I go with the idea that God gives us options. We can either choose A or B, maybe C, D or E. The consequences and rewards are based on our decisions. Think of it like a video game where God programs multiple endings and Easter Eggs.
Excellent video. This movie, and Salieri's character, or his behavior and actions, are great for the points you make. Salieri, as a man, seems even sadder to me, because he is having this crisis of faith, and his own skill as a composer, with Mozart as the other composer he is comparing himself to. While many considered Salieri a very great composer, because he witnessed Mozart's greatness, as musician, and unholy lifestyle, he lost touch to his own talent and life, as well as faith. Would he have been a happy man if he had lived a few decades earlier, or later? Or would he have focused on whomever was the younger virtuoso of the day, as he grew older, in any time. This type of man, especially within the arts, make me angry, more so even than the man who has wasted talent, and could've been great.
But if God knows you inside and out then he WOULD KNOW what you are going to do. It wouldn't take away your decision making it just means he knows what decision you will make. He is like a Devine profiler.
@@tari8134 If a begin existed outside out time then could it not know which decision you would make without being the thing which caused you to make it. The closest we could really get is people in the past, you could know every decision Winston Churchill made but you didn't make him do it. But you know he did and often why because you exist after the fact. So if you existed outside of the fact could you not know the outcome without being the one who made the decision. Another possible analogy would be if you knew a person well enough to know the decision they would make in a given situation without causing them to do so. Neither are quite the same but I think they are the closest we can get as begins beholden to time. Just a thought hope I wasn't too confusing or boring.
My sense is one theological response to how God's knowledge of the future is that God does not exist in time as such (he exists eternal outside of time) and so his knowledge of the future is like the knowledge of future of people in future. Most of us believe that there is only going to be one future and people in the future will know about some stuff that happened in the past. Presumably people who believe that the future is not fixed look back at the past and see it as having that property of non-fixity even though they know it only had that one outcome. So God's knowledge of our future could have that same combination of properties as a libertarian's knowledge of the past sure he knows there is only the one outcome but he likewise can know it has that lack of fixity. If one makes sense then it seems like the other can to, but perhaps neither makes sense? Arguably the problem is less God's omniscience and more the logical determinism implied by even the conception of a future that could be known about, if propositions about the future work like propositions about the present and past then they are (logically) either true or false, either the proposition "there will be a sea battle tomorrow" is true or it is false and that curtails the possibility of an alternative not God's knowledge of the truth or falsity of the proposition. Now if we deny their could be such a thing as knowledge of the future, this restores at least some possibility of fluidity to the future. As a bonus if there is no knowledge of the future this would mean that omniscience could not grant knowledge of the future because there is no such knowledge putting it outside the all of the omni-. I would say we should keep believing in knowledge of the future since it is how we do things like weigh the consequences of our actions which to me is way more important then some vague and contradictory sense that we could have done otherwise. This seems like as with last week if you premise that we need indeterminate outcomes for freedom (and responsibility) the problem is we also need the opposite property for freedom. A fun if implausible to most attitude to prayer is that such intercession can basically act via backwards causation so it makes as much sense to pray for intersession in past events as future. The preference for praying for future intersessions is then psychologically about when you don't know the outcome so you can genuinely expect some satisfaction from your prayer (if you knew the outcome it would dull the earnestness of your prayer), but there are lots of past events people might prayer for with a similar ignorance (pray their relative was not involved in some disaster far away about which information is still coming in for example).
