Hello and thanks for this video. I am new to philosophy so I hope you will forgive me if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Actually, I was quite shocked when I listened to this, because I have also been studying physics and would like to draw attention to some of the theories I have found. In particular the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Also the block universe. These to theories seem to be echoed in your discussion. After watching the video a couple of times I thought, surely some will already have made this connection and will have spoken about it in the comments. I was surprised to find no one had mentioned this. Many physicists think of time as being like a film, all the action is there, but fixed for all time to us it seems to flow and we can make our choices but to someone or something, god? standing outside time it's like watching a film and you can look at any part of the film, it's all there, done. Also the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that not just one of a set of possible outcomes that may occur, does occur but that all possible outcomes occur!!. What do you think about that? Thanks again.

Thank you very much, it's great to hear the value these videos bring, and there is a lot more to come :)

@40 Something Gamer But the way it is determined to be rated is not necessarely what it deserves.

One of the best Philosophy Channels and in fact underrated. The questioning and answering method is very helpful. I am really aided by these discussions. Thank you!

Thank you so much!

Much appreciated, glad you like the content :D

One could look at it this way, your actions are prior to God's foreknowledge, it means your actions results to his omniscience. If God created time, he has experienced all of our free choices before us and we are under the illusion from our timebound consciousness to think we still haven't done them when under his perspective, he has already experienced them. It might be why God shows emotions on Christian scriptures, if his omniscience looks at time in a linear way then emotions are meaningless.

This free will line of logic makes no actual sense lol. It's like this. "God knows everything in the past present and future." Ok. "Therefore nothing you do matters and you have no will of your own." There is no connection here lol, this in no way invalidates free will. Like if someone time travels in the past does no one there have free will any.ore cause he knows what the people in the past will do? No its stupid. Only way this would invalidate free will is if God was actively choosing for you, which he doesn't

@@bonzoluvIt’s crazy to me that you think this is a good rebuttal. Everyone gives this example of someone traveling to the past, but nobody realizes that the example doesn’t work here. Events in the past have already happened and God knows the actions people will take before they have actually happened. Even if you time travel to the past and have foreknowledge in that sense, there is still the possibility that people in the past might act differently than how they did originally. Divine foreknowledge doesn’t allow for such a possibility

@@real_dirty_dan well for God everything has already happened for him too. So it doesn't change. And you can't argue against the point that the logic makes no sense unless he's choosing for you. You're not creating any connection between knowing something and not actually choosing it lol

@@JMRICK_CN95if that’s the case, our actions are still predetermined

Thank you, and great suggestion!

Glad you enjoyed it. Thank you for watching.

"if God looses control of any element whatsoever, He seizes to be God" - according to who? It seems the author here is making up his own definitions, and rejecting ideas that don't fit them. Its not a great way to discern truth. As far as I know, the definition of "God" belongs to the most powerful being whom which all existence is contingent upon. What the contingent limitations are of such a being does not redefine him as no longer claiming the title of God. I could just as easily say that a God that could not create a rock so heavy he could not lift, is no longer God, but for some reason the Author here gives ground on that example but not others. I wonder, is God still God if God is capable of suicide, according to the author? What other limitations on the definition does he have?

@@justindavis2711 But what if God is not all powerful, but still is considered God? What if “all powerful” is more of an exaggeration based on how limited humans are? If God is not all powerful, he would still seem all powerful to us by a long shot. For example. If you compare an ant to a human, and the ant had the ability to understand our power, the ant would look at us as “all powerful” even though we are not based on the limitations the ant has compared to us.

@@justindavis2711think about it like this. If God loses any control then he opens the chance of another being or beings to take control.

@@hudgaming_7022 Yes it should be known what all powerful really means but I think if God created the universe then most probably he should be infinitely powerful but if he infinitely powerful then he should be able to know what lies outside the universe and questions like who created God. So, God is most probably finitely powerful or is most probably its power is limited to maybe 4 Dimensions. For example God can see every event happening at any moment of time but God is told to just observe by some entity more powerful than God because if our God is finitely powerful then where does that God came from so there must be God's God or some entity which created our God which is again finitely powerful but more powerful than our 4 Dimensional God but this infinite series of God's God's God...... will never end. So we wouldn't be able to determine the Real God or the most powerful God or God which has infinite powers can't be determined if it really exists or not. If we say that we only have 1 God which knows everything and he created everything then who created him.

Thank you :)

But then believing in free will is also determined.

Thank you for your comment and for your suggestions, really appreciate it. Glad you are enjoying the channel.

Horrible advice! I watch these at 1.75 x speed. Adding any background noise would totally ruin it.

Don't be afraid of the silence, fella.

