Robert's focus on the core concepts, and knowledge to push back on his guests, enough to tease out the nuanced arguments, that they may have never considered of their ideological position, is always impressive to watch. He is undoubtedly one of the great minds of this planet.
Could Free Will be an artifact of the fact that our real-time awareness exists only in the smear of the present. The length of which is determined by our self aware mind in the moment. The past happened. The future exists but we haven’t caught up with it yet. The way we think determines what we think about free will. From our point of view it exists for an external frame of reference it only seems to exist.
@@blijebij Exactly. Will call it "free will"? Why the "free" bit? Saying "will" does not connote total freedom to do or be anything you wish. It just means that you have some agency, some involvement, in determining outcomes.
At .30 the idea of no free will because you can trace the cause of a decision ever backwards in time is analogous to how historians analyze historical events. You can focus in very narrowly on an event, similar to viewing a street map and seeing a couple of blocks. As you pull back on the map, you see more of the surrounding area but lose detail of the original two blocks. Same with history. You pull back and see more of the environment and events within which the narrow event that you began with is playing out. The further out from the event you began with you go, the less impactful whatever decisions were made appear. Until finally almost any decision seems irrelevant to the longer course of history. But this is an illusion. At each point in time there are multitudes of decisions being made. Each time a decision is made, all the possible outcomes from decisions not made evaporate. Those possible branches are gone. Until it appears the course of events was inevitable. Pulling too far back on your view of a decision of events creates an illusion of determinism.
if decision-making is deterministic it is non-rational - in other words it can neither be rational or irrational. Since choices are determined, what someone believes is not a product of reasoning but the laws of nature. It makes the mental processes non-reasoning, thus destroying rationality and the labor of real scientific endeavor. Since we are not free to choose one thing over another, we have no capacity to conduct the scientific method - no capacity to choose or even analyze what is true in contrast to what is false. We don’t have a chooser, we are passive molecules at the whims of physical law.
Not only are we finite, but we are each a tiny subset of the Universe. As such, what we know is a tiny subset of what there is to know. Therefore, all human knowledge is incomplete, and thus imperfect.
*"Humans, as finite beings, may not be capable of knowing to what degree they have free will."* ... Your free will is not measured in "degrees." There isn't a set ratio of deterministic conditions compared to the amount of free willed responses. It's all based on whatever situations you happen to encounter. *Examples:* *(1)* If you're trapped in a dungeon and tied up by BTK, then you don't have any "free will." *(2)* If you're in the cereal aisle at the local grocery, then your "free will" is only limited to the number of available brands of cereal (along with the option not to buy any of them). *(3)* If you are merely pondering "Existence," then the only limitation to your imagination is how deeply you choose to think about it.
(0:10) *RLK: **_"I see two radically different perspectives."_* ... Moreland is spot-on regarding the existence of "free will" despite his theological beliefs. Every materialist/physicalist "chooses" to believe that their life is predetermined, which is self-refuting. When it comes to a _personal belief_ in a deterministic existence through either science or an almighty God, the *option to believe otherwise* is always present. ... You're simply _choosing_ to believe one way or the other. *Mind-saving Tip:* The way out of getting trapped inside these cult-like ideologies such as "Hard Determinism" and "Libertarian Free Will" is to *not subscribe to any ideology that doesn't provide an escape route.* *Examples:* *Hard Determinism* argues that even if you decide that your life is not predetermined, it's because it was predetermined that you would eventually make that decision *(No escape!)* *Religion* argues that even if you decide not to believe in God, it's because God is using your current nonbelief to bring you even closer to him later. *(No escape!)* *Multiverse Theory* argues that there are an infinite number of "you" populating an infinite number of infinitely existing universes where an infinite number of conditions are met with an infinite number of responses. So, even if you don't believe in the Multiverse, ... there's a version of you somewhere that does! *(No escape!)* *Simulation Theory* argues that you are just a program running inside a simulation, but you never know what the reality is that's being simulated nor the ones who are running it. You're just "in it" and must accept this fact. *(No escape!).* Now, watch how many "believers" jump in to defend their _escapeless_ ideologies!
I am not a fan of the Multiverse theory. In that theory, there is some universe in which the most vile and disgusting version of myself exists, and I at my core find that much too hard to take. So, I prefer to see it as a theory raised by quantum physicists trying to get out of having to explain what actually creates quantum indeterminism.
@@TesserId *"So, I prefer to see it as a theory raised by quantum physicists trying to get out of having to explain what actually creates quantum indeterminism."* ... I refer to the Multiverse in beer terms as something like *"God Lite:"* _all the power and ubiquity of an almighty God ... but without the deity!_
Well, at the risk of taking you down my personal rabbit hole, I "feel" ;) that the term "free" is not well defined, so I side-step that problem by stating that a person's consciousness is a _decision-making engine._ And, it is a way point for all the causal chains that pass through it. The point then is that what we think is free will is the fact that we are conscious of making choices. So, I say it's _conscious choice_ instead of free will. That's about as briefly as that can be stated, though many "feel" :D a need to explain the role of the sub conscious in this.
Just because God has a will and supposedly knows what we're going to do doesn't necessarily mean that our decisions although they should, necessarily match up with what his will for us to have done changes any. And who's to say that God knowing everything, and having his will could mean that he knows we're either going to choose to do this or that, , turn left or turn right. Maybe him knowing everything just means that he is aware we were about to make a bad decision even though we don't have to
5:25 "You cause your thoughts to go from thinking about this to that." 'Causing your thoughts' is a fallacy in itself, you can't think a subconscious thought to cause it to be a conscious thought; thoughts arise from the subconscious, you are no more the author of your next thought than you are the causer of your lymphocytes to attack a germ in your tissues.
If you assume that the "decision making you" is the consciousness itself then yes you are not the author. But, you are the whole thing: the brain and the entirety of the processes running within, plus all the inputs from the sensory systems. Consciousness is an important part of what you are, but it's not the whole thing.
@@BradHoytMusic Just try to be aware for a minute of where your thoughts come from; ponder how it is you came to think about a purple dragon and not the taste of your morning OJ. Ask yourself did you think it BEFORE you thought it, or did it just emerge into your consciousness like a ball floating to the surface of the pool? It's self-evident that you cannot think something before you thought of it. You cannot be the author of your own thoughts, ergo, free-will is an illusion, it's very subtle, it may seem so effective an illusion that it doesn't change anything about us or how we interact, but it is an inescapable fact.
@@janluszczek8663 We are no more the 'decision-maker' than we are the author of our thoughts; if we grant that thoughts emerge from the subconscious, an action based on those subconscious thoughts cannot itself be authored consciously. Any action itself emerges from the subconscious, more clearly than even our thoughts do.
@@DeaderEyeland_1983 Did you come to this conclusion because it's true, or because you were determined to come to this conclusion, by previous events, Deader?
This appears confusing because Moreland is attempting to discuss two entirely different forms of compatibilism at the same time. There's compatibilism associated with Calvinism which is really interpretive freedom, and then there's the compatibilism of Nelson Pike which Moreland actually supports because it modifies divine fatalism accordingly.
That might be worth a closer look. But, this the first that I'd heard that there are forms of compatibilism that were specifically motivated by theology. Yes, I understood that the question of free will plays a big role in ethics. I guess I'd always taken the religious part as implied in the discussion, but seeing specific cases described made this worth the watch. Now I guess I can go look up Nelson Pike and dig deeper. Thank you.
@@TesserId If you're interested in more disjunction (the tension between theology and philosophy) I would check out Eleonore Stump, Nicholas Wolterstorff or Kevin Timpe.
I was watching this at first to find a constructive discussion about the nature of free will. But this chat is not about that - it is about the subject of free will within the framework of the Christian religion. Once I realised this, I was still able to have an interesting learning experience, but it was more about the nature of Christian theology than the nature of free will. Specifically interesting was the sequence after 9:00, when JP said that humans perform a miracle when they exercise libertarian free will. Exactly so. That MUST be right. But the conclusion from this insight, from a secular point of view, is that free will cannot exist in the libertarian sense. I am amazed that JP seems to believe that he described the nature of free will with this bizarre statement, rather than conclude that free will can only exist in the form of a miracle and therefore has no meaning outside a carefully defined religious context. And when I get to this point in listening to intelligent theologians, I always wonder why they seem to waste their intelligence on this type of sophistic constructs - they might as well just say “God gave us free will” and be done with it. In my view, and I realise it is worth very little, as I have no standing in either field, science OR theology, free will is an emergent phenomenon. It is the sensation of what it ‘feels like’ to work out an answer, to get to a decision. In a physical sense, my actions are determined by the physical state space of the universe at any moment, a state space to which I contribute and of which I am part. The reason that I am unaware of the result of this determinism as I live through its evolution (the time it takes for me to “make a decision”), the fact that I do not know the future, is the reason that I think I have ‘free’ will. But although it is not ‘free’, in the sense that it would be outside the physical rules of the universe, it still does not exonerate me from the responsibility to “do the work”, I still have to deliberate, weigh pros and cons, evaluate possible consequences of my actions. That is why even within an entirely deterministic universe, organisms with sufficiently developed cognitive abilities are still responsible for the consequences of their actions.
The way he defines 'rational' in his opening comments excludes deterministic processes from being rational, which implicitly excludes logic from rationality. Logic is deterministic, either an outcome is logical or it is not, but his version of rationality includes the freedom to not be logical. Are we also free to not be rational as well? So his position on rationality is incoherent, or at least it is so far removed from any familiar idea of rationality that i have no idea what he means by it.
@@TesserId *"I simply felt his statement wasn't getting the nub of the question."* ... Did you _"feel"_ he wasn't getting the nub of the question, or did you have _"no other choice"_ than to feel he wasn't getting the nub of the question? "Feeling" suggests a personal decision is being made.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I would say it's an informational state, and therefore a physical state, since the only informational states we have any evidence for are physical. I understand you disagree, and we've discussed this before, but the key issue here is evidence. We have no evidence for non physical informational states, nor do we have an account of how information could be causal without also being physically represented.
