Avoid these 15 mistakes about Free Will, Christianity, and Consciousness
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- In this final part of the common mistakes series, we cover mistakes about free will, Christianity, and consciousness.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
OUTLINE
00:00 Intro
1:03 Mistake 163
20:10 Mistake 164
21:36 Mistake 165
22:29 Mistake 166
23:40 Mistake 167
25:17 Mistake 168
40:56 Mistake 169
44:19 Mistake 170
46:13 Mistake 171
47:21 Mistake 172
47:49 Mistake 173
49:02 Mistake 174
52:56 Mistake 175
54:09 Mistake 176
59:22 Mistake 177
1:09:02 Mistake 178 (Bonus)
CORRECTION
25:28 I should have explicitly and clearly specified that a large portion of the section on OT atrocities - Mistake 168 - was not just drawn from Josh Parikh’s talk but directly drawn from Parikh’s talk, ie, quoted therefrom. Apologies for not clarifying this at the outset. I've now updated the document containing Mistake 168 to reflect this clarification. You can see the updated document here: docs.google.com/document/d/15...
You can also find Parikh’s talk here: • Episode 64 - Josh Pari...
RESOURCES
(1) Resource Document for Part 7: docs.google.com/document/d/1y...
(2) Common Mistakes Series playlist: • Common Mistakes Series
(3) My Springer book: (a) www.amazon.com/Existential-In... (b) link.springer.com/book/10.100...
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uN...
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/josep...
*_CORRECTIONS and LIST OF MISTAKES FOR PART 7_*
⚠️Correction⚠️
I should have explicitly and clearly specified that a large portion of the section on OT atrocities - Mistake 168 - was not just drawn from Josh Parikh’s talk but *directly* drawn from Parikh’s talk, ie, quoted therefrom. Apologies for not clarifying this at the outset. I've now updated the document containing Mistake 168 to reflect this clarification. You can see the updated document here: docs.google.com/document/d/15_GnNWL8lZJUU-640OoKwNP3BSocQJDfWD38OYJF9Y0/edit?usp=sharing
You can also find Parikh’s talk here: ua-cam.com/video/b3Ey8-ypa_A/v-deo.htmlsi=38oYSElHN1JnjUso
✅List of Mistakes✅
_Free Will_
1:03 Mistake 163: So. Much. Unclarity. About. Free Will.
20:10 Mistake 164: LFW is required for love
21:36 Mistake 165: Libertarianism = you can do anything
22:29 Mistake 166: Determinism = force/coercion
23:40 Mistake 167: Merely asserting that free will requires a soul
_Christianity_
25:17 Mistake 168: Papering over, downplaying, ignoring, or misrepresenting OT atrocities
40:56 Mistake 169: No point in evangelizing if universalism is true
44:19 Mistake 170: Explicit belief in Christ on Earth is required to avoid hell
46:13 Mistake 171: Lord, Liar, Lunatic trichotomy
_Consciousness_
47:21 Mistake 172: Neurological basis of religious experience
47:49 Mistake 173: Merely asserting that souls require God
49:02 Mistake 174: “How can mind come from mindless matter?”
52:56 Mistake 175: Physicalism entails determinism
54:09 Mistake 176: Thinking mental-physical correlations is a slam dunk
59:22 Mistake 177: Thinking the interaction problem is a slam dunk
_Bonus mistake_
1:09:02 Mistake 178: Not subscribing to Majesty of Reason or becoming a patron
That depressing moment when you realise you are trying to scroll a document being displayed in a video...
He should have done it as a 360 degree video so you can move around the document while watching.
EPIC SERIES ! ! ! Thank you so much it is so good !
Bro is just firing some shots at us 20:03 🤣😂
I was unprepared for that. Talk about a free decision 😂
Yes, that image conceptually empowered me indeed :|
No, the interactions problem is how does something non-physical, i.e., spaceless/ timeless do anything let alone interact, as it equivalent to not existing at any point in space, in any point in time.
Joe, I know you've explained why you speak more from a Christian theistic point of view or with Christian theistic philosophers (you being an agnostic). But : Could you make more videos with or for atheist philosophers? (from anywhere in the world with whom you can dialogue: It would be interesting to see how these issues are treated from Latin America, China, India, Africa or the Middle East) There are some Spanish philosophers (Ernesto Castro, Javier Pérez Jara, Lino Camprubí and Carlos Blanco ) and an Argentine physicist (Gustavo Esteban Romero) who are involved in these types of debates from atheist or agnostic positions.

