วีดีโอ

You sir are rude for putting someone down for what they belive in.

@AwesomeAlready I'd rather be rude than a fool

@@ChristUnitedPod Thank goodness! These convos are so nuanced it’s hard to keep details out for the sake of brevity.

@@BeregondFirstCaptain While most of the Calvinists I’ve known are not lazy by any means, I know in my own walk the theology led me to be at times.

@ImagoDigest I mean it isn't much different than the once saved aways saved. I guess the argument would be the degree of which you exsperince heaven might differ if you became stagnant in your relationship to God after. My current interest to want to research is praying to saints since I heard someone say it was proven to be demonic, and that's news to me.

@@BeregondFirstCaptain Good point, Once Saved Only Saved is a doctrine that actually comes from Calvinism’s Perseverance of the Saints doctrine! Definitely do research on topics like the Catholic view of the Saints. Listen to all sides including Catholics!

How does Calvinism make God look bad?

@@iangowan3667 See my full video on the topic for my actual take on Calvinism!

@@kaldicuct Interesting thought, how does Calvinism defeat itself?

@ImagoDigest by saying that there's no free will and that it doesn't matter what we do. Because Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't need to believe. Of course we need to believe. If there's no free will then there's no such thing as repentance as repentance is a changing of one's mind about a topic. To say there's no free will means there's no such thing as love and to deny love you sent God. Because love in and of itself is a choice and you cannot choose anything if you have no free will. It's the same reason why God doesn't go ahead and snuff out the Devil. If you have free will, but only one choice, it isn't a choice. We must choose God or the Devil. Love God or the Devil. It all hinges on the simple choice based in free will. But let's keep going. A loving God would not create people with the express purpose of sending them to Hell as it is written in scripture he wishes that no one would perish but come unto repentance. If someone has no choice to repent and just a sick Joke on Gods part because "yeah I'm not gonna even give this person a chance and send them to hell because Calvinism" that is not a loving God. There is no love there. You're worshipping the other guy bro. And don't give me I don't understand, got a buddy who's a calvinist and I have these same talks with him.

@@kaldicuct I wouldn’t say you don’t understand but I do feel like this doesn’t prove that Calvinist defeats itself. Those arguments might bring up problems for Calvinists to solve though.

@@ImagoDigest the video is literally "you don't have free will" as a tenant of calvinism. And disprove 1, especially that one, and the whole thing falls apart. And sorry if it sounded like I was getting aggressive, that isn't for you.

@@kaldicuct I’ll admit it was a tad hyperbolic. And don’t worry I understood what you were going for!

@@guitardadsinc I can assure you I’m not deleting comments, sorry if any of yours have been!

Pretty generalized statement to make there bud

I agree with you, it definitely makes the Problem of Evil Worse. It seems that Calvinists just bite the bullet and say, "Suffering and Evil happen because God has Sovereignly allowed them too." At best it makes God seem confusing, at worst it makes Him seem Evil.

@@TheRanger-tf9gb Well said! Lord of the Rings is another one for me that is always so beautiful, and can be enjoyed regardless of what you believe! THAT’S good Christian art!

Happy to be of service

@@overcookedcooki5285 It’s good to know my Shadow the Hedgehog Apologetics class in college paid off

@@ImagoDigest I believe C.H. Spurgeon once said that he was a "Calvinist Arminian." ;)

@ Ha! I get that feeling. When reading Scripture it feels impossible for me to pick a side.

@@TylarJ Thanks! Appreciate it!

@@joshcannon2323 No you’re awesome

@@jacobmayo8496 Thanks for the recommendation I’ll check it out!

@@finitevus1563 Unfortunately I abandoned ship like a coward…

@ He’s inactive anyway lol

Ha! Thanks Shahan!

@@gianni206 I get that you find the statement problematic, but in no way was it used in an attempt to avoid offense. I feel your concern but I disagree. In a post-Christian world, more and more people are unaware of what Christians believe, or at least there’s large degree of confusion. With a highly speculative concept like the Multiverse I find it helpful to explain what I believe, “as a Christian.” Not to cater, but to educate. If I had made a video solely about the Gospel I’d completely agree.

@ Respect 👍 good video overall, pls keep it up

@@gianni206 Thanks for watching and for conversing!

Happy to be of service! The Collision is another Christian channel that has a more positive view of the movie. There are definitely some notable worldview differences between Wicked and Christendom, but I don’t really go into movies expecting to be catered to, nor are they worth completely boycotting the movie over.

@@ImagoDigest Nobody should. Thanks for the recommendation, maybe I’ll check em out.

Too real. I’m probably guilty of it too.