The god of all possible timelines? He chose action x and also chose not to take action x, and God knows the results of both. I'm an atheist, as such, I accept the social practicality of the myth of free will. From a theological perspective though, if alternate timelines exist, does that mean that everyone spends eternity in heaven and hell simultaneously? Or could god know all possible outcomes, and they all equally happen in his mind, but only one actually happens... dunno
This review harkens back to your review of "A Serious Man". It shows how one person can follow all the rules and be punished severely for any infraction no matter how small, while non piousness is seemingly rewarded with talent, fame, wealth, etc. Both films take a pretty cynical view towards a god and paint a rather mal-theistic portrait of any divine being. But while the main character in A Serious Man is completely innocent up until the end when he cracks under extreme pressure and is immediately punished for it, Salieri's claims early piousness are dubious at best. He prays to god for talent; for a selfish reason, and while he claims it is so he can praise god it also comes with all the perks of Fame and wealth mentioned above. He's being disingenuous about his own talent or lack thereof and tries to take it out on Mozart or blame him for his own shortcomings. It's a very human flaw that most of us possess at some level. However, I feel that takes away from Mozart's own accomplishments, as he film shows Mozart still works very hard at his craft: it just happens to be better than Salieri's. Maybe that was also a subconscious intent of Salieri as well: to try to blame a divine force for human inequality. I need to watch both films again, and I want to thank you Leon for making me take a different view on great films so I can experience them in a whole new way again. Cheers!
God/Universe/All That Is...let’s us choose, from the infinite probable realities that already exist...which reality we wish to experience, through our actions, intentions and beliefs. It’s as simple as that. Prayer is the validation of the probability you wish to experience.
It's a joy to see F. Murray Abraham's wonderful performance. The question his character presents, taken to the ultimate as the video states, is about God. In St. Anselm's description, God is the most powerful being that can be conceived. God is all knowing. Salieri sees the righteous fail & a vulgar man succeed. Salieri facing that realization (for selfish reasons) cannot remain sane. On a grander level triumphs of the wicked & God's complete knowledge is one the great crises of religion.
This reminds me of PHILOSOPHY 201/202 with Dr. Bonette at Niagara University. I like it -the thought process - and then it just disturbs me. I suppose that is what the thought process is all about - but at 58 yrs old, and knowing there are greater thinkers who have come before me, I still just want to find a way to enjoy a simple life. I have been through hell, and Philosophy has taken me into deep sections of thinking. Once I climb out of it, I look around and see people "just living." I think that's what I want. ...and yes, I do have a history in music, theatre, arts, etc., while holding a B.S. in Math and Science Education (Graduate work in Special Ed.), but I hold an open mind to all studies which come my way.
Here's my solution to the paradox: assuming that God exists and is not outside time (that is to say, He cannot easily look over at the future and be like "yeah that's what's gonna happen to the people at this point in the timeline," or change His beliefs retroactively,) then we can say instead that God knows not what will happen, but what will happen if person A makes various choices. If we use the model of time as a stream that splits and blossoms, God would know what happens on each branch of the stream, and the choices we make are what causes the splits. The issue is that we don't know how time works when meddled with. If we're in a "one true timeline" sort of universe, then anyone knowing the future renders free will moot; but if we're in a "one changable timeline" sort of universe, then any decisions made to change the time stream would also change the premonitions of someone who knows the future. The problem we're running into is how omniscience interacts with time, which we could say makes omniscience probably impossible if we want to keep free will, and the concept of rewards and punishments requires free will, so either God is not all-knowing or He is completely arbitrary, neither of which fit with the teachings of modern day Christianity. Think of it like this: does God see one path and hold it as true, or does He see *every* path and hold them as true? We can't directly observe God, since definitionally God exists outside our universe (assuming He exists at all), so... who knows.
Or Time isn't linear. The underlying problems stem from a linear model of Time. Time being a fractious mess of ebbs and flows based on everyone's actions alleviates such concerns. In sum: "He is already here."
There's an angle that I don't think you considered... In pretty much all bible-based theology, God created the world. If he already knew the outcome, he created the world knowing how everything would turn out. He chose to create the world that would play out this way, with the people in it that acted the way they do and events that panned out how he knew they would. That's pretty much "free will"'s death kneel for most theology. According to theology, he could have created any other world but he chose this one. In doing so he robs everyone else of their choices.
I just threw a die. I know all the possible outcomes. You can call me God if you wish. I don't know which side it'll land on: sure, I could throw it in a way that it lands a certain way, but I'd rather not - that would just ruin the game
Something I discovered one of the men scene dumping Mozart's body into the pit is later scene in the nut house and looks like he's hanging as Salieri is going down the hall way in the wheelchair at the end of Amadeus!!
