This has always been a fascinating topic to me. My response to this, which I even made a video about, is: This seems to go only in one direction. God will not give you evidence for his existence, so as to not infringe on your "free will", but on the other hand, allows the devil to directly mess with people's free will, so as to make them more likely to sin rather than follow god, and therefore lower your odds of getting into heaven. In other words God will, and does, violate people's free will, but only to tip the scales in favor of them going to hell for all eternity, not towards belief in him which is arguably the only way to escape that fate. If God truly wanted "free will" to be "free", at least based on this argument where "free" has to mean "perfectly centered and neutral"...then he would have to intervene and actively push people towards belief, to counterbalance the devil's work which god allows to continue despite it's effects on "free will". Not to mention that those same believers will use the existence of "stuff" in general, as irrefutable evidence that Jesus Christ died on the cross. "Look at the sky, the trees, the stars, the mountains... Clearly this couldn't have come about by random chance" etc. Well that seems to serve the role of "evidence" for these people. So apparently God hates only good evidence.
Some denominations say that Satan's choice is irrevocable and that he is eternally damned with no chance of redemption. If that's true, then God has no reason to refuse to interfere with Satan's free will -- which can never lead Satan to restoration with God -- when Satan himself interferes with the free will of humans -- who could, in theory, become united with God. If God valued human free will so much that he won't even show himself out of concern that people make the right choice uncoerced, permitting Satan's interference is unintelligible. It's valuing Satan's free will (which can never bring about any good) over human free will (which can). If Satan CAN come back to God somehow, then God is valuing Satan's potential restoration over the potential damnation of countless humans, in which case he cares more about his angels than humans. Even if God doesn't want to kill Satan or confine him to Hell for some other reason, he can just make humans incapable of hearing, sensing, or communicating with Satan. I don't think the free will argument and acknowledgement of the existence of the devil are compatible. Of the two it's much easier to throw out the devil, since it makes no sense and has a clear non-scriptural basis in folk belief backed up by mistranslations and misinterpretation, and the story of Jesus being tempted in the desert can easily be written off as embellishment or allegory, meant to convey a SPIRITUAL truth about Jesus and not a literal actual event (that nobody witnessed). EDIT: Actually, we could even leave that story in and say it happened, but argue that Satan is in fact still "the adversary," God's prosecutor and tester, and that he was tempting Jesus on the Father's orders. If Satan is not in rebellion and does not tempt anyone he isn't specifically authorized to tempt, then his interference with human free will is on the same level as all the other times God interfered with free will that are okay somehow. That category of objection remains, but now it's all condensed into the one category at least.
This video is genius. Its the sort of simple, common sense refutation if apologetics that would have William Lane Craig huffing and puffing and gibbering about a lack of formal this, or a deficit in the study of navel gazing. I think that's because you, Mr Plum, have shown the Emperors 'Philosophy' and 'Apologetics' to have no clothes. I for one am happy to stand beside you and agree you have shown the nonsense in front of us. So glad to see you posting more often again. This stuff is gold. Thank you.
Fantastic argument that's going to stick with me for a long time. I never understood the "I can't show myself, believing in me has to be on no evidence" thing for a simpler reason: this hypothetical god prefers to not show his face, and tortures everybody for eternity that doesn't believe in him. So his anonymity has more value for him than torturing 7 billion innocent people for eternity. That guy is pretty self centered of you ask me.
They have the entire argument backwards. Choices only matter if you know what the consequences of the choices are going to be. If you are acting off of largely incomplete information, the 'choices' you make with your free will are going to be basically random. Lets use an example. Imagine a situation where you have a binary choice with unknown consequences. There is a button in front of you. You can either push it, or not push it. One of those options blows up the universe, the other one doesn't, you don't know which one does which. Bonus points if you don't even know that one of the options blows up the universe in the first place. How free do you feel when making that choice? More information about the world INCREASES our ability to make choices and be free, not reduces it.
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill" Copyright goes to Rush! Your videos are refreshingly deep and profound, Jim :)
Well done, as usual. I like your arguments.. But if you ever are debating, or attempting to persuade someone who finds these arguments to abstract for them to accept, here's a simpler one that I first heard from Matt Dillahunty ( a great, beloved man, may he recover from his infection of intersectionality ). If the person you're dealing with is stuck on God not wanting evidence to stop us from having free will, ask them if they believe in Satan. If he or she does, point out to them that Satan had no doubt at all that God existed, and ask them why this didn't stop Satan from having the ability to choose to disobey God..
Heaven has no free will; that is how there can be no sin in Heaven, as sin is a product of free will. Thus, Satan had no choice, and isn’t a fallen angel, he must be thrown out by design. If Satan were “fallen,” wouldn’t he be trying to get back into paradise? No, Satan had to have been forcefully ejected to be working constantly against God. God is the architect of all evil.
