago
@MrAdversusHaereses Could you put that question in a more grammatical sentence for me to understand?
JustinTheAtheist 1 year ago
@MrAdversusHaereses That's exactly what CartesianTheist told me last time he wanted me to see his ridiculous little videos. I saw them, and unfortunately they fail to show any persuading elements.
Sadly, CartesianTheist is an idiot and an attention whore.
JustinTheAtheist 1 year ago
@jakeblueman Then he should have created us to comprehend him and with that said, how do you know about him and why talk about him? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Nice reasoning, nice music ))
saamohod 2 years ago 2
Part 1
I am not sure that this works. If God is infinite knowledge, he would know that he changed the future to something else before he does it. Saying he could not is as if he lives on his own timeline, when he not only knows everything but is eternal. If one believes in free will, then just because something happens does not mean it was necessary to happen; a person just happened to choose for it to happen. Also, your argument seems to pressupose dynamic time when you say that God
Feldmm1 2 years ago
can only observe the present. Static time theory is also an option. It is good that you admit that your argument depends on very strict definitions; theologians have probably already changed them. Omnipotence now means being able to do what is logically possible and omniscience might mean being able to know what is logically knowable. I direct you to the wiki page of this argument, where it appears that there is enough criticism of the argument to make it invalid.
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Free will does not make sense to me anyway, even though I am not quite sure that this argument is valid. It is just another one of those superpowers that theologians give God.
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Nice vid. But perhaps .... omniscience does not imply predetermination
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
Please explain how omniscience can exist without predetermination. Without predetermination, nothing can be known. For God to truly know Everything, then Everything must be able to be known. If the future is unable to be known for certain, then God cannot possibly know it.
JustinTheAtheist 2 years ago
I'm just offering a viable definition of complete knowledge. If the definition is correct but rules out the hyper-ambitious concept of omniscience required by adherents of monotheism, that's not a problem for me ;-)
If my definition is the maximal definition to which sense can be given, then this is just further proof that monotheism is.... incoherent and misguided nonsense. Shucks, how unfortunate.
Andrea, ♥
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
Ah, okay. Yeah, it all depends on the definitions being used. I use strict definitions to get at the root of an idea, but I realize that there are alternative opinions out there.
Peace,
Justin
JustinTheAtheist 2 years ago
Complete knowledge could be defined as knowing all possible states of affairs, and their relative probabilities, without it being already determined which sequence of events would be instantiated. Which sequence, ∑, will in fact be instantiated may be considered a further possible state of affairs. But there may be no set of facts, S, which has such a sequence as a necessary consequence [ie P(∑│S) =1], and hence what the actual world is may, in fact, be merely a matter of probability.
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
I'm very aware of the argument that the universe is not predetermined, but rather based on probability. However, if this is so, then God cannot know everything. Simply saying that there is something that one cannot know shows that God cannot know everything. For God to literally know everything, we must exist in a predetermined universe.
JustinTheAtheist 2 years ago
Also, you are not considering the very respectable compatabilist models of free will, which do not equate free choice with some of our mental events AND/OR actions being outside causal chains.
Regards, andrea ♥
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
Please elaborate on your comment on freewill.
I merely described freewill in my video as being completely free. Yes, I know there are other definitions of freewill in which the person may make the choice freely but without any knowledge or control. I don't consider that Free.
JustinTheAtheist 2 years ago
You can have the knowledge and the control. The latter is possible, because your act of choosing features in the causal chain that also contains, eg, your bodily movements.
Check out, for instance, Michael McKenna's quality entry on "Compatibilism", in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Regards and ♥, andrea
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
Wait, so you're saying that it is indeed possible to have the knowledge and control needed for true freewill to exist? We cannot have control over our own existence. We did not choose to exist, and we did not choose how, when, or where to exist. We only don't choose our environments that we exist in. How then can we possibly have freewill? And we certainly don't know everything about the choices we make. If we did, then we wouldn't make foolish choices that were guided by ignorance.
JustinTheAtheist 2 years ago
Wait ...remember I should be going to be in London; it's 1:45am ;-)
Complete control AND/OR future knowldege are also an unreasonable requirments. Merely reasonable prediction of the consequences of ones actions, within moderately proximate time frames. The kind of prediction that might well have been reasonable at the time one acted, yet might subsequently prove to have been mistaken.
This is the kind of human and workable scale that I can understand and live with.
andrea, ♥
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
Yes, I understand that the requirements I'm asking for are are unreasonable, but that is what it would take for true freewill to exist. I'm merely taking a philosophical look at these concepts to see what each quality needs and demands and what hinders its existence.
JustinTheAtheist 2 years ago
win
camperkid 2 years ago
good points
Scoonicus 2 years ago
Why thank you ^_^
I'm planning another video to go more in depth on the topic of "Transcending Time" and its implications. :)
JustinTheAtheist 2 years ago