I believe we judge ourselves when we get to heaven and have a "life review". In our Life Review, we get shown all the interactions and spoken words that occurred. We get to "feel" how it affected the other person, both good and bad. There is no judgement from God, but instead the question "what did you learn from that". Very similar to how we should be teaching/molding our children. If our child, for example, says to someone passing, "you are very fat!" ..... the parent in us speaks to the child and says "how do you think that person is feeling now?" If we are going to regard God as the "father", as well as a God of "love", then we should expect him to have parenting skills that reflect that love..

​@@53531640 Retard analogy.

Thank you very much!

Thank you :)

Plot twist! Your statement adds another dimension I hadn't considered. 👏

Yeah, it basically shatters the concept of God. God does not exist.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? God can’t not have free will. You cant have an infinite regress of determined events. There has to be an uncaused cause.

@@vinuzo9548it’s the same argument of divine foresight applied to god. Does god know everything you will do? Yes. Can you do anything other than what good knows you will do? No. Then you lack the ability to make choices and do not have free will only the illusion of it, as you cannot contradict god’s foreknowledge. Now does god know everything that god is going to do? Yes. Can he do anything other than what he already knows he will do? No. If god cannot do anything other than what he already knows he will do then he has no agency to make changes and has no free will.

@@vinuzo9548 This has nothing to do with a regress.

You're welcome, thanks for watching.

First, we start with the fact that God knows all, all moments past, present, and future are known by him. From the act of him knowing exactly how everything begin and will end means that there must be a continuous flow of events in the future for him to be aware of. We'll borrow from Loki and call it the Sacred Timeline. At this point, God is irrelevant to the argument, because what we're really talking about is this Sacred Timeline that God knows about. Now you can bring in the idea of determinism, which is that free will cannot exist in this Sacred Timeline. You can see our choices are inevitable, that our actions were determined by the Sacred Timeline. The word determine here, does not mean someone was actually guiding you to make your choices, but instead the idea that your choices are formed purely by your circumstances. In other words, take your past experiences, which form your current mindset, and combine that with the environment currently present, and you will always make the same choice, understanding the environment and past was set in place exactly as in the Sacred Timeline. That's the argument. Now, when you make the choice on which dish you are going to have for lunch, you are still technically making a choice, in the same way a cog, pushed by the rotating cog to his left, makes the choice to turn. But the word "choice" takes on a different meaning. As though, even though you feel you made a choice, and it is also clearly a choice to any non-omniscient observer, it was actually the choice you were always going to make, and so to an omniscient being with knowledge of the Sacred Timeline looking down, no choice, at least in the way we like to think a choice is, was actually made. Kind of like choices are well crafted illusions that only an omniscient mind can see through. Again, your "choice" would be no different than the "choices" that individual atoms make. You could "choose something else" in the same sense that an atom could "choose" to go left instead of right. But it didn't "choose" to go left. It's circumstances, combined with how the atom behaves, would not "allow" it to, in other words the Sacred Timeline would not "allow" it to. And you would be no different from the individual atom. This would hold even if you had a spirit or soul. It would limit the soul to still make the same choice in the same circumstances.

Ah sorry, if we don't cut them off they will go on forever! Thank you for watching :)

Well... if you're ever in the UK :)

No it isn’t

Considering neither work……

@@astroedsastrophotographych4562 that's super helpful. You basically said "I cant refute anything you just said, but somethin ain't right, so keep on tryin." If you want to give a serious reply and contend with anything I said, I'd be happy to have a conversation :)

@@astroedsastrophotographych4562 wow...your argument was exactly what I refuted. I used to be in the exact same boat years ago. I thought the exact same thing that you do now. So thanks for the enlightening, but no thanks. You are conflating certainty with necessity. I'm appalled at how smug people can be because they think they are so smart. Just because God knows something, doesnt mean its determined. It just means He knows it ahead of time, not that He caused it to happen. As I said above, knowledge is not causal. God knows what we do because we do it. I even granted that if God knows everything then everything will work out exactly in the way He knows it will, but that's only the case because we choose to do the things we do, and God just knows what we end up choosing. You are just showing your ignorance here, because you take everything these guys say as truth. How about studying the Christian philosophers on this topic before you go and make yourself look quite stupid. Let's say that I recorded a football game and I was going to watch it when I got home, but my friend texted me the score before I watched it. Well, now I know what's going to happen, and the football game must work out exactly the same way that my friend told me it would, but if I decided to watch it anyways, does it mean that since I know what's going to happen, that I am determining what happens? Obviously not. Just because something is certainly known, doesn't mean that its necessary. If God knew X, then He knew X because I chose X, and if I were to choose Y instead, He would have known that instead. Our choices inform His knowledge. His knowledge doesnt determine our choices. Hopefully this will be an enlightening piece of information for you, and if you dont get anything else from this conversation, please get this: stop being presumptuous and assuming you know it all, especially when you know much less than many people out there. To them, you are the poor little guy who is confused. Good day and God bless!