Also when you're "perfected" in heaven, you lose your free will anyway. It's also bizarre to assume lack of free will is worse than eternal damnation- why not threaten humans with the loss of freedom if that's so much worse than torture?
I have always been confused by the idea that there is anything other than mere correlation between knowledge and agency. The fact that I may apparently know something and that it informs my ability to draw reasonable conclusions from it in no way seems to affect my ability to act in opposition to the evidence. In terms of the God question, the many bible passages indicating God's apparent willingness to act in direct contradiction to free will makes this entire argument seem a non sequitur from whichever angle you view it. Maybe there's something I'm missing. Great video as always. Very informative.
I agree with this. Living in the USA for most of my life has basically proven to me that NO AMOUNT of evidence negates free will. In fact, some studies have shown the more evidence provided and more good arguments made, the MORE the people will stick to their retarded bullshit.
I like the argument: Free will is just a phrase we use to try to describe the metal algorithm that is designed to maximize optionality. It turns out intelligence behavior emerges from trying to maximize optionality. (Alexander Wissner-Gross 2015) Giving people the freedom to choose in a God does increase the diversity of subjects, those maximizing optionality. So at least in this case it’s consistent with the functional value of free will. One of the biggest problems any theist faces is that one can not prove God exists, the problem is that a fake God is indistinguishable from the real God. So you are looking for proof we know logically can not exist. Concept: If we are living in a simulation, the pimply faced teenager could demonstrate powers as powerful as anything a theoretical God could do. So how do we distinguish the two? The problem with God is that God is all powerful… You're examples are valid for finite
What's absurd is when the people who make the free will arguments about lack of evidence are also the same people who will quite loudly claim there's overwhelming evidence for God's existence. I was recently asked by a devout follower if I had an open mind, for which I asked them why I should have an open mind to an ideology that demands I close it up tight?
Its incoherent that a god would not show itself - giving us the free choice to accept it as a friend, or not - but god "wants" faith - that is what the belever is suggesting.
“You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill” Sorry Geddy Lee, from a behavioral science and neuroscience standpoint, you cannot choose free will.
I thought I heard each and every angle of this argument. This is (to me) some serious next level shit. The Judge Jury analogy is a brilliant angle on the FREEWILL via GOD "debate" ; I fucking love you mate
It's a bizarre argument! 😂😂 So, Darwin took away my freewill not to believe in evolution? Worse still, Newton deprived me of the freewill to hope that, one day, I'd be able to jump off a building and not plummet to earth.
This is why we keep comming back to you Jim. One of the few youtube atheists who are still engaged in the discussion and making quality content. Oh my Dawkins there are so few of you left.
Agree with you completely and I don't know why god botherers who say this rubbish can't work it out themselves especially when apparently satan personally knew god but still refused to worship and actually rebelled against god... surely free will despite knowing absolutely that god exists. The whole Christian theology is so riddled with plot holes it's ridiculous.
If it's true that God is intentionally withholding compelling evidence of his existence from us in order to preserve our freewill, doesn't it follow that whatever evidence we do have for God's existence is not compelling? I dunno, I'm tempted to just agree lol.
If you make a contract with someone and they enter into it freely...but you denyied them information, thus making it uninformed consent, that's a scam. Thus God is a Scammer. If you're not allowed to make an informed decision you're not having free will.
3:18 - I wonder if Christians who make this argument would say that free will is maximized when there is zero evidence, but God wants there to be some evidence so that some people come to believe in him specifically, and therefore God has to strike a balance: God has to give us some free will, but also some evidence, and there is an ideal exchange between these two somewhere on a graph with a negative linear slope. That being said, I think your subsequent thought experiments demonstrate the absurdity of the overall argument being proposed.
Because "I think therefore I am" verifies one's existence, it follows that whomever god allows to think must not have free will. Since by doubting they remove their free will to doubt their own existence. This means that the only people able to believe in god must not be able to think.
When I first heard this argument I interpreted it in a different manner: If God appears in the middle of a city and says "I am the almighty God and these are my commandments!" people would follow the commandments, but not because they thought the commandments were sensible, but because they are terrified of being struck down. Refutation 1: The jury hasn't seen any evidence, but God walks into the room and says "He's guilty! Lock him up!" The jury have no idea what they are doing, but vote guilty anyway because that is what they have been told to do. Similarly, God tells you the bank is safe and you just believe him, without finding out why or how. Refutation 2: This is just an area where you show your particular biases towards a certain interpretation of God, i.e. you assume that if God exists he must be an egotistical dictator. Some theists may hold this view as well. I am explicitly considering a different God. Refutation 3: I'm not really sure this is the gotcha you think it is... neither you nor any theist believes this hypothetical is even remotely plausible. The God that most theists believe in simply *wouldn't* do this. This is like going to a Christian and telling them to imagine a scenario where the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared and saying how unlikely such a thing is... they would just say "I agree that's stupid, because I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster." When you say "Imagine if God appeared" this is equivalent to saying "Imagine if God doesn't exist." And you bet that if God really appeared after thousands of years of silence, then theists would spend an incredible amount of time arguing about what that meant.