I am a simple man, I see a Majesty of reason video I click
Great video. This is such a helpful resource!
😁❤️
The free will argument breaks down because under Christian theism, people aren't given a free choice to exist. No, existence is forced upon people because Christians believe God creates the soul of every individual and instantiates them in the actual world (and also knows what they will freely choose _only if_ God decides to create them).
Since God didn't have to create people, it follows that this makes God responsible for all moral evil committed by humans and also responsible for their eternal fate. God knows what they will freely choose _if_ created so their actions and destiny all comes down to God's decision to create.
We can sum this as follows - if God decides to create, then that seals your fate!
Exactly
Your parents didn't need to have sex either - all the bad you've done in your life, whatever it might be is your parents fault because your father put you in your mother's womb and your mother carried you to term and gave birth to you. Therefore your parents carries responsibility of your actions. This is your own logic being used in reversed against you. I hope you understand what kind of nonsense it is and thus the kind of bullshit you put up yourself.
Your parents are responsible for your actions because your parents had you. All wrong you have done (no small how big it might be) is their fault because they are the reason why you exist - < This is your own logic.
@@VindensSaga Parents are not omniscient (like God is) so your analogy fails.
_Since God didn't have to create people_
Alternatively, God could have created different people. God could have created an entirely different reality. If God is omniscient, then he chose to make this reality while knowing the result of every single event that ever happens.
I come to this channel for your clear and concise explanation of topics in Philosophy. I stay because you cap a twenty-minute section on free will with a mom joke.
Thank you! I've been trying to put my finger on the Reverse Construction problem for a while now.
Great video, honestly have shifted away a little from Phil of religion but love your stuff on free will and consciousness
It's great that you made the distinction between soft determinism and compatibilism! Very often people - even philosophers - treat those two terms as synonymous, when this is not in fact the case
When in fact - neither is real, but to they whom lack Wisdom and cling to one [of course their own] language's language game.
yawn....
@@theonetruetimCare to prove determinism isn't real?
@@TheMahayanistPretty sure they said soft determinism and compatibalism aren't real, not that determinism isn't.
Yeah, thanks for talking about the interaction problem. I only find dualism as the least likely of the three as it requires both physical and mental to be separately real things, which seems less parsimonious than one being dependent on the other.
Wow! Finally an episode on free will! I haven’t watched everything to the end yet, but (especially if this topic has not been raised), I would like to know your opinion about the argument that supposedly if determinism is true and there is no free will, then you “can’t really know anything.” Apologists often like to use this argument, saying that if you are “predetermined” to a certain conclusion by prior states, then you cannot come to a true judgment, and supposedly this is possible when there is free will and people can “freely choose” (?!) the truth. Also in this context, I would like to ask one day to parse the TAG argument. In particular, these two arguments are used by self-proclaimed UA-cam philosopher and apologist Jay Dyer. Maybe invite him as a guest?
I think Joe addresses this in his review video: 'Does free will exist? Sapolsky vs. Huemer debate review'
compatibilists (determinism and free will are compatible) will reject the claim that if determinism is true then there is no free will.
In regards to the other argument. I don't see what determinism or free will has to do with obtaining knowledge. To have knowledge one just needs some account of what knowledge is eg: justified, true, belief (JTB). So what if a 'belief' is determined by prior causes? Is the belief justified and is the condition 'true'? If yes, then one can know things. eg: I know 1+1=2. I believe it, it's true and I can justify it.
But it sounds like a very presuppositional apologetics type argument.
It's been a while since I heard Jay's argument but I remember thinking it was an argument from assertion. ie; he merely stipulates that (conveniently *only his) God must be the necessary precondition. Good for him, I guess.
Great video Joe, as always from a moderate episcolpalian
Only thing I would add is that when comes to biblical scholarship is that I like to listen to both sides liberal and conservative and try to see where i land on the issue at hand. I would say that I am not an inerrantist but i would lean theologically conservative when comes to core doctrines like the trinity and ressurection.
Joe Schmid, the philosophy wizard himself
40:40 bro, from my brain to your mouth. As someone who personally *agonizes* over the violence in the OT, it really discourages me when fellow Christians don't seem to take this seriously. To paraphrase Origen, they believe there is none greater than God (in which they are right) yet believe such things about Him as would not be believed of the most savage and unjust of men.