@@astroedsastrophotographych4562 now read exactly what you wrote me apply it to your last comment, and have a nice day! God bless, my friend!

​Phillip Jackson I think you cleared it up quite nicely, bro ;)

If we always have to pick between options then there's no free will. We are just reacting and responding to everything as we live. We are always being stimulated to take an action.

it is a perspective thing: on a macro level god knows what will happen, on a micro level we humans still get to experience free will

If god can make Free will and determinism exist both at the same time as you said it, answer this question then. Can god create a stone that he cannot lift? A paradox. God is a paradox. Illogical. Incomprehensible because he is not real. He does not exist.

But who created the parameters for the effects that your actions have?

So does that mean he could be subjected to his own rules?

Fiona Bond where is the self that either has or doesn't have free will

Predicting something and knowing something are completely two different things. The problem with your analogy is that it is a false analogy. It is a false because it ignores one of the crucial attribute of God that is omniscient. Your example considers God and the teacher to be analogous to each. The problem is that God and the teacher are not analogous because God is omniscient while the teacher is not. If God is omniscient then he knows the future accurately. If god knows the future accurately then that future is necessary which means that it has to happen and it cannot happen otherwise. If it doesn’t happen or it happens otherwise then god cannot be omniscient. On the other hand the teacher is not omniscient. Therefore the teacher does not have accurate knowledge of the future. Sure he can make predictions about the future based on the past that he has observed. But that does not necessarily make him knowledgeable or correct. Because his predictions could turn out to be wrong. Ultimately God has infailable knowledge of the future while the teacher does not have infailable knowledge of the future. Since God has infailable knowledge of the future, what he knows of the future has to happen. Thus Gods infailable knowledge of the future eliminates our freewill because we cannot act outside of God's knowledge. If we could do that then he would not be omniscient.

If the teacher made the test knowing with 110% accuracy who gets what problem right and wrong then the score each student gets was predetermined before they even took the test. If I get a 36/40 and she designed the test knowing that I get a 36/40 then my 90% was predetermined. Would it have been possible for me to not get a 90? Only if she didn’t know with 110% accuracy which then calls her knowledge into question.

Trash Analogy.

No, but if on Monday you say that you know your father will drink coffee Friday, and when Friday comes he drinks tea, then you didn't KNOW. If he drinks tea, you would be wrong, and not all knowing. The Bible claims that God is all knowing, and therefore he has known that your father will drink coffee on Friday since the beginning of time. So when Friday roles around, your father must drink coffee, bc if he drinks tea, God would be wrong and wouldn't know everything, and therefore wouldn't be God as the Bible paints him. So if you ask God Monday if your father will drink coffee or tea, and he says coffee, then your father must drink coffee or God didn't actually know and isn't God. God knowing the future locks it in place.

Thanks.

So if I give my 7 year old a loaded gun and he kills himself or someone else am I at fault? Yes or No?

If I create a code does the code have free will

Then you aren’t omniscient

If you can't predict or be 100% with the outcome, then you are not a God or omniscient. You are limited. Therefore, god doesn't exist. End of discussion. LOL 😂

@Natturner Thank you :)

Nice way to look at it! What if the universe is not a block universe?

He would still know exactly how his creation would react and how their life would be.

Yes it is, you're asking him if he can create a rock greater than infinity. Which is a contradiction as nothing can be greater than infinity. Therefore asking the infinite God (if you're referring to Christianity) to create a rock he can't lift is logically impossible And logically impossible statements aren't a thing or task and can't be used too prove or disprove omnipotent. And another thing an omnipotent being wouldn't even have to lift anything only command.

@@Deathlock61 It is logically impossible only if the creator of the stone is omnipotent, therefore omnipotence is logically impossible.

@@Deathlock61 how is omnipotence logically possible?

God doesn't learn after we do.

The video has started with that argument. The answer is that God knows what you choose before you get to choose, so it wasn't you who was choosing.

You didn't present an argument - just a statement.

Compatibilism?

Yes it does

What Matters is The Meaning Of Our Choices Rather than Is There a Why For The Choices Made for Us or Choices Our Internalities Made

One big wall of nothing 😂 God doesn't exist bruv. Stop jumping the gun and doing mental gymnastics to just insert him 😂

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it :)

God's platform must be cramped for someone who knows so much of god's knowledge.

@@halfniak No and no.

Umm but it’s still ab to do that you can’t be omniscient and not know the future

Shitty analogy. Also using that logic as long as humans god can’t be omniscient. Also don’t use that timeless bullshit since we are bound by time so god would still have to k so what we are going to do.

