All bunch of Boulder Dash and jibber jabber that’s all I have to say

@@billywalkabout5076 Well that's exactly what someone who chooses not to think about the question would say.

@@billywalkabout5076 It's your opinion, which didn't even include a point actually, against Nietzsche's then-- nobody cares.

that is a false either or argument

Can you please name 1-2 examples?

@UCv66cooR3GrKO5pY5BJBNZQ no James, I am Satan and I want your soul. Come with me willingly or I will force you. 👹

😂 profound 👌🏻

I sometimes ask myself what has convinced monkeys with brains that are approximately 30-40k yrs old dwelling on a piece of rock that rotates around a star in an isolated corner of this universe believe that they are structurally made to comprehend everything that exists? Is there anything more arrogant for lack of a better term to assume such absurdity?

@@vecumex9466 The word you're looking for is 'Myopic'.

Streaming Analytics if you have no idea what it is, then how do you even argue for its existence?

@@New_Essay_6416 I think the idea is to avoid bad arguments. Like I'm saying, if we don't know what God is, we can't argue against God's existence by saying "if God is supposed to be x, why would God allow y". We have no reason to believe that God would follow the rules we think he should

@@cougar2013, that argument can be made for any metaphysical claim, thus your argument is dead on arrival. Cheers.

The thing is we are frequently presented with claims about certain types of Gods. We can argue against those Gods based on how they are claimed to be. Of course there are some gods you can’t really argue against such as this vague deistic god that occasionally makes you feel a presence but only when no one is testing (the one believers will frequently retreat to in an argument).

@@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube it seems that my argument makes sense for any metaphysical being. However, suggesting the universe has some sort of creator is different from believing in the god of love for example.

Randal Dunlap RN Or conversely, there is nothing which is not evidence.

Insect Politician Mr. Insect, “Nothing “ is not evidence, it’s actually the lack of evidence. Evidence as the majority of us define it is that which has survived the scrutiny of the scientific method & has become accepted as fact. You may certainly have your own beliefs & even though they can be extremely passionate & long held they do not exist as facts & are only wishful thinking. The great thing about science is that it’s true whether you believe or not.

Want evidence?

"All Powerful, All Knowing" ect in the very first place, are all merely the human mental constructions that arise from human language and human societal learning.

Agreed. I'm very uncomfortable with Compatibilist arguments; they seem to cherry pick certain truths, and disregard others. On the other hand, WE must behave and act as though we did have Free Will, even if we don't.

@@seanmolloy9297 I am sure I freely chose to send this reply

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 And yet that's not really true is it? You are responding to my comment, so in a sense "I" made you respond; and if you had made that response without that previous cause (my comment)...well, you might have, but you'd just be a crazy person screaming into the void, and in need of psychotherapy. Can you choose to be hungry? Can you choose to be an old woman living in ancient Egypt? Can you choose to "un-know" some piece of information, or think your thoughts before you have them? The point being, that when you start to honestly examine all the determinative factors that go into our everyday "decision" making process, there is very little - or maybe even zero - that is "us" making the selections that we think WE are making. Do you "decide" to be horny, and then "decide" to be attracted to a really tall, smelly, obese old woman? Of course not! Those choses are not made by your cognitive abilities but rather by your whole biology, and they are entirely outside your control. This is a clumsy explanation, but worth considering.

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 so did you have reasons to respond or was it random

There are many good arguments against the existence of free will, but this question is in no way answered to everyone's satisfaction. There are many philosophers who still hold the view that free will exists.

As an opinion of yours, you’re right. As an absolute statement, you’re wrong: what he says doesn’t make sense.

I always hear this word "torture". What Bible are you even talking about? AFAIK, it used the word torment, not torture. Torture is from the outside, torment is from the inside.

@@Jesus_is_Lord- If you've no choice but to suffer it what difference does it make?

@@frankwhelan1715 You have a choice. Either accept Jesus as your Lord and savior or you don't, and experience this eternal torment. For the absence of God is hell.