Also, Paul Copan's "Did God Really Command Genocide?" co-authored with Matt Flanagan is a *much* better treatment than his earlier "Is God a Moral Monster?". It still has some of the same weaknesses but overall, it's much more detailed, nuanced, and carefully argued.
Non Alchemist needs to have a chat with Sam Shamoun 🤣🤣
Thought-provoking video! I'm not a professional philosopher but I think about this stuff a lot. I would like to challenge some of your alleged "mistakes" and also the premise of the video:
1. It seems to me like it's not an error to argue that if determinism is true it's the same as force or coercion. Someone might disagree with that and make a good argument against that, but I don't think the point of view is necessarily an error in reasoning. If an evil wizard uses a love potion on someone who has rejected his romantic advances time and time again, then the person under the spell would fall in love with him and genuinely want the wizard for the duration of the potion, but this is clearly force and coercion--if it wasn't, then there would be no point of a love potion existing. If determinism is true, we are all under its spell and as free as a falling domino. Even if we like falling down, we are still forced to.
2. I think one could rationally argue that free will requires a soul or that physicalism entails determinism, even if you disagree with those stances. Because many believe you can't get free will from either causation or randomness or any combination of both, then a soul might allow for something totally beyond our understanding that could somehow allow free will. I suspect if we do have free will, it has something to do with consciousness. Sort of like how we experience consciousness even though it's hard to understand how it exists, we experience and understand what it means to feel free to make choices even though people disagree about the nature of free will. Maybe free will is entirely a phenomenon of consciousness that has no explanation involving laws of physics, causation, randomness, etc. It's kind of abstract and mindblowing and may sound logically impossible but I think it's a valid view. Especially when you realize the universe might literally have popped out of nothing, or there may be a god that exists outside of space and time, etc. There are a lot of claims in philosophy that seem impossible or improbable, but I think are conceivable and one can rationally argue for. It's not up to us what the nature of reality is. I think it might be weirder than we can imagine.
3. Many view compatibilism to be a mistake. Or libertarianism. It seems to me like a lot just comes down to a matter of taste, a point I think Graham Oppy has made about the god debate. You may find a lot of these ways of thinking to be mistakes and provide reasons for that, but someone else could rationally justify them, or be justified in asserting them on the basis they think they're self-evidently true. For example, "physicalism entails determinism" may seem obviously true to some and they might view it as the burden of proof on someone who disagrees to demonstrate how to get free will from causation/randomness, and totally reject philosophical language that tries to get around the problem by defining free will differently or something. The existence of philosophers arguing for a view doesn't make it any more true, in my opinion. Just like the existence of PhD creationists doesn't make creationism true.
I probably didn't do the best job articulating some of this, but for what it's worth that's my thoughts!
If you decide to do something because you have good reasons for wanting to do it, I don't see how your decision could meaningfully be described as "coercion". It's the definition of a free decision.
"Coercion" is being made to do something you don't want to do. In your example, the person was made to do something (drink a love potion and thus fall in love with the Wizard) that they didn't want to do. There isn't any example of "coercion" which doesn't involve a person made to act against their will - that's what it means.
On mistake 165, I don't think anyone actually thinks that libertarianism _is_ the view that we can just do anything. The point of saying "I can't flap my arms and fly" is to provide an agreed upon example of a limit to our freedom, to set up the question of why some limits to our freedom are okay while others wouldn't be, e.g. "it's impossible for us to flap our arms and fly, so why couldn't it be impossible for us to harm others?" If one action being physically impossible for us, despite our will to do so, isn't an unacceptable limit on our free will, then we have to ask why any other action being physically impossible for us would be. This is a counter to the claim that we have to be free, not only to _will_ harm to others, but to actually carry out that will, or else our free will would be limited in an unacceptable way.
My favourite points I've never heard before from this video:
1. Turning the "love must be a free choice" argument against the trinity, by asking if its members freely choose to love each other.
2. Reversing the construction problem, by asking how non-mental things could be constructed from mental things, if mind is fundamental.
One of my non-philosopher friends actually made that mistake, which is why I included it haha
I'm sure I've heard Sean Carroll say something similar, in one of his Mindscape podcasts. It was a while ago, so hopefully he's changed his view, but he said something like (and I'm paraphrasing):
If you believe you have LFW then try jumping off a tall building and "choose" not to fall to ground. At some point gravity will take over your ability to choose.
