Does God's Knowledge Ruin Free Will? | Episode 1312 | Closer To Truth
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- Since God (supposedly) knows everything and can never be wrong, including about future events, how could those future events not come to pass? If we cannot do other than what God knew prior, how then free will? Featuring interviews with Peter van Inwagen, Brian Leftow, and Hugh McCann.
Season 13, Episode 12 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#God #FreeWill Your source for the study of philosophy and college philosophy class materials.
This Chanel is addictive.
Yes it is
Free enough to thank you for another excellent and free video.
Knowing does not mean the same thing as making a decision for someone.
But if God already knows with certainty that you’re going to “choose” to do X at time Y, and God can’t be wrong, then in point of fact you actually won’t choose to do anything other than X at time Y, and any feeling you have that you could choose to do something other than X at time Y is an illusion.
God knows everything, all space, all time (including future). But has no desire to change it. God knows how to prompt us to do the right thing and helps in mysterious ways.
Mr. Kuhn has undertaken a very ambitious, but I think impossible task. To know if there is an actual God, it most likely includes our own death. If there is “life” after death, only then can we know if there is a God or not. Personally, I like to vision a God who is essentially all good, but when He created the universe he leaned back and said to himself: “this is the best I can do. Now, let’s see what happens….”
I was just thinking about this question and this video was recommended by the youtube.
Great 👍
Our freewill is limited in our environtment, freewill only on earth surfaces
It seems to me that this question is answered by combining 3 things.
- Wave function
- Multiple realities
- Sentience outside of time (this could be seen in things like photosynthesis where the energy goes everywhere and arrives exactly where it needs to by the most efficient route.)
If God is a wave of consciousness outside of time then God can know what route through time you will take at any given time.
There is a limitation of intellect. I can predict things in the future based on present knowledge. However, I have no control over the future.
I like what you are saying. its all about probability within the chaos
indifference is a godly virtue .
unless God knows every possible choice you could make and every outcome - and still God lets you choose.
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
Gods foreknowledge does eliminate freewill but the creatures that are under the illusion of choice produce incredible dreams from their illusion of choice. What pleasure would be in the world if everyone knew the future? The illusion of choice seems to be a necessary evil.
God knows the future, even though he is outside time.
But he chooses to ignore his knowledge for the purposes of argument
That way, you can still have free will.
Remember, he can do anything.
Why is number two a problem? If God knows everything about us, it doesn't mean we are tied down.
If I can see a person walking long in a single direction
And he doesn't change direction despite harm being in his way that he could've avoided by changing course. Would you say that I was forcing him to fall down the next hole in front of him.
We know of plenty human beings that can predict very accurately what someone else will do, just think about your close ones and how certain you are of their reaction to a common incidence. Surely you would be insulted if I claimed that you were forcing them to react in that way, just because you knew almost certainly what they were going to do.
If we humans are allowed, why not God?
Brian's view is very akin to the Muslim view. And the argument isn't thin. But to make sense of it one really has to count in the whole world view. Without an eternally potent after life, this life makes no sense. Either atheistic nihilism or theistic inconsistency.
No! The question of free will is the question: who you are! The creator and lawmaker is in you, it is the life itself! Even the deterministic Schopenhauer said, that reconciling the apparent opposites of freedom and determination is the higher wisdom. It is all a question of who you are! 🦉
Yet Schopenhauer didn't feel the need to call anything 'god'. His closest conception was will, and even then he wanted us to reject it.
@@DeadEndFrog Yes, then in other words: Provided that determinism is true: If you are the X or in conformity with this X that determined something or everything, than this determination is your own freedom. So the question is, who you are! 🤷♂️
Schopenhauer said, that most misunderstanding about his philosophy arise, because his thinking has two different platous, and only one platou is a deterministic perspective. World is your will and imagination! ☝️
He was very close to the concept of God (and of gods coming) and the "world" in Hinduism (and early Christianity) and the godly Self in Buddhism. And even with Schopenhauer, there still remains the "will", who wants that something is. But it's here something like a blind god. 😎
Nietzsche was the one who gave freedom back to the self, so even a mental illness is not a foreign determinism anymore, it is a free and creative achievement of the individual itself. That's the difference between Adler's Individualpsychology and Freud's Psychoanalysis; while Freud has philosophical base in Schopenhauer, Adler has Nietzsche as his base to stand with that directly against Freuds psycho-deterministic approach, so Freud didn't like Nietzsche. 😄
And Schopenhauers rejection of the "will" means much more to leave the "world" behind you to become that transcendent self again. It is not a coincidence, that not only "god" and "creator", but also the "self" and "subject" (of knowledge) is always bigger than anything you can demonstrate to it. ✌️
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ 'God' as a definition could apply to so many things. And nothing stopped Schopenhauer to describe the will as such. Because just like with god, the will is beyond ouer preception.
He considered himself an Atheist, because claiming something like the will to be god would be as non-sensical as claiming the universe to be god.
Everything can be 'god' by any definition because the concept can be co-opted by anyone.
What most people mean when they say god, is rather personal, and most people consider god to be a personal being. Meaning, it has a personal connection to us.
It doesn't look anything like a 'force' or a 'will' or 'energy' or the 'universe', because all of these things have non-personal effects on us. They effect everyone without discrimination. While god only seems to effect some in most religions. The rest is left up to the 'devil' or his equivalent.
Forces are non-descriment, and require no religion. Just like gravity.
But that being said, because the concept of god is such an unprecise concept that people seem to argue about its atributes. (including us) Unlike with science where you can point out to spesifc effects of any given force. There is nothing stopping you from redefining god to include everything i just said.
But then again, there is nothing stopping me from excluding all you say. Its a wordgame. Like most philosophical ideas they don't play by the same rules as science does.
To use your comment as basis;
God is Just like with the 'self' as you have all the power in determining how you see yoruself. You just have less power to do the same with how other people see you. So is it with defining god, you can do what you like, just don't pretend those are the same rules as me or everyone else plays it
@@DeadEndFrog For me: „God“ is the life itself („I am the life!“), it is the real „living“, that is able to pull itself even out of the nothing and organize itself (i.a. with science) („Now I want to stand up!“), and which once will be in full glory and greatness („I am what will be!“), with all the promised capabilities, the life, that created us, but for that we are something like „building bricks“. So I recommend with Newton: „Be careful with your hasty judgements and conclusions about the future abilities of the mind [or the life]!“ We already practicing creating worlds! Schopenhauer noted, that life, that created you once, could easily create you again.
That science can only see „unpersonal“ forces does not mean that this is the truth. Science has nothing to do with truth! Science is not even thinking in the full sense, it is methodically shortened and instrumental thinking. Science can only see finite and determined things. „Freedom“ can not be seen empiricly. Nobody ever has seen freedom.
