excuse me but your cbe rpg maker demo doesn't have everything its supposed to come with and i really want to play but i dont have all the sound effects autotiles and etc
@nazra7 I never argued that. I'm saying that if it is against an individuals volition then for that scenario, that person does not have free will. Again, addressing the problem of evil, free will cannot be a solution to the problem of evil if God can infringe upon his gift to us. The same for joining Christianity. "IF you do not love me you will go to hell." The mafia boss analogy provides as a good example. That is in fact, hardly free at all, it's stripping freedom and ruling by fear.
@strkszone Yes, sorry for the strawman. Here you say one's own volition is not subject to control, well, is that true? I don't know of any definition of volition that implies the criteria of being uncontrolled by external power.
For example, some one may take a drug that overcomes him with irrational fears, and due to this moves away fearing the government is after him. Was this action not of his own volition?
@nazra7 Yes, I'm saying if you are being controlled it is no truly of your own volition. For the same reason why robots have no free will, because we control them via "external power" as you put it. The ability to make a choice does not automatically mean we have the freedom too. To address your analogy with drugs, it depends. I would say it is of his volition since he CHOSE out of his own volition to use those drugs knowing the consequences. Thus he is still responsible for his actions.
@strkszone Hmmm... it seems to me that this definition implies that free will must not be subject to control ever. Meaning that if at anytime, my will can be controlled, then its not really free. But again I don't think this is a proper definition since free will seems to refer to our ability to make our own choices at all.
Right now I am, at my own volition, typing to you, do I not have free will because some one can come and keep me from typing?
@nazra7 No, free will refers to the ability to ACT upon our own choices, not to decide what choice to choose or have the capability of choosing. If someone came and kept you from typing then you would not be free to type. Hence you wouldn't have the free will to type, yes.
@nazra7 You do not have free will, the moment someone decides to prevent you from typing, not by the possibility of it. The action is what I'm referring to.
@strkszone OK, so then if the condition for negating free will is controlling will, then until God does something to control a person's will, that person still has free will, which means unless God is constantly controlling our will, his existence is not contradictory with our free will.
The Bible portrays God to text people's faith, Abraham and his son is a good example, why would God want to see what Abraham would do in light of X command if he constantly controls his will?
@nazra7 No, but he does not, as you've just said only have the capability but actually does at times encroach upon our free will. If there was a person watching you type to me who was like 2x your size and sometimes would make you unable to type to me, he is contradicting your free will. If God knows all things, and God knows future things. Therefore God can see the future Abraham's son is not dead. 2 possibilities. Abraham failed, or God said LOL jk, and I think God would know which.
@strkszone Its apparent that God's existence is not contradictory with free will, only his intervention is, and its only temporary and only effects who's will he intervenes with during the time of intervention. That makes sense.
Regarding Abraham, his future, in light of that command, would look more like either Abraham will attempt carry out the action and God will intervene or Abraham would refuse. God probably was able to predict which was most likely to happen, but was obviously not sure
@nazra7 Yes, so I'm asking for what reason does God give us free will, if we are inherently sinful anyways? I mean the people before the flood were so sinful that he had to flood em off the earth, free will or not. So why bother giving us free will at all, why not just make us all Christian? How could a God who knows all things yet to come, not see based on evidence. Abraham's son is alive. God told him not to kill him. Therefore the "test" for abraham is moot if he knew he would say LOL JK!
@strkszone My guess is that free will is genetically inherited from Adam and Eve, who were created without the ability to sin until they ate from the tree of knowledge (some researchers suggest that the fruit of knowledge is a pomegranate!) But why does he not take it away from us? I don't know, maybe he feels that its better for us to have free will than not?
@nazra7 But what is so important that we have free will? Why does it matter to him? After all, if he wants everything to go according to his plan, and his powers of intervention can strip of us of our free will whenever he wants, he may as well just not give us free will at all. Also I love pomegranate, and if it's a sin to eat that fruit, I'd gladly go to hell because pomegranates taste so good :D!
@strkszone I'm not exactly sure why we still have free will, I can only guess. I think I know why he gave it to use in the first place though. He wanted us to be in his image and "likeness", with similar qualities that he has. Free will is one of those qualities. My guess as to why he has not taken away our free will is because he wants us to remain in his image and likeness.
@nazra7 But him stripping us of our free will during intervention, wouldn't he be completely defeating that purpose? I would use the argument of evil again, but I know that for some weird reason you think it is morally justified for a girl to be raped so she can tell that rape is bad, when I'm pretty sure if you ask a woman who's never been raped before would agree that it is bad as well >.>
@strkszone If God intervenes with out free will, its not stripping us of our capacity for free will, rather, it is only suppressing it in that one instance. For example, if you will X and God prevents X, you could also will Y and do Y while God is preventing X.
Its not morally justified for a person to commit rape, its only morally justified for the suffering caused by rape to exist.
If rape did not cause any suffering, there would be a lot more rapes going on.
@nazra7 No you're saying that that person who commited rape is morally justified to rape so the suffering caused by rape to exist can exist. If the person never raped the woman then the suffering caused by rape wouldn't exist. If the suffering caused by rape is okay, then that means that it is morally justified to rape. I'm not sure of any instance where rape would not cause any suffering to a person. By preventing X he is still not giving us 100% free will, defeating the purpose of free will.
@strkszone Strkzone, again, please don't say "no this is how it is" - because that is how every strawman starts. Instead, please listen for what I have to say:
Rape is a crime always. There is no justification for it being committed. Do not say I justify rape because I do not. There is only justification for the suffering, which is not mutually exclusive to rape, to exist. If evil and suffering did not exist, rape would not cause suffering, and most people would not know its wrong.
@strkszone "By preventing X he is still not giving us 100% free will, defeating the purpose of free will."
Well, that really raises the question for what the "purpose" of free will is. Is the purpose of free will to have 100% free will? Or is the purpose of free will is to give us God-like discretion?
@nazra7 You said that he wants us to have free will to be like his image. That leads to some questions though. If he wanted us to have free will like he does, why didn't he want us to have knowledge of good vs evil. Also, if he did want us to have knowledge of good vs evil, then how is he justified in punishing us with inherent sin? Me saying he defeated the purpose, I mean that it contradicts free will. Free will means 100% freely able to do an action. If it's being prevented it's not free.
@strkszone I don't think God intended for us to have knowledge of good and evil because if we knew evil, we would do evil, he only intended for us to have the ability to exercise discretion. As a result of us becoming aware of evil, God probably knew now that for the sake of morality, there needs to be a standard for which most can know, on their own, right from wrong. This also shows that God had to curse the world to create that standard.
@strkszone "Free will means 100% freely able to do an action. If it's being prevented it's not free."
Free will is also relative to the action that you're trying to do. If there's 50% ability to do X and 100% ability to do Y, it can be argued that one does not have free will while trying to do X, but does have free will while trying to do Y.
@nazra7 Free will in the general sense that it is used refers to the ability to perform both X and Y equally. Having a free choice of their own volition unhindered.
@strkszone I'm not so certain about that, but if I were to assume you were correct, my conclusion would not differ. In either case, it can be said that God contradicts free will when he intervenes, so any argument claiming that God is contradictory with free will assumes that God constantly intervenes, otherwise, its no more contradictory than mom preventing son from staying out past 10 pm.
@nazra7 You're right the existence of God would not be contradictory to free will, but I'm saying his intervention defeats his purpose for giving us free will in the first place. Leaving us thinking why does he give us free will? If it is to put us in his image, then why are we not energy? How are we in his "image". If we're interpreting on his abilities, then why are we not omnipotent?
@strkszone "but I'm saying his intervention defeats his purpose for giving us free will in the first place."
I don't see how leaving room for questioning God's decision to give us free will defeats the purpose of us having free will to begin with.
"How are we in his "image"."
I believe the phrase "in his image" refers to his likeness, as the phrase that follows" in our likeness" seems to be paraphrasing what was said before rather than adding on to what was said before.
@strkszone I never argue that free will is a solution to the problem of evil. My solution to the problem of evil is showing that its not really a problem to begin with since without evil, moral characteristics would be impossible, therefore, evil is justified in existing for the sake of morality.
@nazra7 I didn't say you did, I was merely just making a point. I've rebutted this argument already by saying evil is unnecessary, and gave a few reasons as to why I think that via philosophical rules such as "Don't do (x) if you wouldn't want (x) done to you." I have yet to hear a response to that. Also you haven't addressed my analogy on slaves being free according to your definition of free. I've also stated I could feel love without evil, and can't see how the two are even relevant.
