This has been one of my favourite arguments against most claimed gods, the incompatibility of freewill and omniscience, good to hear some of your views on it.
I've yet to see a coherent argument that effectively bridges the gap between foreknowledge of events and _causation of_ those events. I know all sorts of things will happen prior to their respective occurrences, but that does not imply that I am in control of them. That rationale is non-sequitur. Indeed, it is a special case of non-sequitur known as the fallacy of confusing cause and effect, also known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This fallacy occurs when it’s assumed that because one event follows another, the first event must be the cause of the second. If a child drops a ball, I know that it will fall downward toward the Earth; however, it is not my foreknowledge that affects that chain of causation. It is, in fact, the inverse that is true; it is causation that grants me that foreknowledge.
@@JustifiedNonetheless You will not get any coherent response from anyone on this because Compatibilism takes too long for people here to understand. They will all just claim that you are religious.
At least Odin was subject to fate. He was told about the end of the world and himself, he spent a lot of time looking for knowledge and still was bound by it. Unlike the God of the desert he never claimed to have created our world or even be obnipotent, just liked to fuck with us.
I've always thought the Greek and Norse gods were far more believable than Yahweh. Still ridiculous and obviously man made but less absurd than the omni everything god of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim religions.
God does what his prophets, theologians, priests, rabbis, imams, and religious biographers tell him to do. God cannot have free will if he is make believe.
@CollinGerberding It is a claim. When you say you are not convinced of god then you are waiting for those who claim god to fulfill their burden of proof. When you make the claim "god does not exist" then you must present a case in which you have ruled out god in its entirety. Which, in the case of deism, you can argue that someone cannot claim to detect the undetectable, but you cannot claim that you have ruled out the deist god, because the very criteria of a deist god is unfalsifiable since it is "undetectable". I don't know how you falsify the undetectable, just as much as I don't know how you provide evidence for the undetectable. If you pay attention, Matt NEVER claims that deism is impossible, only that it is seemingly irrelevant to our current sense of reality. So the problem here is that you have to make a criteria to falsify the supernatural across all the cosmos. That is, at our present moment in time, impossible. This isn't moving the goal post, it is handling a separate claim. If I say, "there's a pink elephant in my closet that only I can see" and you say, "that's not true", I don't know how you could possibly reconcile with that. My wife has schizophrenia. She could easily gaslight me about her hallucinations if she wanted to. There's no way I can confirm what she is seeing. We both know it isn't real, but I cannot possibly know what she actually sees. I can only take her word for it. This is why Matt doesn't tell people who have "seen Jesus" that they are liars. You'll never get anywhere when you make claims you couldn't possibly be able to back up without your own evidence to validate it.
This was insightful. Even when I was a christian, I wrestled constantly with this. If god is omni this and that, then why pray? Does praying sway this god? When I would ask this question, the most often response I would receive was that "we can't fully understand god." yeah.....I left that cult.
Another well structured production. I am glad you cited Rationality Rules channel. I know you're aware of each other. His execution of logic is excellent. He's helped me make sense of much.
@@lukeriely4468 Didn't they both do an episode or two together on the atheist experience a few years ago ? I'm recalling rationality rules along with cosmic skeptic and another Brit, a female named Rachel? But I'm not sure if Matt was part of this British invasion show or not .
@FoursWithin I think you're correct. I'll look that up. I know all of those channels. Alex O'connor is a great interviewer and skeptic. I am also from England. Thanks 👍
@@lukeriely4468 Yeah Alex is great. So calm and thoughtful as he dismantles bad ideas , bad logic, and awful religion. Do you know Rachel's last name by chance ? I'm curious what she's doing these days as it appears she dropped out as an atheist UA-camr.
@@FoursWithin That would be Rachel Oates - and she'd probably be a bit offended at being referred to as a "female". It would be better to refer to her as a woman
This is actually roughly how a Christian friend of mine justified the awful way Hell supposedly works, and why so many multitudes of souls are doomed to spend eternity in suffering despite God loving us infinitely and him being so very sad that our souls are suffering. The friend essentially painted God as a tragic figure whose nature is fixed. It's not that he doesn't have the power to fix the broken system, it's that he IS the broken system and cannot change his own nature. It's about the only argument that is logically consistent for eternal damnation squaring with a loving, omnipotent God, but man does it paint a bleak picture of reality.
The best analogy to explain an infinite God interacting with a finite and isolated creation is that of a computer scientist booting up a simulation that computes an entire virtual world with autonomous AI agents in a split second. It's a bit messy but I don't have the time to write down my thoughts into more comprehensible language. So bear with me. Of course, a computer scientist does not compare to God because God is both the scientist, energy, and processor simultaneously. An interesting question to ask on the side is how the AI would perceive their creation. On the fundamental level, they are just binary code, energy popping in and out of existence, and they cannot comprehend the physical world outside of their hardware. For the sake of the argument let's assume the scientist has superpowers and that he has access to all the data at once and has all the time in the world to interact with the program to achieve his goal. The scientist can interact inside the simulation by altering certain events so that the program instantly computes the altered reality. The AI would have to interact with every change along the route while the scientist maintains all knowledge because he keeps a constant overview. God acting as the conscious processor would be able to reroute switches inside the processor that immediately rewrite the altered reality, leaving us utterly clueless about the changes that are being made because each of us runs our separate pipeline, our perception of time is useful to God as He interacts with our actions before the playhead of time reaches to this exact moment. The simulation would look like a complex tree, branching off by actions taken by autonomous agents, with God being able to reroute and cut off branches, that immediately reroute into other branches and paths. When God achieves His ultimate goal the playhead of time runs through the tree and we perceive what has transpired. Both our own and God's actions. God is the Life: the program itself. God is the Truth: every recorded interaction in the tree that reached His goal. God is the Way: He is the source of energy running through and altereing the branches that we should follow.
What's funny is this reminds me of Dr. Manhattan from DC Comic. Perfect knowledge of the future was his damnation. He stopped having choices and had to watch the future just play out. He actually shut off that power in the second series because he felt like a choiceless puppet.
Yeah he experienced time all at once, so there technically was no “future” from his perspective. I can’t speak on the second garbage series cause it wasn’t written by Alan Moore himself 🥱😂
Im glad you brought up uncertainty. That is really the crux of the whole problem; the illusion of freewill comes about because of uncertainty and without it there is no freewill. And total omnipotence is impossible because asolute certainty is impossible, due to the recurrsion argument.
Romans 1:20 [20]For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
If I place myself in the shoes of a Christian, I would probably reply: an omniscient God might know what actions will be and knows what his response would be, but it needs to happen in order for it to happen. The fact that he knows what will happen, doesn’t mean he couldn’t choose to do otherwise, he just knew what would be the best course of action. I don’t find this argument really appealing by the way. Most importantly because of Noah’s Ark. if you know you’ll regret making people, because they’re so wicked, why making them in this way in the first place and removing some of the bad desires you yourself would place into them?
And in this hypothetical case, he might just do that. Let’s say we’re in the Matrix or be able to create the Matrix, I’m be convinced that certain people would feel pleasure in torturing virtual beings.
@@scvanderhorst Virtual beings are not sentient. You can morally "torture" them however you like. Morality only concerns how to treat another sentient being.
@@berquintim I hope you will make an evidence based argument instead of just coming in to sell my something I already bought into and gave up. You have a perverted sense of what love is.
@SansDeity Thanks for taking to the time to read and writing a reply Matt. I am sure I can relate to that perverted sense of love you gave up on. I have met many over the top christian hypocrites too. But honestly, you remind me of my friends and family that I love. So I'm quite sincere. I'm from secular Europe where atheism is the norm, so over here, I stand out and I'm the village fool so to speak :p But since you hope for an evidence based argument I would love to hear your thoughts on the following: In my opinion, the human neural network with all of its capabilities is the pinnacle of the obeservable universe, from a naturalistic point of view it took the laws of physics 13.7 billion years to evolve an intelligent consciousness capable of building the large hadron collider and the pantheon in Rome. I'm sure we can agree that the universe exists and that it's fair to say we simply can't know what caused the universe. Since I'm keeping the naturalistic point of view I assume unknown physics are roaming behind the horizon. Since we both agree that physics are able to produce intelligent consciousness over 13.7 billion years, it's fair to assume that unknown physics also produced intelligent consciousness over an infinite "timescale" that dwarfs our 13.7 billion years to a futile microsopic level. Do you assume that the human intelligent consciousness is the first to arise?
I'm glad Matt has brought this topic up as I'd intended to call in to address God's claimed omniscience. There appears to be very little assets online, theistic or secular, that discusses this area. If omniscience is as you defined, then this god is the maximally limited, he is also ultimately responsible for everything, including all the suffering and pain that has (or will) ever exist. Now we may have will, free or otherwise and modal logic supports that we can possess such will even if the creator god is omniscient. However, a god that created us this way always knew what everyone of us would do with that will, which once again, makes him completely responsible for every evil, injustice, inequality etc that has or will ever happen. It also makes this god a monster as he punishes for actions he always knew we'd perform - punishment for its own sake. It also renders prayer obsolete as 'what will be' is what was always going to be. Of course, there are further absurdities, however, I think this on its own is a strong argument that the god as outlined in the Bible, cannot exist.
Yeah, I came to comments here to also note that prayer would be, as you state, "rendered useless". For when god just is, any prayer is simply a pointless action. I also appreciate everything else you expound upon here. Thanks!
Can someone explain to me how logic, modal or otherwise, allows anyone to have free will with an omnipotent, omniscient creator involved? I can't make sense of this idea.
There is also a fundamental question about which model of the universe you're using to allow choices or "what ifs", like a soft or hard deterministic approach or an infinitely branching timeline of choices. There are heavy implications which can call in question whether free will under a hard deterministic view is meaningful at all or the purpose/point of God intervening in his own creation if his actions are meant to preserve a free will even above his own goals (behind commandments and/or worship).
I consider myself a born skeptic. For last 30+ years I’ve always looked for their cool rationality in a confusing world. I think I can make a strong case that Matt is the clearest communicator on skepticism regarding religious belief in the world. In some ways he can exceed Sam Harris, who I consider a gold standard (I’ve followed Sam for 15 years, met him etc)✌️.
@@samsbulldog5718 Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty, and Brandon of Mindshift are my personal 3 bodied trinity Messiah. Sent to save me from bad ideology, bad logic, and the temptation of feel-good guilt & death cults.
He created the initial conditions that eventually led to the creation of that movie, and He knew everything about the movie at the beginning of time. He created his own spoilers.
Since I was about 17, I’ve always visualized the Christian God as being a “record”. Records are stamped with grooves and we, the temporal beings, are forced to ride the grooves. The upcoming grooves may change tracks, may include an awesome solo, or moments of silence, they can be anything in the same way that God is “all powerful”. But God Himself is constrained by His “will”. The pattern of grooves past and the pattern of grooves yet to come. In this way, God can be all knowing and all powerful yet, paradoxically, be even more constrained than the temporal beings that ride upon His grooves.