Thank you. United Kingdom :)

@@PhilosophyVibe Please make videos on western philosophers like Kant. Your way of explanation is amazing. I really appreciate it. I am an Indian, I understand ur english through transcriptions. Can u plz provile transcription pdf of each video in description?

We have covered Kantian Ethics: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kLWffZx01pnTe4E.html and Kant's Transcendental Idealism: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gMB1m9Vyp9aWp4U.html All our scripts are compiled into Ebooks and paperback books and are available on amazon, links can be found in the description of all our videos.

Yep. God is also beyond reason and logic. Hence it is unreasonable and illogical.

God is beyond anything because he doesn't exist 😂

The point is, you don't know what is predetermined, so you can still pray, and hope your fate is changed.

To live the life god made. That’s if god exists. If god does not exist than the point of life is whatever you want it to be.

@SlavesToOurselves why don’t you believe that your true father did give you freewill to do as you wish. Why wouldn’t he. Why wouldn’t he want that for all his living being children.

@SlavesToOurselves The past is just that, the past I can’t do anything about it. You can only learn from it. Don't allow issues to be Issues, if you are letting them. After all. It is your moment. Only you have that right to choose whether or not you want to be a part of the issue. You must always trust yourself, and your very first instincts.

@SlavesToOurselves actually what you must realize is either a dark human is responsible or you made choices you could not come back from until you first realize that you do not have to believe for it to be true. It just is. But when it come to individual human life with freewill. Who chooses their own path to walk on. The truth about people individually hurts those who are oblivious to what has always just been but, right in front of you, & in plain sight. I need you to self-analyze yourself. Ask yourself a personal question in your mind. Then sit and wait quietly for your answer. When you receive the answer it will be the actual truth. Don't allow issues to be Issues, if you are letting them. After all. It is your moment. Only you have that right to choose whether or not you want to be a part of the issue. You must always trust yourself, and your very first instincts.

@SlavesToOurselves Everything is going to be ok my friend. I promise you. I want you to do something else for yourself. I want you to now ask Father how did you get here. And he will answer you in a physical manifestation. Only meant for you to see. Pay have to pay attention to everything around you like people in your life, work, or even the things you do every day. You may receive clarity in that moment.

Bro did not listen to the video

Yet the Bible says in Eccl. 9 v.11, "Time and chance happen to all." What are the chances?

If you're destined to do something, you don't have the free will to choose otherwise, Billy can't decide not to steal, if his destiny was to steal, if he choose not to steal, it would have meant he could change his destiny- so either a- God changed his fate, without Billy knowing, b- he made a mistake, or c- Billy overpowered God's destiny, and is more powerful than him.

@@pauljohnson6019 Me offering you wine drink and you accepting it is destiny written. Drinking it knowing it is going to intoxicate you is a free will. When God says that man has a free will, that means we can change the destiny at our will. Choice of our decision judged by God not the destiny.

@@amerch1276 So that means God also gave us an option to change our destiny, which means he also had a will, to allow us to change, so there are multiple outcomes for someone's infinite future.

@@amerch1276 and yet he still knows exactly what you are going to choose and you are not able to choose a different option. If I code a program knowing it will do does the program have free will.

So

Because Islam and all abrahamic religions are wrong. In the Quran it is written that god knows everything and he chooses who will be feed to the fires and who he made blind. Since god exists in the future he must have seen who is burning and who is in paradise even if there are many dimensions since gods sees the end of all dimensions. The only way out is that god restricted himself by giving humans free will but than he wouldn't be all powerful.🎉

I see your point, but when you talk about “all” is continuously expanding he should be able to see all the expansion considering he is out of time.

Gods outside of space and time he could easily see into the future. If he isn’t able to know what is in the future the he isn’t omniscient.

Also omniscience is knowing everything including the future.

​@@jesushad12gayfriendwhoallb50 Omniscience just means "all knowing". Your definition of "all" just seems to be different to mine. You can't simply use a custom definition as an argument. Your idea of the future seems to be static and unchanging, which is not the same as mine. I believe there are many possible futures, and God knows all of them - and what he would do in each of them to bring his will into being. When we make a choice, we bring a possible future into existence, and God instantaniously knows which of the infinite futures we chose. If your understanding of omniscience is to know exactly what each of us would choose before we were even created, then you have a much larger problem to deal with - the problem of free will. Because such a definition of 'omniscience' excludes all free will from being possible. As a Christian, free will is objectively biblical. There are countless scriptures pertaining to it. The definition of omniscience that I subscribe to is not contradicted by any biblical scripture, but your definition of omniscience is.