A couple of quick remarks Regarding Ref 1, isn't the example you give exactly how Christianity asks us to view morality? In other words, God simply instructs us what is right and wrong and we are to see this as a fait accompli. Surely if that were to be the case why ought I have any qualms if God tells me to just lock someone up? Isn't this also what I am expected to take from the Binding of Isaac? Abraham is typically portrayed here as acting righteously by simply obeying God's command to murder his own son and God then gives Abraham a celestial slap on the back after he is stopped before things got messy. Hence, i am not sure why you would view a jury simply going with whatever God decreed as anything other than good. They still have a choice, apparently, otherwise why praise Abraham, so what is the issue here(from God's perspective)? Regarding Ref 2, maybe the language I use gives away my cynicism and biases here but even if it were dressed up in the most sympathetic terms it is hardly outlandish for me to claim that most Christians hold to the position that it is not merely believing that God exists that gets you salvation. Typically it is regarded as asking Jesus to absolve you of your sins and taking him into your heart that matters. Regarding Ref 3 *The God that most theists believe in simply wouldn't do this.* I propose the only reason they believe he wouldn't is because he so obviously doesn't. This seems akin to me telling you I believe Elvis is still alive and when you put forward a series of counters as to what you would expect were he to be alive I simply retort that obviously the Elvis I believe in wouldn't do those kinds of things! These are just positions taken post hoc to explain away what has already happened (or not happened). One thing that Christians do very regularly is to question atheists what they would do if their God DID appear and they often deride atheists who claim that whatever evidence was presented to them they would still disregard it. When Christians do that I think they have good reason to deride those atheists and i don't think "but atheists don't think God does exist so it is a silly question", which is the equivalent of your rebuttal here, is a legitimate defence. An atheist ought to be able to have a sensible answer to this question that coheres with anything else they say I think it is absolutely reasonable of me to postulate what those Christians who make claims that God determinedly avoids giving us decent evidence would do if suddenly God made an appearance. Even if the appearance was less copper-bottomed than the example I gave here .... in fact pick whatever point you want from very shaky evidence through to absolute proof and I think they would grab at it like their theological lives depended on it. In fact I think their response would be no less enthusiastic than the typical Christians who don't share their reliance on this sort of "intentional divine hiddenness" argument.
I see free will as a simple wager: since free will is too complicated to ever study really and come to a hard science conclusion on, we should make a wager. The wager - If free will is real and we think it's not real, we might excuse bad actions we make as "oh well, forced to smoke crack today" and so on. - if free will is real and we think it's real (to the degree that it's not obviously disproved, like we can't choose to fly off a building with our arms, etc), we can maximize our choices. - if free will is not real and we think it's real, we were forced to do so and who cares. - if free will is not real and we think it's not real, see the above. The second option is the obvious right choice, assuming we can choose.
God loves us, and wants us to be with him, that’s why he makes it really easy for the curious ones of us to be tortured for eternity. It is great to be loved so much!
The opposite of the being found not guilty because of overwhelming evidence is being found guilty with absolutely no evidence at all. And we know that is unacceptable to even entertain the idea. Case dismissed.
Yes, if a deity presented incontrovertible evidence that it existed then I would have no choice but to admit that it existed. But that's the case for any incontrovertible evidence for anything.
The reason I'm such a backboned atheist is because if it turns out to be true, then which version do you think is more accurate: the original where Hell is merely an eternal separation from god (which I picture as your consciousness existing forever, knowing you could be in Heaven having a blast for eternity, but instead stuck with only my own thoughts for all remaining time. That's a torture I'm pretty familiar with already), or the heavily edited one changed several times over millennia with the later version of Hell that is very obviously merely a man-made scare tactic? Like... even if the Christian God is real, then shouldn't we expect Jesus's version of that God and the afterlife they provide? Also, I'm allowed to change my mind at any time I want. I feel adamant that I would reject this god despite evidence now, as I sit in my apartment and my main concern is poverty... but when actually presented with genuinely irrefutable evidence? I'm allowed to turn myself into a liar.
Indeed, it makes no sense. The revelations of Gods are indistinguishable from conspiracy theories, or broadly “forbidden knowledge” - Gods talk to select few people; it’s poorly documented; unverifiable and unfalsfiable; but the relgions evolved into public mass cults where God is treated as self-evident and obviously real. This historical development alone is reason to not take religious truth aspects (existence of supernatural entities etc) seriously. The idea history of religion is generally a weak aspect of religion that is not discussed enough (if there is even even still a reason to do atheist content).