Most concepts of things existing outside of time and/or space can only start to be coherent ideas if they exist in some form of meta time and/or space, so that they can do things like think or act which necessarily require some sort of progression between states.
@@SNORKYMEDIA Prove what? I'm not stating any facts here, just pointing up one of the standard impossibilities that everyone who cas considered this for more than a moment knows about. It is only those whose brains have been addled by faith who continue to consider this a possibility.
The biblical stories of prophesy deny the existence of, or demonstrates the ineffectiveness of, free will. Jesus tells Peter he'll deny him 3 times. Peter, in response, clearly states his free will decision not to deny Jesus 3 times. He then proceeds to deny Jesus 3 times. This story caused me to create a little thought experiment: The god decides to whisper a "running prophesy" of what you will do from moment to moment. "You'll scratch your knee", "You'll sit in that chair", "You'll say this and that". And no matter how hard you try, no matter how much "free will" you bring to bear, like Peter you will be utterly unable to do other than what the god says you will do. How many seconds will it take for you to realize you're a puppet. That the running prophesy did nothing more than show you the strings that have always been there. The only difference between this scenario and the story of Peter, is that the prophesy is more continuous and immediate, but so what? The main point is the same. The god is the puppetmaster.
I have a will to comment on the green screen light halo in your setup Matt. Is there any way to get rid of it ? Even your beard is green dude! Can you angle the screen to reflect away from you or anything (I know nothing about the issue other than it is so noticeable on your setup and not others) I'll keep watching either way, just putting this out there, again
An interesting window into making sense of omniscience and omnipotence, in my opinion, is to take the relationship between a work of fiction and the author of said fiction. It would be no exaggeration to call the author both omniscient and omnipotent with respect to the fictional world, even though there are some restrictions on the actions of the author. For instance, a story might need to be coherent to actually paint a picture of a fictional world. With this analogy, I think we can answer some of the questions from your video. For example, I've heard authors explain that the characters from their books often act against what the author would like, for example because it's harder to write or because it takes away the happy ending. When you take this to its extreme, the world becomes a "mathematical fiction", where you might desire for a world that fulfills a set of axioms, but running those axioms into each other, you notice that they are actually mutually exclusive, so you have to come up with a world that only approximates what you wanted. This would be my concept of how an omniscient, omnipotent being can feel regret.
Hi Matt, just want to say how much joy it brings me that you talk about God and Jesus as an atheist. You know more scripture chapter/verse than most people who are saved. I will keep you on my prayer list bro love you. P.S. Loving the Moses look 😂🙌✌️
2 points - how do you know what Moses, a mythological character out of some ancient fairy tales, looked like? Matt speaks about god and his godling to shed light on the fact that we have absolutely no good and convincing evidence that they exist, except in the imagination of those who call themselves followers. Bonus point: intercessory prayer, ie: the kind you are referring to, has been studied by both secular and believing entities and found to be as effective as random chance... ie: no better than crossing one's fingers, wishing upon a star, throwing a coin in a well or fountain etc. So why waste the time??
I've been saying that for a long time as well. If they actually define it as "perfect", which I'd say is maximized in every conceivable way. Not to mention also that creation and causation necessarily requires space-time in order to happen in the first place and even be coherent.
@@_Omega_Weapon Agreed. When you come down to it, it's "small" thinking. So, the starting point for the debate needs to be revised. Ask the better question to get the better answer. "Perfect" is for a five-year-old.
The god's supposed omniscience constitutes a list of all the god's actions. Since the god is also supposed to be eternal, unchanging, and uncreated, then so is the list. If the list is uncreated, then the god is not the author. Thus the god is a robot executing a list of instructions from an unknown source.
Matt, could you do a video exploring how the bible constrains God? If something is written in that book, and that book is infallible, then he is bound by its words. Its kind of a half formed thought, but maybe you can toy with it 😊
The apologetic I've heard for this is that god allows himself to appear to change his mind in stories that he knows we'll hear so that we know our actions have meaning and he is merciful / loving / listening / whatever it is that the story is trying to convey. So he didn't really change his mind, he was always going to have that sequence of events, he just allowed it to appear that way to us so we can understand him in more human terms. That appears deceptive to me though. But the biblical god seems fine using "deceptive spirits" to do stuff for him even though he can't lie, so, hopefully they'll get that plot hole corrected in the movie.
I mean it’s one thing to glibly say that but until we can falsify the unfalsifiable that’s too strong a statement to make with any kind of intellectual honesty. While I agree that it seems extremely unlikely, there’s a reason categorical strong atheism is a rare position among philosophically-minded atheists.
@@georgeparkins777 Categorical strong atheism is a rare position among philosophically-minded atheists; but you're talking to one! If you start from a position where god might exist, and then argue it might not, then I can see your difficulty, however, starting from the premise there is no hard evidence of a Bronze-age sky spirit in the first place.... it becomes very much easier.
Still a good pretext to discuss concepts like free will or omniscience, the latter of which to my limited understanding is simply absurd because it would also have to be the equivalent of a Turing-complete machine that solves the halting problem. Among many things which we can't prove there is also lot that we can rule out.
@@caloricphlogistonandthelum4008 As I understand the issue of the halting problem is that logically there isn't a program for a Turing machine that can run checking for all programs (including itself) whether they'll halt or not (it's undecidable). The resolution is that its program eventually too ends up looping or going forever on some program (which implies it can't check its own program for example) or isn't always correct (it always gives a result but contains incorrect results). The equivalent for an omniscient being would be that there are things that they don't know (like about themselves) or there are things they think to be true that are actually wrong, both of which run against the presupposition behind omniscience.
Hey Matt, At least a couple of bible scholars, one was Gordon C. Olsen, go in depth about free will, God changing his (its) mind, eternal now, etc. His perspective is outlined in his book 'The Truth Will Make You Free'. I think his view and others, such as Harry Conn Jr., the 1980s leaders of Agape Force, YWAM, Keith Green's Last Days Ministries, etc, were incorporating the views of the Moral Government theology (derivative of Charles Grandison Finney's works) into their evangelical schools around Tyler Texas. The bottom line is, to skirt the problems with being an omniscient being, they taught God does not know the future except by extrapolation. I'd suggest for anyone challenging the Christian narrative to look into this school of thought. It was the last stronghold for me in the journey on the other side. At least it made more sense than an Eternal Now.
Except that “omniscience by extrapolation” is not how xtians view god. A future cannot be set in stone and free to change. It is a logical contradiction.
@Nick-Nasti The point of my comment, if not clear, was not that it was logical, but that there were (and perhaps still are) a segment of evangelicals who did in-fact believe that. It's a point-of-view I've never heard mentioned on an atheist call-in show. The Texas Lindale/Tyler area was full of them with multiple evangelical mission schools. Olsen and Conn taught that omniscience means knowing what is knowable, and unlike Augustine, they did not believe that the future exists and that the ability to gain knowledge was part of God's character. They believe he observed and acted accordingly as He gained knowledge.
Hi Matt, this is the first time I felt like I need to comment on your videos more than something mild. First, I'm not sure there really is a" biblical God." It feels like because all of these stories are written by different authors at different times needing to fulfill specific needs of those times that there's not one cohesive God. This is not even taking into consideration the Elohim, the Divine council, or anything else within the Jewish Pantheon. Instead, we can just look at how different God is between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and 3. Completely different character. But let's assume that there is one biblical God, and that God is the god that you're describing in the video. If that's the case, couldn't the apologist route just take us back to the beginning, whatever that means, and say that God had made all of these decisions at the beginning. But then it begs the question, if God doesn't have desires, then why do humans exist? I feel like there's a lot more here than my initial brain fart, but I think it's worth consideration.
I don't understand why uncertainty is a necessary component of will generally. If you will something to happen, does it matter whether you are 100% certain you can cause the occurrence? It reminds me of how Stan Lee answered questions like, "who would win, Thor or Iron Man?" He replied with, "the person the script writer wanted to win." It seems like there's still an element of will to it, despite the certainty.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp if you are able to perceive your environment with your mind... you inevitably come to the conclusion that humans are mammals that have acquired the evolutionary ability to think up things... our entire social life is an invented construct... We give ourselves names...(made up)....we have nationalities...(made up)...we belong to religious groups...(made up)....people think up their own social reality ...😳
I think the only option to salvage a mutable god and omniscience would be a a god who knows all possibilities, and chooses the path, collapsing the wave function so to speak… god “chooses” the path through all possibilities. Never mind, the more I think about it an omniscient god would know the final path before the “choice”..
But an omnipotent god could change which path is the true/final one right? He would know the outcome of whatever action he takes and be able to make perfectly informed decisions. Maybe there isn’t 1 final path, but infinite possible timelines based on all different decisions.
@@izaurasali that is sort of my first thought on my solution.. the problem with infinite possibilities all equally real and valid is that you get into the watered down multiverse problem with the super hero genre. Nothing really matters, Batman dies, no problem there is an alternate universe where he is just fine. No stakes. For religion (let’s use Christianity for example) this gets worse because there are an infinite number of universe were Jesus never needed to die for humanity to be forgiven. That’s why I initially imagined a god who could see all future possibilities and made a choice which instantly removed all the other possibilities.. but I realized an omniscient god would know the ultimate chain of choices so it’s not really a solution to Matt’s challenge.
@@i.v.blankenship The ultimate chain based on which goal? Maybe the option where all people are doing tolerably ok is one where nobody is actually doing well in life, and the option where many are well off also lead to many people suffering. Is there an objective way to determine which is better or the ultimate chain of events? Maybe the option that leads to the best outcome for humans is more flawed in other aspects or vice versa. Us not being the highest of gods priorities makes sense with the reality we have when you think of it. Even if God was a prefect being there may not be a perfect choice for the one true reality. (Just a thought experiment, I don’t believe in a god)
Matt, I found a teacher who has been able to present some pretty compelling reasons to believe the Sinai event. His name is Rabbi Lawrence Keleman. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
@@Nick-Nasti I wouldn’t say a scholar was able to fool me. I’m a former Christian in search of truth. It was a compelling case and I can’t necessarily debunk it, but I’m still having a hard time accepting it.
I am evolving from Atheist to Anti-Theist. I do not allow authors from 1,600 years ago to influence me on a supernatural concept that does not make sense. I no longer have a problem saying, "There's no god."