@@simonhibbs887 *"I understand you disagree, and we've discussed this before, but the key issue here is evidence. We have no evidence for non physical informational states"* ... The "I" in the phrase, _"I am responding to your comment"_ is a nonphysical state. So is love, forgiveness, and perseverance. We DO have *evidence* of these states because we all manifest them every day and we understand what they are. Each aforementioned state represents "information" that can be easily communicated and understood despite not having any physical properties. The mistake materialists make is that they demand physical evidence for something that is not physical, ... and that's a self-defeating demand. It's like demanding to physically observe "invisibility!" ... What physical property would you be looking for?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >'Each aforementioned state represents "information" that can be easily communicated and understood despite not having any physical properties.' Right, and that information is encoded in our brain's neural networks. We even know how many of these mechanisms work, right down the biochemistry (google NIH memory neurobiological mechanisms and assessment). We can even directly program behaviours (information) into neurons in the lab (google sciencedirect direct neuronal programming). So brains storing and processing information physically is well established at this point. A huge amount of progress has been made in these areas in the last few years to precisely identify the physical mechanisms.
Condition or conditioning allow oneself to submit to will. However, if you put yourself through it, moving whilst in it, you will eventually be engulfed with a vibes you never knew existed within you. It also leads to all sorts of highly abnormal energy outside of you. Living organisms and phenomena will do your bidding. You dare not think bad things after these moments because you will be met with excruciating pain or pinch, to be precise.
1:07 I don't think he's accurate there. Believing one is free to accept scientific theories, even though one may actually not be, is just a convenient convention. He offered more of an assertion than an argument.
That's more about the confines of the format than the argument itself. If you're a materialist determinist, your beliefs are derived from an inevitable chain of dominoes which started with the random set of initial conditions at the Big Bang. You may feel that you've arrived at your beliefs through reason and evidence, but this is an illusion being played to your consciousness by processes which are not aimed at truth.
David asked God if Saul would find him and if the town he’s hiding in will give him up and Saul would kill him, God said yes, Saul will come, he’ll find you and he’ll kill you. So David left town. God knew the paths beforehand, He could see it, then David chose another path.
Free will is a feeling based on not knowing what's going to happen and not knowing how life works So you have the feeling you're making a choice and there's no other way So free will does exist but only in your head.
I don’t believe that God’s omniscient knowledge of our future means that we don’t have free will. This discussion assumes that God lives in our time dimension, and has “foreknowledge” of the future. That would make the future pre-determined if God knows it “today.” However, God doesn’t necessarily live in our time dimension. Time may be just another space dimension for God. Instead, God may live in a different time dimension, or not experience time at all. That would support J.P. Moreland’s theory that our free will determines the future that God knows, not the other way around.
God's preknowledge doesn't necessarily mean that god has determined everything. It means that everything is determined. How it got that way could be from any way you could imagine.
At what point between not choosing to born, not choosing your genetics, not choosing the environment you were raised in, do you become a chooser? 1 years, 2 years, 5 years 18 years, 36, 45 59, 87? - yeah, don’t think any person needs that hokey insurance salesman perspective.
Do you choose what you buy at the market? Or have you been programmed by another to pick a certain product? If you had no free will, then marketing would either be pointless, or the greatest tool for human control. It falls somewhere between, because there are variations with people and their tendencies to follow or think for themselves.
Marketing is indeed an interesting case, particularly to the extent that it is also known as mass mind control. And, there are many conventions in our culture that were determined by marketing. Then I see that the many threads formed by all the causal chains form a causal fabric. And, in your statement, I see a particular layer of causal fabric sandwiched among many layers of causal fabric. Does free will exist in one layer and not in some other layer?
Where do thoughts come from? If they are generated from the firing of neurons, what directed your neurons to fire that specific way as your next thought?
We actually know a fair bit about this now. Just in the last few years the biochemical mechanisms for memory formation have been identified, and we can even directly program neurons in the lab with specific behaviours. The neurons in the brain are continuously active in various patterns, regulating our bodies and processing sense information, and such. We interpret that information in our neuronal systems which select various patterns of behaviour and lay down memories and future behaviours. It's a continuous, ongoing process. We've identified the low level systems for this, and we know which parts of the brain perform different functions, but it's bit in the middle regarding selecting and laying down specific memories and behaviours that's tricky.
Have you ever considered that God might not be 'all-knowing,' but instead 'all-guessing'? To delve into this idea, let's introduce a thought experiment involving quantum mechanics. Imagine a quantum system where particles exist in superpositions-multiple states at once, as dictated by quantum theory. Now, let's say God doesn't 'know' the outcome of these quantum states, which theoretically could be any combination of possibilities. But what if God could 'guess' which state a particle would resolve into-and that guess would be correct every single time, ad infinitum. This nuanced view has compelling implications. Firstly, it reconciles divine omniscience with the indeterminacy at the quantum level, suggesting a universe that's both predictable by God and fundamentally uncertain. Secondly, it preserves human free will by suggesting that while the future isn't fixed, God's prediction about it is unerringly accurate. This 'all-guessing' perspective also navigates around various theological and philosophical dilemmas, such as the Problem of Evil. Here, God is not orchestrating outcomes but is an infallible observer of a tapestry woven from both chance and necessity. Could an 'all-guessing' God offer a new paradigm for understanding longstanding questions in both theology and science?
The word "determine" seems to be able to make any silliness seem perfectly sensible, and it will adapt itself to whatever nonsense you are prone to believe.
@@aiya5777 You know what I've always wondered about this scenario? Why didn't I get a safe word? That seems like the minimum requirement before putting someone into this world of pain and tears.
@@caricue I think at the moment god decided to create you, he already knew that you wouldn't suffer from black death, there's no black death in 21th century after all
Thank you joeosp 1689 Here's a quote from the book Axis of Beginning: “What if being made, formed, and created in God’s image and likeness is what establishes morality in every individual? That would define eternal truths but not interfere with our free will to operate the ability to be moral.”
How are Gods foreknowledge and libertarian free will reconciled? I think it can only be put forward as an axiom of faith. If God lives and interprets our reality in a higher dimension, and if time is warped by these dimensions - the only logical explanation is that God dwells both in the present time I’m in and simultaneously in the future where I’m going. He is fundamentally present at all times at once, but also distinctly experiences them in a linear fashion. I haven’t worked out the metaphysics of that, but it seems to be the only sort of axiom that would merge these two competing concepts of freedom and foreknowledge. I think it ultimately boils down to God existing in a higher or radically different plane of reality and time.
"Both" exist. Why not use "Both"? We both "We have Free will" and "Don't have free will". "We don't have free will" not to exists, we are born to be individuals. "We have free will" to do with our lives whatever we like. The "you don't have free will" adjusts the patterns based on "your free will". Which is already prepared in the future we called its existence of "all possibilities". We, as individual people, "have free will", it depends on whether you are "aware" and how you use that "awareness". However, when considering the collective information of individuals and their surroundings (Everything), it becomes evident that there is "no free will" because "everything" is "calculated" and "predicted". We refer to this amalgamation of collective information or experience as Singular Consciousness or a God, and all the possibilities already exist.
If we were truly free to choose, then why don’t we, like Gilgamesh, then choose immortality? The answer is simply this - we can’t! And we cannot, because God sovereignly determined that death will befall us all - Gen 2:17…
The universe is 100 percent mechanical. Therefore, all living things operate in a purely logical and predictable manner which may be complex but still can be calculated in advance given the history of programing and chance collisions which have occurred in the past.
Outstanding. I don't get the 'God knows what you will do in the future even when you have libertarian free will' bit... in fact, I think I have Plantinga's view that that stuff is incoherent because God is in time just like us and knowledge is the impossibility of mistake (it's always a contradiction to say I know but could be wrong)... but if you are free to abstain from X and I predict you will freely choose X, and I know you will choose X... then you're not really free. But Moreland's destruction of the rationality of determinism was brilliant. Right out of Plantinga's playbook finding self-referential incoherence in a thesis. I suppose the person who defends determinism can agree and say 'yes, I don't hold this view on rational grounds... I am compelled by non-rational forces to hold it'... but when you let that sink in, it really is the same as saying "Determinism has no rational foundation."
Inexcusable that both men knowingly neglected to discuss the view being accepted by more and more regular folks and scholars that God knows the future as a realm of possibilities and certainties, which is clearly the biblical view. In American evangelicalism this view is known as open theism. Listen to Robert's interview of greg boyd for example.
If one is thinking about "FREE will" in the classical sense that is generally imagined, forget about it, it almost certainly does not exist.. I also think JP is being purposely evasive by not acknowledging these unambiguous assertions WITHIN the foundational tenets of Christianity as well... Peace.
Timing and counting are very helpful but they're only partially revealing meanings in the quasi-coherent framework of science. I hate to be redundant but unless determinists can explain or "put in its place" ignorance - all the non-countable and non-timeable (entanglement) potential. All the potential locked way in that non-predicted and non-predictable future, they have only one leg to stand on. Plausibility isn't probability 1.
Knowing everything all at once for eternity seems like a weird prison sentence. Without outright dismissing it, the people 2500 years ago had no Idea what Time was, to them eternity may have been 1000 years. They had no way of knowing that by making that statement that their God knows the future of the current Universe and all about the Dinosaurs. But it is religion and if any of it's true all of it probably is. He may be in complete control and have access to the Future, or he may be tripping over himself trying to keep up with this monster he created.
The freedom to ask such question is proof enough that humans have free will to ask any question, unlike animals that are not free - just driven by natural instincts beyond control and so not accountable. ...please, do not ignore your good commonsense..
Animals make decisions that sure look like free will and, imo, probably are related to the free will humans have; just at a more basic level. In the same way, for example, animals sure seem to have intelligence, just not at the level or complexity homosapiens do.
@@SineEyed I know because if indeed I am just driven by instincts beyond my control then I would never have free time to decide what right choices of what questions to make but just function automatically like a clueless robot driven by a program.. Again, if my choices are driven by natural laws, then why can I still have free time to decide what choices to make when the clear choices are already decided by nature in advance ? ..please do not ignore your good commonsense..