There is no value in the 'freewill' in believing in a god if there's no evidence to support it. It's just a choice to engage in superstitious fantasy or not. If the choice to believe in the existence of the yeti and any god has the same foundation, where is the gravitas for belief in a god? It leaves me wondering why the most important aspect of me, to a god if it exists, is my gullibility.
So, god doesn't want to force us to believe in him with evidence, because it would hinder our free will. But he is fine with threating us with eternal torment if we don't believe. That doesn't affect our free will at all. Right.
If god didn't care to provide evidence, he wouldn't have inspired the Bible. Unless, of course, these believers DO recognize that the Bible isn't evidence for anything. In which case, they, again, have reason to NOT believe.
A broader analysis, IMO, would add the easy to derive fact that there IS no such thing as "free will." I can't even imagine WHAT free will could actually be. I know that things are "caused," and quantum physicists tell us that some things occur truly randomly. I don't know of (nor can I imagine) any third way that can generate an event (an event like the arising of a belief, for example).
I think the literalist belief in God is the dumbest thing in the world, likewise the fundamentalist arguments, but since humans barely function on the literal plane of existence I have a lot of time for the more abstracted arguments.
@@speakz6935 I applaud your awareness that context exists. But considering that context is a bunch of convoluted metaphysical stuff from Paul it doesn't help much. (Including bizarre arguments like it's impossible to hate one person but love another in verse 20. lol no. I mean God does that all the time. "And the one who loves violence His soul hates. - Psm 11:5) What do YOU mean when you say, "God is Love"?
Is this like "The Beatles" rule that no recording artist may ever make a record that sounds remotely like The Beatles? I hate to break it to you but the arguments Richard Dawkins uses........ they have all been made before you know?
@@nietzschean3138 The idea of God has existed in the collective consciousness of humans for thousands of years, and some of the theistic arguments have held sway over the general populous as long as religion has been institutionalised. With certain people in the public eye openly calling for theocracy over in the states as we speak, maybe this isn't as redundant of a topic as we would like it to have been by now.
@@major7thsmcgee973 Nobody is calling for a theocracy. Another silly left-wing bit of hyperbole. We are though on the verge of economic collapse, World War 3 and dictatorship by environmental dictat. Far more pressing concerns.
Seems to me that this whole video is just a 'cherry-picked' arguement - you just concentrated on the 'God Hates Evidence' placard and ignored the 'Evidence Dooms Nations' one, when they are clearly meant to be taken together. I think there's a lot of evidence to support the claim that once a nationhood of people no longer believe in their god(s) then their nation is doomed. That you never went anywhere near that is why I just unsubbed.
Haha you silly dickhead, the thumbnail was just a photoshopped version of the famous Westboro Baptist Church's placards, it had nothing to do with the video beyond the thumbnail 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I mean I could make a "why we need to remain in the intellectual dark ages and pretend we believe things that we believe are manifestly untrue" video but that wasn't this video. Anyway, goodbye.
"Tide goes in, tide goes out. Nobody can explain that". 😃
Moonfall.
Great film.
Explains so much.
;D
@@JimRiven Love that moon Newton imagined God threw up there.
Is Moonfall on TH-cam?
Bread goes in, toast comes out.
You can't explain that.
@@laus7504 Nooo......
But if you google yts and yifi it comes up a treat....
I kinda miss O'Reilly. Compared to Tucker Carlson he seems downright liberal.
This has always been a fascinating topic to me.
My response to this, which I even made a video about, is:
This seems to go only in one direction.
God will not give you evidence for his existence, so as to not infringe on your "free will", but on the other hand, allows the devil to directly mess with people's free will, so as to make them more likely to sin rather than follow god, and therefore lower your odds of getting into heaven.
In other words God will, and does, violate people's free will, but only to tip the scales in favor of them going to hell for all eternity, not towards belief in him which is arguably the only way to escape that fate.
If God truly wanted "free will" to be "free", at least based on this argument where "free" has to mean "perfectly centered and neutral"...then he would have to intervene and actively push people towards belief, to counterbalance the devil's work which god allows to continue despite it's effects on "free will".
Not to mention that those same believers will use the existence of "stuff" in general, as irrefutable evidence that Jesus Christ died on the cross.
"Look at the sky, the trees, the stars, the mountains... Clearly this couldn't have come about by random chance" etc.
Well that seems to serve the role of "evidence" for these people.
So apparently God hates only good evidence.