And that ladies and gents is why we edit with both ear buds in. Thanks for the heads up!

I’ll admit I was explaining the concept rather crudely. What I was trying to talk about was Actual Infinity not Potential Infinity.

@ImagoDigest I don't think it was the explanation that was flawed, I think it was the whole concept, as the correct concept of infinity doesn't really support any of the conclusions in the video.

@@Iskaldr I’ll own up to that too. There was a lot of homework I failed to do going into this!

@@rohhomusic Thanks for the sound tip and the compliment! I’ll make that happen next time I’m filming!

@@bryantoch8967 I am forever grateful #31

Pretty sure it’s wrong, 1 and 2 can co-exist because 1 (infinite outcomes) can produce 2 ( a singular outcome), sooo 3 isn’t true because 2 can be any singular outcome which is produced by 1 /infinity outcomes. Correct me if I’m wrong, I look at it like rules. “If this then this”

I mean there are an infinite numbers between 1 and 2 same for 3 and 4 but there are more numbers between 1 and 4. In calculus it's not even uncommon to have to look at function and determine which side is approaching infinity faster this is like year 1 calculus.

I’m not a mathematician either, but I think you’re spot on! I’ve learned a lot more about this topic than I realized there was going into thanks to peeps like you!

Also, that there are infinite universes where i exist, doesn't make my existance less unprovable. It's like saying you're 100% certain to flip face just because there are infinite universes where you do

My brother in Christ, thanks for pointing that out!

@sonni.walkman Welcome to the party, thanks for the subscription!

Hey thanks! I’m hoping to keep increasing the quality, there’s always lots to learn.

Thanks for the references! Perhaps a follow up is needed!

Thanks for the support I appreciate it! I see your point on fine-tuning, ultimately it’s totally possible to look at the crazy odds of our universe being fine-tuned the way it is and believe it’s just that, a matter of odds. I also do agree that simply believing in a concept because a lot of other people do is a bad reason to believe in something. Ultimately that’s one small reason of many for why I hold to my Christian beliefs, which I’d love to share in more detail.

There's this atheistic talking point that I find interesting that goes that like: You get 100 people to flip coins Each time someone flips tails they get eliminated Chances say that 10 rounds later, you will be left with 1 person, who has flipped heads 10 times in a row, And now we proceed to interview them about the secrets to their winning strategy

I appreciate this explanation, however while it works with numbers it does not work in physical reality. That’s what Hilbert’s Hotel attempts to explain.

@@ImagoDigest I don't see how hilbert's hotel explains this? Hilbert's hotel just shows how our intuitions about infinity are wrong, e.g., there are just as many even numbers as integers because all even numbers can be mapped to a unique integer and vice versa by multiplying or dividing by two respectively, even though this seems wrong because the density of even numbers is half that of the integers. If you wan't a physical example of infinities, physical models that use calculus rely on infinite limits to be rigorously defined. For example, Zeno's paradox seems to require infinite steps/subdivisions in order to explain motion. You could, like zeno, reject infinity by either rejecting motion or some other clever approach, but then you'd just be begging the question.

Maybe! I am just a guy in the internet after all haha! What I’m trying to get across is that the minute one fine-tuned universe exists the limit for how many universes there are has been set. The sea seems infinite because of its size, but the minute it meets the shore, it meets its limit.

@ not necessarily. This does not contradiction the notion that there is simply an infinite amount of fine tuned universes.

For example there are an infinite amount of snowflake shapes. But there’s no rule that you can’t just have an infinite amount of snowflakes that look identical. It’s just not likely

@@comixs-inc.7994 There's definitely not a hard and fast rule that I know of. However, there are not an infinite amount of snowflake shapes, because there are not an infinite amount of snowflakes, there can't be.

@ snowflake shapes are not determined by the physicals existence of snowflakes… the concept of infinity is not tied to physical objects? Tf? That’s like saying infinite numbers don’t exist just because infinite numbers don’t physically exist in the real world.

Hey thanks! It most likely is, not only was I time-constrained but brain-constrained. I’m definitely not an expert lol

Quantum computation does not access the multiverse, it does not demonstrate or even hint at the idea that we live in a multiverse

Quantum computers don’t access the multiverse, if a normal bit has either a 0 or 1 (on or off). Quantum bits can be both on and off from superposition allowing it to do multiple operations and just be so much quicker. That’s a very basic understanding of it but it definitely does not access any kind of multiverse. The idea that an infinite becomes a finite when its superposition collapses is just another complete misunderstanding of the respective fields of maths and physics. You have kind of come up with something about higher dimensional beings (which we can’t process and yet still know about it?) and then use scientific words which you have very little understanding of to back this up