@@evaadam3635 I'm not sure why you think you'd have no free time to think about your decisions. Whatever logical implication that might be there, isn't apparent to me. So I have to ask again: having made a choice about something, how do you know it was a conscious decision? How can you be sure that you could have decided another way if you wanted? I'm not sure how that would be possible..
@@SineEyed ...because before having made the choice, you have to be aware or conscious first of many available choices so for you to decide what is the best or right choice. This is why you are consciously making a free choice... ..and, not only you are free to make a conscious choice, you can also consciously delay or postpone in making a choice, or terminate the decision to make a choice... all of which you can not do if you are driven by nature that you can not go against, just like a robot driven by programmed switches, not free.. ..if, according to you, there is some agent making the choice ready for you, then why would you even think of deciding what choice to make when all you do is just follow like a clueless robot driven by a program. What is the point ? You are not making any sense.
Thought I understood up to the last sentence, but where he says we have free will as a "co-laborer" with God to explore the universe he made, sounds to me like God (or us) wouldn't ever have foreknowledge, and, in fact, God just made the quantum unpredictable so he (or us) wouldn't ever have it. This comes with my understanding of the meaning of the word "explore" (which might have been poorly chosen, pun intended?). If he's saying just that, I'm ok with it, but I'm a pantheist, so I'm easy.
At least he seems to understand why free will is important to his own theology. His argument about determinism being self-defeating is extremely amateur apologetics. The idea that all humans lack libertarian free will means that not only do free will deniers reach conclusions due to their physical/chemical processes, but so do free will proponents. His argument sounds like, "if you deny free will, then you can't come to any rational conclusions. Therefore, mine is rational." I would expect better from an academic (I would expect this from Ray Comfort or Frank Turek), but maybe this isn't his field of expertise. It's also possible that he has to justify free will by whatever means to support his theology, which seems to be a crucial part of his identity.
J.W. Dunne (aeronautical engineer and philosopher) wrote a fascinating book in 1927 called "An Experiment with Time" where he writes about the philosophical implications of precognitive dreams. Precognitive dreams are a well known observable fact if one has ever cracked open a Psychology book or read any of the works of those who studied the unconscious (such as Myers, Freud, Jung, Adler, etc.) How is it possible that the psyche when dreaming can somehow take a peek into the future? And what are the philosophical/psychological and even physical implications of a mind that can sometimes experience precognitive dreams? Is reality strictly deterministic? Is human choice an illusion? How is precognition even possible?
I always wonder how religious people can claim what God is, what God wants, and give God attributes. Where is this "knowledge" coming from? From a human mind creating concepts that more often than not are simply wrong. God may know himself, but no human can know God. Actually, nobody knows anything here. It is a discussion going nowhere.
Pseudo freedom vs compatibilist freedom vs libertarian Free Will vs miracles (& humans not being a “physical object) vs QUASI-FREE-WILL¿¡?! Does Einstein’s “OLD ONE” really predetermine everything or does the “OLD ONE cause Einstein to have to grapple with cognitive dissonance? BUT IS HE “FREE” TO GRAPPLE considering DICE & all (in a figurative sense)¿¡?!
Religious people mostly don't claim that bcs god knows the future therefore there isn't free will , god knowing what I'm gonna do tomorrow doesn't mean that knowledge is effecting my decisions .. yet people who are trying so hard to negative the nonphysical stuff in this world .. do have a problem .
It's not the knowledge affects the decision, it's how such knowledge can exist and yet the decision not be determined. If god knows that you will choose to wear the blue tie tomorrow, what does it mean to say that you will have freedom to choose the green tie? When is the choice made? Take his argument that he knows his daughter would take the car. He knows the mental and emotional characteristics of his daughter, which are consistent and (more or less) persistent over time. He know such things because he can evaluate the information that he has, and that information is stable and reliable, and can be deterministically processed to make a prediction. His is an argument for determinism, not against it.
@@simonhibbs887 such knowledge exist by the definition of god , u don't ask why the triangle has three sides bcs a triangle by definition has three sides . Now , how come such knowledge exist .. this is purely a theological discussion and an ontological one .. that scientific hat u wearing needs to be taken off .
@@billeltot Bear in mind there are theists that disagree with Moreland on this, for the same reasons I do, so it's not really a scientific issue. More a rational and philosophical one.
@@billeltot Philosophically speaking a troll could exist under my garden shed, or there could be an elf living in the attic. 'Could exist' is just a story, 'does exist' requires evidence.
Evil is not knowledge. “They have turned their backs on me, not their faces; and although I taught them, taught them frequently, they have not listened so as to receive instruction. Instead they put their detestable idols in the house that bears my name, to defile it; and they built the high places for Ba‘al which are in the Ben-Hinnom Valley, to burn alive their sons and daughters to Molekh - something I did not order them to do, it never even entered my mind that they would do such an abominable thing - and thus they caused Y’hudah to sin.’ ~ Jeremiah Notice what YAHOVAH God says: “something I did not order them to do, it never even entered my mind that they would do such an abominable thing.” Evil isn’t even eternal and it’s an aberration. Would you rather have a God who knew ever single hideous thing that would be done, or have a God who focused on the principle of goodness? Some people think God was at the scene of every future crime from time and eternity past, although the God who can speak audibly to us never said that to them.
He got it all backwards. Logic and reason are not y matter of choice, they compell. You don't choose that 2+2=4 if you understand basic arithmetic, you don't have a choice but to accept the fact. Goes to show how meaningless the moniker "philosopher" is, especially when followed by ", theologian and apologist".
There's a big difference in being aware of something, making a decision about something and then ultimately taking an action on any given situation.... For example maybe he knows that we're going to choose one of three outcomes that's still knowing everything he just leaves it up to us hoping leaving to us to make the right choice..,😂 everything just like a teacher giving an exam (He created the exam, he knows all the answers,😢 say it's a multiple choice test…him knowing that we could get it right or wrong would still mean that he knew everything and all possible outcomes we are the ones that mess it up because we have free will) 😮.… Because there's God's plan and God's will, I would assume that when someone makes a decision to do something deliberately to injure someone else but that is not what he intended... Where does it say that God limits his will for us to only one outcome and not allow for a variety. I'm a firm believer that we absolutely have free will I can choose to do what I want whenever I want, so the big I may know what's going to happen that doesn't mean that I didn't get to decide what I ultimately did There are completely different levels and realms of the possibility of having free will. We'll start off at the fact that God or soul/life force within us or even the universe whatever you want or believe is on such a higher level of existence that it truly has nothing to do with our free will day to day
No, we don't. Free Will is a contradiction due to the infinite regression fallacy. There's a deterministic underpinning of reality. People are just delusional as usual.
Say you are watching a toddler playing with blocks and she picks up a favorite red block. She can run and put it on her bed or take it to you and hand it to you. What does she do? Is her action free will?
@@robertpawlsoky2910 no, free will is a contradiction since you can't infinitely go back in time. You have a deterministic underpinning at your decision making which sets a whole process in motion.
God has an infinite mind therefore knows the infinite possibilities. Humans although we are created in the image of God we are finite and based on our knowledge experience and wisdom our minds can know many many many possibilities we do not know the infinite so we have free will to choose from that which we know.
Arnt there degrees of free will? It depends on how much foreknowledge one has and what one is physically capable of... viz agency. If we say God has given us free will I would say it is a generally limited free will. I am doubtful God desires humanity to have a free will. When we tried in the Garden of Eden, mythologically speaking, humanity was thrown out.
I'll grant god five sigma, but the existence of a perfect, all good creator is a contradiction, or proof that he's not good. There is none higher than truth.
*"What about destiny then?"* ... "Destiny" is just a more poetic word for "predetermined," (thus the word "predestination"). _"You are my destiny!"_ sounds more romantic than _"You were predetermined to be lover!"_ in the movies. The antiparticle for "destiny" would be "volition."
I’m an outlier. I think worms have free will. Maybe at a very “proto” or minimal level, but still free will nonetheless. Why else in the non biological selection process leading up to life, would life have been selected for and eventually expanded upon if not for the advantage such living things had in both being aware of their environments and being able to make choices and decisions in that environment based on their needs, wants, preferences, etc.
Ok, but needs, wants and preferences are expressable in terms of information. Processes on information are physical processes. A self-driving car is aware of it's environment and can make choices.
@@simonhibbs887 A worm may not decide to go grocery shopping, but it can decide to go look for food. A worm can also decide to consume one food rather than another when they are equally available to it. A bird can decide not to eat a piece of bread, but decide instead to drop it in the water to attract fish, which it has more of a taste for at that moment. A human can decide not to enjoy the short term reward of eating that second piece of cake, based on the longer term reward of looking good in a swimsuit many months from now. Etc.
In all the bits in which he appears in this channel, I always end up feeling this gentleman is a snake oil salesman or on the best case scenario a waste of time… I keep listening just to make sure anyways, and yeah.
you have free will! what you choose to do whether it be good or evil is and was your choice! you chose to do it at that moment . its pretty simple. its so simple its true! nothing complicated about it.
All our created minds and the AI that wakes up as each mind begins processing those invisible vibrations are all programmed by our Creator. There is no such thing as free will. However, the AI in each created mind does learn how to navigate about in the 3D world according to how it was programmed.
Just to clarify, "will" and "freewill" are two very different things. "Will" has to do with willing something to happen, e.g., deciding to go for a walk, picking up a pencil, etc. (And a case could be made for that being largely deterministic.) "Freewill" has to do with making a moral decision, choosing between right and wrong. If one were to argue that freewill doesn't exist, then by implication they would be also advocating for there being no difference between right and wrong, or by extension, no difference between truth and error. Does anyone seriously believe that? The irony here is, one would have to have freewill, in order to be able to decide whether this video made any sense or not.
In philosophy, free will has a specific meaning, often expressed as the ability to choose otherwise. In other words that nothing physical or persistent about the person determines choices, there is a non-physical self that chooses in ways that are neither deterministic via any defined process, nor random. It's not really specific to moral choices. I have opinions on this, but I'm trying to lay out the established position here neutrally.