@Legendary Force What? The original point I made was it is torment not torture, from the original poster. Then you said we don't have a choice, so I said you do and gave you two choices then now you have a different argument altogether. You are committing red herring all over the place :(

@Legendary Force Again, not the argument I'm making ergo red herring.

Where is the proof that “proof” exsists?😂

Absolutely goddamn right

And,.........it would make "intercessory prayer" completely irrelevant and futile...no matter how sincere it was. It could not change any direction already set in motion [IF this 'god' existed with a future knowledge and plan].

I'm not religious, so keep that in mind when reading my response (to avoid any potential ad hominem): Hypothetically, if I could time travel 6 hours into the future and see what you had for lunch, write it down on a piece of paper, come back, wait until you have your lunch, and show you what I wrote down matches what you ate, does that mean you had no free will? Does my peering into the future to see what you chose somehow retroactively rob you of the choice you made that led to what I witnessed? Also, if multiversal theory is true, it may be that it's never truly possible to know what a person chooses as all reality (reality related to behavior anyway), is being made up each moment and thus it's truly impossible to know with certainty what you'll have for lunch. If I come back to the present to show you the piece of paper before you have your lunch (that I saw you would wind up having chicken), you can choose something else, and thus either the future I peered into never happens, or a new timeline was created, one in which you did not have chicken running parallel to the one where you still did. In either case, was choice not still present?

@@KalCraig I think this is why "future vision" tends to run into paradoxes. Especially in a situation where "a multiverse" just isn't the case. So, to change the analogy around, it would be where I traveled 6 hours into the future, saw what I ate, and when I came back,....would I be bound to making that decision? What would happen if I did choose something else? The event that I saw wouldn't have happened,...so what did I see "in the future"?

@@DRayL_ You would have seen a possible scenario. In either case, still free will.

Invented and Discover

Which men? By whom?

How do you know?

@@amirbasri2708 He has great faith in his own opinions I would say

"What really interests me is, did God have a choice in the creation of the world?"-EINSTEIN NO!!! NOT THE ABRAHAMIC "GOD"! history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm THIS UNIVERSE Einstein recognized by 1947 (date of statement to Ernst Straus) cleaves PERFECTLY. ABSOLUTELY REFUSING to augur for or against a God. The Abrahamic God could make no other universe. It would be impossibly failed if it offered "evidence" to conflict with purely volitional "faith": "Abrahams faith was credited to him as righteousness" That was just Einstein; not a half-wit whom imagines saying something makes it true....half-wit..

Hahaha, lets go and make people suffer to make them stronger. How about I make you suffer? It will make you stronger!

Moral features are dependent on non moral features both under theism and under naturalism/atheism. Moral realism is not the exclusivity of theism.

Is it safe to say that god for you means reality or existence?

If you start off with the presupposition that there is something that can do anything in any way, that it moves in mysterious ways and that it is impossible for us mere mortals to fathom, then then there always is going to be an easy way that you can justify its actions, because we can't apply common standards of decency to it's actions or find anything that could possibly conflict with it in the world. You might as well just say that you have faith that this is the best of all possible worlds and leave it at that... And this all appears to be a bit of a bastardised form of Spinoza's panentheism, which lead him, much more sensibly, to entirely other conclusions than yours.

@@TomAnderson_81 asked: "Is it safe to say that god for you means reality or existence?" No. Let me offer a metaphor I often use -- Author/Story. I think it's apt because I subscribe to a divine idealism. When an author creates a narrative, everything in the story is in the mind of the author -- a part of their mind/brain. The author creates the characters, environments, and events. It's all in the author's mind so it is part of the author but that is only a subset of the entiretly of the author. So in a divine idealism, this reality is "imagined/created" in God's mind. God "plays" each role in the narrative and takes on the characteristics of each character much like how an actor takes on a role and "becomes" that role. dlcommunion.org/Actor-Role/ dlcommunion.org/%20god-and-role-play-games/ dlcommunion.org/a-metaphor-author-story/ However, there is also an infinite depth to God beyond this reality that is unknowable to us. What we see and experience is God living in this reality and the best we can do is experience God as God lives in all aspects of this reality and the God within us all.