Maybe I'm being uncharitable in my interpretation but it sounded as if he's implying that LFW means one has the ability to defy physics (do anything).
I have heard some Calvinists say, as a criticism of non-Calvinist Christians, that if you are a believer in LFW, you think you are omnipotent.
Okay Joe, next project is to find clips of people making each of these mistakes in a super long super cut
20:00 YO, Joe you just sucker punched me with that wtf 😂
Having two things that exist in fundamental physical reality is one thing, what is the description of a soul that allows it to interact with anything.
I want to be a compatibilist but I just can’t square it in my head
I agree. At best, it seems to minimize the definition of "free will" to the point that it, in my opinion, can't really be called free will anymore.
Why would you want to be something that doesn't make sense to you?
@@user-eg4te4kq4f For most people, it's because they've accepted determinism as a consequence of their (usually unexamined) materialism. They think determinism is irrefutable, but they don't want to give up free will. But that's only because they already believe that their minds are nothing but the product of the atoms in their brain. Personally, I just think determinism is silly, given that it's falsified every time we make a choice, which happens almost constantly.
As long as God is omniscient, we do not have free will!
This youtuber has good videos on the topic of omniscient and free will you should go check it out if you want to learn more about the topic.
Thanks for the vid Joe.
Quasi unrelated thought:
I think its a shame that the liar, lunatic, Lord line of thinking has become dismissable as merely a deductive trillema - for behind its admittedly imprecise set up i see a really helpful way to begin thinking about Jesus.
For if one does come to believe that the gospels do provide the voice of Jesus without legend - then there is definitely a sense of prima facie tension with the remaining options - which is what makes it a broadly valuable line of thinking to my mind. Hopefully to others interested as well.
What is your opinion on Trent Horn's approach to difficult Old Testament passages? Would be a great conversation to have him on to discuss.
Also, keep up the great work, I enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Seconded. Those responses from folks like Trent I used to find compelling strike me as pretty watery milk now, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Really interesting - thanks, Joe.
I don't take a position on whether determinism is true or not, but even if it were true I don't think it's incompatible with free will.
I would agree that it isn't incompatible with the definition of free will provided at the start, but I would argue that that definition is virtually meaningless.
It just shifts the argument to: What is required to be morally responsible? The debate continues there, can we be morally responsible if determinism is true, if choices do or don't really occur, if somebody has sufficient power or knowledge, and so on. We should just stop using the term free will and talk about what constitutes and is required for moral responsibility.
@@Rogstin Thanks for your comment.
*"can we be morally responsible if determinism is true, if choices do or don't really occur, if somebody has sufficient power or knowledge, and so on."*
I can't speak about others, because I don't have access to other people's minds, but I don't see why we wouldn't still be morally responsible even if determinism is true. At least to me - prima facie - I make conscious choices.
I guess if you agree that we can make choices, then I'm not sure there's much more to add about what constitutes for being morally responsible.
ie: if person A chooses to murder (plans and carries out the act) person Z, then by my book I think person A is morally responsible for person Z's death.
Maybe you disagree. That's fine - what do you think needs to be present for a person to be morally responsible?
@@christaylor6574 I agree that we are still capable or moral responsibility under determinism, but not because we can make choices, for I don't believe we can _(having been able to do something else)._ I believe we reach conclusions _(inevitable ones),_ and that the process to do so is enormously complex and we call the fog of complexity "choice" or "free will."
I accept moral responsibility merely as a pragmatist.
It has value because we give it value, and we give it value because of its utility.
@@Rogstin Yeah, I guess I've never been able to understand this idea that one 'couldn't have been able to do something else' view.
eg: I have a number of different colour shirts in my drawer (red, blue, white, black, yellow etc). Today I'm wearing black. It just seems prima facie incorrect to say that in hindsight I couldn't have chosen the red shirt.And it appears equally implausible to me that me wearing the black shirt today was inevitable.
But yes - in either case I think the idea of 'moral responsibility' has societal utility.
@@christaylor6574 If we assume a determinist point of view, then all states are the inevitable result of the prior state evolving through time by the rules of nature.
Why are you wearing black? You may have conscious reasons, there are probably many more unconscious ones. Even if we had free will, you would always have chosen black for this morning. If you didn't want to, you wouldn't have. It doesn't make sense to suggest you could have picked another shirt. You had many options, and that fact was part of the calculus of your brain.