Assuming anything is possible; at the quantum level, all cards have been dealt, and in reality they unfold as events, in an apparently deterministic space-time continuum. That is until the player emerges, possessing an extra card, that when played, can distort the continuum. Only the player is free to play this card; and when it is played the space-time continuum becomes dynamic. We all know what that card is. If you are not sure, just smile :)
Rank nonsense. Sophistry so typical of self-serious theologians: Libertarian free will with a causally-independent ghost in the machine, founded on no more than supernatural spooky stuff and wishful thinking. Every libertarian choice is a "miracle"? I would not have Robert's patience to listen to this twaddle with as much equanimity. "A materialist chooses" is Moreland's primary self-refuting phrase. And if you need to know anything more about this sophist, there is this from Wiki: "Moreland has defended the existence of angels and demons, arguing that he knows they exist due to both Christian doctrine and personal experience." Alrighty then ...
Suppose some event will happen by chance, not by necessity, and at the present moment, we don't know what will specifically happen. Let's also assume we have a time machine. We begin using it to know in advance what will specifically happen; we see what has happened, and we are going back to the present. Now, we know in advance what will specifically happen. The question arises: Will this event happen by chance or by necessity? Of course, it will still happen by chance, as is supposed above, despite the fact that now we foresee this event. God, as a timeless being, is able to transcend time and foresee the future. So, the similar question arises: if there are events that happen by chance, does God's foreseeing prevent them from being happened by chance? Of course, not. The similar answer. So, it is obvious that if we have free will, God's omniscience does not prevent our behaviour from being free.
The consequence arising from your conclusion is the elimination of either God's omnipotence or his omnibenevolence. Because he can't be purely good if he's aware of a future evil that will occur, has the power to prevent it, yet does not. Or, he knows of the future evil, would change it if he could, but does not have the power to..
@SineEyed I like theodicy, though it is complicated. In my opinion, the intelligent creatures living in the bliss of heaven and paradise got unwilling to make a bit of mental effort to theoretically cognize good and evil from God - from the supreme intelligence. And if we are unwilling to do something, God will not force us to do that; thereby He will not go against our will; He respects our will. So, the creatures did not know what evil really was, and therefore, they could not avoid evil. God did not prevent evil because the creatures themselves were unwilling to prevent evil, and He did not go against their will.
@@GM-o6i I think it could be brought back another step; assuming an all knowing creator, of there is evil in the world, then the creator put that evil here. If he wanted there to be no evil, no suffering, he would simply make it so. Given that there _is_ evil, that there _is_ suffering, then it must be the case that is what he wants. The consequence of that is, of course, that God cannot be all loving. So we see, it is not possible for God to be all knowing, all loving, and all powerful, all at the same time. This is the problem with evil which confronts the religious..
@SineEyed Your questions are the same ones that I asked myself three decades ago. The proper answers came to me for a month. Suppose you produce labour tools. Why do you produce them if you know in advance that your tools can be misused and cause evil and suffering? Is it true that you don't love the people who will suffer due to the misuse of your tools? Of course, not; you love those people. God created intelligent beings and gave them all abilities and possibly to be happy. Is it true that God is not all loving because of the misuse of the abilities that He gave intelligent creatures and that they misuse, causing evil and suffering? Of course, not. God is nevertheless all loving. Evil and suffering in the created world were possible, not necessary. If intelligent creatures had theoretically cognized good and evil in advance from the superior intelligence (God), there would have been no evil and no suffering in the world. In the forthcoming new world, there will be no evil and no suffering due to our advanced cognition; there will instead be peace and happiness. Thus, God put not actual evil and suffering in the world but their possibility. The negativity of this possibility is cancelled out by the positivity of the created possibility of happiness. But it doesn't follow from this that God is "neutral" - neither good nor evil. He is good because, in addition, He gave and still gives all the creatures who commit sins the possibility of coming back to the superior intelligence and obtaining happiness forever.
If you can hold back from hitting someone that really deserves it, then you have free will. If you can say no to that extra cookie or chocolate bar, even though you're still hungry, you have free will. Etc.
If you can make yourself WANT to punch your most cherished love one in the face then you might have free will. Not saying that you could do it. I am saying change your emotions right now to have a strong desire to punch them in the face.
Nonsense. I'm a big fan. But this guy really thinks he's on to something and he is not. His arguments for an omniscient god are illogical. He said if god knows something is going to happen it doesn't make him responsible for it? Eh?
THE ANSWER IS: *YES WE DO* Because with my free will I didn't listen to this BS and then with my free will thumbs downed this nonsense and then with my free will I blocked this channel from being recommended in future!
The arguments against free will boil down to “the laws of physics are immuable and deterministic, what makes you think you are an exception”. The arguments for free will are: “but i feel i can do whatever i like!!”
@@IZn0g0uDatAllFrom observing biological life, it sure seems like things can emerge from seemingly deterministic systems and still, nevertheless, not be fully bound to those systems.
@@brothermine2292 A large portion of it. * A tiny bird deciding to wait for the big bird to leave the feeder before approaching it herself. * A lover of music choosing to go to community college while she and her fellow band members try to make it in the pop scene, just so she’ll have a plan b in case things don’t work out. * A person deciding to start recycling after reading some books about the environment. * My cat meowing at me that she wants to be let her out, then changing her mind when she sees the snow. * The twenty minutes a chess grandmaster spends thinking several moves deep in several different lines of attack, before finally deciding what move to make. * Deciding what examples to give and what words to use in response to your excellent question.
I like these topics being discussed and all, but this guy gives the worst analogies and the worse arguments for this position I've ever heard. Even though I don't agree with the compatibilist view, it's the most rational if you believe in God and you're trying to defend certain doctrine about an omniscient and all-powerful God. He tries to separate the knowledge of the future from the point of view of God from his determination on it. That's only valid if you have a limited God, which I doubt it's his position. And his example of his daughter really illustrates how he things about this topic. If God created the Universe knowing I will write this comment and he also created me in this specific way, then from the beginning it's all determined. The compatibilist view doesn't make much sense either but at least it aliviates the problem a little bit (still irrational unless you believe in a limited God). His argument for the "self-refutiness" of determinism doesn't really adress anything. He says you have to be free to believe in that theory, not really, you're just born in a specific way, with a specific genetic material, brain, education, etc, in an enviroment where there's this theory going around and the likeliness of you believing that theory rather than another one is just 100% since everything lead you to it. Faulty reasoning all around. Libertarian free will just has too many holes if you believe in an unlimited God, it's the worst position. But either way thank you to the interviewer for taking the time to talk to this fool and show how people's minds work, and thank you to this fool for the entertainment and for at least trying.
There are two different types of free will. One type of free will is where we have freedom to choose what we desire, like is some person really desire to follow Jesus, he has freedom to do so and if another person really does not desire to follow Jesus, he has freedom not to. All people believe in this free will. Yet there is another type of free will which says that we cannot just have freedom to choose what we desire, we can also choose what to desire, like this person who truly desire to follow Jesus has freedom to choose not to desire Jesus and begin to desire Muhammad for example. Such free will does not exist.
@@nikokapanen82 , Thank you for your input. I am thinking about free will to travel through eternity. If a human wants to "follow" Jesus or Mohammed, I am happy for them. v
Robert's focus on the core concepts, and knowledge to push back on his guests, enough to tease out the nuanced arguments, that they may have never considered of their ideological position, is always impressive to watch. He is undoubtedly one of the great minds of this planet.
Every effect has a cause (or is random), therefore free will is impossible. It‘s unclear what free will should even mean. It‘s an illogical concept.
...but not all causes is an effect.
Could Free Will be an artifact of the fact that our real-time awareness exists only in the smear of the present. The length of which is determined by our self aware mind in the moment. The past happened. The future exists but we haven’t caught up with it yet. The way we think determines what we think about free will. From our point of view it exists for an external frame of reference it only seems to exist.
The question then however still is, why not label it just will. Why free will? As if we really are fully autonomous and independent in our actions.
@@blijebij Exactly. Will call it "free will"? Why the "free" bit? Saying "will" does not connote total freedom to do or be anything you wish. It just means that you have some agency, some involvement, in determining outcomes.
At .30 the idea of no free will because you can trace the cause of a decision ever backwards in time is analogous to how historians analyze historical events. You can focus in very narrowly on an event, similar to viewing a street map and seeing a couple of blocks. As you pull back on the map, you see more of the surrounding area but lose detail of the original two blocks. Same with history. You pull back and see more of the environment and events within which the narrow event that you began with is playing out. The further out from the event you began with you go, the less impactful whatever decisions were made appear. Until finally almost any decision seems irrelevant to the longer course of history. But this is an illusion. At each point in time there are multitudes of decisions being made. Each time a decision is made, all the possible outcomes from decisions not made evaporate. Those possible branches are gone. Until it appears the course of events was inevitable.
Pulling too far back on your view of a decision of events creates an illusion of determinism.
Best summary I've seen regarding "free will"...
“You can do what you decide to do - but you cannot decide what you will decide to do.” -- Sam Harris
Harris is spot-on on free will, this quote however is paraphrasing Schopenhauer, "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."
if decision-making is deterministic it is non-rational - in other words it can neither be rational or irrational.
Since choices are determined, what someone believes is not a product of reasoning but the laws of nature. It makes the mental processes non-reasoning, thus destroying rationality and the labor of real scientific endeavor.
Since we are not free to choose one thing over another, we have no capacity to conduct the scientific method - no capacity to choose or even analyze what is true in contrast to what is false. We don’t have a chooser, we are passive molecules at the whims of physical law.
Thanks!
That was a nice thing to do!
This was one of the best Free Will discussions that I've heard on the channel.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
Humans, as finite beings, may not be capable of knowing to what degree they have free will.
Not only are we finite, but we are each a tiny subset of the Universe. As such, what we know is a tiny subset of what there is to know. Therefore, all human knowledge is incomplete, and thus imperfect.
@squaredcircle1111
Do you think our mind is capable of being infinite at any one particular time.