There’s absolutely no way. Not for us or for God. God, it seems, could not have a will. And human will, it seems, under this God, could not be free. The point I often make about God’s non-free will is that he would seem absolutely restricted by his own characteristics. A truly all powerful, all knowing, all loving God would be restricted, it seems to me at least, to doing only things that are infinitely loving. It would have the power and know how for it, and because it is all loving it would do nothing else. And that’s if it “did” anything to anything else at all. For numerous reasons the idea of an actual fully sufficient maximal God creating anything makes absolutely no sense because it would have no needs to meet. But considering that theists believe that there is nothing better that a being could do than love God, and considering God is all-loving, and considering he is definitionally self-sufficient, it would seem the most logically consistent thing within these very rules laid out by theists for this being to do is infinitely and perpetually shower itself with its own love.
some people say that experiencing time is moving through the fourth dimension, so maybe if a god moves through a fifth dimension as time then they would be all knowing about things within the four dimensions which would functionally be the same as an all knowing god.
It’s always amazing to me that anyone claims to know anything about what god is, or what it is capable of, or if it even exists. God is simply a concept made up by human minds.
I've always intuited this about the typical God claims. Out of any two options, God can only ever choose either the least evil or most good choice. Which means God is analogous to a computer program that can't make a choice contrary to its programming. Unless you wish to argue that God can choose to be evil, in which there's no longer any sense in arguing that God is good.
How can anyone speak meaningfully about God? What is omniscience? I've never seen a god, except in effigy. So, how could I or anyone talk about anything such a God might be doing, or thinking, or feeling?
People do talk about what such a god might be doing thinking, or feeling, so that's an answer to "how could I or anyone talk...". But maybe you are calling attention to how no one can come to any useful conclusions about a god. Okay, that's something worth discussing (ironically). Also, "omniscience" is defined in the dictionary so asking here what it means is not useful - you can look it up. Again, maybe you are asking what it might *mean* to be omniscience, not what the word means. Well, this is exactly what Matt is talking about - what does it mean to actually be omniscient; what are the side-effects (or direct effects) of this? It's certainly worth talking about if only to expand our minds to more possibilities.
If a theist wants to refute this they'd say that God says and does things that isn't what he actually wants because the act of saying and doing the wrong thing changes human behavior in such a way that he gets the desired outcome. Sending and then stopping the angel was the plan the whole time, but he couldn't simply say that was the plan or else the plan wouldn't work.
What's occulted through all the religions and ruins is the nature/sacred geometries and sacred numbers. The Bible is full of references to the sacred numbers. 7, 12, 72, 144, 153... 108, 216, 432... 3, 6, 9... 333, 666... The Tree of Life was hidden guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword, key to understand the Tetragrammaton. The structure of the universe is fractal, and holographic. Geometry of physics and light etched in stone. Seems that the ancients understood the unified field. Perhaps that's our language that got scattered. Perhaps we not only knew the unified field, but experienced it in daily life. The aliens built the pyramids my ars. Fok HIS story and the history channel the psychopath rode in on. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the kings horsemen and all the kings men, put the boot to Humpty over and over again. We are not at the peak of our development as the modern civilization. We live in the ruins. A reminiscence is at hand. An awakening, an unveiling. These geometries are like looking into the mirror of what we really are. Fibonacci sequence, Phyllotaxis, Plutonic Solids, Golden Spiral/Metalic Spirals, Flower of Life, Golden Circles, Seed of Life, Mandelbrot Set, Tetractys, Tree of Life/Ankh, Tetragrammaton, Eye of Horus, Nine Code, Vortex Math, Solfeggio Frequencies, Cymatics/Chladni Patterns, Turing Patterns, Zero-point, Sonic Geometry, Music Geometry, I Ching/Yin Yang, Trion Re', E8, Hopf Vibration, Primer Fields, Sir/Shri Yantra, Merkabah, Magic Squares, Precession of the Equinoxes/Great Year, Yuga Cycles, Time Wave Zero... Namaste. In Lak'ech Ala K'in. Tathata. Tatvamasi.
@@RickLambert963 Praise Lord Trump, Better than Sissy Jesus. Praise HIS Manly Golden Wig, and His Manly Bronzer. Praise Ivanka. "She's HOT" - Lord Trump. Praise Him, or ELSE
Interesting. It might be worth while to think of a counter. On first listen I'm wondering if one can play with the outside of time thing. God makes and sets the plan in motion and everything happens at once for God in such a way that it's too late to change it. Maybe one can also add that the big G has to create the knowledge for him to know it. The moment he did, he knew everything and since it's out of thing it just all happened at once. It's flawed but I can defs see a Bill Craig coming up with something like that.
@@Apanblod Then if god can't change his mind, he's not maximally powerful. I can, and do, change my mind, so I am more powerful than a maximally powerful god who can't change his mind.
@@michaelsommers2356 I tend to think that attacking all these omni concepts is a dead end. For me the most reasonable interpretation of some prophet saying "God is all powerful" is that that is a hyperbolic statement, and in fact what he means is "God is really really powerful, much more powerful than anyone else". That avoids most of the contradictions that start with "If God knows everything then..." or "If God can do anything then ..." The real debate lies around why should I believe anything the prophet says?
If I'd been there to ask Moses- "So, who is your god anyway?" & he replied- "I am." ...I would have assumed he was finally coming clean about his manipulative little god grift.
If your idea of a God is just a being with superpowers then you can have infinite gods and they can break their own rules, but if God's are truly Divine and perfect as they are described then they must be gods of whatever they are, always..
Interesting topic. I would reply that God presumably does not have a free will but a perfect will. The distinction is that God isn’t capable of acting contrary to God’s essential character. God’s will is constrained by perfection. God’s actions can be described in terms analogous to our understanding, but it is inappropriate to think of God’s will as free. I think we can rescue libertarian free will for humanity as a similar will to God’s but reduced by magnitude. Human free will is a capacity to constrain our will to the demands of morality. Foreknowledge of human action is a matter of either knowing what our nature is, or knowing what morality constrains our will to act towards. We can replay the universe and it would mostly run out the same way, but in moments when moral choice is introduced, perhaps we can act differently given the same antecedent conditions. The only mechanism that would allow us to break free of determinism is the coupling of a free will with morality.
If god exists in a realm beyond space and time, then that realm will most likely have completely different laws of physics etc. where something like 'will' or 'free will' could be absent.
God can have free will and be unchanging if he decides from the beginning what to do. Since he doesn’t receive any new information, there is no reason for him to ever want to change his mind. He could for whatever reason lie to make us think that his mind can be changed. Maybe this is the story he finds most entertaining (like watching a good movie for the second time), and he doesn’t mind being inconsistent in order to make it happen. For example, when playing the Sims, you can decide from the beginning to change your approach after a while, to be evil, than good and so on. Therefore I don’t think this argument is irrefutable on its own. The problem for theists imo is when they try to attribute all of the omni-qualities combined to their god.
A lot of Christians think that their one god is simpler and easier to understand than having many gods as a polytheist, but it's really not. Polytheists don't have to explain how one god can be perfectly just and merciful, or many of the other things that make the Christian god nonsensical.
This video was an interesting surprise. I lost my faith when I realized that the god of the ontological argument - with its "property of necessary moral perfection" wouldn't have free will, and would have no excuse for giving his children "sinning ability," but it didn't have anything to do with omniscience. Attacks on all fronts.
Yahweh confusedly calling out for Adam and Eve without a hint of anger or knowledge of his children's "horrible transgression" betrays either an inability to see the future or a truly sadistic and cruel sense of humor. Either way, he's the reigning (non-existent) champion of the World's Worst Father competition.
I thought that theologians had replaced All Knowing with Maximally Knowledgeable in order to deal with the logical problems, just like they replaced All Powerful with Maximally Powerful.
Firstly, if one argues that Free Will requires a complete separation from prior causes, because our capacity to have _any_ will at all is contingent upon (at a bare minimum) our own births (which is a prior event), even under the prescribed conditions, we _still_ wouldn't have free will since we wouldn't _exist,_ which means this line of rationale is rendered a fallacy of proving too much. Secondly, most people don't use the term "Free Will" in the literal, libertarian sense anyway; therefore, to define it in such a way so as to advance an argument is rendered a definist's fallacy that can easily dovetail into a strawman argument. Most people use the term "Free Will" synonymously with "agency," and agency certainly does exist. With this understanding, one's Free Will is violated only if what one's desire is violated--regardless of the origin of that desire. I would find it amusing that detractors of Free Will accuse its proponents of trying to define it into existence were it not for the fact that this allegation is intellectually dishonest and demonstrably so. Indeed, words don't have meanings; they have usages, and dictionaries derive the definitions that they provide based on those usages. If one looks at primary entry for the term "Free Will" across a variety of dictionaries for the established convention for the usage of the term "Free Will" one is unlikely to find any implication of a separation from prior causes, the capacity to act without restraint, or any of the other notions advanced its detractors. The conflict between Free Will and determinism only exists because of how _detractors_ define it. "The results [of a 2009 study] suggest that the core of people’s concept of free will is a choice that fulfills one’s desires and is free from internal or external constraints. _No evidence was found for metaphysical assumptions about dualism or indeterminism"_ [emphasis added](Monroe & Malle, 2009) In fact, the sort of libertarian Free Will espoused by John Duns Scotus was not formalized until the 13th century and never really gained much traction; and in fact, as early as Epicurus, both deterministic causality and probabilistic causality were already acknowledged in conjunction with Free Will, as he wrote, "some things happen of necessity, others by chance, and others by our own agency.” Therefore, the situation would better be characterized as detractors attempting to define Free Will _out_ of existence. From Epicurus to the 21st century, if the usage has changed, it's because its _detractors_ have redefined it. Finally, if "Free Will" is defined as, "the freedom to have done differently," this raises the question of, "...to have done differently" _than what?_ And, if the answer to that question is "than what one _did_ (to have taken another action than the action that _was_ taken), this is rendered an unfalsifiable claim because it isn't testable. Ultimately, then, one is left with the prescriptivist argument that "Free Will" is a misnomer. The "does Free Will exist?" debate is a giant nothing burger. If a deity exists and is able to act upon its desires, it has Free Will in the sense that most people who advocate for Free Will actually use the term. [Edit] And, I've yet to see a coherent argument that effectively bridges the gap between foreknowledge of events and _causation of_ those events. I know all sorts of things will happen prior to their respective occurrences, but that does not imply that I am in control of them. That rationale is non-sequitur. Indeed, it is the fallacy of confusing cause and effect, also known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This fallacy occurs when it’s assumed that because one event follows another, the first event must be the cause of the second. If a child drops a ball, I know that it will fall downward toward the Earth; however, it is not my foreknowledge that affects that chain of causation. It is, in fact, the inverse that is true; it is causation that grants me that foreknowledge. [Edit 2] However, this video seems to be more focused on the notion that omniscience precludes uncertainty, that uncertainty is a prerequisite for will (ie, desires and an intent to act upon them), and that, therefore, omniscience necessarily precludes will _at all._ Uncertainty is _not_ a prerequisite for desire and the intent to act on those desires. Desires and intentions can exist independently of uncertainty. I desire to _not_ live forever. I am certain that I _will_ die. I desire to write this text. I am certain that I will do so. My certainty does not impact either my will or my intent to act upon it. The notion that certainty precludes will is question-begging. In fact, without will, actions lack purpose and direction. This would render all of a being's behavior _reactionary_ in the vein of instincts or reflexes. This leads us back to the aforementioned post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, as if a being's behaviors are _reactionary,_ that being's foreknowledge of events cannot also be their *cause.* Thus, it would seem that if anything is a barrier to an entity's will, would be a complete separation _from_ causality (because it's capacity to have a would be contingent on its own existence); however, that limitation would not apply to a being extending into an eternal past or separate from the flow of time. In summary, no, uncertainty is _not_ a prerequisite for will; will is a prerequisite for purposeful action; foreknowledge (even unerring foreknowledge) does not imply causation; and if a being has agency, it has Free Will to the extent that most people argue. This is not intended to demonstrate that any such being exists. Rather, it is intended to demonstrate that the arguments being presented are fallacious. Reference: Monroe, A. E., & Malle, B. F. (2009). To study, not speculate about people’s folk concept of free will. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(2), 211-224.