Ultimately a universe with free will seems indistinguishable from one with determinism to me _(what differences should we expect? I think none)._ It also seems impossible to test, we can never perfectly recreate a particular moment, especially given the apparent non-locality _(some interactions can be faster than light)_ of the universe.
It is useful to talk about making choices, but there is no apparent mechanism by which we even could make choices. It also only really matters in discussions about the nature of divine justice, as we carry on with our civil justice regardless.
(1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice). - (2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice). - (3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility. - Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
49:24 Nb4 Cameron Bertuzzi states, "Questions are not arguments."
01:05:00 what is implied here is non locality. This is very much disputed, and strong locality is still a consensus view amongst most physicists.
Do you ever think you’ll do a video examining and criticising the psychophysical argument for theism (similar to your deep dives on the cosmological and ontological arguments for theism)?
I'll cover some elements of the argument in a future debate with someone. No more details available right now :)
Hey peeps
Joe coming back with a banger as usual
You know, I was with Joe last night...
Joe who?
Joe Mama... 😝
@20.00
How would non-leeway libertarianism be distinguishable from traditional compatibilism? Like, I've always thought that the principle of alternative possibilities is basically the defining difference between libertarianism and compatibilism. If you take that away, I genuinely have no idea how one would tell the two apart, either subjectively or even conceptually for that matter.
49:02 for Mistake 174 wouldn't it also be a case of a fallacy of division? Thinking that something being true of the whole (consciousness in brains) must also be true of the parts (consciousness in neurons, or molecules, or atoms, or whatever level of constituents you want). To say that consciousness can only be composed of of something conscious would be like saying that anything that is cube shaped must be composed of cube-shaped constituents.
Maybe, but I don't think that is the point Joe is making here in this mistake.
Joe seems to be saying that a theist/idealist can't use the ignorance of their interlocutor as a justification to positively believe mind can't come from non-mind.
"If you (interlocutor) can't explain how it's possible that mind can come from non-mind, then I'm justified to belief it can't."
The opposing interlocutor's inability to provide an answer doesn't justify their premise is true.
As Joe says - it's shifting the burden rather than defending their premise.
Non-Alchemist is criminally underviewed.
Sometimes I've second guessed my sanity for doubting (actually, leaving) Catholic Christianity in large part due to Biblical issues and their corresponding philisophical implications. Hearing from both Catholic and Protestant voices who have considered the apologetics carefully and found them lacking is consoling.
Bro you dropped this during my vacation, miracle confirmed ✅
bro, that mom joke out of the blue 💀
LMAO he can be so random at times 😅
Hi what do you think about transcendental argument, are you familiar with Jay Dyer?
It's garbage.
I basically have never read anything philosophical but I have a question. I believe that given the same set of information you will always make the same decision. Doesnt matter how 50/50 you were on a decision, you were always going to make the one you made. Under what "ism" does that fall?
Hard determinism/Incompatibalism.
There is no contradiction whatsoever between God’s Sovereignty and Free Will if Sovereignty doesn’t mean Determinism (which it doesn’t) and Free Will doesn’t mean the ability to thwart Divine Decree by choice (which it doesn’t).
regarding how people think free will requires a soul, what do you think on libertarian free will requiring a subversion of the laws of logic? this is the only way i can see LFW existing because given determinism, LFW is clearly impossible, given indeterminism, LFW is also clearly impossible
for mistake 177, I dont see how the interaction problem requires infinite justification for other forms of interactions. Fields and platypi interact because they both physical, all other interactions you describe are all physical, theres no "infinite causal chain", what the heck are you talking about? This is a baffling extrapolation, dualism presents a type of interaction that is literally not seen anywhere else in any kind of interaction and there is nothing comparable to it. Fields and platypi may be very different but theyre both physical. Its not that these things cant interact because theyre different, or because every interaction has its own set of unique rules, its because every interaction with 0 exception is physical.
Have you done anything on psychophysical harmony? Would love to hear your thoughts.
Edit: forgot to add #COYG
I’ll offer some thoughts in a future debate with someone🙂 (No date or more info yet!)
And, of course, COYG🔴⚪️🔴⚪️
In order to read and interpret Scripture correctly, you have to be "inspired" by the Holy Spirit.
The fact that you can coherently talk about free will completely independently of morality makes tying it to morality a garbage definition.