@@jesushad12gayfriendwhoallb50 Your idea about space and time and the future is nothing but an assumption. You seem to believe that the future already exists from the perspective of someone outside of time and space. But there is no evidence of this. And if it doesn't yet exist, then the future is no longer encompassed within the definition of omniscience. Only possibile futures would be encompassed by omniscience.

How can God be unconscious/conscious of the fact he is part of himself (is God)? If a human was like a tree branch (as your metaphor suggest) it would know its roots/or what it is a part of. I found this channel watching your video, and thank you for making it.

It’s like you didn’t watch the video

So if you commit a horrible sin (such as murdering a baby), it is because God determined for you to have the desire to murder that baby? Seems to be at odds with "Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one." (James 1:13). Or "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (1 Cor. 10:13) How do you get around this?

@@jakelivingstone5747 Great question! The first thing I would point out is that the two passages you quoted seem to contradict each other. Yaakov(James) says that YHWH never tempts anyone. But Corinthians says that He allows us to be tempted. Now I don't believe that any of the Scriptures can contradict each other. So what can we say to bring these passages into alignment? We could try to distinguish between causing someone to be tempted and allowing someone to be tempted. But I think this fails. If I have the ability to stop someone from being murdered but I choose to allow the person to be murdered anyway I am causing the person to be murdered by not stopping it. But this passage in Corinthians is not the only passage that appears to contradict what James says. John 6:6 says that Yeshua(Jesus) tempted Phillip. The word being translated as "test" is the same Greek word as the word for "tempted" and "tempt" in Yaakov. Someone can avoid the contradiction by denying the Divinity of Yeshua. But I strongly believe in the Divinity of Yeshua. So that is not an option for me. Also Hebrews 11:17 talks about How Avraham was tempted in the binding of Yitsakh(Isaac). Again the word being translated as "tested" is the same word in Greek being translated as "tempted" and "tempt" in Yaakov. Someone might try to avoid the contradiction by saying that YHWH did not tempt Avraham but that Avraham was tempted by his own desire. But this does not take into account that Genesis 22:1 says that "God did tempt Abraham" KJV. So it seems that this also fails. So what can we do to avoid these apparent contradictions? We might try distinguishing between tempting someone while hoping that they fail and tempting someone while hoping that they don't fail. And say that YHWH does the later but not the former. But the problem with this is that YHWH does not tempt people for either of these reasons. YHWH is omniscient and in possession of divine foreknowledge. If He tempts people at all he is not hoping for us to pass or fail because he already knows if we will pass or fail. Before we are tempted. So all that to say that I think that Yaakov is saying that there is a specific type of tempting that YHWH does not cause. But that there must be at least one other type of tempting that YHWH does cause seems obvious given the other passages I've mentioned. But what those types of tempting are I know not. Also me being given a desire to murder people is not me being tempted, it is me being programed. Being tempted comes later. Also being predetermined to do something is logically prior to tempting someone to do something. So even if YHWH does not tempt anyone for any reason. It does not seem to rule out the possibility that He still predetermines our actions. Romans 9:17"For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19¶You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" I hope this helps you to see where I'm coming from. I'm not the best at putting my thoughts in writing. Shalom!

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. - Isiah 45:7

@@redbearwarrior4859 This was very well articulated. It seems you are a compatibilist, however, my question to you would be, can we accurately say God causes us to want something, if God made us so that our wants are uncaused/indeterministic.

@@CMVMic Thanks for the response. Yes I am a compatibalist. I'm not sure that it makes sense to speak of our wants as uncaused. If our wants exist and are yet uncaused it seems that that would mean that our wants are eternal because in order for our wants to exist yet not be eternal then our wants would need to be caused. But how can our wants be eternal but us not be eternal? I think our wants have to be caused by something. But maybe I have misunderstood your question entirely.

L Morter - How do those verses refute divine determinism and how do those verses support libertarian free will?

@@justinhenry5772 I'm surprised I have to explain these verses because they are very clear but I will since you asked. Clearly refutes divine determinism - Jer 32:35 - "They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I HAD NOT COMMANDED THEM NOR HAD IT ENTERED MY MIND that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." - If God determined them to sacrifice their kids to Baal then he's lying when he says that he didn't and that the thought never even crossed his mind. God can't lie. Gal 5:7-8 - "You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you." The one that calls believers is God. Paul is plainly saying here that God is not the one trying to mislead them which means someone else is (the enemy) which means that person has a will of their own that contradicts God's will. Isa 30:1 - Ah, stubborn children," declares the LORD, "who carry out a plan, but NOT MINE, and who make an alliance, but NOT OF MY SPIRIT, that they may add sin to sin; - Speaks for itself. People are NOT doing God's will. Clearly supports free will - John 7:17 - If ANYONE'S WILL IS TO DO GOD'S WILL, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. - Paul is talking to believers here. He makes it clear that those that CHOOSE to do God's will can recognize truth. Josh 24:15 - But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” - To CHOOSE means to willfully select one thing or another. The prerequisite to being able to choose is free will. This means that they have the ability to choose otherwise which means they can go against God's perfect will. Mark 8:34 - Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “WHOEVER WANTS to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. - Jesus himself makes it clear that we must choose to follow him which means he doesn't drag them irresistibly. He gives them the freedom to decide. It is our responsibility to pick up our own cross (deny/kill their own flesh) which means God isn't making us do it.