@JustifiedNonetheless I asked because it was obvious that you don't know by your comment. I hope that I can help. Thank you for admitting that you don't know. Most people just believe those questions are unanswerable. The only barriers to truth are believing that you already have it, or believing truth is unobtainable. Here's my best answers. I am sentient consciousness manifest in holographic fractal dimensionality as energy. I can neither be created or destroyed, only altered in form. We are energy beings, being bamboozled. Spiritualism and materialism are both parts of the veil. Science and physics are about understanding nature/universe. Engineering takes that knowledge and produces technology, that's why our technology mimics nature/universe. What we have produced that mimics best is quantum computers. Life is about the universe has solved for everything. Consciousness is nonlocal to this seemingly solid nonsolidity realm we are calling reality. Ultimately all is energy and space. Consciousness isn't in the physical presence side of atoms, that's the cause of the hard problem of consciousness. The only other place consciousness can reside is in what we call space. Space isn't exactly empty. "There's enough energy in a teacup of space to boil all the oceans of the world." Richard Feynman. Consciousness is in what we call space. We wake up from the delusions of the three fundamental categories of BS (belief/disbelief systems) of theist, atheist, and agnostic to the Maya illusion, and discover that we are "God" as much as anything else in the universe. This universe is connected in a fashion (entanglement) that if there is "God" in it, we are that also. If we are fortunate. According to modern physics it's more accurate to describe us as ghosts or energy beings than humans. Sui generis, one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Spiritualism and materialism are both parts of the veil. We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. A samadhi, satori, nirvana, awakening, enlightenment... isn't achieved by staying stuck in the three fundamental categories of BS. These geometries are like looking into the mirror of what we really are. Fibonacci sequence, Phyllotaxis, Plutonic Solids, Golden Spiral/Metalic Spirals, Flower of Life, Golden Circles, Seed of Life, Mandelbrot Set, Tetractys, Tree of Life/Ankh, Tetragrammaton, Eye of Horus, Nine Code, Vortex Math, Solfeggio Frequencies, Cymatics/Chladni Patterns, Turing Patterns, Zero-point, Sonic Geometry, Music Geometry, I Ching/Yin Yang, Trion Re', E8, Hopf Vibration, Primer Fields, Sir/Shri Yantra, Merkabah, Magic Squares, Precession of the Equinoxes/Great Year, Yuga Cycles, Time Wave Zero... One consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Sui generous perspectives as the universe has solved for everything. One energy connected in a fashion called entanglement. I am sentient consciousness manifest in holographic fractal dimensionality as energy. I can neither be created or destroyed, only altered in form. As above, so below. As within, so without. A grain of sand in the universe, a universe in a grain of sand. All is in everything, everything is in all. I am that I am. I am. Tatvamasi. Namaste. In Lak'ech Ala K'in. Tathata. Shivoham. Ashe.
A god that’s always been predestined to do whatever it’s going to do seems indistinguishable from an impersonal universe where unexplained things just happen sometimes.
I think the unchanging aspect people claim about god is demonstrably false by their own views. For example "Point" A: there was god + no universe "Point" B: there was god + the universe So there was a "change" in this god's actions when it "created" the universe. The quotation marks are there because in conext a point is referring to a point in time, and since creation and causation necessarily requires space-time in order to happen in the first place, it makes it logically absurd to think any agent, no matter how powerful can "act" without time.
Proper answer: no. An imaginary character called 'god' from a fictional storybook, written by humans and based on mythological malarkey and superstitious hogwash does not have free will because imaginary characters don't exist outside of said fictional storybook.
Have you come across the idea of impassibility at all? If God is truly impassible, then how can He have free will or be omniscient? Free will implies the ability to make choices, which involves some form of emotional or rational response. But if God is impassible and can't experience emotions or be affected by anything, how can He make choices or have any kind of will? Plus, omniscience would mean God knows everything, including all potential outcomes and emotional states, which can not be done by an impassible God.
I'm now competing for your new video...yes, I will (partially) reconcile God with free will. First important point: It is sure that God MADE HIS DECISIONS: nothing, no one else has the right to make them in his place. But... 1. the ONLY REASON of an action of deciding is that you do NOT KNOW the outcome of the decision beforehand, this is why you decide! If you already know the outset of the decision, then you do NOT need to decide! But you know that God made his decisions, in other words it means that God - before making his decisions - was NOT OMNISCIENT! 2. When God is omniscient - i.e. He perfectly knows the ONLY FUTURE THAT WILL ACTUALLY COME TRUE - then He loses his free will because that ONE future MUST then come true, else it means God made mistakes in his foreknowledge of the future. But God doesn't make mistakes. Thus, to sum up in this case God has NO FREE WILL any longer. In other words 1. freedom of deciding and 2. knowledge of the ACTUAL future are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Either you are free of deciding and you do not know the future (the future depends on the outcome of your present decision), or you know the future but you aren't free to make any decision any longer because that ONE future MUST come true. From what above you can simply see that God went from the first phase 1 to reach the second phase 2. When entering the second phase 2. EVERYTHING WAS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED: God was happy with all his decisions, the future was known to Him, just needed to come true. Moreover his PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY any longer since his power ALONE was able to carry on all God's actions embedded in that WRITTEN future! When was the phase 1. completed? BEFORE THE START OF THE UNIVERSE. When the universe started God already made everything, this is why Jesus says ("the world has not known you"). Indeed Jesus states that nobody saw, nor knew God. How could God work on his decisions before the start of the universe? God was into a weird divine temporal dimension PEERING INTO HIS FUTURE, reaching and interacting with people of that future. This means that God is able to reach to us, now, from that remote past. In other words NOW our present God-Interlocutor is in that remote past. From our point of view we are able to modify the future with our actions, from God's perpective on the contrary the future is already set in stone, He already made everything. Our relationship with God is thus TEMPORALLY DEPHASED: God already had all his relationships with us before, we have those same relationships now instead. Thus, no real-time relationship with God exists. God is not here now, yet He is present with his words and actions. Since NOBODY is here, yet God is VIRTUALLY here, you say that "God is a spirit".
Your point on "uncertainty is needed for wants and a goal" is wrong. Desire, wants, and goals can all exist in scenarios where the outcome is certain. For example there is a person who wants to continue living. It is their desire and goal to survive. This person takes a boat out into the middle of the ocean by themselves. If they tie an anchor to their body and exit the boat it is certain they will drown, yet they don't because they want to continue living.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
Kind of disappointed the video did not end with "popsicle"
😂
What evidence do you have to prove that it didn't 🧐
The Dillahunty ‘changed his mind’.
Spoiler Alert
I believe it did.....🤣
This has been one of my favourite arguments against most claimed gods, the incompatibility of freewill and omniscience, good to hear some of your views on it.
Came here to same this same thing.
They are incompatible.
I love it, it really gets the brain working! And I love seeing theists struggle with their own self inflicted paradoxes.
I've yet to see a coherent argument that effectively bridges the gap between foreknowledge of events and _causation of_ those events. I know all sorts of things will happen prior to their respective occurrences, but that does not imply that I am in control of them. That rationale is non-sequitur. Indeed, it is a special case of non-sequitur known as the fallacy of confusing cause and effect, also known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This fallacy occurs when it’s assumed that because one event follows another, the first event must be the cause of the second.
If a child drops a ball, I know that it will fall downward toward the Earth; however, it is not my foreknowledge that affects that chain of causation. It is, in fact, the inverse that is true; it is causation that grants me that foreknowledge.
@@JustifiedNonetheless did god create the universe, and does god have a plan?
@@JustifiedNonetheless You will not get any coherent response from anyone on this because Compatibilism takes too long for people here to understand. They will all just claim that you are religious.
At least Odin was subject to fate. He was told about the end of the world and himself, he spent a lot of time looking for knowledge and still was bound by it. Unlike the God of the desert he never claimed to have created our world or even be obnipotent, just liked to fuck with us.
Did he get butthole?
I've always thought the Greek and Norse gods were far more believable than Yahweh. Still ridiculous and obviously man made but less absurd than the omni everything god of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim religions.
@@KurtisRader probably because they reflect more human characteristics
No matter how hard you try, you just can't make the bible make any kind of sense. Love these discussions. Thank you, Matt!
It can make sense as long as you don't assume it's internally consistent or true. But it can't make sense in the Christian worldview.
@@goldenalt3166this is true. it makes so much more sense from an anthropological perspective
Totally. Of course this is precisely *not* they way believers view the bible.
Logic is a b*tch!
Just so we are clear, the video doesn't end with the word popsicle.
God does what his prophets, theologians, priests, rabbis, imams, and religious biographers tell him to do.
God cannot have free will if he is make believe.
You would have to have knowledge of the supernatural to claim God doesn’t exist.
@CollinGerberding It is a claim. When you say you are not convinced of god then you are waiting for those who claim god to fulfill their burden of proof. When you make the claim "god does not exist" then you must present a case in which you have ruled out god in its entirety. Which, in the case of deism, you can argue that someone cannot claim to detect the undetectable, but you cannot claim that you have ruled out the deist god, because the very criteria of a deist god is unfalsifiable since it is "undetectable". I don't know how you falsify the undetectable, just as much as I don't know how you provide evidence for the undetectable. If you pay attention, Matt NEVER claims that deism is impossible, only that it is seemingly irrelevant to our current sense of reality.
So the problem here is that you have to make a criteria to falsify the supernatural across all the cosmos. That is, at our present moment in time, impossible. This isn't moving the goal post, it is handling a separate claim.