20:08 😮
Gottem
I think the reverse construction problem is actually much more fundamental than stated in the video. If mind is fundamental, it's not the case that discrete conscious ghosts or such build up reality, but that reality is the contents of mind, that mind"s qualia. So there wouldn't be any "non-mental things", only mind and its contents, the sand is simply a colection of qualia, and so the mind has the exactly right materials to build everything, since we can only experience, well, experience.
If minds is fundamental, the real problem is what I like to call the concatenation problem: why are there particular collections of qualia concatenated together, and how? For example, nothing about redness tells us it could or should come together with the other qualia that compose an apple. The redness, the shape, the texture, the smell, the sound, are all separate experiences that appear together for some unknow reason. Why are the mental building blocks arranged together?
One possible answer I've heard is universal evolutionism, which states that whatever exists is simply the things that are good at continuing to exist. And so, this leads us to conclude that this arrangement of qualia exists because it is a stable construct, among an indefinite amount of qualia configurations.
Yet, this doesn't answer the How? How are separate qualia glued together to form a distinct experience? What could be the underlying process that takes redness, roundness, taste, smell and texture and associates than all in a particular way?
These whys and hows problems are actually equally present in different forms even if matter is fundamental: why are qualia modalities the way they are? etc etc...
Joe, how do you morally justify not being vegan? Or are you vegan now?
Early
I say Routledge!
The law already considers free will in legal cases all the time. What type of constraints are there on our actions at any moment. We all recognize constraints on choices. Parents try to infuence choices teit children make. We try to influence choices our family, friends and associates make. The legal system, sociatal norms, our past actions all try either openly or behind the curtain to control our choces. God gives us free will it is said but then compels us with the threat of etenal torture to refrain from certain things and more outlandishly to love him! My own introspection is in the drection of do we chose our next thought. I just dont see a mechanism where choosing y next thought is possible. Its like not thinking about a pink elephant. Can you choose not to think about a ink elephant without thinking about a pink elephant. Or chosing nt to think at all. Try to choose not to think for even one minute.
Philosophy is just a scam for philosophers to sell more Patreon subscriptions. You get us hooked on big questions and then pitch the subscription because we care about the truth and we're scared of errors slipping by our minds unnoticed, I see what you did there!
I wish I had such a successful grift.
What does "doxastic" mean?
Relating to one's *beliefs.* So, a "doxastic" acceptance of Christ would mean that you don't just "feel" some religious experience, or "hope" for something, but explicitly *believe certain statements about Christ to be true.*
@m4ev6jb7d Doesn't "feeling" some particular religious experience require belief in such experience (and thus the consequent statements that follow from it when phrased in such a way/form), thus collapsing the distinction between doxastic and the rest of the stuff you wrote? Am I misunderstanding something?
@@bonbon_nextlevel Believing that you're having the experience is not the same as believing the actual stuff about Jesus (that he is eternally begotten by the Father, that he was born of a virgin, that he died for our sins and resurrected, etc.)
The point is, some denominations of Christianity, in their theology, say that believing a certain list of statements is a necessary requirement for salvation and for avoiding Hell. That is the position that Joe is critiquing here.
@@user-qm4ev6jb7d Ah okay, thanks for the clarification!
Joe are you presentist or eternalist?
he’s mentioned if you force him to pick he leans towards presentism
why did he give reasons cause eternalism is more intuitive to me and has lots of evidence and which quantum mechanics interpretation does he lean towards or ascribe to???@@famiahamid
Christ divine nature central authority unity with substantive human rights choice for international law
I don’t find your response to the “Lord,liar, lunatic” trichotomy convincing.
“Being genuinely mistaken” about yourself being God is akin to being a lunatic I think.
“Later development” is ok, but I would say that the trichotomy assumes that he made the claim himself.
Bro Wtf is your youtube channel 😅😅😅.
@@slashmonkey8545 Quran recitations, from a guy I like and his voice. Not so weird.
@@ILoveLuhaidan Oooh
Yeah, the trichotomy relies on faulty assumptions.
Joe = Winning the word game that many [hella problematic] assume as the thing itself.
[Magnificent stock taken & presented, sir] When it comes to reporting on the game - Joe is the most honest & effective -there is.