Yep the bible clearly teaches libertarian freewill > 1 Cor 7:37 37 Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having NO NECESSITY , but has POWER OVER HIS OWN WILL. (KJV) * if humans were exhaustively Determined then everything they do , say , sin or think wold be Necessitated ( Determined ) Yet we are not determined but have power over our own will. The bible rejects the pagan/Gnostic presupposition of necessitarianism (Determinism) The bible could not have confirmed in clearer language libertarian freewill that it does here. * Here is the next crystal clear freewill verse in bible. * 1 Cor 10:13 13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide THE WAY OF ESCAPE also , so that you will be able to endure it. A way of escape ? that entails libertarian freewill , but determinism ( = no freewill ) entails NO way of escape. Again another clear Libertarian freewill passage.

Not a problem for his argument lmao

The Bible does not refute determinism, it supports it.

Because he's the creator

@@logancutora9553 yeah merely stating that He is the creator does not answer the question.... Either he preordains whatever comes to pass or he allows for free will and works through free will

@@mannycano4599 because first of all he was creator that he created mankind,if he has a foreknowledge of what gonna happen that the individual would become evil like committing murder or rape or become evil as a person do,this will raises questions about his intention on to us or his notice and if he was gonna see the final result of the individual,this is somewhat lead to determinism.

@@logancutora9553 so you're telling me that because God knows what type of food you're going to eat for breakfast tomorrow that God is causing you to choose? I have no problem with the fact that God knows exactly what you are going to eat tomorrow. However once again God's not grabbing the box of cereal off the shelf for you! You can extrapolate that out to one who commits murder or rape.... I think the bigger mystery is why does God not always intervene when something heinous happens?

@@mannycano4599 that's why it only raises the questions of his motive or intention to us,if he has a foreknowledge that he'll know what evil of a person or individual would become,while not intervening or just being observer.

Your analogy is wrong because you’re watching the event in the time that it’s happening from a view that allows you to predict the outcome. God knows my future. In order for the future to be known, it has to be determined. If my future is determined, there’s no deviation or “choice” I can make to change what is known. There cannot be free will

You said God chooses not to intervene with our decisions but you’re missing the fact that it’s not truly a decision that any of us are making. He knows the “decisions” I will make before I am even born. I can’t make a decision before I am born. I am just following a predetermined life path that I did not choose

Not sure what god you guys are referring to. I follow the God of the Christian bible and Torah. He plainly states his purpose for giving us free will; in order that we may come to willingly love and follow him.

First, we start with the fact that God knows all, all moments past, present, and future are known by him. From the act of him knowing exactly how everything begin and will end means that there must be a continuous flow of events in the future for him to be aware of. We'll borrow from Loki and call it the Sacred Timeline. At this point, God is irrelevant to the argument, because what we're really talking about is this Sacred Timeline that God knows about. Now you can bring in the idea of determinism, which is that free will cannot exist in this Sacred Timeline. You can see our choices are inevitable, that our actions were determined by the Sacred Timeline. The word determine here, does not mean someone was actually guiding you to make your choices, but instead the idea that your choices are formed purely by your circumstances. In other words, take your past experiences, which form your current mindset, and combine that with the environment currently present, and you will always make the same choice, understanding the environment and past was set in place exactly as in the Sacred Timeline. That's the argument. Now, when you make the choice on which dish you are going to have for lunch, you are still technically making a choice, in the same way a cog, pushed by the rotating cog to his left, makes the choice to turn. But the word "choice" takes on a different meaning. As though, even though you feel you made a choice, and it is also clearly a choice to any non-omniscient observer, it was actually the choice you were always going to make, and so to an omniscient being with knowledge of the Sacred Timeline looking down, no choice, at least in the way we like to think a choice is, was actually made. Kind of like choices are well crafted illusions that only an omniscient mind can see through. Again, your "choice" would be no different than the "choices" that individual atoms make. You could "choose something else" in the same sense that an atom could "choose" to go left instead of right. But it didn't "choose" to go left. It's circumstances, combined with how the atom behaves, would not "allow" it to, in other words the Sacred Timeline would not "allow" it to. And you would be no different from the individual atom. This would hold even if you had a spirit or soul. It would limit the soul to still make the same choice in the same circumstances.