What about the argument that we are free to make all our own choices god can simply see every possible future to the smallest details. Not super religious but I find all mythos interesting even if the best parts aren't cannon like Dante. Oh as an example to my earlier argument the time alien from MIB 3. He could see all possible futures but people could still do different things. Making different futures. I know this is fragmented.
I thought the same thing, but in that case God wouldn't be truly omnicient because he would not know what choice you will make. He will still probably know more than any other being, but he will not know the future with certainty. He will know all possibilites, but not wich one will happen.
This is basically what I believe. God knows all possible outcomes. I could choose x, y, z, or some other letter and he knows the outcomes, but still gives me some choice.
Isn't that assuming that, from God's perspective, there is a singular "you" making a decision? What if it's not that he can view all decisions, but simply that he exists in a state such that to his perception, at each decision point every possible decision is taken? That he doesn't view time as a single written path, but a tapestry? It would seem to me that if to God all outcomes are definite, and it's only from our perspective that there is only a single specific outcome, that would resolve it on both sides. As far as we know, we only can make a single choice, but from the perspective of God, all choices are made at each possible branch and the concept of ourselves as individuals limited to singular awareness isn't even a coherent concept from his perspective because from his view, each possible path is "me" and they all do happen in point of fact. Unless omniscience requires awareness of incoherent concepts, but that seems odd to me. But I'm also guessing this is a conception that's been addressed and counterargued in the past, since I can't imagine I've actually come up with a novel theological argument just a few minutes after watching your video. :P Edit: Basically, if you asked God "what did I choose at this point", or "what choice did I perceive myself as making", or all such statements, God would respond "every option", and from God's perspective that would be entirely true, accurate, and total. There is no fact in this framework that God isn't aware of, because our own perception of having only selected a single decision is false oh wait this is inadvertently a counterargument to free-will from the opposite direction in that instead of being restricted to a single choice, we're being restricted to all choices with no actual motivation or personal will involved in the choice "we" perceive, isn't it
Idran I was going to reply about that last bit in your edit. It would seem to me that your argument has gone full circle and is now another argument against the existence of free will for exactly the reason stated: you don't have a choice if every option is always taken in some version of the scenario. Sure you might be the version that made the morally good choice, but should you be rewarded for being the you that made that choice when there is another you that made the other choice because in the end all choices must be made? I still love your argument though. It makes for good thought food.
Excellent analysis as always, your channel never disappoints I don't know if this is the 'right place' to ask it, but would you be able to do a Renegade Cut of "The Great Beauty"? I'd be really interested! Thanks, and keep up the good work
What if God's foreknoweldge is not of what *will* happen but of what *might* happen? What if God knows all the ways you could react to something and you have to choose one?
I feel a little bit that I have to bring up this minor criticism in the otherwise excellent review, but while it is a great movie, I would have appreciated it, if you had at least mentioned that it is historical fiction and wildly historical incorrect, especially it comes to the real Mozart and even much more so to the real Salieri. This does not necessarily hurt the movie, because the story told in the movie is more interesting than the historical events, but a brief clarification would have been nice.
Right, but that's not what this video (or this show in general) is about. If you want to talk about history, the comments section is always open to you. Renegade Cut is about philosophy and politics in popular films.
Wouldn’t the problem of free-will and fore-knowledge be solved with a multiverse model of existence? What if God gave us free-will and God knows the outcome of every action we are free to take because from God’s perspective, all timelines and all realities are visible and accessible?
I have a problem with the premise that if God has 4 knowledge of what will happen then your choices are not choices if God is omniscient then it is possible that God knows the outcome of every possible decision you could ever make but knowledge of the outcome of every possibility does not equal the ability to influence and therefore eliminate your personal ability to make a choice think of it very much like a choose your own adventure novel You get to the end of the page and are presented with a choice. The outcomes of those choices may be known to the author But you are still required to make a choice of which page to go to.