If I say, "there's a pink elephant in my closet that only I can see" and you say, "that's not true", I don't know how you could possibly reconcile with that. My wife has schizophrenia. She could easily gaslight me about her hallucinations if she wanted to. There's no way I can confirm what she is seeing. We both know it isn't real, but I cannot possibly know what she actually sees. I can only take her word for it. This is why Matt doesn't tell people who have "seen Jesus" that they are liars. You'll never get anywhere when you make claims you couldn't possibly be able to back up without your own evidence to validate it.
@@TheJoestier You are assuming your conclusion, ie you assume "God" is "supernatural", therefore you assume "God" exists.
This was insightful. Even when I was a christian, I wrestled constantly with this. If god is omni this and that, then why pray? Does praying sway this god? When I would ask this question, the most often response I would receive was that "we can't fully understand god." yeah.....I left that cult.
This is one I've mused on a lot and I'm excited to hear your thoughts, Matt.
This was perfect depiction said so eloquently 💯
Another well structured production.
I am glad you cited Rationality Rules channel. I know you're aware of each other. His execution of logic is excellent. He's helped me make sense of much.
@@lukeriely4468
Didn't they both do an episode or two together on the atheist experience a few years ago ?
I'm recalling rationality rules along with cosmic skeptic and another Brit, a female named Rachel? But I'm not sure if Matt was part of this British invasion show or not .
@FoursWithin I think you're correct. I'll look that up. I know all of those channels. Alex O'connor is a great interviewer and skeptic. I am also from England.
Thanks 👍
@@lukeriely4468
Yeah Alex is great. So calm and thoughtful as he dismantles bad ideas , bad logic, and awful religion.
Do you know Rachel's last name by chance ? I'm curious what she's doing these days as it appears she dropped out as an atheist UA-camr.
@@FoursWithin That would be Rachel Oates - and she'd probably be a bit offended at being referred to as a "female". It would be better to refer to her as a woman
This is actually roughly how a Christian friend of mine justified the awful way Hell supposedly works, and why so many multitudes of souls are doomed to spend eternity in suffering despite God loving us infinitely and him being so very sad that our souls are suffering. The friend essentially painted God as a tragic figure whose nature is fixed. It's not that he doesn't have the power to fix the broken system, it's that he IS the broken system and cannot change his own nature.
It's about the only argument that is logically consistent for eternal damnation squaring with a loving, omnipotent God, but man does it paint a bleak picture of reality.
Paints a bleak picture of your friends imagination.
- I'm so very sad
- My dearest friend, why are you sad?
- Well, I'm sad for what I'm about to do to you!
- ....
At least that would mean you friend can discard all religion and sleep in on Sunday because 'what's going to happen is going happen.'
Thank god it's all made up. 😂
It's a strange sort of omnipotence. It looks oddly similar to impotence.
The best analogy to explain an infinite God interacting with a finite and isolated creation is that of a computer scientist booting up a simulation that computes an entire virtual world with autonomous AI agents in a split second. It's a bit messy but I don't have the time to write down my thoughts into more comprehensible language. So bear with me.
Of course, a computer scientist does not compare to God because God is both the scientist, energy, and processor simultaneously.
An interesting question to ask on the side is how the AI would perceive their creation. On the fundamental level, they are just binary code, energy popping in and out of existence, and they cannot comprehend the physical world outside of their hardware.
For the sake of the argument let's assume the scientist has superpowers and that he has access to all the data at once and has all the time in the world to interact with the program to achieve his goal. The scientist can interact inside the simulation by altering certain events so that the program instantly computes the altered reality. The AI would have to interact with every change along the route while the scientist maintains all knowledge because he keeps a constant overview.
God acting as the conscious processor would be able to reroute switches inside the processor that immediately rewrite the altered reality, leaving us utterly clueless about the changes that are being made because each of us runs our separate pipeline, our perception of time is useful to God as He interacts with our actions before the playhead of time reaches to this exact moment.
The simulation would look like a complex tree, branching off by actions taken by autonomous agents, with God being able to reroute and cut off branches, that immediately reroute into other branches and paths. When God achieves His ultimate goal the playhead of time runs through the tree and we perceive what has transpired. Both our own and God's actions.
God is the Life: the program itself.
God is the Truth: every recorded interaction in the tree that reached His goal.
God is the Way: He is the source of energy running through and altereing the branches that we should follow.
What's funny is this reminds me of Dr. Manhattan from DC Comic. Perfect knowledge of the future was his damnation. He stopped having choices and had to watch the future just play out. He actually shut off that power in the second series because he felt like a choiceless puppet.
Yeah he experienced time all at once, so there technically was no “future” from his perspective. I can’t speak on the second garbage series cause it wasn’t written by Alan Moore himself 🥱😂
Im glad you brought up uncertainty. That is really the crux of the whole problem; the illusion of freewill comes about because of uncertainty and without it there is no freewill. And total omnipotence is impossible because asolute certainty is impossible, due to the recurrsion argument.
Romans 1:20
[20]For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Dang.. What happened to the popsicle!? 😂
Interesting video 👌🏻😊
Also remember when god changed his mind about destroying Nineveh in the book of jonah
If I place myself in the shoes of a Christian, I would probably reply: an omniscient God might know what actions will be and knows what his response would be, but it needs to happen in order for it to happen. The fact that he knows what will happen, doesn’t mean he couldn’t choose to do otherwise, he just knew what would be the best course of action.
I don’t find this argument really appealing by the way. Most importantly because of Noah’s Ark. if you know you’ll regret making people, because they’re so wicked, why making them in this way in the first place and removing some of the bad desires you yourself would place into them?
If he could do otherwise he doesn't really know the future because he can do otherwise to prove himself wrong.
God could know everything and still make the same decisions if he was evil and just viewed the universe as his own personal entertainment.
And in this hypothetical case, he might just do that. Let’s say we’re in the Matrix or be able to create the Matrix, I’m be convinced that certain people would feel pleasure in torturing virtual beings.
@@scvanderhorst Virtual beings are not sentient. You can morally "torture" them however you like. Morality only concerns how to treat another sentient being.
Matt, I hope you will find and accept eternal Life. We love you.
@@berquintim I hope you will make an evidence based argument instead of just coming in to sell my something I already bought into and gave up. You have a perverted sense of what love is.
@SansDeity Thanks for taking to the time to read and writing a reply Matt.
I am sure I can relate to that perverted sense of love you gave up on. I have met many over the top christian hypocrites too. But honestly, you remind me of my friends and family that I love. So I'm quite sincere.
I'm from secular Europe where atheism is the norm, so over here, I stand out and I'm the village fool so to speak :p
But since you hope for an evidence based argument I would love to hear your thoughts on the following:
In my opinion, the human neural network with all of its capabilities is the pinnacle of the obeservable universe, from a naturalistic point of view it took the laws of physics 13.7 billion years to evolve an intelligent consciousness capable of building the large hadron collider and the pantheon in Rome.
I'm sure we can agree that the universe exists and that it's fair to say we simply can't know what caused the universe. Since I'm keeping the naturalistic point of view I assume unknown physics are roaming behind the horizon.
Since we both agree that physics are able to produce intelligent consciousness over 13.7 billion years, it's fair to assume that unknown physics also produced intelligent consciousness over an infinite "timescale" that dwarfs our 13.7 billion years to a futile microsopic level. Do you assume that the human intelligent consciousness is the first to arise?
@berquintim
How does that make sense?
It's different physics right? Why would it lead to the same thing as what current physics has lead to?
I'm glad Matt has brought this topic up as I'd intended to call in to address God's claimed omniscience. There appears to be very little assets online, theistic or secular, that discusses this area.
If omniscience is as you defined, then this god is the maximally limited, he is also ultimately responsible for everything, including all the suffering and pain that has (or will) ever exist. Now we may have will, free or otherwise and modal logic supports that we can possess such will even if the creator god is omniscient. However, a god that created us this way always knew what everyone of us would do with that will, which once again, makes him completely responsible for every evil, injustice, inequality etc that has or will ever happen. It also makes this god a monster as he punishes for actions he always knew we'd perform - punishment for its own sake. It also renders prayer obsolete as 'what will be' is what was always going to be.
Of course, there are further absurdities, however, I think this on its own is a strong argument that the god as outlined in the Bible, cannot exist.
Yeah, I came to comments here to also note that prayer would be, as you state, "rendered useless". For when god just is, any prayer is simply a pointless action.
I also appreciate everything else you expound upon here. Thanks!
Omniscience and free will are incompatible if it includes the future.
Free will requires an indeterminate future.
Can someone explain to me how logic, modal or otherwise, allows anyone to have free will with an omnipotent, omniscient creator involved?
I can't make sense of this idea.
@@frankpulmanns6685Without an experimental method to test "free will" i don't think it makes sense in any case.
There is also a fundamental question about which model of the universe you're using to allow choices or "what ifs", like a soft or hard deterministic approach or an infinitely branching timeline of choices.
There are heavy implications which can call in question whether free will under a hard deterministic view is meaningful at all or the purpose/point of God intervening in his own creation if his actions are meant to preserve a free will even above his own goals (behind commandments and/or worship).
I consider myself a born skeptic. For last 30+ years I’ve always looked for their cool rationality in a confusing world. I think I can make a strong case that Matt is the clearest communicator on skepticism regarding religious belief in the world. In some ways he can exceed Sam Harris, who I consider a gold standard (I’ve followed Sam for 15 years, met him etc)✌️.
@@samsbulldog5718
Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty, and Brandon of Mindshift are my personal
3 bodied trinity Messiah.
Sent to save me from bad ideology, bad logic, and the temptation of feel-good guilt & death cults.
thank you
If god has a good DVD collection, he definitely has Free Willy
He created the initial conditions that eventually led to the creation of that movie, and He knew everything about the movie at the beginning of time. He created his own spoilers.
@@dennish.7708OMG, YES! 😂
@@dennish.7708does satan create the director's cut?
And if he is the moron I think he could be, he has his pants down and his willy is free.
Underrated comment award. 🏅
Oh my god The Beard!
i havent turned in in a logn time
Since I was about 17, I’ve always visualized the Christian God as being a “record”. Records are stamped with grooves and we, the temporal beings, are forced to ride the grooves. The upcoming grooves may change tracks, may include an awesome solo, or moments of silence, they can be anything in the same way that God is “all powerful”. But God Himself is constrained by His “will”. The pattern of grooves past and the pattern of grooves yet to come. In this way, God can be all knowing and all powerful yet, paradoxically, be even more constrained than the temporal beings that ride upon His grooves.
If god does not exist in time he can't have free will, because that implies a temporal existence.
Most concepts of things existing outside of time and/or space can only start to be coherent ideas if they exist in some form of meta time and/or space, so that they can do things like think or act which necessarily require some sort of progression between states.
love to see you prove any of this....