@strkszone Do to others what you want to be done to you has nothing to do with my argument for my argument argues that morality is based on character traits, not actions or deeds. If God sees a moral world to be one with moral characters, not moral actions, then without evil, the instillation of such moral characteristics would be impossible.
@nazra7 Pardon my ignorance, but I fail to see how characteristics differ from moral actions/deeds that one does. Allow me to propose the Euthaphro(?) dilema... Are things morally justified because God says it's moral, or are things moral independent of God and God just conveys to us what morality is. Response to #1) God is tyrannical. Response to #2) God is a middleman and unnecessary. Choose. Example that good cannot have come about without evil being in place, please.
The main argument for this is to those who say. God is omnipresent. He knows all things, based on that an omniscient God should still know which choice you're most likely to choose. Also, the fact is people say "God knows what has happened, what is currently happening, and he knows what is yet to come." If he knows what is yet to come then you come into the same dilema outside of your "semantic" argument.
@strkszone But choosing a choice requires the action of choosing. I think because God gave us free will, that gives him a limit of knowing what we will do unless he makes us do something. My argument is the act of choosing is not a thing therefore its not necessary for a thing knowing all things to know a non-thing.
@nazra7 Yes, but if God is aware of all factors, then he should be aware of all choices. The choices made are usually in direct correlation to that thing. By saying that God has a divine plan, do things always go according to his will? If yes, then that's not free will, that's more like God's fate. If no, then God's plan is completely irrelevant and would be no better than a plan I choose to make with very little influence on the world. Also wouldn't miracles violate free will?
@strkszone "Yes, but if God is aware of all factors, then he should be aware of all choices."
When a factor is not referring to a thing then God, knowing of all things, is not expected to know it, BUT, God should be aware of all possible choices and that's what I said in this video. God is not expected to know what choice you end up choosing, because choosing a choice requires an action, and actions are not things.
@strkszone Things apparently do not always go with accord to God's will, but with that said, most things are permitted because they do not effect God's overall plan. They either can be worked around, or they do not have any effect on God's plan at all.
For example, me being a sinner probably doesn't effect God's plan one way or another, but even if it did, they effect would be so minuscule that it could easily be worked around thus it does not require me being destroyed.
I think the phrase free will only refers to our capability to think for ourselves and beyond our primal instincts. If this is the case then miracles would have no effect on free will.
@strkszone When I hear the phrase "God knows what is yet to come" that comes across to me as God has an ultimate plan and will carry it out, but this does not necessarily refer to every insignificant event that will ever happen.
@nazra7 No, free will is the ability to make a choice freely and that it is of your own volition. For example: If you jumped off a building of your own free will with the intent of killing yourself, and God "saved you" being a miracle. He would be in direct violation of that person's free will. If God's ultimate plan works out, then it means nothing can go against his ultimate will, meaning free will would be moot and irrelevant.
@strkszone "No, free will is the ability to make a choice freely and that it is of your own volition."
That's what I said.
"If you jumped off a building of your own free will with the intent of killing yourself, and God saved you... He would be in direct violation of... free will"
Even if you willed to kill yourself, and God stopped you, you still have free will since you have the ability to "will" it.
@nazra7 Again, the obstacles are moot. They are irrelevant. If his ultimate plan works out it means the obstacles faced have been over come. No if you made the choice to kill yourself and God prevented you from making that choice then he didn't allow you to make that choice, making it so that he influences your free will. For the same reason why if I pointed a gun to your head and said give me your money, I'd be taking away your free will, even though you have the choice not to, but end up dead.
@strkszone "Again, the obstacles are moot. They are irrelevant."
If the obstacles are things going against God's will then they are very relevant.
"No if you made the choice to kill yourself and God prevented you from making that choice"
If you made the choice, God never prevented it. If You didn't make the choice then there is nothing for God to prevent. I think you're confusing choice with action here. Free will has to do with the ability to will, not the ability to perform.
@nazra7 If God knows all things he will know what obstacles there will be and how to overcome them. Hence it's irrelevance. Ability to make a choice doesn't equate making a choice. As I said in my analogy if someone pointed a gun at you telling you to give him your money or die, there is no choice, unless you manage to find a way to run/fight. There is no free will in that. Put the analogy with God as the shooter and you'll see interference = infringing on free will.
@strkszone See here you're strawmanning the argument. When Christians say "free will" we are referring to our ability to make choices not perform them. In your analogy, you still have the ability to make a choice, you can do it or die, or fight back if you can.
So when you tell me "no its this way" you're not arguing against Christianity, rather, you're arguing against your interpretation of it.
@nazra7 And I believe you're misusing free-will. Free will as used by Christianity is the ability to perform freely without having choices made for you or interfered with. As defined by the dictionary: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. If a gun is being pointed to your head you are not acting at your own discretion. I am arguing against a textbook definition of it, you're not representing free will, but choice.
@strkszone " And I believe you're misusing free-will."
Even if we use your definition, it still can be said that even if you're in a situation where some one points a gun at your head and says "do it or die", you're still left with choices and the ability to perform them and freely choose them. Thus you still have free will.
@nazra7 No that is not free will. Will is the ability to perform or do, to will it into action. To have the freedom to do. Free will. Free choice just means you can choose which option for better or for worse. Stop equating the two. Christianity says you can freely choose, and then it points the gun to your head saying "oh and by the way if you choose this you'll burn forever" So yes, freely perform is free will, free choice is not free will. You're equating different definitions.
@strkszone Strkzone, with all due respect, you're arguing a strawman. When you're arguing against a person's claim you need to argue from their point of view not yours because you're not arguing against a Christian take on free will.
@strkszone Here is a quote from Newadvent . org regarding free will:
"The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is RATIONAL APPETITE. Man necessarily DESIRES beatitude, but he can FREELY CHOOSE between different forms of it. Free will is simply this ELECTIVE POWER."
Again, when you argue against Christianity, argue against what they argue, not what you think they argue. Otherwise you're not arguing against Christianity.
@nazra7 There are many different arguments to pertain to. Stop generalizing Christianity, you know that they all appeal to different arguments. How the hell am I supposed to know that you're operating under a different definition than that of the dictionary? Get your definitions straight first and actually state what you're defining them as. The ability of choice isn't compromised, but the ability of action is. That form of free will is in direct contradiction.
@strkszone Strkzone, now you're moving the goal post. You were the one who said "Christianity says you can freely choose" thus you overgeneralized. But at any rate, I am unaware of any Christian denomination that does not see free will this way. If you disagree, then please give an example with citations, otherwise, your complaint of over generalization is inappropriate.
@nazra7 I'm not over generalizing anything. You're the one saying that you have a "free choice" not me. Christianity makes no such claim except for the fact that "God gave us free-will" how the reader interprets that is entirely up to the reader. I was going by a textbook definition of free-will. You were appealing to some other argument on choice. We were arguing to indefinite definitions. Perhaps you should just google free-will arguments made by theists for citation. I made no generalization.
@strkszone "Christianity makes no such claim except for the fact that "God gave us free-will" how the reader interprets that is entirely up to the reader."
I'm glad you said this, what we should do is take a person's interpretation of this concept at face value, find ones that are logically incoherent, and expose the ones that are not.
I want to ask you this though, do you think that an omniscient God is incompatible with free will the way I've described it here?
@strkszone " How the hell am I supposed to know that you're operating under a different definition than that of the dictionary?"
I tried and tried telling you this and you said "no no no, its this way..." All I want Strkzone is for you to see Christianity from a Christian's perspective, and argue against that.
@nazra7 Uhhh...okay. I was arguing against a textbook definition of free will. Free will being translated into the Bible's english language being the definition we have today. You are saying that Free will just means the freedom to make a choice even if that choice doesn't get fulfilled. You are saying that is the indefinite Christian response. That is appealing to a No True Scottsman fallacy on some level, due to the fact their are Christians who would say otherwise.
@strkszone I disagree with your free-will definition and think it's a dishonest representation. I will agree that an omniscient being is compatible with the "free choice" argument, although very very slim. Because it's a very loose definition of "free" if their are restrictions against the person's interest at hand. Meaning, against their volition. They can sure have the freedom to choose opposite but who would if it would cause them harm? That is not of their own volition.