If one believes/accepts that God is beneficient then I think it is very difficult to justify the evil in the world. I believe there can be a reasonable theodicy but I also don't think there a totally satisfying answer. That's why the problem has been hashed over for millennia. In regards to "the best of all possible worlds", I have a slightly different view on that. I think this the best of all possible worlds for the purpose God chose to create it the way God did. There could very well be many other worlds very different from this one where God's purpose was also different.

Steve Petermann Interesting... so the Buddhists seem to be partly right when they say “it is all mind”? So, god is a mind and everything is in gods mind which means that you are god playing Steve and I am god playing Tom? So, god is reality in other words? God is all the people in this world and is our orange juice and snot, etc? It is all god dreaming? Do you think the Abrahamic religions would buy into this?

@Sciencian You're not impressed because you had access to the world of philosophy and science with which to judge and use your reasoning. Lucky fortunate you

Because it's a story trying to tell you a moral lesson, not something that actually happened.

@@bipolarminddroppings I believe what the bible says not the ideas of men

Say that to a quadriplegic, or someone dying of ALS. We care about evil, and gratuitous suffering, because we have empathy. Do you not have empathy and compassion?

@k-3402 Where does the empathy and compassion come from? Why do you think we give a damn about such things? That's all I'm asking. I'm not trying to impose any specific religious beliefs system. Just wrestling with what it is that causes us to care deeply. It's not so much "say that to a quadriplegic" as it is "how can I help this quadriplegic."

Good luck finding that answer.

Now this from John Lennon kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l6l-nrOh1pfLmYk.html

Of course they are if god entails all loving.

But the question being asked is the wrong question. Not why does God allow evil, but why is God so evil? Did the Roman Empire military have Free will? How did the God of Christianity know, just know, that when Jesus was born near Judea, that the Roman Empire military would still have Judea under military occupation 33 year later? 30 years until adulthood, 3 years ministry. What if the Roman Empire military decided to leave Judea because the military occupation was not worth it? What if the Roman Empire military leaders all became Buddhist monks and decided not to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea any more? Then you would have Jesus of Christianity on the Earth and no one to torture, kill and murder him!! The people who sacrificed the most for Christianity are the people of Judea who suffered under a brutal military occupation so Jesus of Christianity, God of the Universe, can have a torture quest here on Earth. Hippocrates (460 BC to 370 BC, Greece) wrote that disease is not from the God or Gods or superstition, but from the natural processes. Humans writing stories about the Gods in the ancient world would write about a God that faith healed. A God who wanted to be good to humans would talk about ways to prevent and cure disease, like sanitation, cleanliness, sterilization, inoculation, medication, social distancing and wearing masks. If someone were to write a book on the history and contributions to medicine, would Jesus of Christianity even be mentioned? A God of the Universe must have a lot of knowledge about a great many subjects, but nothing that would deserve mention on a book of medicine? Humans writing stories would only know about Gods that could faith heal. Real Gods would have a great deal more knowledge.

It is not because we have God and free will that evil is neccssary . It is because there is evil and want to stick to the concept of benevolent God that we need to suppose free will . But free will in itself cause a lot of problem with determinism and is sometime incompatible with the concept of God . For example , when prophesy claim that Jesus will be killed on a cross , it implies that no matter what people do this event will occur , therefore they don t have free-will upon those things , thus no absolute freedom and no free-will in this sence . When we know that God could in fact intervene in life of humans for the greater good ( as many mithology states ; like God sending an angel to prevent Abraham from killing Issac ) we don t get why if free-will is in fact not an absolute value for God , does he not prevent more evil events from appening ?

Gary Llewellyn interesting from a philosophical point of view. The belief in a god limits the universe of philosophical possibilities and eliminates most thought about what is, and what could be.