Some denominations say that Satan's choice is irrevocable and that he is eternally damned with no chance of redemption. If that's true, then God has no reason to refuse to interfere with Satan's free will -- which can never lead Satan to restoration with God -- when Satan himself interferes with the free will of humans -- who could, in theory, become united with God. If God valued human free will so much that he won't even show himself out of concern that people make the right choice uncoerced, permitting Satan's interference is unintelligible. It's valuing Satan's free will (which can never bring about any good) over human free will (which can). If Satan CAN come back to God somehow, then God is valuing Satan's potential restoration over the potential damnation of countless humans, in which case he cares more about his angels than humans.
Even if God doesn't want to kill Satan or confine him to Hell for some other reason, he can just make humans incapable of hearing, sensing, or communicating with Satan. I don't think the free will argument and acknowledgement of the existence of the devil are compatible. Of the two it's much easier to throw out the devil, since it makes no sense and has a clear non-scriptural basis in folk belief backed up by mistranslations and misinterpretation, and the story of Jesus being tempted in the desert can easily be written off as embellishment or allegory, meant to convey a SPIRITUAL truth about Jesus and not a literal actual event (that nobody witnessed).
EDIT: Actually, we could even leave that story in and say it happened, but argue that Satan is in fact still "the adversary," God's prosecutor and tester, and that he was tempting Jesus on the Father's orders. If Satan is not in rebellion and does not tempt anyone he isn't specifically authorized to tempt, then his interference with human free will is on the same level as all the other times God interfered with free will that are okay somehow. That category of objection remains, but now it's all condensed into the one category at least.
This video is genius. Its the sort of simple, common sense refutation if apologetics that would have William Lane Craig huffing and puffing and gibbering about a lack of formal this, or a deficit in the study of navel gazing.
I think that's because you, Mr Plum, have shown the Emperors 'Philosophy' and 'Apologetics' to have no clothes. I for one am happy to stand beside you and agree you have shown the nonsense in front of us.
So glad to see you posting more often again. This stuff is gold. Thank you.
If god exists follow the rules to the technical minimum to survive the bastard.
Providing us with evidence compromises our free will, but threatening us with unimaginable agony for all eternity doesn't.
Very well said!
Fantastic argument that's going to stick with me for a long time.
I never understood the "I can't show myself, believing in me has to be on no evidence" thing for a simpler reason: this hypothetical god prefers to not show his face, and tortures everybody for eternity that doesn't believe in him. So his anonymity has more value for him than torturing 7 billion innocent people for eternity. That guy is pretty self centered of you ask me.
They have the entire argument backwards. Choices only matter if you know what the consequences of the choices are going to be. If you are acting off of largely incomplete information, the 'choices' you make with your free will are going to be basically random. Lets use an example. Imagine a situation where you have a binary choice with unknown consequences. There is a button in front of you. You can either push it, or not push it. One of those options blows up the universe, the other one doesn't, you don't know which one does which. Bonus points if you don't even know that one of the options blows up the universe in the first place. How free do you feel when making that choice?
More information about the world INCREASES our ability to make choices and be free, not reduces it.
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill"
Copyright goes to Rush!
Your videos are refreshingly deep and profound, Jim :)
Fuck all to do with the video, but Merry Christmas fella, to you and all your family.
Merry Christmas to you too!
Well done, as usual. I like your arguments.. But if you ever are debating, or attempting to persuade someone who finds these arguments to abstract for them to accept, here's a simpler one that I first heard from Matt Dillahunty ( a great, beloved man, may he recover from his infection of intersectionality ). If the person you're dealing with is stuck on God not wanting evidence to stop us from having free will, ask them if they believe in Satan. If he or she does, point out to them that Satan had no doubt at all that God existed, and ask them why this didn't stop Satan from having the ability to choose to disobey God..
Heaven has no free will; that is how there can be no sin in Heaven, as sin is a product of free will. Thus, Satan had no choice, and isn’t a fallen angel, he must be thrown out by design. If Satan were “fallen,” wouldn’t he be trying to get back into paradise? No, Satan had to have been forcefully ejected to be working constantly against God. God is the architect of all evil.
I want to say thank you for helping me lose my fath. I'm glad your back
When you have facts you do not need faith, and when you have faith you do not care about facts.
Unless a fact coincidentally agrees with you (or can be twisted to seem so) then you can go nuts about how the 'facts' agree with your mythology.
@@ericvulgate that is what religion does.
"And then, astromers looking at the sun see a little black spot and ask what is this?"
Police : "It's my soul up there..."
I get the reference..... King of Pain??
Also when you're "perfected" in heaven, you lose your free will anyway. It's also bizarre to assume lack of free will is worse than eternal damnation- why not threaten humans with the loss of freedom if that's so much worse than torture?
According to the Bible, satan had full knowledge of god’s existence and still had the free will to rebel.
I have always been confused by the idea that there is anything other than mere correlation between knowledge and agency. The fact that I may apparently know something and that it informs my ability to draw reasonable conclusions from it in no way seems to affect my ability to act in opposition to the evidence.