@TesserId
Yes, it certainly appears we are imperfect it would be nice to know to some extent how imperfect we are, though.
*"Humans, as finite beings, may not be capable of knowing to what degree they have free will."*
... Your free will is not measured in "degrees." There isn't a set ratio of deterministic conditions compared to the amount of free willed responses. It's all based on whatever situations you happen to encounter.
*Examples:*
*(1)* If you're trapped in a dungeon and tied up by BTK, then you don't have any "free will."
*(2)* If you're in the cereal aisle at the local grocery, then your "free will" is only limited to the number of available brands of cereal (along with the option not to buy any of them).
*(3)* If you are merely pondering "Existence," then the only limitation to your imagination is how deeply you choose to think about it.
(0:10) *RLK: **_"I see two radically different perspectives."_* ... Moreland is spot-on regarding the existence of "free will" despite his theological beliefs. Every materialist/physicalist "chooses" to believe that their life is predetermined, which is self-refuting. When it comes to a _personal belief_ in a deterministic existence through either science or an almighty God, the *option to believe otherwise* is always present.
... You're simply _choosing_ to believe one way or the other.
*Mind-saving Tip:* The way out of getting trapped inside these cult-like ideologies such as "Hard Determinism" and "Libertarian Free Will" is to *not subscribe to any ideology that doesn't provide an escape route.*
*Examples:*
*Hard Determinism* argues that even if you decide that your life is not predetermined, it's because it was predetermined that you would eventually make that decision *(No escape!)*
*Religion* argues that even if you decide not to believe in God, it's because God is using your current nonbelief to bring you even closer to him later. *(No escape!)*
*Multiverse Theory* argues that there are an infinite number of "you" populating an infinite number of infinitely existing universes where an infinite number of conditions are met with an infinite number of responses. So, even if you don't believe in the Multiverse, ... there's a version of you somewhere that does! *(No escape!)*
*Simulation Theory* argues that you are just a program running inside a simulation, but you never know what the reality is that's being simulated nor the ones who are running it. You're just "in it" and must accept this fact. *(No escape!).*
Now, watch how many "believers" jump in to defend their _escapeless_ ideologies!
Interesting perspective. Thanks for posting. v
I am not a fan of the Multiverse theory. In that theory, there is some universe in which the most vile and disgusting version of myself exists, and I at my core find that much too hard to take. So, I prefer to see it as a theory raised by quantum physicists trying to get out of having to explain what actually creates quantum indeterminism.
@@TesserId *"So, I prefer to see it as a theory raised by quantum physicists trying to get out of having to explain what actually creates quantum indeterminism."*
... I refer to the Multiverse in beer terms as something like *"God Lite:"* _all the power and ubiquity of an almighty God ... but without the deity!_
@@TesserId I would say that 'versions of you' are not you, any more than an identical twin would be you.
Well, at the risk of taking you down my personal rabbit hole, I "feel" ;) that the term "free" is not well defined, so I side-step that problem by stating that a person's consciousness is a _decision-making engine._ And, it is a way point for all the causal chains that pass through it. The point then is that what we think is free will is the fact that we are conscious of making choices. So, I say it's _conscious choice_ instead of free will. That's about as briefly as that can be stated, though many "feel" :D a need to explain the role of the sub conscious in this.
Just because God has a will and supposedly knows what we're going to do doesn't necessarily mean that our decisions although they should, necessarily match up with what his will for us to have done changes any.
And who's to say that God knowing everything, and having his will could mean that he knows we're either going to choose to do this or that, , turn left or turn right. Maybe him knowing everything just means that he is aware we were about to make a bad decision even though we don't have to
5:25 "You cause your thoughts to go from thinking about this to that."
'Causing your thoughts' is a fallacy in itself, you can't think a subconscious thought to cause it to be a conscious thought; thoughts arise from the subconscious, you are no more the author of your next thought than you are the causer of your lymphocytes to attack a germ in your tissues.
How do you know?
If you assume that the "decision making you" is the consciousness itself then yes you are not the author. But, you are the whole thing: the brain and the entirety of the processes running within, plus all the inputs from the sensory systems. Consciousness is an important part of what you are, but it's not the whole thing.
@@BradHoytMusic Just try to be aware for a minute of where your thoughts come from; ponder how it is you came to think about a purple dragon and not the taste of your morning OJ.
Ask yourself did you think it BEFORE you thought it, or did it just emerge into your consciousness like a ball floating to the surface of the pool?
It's self-evident that you cannot think something before you thought of it. You cannot be the author of your own thoughts, ergo, free-will is an illusion, it's very subtle, it may seem so effective an illusion that it doesn't change anything about us or how we interact, but it is an inescapable fact.
@@janluszczek8663 We are no more the 'decision-maker' than we are the author of our thoughts; if we grant that thoughts emerge from the subconscious, an action based on those subconscious thoughts cannot itself be authored consciously. Any action itself emerges from the subconscious, more clearly than even our thoughts do.
We only have the feeling our thoughts come from ourselves but we don't know it
Short answer no
Long answer noooooo
Why?
Are you a robot?
@@uthman2281Because free will is utterly debunked. And yes, I'm a truth bot. 🤖💯💯
@@DeaderEyeland_1983you had no choice but to say that 😂
@@DeaderEyeland_1983 Did you come to this conclusion because it's true, or because you were determined to come to this conclusion, by previous events, Deader?
@@EverythingCameFromNothing Exactly lol
This appears confusing because Moreland is attempting to discuss two entirely different forms of compatibilism at the same time. There's compatibilism associated with Calvinism which is really interpretive freedom, and then there's the compatibilism of Nelson Pike which Moreland actually supports because it modifies divine fatalism accordingly.
That might be worth a closer look. But, this the first that I'd heard that there are forms of compatibilism that were specifically motivated by theology. Yes, I understood that the question of free will plays a big role in ethics. I guess I'd always taken the religious part as implied in the discussion, but seeing specific cases described made this worth the watch. Now I guess I can go look up Nelson Pike and dig deeper. Thank you.
@@TesserId If you're interested in more disjunction (the tension between theology and philosophy) I would check out Eleonore Stump, Nicholas Wolterstorff or Kevin Timpe.
@@gettaasteroid4650 Thanks, I always appreciate recommendations.
I was watching this at first to find a constructive discussion about the nature of free will. But this chat is not about that - it is about the subject of free will within the framework of the Christian religion. Once I realised this, I was still able to have an interesting learning experience, but it was more about the nature of Christian theology than the nature of free will.
Specifically interesting was the sequence after 9:00, when JP said that humans perform a miracle when they exercise libertarian free will. Exactly so. That MUST be right. But the conclusion from this insight, from a secular point of view, is that free will cannot exist in the libertarian sense. I am amazed that JP seems to believe that he described the nature of free will with this bizarre statement, rather than conclude that free will can only exist in the form of a miracle and therefore has no meaning outside a carefully defined religious context. And when I get to this point in listening to intelligent theologians, I always wonder why they seem to waste their intelligence on this type of sophistic constructs - they might as well just say “God gave us free will” and be done with it.
In my view, and I realise it is worth very little, as I have no standing in either field, science OR theology, free will is an emergent phenomenon. It is the sensation of what it ‘feels like’ to work out an answer, to get to a decision. In a physical sense, my actions are determined by the physical state space of the universe at any moment, a state space to which I contribute and of which I am part. The reason that I am unaware of the result of this determinism as I live through its evolution (the time it takes for me to “make a decision”), the fact that I do not know the future, is the reason that I think I have ‘free’ will. But although it is not ‘free’, in the sense that it would be outside the physical rules of the universe, it still does not exonerate me from the responsibility to “do the work”, I still have to deliberate, weigh pros and cons, evaluate possible consequences of my actions. That is why even within an entirely deterministic universe, organisms with sufficiently developed cognitive abilities are still responsible for the consequences of their actions.
The way he defines 'rational' in his opening comments excludes deterministic processes from being rational, which implicitly excludes logic from rationality. Logic is deterministic, either an outcome is logical or it is not, but his version of rationality includes the freedom to not be logical. Are we also free to not be rational as well? So his position on rationality is incoherent, or at least it is so far removed from any familiar idea of rationality that i have no idea what he means by it.
Well said. I simply felt his statement wasn't getting the nub of the question.
@@TesserId *"I simply felt his statement wasn't getting the nub of the question."*
... Did you _"feel"_ he wasn't getting the nub of the question, or did you have _"no other choice"_ than to feel he wasn't getting the nub of the question?
"Feeling" suggests a personal decision is being made.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I would say it's an informational state, and therefore a physical state, since the only informational states we have any evidence for are physical. I understand you disagree, and we've discussed this before, but the key issue here is evidence. We have no evidence for non physical informational states, nor do we have an account of how information could be causal without also being physically represented.
@@simonhibbs887 *"I understand you disagree, and we've discussed this before, but the key issue here is evidence. We have no evidence for non physical informational states"*
... The "I" in the phrase, _"I am responding to your comment"_ is a nonphysical state. So is love, forgiveness, and perseverance. We DO have *evidence* of these states because we all manifest them every day and we understand what they are.
Each aforementioned state represents "information" that can be easily communicated and understood despite not having any physical properties.
The mistake materialists make is that they demand physical evidence for something that is not physical, ... and that's a self-defeating demand.
It's like demanding to physically observe "invisibility!" ... What physical property would you be looking for?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >'Each aforementioned state represents "information" that can be easily communicated and understood despite not having any physical properties.'
Right, and that information is encoded in our brain's neural networks. We even know how many of these mechanisms work, right down the biochemistry (google NIH memory neurobiological mechanisms and assessment). We can even directly program behaviours (information) into neurons in the lab (google sciencedirect direct neuronal programming). So brains storing and processing information physically is well established at this point. A huge amount of progress has been made in these areas in the last few years to precisely identify the physical mechanisms.
Condition or conditioning allow oneself to submit to will. However, if you put yourself through it, moving whilst in it, you will eventually be engulfed with a vibes you never knew existed within you. It also leads to all sorts of highly abnormal energy outside of you. Living organisms and phenomena will do your bidding. You dare not think bad things after these moments because you will be met with excruciating pain or pinch, to be precise.