God controls someone's life exactly as much as they let them do so assuming God is interested in doing so. One does not command of an omnipotent and/or omniscient being they do not understand and if God commands us to do their bidding without the option to say no then we have no free will. Furthermore it is folly of mankind to appeal to a higher talent offering up something unequal of what they wish for. Talent sometimes is gifted, but others require practice. Ubung Mach den Meister, is a coloqialism of Austria's neighbor Germany which means Practice makes the master. One does not live chastely and righteously without putting in the time and effort becoming Mozart. Furthermore the best composers are ones who were inspired by influences in the lives they lived. There is not much inspirational life in doing everything holy, not taking chances, etc...
I don't really follow how determinism and foreknowledge are supposedly different in this regard, i.e. free will being possible under the former but not the latter?
of course God is nonsensical because he was a product of imagination.... I wish that believers would acknowledge this, because I actually think that believing in a thing that you know is an abstraction, a mental construct, is not logically inconsistent or wrong. We can't function without assumptions; without beliefs. So an idea like God can be useful ... (not saying always for good)
I never noticed this message/philosophy in the film. To me, this film was about the fact that talented people don't always rise to prominence and how untalented, mediocrity can rise to popularity and success. Salieri was actually much more popular back in those times than Mozart was. Social hierarchies are very prone to biases, which means deserving people may never get the same opportunities that lucky, and connected people get. But this religious perspective is interesting, and it gives me another reason to watch this film again.
I go with the idea that God gives us options. We can either choose A or B, maybe C, D or E. The consequences and rewards are based on our decisions. Think of it like a video game where God programs multiple endings and Easter Eggs.
Excellent video. This movie, and Salieri's character, or his behavior and actions, are great for the points you make. Salieri, as a man, seems even sadder to me, because he is having this crisis of faith, and his own skill as a composer, with Mozart as the other composer he is comparing himself to. While many considered Salieri a very great composer, because he witnessed Mozart's greatness, as musician, and unholy lifestyle, he lost touch to his own talent and life, as well as faith.
Would he have been a happy man if he had lived a few decades earlier, or later? Or would he have focused on whomever was the younger virtuoso of the day, as he grew older, in any time.
This type of man, especially within the arts, make me angry, more so even than the man who has wasted talent, and could've been great.
But if God knows you inside and out then he WOULD KNOW what you are going to do. It wouldn't take away your decision making it just means he knows what decision you will make. He is like a Devine profiler.
If what you're going to do is already predetermined then you didn't make the decision. The decision was already made.
@@tari8134 If a begin existed outside out time then could it not know which decision you would make without being the thing which caused you to make it. The closest we could really get is people in the past, you could know every decision Winston Churchill made but you didn't make him do it. But you know he did and often why because you exist after the fact. So if you existed outside of the fact could you not know the outcome without being the one who made the decision. Another possible analogy would be if you knew a person well enough to know the decision they would make in a given situation without causing them to do so. Neither are quite the same but I think they are the closest we can get as begins beholden to time. Just a thought hope I wasn't too confusing or boring.
My sense is one theological response to how God's knowledge of the future is that God does not exist in time as such (he exists eternal outside of time) and so his knowledge of the future is like the knowledge of future of people in future. Most of us believe that there is only going to be one future and people in the future will know about some stuff that happened in the past. Presumably people who believe that the future is not fixed look back at the past and see it as having that property of non-fixity even though they know it only had that one outcome. So God's knowledge of our future could have that same combination of properties as a libertarian's knowledge of the past sure he knows there is only the one outcome but he likewise can know it has that lack of fixity. If one makes sense then it seems like the other can to, but perhaps neither makes sense?
Arguably the problem is less God's omniscience and more the logical determinism implied by even the conception of a future that could be known about, if propositions about the future work like propositions about the present and past then they are (logically) either true or false, either the proposition "there will be a sea battle tomorrow" is true or it is false and that curtails the possibility of an alternative not God's knowledge of the truth or falsity of the proposition. Now if we deny their could be such a thing as knowledge of the future, this restores at least some possibility of fluidity to the future. As a bonus if there is no knowledge of the future this would mean that omniscience could not grant knowledge of the future because there is no such knowledge putting it outside the all of the omni-.