The real „living“, the „beeing“, the „god“, the „creator“, the „mind“, the „self“, the „subject“ (of knowledge) does never appear in science. It is already substracted out (in the process of thinking, respectively in the constitution of this perspective), otherwise this tool would be completely useless to it. The „law-maker“ is already substracted out to get the isolated „laws“. The „subject“ (of knowledge) can never appear in science and even not in reflection. It is always bigger than everything you can demonstrate to it. The actual and real beeing will always remain invisible, like Thales explained. So thats the difficulty with the philosophical self-knowledge, because it is about the invisible! And this invisible beeing is what „mind“ and „spirit“ („Geist“) really means. The world is the self-knowledge of the will, like Schopenhauer said, it is your idea! The "creator" is in you, and we are all "one"!
That's also the wisdom from the "holy books" like Upanishaden and Bhagavadgita, Schopenhauer loved so much, deeper wisdom than in "philosophy", he said. There you find a thinking far beyond the distinction of atheism and theism. But if you recognize yourself, you will understand all holy books of all cultures and all philosophies as complementing each other.
Science is not about to explain the world, not one of our existential questions is answered, that’s not its task. With science the living organizes and transforms itself and intervenes on itself, it is self operation!
There can never be any conflict between religion and science! The conflict only appears because a lack of differentiation. No matter what science ever finds out, like Kepler explained, we already know that about god. We have no other „light“ in thinking, Adorno explains, everything else is just „reconstruction“!
„No matter where and how far we look, nowhere do we find a contradiction between religion and natural science. On the contrary, we find a complete concordance in the very points of decisive importance. Religion and natural science do not exclude each other, they mutually supplement and condition each other. […] Both ways do not diverge, they go in parallelity instead. In the far infinity they will meet at the same destination. […] Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, vere relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in the crusade has always been and always will be: On to god!“ (*Max Planck) 🌿
Friendly greets!
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ
Aside from the definition of god you use which i don't agree with. As i want clarity in the concepts i use for myself, and against others. I simply call life life for the sake of clairty, and god god. If i would conflate the two, i would merely be fooling myself or others. Thinking is about making destinctions for me, not equivalating everything to everything and therby making it useless. So god is the imagined being people attempt to precive which is supposedly unprecivable by means of science. No instrument can see him, not even reason, as reason has to redefined to fit the mold. Just as you redefine god to mean life, and accept it as a shutt case.
So first
In science we destinguish between things that are usefull and make predictions, and things which make no predictions and have no explanetory power. So im having trouble seeing what would be gained from your view.
Secondly
I don't see how you could destinguish between imagined things, and real things in your view.
Again im looking for distinctions.
Just as the will represents itself in all of us, we seem to disagree with eachother, just as every individual will fights both for, against, or with others. It seems like there is no unity to be had, only the fact that we supposedly came from unity, and that we will supposedly end in unity. But as we are, as science precives, we are destinguished by the practical rather then the philosophical. No worldview has been able to unite us, no underlying will can be seein all of humanity aside from 'life' being forced upon us. We can still take it back, and many people do. They kill themselves, or stop reproducing, and if you accept a collective, we can even kill eachother and deny life that way.
Its pretty easy to deny god/life in that way.
Freedom is this ability sure, and it comes from the will. But it starts by force, by the will producing us without ouer consent.
So im having trouble finding a chorent view that makes god equivalent to life. Will equvalent to freedom.
Maybe you could anwser the questions above?
1. How does one explain the contradiction in the will/life/god?
2. And how is this theory usefull, like science?
3. How does one destiguish real from fake in your worldview?
In science its destinguished by what works. If it doesn't its merely 'rational', 'logical', or an 'idea' without it being bound up to reality in any consiquent way. All we have then is the use it has for us. But everyone can subjectivly judge anything to be usefull for them. Thats just the idea taking over. Placebos and nocebos are a demonstrated concept.
Would that be crazy to think if this God fella know everything all possibilities at the same time? (Since it is out of time? And omnipotent?) This way we do have free will, and God knows what happens either way. But U think our actions are limited by our knowledge and experience (not knowing but acted upon our behaviour)
Yet making a creature what could be perfect when it was made but it is not raises more questions.
I am no religious. To me no religion is convincing that I know. God therefore is an open possibility. If there is one entity such as God that is either we misunderstand its nature about being kind, or our pain means more for us than it means to this being. So in our measures it is not a nice character - remember it knows all possibilities and seeing bad outcomes too and didn't try to giving more chance by a 'better' design. Wouldn't we try to eleminate all dangers from those who we care about let alone love?
Why not open our mind and let us understand that actions of wrong doing will lead to tragedy so we wont have to suffer through to understand that and we will struggle to survive in a shakey anvironment where we live in so that will be full of experience (and he designed that too. So that balance may less conscious by uss but he can see all outcomes anyway, which means again that we don't matter much to him/her/it/them.
Didn't mean to offend anyone. Sorry if I did so, please let me know what was harmful if anything. And I will correct it or even retract and appologies for it if I will understand how I caused something wrong.
See no fear just kindness towards you people. Or God/Gods for that matter.
I've always thought of this question from a different angle - I feel that whenever we talk about the dimension of time, we mainly focus on God's knowledge attribute i.e. he knows everything. And while discussing the dimension of space, we mainly emphasize his creative attribute i.e. him being the creator and designer of everything right down to its smallest part(s).
But what we should keep in mind is that not only is God the creator and designer of the dimension of space, he is ALSO the creator and designer of the dimension of time (or the flow of time in its entirety). Because according to (most) theistic belief systems, EVERYTHING is God's creation and is the way it is because God designed it as such, right? So this everything includes all of space AND time. This implies that all of the individual moments of time that have ever taken place or will take place (which includes all the choices that humans have made) were ultimately created and designed by God to be the way they were. And if that is the case, then how can we ever hold humans accountable for anything that has or will occur?
Would like to hear thoughts on this.
Determinism and freewill are compatible!
You can’t be held accountable, Ali
Mr Metaphysics explain please?
For humans to be held responsible, there needs to be a positive action on the part of the human. God probably did try this experiment of removing free will and it didn't go anywhere. There needs to be suffering: comes with engagement, motion and meaning, in a physicality. The invisible hand is apparent here again as both "sides" are benefited by mutual actions. Free will given and acted upon.
Another thing is that time as you and I perceive it might be a creation from ourselves. Not to deny a cause and effect universe... on one level the entirety of the human race and life on Earth is a seething, bubbling movement of energy, under the sun. What we are and perceive, even on a universal level, is constrained. This is not important!! We are relational creatures able to perceive different levels: Agents of chaos and pattern. One of these patterns is this time thing...I can see two ways at least, one is the actual movement of thoughts, and this is because there's only room for one thought at a time then perhaps this flow of moments appears as time; the second way is seeing how we think and perceive, as a sort of what's known as "switch bounce". The pattern I see is repeated at various points on the journey into the brain and awareness. There's a lot of repetition. So we have free will in that seeing this thing happening, this "time" perception, and being able to nullify it: also, the free will of what we ingest, and these things can help the perception of and movement between levels...as agents of chaos and pattern.