@strkszone "I disagree with your free-will definition and think it's a dishonest representation"
Well, you have to realize that definitions in Christianity are going to be different than that of modern day linguistics because these concepts were being debated over a thousand years ago, in a time when the English language did not even exist, and meanings of words were a little different.
@nazra7 And you have to realize that the Christian Bible was written and edited and translated multiple times. We'd have to go back to the original hebrew text and argue definitions from there. My position, until shown otherwise is that the modern day linguistics defined word was translated into their to represent the hebrew word's definition. You're appealing to the No True Scottsman by saying well any true Christian would say free will goes by your definition, when plenty do not.
@strkszone "My position, until shown otherwise is that the modern day linguistics defined word was translated into their to represent the hebrew word's definition."
You need some support for that theory, but even if its so, what mordern day linguistics would call "free choice", according to you, is what Christians call "free will".
"You're appealing to the No True Scottsman"
Again, only true if you give an example. Please list some Christians who define free will differently.
@nazra7 Simply by the fact of dictionary definition of free will. You're saying that we have the freedom to choose an action before making that action. I argue that is not the definition of free will, rather the definition of having the freedom to choose ergo.. free choice. The countless Christians I debate, the ones on the atheist experience and I'm sure some others in other debates/interviews. Just do a google search you'll find hordes of them. And if you say they're not true Christians..then?
@strkszone well, I'm still skeptical of this claim, since you're not give any citations, I will assume it to be correct for the sake of argument. If it is true that definitions of free will are diverse among Christians, then to that I say... If the notion free will refers to something in reality, it must be logically coherent, therefore any sense of free will that is incoherent should be only considered while the logically coherent ones should be adopted.
@strkszone In any case, conceiving of a certain sense of free will is not a necessary condition of being a Christian. So if Christians disagree with this sense of free will, they are still Christians, and differences in the definition of free will should be noted.
@nazra7 Therefore you cannot fault me for appealing to that argument, as it is the most common argument I've come across from my experience. Perhaps I was being too presumptuous but I still disagree with your definition of free-will at the most basic level. I believe it's a dishonest representation, but I'll go as far as to say I agree we have the freedom to choose, but an omniscient God is in contradiction with the freedom to act.
"but an omniscient God is in contradiction with the freedom to act."
Heh... you could say that freedom to "act" only entails what you can logically possibly do given the circumstances you're in, then they wouldn't be contradictory. Otherwise you could also argue that me not having wings impairs my freedom of flight, therefore I am a contradiction to my own freedom. That's kind of redundant isn't it?
@nazra7 An omniscient God knows every(thing) that will happen to you. This means he knows the factors that will affect your thinking and essentially how you would respond. He also "created" you, therefore he made you the way you are. If God saved you when you wanted to die, then that is a direct contradiction, since you were trying to die etc. Your definition of freedom is very loose. That's like saying slaves are technically free even though they work without consent. Analogy addressed: (cont)
@nazra7 Now, not having wings prevents you from flying with physical parts of your body, yes. However, you have the freedom to go about designing ways of trying to figure out how to fly, so it does not compromise your freedom. Also, freedom allows for the ability or possibility of making an action. This is why we are free to fly in the skies now instead of 1800 years ago, since we have the ability to fly. Freedom implies possibility of performing an action. If the action cannot be performed.
@strkszone "If God saved you when you wanted to die, then that is a direct contradiction, since you were trying to die etc."
Who says God would prevent people from committing suicide? In fact, Satan tried to get Jesus to jump off a ledge in the desert because "God would save him" and Jesus said "thou shall not tempt the lord".
@nazra7 Yes, but Jesus IS the lord, meaning he could save himself. It doesn't matter. Thou shall not tempt the lord and "ask from prayer and I will give it to you" quote from Jesus himself, well is that not contradictory? After all prayer is asking God to intervene, and that is tempting him to intervene. Also I know a person who's kid tries to kill himself and failed, and the person said "Thank God it's a miracle." So apparently that person believes it.
@strkszone Hey Strkzone, I want to apologize because for some odd reason I had completely forgot the video we are commenting in assumes free will to be the ability to act, and what I've argued is since acting is not a thing, God, knowing all things, does not need to know what your "acting" will be.
So its unsound to argue that God, knowing all things, also knows a non thing therefore is incompatible with free will because free will is in regards to a non-thing, acting.
@nazra7 Nazra, if your God was a smart God, he'd be able to figure out a person's actions based upon "things" that happen because of that person's actions. First you established an argument about temptation, where I pointed out a contradiction. If God knew the Devil challenged Jesus, and then knew Jesus declined, God could tell Jesus chose not to make an accepting choice. Hence, based on the outcome of choice, God knowing future things/outcomes = knowing our choices. Is that not so?
@strkszone God would be capable of predicting, but predictions can be wrong, so what I'm saying is omniscience does not necessarily mean that God knows what your future will look like because the outcome of your future is based on non-things. So its a bare assertion fallacy to argue "God knows our future therefore we have no free will"
But even if God knew of everything we do, that does not mean we lack the ability to do it, therefore we don't lack free will in that case either.
@strkszone "quote from Jesus himself, well is that not contradictory?"
Again, what's the heart of that message? Do you think this is so in all cases? No Christian thinks that if he prays for God to destroy himself he will, therefore there is something between the lines here being said, and that is, with the addition of God's approval, God will provide.
@strkszone But even assuming that if you ask God will give, no matter what, if you with to kill yourself, and then pray for God to save you, then you didn't really wish to kill yourself, so God granting that request does not interfere with your free will, instead it would only support it.
@nazra7 I wasn't saying he prayed for God to save him, I was saying that God intervened because, let's say someone else prayed and invoked his power through prayer. And "mysteriously" the person survived. God just interfered with that person's free will in an action to support someone ELSE's will.
@strkszone Yes, in that instanced, free will would be invoked, but even so, that does not mean his "capability" of free will has been diminished. I think its very possible that God regularly invokes people's free will, after all, free will is said to be a gift from God, one that he can take away.
@nazra7 Then now you're in a position where God can do as he pleases and doesn't have to obey his own "free will" gift that he gave to man. So, now I'll address the argument of evil. If God can invoke free will, why does he not do this to prevent evil people, and to prevent sin? Because of free will? Well you just said he could invoke it, so surely if they sinned he could recant his "gift" yes?
@strkszone Because the consequence of evil has moral justifications to exists. Meaning, if God sees a moral world to be one love, evil must exist for people to know what love does not look like. Evil also helps us to determine right from wrong. So its not really about what happens as much as it is what qualities moral agents have.
@nazra7 That is false. Evil is unnecessary in the fact I'm pretty sure if you punched someone in the face and say "Bet ya were feeling pretty good before I punched you" does not justify you punching someone. Evil is unnecessary to know right from wrong, since we can have a good understanding by using philosophical rules such as the golden rule. If you don't want it to happen to you, don't do it to others, etc. I'd know what love felt like even without evil.
@strkszone The consequences of evil existing allows for us to have moral qualities instilled on us by knowing what morality does not look like.
Me punching someone in the face and saying "bet you felt pretty good before that" really has nothing to do what what I just said. I don't know how or why you infered that analogy.
@strkszone But with that said, if God invokes free will, people as a whole can still have it when it is not invoked. Even if God takes away free will from some people, those who did not have their free will diminished still have free will. Even these propositions themselves assumes apriori that we have free will, and God exists to "invoke" it.
So the quality of omniscience or the proposition that God exists really has no bearing on free will. They are two separate ball games entirely
@nazra7 Sure, but he's giving a select amount of people free will, as you've just said. If God takes away free will from some people that means he can do it to anyone, or at least has the capability to. So why does he not? Is he a malevolent God? If that's the case (which you seem to support for whatever immoral reason) then why worship him? Out of fear? If such a God existed, I would despise a ruler who uses his power as he does. I agree with your second point. Since we can have FW without God.
@strkszone If this were the case, he's not giving a select people free will, he's allowing for a select people to retain their gift of free will.
"So why does he not?"
I don't know, maybe its because he wants us to have free will, but if we prove to be undeserving of it at his discretion, its possible he could take it away. I don't know if he does or not though.
"Is he a malevolent God?"
Nope, I see nothing short of omnibenevolence in God. I worship because I love him.
@nazra7 The first point describes what I meant, yes. Everyone has it, but he can still invoke and prohibit their free will, should he so choose. Meaning we don't really have free will since at any moment if he chooses, he can infringe upon it. I'm saying that if he does do it to some, then it means he is capable and willing. Where is the difference? Again, problem of Evil. Well the God you've described to me, seems like a hateful, prideful, power hungry, sedistic, spiteful God.