@@melgross :) By "obvious", I don't mean the belief. I mean the actuality! :O ...adjective easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.

True

But then what would we do? How would we live our lives if we knew with certainty that nothing we do matters if all is guaranteed. It would seem to me that if I knew from the moment of birth that God existed, I would come to take it for granted very quickly much the same way a person born to a rich family will never truly know what it means to be rich.

heatvision38 How do you think generation alpha will be able to do it? If they can we can our savior is artificial intelligence and technology.

@TheFacts I don't see anything that relates to reality!

@TheFacts Yes, there are no solid theistic arguments, but my main point would be that science provides a good picture to describe us and the universe and it is not necessary to involve supernatural explanations when the natural suffices. Certainly religion adds nothing. To look to ancient, uninformed cultures for their take on the subject is not helpful.

Ahmed360 When you say god what do You mean? Is it just the universe? Is it someone who made this and never interacts? What do you mean? Does he talk? Is he everywhere as they say? If so, can we speak to him? What do you mean?

@TheFacts True.....the use of "mere" shows a connotation of us being "lower", but in essence, we are actually above the concept of "god" because we invented it....even if that concept includes traits which are [as claimed by theists, and which can be argued] "greater than our own".

@TheFacts Agreed. We 'feel' we are of more value because of our own sentience. We might be of greater value or significance than a virus, but our gut bugs in our intestines are of equal value, if not moreso, because of their function in our health. :-)

@TheFacts We give things meaning. It 'means more to us' when it appears to have more value. But as I said, it doesn't always ring true....such as the example of gut bugs.

@TheFacts In the grand scheme of things, we really aren't anymore important. And maybe on some level,...less important, one could argue.

If a typical non-believer was asked "don't you think NDEs offer some proof for god" or something similar, you would expect to hear something like "no, because we know that people can be wrong about their experiences. After all, we have all kinds of stories of alien abduction". Assuming, of course, that they have any kind of background in reasoning and/or science. So when such a person, after having their own NDE, suddenly starts believing in god of any kind, they are now a hypocrite of a kind. Because absolutely nothing new has occurred that we haven't heard before, and yet this person is now changing their mind just because it was "their" experience.

Also, I feel like I have seen this video before. Is this new content?

I'm not sure I see that as a good argument for the existence of God... it would be a much better, fulfilling experience if God became obvious to mankind when they are enjoying life to the fullest..rather than a placebo effect consultation in time of despair ..

Can you give us an example of an atheist having a near death experience and then coming back as a believer in a god? In any case, just because someone experiences a lack of oxygen to the brain and then has an emotional response which causes them to believe in a fairly tale... doesnt say much about the validity of that fairy tale... except perhaps to show further evidence of how such beliefs are acquired without any real evidence. At the end of the day, there is zero credible evidence for any god... and the fact that there are so many shows how easily people can convince themselves of false ideas. I'm sure that most religious people will agree with this... except oddly enough about THEIR false ideas.

What about the 1000s of people who believe they had a reincarnation experience?

So evil created itself? How is that possible? Maybe there is another option, and that option is that what you think is evil, isn't evil at all.

If you don't have any objective meaning of good then perhaps you can't call evil, evil. Since I do have an objective meaning of good, I can say that there is evil, pain and suffering. As I mentioned on my post, evil is possibly the consequence of freewill, so asking who created evil seems like a wrong question to ask

@@Jesus_is_Lord- you are born out of a woman. You can't have an objective meaning of good and evil. The meaning of good and evil that you do have, is told to you by your religion. It is in no way shape or form objective.

@Legendary Force Nice one, good find

@Legendary Force Nice to meet you, i couldn't agree more. I'm not an atheist either ;)

Matthew McCarter A god could of made any kind of world with any parameter and algorithm.

sin did in chrstian theology; study the free will defense as well to the problem of Evil

Well question is why do cancer cells form?

@@onestepaway3232 original sin...

Because he could. :-)

"How do I know, the bible tells me so"