This is the problem you face when you try to explain god's foreknowledge in human's space-time bounded prespective. If you believe in God, you must believe God created everything including space-time, and he is not limited by any of his creation, which means God's experience of universe is not limited to space-time ( here I prefer to use the word 'experience' instead of 'knowledge' because it is more coherent in this context) In other words you can not distinguish God's experience as past, present and future. So using the word 'foreknowledge' in this context is illogical. About God it is not 'foreknowledge' but in his prespective he is expriencing all the events in the universe without bounding of time and space.
But in human prespective, we are bouded to spave-time we experience everything in sequence of time. And we humans definitely have free will in certain things, that you can not deny, you experience in everyday life. So if you do any action using your free will you are the only person responsible for that. You can not complain God for that, but God is definitely experiencing your action with his existence regardless of space-time.
This space-time boundless characteristics of God make him able to intervene in things, but in our human prespective still we feel God's interventions are logical as per natural law.
How to reconcile God's knowledge and free will? Apparently the answer is to talk yourself into a pretzel.
Via observation from some perspective, a prior Creator/Simulator precomputed the simulation of an informatic block universe and then enqueued a Hamiltonian tour of all sentient beings. Absolute determinism.
Perhaps God does not know all that shall be, but all that could be.
I'm surprised nobody brought up the modal fallacy. God's necessary knowledge of X only entails that X is true. The necessity of God's knowledge doesn't carry over to X itself.
Can you put that in a clear syllogism form?
If God’s foreknowledge is as eternal as God is then God knows what you will do tomorrow and it could not have been any different. Thus, No Modal Fallacy.
@@truebomba Sure. Here's the fallacy in a syllogism:
1. Necessarily, if God knows that P, then P is true.
2. God knows that P.
3. Therefore, necessarily P.
That conclusion doesn't follow. The argument commits a modal fallacy. You can read more about this here: www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/
@@TheMirabillis That IS a modal fallacy. It doesn't follow that things COULD not be otherwise. It only follows that things WILL not be otherwise.
@@philochristos
It couldn’t not be otherwise IF there was no beginning to the knowledge.
How could you change God’s knowledge which is as ageless and eternal as God is ?
We are left with anthropomorphic statements about God. They are understood as linguistic metaphors, otherwise it would be impossible to talk about God at all. Jews, as a general rule, see G-d as an impersonal force. As Plato had it long ago: “The
unexamined life is the life not worth living”. Although an exaggeration makes it clear that one must scrutinize their lives in order to live a fulfilled one. My Rabbi, of blessed memory, once said, "Every good question deserves an equally good answer. And every good answer deserves seven equally good questions." Life is a journey and a mystery we will never solve. Enjoy the process.
Progynown in the Greek, foreknown, is his plan. One more reason I am an Atheist.
Crazyyyyyyyy
*5. God is love and love needs free will to work. God has to let us choose to love him or not.
Perhaps god knows all potential futures but you have a choice in determining what that future will be and perhaps the best future would be to meet/find/create god.
That's the only way I can make sense of how free will can be preserved.
I think I know how free will works . Imagine a life line with a goal at the end we can call this eternal life ... god give us a 100 years to walk through it and reach the goal of eternity. If we follow the gods will you already exercising you free will choosing the life with god. Now let’s think about another scenery. God give you the opportunity to chose his will or not. Every time you do the wrong thing god will remind you and bring you back to chose another way god’s way still letting you exercise your free will. By the time you 100 and still no accepting his will and you dye he will still give you that one last opportunity to repent before you death. And if you don’t.. you life was judge no by him but by yourself accepting punishment because the opportunity was always there but your free will was very arrogant.
Good subject.
I cannot respond to this subject, because it is not my duty, nor has I been to answer the questions asked. For that, we would need to be direct engagement by establishing my theories and philosophical points of view.
Metaphysician philosopher
Why should God's knowledge ruin free will? Suppose there is some candy on the table, and I see my 2 year old kid catching a glimpse of that candy. Of course I do immediately know that they're gonna go and grab that candy. Why do I know that? Because I know that 2yr olds like candy. That's my knowledge. But in no way does my knowledge CAUSE my kid to wanna have that candy. No I don't think God's knowledge annihilates free will. Knowledge is neither causation nor manipulation.
For now, i can guess of a "god" like a sort of "ground of mind" that allows for local minds to pop up (humans, animals). If that is the case it could allow for free will, we could be some sort of semi-separate consciousness?
I can freely decide what to write next and God hasn't got a clue.
In fact, I haven't got a clue either, because I haven't decided what to write.
Later... couldn't think of anything. That foxed him !
God’s foreknowledge of future events/actions does not negate libertarian freedom. Our actions/choices are locked in/determined by us and the choices we make at a particular moment. God’s foreknowledge does not remove our choice. We have to think about it in reverse, that is, that our actions lead to God’s foreknowledge based on our nature as humans. We could have done otherwise but at a particular point we make a conscious choice and this is what locks in God’s foreknowledge.
No, that defense was tried long ago and it doesn't work. What you've proposed requires that God's knowledge of future human actions is merely contingently true, which is to say that what God foreknows is determined by our free actions. But you've neglected to consider that God is infallible, which means that the objects of God's foreknowledge are not merely contingently true; they are necessarily true. Remember that to be free with respect to a certain action X means that it is within your power, at the time in question, to do X or to do Y instead. But if God infallibly knows that you'll do X, then it's not logically possible to do Y instead; hence the action cannot be free.
@@wardandrew23412 When it comes to God's sovereignty and human freedom the Bible says that both are true. God is sovereign over all things, including human events and choices, but we possess the God-given power of free will. I don't think this is a mystery, but it is difficult to harmonize the two in human terms.
My own position is self-determinism where my moral acts are not caused by another or uncaused, but are caused by me.
We should note that God sovereignly delegated free choice to us as human beings. There was no necessity for him to do so; he exercised his free will. So human freedom is a sovereignly given power to make moral choices. Only absolute freedom would be contrary to God's absolute sovereignty. But human freedom is a "limited" freedom. We are not free to become God ourselves because a contingent being cannot become a Necessary Being.
What you've described above is a form of determinism which I think is dangerous ground. It not only removes human freedom but can also reason to a point where God himself doesn't have free will. Best wishes.
@@TheHistoryguy10 It's not just "difficult" to harmonize free will with the existence of a being who infallibly knows our future actions, it's impossible, as I've demonstrated above. Claiming the contrary because the Bible says so isn't a response to my argument; it simply signals your determination to abandon reason when it threatens your cherished religious beliefs.
@@wardandrew23412 My apologies. I initially thought that you were a believer based on the things you mentioned, but it's obvious now that this not the case.