In terms of the God question, the many bible passages indicating God's apparent willingness to act in direct contradiction to free will makes this entire argument seem a non sequitur from whichever angle you view it.
Maybe there's something I'm missing.
Great video as always. Very informative.
I agree with this. Living in the USA for most of my life has basically proven to me that NO AMOUNT of evidence negates free will. In fact, some studies have shown the more evidence provided and more good arguments made, the MORE the people will stick to their retarded bullshit.
I like the argument:
Free will is just a phrase we use to try to describe the metal algorithm that is designed to maximize optionality. It turns out intelligence behavior emerges from trying to maximize optionality. (Alexander Wissner-Gross 2015)
Giving people the freedom to choose in a God does increase the diversity of subjects, those maximizing optionality. So at least in this case it’s consistent with the functional value of free will.
One of the biggest problems any theist faces is that one can not prove God exists, the problem is that a fake God is indistinguishable from the real God. So you are looking for proof we know logically can not exist.
Concept:
If we are living in a simulation, the pimply faced teenager could demonstrate powers as powerful as anything a theoretical God could do. So how do we distinguish the two?
The problem with God is that God is all powerful… You're examples are valid for finite
What's absurd is when the people who make the free will arguments about lack of evidence are also the same people who will quite loudly claim there's overwhelming evidence for God's existence. I was recently asked by a devout follower if I had an open mind, for which I asked them why I should have an open mind to an ideology that demands I close it up tight?
Its incoherent that a god would not show itself - giving us the free choice to accept it as a friend, or not - but god "wants" faith - that is what the belever is suggesting.
“You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill”
Sorry Geddy Lee, from a behavioral science and neuroscience standpoint, you cannot choose free will.
Those analogies really put a smile on my face. Very entertaining
I thought I heard each and every angle of this argument. This is (to me) some serious next level shit.
The Judge Jury analogy is a brilliant angle on the FREEWILL via GOD "debate" ; I fucking love you mate
It's a bizarre argument! 😂😂
So, Darwin took away my freewill not to believe in evolution? Worse still, Newton deprived me of the freewill to hope that, one day, I'd be able to jump off a building and not plummet to earth.
This is why we keep comming back to you Jim. One of the few youtube atheists who are still engaged in the discussion and making quality content. Oh my Dawkins there are so few of you left.
I had no idea you were still regularly uploading. This platform has shown me your uploads twice since summer.
Agree with you completely and I don't know why god botherers who say this rubbish can't work it out themselves especially when apparently satan personally knew god but still refused to worship and actually rebelled against god... surely free will despite knowing absolutely that god exists. The whole Christian theology is so riddled with plot holes it's ridiculous.
If it's true that God is intentionally withholding compelling evidence of his existence from us in order to preserve our freewill, doesn't it follow that whatever evidence we do have for God's existence is not compelling? I dunno, I'm tempted to just agree lol.
That's why I don't use the word belief, when in talking about science topics. I use , " I accept ", for agreeing with a scientific explanation.
If you make a contract with someone and they enter into it freely...but you denyied them information, thus making it uninformed consent, that's a scam.
Thus God is a Scammer.
If you're not allowed to make an informed decision you're not having free will.
The whole 'free will' thing escapes me. Events are either caused, or seemingly random. How do you fit 'free' into that?
3:18 - I wonder if Christians who make this argument would say that free will is maximized when there is zero evidence, but God wants there to be some evidence so that some people come to believe in him specifically, and therefore God has to strike a balance: God has to give us some free will, but also some evidence, and there is an ideal exchange between these two somewhere on a graph with a negative linear slope.
That being said, I think your subsequent thought experiments demonstrate the absurdity of the overall argument being proposed.
Because "I think therefore I am" verifies one's existence, it follows that whomever god allows to think must not have free will. Since by doubting they remove their free will to doubt their own existence. This means that the only people able to believe in god must not be able to think.
Yep, turns out all apologetics is arguments from convenience. We should call it all out as horribly dishonest and unworthy of respect.
At least there's one good thing about this argument - anyone who uses it is forced to admit that there's no particularly compelling evidence.
When I first heard this argument I interpreted it in a different manner: If God appears in the middle of a city and says "I am the almighty God and these are my commandments!" people would follow the commandments, but not because they thought the commandments were sensible, but because they are terrified of being struck down.
Refutation 1: The jury hasn't seen any evidence, but God walks into the room and says "He's guilty! Lock him up!" The jury have no idea what they are doing, but vote guilty anyway because that is what they have been told to do. Similarly, God tells you the bank is safe and you just believe him, without finding out why or how.
Refutation 2: This is just an area where you show your particular biases towards a certain interpretation of God, i.e. you assume that if God exists he must be an egotistical dictator. Some theists may hold this view as well. I am explicitly considering a different God.