@nazra7 I meant to say an unalienable free will. A free will being our "right" or whatever. That everyone has free will and that it cannot be removed, and will not be removed. That God abides by his will to keep us with free will. An undeniable version of free will, if you will. I use it by using a strict definition of "free." For example: If you set up a choice and then say "Oh and I'll kill you if you choose (x)." Then that person isn't really "free" due to the problem of external stimuli.
@strkszone It seems like you're saying that because free will can be taken away (not sure if it can but lets assume so for the sake of argument) then its not really free will. But again free will cant be taken away if we don't have it.
Maybe what you mean to say is what we think is free will isn't really free will because it can be taken away, and to that I would ask, does will have to be unalienable in order to be free? I don't think it does.
@nazra7 I thought you said it could be dimminished if God so chooses to invoke it? IE prior to some event, that individual had free will. I'm not sure it can either, but according to you, God would be invoking this in my scenario with the suicide patient. I do think it does. Again, you're operating under a loose definition of the word free. Is a slave really a slave? After all, the slaves have the choice to run away and be free, so is it their fault they're stuck being slaves or consequences.
@strkszone Ah ok so you're saying that if our will is subject to control then its not free. But I'm not so sure this is a proper definition. You must remember, free will is a phrase, meaning, free and will combined are being treated as a noun. The way you're trying to define it, free is an adjective describing will as a noun. Free will seems to only refer to our ability to act on our choices. Thus is the definition given by the dictionary.
@nazra7 No, the definition in the dictionary supports what I'm saying by saying "of the individuals own volition" meaning, essentially what the person chooses without it being subject to control. If you're controlling someone who has free will, you are stripping them of their freedom. If what you argue is true, I could enslave an entire nation and they'd still be "free" when we know that is a direct contradiction. This is a very dangerous mentality. Free means not controlled, simple.
@strkszone That means that even if free will is subject to control, its still free will since free as an adjective only implies it must not be under control, while the phrase free will is all a noun.
@strkszone But in any case, Christianity teaches free will to be the ability to freely choose (which is the same thing as freely desiring, or freely making choices), not the ability to freely perform.
For example, I can choose to fly for my next vacation, but I may not be able to perform that choice for one reason or another.
Like I said before, the problem you're having is you're confusing choosing with performing.
@Z6D4C4 "If no one suffers there is no need for empathy of suffering."
Perhaps, however, many people would argue that there's nothing wrong with killing people or killing themselves because it doesn't "hurt" anyone if suffering did not exist.
@nazra7 As Z6D4C4 is stumped at seeing this, allow me to retort. Look at Japan, a land where the vast majority of people is atheist. Do you see people killing each other on the street? Absolutely not, because morality is innate to us humans. Even when you have not been taught anything about religion, you can still be moral, even more moral than theists. How can empathy come from suffering caused by god, if the most godless land on earth has the least crime problems?
If God is all powerful, all loving, and all knowing then why doesn't he end world hunger, cure those with cancer, and stop natural disasters? Surely he would know the cure for cancer if he knows all. Surely he could stop a mere hurricane if he is all powerful. Surely he would give food to everyone if he is all loving. Do not give me the "he's got a plan" or "he works in mysterious ways" answer. Please explain for me.
@Z6D4C4 If omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence necessarily implies diminishing suffering then suffering would have never existed. There's two explanations for suffering, 1, there are morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering, one being that suffering promotes empathy which promotes people to wish good to others, 2, in Christian belief, the suffering of man is due to his own rebellious nature towards God.
Now why might an action be a thing? Because what's the difference between an action and a thing? Well, an action usually involves volition. A thing usually refers to but is not limited to something lacking volition. But when you boil it down to a metaphysical level, whether action or thing, it's all just atoms interacting with each other creating different physical and chemical reactions. Everything can be explained this way and one day will be, the farther we progress scientifically.
Actions are arguably not things (even though there is a good argument that they are), but actions affect things. Actions and things are inextricably linked because everything I do affects something. If I drop a glass, I am changing that glass by breaking it. So if god really has control over all things including that glass, he must also have control of my dropping it. If he didn't, he would lose control of that glass to me. So he must either control the action and the thing, or neither.
@LibertyArtist Yes, God must have control over our actions, but us being free-agents, God allows us to do what we want until a certain point. So at anytime, God can stop us if he wanted to, but at the same time, being omnipotent does not necessarily mean one must stop the actions of another if they are unfavorable.
@nazra7 "God must have control over our actions" what is your evidence that there is a god and that if there is that he has control over our actions? "but us being free-agents" what's your evidence that we are free agents? "God allows us to do what we want until a certain point" evidence that we can do what we want until a certain point, then god intervenes? "So at anytime, God can stop us if he wanted to" evidence for this please? to me this seems like conjecture w/o any hard evidence.
Thank you for demonstrating that you do not care about whether your beliefs are true or not. You bend over backwards just to make christianity look less ridiculous.
@nazra7 Did I not explain that to you in your previous vid? You were being dishonest while accusing other people of being dishonest. You intentionally used the wrong definitions just to make your standpoint look better.
Now you intentionally pick the english translation that is the most convenient for your argument, knowing that ancient greek is far less developed than english, and therefore its words have variable meanings, much like hebrew and arabic. Stop being dishonest.
@nazra7 Deliberately picking the most favorable translation while ignoring the definitions which directly oppose your argument is dishonest. That is what I said. Stop twisting my words.
@Nidair "Deliberately picking the most favorable translation while ignoring the definitions which directly oppose your argument is dishonest."
Now how would translating omni as "all" instead of "with regards to all things" be a translation that would oppose my argument? How would translating benevolent as "good" instead of "love" be a translation that would oppose my argument?
@Nidair No, the video was not about translating anything, translations of such words only supported the thesis of the video. In any case, even if we translate omni as "all" instead of "with regards to all things" and benevolent as "good" instead of "love", those translations will still support the thesis in the video.
Therefore, I was not being dishonest, and I hopen you can see that I am human and I make mistakes, but they are not intentional and I have every desire to correct them.
@Nidair In fact, due to all the corrections I make in my videos, I fear people will see me as inconsistent and confused rather than seeing me as learning and correcting myself.
Remember my video about abortion in response to BigLundi? I already know of one major problem with my argument in that video that no one has even spotted yet, and when I have time I will make the necessary corrections.
All I'm trying to do is be fair, and all I wish from you is to judge me fairly.
Hello and thank you for responding to my video. Also for being respectful unlike so many people on youtube that talk about spirituality, god and religion.
Now then, I see what you are trying to say. That my choices and my thoughts are different, yes? It seems that god would have to know your choices to be all knowing otherwise he is not the greatest being and not god.
@CurryCobra Right, he knows your choices and the consequences of those, but the choice that you choose does not necessarily have to be known to be omniscient. (The future is dynamic, not static).
@AssassinOfIgnorance English is able to translate Greek works into a all different sorts of words because English uses different senses of the same word, (that's because English was originally a language specifically for poetry), the word good can mean love and vice-verse in English, and the word all could mean everything and vice-verse in English.
well just keep up the good work:D
kingofnobodies100 4 weeks ago
excuse me but your cbe rpg maker demo doesn't have everything its supposed to come with and i really want to play but i dont have all the sound effects autotiles and etc
kingofnobodies100 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@kingofnobodies100 No problem, did you downloadthe RPG Maker XP Run Time Package and install it?
nazra7 4 weeks ago
@nazra7 i did now thank you so much!!!! love the game! i rate 100/100 :D nice game dude!
kingofnobodies100 4 weeks ago
@kingofnobodies100 Thanks, glad you like it.
nazra7 4 weeks ago
@nazra7 I never argued that. I'm saying that if it is against an individuals volition then for that scenario, that person does not have free will. Again, addressing the problem of evil, free will cannot be a solution to the problem of evil if God can infringe upon his gift to us. The same for joining Christianity. "IF you do not love me you will go to hell." The mafia boss analogy provides as a good example. That is in fact, hardly free at all, it's stripping freedom and ruling by fear.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Yes, sorry for the strawman. Here you say one's own volition is not subject to control, well, is that true? I don't know of any definition of volition that implies the criteria of being uncontrolled by external power.
For example, some one may take a drug that overcomes him with irrational fears, and due to this moves away fearing the government is after him. Was this action not of his own volition?