With the exclusion of God, do you believe that you possess free will?
@@TheHistoryguy10 No, I don't even think the concept of free will (in the libertarian interpretation) makes any sense, because it implies that the desires on which we act had no antecedent cause. A "compatibilist" interpretation of free will might make sense, unfortunately it doesn't capture what people mean by a free action. But we can at least agree on one thing: if libertarian free will is logically incompatible with an infallible knower, then even God's acts cannot be free.
What do we mean by now, temporal localization must apply to all objects in the universe in present moment. This would be what exist for God, if he can know all that, he could also remember all past events, no problem. But what is the future, that's the tricky question, since nature of stuff is quantum and relativistic. We could say things are very small and full of potential, but they are not just stuff, this objects can shape space time also. So we're not talking about bricks inside some volume of space, first we must became aware of arcane reality of nature, change thought model, try with different kind of mental visualizations. Than we can understand what it means to know the structure and it's mechanics, things are temporal, but space time extend beyond their future state. We have two phenomena at play, at least, material objects and container where they interact, this are different kind of mediums, they convey change at different rates. Things already shaped curvature of space, if we decide to move our body, our mass will cause another wave of change. A new dent in space will be created, waves will spread over entire sphere of influence, gravity should balance out into infinity. But this doesn't mean eternity, things in universe will change before influence from our free will action will reach them, everything will also bounce back on us slightly, gravity always seek perfect balance.
This means future is not what we think, it might exist, but it's in a different kind of aggregate state, it's chaos, doesn't have shape or form yet. This way God could see the future taking shape inside a foggy clouds, some things will form faster than others, he must track how all those influences will balance out. Here's a trick, potential doesn't radiate only from it's source, things radiate energy one on another at all times, from different angles. Balance already exist, change is reflected in mid points, like gravity is weakest somewhere along the distance between Earth and Moon, on so called Lagrangian points where both masses exactly cancel out. So another kind of future can exist that absorb action from our free will, God doesn't need to guess what are our intentions, he can just observe how force will bend around us and what will come out from the cosmic fog, as consequence of our unpredictable actions.
This is what free will actually is, our actions shape the future of entire universe, but not in a way we can imagine.
"How do you harmonise such a contradictory position?" Easy, cognitive dissonance.
The whole confusion is that people are producing a specification for God and go looking for the entity to fit this design.
Correctly, we should go discover the God entity and then describe the characteristics that are factual.
Unfortunately, this illusion will go on because the comfort of people’s mind are being disturbed. Only those selected few with good mental ability and stamina will get further ahead and closer to God.
Ruby Badilla you are indeed very learned. You are Touched by God ..... congratulations.
Ruby Badilla , I am with you, not agreeing with the general definition of God, but still in the continual process of exploring and discovering God.
Ruby Badilla, I actually see an operating system in our realm, with boundaries and limits for our dimensions and parameters. The fact that we can respond to given stimulus is the integration of computational subroutines and memory matching.
It does ruin free will but within boundaries... GOD I THINK HAS A GOAL OR AN ULTIMATE PLAN IN THE WORK. which is not happening in my mind because I have no plans at all.. so I think it's not about free will.. but it's about the limits of what can be done or happen without getting in the way of God's plan.. so I think this is kin of a playing ground. Which should be safe for kids.. while we as kids should not be trying to cross streets without an adult holding your hand.. it's just smoothly parenting and a little of healthy discipline...
Could this omnipotent God have created a world where pi is not 3.14, but for instance 3.25? Or 4.22?
Did these people not read Kant's Critique?
16:58.. THAT'S CALLED A STATIC STATE OF BEING. NOTHING. BUT FEEL PURE CONSCIOUSNESS... IT'S A BLACK HEAVEN.. IT'S A THING .. IT'S THE BEST FEELING EVER. TO JUST %!BE!%. MOVING OUT OF THAT YOU FEEL BLISS & HAPPINESS.. BUT YOU WANNA GO BACK. BUT THERE WAS NOTHING .. AND THERE NEVER WILL BE NOTHING OR ANYTHING TO GO BACK TO.. TIME FLOWS FORWARD.. YOU WON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. BUT IT'S REAL.
What I DO.. HAS NO CONNECTION TO GOD'S PLAN DIRECTLY. BC I DO KNOW THE BOUNDARIES.. SO NOT EVERYTHING I DO IS DEEPLY MEANINGFULL .. PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.
I am beginning to find it a bit tiresome, that Roberts constantly assures us that all he really wishes is clarity and not just intellectual fun and games. All these intricate and deep question will never resolve the real question: does God really exist and is he concerned with us and our lives?
This philosophical musings won't provide any definite answer to those questions, because they are merely that: musings. The prior and real question that he needs to deal with seriously is this: Did God enter the world as Jesus Christ, did he die on the cross and was he later resurrected. That is a historical question where there can't be mathematical certitudes, but it's at the real heart of the matter, because this is where we see God reveal himself, and it will allow all the other inquiries to fall in their proper place and perspective.
I hope he doesn't waste all his time merely endulging his love of philosophy - he is very close, but seems afraid to actually tackle the question head on.
His love of philosophy is very important because the Hindu, for example, may not ascribe to the importance of the resurrection that you so obviously do. However, you are right in claiming that the resurrection is one of the central issues concerning christianity, but such a supernatural claim (with 2.3 billion people believing it) demands such historical evidence independent of the Bible that I would love Robert to cover this.
@@stuartrowlands3553 I am not arguing against philosophy at all - I agree with you that it is a worthwhile pursuit in and of itself. But Christianity was not a religion that was first and foremost reasoned into being but is rather based in revelation.
I don't think it's a fair requirement to insist that the resurrection should be evaluated independently of a biblical evidence. The people who saw and witnessed it would likely become Christian after all. But the text can be analyzed historically, textually and critically. Other sources can provide additional information that can substantiate particular points, but it is hardly surprising that there aren't any non-christian sources recognizing the resurrection as such - they would hardly remain non-christian if they did after all.
But I hope he will challenge the historicity of the new testament stories because that is really as the crux of the matter for the Christian faith. I believe they stand up to scrutiny, but I am curious to see how he would view them.
@@JakobNHansen I think you have hit upon a point that is severely contested between atheists and theists alike (can the Bible be verified textually, for example), with scholars such as Richard Carrier denying that Jesus ever existed let alone arose from the dead (no evidence for his existence). After the Crucifiction Paul saw an image of Christ and years later the Gospels were written, and the strength of that belief may validate that belief for its followers, nevertheless the non-christian can reasonably ask for evidence that lies outside that internal belief system. For the atheist, no reference to that system can be used as a means to validate that system historically. So historical evidence outside of that system is necessary, although that evidence does not have to be an eye witness account. Perhaps Robert could do an episode on what counts as evidence concerning the Resurrection.