@@SNORKYMEDIA Prove what? I'm not stating any facts here, just pointing up one of the standard impossibilities that everyone who cas considered this for more than a moment knows about. It is only those whose brains have been addled by faith who continue to consider this a possibility.
@@TestTestGo Also known as special pleading.
The biblical stories of prophesy deny the existence of, or demonstrates the ineffectiveness of, free will. Jesus tells Peter he'll deny him 3 times. Peter, in response, clearly states his free will decision not to deny Jesus 3 times. He then proceeds to deny Jesus 3 times.
This story caused me to create a little thought experiment: The god decides to whisper a "running prophesy" of what you will do from moment to moment. "You'll scratch your knee", "You'll sit in that chair", "You'll say this and that". And no matter how hard you try, no matter how much "free will" you bring to bear, like Peter you will be utterly unable to do other than what the god says you will do.
How many seconds will it take for you to realize you're a puppet. That the running prophesy did nothing more than show you the strings that have always been there. The only difference between this scenario and the story of Peter, is that the prophesy is more continuous and immediate, but so what? The main point is the same. The god is the puppetmaster.
I have a will to comment on the green screen light halo in your setup Matt. Is there any way to get rid of it ? Even your beard is green dude! Can you angle the screen to reflect away from you or anything (I know nothing about the issue other than it is so noticeable on your setup and not others) I'll keep watching either way, just putting this out there, again
An interesting window into making sense of omniscience and omnipotence, in my opinion, is to take the relationship between a work of fiction and the author of said fiction. It would be no exaggeration to call the author both omniscient and omnipotent with respect to the fictional world, even though there are some restrictions on the actions of the author. For instance, a story might need to be coherent to actually paint a picture of a fictional world.
With this analogy, I think we can answer some of the questions from your video. For example, I've heard authors explain that the characters from their books often act against what the author would like, for example because it's harder to write or because it takes away the happy ending.
When you take this to its extreme, the world becomes a "mathematical fiction", where you might desire for a world that fulfills a set of axioms, but running those axioms into each other, you notice that they are actually mutually exclusive, so you have to come up with a world that only approximates what you wanted.
This would be my concept of how an omniscient, omnipotent being can feel regret.
"Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and enjoy a popsicle!"
I am unreasonably happy about the mention of Popeye and the MCU. 😂
I expected the video to end with, "Alright, now I am going to go get a popsicle."
The video was worth it for the singing ...
Hi Matt, just want to say how much joy it brings me that you talk about God and Jesus as an atheist. You know more scripture chapter/verse than most people who are saved. I will keep you on my prayer list bro love you.
P.S. Loving the Moses look 😂🙌✌️
2 points - how do you know what Moses, a mythological character out of some ancient fairy tales, looked like? Matt speaks about god and his godling to shed light on the fact that we have absolutely no good and convincing evidence that they exist, except in the imagination of those who call themselves followers. Bonus point: intercessory prayer, ie: the kind you are referring to, has been studied by both secular and believing entities and found to be as effective as random chance... ie: no better than crossing one's fingers, wishing upon a star, throwing a coin in a well or fountain etc. So why waste the time??
A perfect being does not create. It's perfect and has no need or wants, so maybe it's bottom-up rather than top-down.
I've been saying that for a long time as well. If they actually define it as "perfect", which I'd say is maximized in every conceivable way.
Not to mention also that creation and causation necessarily requires space-time in order to happen in the first place and even be coherent.
@@_Omega_Weapon Agreed. When you come down to it, it's "small" thinking. So, the starting point for the debate needs to be revised. Ask the better question to get the better answer. "Perfect" is for a five-year-old.
A perfect being wouldn’t regret it’s creation and flood the earth to destroy all including innocence.
An Infinite Being, having no Outside, can have no Other which it can choose to be - or not to be.
love how you say "an infinite being" like one existed.
What is the god model in Slay the Princess?
i have struggled with this quite a bit
I was hoping he would say popsicle at the end!
If God is omniscient, does he know what he will choose tomorrow? If so, he is not free.
The god's supposed omniscience constitutes a list of all the god's actions.
Since the god is also supposed to be eternal, unchanging, and uncreated, then so is the list.
If the list is uncreated, then the god is not the author.
Thus the god is a robot executing a list of instructions from an unknown source.
One extra thought I have is:
God is perfect so he HAS to take the best decision every single time. There is no choice involved
You really aged yourself with that Popeye reference 😅
Just busting your balls
Matt, could you do a video exploring how the bible constrains God? If something is written in that book, and that book is infallible, then he is bound by its words. Its kind of a half formed thought, but maybe you can toy with it 😊
Matt's mix tape drops tomorrow at 12:01 P.M. CST
On Ronco for just $ 12:99. Hurry so you don't miss out.
Please allow 4 to 6 weeks for shipping.
God's free will is the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object :)
People are free to will a god.
TMM, here on YT, has an interesting question about free will:
Is free neither determined, nor random? Does that make any sense? 🤫
The apologetic I've heard for this is that god allows himself to appear to change his mind in stories that he knows we'll hear so that we know our actions have meaning and he is merciful / loving / listening / whatever it is that the story is trying to convey. So he didn't really change his mind, he was always going to have that sequence of events, he just allowed it to appear that way to us so we can understand him in more human terms. That appears deceptive to me though. But the biblical god seems fine using "deceptive spirits" to do stuff for him even though he can't lie, so, hopefully they'll get that plot hole corrected in the movie.
This whole thought process has to start with the rather fanciful idea that there is some supernatural being in the first place... and there isn't.
I mean it’s one thing to glibly say that but until we can falsify the unfalsifiable that’s too strong a statement to make with any kind of intellectual honesty. While I agree that it seems extremely unlikely, there’s a reason categorical strong atheism is a rare position among philosophically-minded atheists.
@@georgeparkins777 Categorical strong atheism is a rare position among philosophically-minded atheists; but you're talking to one!
If you start from a position where god might exist, and then argue it might not, then I can see your difficulty, however, starting from the premise there is no hard evidence of a Bronze-age sky spirit in the first place.... it becomes very much easier.
Still a good pretext to discuss concepts like free will or omniscience, the latter of which to my limited understanding is simply absurd because it would also have to be the equivalent of a Turing-complete machine that solves the halting problem.
Among many things which we can't prove there is also lot that we can rule out.
@@NewNecro You're right but, as you note, a Turing machine would do the job just as well.
@@caloricphlogistonandthelum4008 As I understand the issue of the halting problem is that logically there isn't a program for a Turing machine that can run checking for all programs (including itself) whether they'll halt or not (it's undecidable). The resolution is that its program eventually too ends up looping or going forever on some program (which implies it can't check its own program for example) or isn't always correct (it always gives a result but contains incorrect results).
The equivalent for an omniscient being would be that there are things that they don't know (like about themselves) or there are things they think to be true that are actually wrong, both of which run against the presupposition behind omniscience.
Hey Matt, At least a couple of bible scholars, one was Gordon C. Olsen, go in depth about free will, God changing his (its) mind, eternal now, etc. His perspective is outlined in his book 'The Truth Will Make You Free'. I think his view and others, such as Harry Conn Jr., the 1980s leaders of Agape Force, YWAM, Keith Green's Last Days Ministries, etc, were incorporating the views of the Moral Government theology (derivative of Charles Grandison Finney's works) into their evangelical schools around Tyler Texas. The bottom line is, to skirt the problems with being an omniscient being, they taught God does not know the future except by extrapolation. I'd suggest for anyone challenging the Christian narrative to look into this school of thought. It was the last stronghold for me in the journey on the other side. At least it made more sense than an Eternal Now.
Except that “omniscience by extrapolation” is not how xtians view god.
A future cannot be set in stone and free to change. It is a logical contradiction.
@Nick-Nasti The point of my comment, if not clear, was not that it was logical, but that there were (and perhaps still are) a segment of evangelicals who did in-fact believe that. It's a point-of-view I've never heard mentioned on an atheist call-in show. The Texas Lindale/Tyler area was full of them with multiple evangelical mission schools. Olsen and Conn taught that omniscience means knowing what is knowable, and unlike Augustine, they did not believe that the future exists and that the ability to gain knowledge was part of God's character. They believe he observed and acted accordingly as He gained knowledge.
❤
Hi Matt, this is the first time I felt like I need to comment on your videos more than something mild. First, I'm not sure there really is a" biblical God." It feels like because all of these stories are written by different authors at different times needing to fulfill specific needs of those times that there's not one cohesive God. This is not even taking into consideration the Elohim, the Divine council, or anything else within the Jewish Pantheon. Instead, we can just look at how different God is between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and 3. Completely different character. But let's assume that there is one biblical God, and that God is the god that you're describing in the video. If that's the case, couldn't the apologist route just take us back to the beginning, whatever that means, and say that God had made all of these decisions at the beginning. But then it begs the question, if God doesn't have desires, then why do humans exist? I feel like there's a lot more here than my initial brain fart, but I think it's worth consideration.
I was sure the video would end with Matt saying popsicle
I don't understand why uncertainty is a necessary component of will generally. If you will something to happen, does it matter whether you are 100% certain you can cause the occurrence?
It reminds me of how Stan Lee answered questions like, "who would win, Thor or Iron Man?" He replied with, "the person the script writer wanted to win." It seems like there's still an element of will to it, despite the certainty.
You...are the caretaker. You've ALWAYS been the caretaker.
God has no free will...because he is a construct of our thoughts...he can only do what believers think up...🙄☝️.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp
if you are able to perceive your environment with your mind...
you inevitably come to the conclusion that humans are mammals that have acquired the evolutionary ability to think up things... our entire social life is an invented construct...
We give ourselves names...(made up)....we have nationalities...(made up)...we belong to religious groups...(made up)....people think up their own social reality ...😳
I think the only option to salvage a mutable god and omniscience would be a a god who knows all possibilities, and chooses the path, collapsing the wave function so to speak… god “chooses” the path through all possibilities. Never mind, the more I think about it an omniscient god would know the final path before the “choice”..
But an omnipotent god could change which path is the true/final one right? He would know the outcome of whatever action he takes and be able to make perfectly informed decisions. Maybe there isn’t 1 final path, but infinite possible timelines based on all different decisions.
@@izaurasali that is sort of my first thought on my solution.. the problem with infinite possibilities all equally real and valid is that you get into the watered down multiverse problem with the super hero genre. Nothing really matters, Batman dies, no problem there is an alternate universe where he is just fine. No stakes. For religion (let’s use Christianity for example) this gets worse because there are an infinite number of universe were Jesus never needed to die for humanity to be forgiven.
That’s why I initially imagined a god who could see all future possibilities and made a choice which instantly removed all the other possibilities.. but I realized an omniscient god would know the ultimate chain of choices so it’s not really a solution to Matt’s challenge.