Refutation 3: I'm not really sure this is the gotcha you think it is... neither you nor any theist believes this hypothetical is even remotely plausible. The God that most theists believe in simply *wouldn't* do this. This is like going to a Christian and telling them to imagine a scenario where the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared and saying how unlikely such a thing is... they would just say "I agree that's stupid, because I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster." When you say "Imagine if God appeared" this is equivalent to saying "Imagine if God doesn't exist." And you bet that if God really appeared after thousands of years of silence, then theists would spend an incredible amount of time arguing about what that meant.
A couple of quick remarks
Regarding Ref 1, isn't the example you give exactly how Christianity asks us to view morality? In other words, God simply instructs us what is right and wrong and we are to see this as a fait accompli. Surely if that were to be the case why ought I have any qualms if God tells me to just lock someone up?
Isn't this also what I am expected to take from the Binding of Isaac? Abraham is typically portrayed here as acting righteously by simply obeying God's command to murder his own son and God then gives Abraham a celestial slap on the back after he is stopped before things got messy.
Hence, i am not sure why you would view a jury simply going with whatever God decreed as anything other than good. They still have a choice, apparently, otherwise why praise Abraham, so what is the issue here(from God's perspective)?
Regarding Ref 2, maybe the language I use gives away my cynicism and biases here but even if it were dressed up in the most sympathetic terms it is hardly outlandish for me to claim that most Christians hold to the position that it is not merely believing that God exists that gets you salvation. Typically it is regarded as asking Jesus to absolve you of your sins and taking him into your heart that matters.
Regarding Ref 3 *The God that most theists believe in simply wouldn't do this.* I propose the only reason they believe he wouldn't is because he so obviously doesn't. This seems akin to me telling you I believe Elvis is still alive and when you put forward a series of counters as to what you would expect were he to be alive I simply retort that obviously the Elvis I believe in wouldn't do those kinds of things! These are just positions taken post hoc to explain away what has already happened (or not happened).
One thing that Christians do very regularly is to question atheists what they would do if their God DID appear and they often deride atheists who claim that whatever evidence was presented to them they would still disregard it. When Christians do that I think they have good reason to deride those atheists and i don't think "but atheists don't think God does exist so it is a silly question", which is the equivalent of your rebuttal here, is a legitimate defence. An atheist ought to be able to have a sensible answer to this question that coheres with anything else they say
I think it is absolutely reasonable of me to postulate what those Christians who make claims that God determinedly avoids giving us decent evidence would do if suddenly God made an appearance. Even if the appearance was less copper-bottomed than the example I gave here .... in fact pick whatever point you want from very shaky evidence through to absolute proof and I think they would grab at it like their theological lives depended on it. In fact I think their response would be no less enthusiastic than the typical Christians who don't share their reliance on this sort of "intentional divine hiddenness" argument.
I see free will as a simple wager: since free will is too complicated to ever study really and come to a hard science conclusion on, we should make a wager.
The wager
- If free will is real and we think it's not real, we might excuse bad actions we make as "oh well, forced to smoke crack today" and so on.
- if free will is real and we think it's real (to the degree that it's not obviously disproved, like we can't choose to fly off a building with our arms, etc), we can maximize our choices.
- if free will is not real and we think it's real, we were forced to do so and who cares.
- if free will is not real and we think it's not real, see the above.
The second option is the obvious right choice, assuming we can choose.
God loves us, and wants us to be with him, that’s why he makes it really easy for the curious ones of us to be tortured for eternity. It is great to be loved so much!
Thou art a scholar. I love listening to you.
The opposite of the being found not guilty because of overwhelming evidence is being found guilty with absolutely no evidence at all. And we know that is unacceptable to even entertain the idea. Case dismissed.
Nice to see a fellow glasses pusher. Enjoying your come back!
Yes, if a deity presented incontrovertible evidence that it existed then I would have no choice but to admit that it existed.
But that's the case for any incontrovertible evidence for anything.
The reason I'm such a backboned atheist is because if it turns out to be true, then which version do you think is more accurate: the original where Hell is merely an eternal separation from god (which I picture as your consciousness existing forever, knowing you could be in Heaven having a blast for eternity, but instead stuck with only my own thoughts for all remaining time. That's a torture I'm pretty familiar with already), or the heavily edited one changed several times over millennia with the later version of Hell that is very obviously merely a man-made scare tactic?
Like... even if the Christian God is real, then shouldn't we expect Jesus's version of that God and the afterlife they provide?
Also, I'm allowed to change my mind at any time I want. I feel adamant that I would reject this god despite evidence now, as I sit in my apartment and my main concern is poverty... but when actually presented with genuinely irrefutable evidence? I'm allowed to turn myself into a liar.