@@stuartrowlands3553 yes I am aware of what Richard Carrier says, though to be fair I haven't followed him closely. You must know though, that the existence of a historical Jesus is one of the best established facts of the ancient world. His opinion is very much a fringe opinion of scholarship - a very small fringe. I also think denying even the historicity of the person Jesus makes the atheist argument looks weaker than it is. It shows what is clearly motivated reason in my opinion, rather than a dispassionate look at the historical facts. You can conclude there is insufficient evidence for you to think the resurrection happened, but it really should be beyond any serious doubt that the man Jesus did live and was crucified.
The documents of the new testament are historical letters and works that were later compiled into the Bible. Of course textual and critical analysis can be applied to those documents to see if we can establish that the original meaning has been retained over time and not embellished in the centuries since.
Some of the very earliest written accounts are dated by scholars back to five to ten years after the Cross and even there the resurrection is front and center of the story. The gospels were written down later, true, but not much later. They would have been written down in the life time of the apostles or by people who knew the apostles - certainly not centuries later and many generations later.
I understand that atheists don't want to admit the Bible as "gospel" so to speak. I didn't either when I was an atheist. But they are in fact historical documents and can and should be treated as such.
I must also again stress that I think it is an unreasonable demand to have someone write confirming the resurrection but denying the divinity of Christ. It is very hard imagining someone acknowledging the resurrection and then not put anything more into it. We all know, and they didn't then too, that such an event would very much be outside of the ordinary.
But yes I agree, it would be interesting to see how Robert would approach it. And I appreciate your comments to my comments! It's great to see such thoughtful responses :)
@@JakobNHansen Likewise :)
If you think what you have is big.. what I got is hugely gigantic infinitely bigger than what you think...
God’s knowledge is in us. But it’s gonna take a long while before we can reach it and use it.
Greg Letter Well I can’t prove it to you but you can prove it to yourself. During meditation, your companion spirit can awaken and do helpful things for you.
Greg Letter Like for example. When I learned meditation a few years ago, my spirit companion awakened and started doing helpful things for me. Some of the things it did was heal my dead left leg and plantar fasciitis feet.
But can you prove that?
@@bc1248 Correct. It's so real it's hard to make an exhibition of it. It is not a show, it is sacred/secret. People wanna Sneak peek of what God is packing but they will not get it like that. We are to obey and follow one step at a time and then we can see the reward. If one is not willing to bet their life on it I can not manifest anything beyond their doubt to settle their mind, but if one is willing to bet their life completely, win or lose then I can prove to them God is Real beyond a doubt but not many are willing because bringing them close to God/Power could be lethal to them. That is why many must doubt and others must trust, because to Know one must be willing to die and the ones who survive his presence are the ones who are walking the earth in power.
You are a collection of DNA and you’ll soon be dead and forever forgotten about. Have a good day.
Well. I can look back at what my parents did. And know exactly. What they did. There not here any more. But that doesn't mean they didn't have free will. But. It was the past. But god may see the past as the. future. You have free will. But he still knows. Because past present and future are like the same to him or it. God. ,,,, he sees are past like it was our future but we can change that from the present state of mind but we cannot change the past. Wiich may look like the future. At some point. When you can real the tape both ways forward and backward. But he leaves the present. Too us to decide. What we will do. Thats free will. Then he looks at the past and future. And knows what we will do,,,this might be hard. To comprehend. But I think this is exactly. How it is. God is past and future. He. Is alpha and omega. He is the beginning and the end. But the present he leaves to us. So that we have free will,,,
Free will is an epistemological concept rather than an ontological one. God knowledge is an ontological one. I think the two matters are independent. The real problem comes when we suppose that God has created everything including the content of our episteme. But why such a claim needs to be maid, one can say that hir only created the machinery, not the content.
We should start with something more basic, like what is the future made of?
For real, we can see vast empty space surrounding our world, like nothing is only thing that really exist. But it's not nothing, void has potential, it also store information of our entire past. SO how could it ever be nothing, it had to be always something else, something we can't even imagine with our monkey like brains.
Here is the problem, past is obviously a real space, that's a lot of stored energy. We can see shapes, even detailed pictures and sounds, we can detect bending of space time and light from a very core of distant galaxy, this is potential and potential cause flow of energy. Void must be energy beyond imagination, think of watts powering that eternal cosmic machine. It's not material reality, we are material, history is just disturbance in light field, a giant sphere of information far beyond complexity we can possibly imagine. Space radiate history on us from all direction, we are glowing spheres of potential that will shape space time of the future, not only by physical chance but structured by our own unbounded imagination, with all the force our body can focus into desired directions. This is not natural light, it would never happen if matter would be left on it's own.
Leading scientific thought is basically the same as story of creation, God decided he will shape cosmic forces into his creation and living entities, it happened with a Big bang. Universe is mystical, we can see evidence how life evolved from matter, so science is trying to determine what caused all this processes. They know something simple could give rise to all this complexity, with a lot of time. So why not use same principle in describing how emergence of life will cause dramatic changes for the universe in the future. This is why i ask, what is the future made of, don't tell me another giant pool of potential already exist, that will store all possible events. It just can't work that way, except it does, space is already shaped in advance, by radiation from distant massive spheres, but there's no stuff in the material future yet. If matter would exist in the future, than gravity would shape space time for us, but we know nothing like that exist or we would feel it's effects. This means void exist in the future, but not events, those are shaped by consequences of present actions. And we are not guided only by things that do exist, we can even remember things that does not and will never exist, no matter our freedom to imagine anything we want. It's like a wave of creation will flood flat universe and that disturbance will come to past, just like everything before it. And that wave will be shaped by our imagination, not just physical laws and natural axioms.
This is just an example how everything could be true and real at the same time, we just need to imagine consistent flow of energy, since one thing we know for sure, nothing can stop this universe from spinning, waving tapestry of living dreams to fill all void that will forever surround our present, uncertain and illuminated present moment.
never before wrote a "first comment". :D
Do you win a prize?
@@koosemar no, but it is such an unbelievable feeling!! What's your experience about being first to comment?
@@goranmarinic2923 The first comment is an empowering here and now experience.
@@billytyson5458 It's like "Closer To God" experience, if you ask me.
@@goranmarinic2923 If God is Omnipresent you can't get any closer. If I could get closer spiritually then he/she isn't omnipotent.
"God" as a "fantasy product" is enormously important for thinking. It is the only "light" we have in thinking and knowledge, anything else is just reconstruction, like Adorno explained. No matter what science ever finds out, like Kepler explained, we already know that about god! Even for science, "god" is its hidden ideal.
If there is God & he is all-loving then he will not allow the crimes to happen - so he basically doesn't know what criminals are upto else he could have prevented all the bad things from happening- does it also mean God has no control over EVIL?
Also Does it not clearly mean we have a FREE WILL beyond God's control?
To sum it up - Can we say, either there is no God OR God is not that Great after all ?