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Yes, I'm saying if you are being controlled it is no truly of your own volition. For the same reason why robots have no free will, because we control them via "external power" as you put it. The ability to make a choice does not automatically mean we have the freedom too. To address your analogy with drugs, it depends. I would say it is of his volition since he CHOSE out of his own volition to use those drugs knowing the consequences. Thus he is still responsible for his actions.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Hmmm... it seems to me that this definition implies that free will must not be subject to control ever. Meaning that if at anytime, my will can be controlled, then its not really free. But again I don't think this is a proper definition since free will seems to refer to our ability to make our own choices at all.
Right now I am, at my own volition, typing to you, do I not have free will because some one can come and keep me from typing?
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 No, free will refers to the ability to ACT upon our own choices, not to decide what choice to choose or have the capability of choosing. If someone came and kept you from typing then you would not be free to type. Hence you wouldn't have the free will to type, yes.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Do I not have free will now because some one can keep me from typing? Or do I not have free will IF some one keeps me from typing?
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 You do not have free will, the moment someone decides to prevent you from typing, not by the possibility of it. The action is what I'm referring to.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone OK, so then if the condition for negating free will is controlling will, then until God does something to control a person's will, that person still has free will, which means unless God is constantly controlling our will, his existence is not contradictory with our free will.
The Bible portrays God to text people's faith, Abraham and his son is a good example, why would God want to see what Abraham would do in light of X command if he constantly controls his will?
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 No, but he does not, as you've just said only have the capability but actually does at times encroach upon our free will. If there was a person watching you type to me who was like 2x your size and sometimes would make you unable to type to me, he is contradicting your free will. If God knows all things, and God knows future things. Therefore God can see the future Abraham's son is not dead. 2 possibilities. Abraham failed, or God said LOL jk, and I think God would know which.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Its apparent that God's existence is not contradictory with free will, only his intervention is, and its only temporary and only effects who's will he intervenes with during the time of intervention. That makes sense.
Regarding Abraham, his future, in light of that command, would look more like either Abraham will attempt carry out the action and God will intervene or Abraham would refuse. God probably was able to predict which was most likely to happen, but was obviously not sure
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Yes, so I'm asking for what reason does God give us free will, if we are inherently sinful anyways? I mean the people before the flood were so sinful that he had to flood em off the earth, free will or not. So why bother giving us free will at all, why not just make us all Christian? How could a God who knows all things yet to come, not see based on evidence. Abraham's son is alive. God told him not to kill him. Therefore the "test" for abraham is moot if he knew he would say LOL JK!
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone My guess is that free will is genetically inherited from Adam and Eve, who were created without the ability to sin until they ate from the tree of knowledge (some researchers suggest that the fruit of knowledge is a pomegranate!) But why does he not take it away from us? I don't know, maybe he feels that its better for us to have free will than not?
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 But what is so important that we have free will? Why does it matter to him? After all, if he wants everything to go according to his plan, and his powers of intervention can strip of us of our free will whenever he wants, he may as well just not give us free will at all. Also I love pomegranate, and if it's a sin to eat that fruit, I'd gladly go to hell because pomegranates taste so good :D!
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone I'm not exactly sure why we still have free will, I can only guess. I think I know why he gave it to use in the first place though. He wanted us to be in his image and "likeness", with similar qualities that he has. Free will is one of those qualities. My guess as to why he has not taken away our free will is because he wants us to remain in his image and likeness.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 But him stripping us of our free will during intervention, wouldn't he be completely defeating that purpose? I would use the argument of evil again, but I know that for some weird reason you think it is morally justified for a girl to be raped so she can tell that rape is bad, when I'm pretty sure if you ask a woman who's never been raped before would agree that it is bad as well >.>
strkszone 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@strkszone If God intervenes with out free will, its not stripping us of our capacity for free will, rather, it is only suppressing it in that one instance. For example, if you will X and God prevents X, you could also will Y and do Y while God is preventing X.
Its not morally justified for a person to commit rape, its only morally justified for the suffering caused by rape to exist.
If rape did not cause any suffering, there would be a lot more rapes going on.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 No you're saying that that person who commited rape is morally justified to rape so the suffering caused by rape to exist can exist. If the person never raped the woman then the suffering caused by rape wouldn't exist. If the suffering caused by rape is okay, then that means that it is morally justified to rape. I'm not sure of any instance where rape would not cause any suffering to a person. By preventing X he is still not giving us 100% free will, defeating the purpose of free will.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Strkzone, again, please don't say "no this is how it is" - because that is how every strawman starts. Instead, please listen for what I have to say:
Rape is a crime always. There is no justification for it being committed. Do not say I justify rape because I do not. There is only justification for the suffering, which is not mutually exclusive to rape, to exist. If evil and suffering did not exist, rape would not cause suffering, and most people would not know its wrong.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone "By preventing X he is still not giving us 100% free will, defeating the purpose of free will."
Well, that really raises the question for what the "purpose" of free will is. Is the purpose of free will to have 100% free will? Or is the purpose of free will is to give us God-like discretion?
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 You said that he wants us to have free will to be like his image. That leads to some questions though. If he wanted us to have free will like he does, why didn't he want us to have knowledge of good vs evil. Also, if he did want us to have knowledge of good vs evil, then how is he justified in punishing us with inherent sin? Me saying he defeated the purpose, I mean that it contradicts free will. Free will means 100% freely able to do an action. If it's being prevented it's not free.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone I don't think God intended for us to have knowledge of good and evil because if we knew evil, we would do evil, he only intended for us to have the ability to exercise discretion. As a result of us becoming aware of evil, God probably knew now that for the sake of morality, there needs to be a standard for which most can know, on their own, right from wrong. This also shows that God had to curse the world to create that standard.
nazra7 4 weeks ago
@strkszone "Free will means 100% freely able to do an action. If it's being prevented it's not free."
Free will is also relative to the action that you're trying to do. If there's 50% ability to do X and 100% ability to do Y, it can be argued that one does not have free will while trying to do X, but does have free will while trying to do Y.
nazra7 4 weeks ago
@nazra7 Free will in the general sense that it is used refers to the ability to perform both X and Y equally. Having a free choice of their own volition unhindered.
strkszone 4 weeks ago
@strkszone I'm not so certain about that, but if I were to assume you were correct, my conclusion would not differ. In either case, it can be said that God contradicts free will when he intervenes, so any argument claiming that God is contradictory with free will assumes that God constantly intervenes, otherwise, its no more contradictory than mom preventing son from staying out past 10 pm.
nazra7 4 weeks ago
@nazra7 You're right the existence of God would not be contradictory to free will, but I'm saying his intervention defeats his purpose for giving us free will in the first place. Leaving us thinking why does he give us free will? If it is to put us in his image, then why are we not energy? How are we in his "image". If we're interpreting on his abilities, then why are we not omnipotent?
strkszone 4 weeks ago
@strkszone "but I'm saying his intervention defeats his purpose for giving us free will in the first place."
I don't see how leaving room for questioning God's decision to give us free will defeats the purpose of us having free will to begin with.
"How are we in his "image"."
I believe the phrase "in his image" refers to his likeness, as the phrase that follows" in our likeness" seems to be paraphrasing what was said before rather than adding on to what was said before.
nazra7 4 weeks ago
@strkszone I never argue that free will is a solution to the problem of evil. My solution to the problem of evil is showing that its not really a problem to begin with since without evil, moral characteristics would be impossible, therefore, evil is justified in existing for the sake of morality.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 I didn't say you did, I was merely just making a point. I've rebutted this argument already by saying evil is unnecessary, and gave a few reasons as to why I think that via philosophical rules such as "Don't do (x) if you wouldn't want (x) done to you." I have yet to hear a response to that. Also you haven't addressed my analogy on slaves being free according to your definition of free. I've also stated I could feel love without evil, and can't see how the two are even relevant.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Do to others what you want to be done to you has nothing to do with my argument for my argument argues that morality is based on character traits, not actions or deeds. If God sees a moral world to be one with moral characters, not moral actions, then without evil, the instillation of such moral characteristics would be impossible.