Indeed, it makes no sense. The revelations of Gods are indistinguishable from conspiracy theories, or broadly “forbidden knowledge” - Gods talk to select few people; it’s poorly documented; unverifiable and unfalsfiable; but the relgions evolved into public mass cults where God is treated as self-evident and obviously real. This historical development alone is reason to not take religious truth aspects (existence of supernatural entities etc) seriously. The idea history of religion is generally a weak aspect of religion that is not discussed enough (if there is even even still a reason to do atheist content).
It's not supposed to be "free will" in this argument; in It's classic form it's supposed to be "faith" so "free will" is a misguided substitution.
You used to watch The Fast Show as well, eh?
Sophistry, Bill. It's everywhere these days - as if there is no history and nobody ever tried that line of obfuscation before. Clown world!
There is no value in the 'freewill' in believing in a god if there's no evidence to support it. It's just a choice to engage in superstitious fantasy or not. If the choice to believe in the existence of the yeti and any god has the same foundation, where is the gravitas for belief in a god? It leaves me wondering why the most important aspect of me, to a god if it exists, is my gullibility.
So, god doesn't want to force us to believe in him with evidence, because it would hinder our free will. But he is fine with threating us with eternal torment if we don't believe. That doesn't affect our free will at all. Right.
Basic question ... is free will biblical? Where does god mention about it in his book ...?
Theists are stiill using the same old tired arguments ......
If god didn't care to provide evidence, he wouldn't have inspired the Bible. Unless, of course, these believers DO recognize that the Bible isn't evidence for anything. In which case, they, again, have reason to NOT believe.
What's the show referenced in each of the segment cards?
It is The Fast Show. Search For "Rowley Birkin"
A broader analysis, IMO, would add the easy to derive fact that there IS no such thing as "free will." I can't even imagine WHAT free will could actually be. I know that things are "caused," and quantum physicists tell us that some things occur truly randomly. I don't know of (nor can I imagine) any third way that can generate an event (an event like the arising of a belief, for example).
I think we are like minded on this. Here is a blast from the past making the same point watch?v=EpuKJlfNtnA
Gawd is pro choice apparently
Evidence does not remove free will. In the face of overwhelming evidence, a person can still decide to not believe it.
I think the literalist belief in God is the dumbest thing in the world, likewise the fundamentalist arguments, but since humans barely function on the literal plane of existence I have a lot of time for the more abstracted arguments.
God Is Love
What does that actually mean? It seems like a thing people just say in comment sections of videos like this.
Verbs and words that aren't proper nouns aren't capitalized, and complete sentences require punctuation. You Are Welcome
1 John 4:7-21 ESV
@@speakz6935 I applaud your awareness that context exists. But considering that context is a bunch of convoluted metaphysical stuff from Paul it doesn't help much.
(Including bizarre arguments like it's impossible to hate one person but love another in verse 20. lol no. I mean God does that all the time. "And the one who loves violence His soul hates. - Psm 11:5)
What do YOU mean when you say, "God is Love"?
@@cargo_vroom9729 I'll get back to you after the festive season. Merry Christmas!!
Blame the damned Wesleyans
It's 2022 and this guy is going after this? Richard Dawkins called from 2006 and wants his ideas back.
Is this like "The Beatles" rule that no recording artist may ever make a record that sounds remotely like The Beatles?
I hate to break it to you but the arguments Richard Dawkins uses........ they have all been made before you know?
@@noelplum99 Obviously. 2006 was the last time they were relevant though.
@@nietzschean3138 Why?
@@nietzschean3138 The idea of God has existed in the collective consciousness of humans for thousands of years, and some of the theistic arguments have held sway over the general populous as long as religion has been institutionalised. With certain people in the public eye openly calling for theocracy over in the states as we speak, maybe this isn't as redundant of a topic as we would like it to have been by now.
@@major7thsmcgee973 Nobody is calling for a theocracy. Another silly left-wing bit of hyperbole.
We are though on the verge of economic collapse, World War 3 and dictatorship by environmental dictat. Far more pressing concerns.
Seems to me that this whole video is just a 'cherry-picked' arguement - you just concentrated on the 'God Hates Evidence' placard and ignored the 'Evidence Dooms Nations' one, when they are clearly meant to be taken together. I think there's a lot of evidence to support the claim that once a nationhood of people no longer believe in their god(s) then their nation is doomed. That you never went anywhere near that is why I just unsubbed.
Haha you silly dickhead, the thumbnail was just a photoshopped version of the famous Westboro Baptist Church's placards, it had nothing to do with the video beyond the thumbnail 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I mean I could make a "why we need to remain in the intellectual dark ages and pretend we believe things that we believe are manifestly untrue" video but that wasn't this video.
Anyway, goodbye.
You missed your calling as a primary school teacher circa Grange Hill season 2. Love you mate.
Dark matter sent me