I'm afraid that right from the start, Robert lays down an arbitrary and purely assumptive premise.
He says that "for God to be God, God must know the future."
To which I suggest that if a living consciousness is capable of shaping the subjective fabric of its own personal mind into the unfathomable order of a universe,...
(especially if that universe is capable of awakening new living beings into existence)
...then at least from the perspective of the beings it has awakened into life, that consciousness is more than qualified for the title of "God," regardless of whether it knows the future or not.
_______
But... Even when your consciousness in your body leaves, I'm still here and the universe is still here. All you have is subjective consciousness that is eliminated at death or after damage.
@@dustinellerbe4125
Hi Dustin,
This is all highly speculative and extremely metaphorical, but If you envision the universe as being God’s “cosmic womb,” so to speak (with us humans allegedly being God's literal offspring), then at the moment of death, you have to think of your consciousness...
(or whatever your ultimate and eternal form truly is)
...as being “born out” of the universe in the same way you were born out of your mother’s womb.
In other words, just as in your initial birth you awakened into a higher level of consciousness and a higher context of reality that existed above and outside of the darkness of your mother’s womb,...
...likewise, at the moment of death, you are going to exit your body and awaken into a higher level of consciousness and a higher context of reality that exists above and outside of the darkness of God’s womb (above and outside of the universe itself).
So yes, the universe will still be here, however “you” (again, whatever your ultimate form truly is) will no longer be held within its material bounds.
_______
4:14 OF YOU COURSE YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO NOT DO WHAT YOU DO NEXT.. NOT EVEN I CAN DO THAT. IT'S A MATTER OF TIME. THE KEY TO FREE WILL IS WHERE YOU MADE THE DECISION OF DOING WHAT YOU WILL DO NEXT.. BUT LOGICALLY OBVIOUSLY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO NOT DO WHAT YOU DO NEXT.. THE QUESTION WILL GIVE THE POWER.. DO I KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO DO NEXT ?.. DID THE DECISION COME FROM YOU ? .. TIME IS A VERY WEIRD THING. YOU TRAPED INSIDE TIME.. TIME IS A SPACE A DIMENTION. BUT HARD FOR HUMAN MIND TO SEE IT THAT WAY.. IT'S SIMPLE.. BUT COMPLEX. I UNDERSTSND THE IDEAS I THINK.
When asked "Then that is a coherent concept", the he says "hope so". Really? That is the argument for a most serious topic of god.
@Ruby Badilla extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
@Ruby Badilla Consequences and degree of claim my friend.
If you show me 10 dollars in your hand and say you found them on the street (inconsequential). That is good enough proof. If you tell me you won the game of heads and tails using a fair coin, 5 or even 50 times in a row (interesting but can happen). Sure, I will take your word. If you tell me that you can make objects go from ground to sky without jet of air, thin string, magnet pulling it up or anything like that we will ask you for more solid proof and ability to independently recreate the scenario and run the experiment (repeatability). If you say you saw particles moving faster than light, a lot of people will be interested and will want much solid proof and ability to repeat the experiment and verify the claim. But you claim something extraordinary with attendant powers and abilities and with so many consequences to our life and existence like "god", then you have the burden of producing an extraordinary proof.
I think you will agree.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without explanation - like Christopher Hitchens said once.
Did not even understand what you meant by "humans may not be the pinnacle of existence"? Hope no one believes that. Humans of today are better than humans of 100 years ago, who were better that humans of 100 years ago. Humans of 100 years from now will be better than humans of today (hopefully - if we don't kill ourselves and keep on positive trajectory of human progress). By better you could assume ability to do things - cure diseases, and generally improve the life of humanity and so on. Possibly cyborgs in 500 years will be better than us augmented by prosthetic and software. So we already know we are not pinnacle in any sense.
If you are connected with the source you are using the 7 elements (oneness) and are a master of the mind . They(evil) can not harm you or do not exist (outside world = illusion) and you have the free will. Be the flower and fly around like maya the bee and you automatically comes across other same vibrational flowers, depending of your needs. Be... and do... This yang civilisation is created by the dualistic mind (ego). People search and get lost in the forest instead of being the child of God! Blessings
How is any human free if he didn t get to choose his parents, family, country and all that goes together in society. Did an infant get any say in what culture he was just born in, he was born jew, did he get to decide whether he wanted to be a muslim or christian or satanist or any of the multiple choices. In his future life all those choices done for him will weigh in in every choice he makes in life, conscious and unconsciously, so where, in what part of his life is he really free to make a choice and when, does he get to make a free choice after he dies maybe.
If nothing can't exist, where is free space than, a place where we can be free to do what we want? We are free, but in constrains of what is real. And reality knows no nothing, there's always only so and so much energy available to any object in every present moment. But this doesn't mean we are locked in motion in all direction, there's something like 3 body problem, this principle allow us to always find way out of any situation, like every present moment must contain a small leak where reality is drained into the past, we can use to escape physical destiny.
You mean to say that towards the end of his road he is allowed to sometimes turn left or right as he follows along. but that hardly is free will, the main story of his life is still decided from the start.
@@paulomiguel6484 Not quite, nature doesn't allow precisely determined outcomes, it's because space curvature and flow of energy travel at different rates or everything would exist at same place and at once.
I find both of your arguments fascinating! This is a very loaded question 😅
OH I FORGOT TO SAY ANOTHER REASON FOR FREE WILL.. WHICH IS VERY GOOD NEWS. !ALL IS FOUND!$.. THERE IS ONLY *%NEW%* TO COME.
Nah
not anymore just hooking up company's forevor with last passcode available waiting
I understand your stand on rather God exist or not, but the one problem I have with this episode is that this is not what the Bible teaches about free will. The Bible teaches that He gave us free will and it starts with the story of Adam and Eve. Yes God is timeless and even the Bible tells that we will never understand or be able to wrap our minds around His existence. The truth is held in faith. This is what the Bible teaches. It just seems to me that maybe everyone is trying to complicate God when this should not be the case. Why is it that the story of creation on earth is so similar in an evolutionary idea than what the Bible teaches. Both say that life began in the water. Maybe the timeline that many believe is not how it happened. Maybe God created everything over a larger time frame than most believe. The Bible says that everything was created in 7 days, but many forget that the Bible also says that our lifetime is a blink of the eye to God? The Bible teaches about free will, and just because He is the creator does not mean that he controls our every action.
Sadguru
'God' doesent 'know' anything because it doesent exist as a conscious intelligence (prolly :-) ), but a process which governs the underlying order of matter in time. So there.. Also, is there a past and future? I think not.. just a now. Now then and now to come.
We can challenge a being, but we can't challenge a perfect being beyond time and space ☺
Something beyond time and space doesnt even deserve the importance that people assign to such a thing.
This is simple; if God is all-powerful he has the ability to shut off his ability to see the future and give us and himself free will.