I would say we should keep believing in knowledge of the future since it is how we do things like weigh the consequences of our actions which to me is way more important then some vague and contradictory sense that we could have done otherwise. This seems like as with last week if you premise that we need indeterminate outcomes for freedom (and responsibility) the problem is we also need the opposite property for freedom.
A fun if implausible to most attitude to prayer is that such intercession can basically act via backwards causation so it makes as much sense to pray for intersession in past events as future. The preference for praying for future intersessions is then psychologically about when you don't know the outcome so you can genuinely expect some satisfaction from your prayer (if you knew the outcome it would dull the earnestness of your prayer), but there are lots of past events people might prayer for with a similar ignorance (pray their relative was not involved in some disaster far away about which information is still coming in for example).
The god of all possible timelines? He chose action x and also chose not to take action x, and God knows the results of both. I'm an atheist, as such, I accept the social practicality of the myth of free will. From a theological perspective though, if alternate timelines exist, does that mean that everyone spends eternity in heaven and hell simultaneously? Or could god know all possible outcomes, and they all equally happen in his mind, but only one actually happens... dunno
Scroll down, please. :) Asked and answered multiple times.
This review harkens back to your review of "A Serious Man". It shows how one person can follow all the rules and be punished severely for any infraction no matter how small, while non piousness is seemingly rewarded with talent, fame, wealth, etc. Both films take a pretty cynical view towards a god and paint a rather mal-theistic portrait of any divine being. But while the main character in A Serious Man is completely innocent up until the end when he cracks under extreme pressure and is immediately punished for it, Salieri's claims early piousness are dubious at best. He prays to god for talent; for a selfish reason, and while he claims it is so he can praise god it also comes with all the perks of Fame and wealth mentioned above. He's being disingenuous about his own talent or lack thereof and tries to take it out on Mozart or blame him for his own shortcomings. It's a very human flaw that most of us possess at some level. However, I feel that takes away from Mozart's own accomplishments, as he film shows Mozart still works very hard at his craft: it just happens to be better than Salieri's. Maybe that was also a subconscious intent of Salieri as well: to try to blame a divine force for human inequality. I need to watch both films again, and I want to thank you Leon for making me take a different view on great films so I can experience them in a whole new way again. Cheers!
God/Universe/All That Is...let’s us choose, from the infinite probable realities that already exist...which reality we wish to experience, through our actions, intentions and beliefs. It’s as simple as that. Prayer is the validation of the probability you wish to experience.
It's a joy to see F. Murray Abraham's wonderful performance. The question his character presents, taken to the ultimate as the video states, is about God. In St. Anselm's description, God is the most powerful being that can be conceived. God is all knowing. Salieri sees the righteous fail & a vulgar man succeed. Salieri facing that realization (for selfish reasons) cannot remain sane. On a grander level triumphs of the wicked & God's complete knowledge is one the great crises of religion.
I forgot the use of religion in this film. So much I haven't noticed, which is why I enjoy your content. Also, R.I.P Forman.
This reminds me of PHILOSOPHY 201/202 with Dr. Bonette at Niagara University. I like it -the thought process - and then it just disturbs me. I suppose that is what the thought process is all about - but at 58 yrs old, and knowing there are greater thinkers who have come before me, I still just want to find a way to enjoy a simple life. I have been through hell, and Philosophy has taken me into deep sections of thinking. Once I climb out of it, I look around and see people "just living." I think that's what I want. ...and yes, I do have a history in music, theatre, arts, etc., while holding a B.S. in Math and Science Education (Graduate work in Special Ed.), but I hold an open mind to all studies which come my way.
Here's my solution to the paradox: assuming that God exists and is not outside time (that is to say, He cannot easily look over at the future and be like "yeah that's what's gonna happen to the people at this point in the timeline," or change His beliefs retroactively,) then we can say instead that God knows not what will happen, but what will happen if person A makes various choices. If we use the model of time as a stream that splits and blossoms, God would know what happens on each branch of the stream, and the choices we make are what causes the splits.