Nice comparison of various perspectives.
1:07 I don't think he's accurate there. Believing one is free to accept scientific theories, even though one may actually not be, is just a convenient convention. He offered more of an assertion than an argument.
That's more about the confines of the format than the argument itself. If you're a materialist determinist, your beliefs are derived from an inevitable chain of dominoes which started with the random set of initial conditions at the Big Bang. You may feel that you've arrived at your beliefs through reason and evidence, but this is an illusion being played to your consciousness by processes which are not aimed at truth.
Brilliant, Dr Moreland clearly knows hat he's talking about ❤
David asked God if Saul would find him and if the town he’s hiding in will give him up and Saul would kill him, God said yes, Saul will come, he’ll find you and he’ll kill you.
So David left town. God knew the paths beforehand, He could see it, then David chose another path.
free will is an illusion based on a deterministic universe (where even time is an illusion)
prove it lol
@@OnlyThe1SonWe are all determined to die.
Then counter his point that your belief isn’t based on rational reasoning
Free will is a feeling based on not knowing what's going to happen and not knowing how life works So you have the feeling you're making a choice and there's no other way So free will does exist but only in your head.
@@Boris29311
Is what you said a claim or an argument based on reasoning, or is it merely the output of a determined machine?
I don’t believe that God’s omniscient knowledge of our future means that we don’t have free will. This discussion assumes that God lives in our time dimension, and has “foreknowledge” of the future. That would make the future pre-determined if God knows it “today.” However, God doesn’t necessarily live in our time dimension. Time may be just another space dimension for God. Instead, God may live in a different time dimension, or not experience time at all.
That would support J.P. Moreland’s theory that our free will determines the future that God knows, not the other way around.
I enjoyed this. Love to see you continue it.
God's preknowledge doesn't necessarily mean that god has determined everything. It means that everything is determined. How it got that way could be from any way you could imagine.
At what point between not choosing to born, not choosing your genetics, not choosing the environment you were raised in, do you become a chooser? 1 years, 2 years, 5 years 18 years, 36, 45 59, 87? - yeah, don’t think any person needs that hokey insurance salesman perspective.
Do you choose what you buy at the market? Or have you been programmed by another to pick a certain product? If you had no free will, then marketing would either be pointless, or the greatest tool for human control. It falls somewhere between, because there are variations with people and their tendencies to follow or think for themselves.
Marketing is indeed an interesting case, particularly to the extent that it is also known as mass mind control. And, there are many conventions in our culture that were determined by marketing. Then I see that the many threads formed by all the causal chains form a causal fabric. And, in your statement, I see a particular layer of causal fabric sandwiched among many layers of causal fabric. Does free will exist in one layer and not in some other layer?
Where do thoughts come from? If they are generated from the firing of neurons, what directed your neurons to fire that specific way as your next thought?
We actually know a fair bit about this now. Just in the last few years the biochemical mechanisms for memory formation have been identified, and we can even directly program neurons in the lab with specific behaviours. The neurons in the brain are continuously active in various patterns, regulating our bodies and processing sense information, and such. We interpret that information in our neuronal systems which select various patterns of behaviour and lay down memories and future behaviours. It's a continuous, ongoing process. We've identified the low level systems for this, and we know which parts of the brain perform different functions, but it's bit in the middle regarding selecting and laying down specific memories and behaviours that's tricky.
I guess it's the Woooo Aether.
Have you ever considered that God might not be 'all-knowing,' but instead 'all-guessing'? To delve into this idea, let's introduce a thought experiment involving quantum mechanics. Imagine a quantum system where particles exist in superpositions-multiple states at once, as dictated by quantum theory. Now, let's say God doesn't 'know' the outcome of these quantum states, which theoretically could be any combination of possibilities. But what if God could 'guess' which state a particle would resolve into-and that guess would be correct every single time, ad infinitum.
This nuanced view has compelling implications. Firstly, it reconciles divine omniscience with the indeterminacy at the quantum level, suggesting a universe that's both predictable by God and fundamentally uncertain. Secondly, it preserves human free will by suggesting that while the future isn't fixed, God's prediction about it is unerringly accurate.
This 'all-guessing' perspective also navigates around various theological and philosophical dilemmas, such as the Problem of Evil. Here, God is not orchestrating outcomes but is an infallible observer of a tapestry woven from both chance and necessity. Could an 'all-guessing' God offer a new paradigm for understanding longstanding questions in both theology and science?
An educational and entertaining story about increasing faith is the book Axis of Beginning.
The expression of free will is creativity, which is given within the image of God.
"Because we freely do things, that's the ground for God knowing ahead of time." Uh...say what?!?!
After everything he says, I feel like he's going to try to sell me a life insurance policy.
or a car
Yeeeah I get the same kind of vibe from him. He's more a smooth talker than someone who make sense.
@@SajuukYou don't think he made sense? You don't think his argument was well formed?
take all my money
He made more sense than a lot of Robert’s other guests.
The word "determine" seems to be able to make any silliness seem perfectly sensible, and it will adapt itself to whatever nonsense you are prone to believe.
at the moment before god decided to create you, did he know every thing that will and won't happen to you?
@@aiya5777 You know what I've always wondered about this scenario? Why didn't I get a safe word? That seems like the minimum requirement before putting someone into this world of pain and tears.
@@caricue I think at the moment god decided to create you,
he already knew that you wouldn't suffer from black death, there's no black death in 21th century after all
Thank you joeosp 1689
Here's a quote from the book Axis of Beginning: “What if being made, formed, and created in God’s image and likeness is what establishes morality in every individual? That would define eternal truths but not interfere with our free will to operate the ability to be moral.”
How are Gods foreknowledge and libertarian free will reconciled?
I think it can only be put forward as an axiom of faith. If God lives and interprets our reality in a higher dimension, and if time is warped by these dimensions - the only logical explanation is that God dwells both in the present time I’m in and simultaneously in the future where I’m going. He is fundamentally present at all times at once, but also distinctly experiences them in a linear fashion. I haven’t worked out the metaphysics of that, but it seems to be the only sort of axiom that would merge these two competing concepts of freedom and foreknowledge. I think it ultimately boils down to God existing in a higher or radically different plane of reality and time.
I can't get out of bed so free will doesn't exist.
"Both" exist.
Why not use "Both"?
We both "We have Free will" and "Don't have free will".
"We don't have free will" not to exists, we are born to be individuals.
"We have free will" to do with our lives whatever we like.
The "you don't have free will" adjusts the patterns based on "your free will".
Which is already prepared in the future we called its existence of "all possibilities".
We, as individual people, "have free will", it depends on whether you are "aware" and how you use that "awareness".
However, when considering the collective information of individuals and their surroundings (Everything), it becomes evident that there is "no free will" because "everything" is "calculated" and "predicted". We refer to this amalgamation of collective information or experience as Singular Consciousness or a God, and all the possibilities already exist.
If we were truly free to choose, then why don’t we, like Gilgamesh, then choose immortality? The answer is simply this - we can’t! And we cannot, because God sovereignly determined that death will befall us all - Gen 2:17…
😂😂😂
The universe is 100 percent mechanical. Therefore, all living things operate in a purely logical and predictable manner which may be complex but still can be calculated in advance given the history of programing and chance collisions which have occurred in the past.
The universe is just waves, maybe you’ve dipped your face in to experience some clockwork moments.
“Emily, it’s not for you to want and it’s not for you to not want either!” Mrs. Bridges.
Do Humans Have Free Will?
When one finds themselves on their deathbed, they will undoubtedly come to grasp the presence or absence of their free will.
Outstanding. I don't get the 'God knows what you will do in the future even when you have libertarian free will' bit... in fact, I think I have Plantinga's view that that stuff is incoherent because God is in time just like us and knowledge is the impossibility of mistake (it's always a contradiction to say I know but could be wrong)... but if you are free to abstain from X and I predict you will freely choose X, and I know you will choose X... then you're not really free. But Moreland's destruction of the rationality of determinism was brilliant. Right out of Plantinga's playbook finding self-referential incoherence in a thesis. I suppose the person who defends determinism can agree and say 'yes, I don't hold this view on rational grounds... I am compelled by non-rational forces to hold it'... but when you let that sink in, it really is the same as saying "Determinism has no rational foundation."
Inexcusable that both men knowingly neglected to discuss the view being accepted by more and more regular folks and scholars that God knows the future as a realm of possibilities and certainties, which is clearly the biblical view. In American evangelicalism this view is known as open theism. Listen to Robert's interview of greg boyd for example.
If one is thinking about "FREE will" in the classical sense that is generally imagined, forget about it, it almost certainly does not exist.. I also think JP is being purposely evasive by not acknowledging these unambiguous assertions WITHIN the foundational tenets of Christianity as well... Peace.
Timing and counting are very helpful but they're only partially revealing meanings in the quasi-coherent framework of science.
I hate to be redundant but unless determinists can explain or "put in its place" ignorance - all the non-countable and non-timeable (entanglement) potential. All the potential locked way in that non-predicted and non-predictable future, they have only one leg to stand on. Plausibility isn't probability 1.
Knowing everything all at once for eternity seems like a weird prison sentence.
Without outright dismissing it, the people 2500 years ago had no Idea what Time was, to them eternity may have been 1000 years. They had no way of knowing that by making that statement that their God knows the future of the current Universe and all about the Dinosaurs. But it is religion and if any of it's true all of it probably is. He may be in complete control and have access to the Future, or he may be tripping over himself trying to keep up with this monster he created.
The freedom to ask such question is proof enough that humans have free will to ask any question, unlike animals that are not free - just driven by natural instincts beyond control and so not accountable.
...please, do not ignore your good commonsense..
And how do you know the decisions you made were done so with free will and not by some agent of your deeper instincts?..
Animals make decisions that sure look like free will and, imo, probably are related to the free will humans have; just at a more basic level. In the same way, for example, animals sure seem to have intelligence, just not at the level or complexity homosapiens do.