@@i.v.blankenship The ultimate chain based on which goal? Maybe the option where all people are doing tolerably ok is one where nobody is actually doing well in life, and the option where many are well off also lead to many people suffering. Is there an objective way to determine which is better or the ultimate chain of events? Maybe the option that leads to the best outcome for humans is more flawed in other aspects or vice versa. Us not being the highest of gods priorities makes sense with the reality we have when you think of it. Even if God was a prefect being there may not be a perfect choice for the one true reality. (Just a thought experiment, I don’t believe in a god)
Why oh why would you fail to end the video with the word?! It was right there!
I was hoping he would end the video with "popsicle".
Matt, I found a teacher who has been able to present some pretty compelling reasons to believe the Sinai event. His name is Rabbi Lawrence Keleman. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
What're his claims ?
I think what you might have mrant is “a scholar was able to fool me”.
@@Nick-Nasti I wouldn’t say a scholar was able to fool me. I’m a former Christian in search of truth. It was a compelling case and I can’t necessarily debunk it, but I’m still having a hard time accepting it.
I am evolving from Atheist to Anti-Theist. I do not allow authors from 1,600 years ago to influence me on a supernatural concept that does not make sense. I no longer have a problem saying, "There's no god."
At 4:19 I went to the end of the video to check if Matt had used the word "popsicle". Guess what...
Love the Popeye reference
There’s absolutely no way. Not for us or for God. God, it seems, could not have a will. And human will, it seems, under this God, could not be free.
The point I often make about God’s non-free will is that he would seem absolutely restricted by his own characteristics. A truly all powerful, all knowing, all loving God would be restricted, it seems to me at least, to doing only things that are infinitely loving. It would have the power and know how for it, and because it is all loving it would do nothing else.
And that’s if it “did” anything to anything else at all. For numerous reasons the idea of an actual fully sufficient maximal God creating anything makes absolutely no sense because it would have no needs to meet. But considering that theists believe that there is nothing better that a being could do than love God, and considering God is all-loving, and considering he is definitionally self-sufficient, it would seem the most logically consistent thing within these very rules laid out by theists for this being to do is infinitely and perpetually shower itself with its own love.
Next thing you know God's like, pssst...and you look over and he's breaking out his stash of classic Rush albums...
I thought you were going to say stash and bong.😮😅
some people say that experiencing time is moving through the fourth dimension, so maybe if a god moves through a fifth dimension as time then they would be all knowing about things within the four dimensions which would functionally be the same as an all knowing god.
It’s always amazing to me that anyone claims to know anything about what god is, or what it is capable of, or if it even exists. God is simply a concept made up by human minds.
I've always intuited this about the typical God claims. Out of any two options, God can only ever choose either the least evil or most good choice. Which means God is analogous to a computer program that can't make a choice contrary to its programming. Unless you wish to argue that God can choose to be evil, in which there's no longer any sense in arguing that God is good.
How can anyone speak meaningfully about God? What is omniscience? I've never seen a god, except in effigy. So, how could I or anyone talk about anything such a God might be doing, or thinking, or feeling?
People do talk about what such a god might be doing thinking, or feeling, so that's an answer to "how could I or anyone talk...". But maybe you are calling attention to how no one can come to any useful conclusions about a god. Okay, that's something worth discussing (ironically).
Also, "omniscience" is defined in the dictionary so asking here what it means is not useful - you can look it up. Again, maybe you are asking what it might *mean* to be omniscience, not what the word means. Well, this is exactly what Matt is talking about - what does it mean to actually be omniscient; what are the side-effects (or direct effects) of this? It's certainly worth talking about if only to expand our minds to more possibilities.
If a theist wants to refute this they'd say that God says and does things that isn't what he actually wants because the act of saying and doing the wrong thing changes human behavior in such a way that he gets the desired outcome. Sending and then stopping the angel was the plan the whole time, but he couldn't simply say that was the plan or else the plan wouldn't work.
The buy-bull is a lousy comic book collection without pictures.
What's occulted through all the religions and ruins is the nature/sacred geometries and sacred numbers. The Bible is full of references to the sacred numbers. 7, 12, 72, 144, 153... 108, 216, 432... 3, 6, 9... 333, 666... The Tree of Life was hidden guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword, key to understand the Tetragrammaton. The structure of the universe is fractal, and holographic. Geometry of physics and light etched in stone. Seems that the ancients understood the unified field. Perhaps that's our language that got scattered. Perhaps we not only knew the unified field, but experienced it in daily life. The aliens built the pyramids my ars. Fok HIS story and the history channel the psychopath rode in on. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the kings horsemen and all the kings men, put the boot to Humpty over and over again. We are not at the peak of our development as the modern civilization. We live in the ruins. A reminiscence is at hand. An awakening, an unveiling.
These geometries are like looking into the mirror of what we really are. Fibonacci sequence, Phyllotaxis, Plutonic Solids, Golden Spiral/Metalic Spirals, Flower of Life, Golden Circles, Seed of Life, Mandelbrot Set, Tetractys, Tree of Life/Ankh, Tetragrammaton, Eye of Horus, Nine Code, Vortex Math, Solfeggio Frequencies, Cymatics/Chladni Patterns, Turing Patterns, Zero-point, Sonic Geometry, Music Geometry, I Ching/Yin Yang, Trion Re', E8, Hopf Vibration, Primer Fields, Sir/Shri Yantra, Merkabah, Magic Squares, Precession of the Equinoxes/Great Year, Yuga Cycles, Time Wave Zero...
Namaste. In Lak'ech Ala K'in. Tathata. Tatvamasi.
@RickLambert963 TLDR past your first sentence. Obviously, it's just another flavor of superstitious nonsense.
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 Identify as a Dodo flying off a cliff next.
@@RickLambert963 What happened to your silly superstitious nonsense, cupcake? Did it fly off the cliff with you?
@@RickLambert963 Praise Lord Trump, Better than Sissy Jesus. Praise HIS Manly Golden Wig, and His Manly Bronzer. Praise Ivanka. "She's HOT" - Lord Trump. Praise Him, or ELSE
Interesting. It might be worth while to think of a counter. On first listen I'm wondering if one can play with the outside of time thing. God makes and sets the plan in motion and everything happens at once for God in such a way that it's too late to change it.
Maybe one can also add that the big G has to create the knowledge for him to know it. The moment he did, he knew everything and since it's out of thing it just all happened at once. It's flawed but I can defs see a Bill Craig coming up with something like that.
Did they come up with an answer?
If god can't change his mind, then he's not omnipotent.
If God can change his mind, then he's not omnicient.
I think most theologians nowadays have abandoned the idea that God is omnipotent. Rather they seem to hold to that God is maximally powerful.
@@Apanblod Then if god can't change his mind, he's not maximally powerful. I can, and do, change my mind, so I am more powerful than a maximally powerful god who can't change his mind.
@@michaelsommers2356 I tend to think that attacking all these omni concepts is a dead end. For me the most reasonable interpretation of some prophet saying "God is all powerful" is that that is a hyperbolic statement, and in fact what he means is "God is really really powerful, much more powerful than anyone else". That avoids most of the contradictions that start with "If God knows everything then..." or "If God can do anything then ..."
The real debate lies around why should I believe anything the prophet says?
If I'd been there to ask Moses- "So, who is your god anyway?" & he replied- "I am." ...I would have assumed he was finally coming clean about his manipulative little god grift.
If your idea of a God is just a being with superpowers then you can have infinite gods and they can break their own rules, but if God's are truly Divine and perfect as they are described then they must be gods of whatever they are, always..
With god, nothing is impopsicle!
Interesting topic. I would reply that God presumably does not have a free will but a perfect will. The distinction is that God isn’t capable of acting contrary to God’s essential character. God’s will is constrained by perfection. God’s actions can be described in terms analogous to our understanding, but it is inappropriate to think of God’s will as free. I think we can rescue libertarian free will for humanity as a similar will to God’s but reduced by magnitude. Human free will is a capacity to constrain our will to the demands of morality. Foreknowledge of human action is a matter of either knowing what our nature is, or knowing what morality constrains our will to act towards. We can replay the universe and it would mostly run out the same way, but in moments when moral choice is introduced, perhaps we can act differently given the same antecedent conditions. The only mechanism that would allow us to break free of determinism is the coupling of a free will with morality.
If god exists in a realm beyond space and time, then that realm will most likely have completely different laws of physics etc. where something like 'will' or 'free will' could be absent.
God can have free will and be unchanging if he decides from the beginning what to do. Since he doesn’t receive any new information, there is no reason for him to ever want to change his mind. He could for whatever reason lie to make us think that his mind can be changed. Maybe this is the story he finds most entertaining (like watching a good movie for the second time), and he doesn’t mind being inconsistent in order to make it happen. For example, when playing the Sims, you can decide from the beginning to change your approach after a while, to be evil, than good and so on. Therefore I don’t think this argument is irrefutable on its own. The problem for theists imo is when they try to attribute all of the omni-qualities combined to their god.
A lot of Christians think that their one god is simpler and easier to understand than having many gods as a polytheist, but it's really not. Polytheists don't have to explain how one god can be perfectly just and merciful, or many of the other things that make the Christian god nonsensical.
a dynamic god would live in something he could not made the rule of, meaning that god requires another god get created, turtles all the way down.
This video was an interesting surprise. I lost my faith when I realized that the god of the ontological argument - with its "property of necessary moral perfection" wouldn't have free will, and would have no excuse for giving his children "sinning ability," but it didn't have anything to do with omniscience. Attacks on all fronts.
I'm disappointed you didn't end the video with the word "Popsicle".
Yahweh confusedly calling out for Adam and Eve without a hint of anger or knowledge of his children's "horrible transgression" betrays either an inability to see the future or a truly sadistic and cruel sense of humor.
Either way, he's the reigning (non-existent) champion of the World's Worst Father competition.
I thought that theologians had replaced All Knowing with Maximally Knowledgeable in order to deal with the logical problems, just like they replaced All Powerful with Maximally Powerful.
Firstly, if one argues that Free Will requires a complete separation from prior causes, because our capacity to have _any_ will at all is contingent upon (at a bare minimum) our own births (which is a prior event), even under the prescribed conditions, we _still_ wouldn't have free will since we wouldn't _exist,_ which means this line of rationale is rendered a fallacy of proving too much.