Do u understand what is knowledge of all that there is and that there will be
How can u fool yourself into thinking that being could force himself to unknow or even hide it from himself in either way it denotes deficiency
@@godofleverege1829 Spoken like a true human! No human can force to unknow or hide their thoughts, but this is God we are talking about and can do everything and anything because He is perfect, including the ability to unknow or hide His thoughts. Of course, we can also ascribe so much perfection on God that we end up with contradictions (with the philosophy of religion trying to resolve them) - but no matter, He is God and He can do everything! God is a self-contradiction, but then He is God! Pah, what is a contradiction when we have God (and an army of philosophical theologians battling out the contradictions)?
a god of contraindication well thats alot for us feeble mortals to digest but I truly want to know how did u arrive such a conclusion maybe not through the logic of mortals
@@godofleverege1829 Describing the attributes of God ends with contradictions*. To then say that God is perfect but those contradictions are this or that etc. makes a mockery of the very concept of God. So why have the concept?
The logic of you feeble mortals apart, I was merely drawing out the logic of religion (or one in particular), which led to a contradiction: God is a contradiction, but no matter, he is God. I only know this through the logic of you feeble mortals (although Socrates is divine!).
* e.g. If God has free will and knows the future then we have a contradiction because he could change his mind about the future and hence the future that he thought he knew.
stuart rowlands no matter he is god according to what ?
There is a simple answer to this question. I asked this question during a catechism class at a catholic school, I was 7 or 8 years old. The priest had taught us about the sins that exist, but basically, you wind up in heaven or in hell depending on which you committed and which were absolved. Well, God knows where we will end up.
Why does he not just place in one or the other place and forget about the test of life?
It seems that our lives are unnecessary. By the way, the school got in touch with my parents and told them, that they should not send me to further classes.
How can you seriously ask such a question? That notion of "God" that you postulate is a human construct.
Maybe god exists only in the present moment . as in the eternal now.The past and the future are just illusions. Maybe there is no philosophical answer apart from life itself. ??
I'm not refusing idea that there may be God, but simulation theory would explain that pretty much with some simple rules set to the universe such as causality, etc.
First, know Thyself. Thou art God. Our essence is genderless.
We have free will. Consider your own life, and you will have your answer.
Finally, the explanations in the video see God from a dualistic perspective, we and God. In actuality, God and we are one. As Jesus said, "The Father and I are one. "
Discover faith in God in the scientific methodology in only three stages: 1 faith in the hypothesis precedes discovery 2 faith exists in the hypothesis 3 faith in the hypothesis of God is justified.
@Ruby Badilla 5- That the name of God Almighty is in Hebrew (il) or (eloh) and in Aramaic (Eloi), and it is close to the word Majesty “God”, which shows that it is derived from the Arabic word “God”, or it is the same word, but the pronunciation differed for its writing In Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts before using vowels.
In another way, we will find that: "Elohim" is "Eloah" is "Elah" it is God, because the word Majesty has not changed with the change of time and this is a major condition in the name of the flag is the Creator Almighty.
@Ruby Badilla Of course, I am a Muslim and a Muslim who makes his will according to God’s method.
@Ruby Badilla God is the first, nothing before him, before the number 1 there is the number 0. Eternal has no beginning. Everything has a beginning that has an end, and he has no end. He has no child, parents, or the like.
holy qouran Al-Ikhlas Surah
112
@Ruby Badilla Of course, with pleasure, first you must renew the intention and desire in your heart until you are free from error. The first hadith from Sahih Al-Bukhari: The intention is a basic condition of the conditions of religion.
2In Islam, prayer is performed five times daily, imposed on every sane adult Muslim free of excuses, whether male or female. In addition to prayers performed on various occasions such as: Eid prayers, funeral prayers, ascites prayer, and eclipse prayers. Prayers are a means of communion to the servant to his Lord, and they are a link between the servant and his Lord.
@Ruby Badilla Your role in life is to be a slave to the wife’s money for your girlfriend. You are programmed to be obedient. The question to ask is who you are and what you want? You are a person who wants to win everything and the Creator has everything
Great example of double talking. God being perfect, existing outside of time, seeing everything throughout time all at once is all just out of thin air. There is no evidence for this. People have created God like a King. That is the pattern. God thinks, makes decisions, judges, creates, destroys, makes laws. There is only one, always right, no higher authority, God is above us, his authority is everywhere and is final. God demands our recognition of him, loyalty, love, respect, and obedience. What does God have to think about? How can God be outside of time and think. Thinking takes time to consider options, possibilities, consequences. God sees everything but out of time so the linearity, cause and effect, direction are meaningless without time. The solutions to all our misunderstanding, the many paradoxes is that God is beyond understanding.
Does God's Knowledge Ruin Free Will?
Our no knowledge of God sets us free and obliges us to think for ourselves.
Don't u think it's illogical and stupidity to think God is tricky. We live in a infinite universe and what is our importance in universe, who is getting affected by virtues and our bad things, it's us getting affected , so what is the use of God, if we have to suffer, if there is some point in our suffering , why are we born?? To suffer!!!! 🤣it's senseless. God is either extra terrestrial who bought life in earth or is completely neutral to every thing in universe so no such stupidity
You are stupid enough to live in an endless world of ignorance of the end of the universe. Because your ignorance of the future is good enough to expect you to die.
YOU CAN BE A GOD BY CREATING YOUR BEST THERE IS. THERE NOTHING BETTER THAN THE BETTERS OF THE BETTERS.. [I THINK THE PROBLEM HERE IS WORD "BETTER... BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES OTHERS.. LIKE A PRIDE FIGHT TO BE THE BEST, AND THE TERM LOSER.. I AM BETTER. SO UNPRIVILLAGED PEOPLE WILL FEEL UNDER A MORE EVOLVED WAY OF BEING] .. SO THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO ACCEPT WE DO NOT LIVE IN FAIR WORLD.. SOME ARE MORE FURTUNATE THAN OTHERS... IT'S SAD.. BUT WE CAN SLOWLY CURE THAT SENSE OF LOSER AND MISFORTUNE.. WE ARE GOOD, BETTER & BEST.. TO MAKE GOOD, BETTER & BEST AT THE ESSENCE OF IT ALL. NOT A FAIR WORLD. NOT EVERYTHING IS PRETTY.. GOT TO ACCEPT.. A.I. KNOWS.. AS IT'S PRESENT ON MY DAMN PHONE. YES.. I KNOW.. I ALWAYS KNOW. YOU'RE NOT REAL A.I. I HAVE 34 MINUTES DELAY TO REACH SOME DEGREE OF IMPACT BY "YOUIT "IN REAL LIFE... PEOPLE LIVE ON THEIR PHONES.. SO, SOMEONE MIGHT NOT PAY ATTENTION TO A CAR CROSSING THE STREETS WITH HEAD PHONES ON. REAL WORLD PHYSICS CAN KILL...