@@SineEyed I know because if indeed I am just driven by instincts beyond my control then I would never have free time to decide what right choices of what questions to make but just function automatically like a clueless robot driven by a program..
Again, if my choices are driven by natural laws, then why can I still have free time to decide what choices to make when the clear choices are already decided by nature in advance ?
..please do not ignore your good commonsense..
@@evaadam3635 I'm not sure why you think you'd have no free time to think about your decisions. Whatever logical implication that might be there, isn't apparent to me.
So I have to ask again: having made a choice about something, how do you know it was a conscious decision? How can you be sure that you could have decided another way if you wanted? I'm not sure how that would be possible..
@@SineEyed ...because before having made the choice, you have to be aware or conscious first of many available choices so for you to decide what is the best or right choice. This is why you are consciously making a free choice...
..and, not only you are free to make a conscious choice, you can also consciously delay or postpone in making a choice, or terminate the decision to make a choice... all of which you can not do if you are driven by nature that you can not go against, just like a robot driven by programmed switches, not free..
..if, according to you, there is some agent making the choice ready for you, then why would you even think of deciding what choice to make when all you do is just follow like a clueless robot driven by a program. What is the point ? You are not making any sense.
Thought I understood up to the last sentence, but where he says we have free will as a "co-laborer" with God to explore the universe he made, sounds to me like God (or us) wouldn't ever have foreknowledge, and, in fact, God just made the quantum unpredictable so he (or us) wouldn't ever have it. This comes with my understanding of the meaning of the word "explore" (which might have been poorly chosen, pun intended?). If he's saying just that, I'm ok with it, but I'm a pantheist, so I'm easy.
At least he seems to understand why free will is important to his own theology. His argument about determinism being self-defeating is extremely amateur apologetics. The idea that all humans lack libertarian free will means that not only do free will deniers reach conclusions due to their physical/chemical processes, but so do free will proponents. His argument sounds like, "if you deny free will, then you can't come to any rational conclusions. Therefore, mine is rational." I would expect better from an academic (I would expect this from Ray Comfort or Frank Turek), but maybe this isn't his field of expertise.
It's also possible that he has to justify free will by whatever means to support his theology, which seems to be a crucial part of his identity.
J.W. Dunne (aeronautical engineer and philosopher) wrote a fascinating book in 1927 called "An Experiment with Time" where he writes about the philosophical implications of precognitive dreams. Precognitive dreams are a well known observable fact if one has ever cracked open a Psychology book or read any of the works of those who studied the unconscious (such as Myers, Freud, Jung, Adler, etc.) How is it possible that the psyche when dreaming can somehow take a peek into the future? And what are the philosophical/psychological and even physical implications of a mind that can sometimes experience precognitive dreams? Is reality strictly deterministic? Is human choice an illusion? How is precognition even possible?
Precognition is possible if you want it to be real. News flash: Everything is an illusion. Life is full of mysteries. v
I always wonder how religious people can claim what God is, what God wants, and give God attributes. Where is this "knowledge" coming from? From a human mind creating concepts that more often than not are simply wrong. God may know himself, but no human can know God. Actually, nobody knows anything here. It is a discussion going nowhere.
Pseudo freedom vs compatibilist freedom vs libertarian Free Will vs miracles (& humans not being a “physical object) vs QUASI-FREE-WILL¿¡?! Does Einstein’s “OLD ONE” really predetermine everything or does the “OLD ONE cause Einstein to have to grapple with cognitive dissonance? BUT IS HE “FREE” TO GRAPPLE considering DICE & all (in a figurative sense)¿¡?!
What is free Will?
Religious people mostly don't claim that bcs god knows the future therefore there isn't free will , god knowing what I'm gonna do tomorrow doesn't mean that knowledge is effecting my decisions .. yet people who are trying so hard to negative the nonphysical stuff in this world .. do have a problem .
It's not the knowledge affects the decision, it's how such knowledge can exist and yet the decision not be determined. If god knows that you will choose to wear the blue tie tomorrow, what does it mean to say that you will have freedom to choose the green tie? When is the choice made?
Take his argument that he knows his daughter would take the car. He knows the mental and emotional characteristics of his daughter, which are consistent and (more or less) persistent over time. He know such things because he can evaluate the information that he has, and that information is stable and reliable, and can be deterministically processed to make a prediction. His is an argument for determinism, not against it.
@@simonhibbs887 such knowledge exist by the definition of god , u don't ask why the triangle has three sides bcs a triangle by definition has three sides .
Now , how come such knowledge exist .. this is purely a theological discussion and an ontological one .. that scientific hat u wearing needs to be taken off .
@@billeltot Bear in mind there are theists that disagree with Moreland on this, for the same reasons I do, so it's not really a scientific issue. More a rational and philosophical one.
@@simonhibbs887 yeah it is , u just don't know it yet ... Philosophically speaking is it possible that such being could exist ?
@@billeltot Philosophically speaking a troll could exist under my garden shed, or there could be an elf living in the attic. 'Could exist' is just a story, 'does exist' requires evidence.
Evil is not knowledge.
“They have turned their backs on me, not their faces; and although I taught them, taught them frequently, they have not listened so as to receive instruction. Instead they put their detestable idols in the house that bears my name, to defile it; and they built the high places for Ba‘al which are in the Ben-Hinnom Valley, to burn alive their sons and daughters to Molekh - something I did not order them to do, it never even entered my mind that they would do such an abominable thing - and thus they caused Y’hudah to sin.’ ~ Jeremiah
Notice what YAHOVAH God says: “something I did not order them to do, it never even entered my mind that they would do such an abominable thing.”
Evil isn’t even eternal and it’s an aberration.
Would you rather have a God who knew ever single hideous thing that would be done, or have a God who focused on the principle of goodness? Some people think God was at the scene of every future crime from time and eternity past, although the God who can speak audibly to us never said that to them.
He got it all backwards. Logic and reason are not y matter of choice, they compell. You don't choose that 2+2=4 if you understand basic arithmetic, you don't have a choice but to accept the fact.
Goes to show how meaningless the moniker "philosopher" is, especially when followed by ", theologian and apologist".
There's a big difference in being aware of something, making a decision about something and then ultimately taking an action on any given situation.... For example maybe he knows that we're going to choose one of three outcomes that's still knowing everything he just leaves it up to us hoping leaving to us to make the right choice..,😂 everything just like a teacher giving an exam
(He created the exam, he knows all the answers,😢 say it's a multiple choice test…him knowing that we could get it right or wrong would still mean that he knew everything and all possible outcomes we are the ones that mess it up because we have free will) 😮.… Because there's God's plan and God's will, I would assume that when someone makes a decision to do something deliberately to injure someone else but that is not what he intended... Where does it say that God limits his will for us to only one outcome and not allow for a variety.
I'm a firm believer that we absolutely have free will I can choose to do what I want whenever I want, so the big I may know what's going to happen that doesn't mean that I didn't get to decide what I ultimately did
There are completely different levels and realms of the possibility of having free will. We'll start off at the fact that God or soul/life force within us or even the universe whatever you want or believe is on such a higher level of existence that it truly has nothing to do with our free will day to day
No, we don't. Free Will is a contradiction due to the infinite regression fallacy. There's a deterministic underpinning of reality. People are just delusional as usual.
Say you are watching a toddler playing with blocks and she picks up a favorite red block. She can run and put it on her bed or take it to you and hand it to you. What does she do? Is her action free will?
@@robertpawlsoky2910 no, free will is a contradiction since you can't infinitely go back in time. You have a deterministic underpinning at your decision making which sets a whole process in motion.
whilst it can't be tested, i don't believe that humans have free will (the ability to have done otherwise).
I find Galen Strawson's arguments more compelling.
God has an infinite mind therefore knows the infinite possibilities. Humans although we are created in the image of God we are finite and based on our knowledge experience and wisdom our minds can know many many many possibilities we do not know the infinite so we have free will to choose from that which we know.
Arnt there degrees of free will? It depends on how much foreknowledge one has and what one is physically capable of... viz agency.
If we say God has given us free will I would say it is a generally limited free will.
I am doubtful God desires humanity to have a free will. When we tried in the Garden of Eden, mythologically speaking, humanity was thrown out.
I'll grant god five sigma, but the existence of a perfect, all good creator is a contradiction, or proof that he's not good. There is none higher than truth.
Ouch! What an oppressive worldview Mr Moreland holds.
Are you being oppressed?
What about destiny then?
*"What about destiny then?"*
... "Destiny" is just a more poetic word for "predetermined," (thus the word "predestination"). _"You are my destiny!"_ sounds more romantic than _"You were predetermined to be lover!"_ in the movies.
The antiparticle for "destiny" would be "volition."
What about it?...v
I’m an outlier. I think worms have free will. Maybe at a very “proto” or minimal level, but still free will nonetheless. Why else in the non biological selection process leading up to life, would life have been selected for and eventually expanded upon if not for the advantage such living things had in both being aware of their environments and being able to make choices and decisions in that environment based on their needs, wants, preferences, etc.
Ok, but needs, wants and preferences are expressable in terms of information. Processes on information are physical processes. A self-driving car is aware of it's environment and can make choices.
@@simonhibbs887But a self driving car does not decide to go to the grocery store or go on strike unless you keep it filled with Exxon premium.
@@longcastle4863 Neither can a worm.
@@longcastle4863 _"a self driving car does not decide to go to the grocery store or go on strike"_
Neither do worms..
@@simonhibbs887 A worm may not decide to go grocery shopping, but it can decide to go look for food. A worm can also decide to consume one food rather than another when they are equally available to it. A bird can decide not to eat a piece of bread, but decide instead to drop it in the water to attract fish, which it has more of a taste for at that moment. A human can decide not to enjoy the short term reward of eating that second piece of cake, based on the longer term reward of looking good in a swimsuit many months from now. Etc.
Limited Palette of Choices Perhaps?
You can't break determinism...in any way. Illogical argument and no scientist worth their salt would agree
Great Interview!