Therefore evil has that purpose.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Pardon my ignorance, but I fail to see how characteristics differ from moral actions/deeds that one does. Allow me to propose the Euthaphro(?) dilema... Are things morally justified because God says it's moral, or are things moral independent of God and God just conveys to us what morality is. Response to #1) God is tyrannical. Response to #2) God is a middleman and unnecessary. Choose. Example that good cannot have come about without evil being in place, please.
strkszone 1 month ago
The main argument for this is to those who say. God is omnipresent. He knows all things, based on that an omniscient God should still know which choice you're most likely to choose. Also, the fact is people say "God knows what has happened, what is currently happening, and he knows what is yet to come." If he knows what is yet to come then you come into the same dilema outside of your "semantic" argument.
strkszone 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@strkszone But choosing a choice requires the action of choosing. I think because God gave us free will, that gives him a limit of knowing what we will do unless he makes us do something. My argument is the act of choosing is not a thing therefore its not necessary for a thing knowing all things to know a non-thing.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Yes, but if God is aware of all factors, then he should be aware of all choices. The choices made are usually in direct correlation to that thing. By saying that God has a divine plan, do things always go according to his will? If yes, then that's not free will, that's more like God's fate. If no, then God's plan is completely irrelevant and would be no better than a plan I choose to make with very little influence on the world. Also wouldn't miracles violate free will?
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone "Yes, but if God is aware of all factors, then he should be aware of all choices."
When a factor is not referring to a thing then God, knowing of all things, is not expected to know it, BUT, God should be aware of all possible choices and that's what I said in this video. God is not expected to know what choice you end up choosing, because choosing a choice requires an action, and actions are not things.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone Things apparently do not always go with accord to God's will, but with that said, most things are permitted because they do not effect God's overall plan. They either can be worked around, or they do not have any effect on God's plan at all.
For example, me being a sinner probably doesn't effect God's plan one way or another, but even if it did, they effect would be so minuscule that it could easily be worked around thus it does not require me being destroyed.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone "Also wouldn't miracles violate free will?"
I think the phrase free will only refers to our capability to think for ourselves and beyond our primal instincts. If this is the case then miracles would have no effect on free will.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone When I hear the phrase "God knows what is yet to come" that comes across to me as God has an ultimate plan and will carry it out, but this does not necessarily refer to every insignificant event that will ever happen.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 No, free will is the ability to make a choice freely and that it is of your own volition. For example: If you jumped off a building of your own free will with the intent of killing yourself, and God "saved you" being a miracle. He would be in direct violation of that person's free will. If God's ultimate plan works out, then it means nothing can go against his ultimate will, meaning free will would be moot and irrelevant.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone "No, free will is the ability to make a choice freely and that it is of your own volition."
That's what I said.
"If you jumped off a building of your own free will with the intent of killing yourself, and God saved you... He would be in direct violation of... free will"
Even if you willed to kill yourself, and God stopped you, you still have free will since you have the ability to "will" it.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone "If God's ultimate plan works out, then it means nothing can go against his ultimate will"
Not really. Plans can have obstacles.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Again, the obstacles are moot. They are irrelevant. If his ultimate plan works out it means the obstacles faced have been over come. No if you made the choice to kill yourself and God prevented you from making that choice then he didn't allow you to make that choice, making it so that he influences your free will. For the same reason why if I pointed a gun to your head and said give me your money, I'd be taking away your free will, even though you have the choice not to, but end up dead.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone "Again, the obstacles are moot. They are irrelevant."
If the obstacles are things going against God's will then they are very relevant.
"No if you made the choice to kill yourself and God prevented you from making that choice"
If you made the choice, God never prevented it. If You didn't make the choice then there is nothing for God to prevent. I think you're confusing choice with action here. Free will has to do with the ability to will, not the ability to perform.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 If God knows all things he will know what obstacles there will be and how to overcome them. Hence it's irrelevance. Ability to make a choice doesn't equate making a choice. As I said in my analogy if someone pointed a gun at you telling you to give him your money or die, there is no choice, unless you manage to find a way to run/fight. There is no free will in that. Put the analogy with God as the shooter and you'll see interference = infringing on free will.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone See here you're strawmanning the argument. When Christians say "free will" we are referring to our ability to make choices not perform them. In your analogy, you still have the ability to make a choice, you can do it or die, or fight back if you can.
So when you tell me "no its this way" you're not arguing against Christianity, rather, you're arguing against your interpretation of it.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 And I believe you're misusing free-will. Free will as used by Christianity is the ability to perform freely without having choices made for you or interfered with. As defined by the dictionary: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. If a gun is being pointed to your head you are not acting at your own discretion. I am arguing against a textbook definition of it, you're not representing free will, but choice.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone " And I believe you're misusing free-will."
Even if we use your definition, it still can be said that even if you're in a situation where some one points a gun at your head and says "do it or die", you're still left with choices and the ability to perform them and freely choose them. Thus you still have free will.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 No that is not free will. Will is the ability to perform or do, to will it into action. To have the freedom to do. Free will. Free choice just means you can choose which option for better or for worse. Stop equating the two. Christianity says you can freely choose, and then it points the gun to your head saying "oh and by the way if you choose this you'll burn forever" So yes, freely perform is free will, free choice is not free will. You're equating different definitions.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Strkzone, with all due respect, you're arguing a strawman. When you're arguing against a person's claim you need to argue from their point of view not yours because you're not arguing against a Christian take on free will.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone Here is a quote from Newadvent . org regarding free will:
"The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is RATIONAL APPETITE. Man necessarily DESIRES beatitude, but he can FREELY CHOOSE between different forms of it. Free will is simply this ELECTIVE POWER."
Again, when you argue against Christianity, argue against what they argue, not what you think they argue. Otherwise you're not arguing against Christianity.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 There are many different arguments to pertain to. Stop generalizing Christianity, you know that they all appeal to different arguments. How the hell am I supposed to know that you're operating under a different definition than that of the dictionary? Get your definitions straight first and actually state what you're defining them as. The ability of choice isn't compromised, but the ability of action is. That form of free will is in direct contradiction.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Strkzone, now you're moving the goal post. You were the one who said "Christianity says you can freely choose" thus you overgeneralized. But at any rate, I am unaware of any Christian denomination that does not see free will this way. If you disagree, then please give an example with citations, otherwise, your complaint of over generalization is inappropriate.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 I'm not over generalizing anything. You're the one saying that you have a "free choice" not me. Christianity makes no such claim except for the fact that "God gave us free-will" how the reader interprets that is entirely up to the reader. I was going by a textbook definition of free-will. You were appealing to some other argument on choice. We were arguing to indefinite definitions. Perhaps you should just google free-will arguments made by theists for citation. I made no generalization.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone "Christianity makes no such claim except for the fact that "God gave us free-will" how the reader interprets that is entirely up to the reader."
I'm glad you said this, what we should do is take a person's interpretation of this concept at face value, find ones that are logically incoherent, and expose the ones that are not.
I want to ask you this though, do you think that an omniscient God is incompatible with free will the way I've described it here?
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone " How the hell am I supposed to know that you're operating under a different definition than that of the dictionary?"
I tried and tried telling you this and you said "no no no, its this way..." All I want Strkzone is for you to see Christianity from a Christian's perspective, and argue against that.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Uhhh...okay. I was arguing against a textbook definition of free will. Free will being translated into the Bible's english language being the definition we have today. You are saying that Free will just means the freedom to make a choice even if that choice doesn't get fulfilled. You are saying that is the indefinite Christian response. That is appealing to a No True Scottsman fallacy on some level, due to the fact their are Christians who would say otherwise.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone I disagree with your free-will definition and think it's a dishonest representation. I will agree that an omniscient being is compatible with the "free choice" argument, although very very slim. Because it's a very loose definition of "free" if their are restrictions against the person's interest at hand. Meaning, against their volition. They can sure have the freedom to choose opposite but who would if it would cause them harm? That is not of their own volition.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone "I disagree with your free-will definition and think it's a dishonest representation"
Well, you have to realize that definitions in Christianity are going to be different than that of modern day linguistics because these concepts were being debated over a thousand years ago, in a time when the English language did not even exist, and meanings of words were a little different.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 And you have to realize that the Christian Bible was written and edited and translated multiple times. We'd have to go back to the original hebrew text and argue definitions from there. My position, until shown otherwise is that the modern day linguistics defined word was translated into their to represent the hebrew word's definition. You're appealing to the No True Scottsman by saying well any true Christian would say free will goes by your definition, when plenty do not.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone "My position, until shown otherwise is that the modern day linguistics defined word was translated into their to represent the hebrew word's definition."
You need some support for that theory, but even if its so, what mordern day linguistics would call "free choice", according to you, is what Christians call "free will".