A Legend, in my book [which i update er day]
Useful info? prolly not. Accurate read of the circle - jerk, tho. i would assume no one better to take it past this point with, however. [distinctions matter but are not the Truth itself. Nor is it/are they as valuable as those who profit from a business of endless distinctions assert them to be. These devices are just a collection of split babies. Not just descriptions. Useful for fetishists. & lore -ologists. Not Philosophers] For those of us whom actually Love Sophia [which i believe Joe is very firmly oriented] and dont simply fetishize the contemporary academic hipster holier than thouisms as if they were the place and not simply one language's current and insufficient map, there are ways to get the babies to their loving and True parents. Material reductionists and determinists are lazy and worse.
They insist on the map. Nm that -
It dont lead nowhere but a circle.
Of which i assigned appropriate term to - above.
Hail Satan
Love,
tim
[circle jerks]
I understand that you're just laying out the current state of the field, so this isn't a criticism against you, but, defining free will in terms of moral responsibility is so completely backwards.
No it’s not and it makes perfect sense actually, which is why most philosophers in the literature use that definition. Generally people who complain about this definition want to cope about it because they can’t use their PAP begging question definition of “well you can do otherwise” or “you can do whatever you want” even though FF cases show this to not be the case.
@@ryanbrown9833 I really don't care what these people think. Their arguments are silly and go nowhere. It's a backwards definition. Moral responsibility depends on free will, not the other way around. Any attempt to define moral responsibility in the absence of free will is absurd.
@@whitemakesright2177 It’s fine if you disagree with the expert consensus on this but you better have a good damn reason to. Free will being related to moral responsibility makes perfect sense and the alternative definitions either assume PAP which we have a lot of counter examples for and they are necessarily exclusive while this definition of free will being related to moral responsibility accommodates for more models and is more unified.
@@whitemakesright2177 It’s fine if you disagree with the expert consensus on this but you better have a good damn reason to. Free will being related to moral responsibility makes perfect sense and the alternative definitions either assume PAP which we have a lot of counter examples for and they are necessarily exclusive while this definition of free will being related to moral responsibility accommodates for more models and more unified.
Being "honestly mistaken" about being the son of God is also known as being a lunatic. Also trying to dismiss this by saying the stories about him are exaggerations is ineffective as you must claim that the very claims which got him crucified where amongst those exaggerations. If you deny the very essence of his claims your not grappling with them at all.
In conclusion I don't think you have made a dent in the trilemma.
It’s simply false that being honestly mistaken about a subject like that requires being a lunatic. Entirely psychologically healthy people have thoroughly ludicrous views all the time, including about their own status and abilities. This is an indisputable psychological fact. It’s also not hard to see how later development and exaggeration could play into things here. People were crucified all the time for causing political unrest, and Jesus could have caused political unrest without claiming to be God. Later development and exaggeration could then have added this as a driving factor for the unrest. So yes, these points definitely put serious dents in the trichotomy. And for a nail in its coffin from a Christian philosopher, see this excellent article: philarchive.org/rec/HOWWJM-2
@@MajestyofReason I'm sorry if you claim to be the son of God you are not merely mistaken. And certainly not honestly. Most likely you are a liar but if you honestly believe it yourself I am quite justified in calling you a lunatic. You can try all the pedantic responses in that paper and I'll still be justified in calling you a lunatic and a boring one at that.
Deluding yourself to that point, no matter how well meaning you might be, is indistinguishable from lunacy (which is not a medical term but a colloquial one) and it would be a kindness to incarcerate you before you go get yourself crucified.
You can of course say that everything we read about him is untrue and that all who wrote about him in this manner have lied/deluded/insane etc.. There are a plethora of reasons to deny this claim but more importantly the claim itself invents another person entirely. Some fictional entity that no contemporary or near contemporary has made claims of. You can call him Jesus but by that point we are no longer speaking of the same entity and any discussion derails into meaninglessness same as when people can't agree on basic definitions.
From what i hear most modern historians dont think that jesus ever claimed to be god. Thats also something to keep in mind for the trilema. This fact is also what makes me doudt the trilema the most.😅😅😅
@@slashmonkey8545 he never did so explicitly himself but he did imply so heavily in multiple ways like when he said "my father and I are one" or "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" and others state it explicitly in his presence without Jesus correcting them, like when Satan tempts him and states "if you are the son of God..." or when his disciples repeatedly call him son of God. He certainly was not shy about rebuking people so this should be sufficient proof.
I don't require everyone to state every fact about themselves explicitly to know said things about them.
@@gubjarturnilsson4591 I think the statements you are citing have problems with them. I will look into them and see if i am misremembering or not.
❤❤❤