The issue is that we don't know how time works when meddled with. If we're in a "one true timeline" sort of universe, then anyone knowing the future renders free will moot; but if we're in a "one changable timeline" sort of universe, then any decisions made to change the time stream would also change the premonitions of someone who knows the future. The problem we're running into is how omniscience interacts with time, which we could say makes omniscience probably impossible if we want to keep free will, and the concept of rewards and punishments requires free will, so either God is not all-knowing or He is completely arbitrary, neither of which fit with the teachings of modern day Christianity.
Think of it like this: does God see one path and hold it as true, or does He see *every* path and hold them as true? We can't directly observe God, since definitionally God exists outside our universe (assuming He exists at all), so... who knows.
Or Time isn't linear. The underlying problems stem from a linear model of Time. Time being a fractious mess of ebbs and flows based on everyone's actions alleviates such concerns.
In sum: "He is already here."
There's an angle that I don't think you considered... In pretty much all bible-based theology, God created the world. If he already knew the outcome, he created the world knowing how everything would turn out. He chose to create the world that would play out this way, with the people in it that acted the way they do and events that panned out how he knew they would. That's pretty much "free will"'s death kneel for most theology. According to theology, he could have created any other world but he chose this one. In doing so he robs everyone else of their choices.
His party farting should of got a separate Oscar lol
Awesome Leon!!
I just threw a die. I know all the possible outcomes. You can call me God if you wish. I don't know which side it'll land on: sure, I could throw it in a way that it lands a certain way, but I'd rather not - that would just ruin the game
Something I discovered one of the men scene dumping Mozart's body into the pit is later scene in the nut house and looks like he's hanging as Salieri is going down the hall way in the wheelchair at the end of Amadeus!!
What about the argument that we are free to make all our own choices god can simply see every possible future to the smallest details. Not super religious but I find all mythos interesting even if the best parts aren't cannon like Dante. Oh as an example to my earlier argument the time alien from MIB 3. He could see all possible futures but people could still do different things. Making different futures. I know this is fragmented.
I thought the same thing, but in that case God wouldn't be truly omnicient because he would not know what choice you will make.
He will still probably know more than any other being, but he will not know the future with certainty. He will know all possibilites, but not wich one will happen.
This is basically what I believe. God knows all possible outcomes. I could choose x, y, z, or some other letter and he knows the outcomes, but still gives me some choice.
+Apollo Justice
Yeah, exactly. Knowing possible outcomes but not the definite outcome does not equal all-knowing.
Isn't that assuming that, from God's perspective, there is a singular "you" making a decision? What if it's not that he can view all decisions, but simply that he exists in a state such that to his perception, at each decision point every possible decision is taken? That he doesn't view time as a single written path, but a tapestry? It would seem to me that if to God all outcomes are definite, and it's only from our perspective that there is only a single specific outcome, that would resolve it on both sides. As far as we know, we only can make a single choice, but from the perspective of God, all choices are made at each possible branch and the concept of ourselves as individuals limited to singular awareness isn't even a coherent concept from his perspective because from his view, each possible path is "me" and they all do happen in point of fact.
Unless omniscience requires awareness of incoherent concepts, but that seems odd to me.
But I'm also guessing this is a conception that's been addressed and counterargued in the past, since I can't imagine I've actually come up with a novel theological argument just a few minutes after watching your video. :P
Edit: Basically, if you asked God "what did I choose at this point", or "what choice did I perceive myself as making", or all such statements, God would respond "every option", and from God's perspective that would be entirely true, accurate, and total. There is no fact in this framework that God isn't aware of, because our own perception of having only selected a single decision is
false
oh wait this is inadvertently a counterargument to free-will from the opposite direction in that instead of being restricted to a single choice, we're being restricted to all choices with no actual motivation or personal will involved in the choice "we" perceive, isn't it
Idran I was going to reply about that last bit in your edit. It would seem to me that your argument has gone full circle and is now another argument against the existence of free will for exactly the reason stated: you don't have a choice if every option is always taken in some version of the scenario. Sure you might be the version that made the morally good choice, but should you be rewarded for being the you that made that choice when there is another you that made the other choice because in the end all choices must be made? I still love your argument though. It makes for good thought food.