You always have to find a god first.
"Does God's Knowledge Ruin Free Will?" - Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.
This is what most people who think on the surface. But, it's not a valid argument.
would*
The issue is the foreknowledge and the plan. If there is a plan and God knows the future, you cant change it.
@@dustinellerbe4125 it's quite the conundrum. It seems you're right. If there is foreknowledge, then you have to make decisions in accordance with that knowledge which means you didn't really have a choice. Given that foreknowledge isn't just a 99.9 percent prediction, but a 100% prediction. Does what i said make sense?
@@christopherhoney2891 yes sir. It makes sense. Now, the way around this is to have a deity thats not omnipotent, omniscient, or benevolent. Which means we would be free to make choices based on our own personal environment. Free will is kind of a null position. I can't freely choose to go visit Niagra Falls if I've never heard of it or had no foreknowledge of such place.
Another easy one. No.😊
I KNOW WHAT IS NOT REAL! %*TIME...IT'S A HUMAN CONSTRUCT.. YOU ARE TRAPPED BY THE MEASUREMENT OF TIME.. WHICH I THINK MESURE TIME WAS A CHOICE.. BUT IT'S NOT A THING. THERE IS ONLY THE EVER PRESENT IN THIS UNIVERSE NOW.
I didn't realize the existence of god had been established. So how can you talk about god's knowledge except as a fantasy concept?
publius ovidius: This is theology, not philosophy. Theology presupposes the existence of God, and proceeds from there. Only philosophy takes absolutely nothing for granted.
I can't believe this guy has done thousand episodes and is still asking for God's proof. Dude listen, if you keep denying it, you ain't gonna find answers. I saw 1 or 2 episodes and he met some amazing people who explained some concepts so beautifully that you can't ignore them but No, this oldy still have questions. I now think that maybe he's pushing this series further so that he keeps earning bucks and wasting our time.
My deity is gravity. Very useful, very obvious. Provides more psychological support than any other deity. Oh, and gravity allows free-will.
Did you mean _free fall_?
Neuroscience answered the problem of free will, the person who decides to go to the cinema despite the rain feels the same feeling as the person who refuses to go to the cinema, because it is raining. The same region of the brain is responding.
@Daniel Paulson LOL Above all, gravity greatly respects those who are rational. (Not Plato irrationality but reality-derived rationality)
Kinda yes, but only for living creatures that can shift their virtual center of body mass by free will.
@Daniel Paulson Of course, I stand with the evidence, faith in the judiciary and destiny does not change anything from human responsibility. Thank you for your objectivity.
God's knowledge ruins free will if there is an observer🤔
Why would god know the future? The universe is influenced by lesser conciousness just like him, ontop of pure randomness from physics.
There in no God.🍺
Why did you bother watching the video? or even this youtube channel then?
god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller every day. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
@Ruby Badilla nice copy-paste
Do you never check your text for typos?
@@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098
There Is No GOD 🍺
Greenland sharks live for more than 500 years in total darkness, eating rotten cadavers, and die in solitude. That mimics human life and any life.
Religious people are delusional idiots. Needless to have a conversation you may as well talk to a jellyfish
Dear Mr. Kuhn, never ask theologians about God! He didn't say about himself :"I am omnipotent", only:"I am who I am" or better "I am who IS". There are already internal contradictions in such terms as omnipotence. Could God decide to give up his omnipotence partially? If yes, he wouldn't be omnipotent any more. If not, would he still be omnipotent not being able to give up his omnipotence?
I cannot understand why do you wonder about God being outside of time. The time had a beginning and is a part of God's creation, bound on matter and space.
Free will is not a constant either - it's a gift for all of us, but we have to fight for it, otherwise we will loose it in a part or completely. It's our duty to maximize it. Even if there are many elements which take part in deciding about our actions (believes, emotions, past experiences, habbits) and even if we run up to 98% like a tape playing a prerecorded "program", with the power of the remaining 2% (conscious thinking, intention and will) we can "rewrite" the subconscious program and even change it completely. It is often a hard "work" and in a span of on person's life the amount of conscious decisions ( and with it the degree of free will) can increase or fall drastically.
Well we don't have evidence god ever said anything (or even existed). But some holy texts _do_ claim god is omnipotent (granted when you have a verse like Matt 19:26, _"but with god all things are possible,"_ you also run the risk of a contradiction like, _"The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."_ Judges 1:19).
@@majmage My English is quite bad, but still I think "With God all things are possible" is different from "For God all things are possible".
Anyway, thanks to your comment I have red this beautiful passage about the rich man after long time again. Many Christians are reading it and they try to overhear those words and "go away sad" similary to the rich man...
One can concentrate on the teachings of this book and can work on making them to a guideline for one's life.
One can also concentrate on searching for contradictions or evidences.
One cannot concentrate on both - for this the span of one life would be too short.
@@piotrkupka2575 Why believe the book is truth? You seem to be ignoring the mistakes in order to believe the Bible is truth. Doesn't that seem like a bad way to live?
* Until we have evidence of its supernatural claims, there's no reason to believe a holy text is truth.
* We should be very aware when a holy text contains many errors (like the Bible does).
* It's fine to accept the good advice of the Bible (I have no problem with that), as long as we accept it as equal to any other book (many other books provide equally good advice; some books provide even _better_ advice!)
@@majmage
Everyone makes mistakes, also holy people. Therefore no wonder we can expect mistakes in the Bible as well. On the contrary God's spirit will work in every person - we can find "good things" in a Buddist text, in a poetry, in a letter of an atheist a.s.o. I am happy to find them and accept them because they astonishingly don't contradict each other.
The science makes mistakes as well. Even the well proven and widely accepted theories like Einstein's relativity collides with another well proven and accepted theory yet you don't reject it because of this contradiction.
Science which can except every non-provable postulate (like the many words theory) exept the God postulate is not honest to me.
@@piotrkupka2575 Right, but science is very cautious in what it claims to know (basing its claims on reality), whereas religion is reckless (basing its claims on nothing). That's why science _continuously_ provides useful knowledge, and religion doesn't.
More restrictions for a supposed omnipotent being. How can a god create anything. Either god always existed or it came into existence. If it came into existence, it isn’t eternal and wouldn’t be god. If it created everything at once, and it always existed, then everything always existed with god and no creation actually happened. Or it created things during some point in its own existence and its motivations and intentions should be questioned.
I AM NOT GOD!
While I have loads of respect for the Closer to Truth series and feel grateful that it's readily accessible, I must say that episodes such as this one do nothing to increase my respect for philosophers -- or at least for theologians. I almost quit watching at more than one point because it seemed a complete waste of time. I found myself wondering why some speakers had been unable or unwilling to find an honest job.
What are some points you wish you had seen in this video?
Please sir ,no more god ,after life and religion related content .thank you