"You're appealing to the No True Scottsman"
Again, only true if you give an example. Please list some Christians who define free will differently.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Simply by the fact of dictionary definition of free will. You're saying that we have the freedom to choose an action before making that action. I argue that is not the definition of free will, rather the definition of having the freedom to choose ergo.. free choice. The countless Christians I debate, the ones on the atheist experience and I'm sure some others in other debates/interviews. Just do a google search you'll find hordes of them. And if you say they're not true Christians..then?
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone well, I'm still skeptical of this claim, since you're not give any citations, I will assume it to be correct for the sake of argument. If it is true that definitions of free will are diverse among Christians, then to that I say... If the notion free will refers to something in reality, it must be logically coherent, therefore any sense of free will that is incoherent should be only considered while the logically coherent ones should be adopted.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone In any case, conceiving of a certain sense of free will is not a necessary condition of being a Christian. So if Christians disagree with this sense of free will, they are still Christians, and differences in the definition of free will should be noted.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Therefore you cannot fault me for appealing to that argument, as it is the most common argument I've come across from my experience. Perhaps I was being too presumptuous but I still disagree with your definition of free-will at the most basic level. I believe it's a dishonest representation, but I'll go as far as to say I agree we have the freedom to choose, but an omniscient God is in contradiction with the freedom to act.
strkszone 1 month ago
"but an omniscient God is in contradiction with the freedom to act."
Heh... you could say that freedom to "act" only entails what you can logically possibly do given the circumstances you're in, then they wouldn't be contradictory. Otherwise you could also argue that me not having wings impairs my freedom of flight, therefore I am a contradiction to my own freedom. That's kind of redundant isn't it?
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 An omniscient God knows every(thing) that will happen to you. This means he knows the factors that will affect your thinking and essentially how you would respond. He also "created" you, therefore he made you the way you are. If God saved you when you wanted to die, then that is a direct contradiction, since you were trying to die etc. Your definition of freedom is very loose. That's like saying slaves are technically free even though they work without consent. Analogy addressed: (cont)
strkszone 1 month ago
@nazra7 Now, not having wings prevents you from flying with physical parts of your body, yes. However, you have the freedom to go about designing ways of trying to figure out how to fly, so it does not compromise your freedom. Also, freedom allows for the ability or possibility of making an action. This is why we are free to fly in the skies now instead of 1800 years ago, since we have the ability to fly. Freedom implies possibility of performing an action. If the action cannot be performed.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone "If God saved you when you wanted to die, then that is a direct contradiction, since you were trying to die etc."
Who says God would prevent people from committing suicide? In fact, Satan tried to get Jesus to jump off a ledge in the desert because "God would save him" and Jesus said "thou shall not tempt the lord".
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Yes, but Jesus IS the lord, meaning he could save himself. It doesn't matter. Thou shall not tempt the lord and "ask from prayer and I will give it to you" quote from Jesus himself, well is that not contradictory? After all prayer is asking God to intervene, and that is tempting him to intervene. Also I know a person who's kid tries to kill himself and failed, and the person said "Thank God it's a miracle." So apparently that person believes it.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Hey Strkzone, I want to apologize because for some odd reason I had completely forgot the video we are commenting in assumes free will to be the ability to act, and what I've argued is since acting is not a thing, God, knowing all things, does not need to know what your "acting" will be.
So its unsound to argue that God, knowing all things, also knows a non thing therefore is incompatible with free will because free will is in regards to a non-thing, acting.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Nazra, if your God was a smart God, he'd be able to figure out a person's actions based upon "things" that happen because of that person's actions. First you established an argument about temptation, where I pointed out a contradiction. If God knew the Devil challenged Jesus, and then knew Jesus declined, God could tell Jesus chose not to make an accepting choice. Hence, based on the outcome of choice, God knowing future things/outcomes = knowing our choices. Is that not so?
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone God would be capable of predicting, but predictions can be wrong, so what I'm saying is omniscience does not necessarily mean that God knows what your future will look like because the outcome of your future is based on non-things. So its a bare assertion fallacy to argue "God knows our future therefore we have no free will"
But even if God knew of everything we do, that does not mean we lack the ability to do it, therefore we don't lack free will in that case either.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone "quote from Jesus himself, well is that not contradictory?"
Again, what's the heart of that message? Do you think this is so in all cases? No Christian thinks that if he prays for God to destroy himself he will, therefore there is something between the lines here being said, and that is, with the addition of God's approval, God will provide.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone But even assuming that if you ask God will give, no matter what, if you with to kill yourself, and then pray for God to save you, then you didn't really wish to kill yourself, so God granting that request does not interfere with your free will, instead it would only support it.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 I wasn't saying he prayed for God to save him, I was saying that God intervened because, let's say someone else prayed and invoked his power through prayer. And "mysteriously" the person survived. God just interfered with that person's free will in an action to support someone ELSE's will.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Yes, in that instanced, free will would be invoked, but even so, that does not mean his "capability" of free will has been diminished. I think its very possible that God regularly invokes people's free will, after all, free will is said to be a gift from God, one that he can take away.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Then now you're in a position where God can do as he pleases and doesn't have to obey his own "free will" gift that he gave to man. So, now I'll address the argument of evil. If God can invoke free will, why does he not do this to prevent evil people, and to prevent sin? Because of free will? Well you just said he could invoke it, so surely if they sinned he could recant his "gift" yes?
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Because the consequence of evil has moral justifications to exists. Meaning, if God sees a moral world to be one love, evil must exist for people to know what love does not look like. Evil also helps us to determine right from wrong. So its not really about what happens as much as it is what qualities moral agents have.
This means that even evil has its purpose.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 That is false. Evil is unnecessary in the fact I'm pretty sure if you punched someone in the face and say "Bet ya were feeling pretty good before I punched you" does not justify you punching someone. Evil is unnecessary to know right from wrong, since we can have a good understanding by using philosophical rules such as the golden rule. If you don't want it to happen to you, don't do it to others, etc. I'd know what love felt like even without evil.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone The consequences of evil existing allows for us to have moral qualities instilled on us by knowing what morality does not look like.
Me punching someone in the face and saying "bet you felt pretty good before that" really has nothing to do what what I just said. I don't know how or why you infered that analogy.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone But with that said, if God invokes free will, people as a whole can still have it when it is not invoked. Even if God takes away free will from some people, those who did not have their free will diminished still have free will. Even these propositions themselves assumes apriori that we have free will, and God exists to "invoke" it.
So the quality of omniscience or the proposition that God exists really has no bearing on free will. They are two separate ball games entirely
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Sure, but he's giving a select amount of people free will, as you've just said. If God takes away free will from some people that means he can do it to anyone, or at least has the capability to. So why does he not? Is he a malevolent God? If that's the case (which you seem to support for whatever immoral reason) then why worship him? Out of fear? If such a God existed, I would despise a ruler who uses his power as he does. I agree with your second point. Since we can have FW without God.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone If this were the case, he's not giving a select people free will, he's allowing for a select people to retain their gift of free will.
"So why does he not?"
I don't know, maybe its because he wants us to have free will, but if we prove to be undeserving of it at his discretion, its possible he could take it away. I don't know if he does or not though.
"Is he a malevolent God?"
Nope, I see nothing short of omnibenevolence in God. I worship because I love him.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 The first point describes what I meant, yes. Everyone has it, but he can still invoke and prohibit their free will, should he so choose. Meaning we don't really have free will since at any moment if he chooses, he can infringe upon it. I'm saying that if he does do it to some, then it means he is capable and willing. Where is the difference? Again, problem of Evil. Well the God you've described to me, seems like a hateful, prideful, power hungry, sedistic, spiteful God.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone "Meaning we don't really have free will since at any moment if he chooses, he can infringe upon it."
That's a direct contradiction since that statement assumes we have it for it to be infringed upon. Something we don't have can't be infringed upon.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 I meant to say an unalienable free will. A free will being our "right" or whatever. That everyone has free will and that it cannot be removed, and will not be removed. That God abides by his will to keep us with free will. An undeniable version of free will, if you will. I use it by using a strict definition of "free." For example: If you set up a choice and then say "Oh and I'll kill you if you choose (x)." Then that person isn't really "free" due to the problem of external stimuli.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone It seems like you're saying that because free will can be taken away (not sure if it can but lets assume so for the sake of argument) then its not really free will. But again free will cant be taken away if we don't have it.