@@ally4131 Great comment

Wow you didn’t refute a single point. Just face it man if gods omniscient then you don’t have free will. If I create a program k owing exactly what it will do that program doesn’t have free will.

Wow. This was a great comment!!!

They already cover this idea from 7:15 onwards.

What you think is free will may not be free will. It just seems like it.

If someone is omniscient in the past, assuming Time is linear, then yes the future is determined. To say, otherwise is to argue that God would not know the effects of causes. What justification do you have to argue that the future is indeterministic for an omniscient being?

@@CMVMic Consider the following equation: 3*x = 1 We know that there is a deterministic answer to this equation, x = 1/3. If God didn't know the answer to this equation, then He wouldn't be omnicient. Now let us consider another equation 0*x = 0 The answer to this equation is indeterministic, x can be any real number (or even any imaginary, complex, or dual number). It is ridiculous to say that God is not omniscient if He doesn't have a deterministic solution to this indeterministic problem. This ridiculousness is analogous to saying that if the future is indetermninistic, God is not omnicient if He doesn't have deterministic knowledge of it. It's a contradiction in terms. Therefore, God's deterministic knowledge of the future inhererently hinges on the assumption that the future is deterministic, which is an unwarranted assumption. But there is more. One of the most solid arguments for the existence of God is the need for the universe to be started by something that is able to act without sufficient cause. If God himself is able to act without sufficient cause, He is by definition indeterministic; there is no way around this. God's past actions are determined, but if He is free to act without sufficient cause, the future is fundamentally different from the past and the present. Now if the future is in the hands of an indeterministic God, the future itself is indeterministic in whatever way God is indeterministic. Also, if God is indeterministic, what is stopping Him from making anything else indeterministic? What if God WANTS us to behave indeterministically? Since He gives us moral responsibility, and there is no rational way to make moral responsibility work in a deterministic framework, God's intent for moral responsibility is a VERY strong argument that indeterministic human behavior was part of His objective.

@@rubencarbonbased I'm surprised you responded so quickly. Please bare with me, I dont want us talking past each other. Firstly, I believe your example fails for two reasons. (1) not every problem should have a solution, nor do I see why every problem should have one answer. Also, if there is an answer and God does not know it then yes, it can be said that he is not omniscient (2) I believe there is an answer to the equation i.e. x = 0/0, which is said to be undefined/indeterminate, which is 0 as it can not be 1 despite contemporary consensus. This is mainly because nothing can’t be something and 1 represents something. Ergo, “x” logically can not be anything other than 0. To replace x and say for example, 1 = 0/0, is a contradictory axiom i.e. 1 = 0. 0/0 is the same as saying nothing divided by nothing. It isn’t about the nominal identity. This is why a number should never be divided by 0, because you can’t get nothing from something. 1/0 is said to be undefined as well because division is defined in terms of multiplication. a/b = x is defined to mean that b*x = a. There is no x such that 0*x = 1, since 0*x = 0 for all x. Thus 1/0 does not exist, or in other words, it’s meaningless. While I grasp the analogy, I disagree that it is ridiculous to suggest God is not omniscient if he cannot know the answer to a problem, if an answer exists. For eg. God can still know there is no “one” solution or no solution whatsoever, hence, his knowledge would still be deterministic. God can know what counts as a logical absurdity. Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean by ‘a deterministic solution to this indeterministic problem.’ It doesn’t seem clear. I would also argue that his knowledge would then not qualify as omniscience if he didn’t know the answer to an answerable question. Also, are you implying that God can make our will free from constraint i.e. free from internal and external causes? Wouldn’t this be arguing against the philosophical concept, i.e. ex nihilo nihil fit, which is absurd, not to mention special pleading and seemingly a metaphysical impossibility. To reiterate saying thoughts arise from nowhere, uncaused, is as WLC puts it, worse than magic! It’s like saying our thoughts can pop into being out of nothing, without motivation, without reason. Then why couldn’t anything pop into being out of nothing if it is metaphysically possible. I’m still trying to wrap my head around God making our will free from causes. If he does so and doesn’t know how we will choose, then he doesn’t know the future. Sounds like a limitation on omniscience. Also, I thought indeterministic referred to events, not beings. Seems you may be equivocating indeterministic with uncaused. If your qualms is with the justification for the PSR, then simply think about it’s negation, not everything has a reason. If you are advocating for indeterminism, I’d like to hear your argument for it. Furthermore, I think it is an unwarranted assumption to say our will is uncaused. I believe an uncaused will goes against our intuitions of nihilio nihil fit.