What you said definitely makes sense! And I have some responses too! As far as I know, quantum computing has not “proven” the Multiverse. It may have made serious strides in conversations around super positioning, but it’s not accessing information from the Multiverse like in EEAO. Also, infinity is not a probability. Infinity is endless limits, endless quantity, endless possibility. Probabilities aren’t. Religion is also vast, with a wide array of ideas about who/what God is. I and most of the world ascribe to Theism, and it seems like your view would fall under Pantheism. While I do agree God isn’t a guy with a grey beard sitting on clouds, your philosophy of God is one of many, and one that has not been proven true to me. But many religions do adhere to it! It’s a fairly common worldview! You’re right, there are ideas, concepts, realities, that are too complicated for us to comprehend. But frankly, that’s one of the joys of being human, trying to comprehend the incomprehensible!

@ thank you for your response. There are some things that I would argue and some things that I would clarify. First quantum computing. As far as I understand quantum computing does work using superposition which is an aspect of looking through every possibility which is represented in the Multiverse. Now maybe I misunderstood the meaning behind that but from what I understand that is what it proves. Though I am happy to read anything or be shown anything that says otherwise. But this idea of the Multiverse and it been proven is one that fits within my understanding that I've had since I was a small child and was experiencing multiple realities so I don't believe I am wrong on this but again I could be so show me. Next is infinite and infinity. Again what I'm saying is the problem you're having with it is that you are viewing it incorrectly. Infinity is probability it is every possibility that it could exist. Since nothing exists until it manifests And everything is in a state of probability the results are infinite. This is probably the closest we can get to understanding the nature of infinity as it is without end within our understanding. But there is an end to infinity just not in a way that we can understand clearly. So this is the closest we can probably ever get to understanding the true nature of infinity. That it is probability. I want to clarify something about my statement of God. I wasn't meaning that God is one of many gods only that those that were called God or gods are many but not the God or the creator of all things. The creator of all things is not a deity. The creator of all things is all things in both creator and creation. All deities are made of God and so is everything else in existence because whether a deity or a human or anything else in existence we are all made of the same material. Energy, matter in all their forms are made of the same material through the same process of math. Math is the language of the creator through which all of existence is created. Deities can be myth or real which require belief. The creator does not require belief because it is proven that we are all made of the same material. At least what we can see in this reality shows us this fact. So it doesn't matter to me what religion anyone believes in as they are all created out of the ideas of men. Another point I'd like to add two concepts that are too complicated for us to understand which it's part of what I was saying about infinity is the understanding that in this reality time is linear moving in One Direction. But in higher dimensional existence time does not move in a linear state. It is all happening at the same time through many states of possibility or probability

@ I may have misunderstood something about quantum computing which I am not an expert in by any means. But still even in what you've said my understanding of it still seems valid. The super positioning of possibility or probability between yes and no is what is accessing the information from the Multiverse coming up with that yes or no doesn't just come out of thin air it has to get that information from somewhere. The more nodes of probability that the quantum computer has access to the quicker it can come up with answers but again where it's getting those answers to the probability is from what I have understood how other people have explained it accessing the Multiverse for those answers. And I did not say that infinite becomes finite when it's super position collapses I said that probability remains infinite until it manifests. That's not a misunderstanding of anything and is clearly shown in Schrodinger's cat where the cat could be either alive or dead until it is revealed. So please if I'm wrong which hey I could be I'm not opposed to that I will learn something if you teach me something. But just saying that I'm having a misunderstanding of something that is clear to me without adding any information to educate me on why I would be incorrect is just gaslighting. Please provide some information so I can learn something if I'm wrong. As far as higher dimensional beings and understandings of things we can't understand goes again I think you misunderstood what I had said. There are aspects of each reality that we can understand and those things we can discuss to as much of our ability as we can but there are other aspects of those realities that we can't even discuss because we have no ability to. We can recognize that there are those aspects but that's about the extent of it. We cannot even conceptualize what those things are. So while the things that we can understand our understanding of them is limited by all the things that we can't even conceptualize. So often those things that we can understand don't seem to make sense. I'm not going to bash you or make statements of your intelligence but please if you're going to say things about me make sure you have an understanding of what it is I'm saying. There's no reason to lay judgment on anyone in the quest for knowledge. I'm always happy to clarify on anything I've said if something is not being understood or seems wrong. And I'm also always happy to learn from any who have more understanding than I do. It never has to be a personal attack. We are all searching for answers and understanding. Let's just keep it real

Happy Hanukkah

Merry Christmas!

@@ImagoDigest And a Happy New Year!

Let’s gooooooooo!!

Appreciate the early support!