Excellent analysis as always, your channel never disappoints
I don't know if this is the 'right place' to ask it, but would you be able to do a Renegade Cut of "The Great Beauty"? I'd be really interested! Thanks, and keep up the good work
ua-cam.com/video/8lrvqbcIat8/v-deo.html
Interesting analysis
Music in the background is a great .
What is the name of the music in the background ?
What if God's foreknoweldge is not of what *will* happen but of what *might* happen? What if God knows all the ways you could react to something and you have to choose one?
Scroll down, please. This has been asked and answered so many times. Thanks.
My very favorite one.
I feel a little bit that I have to bring up this minor criticism in the otherwise excellent review, but while it is a great movie, I would have appreciated it, if you had at least mentioned that it is historical fiction and wildly historical incorrect, especially it comes to the real Mozart and even much more so to the real Salieri. This does not necessarily hurt the movie, because the story told in the movie is more interesting than the historical events, but a brief clarification would have been nice.
Right, but that's not what this video (or this show in general) is about. If you want to talk about history, the comments section is always open to you. Renegade Cut is about philosophy and politics in popular films.
One more thing. This is not a review. :P
Wouldn’t the problem of free-will and fore-knowledge be solved with a multiverse model of existence? What if God gave us free-will and God knows the outcome of every action we are free to take because from God’s perspective, all timelines and all realities are visible and accessible?
Hi, Cap'n. Please read the comments first before making your comment. This was asked, answered and refuted half a dozen times already. :)
I have a problem with the premise that if God has 4 knowledge of what will happen then your choices are not choices if God is omniscient then it is possible that God knows the outcome of every possible decision you could ever make but knowledge of the outcome of every possibility does not equal the ability to influence and therefore eliminate your personal ability to make a choice think of it very much like a choose your own adventure novel You get to the end of the page and are presented with a choice. The outcomes of those choices may be known to the author But you are still required to make a choice of which page to go to.
God controls someone's life exactly as much as they let them do so assuming God is interested in doing so. One does not command of an omnipotent and/or omniscient being they do not understand and if God commands us to do their bidding without the option to say no then we have no free will.
Furthermore it is folly of mankind to appeal to a higher talent offering up something unequal of what they wish for. Talent sometimes is gifted, but others require practice. Ubung Mach den Meister, is a coloqialism of Austria's neighbor Germany which means Practice makes the master. One does not live chastely and righteously without putting in the time and effort becoming Mozart. Furthermore the best composers are ones who were inspired by influences in the lives they lived. There is not much inspirational life in doing everything holy, not taking chances, etc...
I don't really follow how determinism and foreknowledge are supposedly different in this regard, i.e. free will being possible under the former but not the latter?
u r chosen, forgive us
The paradox can also always be explained that god simply chooses to not know certain stuff, as he is all powerful he could do so
of course God is nonsensical because he was a product of imagination....
I wish that believers would acknowledge this, because I actually think that believing in a thing that you know is an abstraction, a mental construct, is not logically inconsistent or wrong. We can't function without assumptions; without beliefs. So an idea like God can be useful ... (not saying always for good)
I’m strong agnostic, so...
I never noticed this message/philosophy in the film. To me, this film was about the fact that talented people don't always rise to prominence and how untalented, mediocrity can rise to popularity and success. Salieri was actually much more popular back in those times than Mozart was. Social hierarchies are very prone to biases, which means deserving people may never get the same opportunities that lucky, and connected people get. But this religious perspective is interesting, and it gives me another reason to watch this film again.
He talks about god and his bitterness with him the entire time, its wild that you didnt regard there being religious overtones.
He even mention something like "There was God, laughing at my face" when he sees Mozart opera at the theather
And thermometers control the temperature.
Really wish they would re-release the 160min cut so that the director's cut isn't the only version out there.
God knows what will happen in the future because He does not know time.