@@CMVMic I'm not sure you fully grasp the analogy. The point I was trying to make was that if the future is actually indeterminate, then seeing it as indeterminate doesn't negate omnicience. The equation 0*x = 0 is in fact indeterminate. It can be solved by a range of possible values. An indeterminate future also has a range of possible values. Therefore, if the future is actually indeterminate, you can't say it rules out omnicience, becuase then this equation 0*x = 0 would actually rule out omnicience. It is a perfect mathematical analogy via set theory. If one insists that God omnicient, the existence of any indeterminism can't rule it out. If you don't think this analygy works, the real problem is that you fundamentally can't believe that the future contains indeterminate elements and a set of possibilities (which is common enough). To help with this, I gave you an example showing that God must have acted without sufficient cause in order to create the universe out of nothing. If something can act without sufficient cause, it can produce causal chains from nowhere at any time. Any time you act without sufficient cause, you introduce a new causal chain to the system out of nowhere. That's what acting without sufficient cause means. Being able to bring new causal chains in existence doesn't go against "Ex nihilo nihil fit", because we are the agents that do this. Just as long as these new causal chains weren't introduced by nothing, but by us, it doesn't violate "Ex nihilo nihil fit". God created matter out of nothing, and I believe He is capable of giving us that ability if He wanted to, but obviously He didn't. Instead, I think He gave use the ability to create causal chains out of nothing by acting without sufficient cause. Since we are the agents that do it, then it doesn't contradict "Ex nihilo nihil fit" just like God creating the universe out of nothing doesn't violate it either. God can create something out of nothing and God is sufficiently powerful to give us that ability to if He wishes. The only point that "Ex nihilo nihil fit" can really make is that without a source of everything, nothing would exist, which is essentially an argument for the necessity of God (being defined in this case as the eternally existing source of everything). There is no fundamental self-evident philosophy (not even "Ex nihilo nihil fit") that dictates matter must behave with deterministic predictably. All we can say is that we merely observe that matter macroscopically behaves in a predictable manner. At the quantum level, this doesn't seem to hold true at all; it is only the DISTRIBUTIONS of behaviours that are well-defined. And yet, this stochastic behaviour is small enough that it doesn't really cause us issues macroscopically. Macroscopic behaviour can be approximiately deterministic because most systems are large and robust enough to not be sensitive to quantum-level noise. It's only high-order self-dependent (e.g. chaotic) systems like fluid dynamics and weather that have this problem. Nevertheless, these systems are still bounded by energy because energy/matter can't come out of nowhere, it can only behave erratically. Hence, thunderstorms happen outside and Brownian motion happens in your hot cup of tea/coffee, but the universe doesn't blow up. Stochastic systems can work themselves out beautifully and manageably if we take the time to properly understand them; and this stochastic nature literally (by virtue of control theory) makes the universe persistently exciting. That being said, I'm not sure thoughts come out of nowhere, but if we make a decision to act one way when we COULD have acted another, we deliberately alter the course of the universe and create new causal chains. These causal chains are things we produce with our minds just as God produced the universe from His. If you call this "magic" then God is by definition magical and HAS to be; not to mention the fact that He has every right and ability to give a bit of that "magic" power to us.

@@rubencarbonbased I would argue if the future is actually indeterminate, then it would negate omniscience because it shows that God doesn't know something. He doesn't know what choices we will make. If he does know what choices we will make, then he in essence caused us to act freely by giving us the ability to act free because he knows how we will act freely before he gave us the will to do so. I also disagree that the equation is indeterminate for reasons I gave above. I believe the axioms that set theory are predicated on, are the reasons why this equation presents this dilemma so the problem is the axioms (assumptions) itself. Also, I don't think it follows that God created the universe without a cause, I take Spinoza's view that God's cause would be in its own nature. Why do you think PSR only applies to somethings and not everything? It also doesnt follow that God has to create the universe out of nothing, it could have been creatio ex deo. While I understand you dont subscribe to the PSR, we have no evidence to believe something violates this, even quantum mechanics doesn't violate it. I believe these "new" causal chains that human can create do violate "Ex nihilo nihil fit". Simply showing a correlation doesnt imply causation. I also dont think everything has a source, I think everything exists necessarily. I also think "Ex nihilo nihil fit" is self evident, why do you say otherwise. I also think for a first cause omniscient observer that matter must behave with deterministic predictability. Also, according to your logic, if God can create things out of nothing, energy/matter "can" come out of nowhere. I do not think God can do logical contradictions which is why I believe creating something out of nothing is illogical. How does one even prove the possibility of such a thing? In closing, I never said it was magic, I said it was worse than magic which is actually a bad thing, implying that it goes against logic.

You are not considering the fact that time and place are not relevant except for humans. For God, both time and space are His design.