Maybe what you mean to say is what we think is free will isn't really free will because it can be taken away, and to that I would ask, does will have to be unalienable in order to be free? I don't think it does.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 I thought you said it could be dimminished if God so chooses to invoke it? IE prior to some event, that individual had free will. I'm not sure it can either, but according to you, God would be invoking this in my scenario with the suicide patient. I do think it does. Again, you're operating under a loose definition of the word free. Is a slave really a slave? After all, the slaves have the choice to run away and be free, so is it their fault they're stuck being slaves or consequences.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone Ah ok so you're saying that if our will is subject to control then its not free. But I'm not so sure this is a proper definition. You must remember, free will is a phrase, meaning, free and will combined are being treated as a noun. The way you're trying to define it, free is an adjective describing will as a noun. Free will seems to only refer to our ability to act on our choices. Thus is the definition given by the dictionary.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 No, the definition in the dictionary supports what I'm saying by saying "of the individuals own volition" meaning, essentially what the person chooses without it being subject to control. If you're controlling someone who has free will, you are stripping them of their freedom. If what you argue is true, I could enslave an entire nation and they'd still be "free" when we know that is a direct contradiction. This is a very dangerous mentality. Free means not controlled, simple.
strkszone 1 month ago
@strkszone That means that even if free will is subject to control, its still free will since free as an adjective only implies it must not be under control, while the phrase free will is all a noun.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone "That is appealing to a No True Scottsman fallacy on some level, due to the fact their are Christians who would say otherwise."
Only true if you give an example.
nazra7 1 month ago
@strkszone But in any case, Christianity teaches free will to be the ability to freely choose (which is the same thing as freely desiring, or freely making choices), not the ability to freely perform.
For example, I can choose to fly for my next vacation, but I may not be able to perform that choice for one reason or another.
Like I said before, the problem you're having is you're confusing choosing with performing.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 True... but, eh... I'll think about it.
Z6D4C4 2 months ago
@nazra7 No one suffers. If no one suffers there is no need for empathy of suffering. I assume God wants people to know and to have empathy though.
Z6D4C4 2 months ago
@Z6D4C4 "If no one suffers there is no need for empathy of suffering."
Perhaps, however, many people would argue that there's nothing wrong with killing people or killing themselves because it doesn't "hurt" anyone if suffering did not exist.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 As Z6D4C4 is stumped at seeing this, allow me to retort. Look at Japan, a land where the vast majority of people is atheist. Do you see people killing each other on the street? Absolutely not, because morality is innate to us humans. Even when you have not been taught anything about religion, you can still be moral, even more moral than theists. How can empathy come from suffering caused by god, if the most godless land on earth has the least crime problems?
Nidair 2 months ago
@Nidair "Even when you have not been taught anything about religion, you can still be moral, even more moral than theists."
Yes, I agree. Morality is not dependant on religion because morality exists as its own meta-physical entity.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 I see but I don't think that promoting empathy through suffering is the right way to go about things. Thanks for explaining.
Z6D4C4 2 months ago
@Z6D4C4 "I don't think that promoting empathy through suffering is the right way to go about things."
What would you say is the right way?
nazra7 2 months ago
If God is all powerful, all loving, and all knowing then why doesn't he end world hunger, cure those with cancer, and stop natural disasters? Surely he would know the cure for cancer if he knows all. Surely he could stop a mere hurricane if he is all powerful. Surely he would give food to everyone if he is all loving. Do not give me the "he's got a plan" or "he works in mysterious ways" answer. Please explain for me.
Z6D4C4 2 months ago
@Z6D4C4 If omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence necessarily implies diminishing suffering then suffering would have never existed. There's two explanations for suffering, 1, there are morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering, one being that suffering promotes empathy which promotes people to wish good to others, 2, in Christian belief, the suffering of man is due to his own rebellious nature towards God.
nazra7 2 months ago
Now why might an action be a thing? Because what's the difference between an action and a thing? Well, an action usually involves volition. A thing usually refers to but is not limited to something lacking volition. But when you boil it down to a metaphysical level, whether action or thing, it's all just atoms interacting with each other creating different physical and chemical reactions. Everything can be explained this way and one day will be, the farther we progress scientifically.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Actions are arguably not things (even though there is a good argument that they are), but actions affect things. Actions and things are inextricably linked because everything I do affects something. If I drop a glass, I am changing that glass by breaking it. So if god really has control over all things including that glass, he must also have control of my dropping it. If he didn't, he would lose control of that glass to me. So he must either control the action and the thing, or neither.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@LibertyArtist Yes, God must have control over our actions, but us being free-agents, God allows us to do what we want until a certain point. So at anytime, God can stop us if he wanted to, but at the same time, being omnipotent does not necessarily mean one must stop the actions of another if they are unfavorable.
nazra7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "God must have control over our actions" what is your evidence that there is a god and that if there is that he has control over our actions? "but us being free-agents" what's your evidence that we are free agents? "God allows us to do what we want until a certain point" evidence that we can do what we want until a certain point, then god intervenes? "So at anytime, God can stop us if he wanted to" evidence for this please? to me this seems like conjecture w/o any hard evidence.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
Thank you for demonstrating that you do not care about whether your beliefs are true or not. You bend over backwards just to make christianity look less ridiculous.
Nidair 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Nidair That's not what you said six months ago.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 People can change their minds.
Nidair 2 months ago
@Nidair Why did you change your mind?
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 Did I not explain that to you in your previous vid? You were being dishonest while accusing other people of being dishonest. You intentionally used the wrong definitions just to make your standpoint look better.
Now you intentionally pick the english translation that is the most convenient for your argument, knowing that ancient greek is far less developed than english, and therefore its words have variable meanings, much like hebrew and arabic. Stop being dishonest.
Nidair 2 months ago
@Nidair "You were being dishonest while accusing other people of being dishonest."
When? The movie where I made a response to TommyDavisFilms? Where was I being dishonest? I can't correct my mistakes if you don't inform me of them.
"Stop being dishonest"
Speaking in my native language is dishonest?
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 Deliberately picking the most favorable translation while ignoring the definitions which directly oppose your argument is dishonest. That is what I said. Stop twisting my words.
Nidair 2 months ago
@Nidair "Deliberately picking the most favorable translation while ignoring the definitions which directly oppose your argument is dishonest."
Now how would translating omni as "all" instead of "with regards to all things" be a translation that would oppose my argument? How would translating benevolent as "good" instead of "love" be a translation that would oppose my argument?
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 That "convenient translating" was what this whole video was all about.
Nidair 2 months ago
@Nidair No, the video was not about translating anything, translations of such words only supported the thesis of the video. In any case, even if we translate omni as "all" instead of "with regards to all things" and benevolent as "good" instead of "love", those translations will still support the thesis in the video.
Therefore, I was not being dishonest, and I hopen you can see that I am human and I make mistakes, but they are not intentional and I have every desire to correct them.
nazra7 2 months ago
@Nidair In fact, due to all the corrections I make in my videos, I fear people will see me as inconsistent and confused rather than seeing me as learning and correcting myself.
Remember my video about abortion in response to BigLundi? I already know of one major problem with my argument in that video that no one has even spotted yet, and when I have time I will make the necessary corrections.
All I'm trying to do is be fair, and all I wish from you is to judge me fairly.
nazra7 2 months ago
Hello and thank you for responding to my video. Also for being respectful unlike so many people on youtube that talk about spirituality, god and religion.
Now then, I see what you are trying to say. That my choices and my thoughts are different, yes? It seems that god would have to know your choices to be all knowing otherwise he is not the greatest being and not god.
CurryCobra 2 months ago
@CurryCobra Right, he knows your choices and the consequences of those, but the choice that you choose does not necessarily have to be known to be omniscient. (The future is dynamic, not static).
nazra7 2 months ago
You are misinformed.
Omni is a prefix for "All", not "All things".
Your point is therefore invalid and the point made in the video you are responding to is indeed valid.
Also, Benevolent is Latin for "Good", not "Love".
Education FTW!
AssassinOfIgnorance 2 months ago
@AssassinOfIgnorance English is able to translate Greek works into a all different sorts of words because English uses different senses of the same word, (that's because English was originally a language specifically for poetry), the word good can mean love and vice-verse in English, and the word all could mean everything and vice-verse in English.
nazra7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 Again, you are misinformed.
Omni IS the Latin prefix for "All", not "All things". Benevolent IS Latin for "Good", not "Love".
Suggesting there is no definitive meaning is irrelevant to the fact.
AssassinOfIgnorance 2 months ago