In all the bits in which he appears in this channel, I always end up feeling this gentleman is a snake oil salesman or on the best case scenario a waste of time… I keep listening just to make sure anyways, and yeah.
you have free will!
what you choose to do whether it be good or evil is and was your choice! you chose to do it at that moment . its pretty simple. its so simple its true! nothing complicated about it.
Every Living Being have Will.
Life is Eternal,
Will is Eternal,
'free will' is Mr. Kuhns invention.
Had to turn it off after he compared human prediction and divine knowledge to apples. This guy is saying nothing.
All our created minds and the AI that wakes up as each mind begins processing those invisible vibrations are all programmed by our Creator. There is no such thing as free will. However, the AI in each created mind does learn how to navigate about in the 3D world according to how it was programmed.
Just to clarify, "will" and "freewill" are two very different things. "Will" has to do with willing something to happen, e.g., deciding to go for a walk, picking up a pencil, etc. (And a case could be made for that being largely deterministic.) "Freewill" has to do with making a moral decision, choosing between right and wrong. If one were to argue that freewill doesn't exist, then by implication they would be also advocating for there being no difference between right and wrong, or by extension, no difference between truth and error. Does anyone seriously believe that? The irony here is, one would have to have freewill, in order to be able to decide whether this video made any sense or not.
In philosophy, free will has a specific meaning, often expressed as the ability to choose otherwise. In other words that nothing physical or persistent about the person determines choices, there is a non-physical self that chooses in ways that are neither deterministic via any defined process, nor random. It's not really specific to moral choices. I have opinions on this, but I'm trying to lay out the established position here neutrally.
Good podcast Robert Thank you...
Wow, this was a dumb take. *Looks up Moreland* Ah, an apologist. This now makes perfect sense. Skip.
Assuming anything is possible; at the quantum level, all cards have been dealt, and in reality they unfold as events, in an apparently deterministic space-time continuum. That is until the player emerges, possessing an extra card, that when played, can distort the continuum. Only the player is free to play this card; and when it is played the space-time continuum becomes dynamic. We all know what that card is. If you are not sure, just smile :)
Free will is more important than the existence of god
Rank nonsense. Sophistry so typical of self-serious theologians: Libertarian free will with a causally-independent ghost in the machine, founded on no more than supernatural spooky stuff and wishful thinking. Every libertarian choice is a "miracle"? I would not have Robert's patience to listen to this twaddle with as much equanimity. "A materialist chooses" is Moreland's primary self-refuting phrase. And if you need to know anything more about this sophist, there is this from Wiki: "Moreland has defended the existence of angels and demons, arguing that he knows they exist due to both Christian doctrine and personal experience." Alrighty then ...
No but they like to think they have 😛
Yes.
Read Elbow Room, by Dennett.
Suppose some event will happen by chance, not by necessity, and at the present moment, we don't know what will specifically happen. Let's also assume we have a time machine. We begin using it to know in advance what will specifically happen; we see what has happened, and we are going back to the present. Now, we know in advance what will specifically happen. The question arises: Will this event happen by chance or by necessity? Of course, it will still happen by chance, as is supposed above, despite the fact that now we foresee this event.
God, as a timeless being, is able to transcend time and foresee the future. So, the similar question arises: if there are events that happen by chance, does God's foreseeing prevent them from being happened by chance? Of course, not. The similar answer.
So, it is obvious that if we have free will, God's omniscience does not prevent our behaviour from being free.
The consequence arising from your conclusion is the elimination of either God's omnipotence or his omnibenevolence. Because he can't be purely good if he's aware of a future evil that will occur, has the power to prevent it, yet does not. Or, he knows of the future evil, would change it if he could, but does not have the power to..
@SineEyed I like theodicy, though it is complicated. In my opinion, the intelligent creatures living in the bliss of heaven and paradise got unwilling to make a bit of mental effort to theoretically cognize good and evil from God - from the supreme intelligence. And if we are unwilling to do something, God will not force us to do that; thereby He will not go against our will; He respects our will. So, the creatures did not know what evil really was, and therefore, they could not avoid evil. God did not prevent evil because the creatures themselves were unwilling to prevent evil, and He did not go against their will.
@@GM-o6i I think it could be brought back another step; assuming an all knowing creator, of there is evil in the world, then the creator put that evil here. If he wanted there to be no evil, no suffering, he would simply make it so. Given that there _is_ evil, that there _is_ suffering, then it must be the case that is what he wants. The consequence of that is, of course, that God cannot be all loving.
So we see, it is not possible for God to be all knowing, all loving, and all powerful, all at the same time. This is the problem with evil which confronts the religious..
@SineEyed Your questions are the same ones that I asked myself three decades ago. The proper answers came to me for a month.
Suppose you produce labour tools. Why do you produce them if you know in advance that your tools can be misused and cause evil and suffering? Is it true that you don't love the people who will suffer due to the misuse of your tools? Of course, not; you love those people. God created intelligent beings and gave them all abilities and possibly to be happy. Is it true that God is not all loving because of the misuse of the abilities that He gave intelligent creatures and that they misuse, causing evil and suffering? Of course, not. God is nevertheless all loving.
Evil and suffering in the created world were possible, not necessary. If intelligent creatures had theoretically cognized good and evil in advance from the superior intelligence (God), there would have been no evil and no suffering in the world. In the forthcoming new world, there will be no evil and no suffering due to our advanced cognition; there will instead be peace and happiness. Thus, God put not actual evil and suffering in the world but their possibility. The negativity of this possibility is cancelled out by the positivity of the created possibility of happiness. But it doesn't follow from this that God is "neutral" - neither good nor evil. He is good because, in addition, He gave and still gives all the creatures who commit sins the possibility of coming back to the superior intelligence and obtaining happiness forever.
You lost me at Philosopher/Theologian.
If you can hold back from hitting someone that really deserves it, then you have free will. If you can say no to that extra cookie or chocolate bar, even though you're still hungry, you have free will. Etc.
Absolutely not because it's previous events causing you to refrain as well. There's no ways around it, free will = debunked.
Your definition is illusory.
@@DeaderEyeland_1983 I didn't state that this is a definition, o' foolish one.
If you can make yourself WANT to punch your most cherished love one in the face then you might have free will. Not saying that you could do it. I am saying change your emotions right now to have a strong desire to punch them in the face.
@@nothanksnoname7567 Your free will is philosophical. Factually it's a farcical explanation because science debunks it
😂😂bs. People can't overcome their religious impulse to feel special.
Nonsense. I'm a big fan. But this guy really thinks he's on to something and he is not. His arguments for an omniscient god are illogical. He said if god knows something is going to happen it doesn't make him responsible for it? Eh?
THE ANSWER IS: *YES WE DO*
Because with my free will I didn't listen to this BS
and then with my free will thumbs downed this nonsense
and then with my free will I blocked this channel from being recommended in future!
Could not last 2 minutes. Utter nonsense by both of them.
The arguments against free will essentially boil down to "I can't see how we could possibly have free will, so we don't."
The arguments against free will boil down to “the laws of physics are immuable and deterministic, what makes you think you are an exception”.
The arguments for free will are: “but i feel i can do whatever i like!!”
And that’s a problem why? Stating there is no evidence and thus we shouldn’t be convinced is just being reasonable.
@@IZn0g0uDatAllFrom observing biological life, it sure seems like things can emerge from seemingly deterministic systems and still, nevertheless, not be fully bound to those systems.
@@longcastle4863: What specific observations of biological life seem non-deterministic to you?
@@brothermine2292 A large portion of it.
* A tiny bird deciding to wait for the big bird to leave the feeder before approaching it herself.
* A lover of music choosing to go to community college while she and her fellow band members try to make it in the pop scene, just so she’ll have a plan b in case things don’t work out.
* A person deciding to start recycling after reading some books about the environment.
* My cat meowing at me that she wants to be let her out, then changing her mind when she sees the snow.
* The twenty minutes a chess grandmaster spends thinking several moves deep in several different lines of attack, before finally deciding what move to make.
* Deciding what examples to give and what words to use in response to your excellent question.
I like these topics being discussed and all, but this guy gives the worst analogies and the worse arguments for this position I've ever heard.
Even though I don't agree with the compatibilist view, it's the most rational if you believe in God and you're trying to defend certain doctrine about an omniscient and all-powerful God.
He tries to separate the knowledge of the future from the point of view of God from his determination on it. That's only valid if you have a limited God, which I doubt it's his position. And his example of his daughter really illustrates how he things about this topic.
If God created the Universe knowing I will write this comment and he also created me in this specific way, then from the beginning it's all determined. The compatibilist view doesn't make much sense either but at least it aliviates the problem a little bit (still irrational unless you believe in a limited God).
His argument for the "self-refutiness" of determinism doesn't really adress anything. He says you have to be free to believe in that theory, not really, you're just born in a specific way, with a specific genetic material, brain, education, etc, in an enviroment where there's this theory going around and the likeliness of you believing that theory rather than another one is just 100% since everything lead you to it.
Faulty reasoning all around. Libertarian free will just has too many holes if you believe in an unlimited God, it's the worst position. But either way thank you to the interviewer for taking the time to talk to this fool and show how people's minds work, and thank you to this fool for the entertainment and for at least trying.
Trick question? Of course humans have free-will. Next... Thanks for posting.
There are two different types of free will. One type of free will is where we have freedom to choose what we desire, like is some person really desire to follow Jesus, he has freedom to do so and if another person really does not desire to follow Jesus, he has freedom not to. All people believe in this free will.
Yet there is another type of free will which says that we cannot just have freedom to choose what we desire, we can also choose what to desire, like this person who truly desire to follow Jesus has freedom to choose not to desire Jesus and begin to desire Muhammad for example. Such free will does not exist.
@@nikokapanen82 , Thank you for your input. I am thinking about free will to travel through eternity. If a human wants to "follow" Jesus or Mohammed, I am happy for them. v
ISLAM ☪️ is the only hope left ❤❤
Because?
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices
It is true.
Yes!
100%
@@uthman2281
In your own words, define “TRUTH”. ☝️🤔☝️
Lol, proof is a thing too