Secondly, most people don't use the term "Free Will" in the literal, libertarian sense anyway; therefore, to define it in such a way so as to advance an argument is rendered a definist's fallacy that can easily dovetail into a strawman argument. Most people use the term "Free Will" synonymously with "agency," and agency certainly does exist. With this understanding, one's Free Will is violated only if what one's desire is violated--regardless of the origin of that desire. I would find it amusing that detractors of Free Will accuse its proponents of trying to define it into existence were it not for the fact that this allegation is intellectually dishonest and demonstrably so. Indeed, words don't have meanings; they have usages, and dictionaries derive the definitions that they provide based on those usages. If one looks at primary entry for the term "Free Will" across a variety of dictionaries for the established convention for the usage of the term "Free Will" one is unlikely to find any implication of a separation from prior causes, the capacity to act without restraint, or any of the other notions advanced its detractors. The conflict between Free Will and determinism only exists because of how _detractors_ define it. "The results [of a 2009 study] suggest that the core of people’s concept of free will is a choice that fulfills one’s desires and is free from internal or external constraints. _No evidence was found for metaphysical assumptions about dualism or indeterminism"_ [emphasis added](Monroe & Malle, 2009)
In fact, the sort of libertarian Free Will espoused by John Duns Scotus was not formalized until the 13th century and never really gained much traction; and in fact, as early as Epicurus, both deterministic causality and probabilistic causality were already acknowledged in conjunction with Free Will, as he wrote, "some things happen of necessity, others by chance, and others by our own agency.” Therefore, the situation would better be characterized as detractors attempting to define Free Will _out_ of existence. From Epicurus to the 21st century, if the usage has changed, it's because its _detractors_ have redefined it.
Finally, if "Free Will" is defined as, "the freedom to have done differently," this raises the question of, "...to have done differently" _than what?_ And, if the answer to that question is "than what one _did_ (to have taken another action than the action that _was_ taken), this is rendered an unfalsifiable claim because it isn't testable.
Ultimately, then, one is left with the prescriptivist argument that "Free Will" is a misnomer. The "does Free Will exist?" debate is a giant nothing burger.
If a deity exists and is able to act upon its desires, it has Free Will in the sense that most people who advocate for Free Will actually use the term.
[Edit]
And, I've yet to see a coherent argument that effectively bridges the gap between foreknowledge of events and _causation of_ those events. I know all sorts of things will happen prior to their respective occurrences, but that does not imply that I am in control of them. That rationale is non-sequitur. Indeed, it is the fallacy of confusing cause and effect, also known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This fallacy occurs when it’s assumed that because one event follows another, the first event must be the cause of the second.
If a child drops a ball, I know that it will fall downward toward the Earth; however, it is not my foreknowledge that affects that chain of causation. It is, in fact, the inverse that is true; it is causation that grants me that foreknowledge.
[Edit 2]
However, this video seems to be more focused on the notion that omniscience precludes uncertainty, that uncertainty is a prerequisite for will (ie, desires and an intent to act upon them), and that, therefore, omniscience necessarily precludes will _at all._
Uncertainty is _not_ a prerequisite for desire and the intent to act on those desires. Desires and intentions can exist independently of uncertainty. I desire to _not_ live forever. I am certain that I _will_ die. I desire to write this text. I am certain that I will do so. My certainty does not impact either my will or my intent to act upon it. The notion that certainty precludes will is question-begging.
In fact, without will, actions lack purpose and direction. This would render all of a being's behavior _reactionary_ in the vein of instincts or reflexes. This leads us back to the aforementioned post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, as if a being's behaviors are _reactionary,_ that being's foreknowledge of events cannot also be their *cause.* Thus, it would seem that if anything is a barrier to an entity's will, would be a complete separation _from_ causality (because it's capacity to have a would be contingent on its own existence); however, that limitation would not apply to a being extending into an eternal past or separate from the flow of time.
In summary, no, uncertainty is _not_ a prerequisite for will; will is a prerequisite for purposeful action; foreknowledge (even unerring foreknowledge) does not imply causation; and if a being has agency, it has Free Will to the extent that most people argue. This is not intended to demonstrate that any such being exists. Rather, it is intended to demonstrate that the arguments being presented are fallacious.
Reference:
Monroe, A. E., & Malle, B. F. (2009). To study, not speculate about people’s folk concept of free will. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(2), 211-224.
What are you? What is life about? Where is consciousness?
l@@RickLambert963
I don't know. Where is the relevance in your queries?
@JustifiedNonetheless I asked because it was obvious that you don't know by your comment. I hope that I can help. Thank you for admitting that you don't know. Most people just believe those questions are unanswerable. The only barriers to truth are believing that you already have it, or believing truth is unobtainable. Here's my best answers.
I am sentient consciousness manifest in holographic fractal dimensionality as energy. I can neither be created or destroyed, only altered in form. We are energy beings, being bamboozled. Spiritualism and materialism are both parts of the veil.
Science and physics are about understanding nature/universe. Engineering takes that knowledge and produces technology, that's why our technology mimics nature/universe. What we have produced that mimics best is quantum computers. Life is about the universe has solved for everything.
Consciousness is nonlocal to this seemingly solid nonsolidity realm we are calling reality. Ultimately all is energy and space. Consciousness isn't in the physical presence side of atoms, that's the cause of the hard problem of consciousness. The only other place consciousness can reside is in what we call space. Space isn't exactly empty. "There's enough energy in a teacup of space to boil all the oceans of the world." Richard Feynman. Consciousness is in what we call space.
We wake up from the delusions of the three fundamental categories of BS (belief/disbelief systems) of theist, atheist, and agnostic to the Maya illusion, and discover that we are "God" as much as anything else in the universe. This universe is connected in a fashion (entanglement) that if there is "God" in it, we are that also. If we are fortunate. According to modern physics it's more accurate to describe us as ghosts or energy beings than humans. Sui generis, one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Spiritualism and materialism are both parts of the veil. We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. A samadhi, satori, nirvana, awakening, enlightenment... isn't achieved by staying stuck in the three fundamental categories of BS.
These geometries are like looking into the mirror of what we really are. Fibonacci sequence, Phyllotaxis, Plutonic Solids, Golden Spiral/Metalic Spirals, Flower of Life, Golden Circles, Seed of Life, Mandelbrot Set, Tetractys, Tree of Life/Ankh, Tetragrammaton, Eye of Horus, Nine Code, Vortex Math, Solfeggio Frequencies, Cymatics/Chladni Patterns, Turing Patterns, Zero-point, Sonic Geometry, Music Geometry, I Ching/Yin Yang, Trion Re', E8, Hopf Vibration, Primer Fields, Sir/Shri Yantra, Merkabah, Magic Squares, Precession of the Equinoxes/Great Year, Yuga Cycles, Time Wave Zero...
One consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Sui generous perspectives as the universe has solved for everything. One energy connected in a fashion called entanglement. I am sentient consciousness manifest in holographic fractal dimensionality as energy. I can neither be created or destroyed, only altered in form. As above, so below. As within, so without. A grain of sand in the universe, a universe in a grain of sand. All is in everything, everything is in all. I am that I am. I am. Tatvamasi.
Namaste. In Lak'ech Ala K'in. Tathata. Shivoham. Ashe.
A god that’s always been predestined to do whatever it’s going to do seems indistinguishable from an impersonal universe where unexplained things just happen sometimes.
Where's my popsicle?
I think the unchanging aspect people claim about god is demonstrably false by their own views. For example
"Point" A: there was god + no universe
"Point" B: there was god + the universe
So there was a "change" in this god's actions when it "created" the universe.
The quotation marks are there because in conext a point is referring to a point in time, and since creation and causation necessarily requires space-time in order to happen in the first place, it makes it logically absurd to think any agent, no matter how powerful can "act" without time.
If God is omniscient, only God can have freewill! Though you get into a bizarre cart before the horse argument...
Proper answer: no.
An imaginary character called 'god' from a fictional storybook, written by humans and based on mythological malarkey and superstitious hogwash does not have free will because imaginary characters don't exist outside of said fictional storybook.
exactly, that's why i think poly-theistic makes much more sence
Uh, no.
God in this scenario reminds me of the aliens from Arrival
God is a big black woman named Big Mama. I saw her on my trip to outer space. Signed, Major Tom.
Have you come across the idea of impassibility at all?
If God is truly impassible, then how can He have free will or be omniscient?
Free will implies the ability to make choices, which involves some form of emotional or rational response. But if God is impassible and can't experience emotions or be affected by anything, how can He make choices or have any kind of will?
Plus, omniscience would mean God knows everything, including all potential outcomes and emotional states, which can not be done by an impassible God.
I would like 2 c a Matt Dillahunty atheist teir list
I'm now competing for your new video...yes, I will (partially) reconcile God with free will.
First important point:
It is sure that God MADE HIS DECISIONS: nothing, no one else has the right to make them in his place. But...
1. the ONLY REASON of an action of deciding is that you do NOT KNOW the outcome of the decision beforehand, this is why you decide! If you already know the outset of the decision, then you do NOT need to decide! But you know that God made his decisions, in other words it means that God - before making his decisions - was NOT OMNISCIENT!
2. When God is omniscient - i.e. He perfectly knows the ONLY FUTURE THAT WILL ACTUALLY COME TRUE - then He loses his free will because that ONE future MUST then come true, else it means God made mistakes in his foreknowledge of the future. But God doesn't make mistakes. Thus, to sum up in this case God has NO FREE WILL any longer.
In other words 1. freedom of deciding and 2. knowledge of the ACTUAL future are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Either you are free of deciding and you do not know the future (the future depends on the outcome of your present decision), or you know the future but you aren't free to make any decision any longer because that ONE future MUST come true.
From what above you can simply see that God went from the first phase 1 to reach the second phase 2. When entering the second phase 2. EVERYTHING WAS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED: God was happy with all his decisions, the future was known to Him, just needed to come true. Moreover his PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY any longer since his power ALONE was able to carry on all God's actions embedded in that WRITTEN future!
When was the phase 1. completed? BEFORE THE START OF THE UNIVERSE. When the universe started God already made everything, this is why Jesus says ("the world has not known you"). Indeed Jesus states that nobody saw, nor knew God. How could God work on his decisions before the start of the universe? God was into a weird divine temporal dimension PEERING INTO HIS FUTURE, reaching and interacting with people of that future. This means that God is able to reach to us, now, from that remote past. In other words NOW our present God-Interlocutor is in that remote past. From our point of view we are able to modify the future with our actions, from God's perpective on the contrary the future is already set in stone, He already made everything. Our relationship with God is thus TEMPORALLY DEPHASED: God already had all his relationships with us before, we have those same relationships now instead. Thus, no real-time relationship with God exists. God is not here now, yet He is present with his words and actions. Since NOBODY is here, yet God is VIRTUALLY here, you say that "God is a spirit".
Your point on "uncertainty is needed for wants and a goal" is wrong. Desire, wants, and goals can all exist in scenarios where the outcome is certain. For example there is a person who wants to continue living. It is their desire and goal to survive. This person takes a boat out into the middle of the ocean by themselves. If they tie an anchor to their body and exit the boat it is certain they will drown, yet they don't because they want to continue living.
I don't have the will (free or otherwise) to believe in a god.