Does God really have Free Will? (Alternative Possibilities)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- God is perfectly rational and perfectly good. So, whenever God has the opportunity to do the best course of action, He's going to do it! There is no chance of Him doing the second best course of action. So, does God have free will? Or is He so bound by perfection that it destroys His freedom?
(That's rhetorical, btw. I answer it in the video.)
![ง้อ (ALRIGHT) - FOURTH [ TEASER ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ya6MBfo-Wvg/mqdefault.jpg)
I like this. Cool art, simple math, good points, and Christian Apologetics
That's a clever solution to the problem. The other answers are probably more practical since they truly allow God to actuate either of the choices, but yours is the most interesting.
That was my take, too. :)
Commenting for the algorithm. Man, your uniquely amazing channel is sooooo underrated.
This was another awesome video!
This is becoming one of my favourite channels ever. Keep up the interesting food for thought!
Another very thought-provoking and well-made video, thank you! What you might consider doing is at the end of the video, you could zoom out with the camera to show all images at once, so that we get to see the whole picture. If the drawings are spread out among different sheets of paper and you'd have to pull up the camera way above your head, you could try drawing them with a 0.3 pen, that way they'd probably all fit into one sheet of A4 paper. Just a thought. Thanks again.
I was thinking about this a lot. Especially in relation to the non-identity theodicy. Good video!
Nice video!! I appreciate it. :) One of my criticisms of the argument at the end [ starting at around 5:00 ]: the proponent of the 'perfection-freedom-incompatibility' argument isn't principally concerned with God's *always* doing what's best; rather, the claim is that, due to his perfection, God *necessarily* does what's best. And, thus, making the probability of 0 of God's not doing the best won't help, since your solution nevertheless admits the possibility of God's not doing the best. And thus your solution seems to reduce down merely to the denial that perfection entails necessarily-doing-the-best. But in that case, all this stuff about probability seems otiose, since we could have simply denied this entailment from the get-go.
Very good point! I understand there to be two kinds of objections:
A: God can’t be free if He always does what is best.
B: God can’t be free if He necessarily does what is best.
Now, you’re right; I only dealt with (A). To handle (B), I’d ask: Why is 'necessarily doing what is best' a property of a perfect Being? We agree that 'always doing what is best' is a property of a perfect Being, and 'necessarily doing what is best' entails 'always doing what is best.' So maybe *that's* why 'necessarily doing what's best' is a property of a perfect Being! But, of course, if that's the *only* reason to think that 'necessarily doing what's best' would be a property of a perfect Being, then we find that my argument undercuts that reasoning, since it enables the possibility of having the one without the other. At this point, it seems to me ("by my lights") that all you can really appeal to is that 'necessarily doing what's best' is *intuitively* better than 'always doing what's best.' Well, here's an argument that makes it seem that, intuitively, the always-God is a better conception of God than the necessary-God: Take the totality of all good acts performed by a being x across all possible worlds. It seems that the larger such a totality is, the better x is. But the totality of necessary-God’s possible good acts is a proper subset of always-God’s possible good acts. So, always-God is a greater conception of God.
Anyways, thanks for your feedback! I really enjoy interacting with you. :)
(That reminds me, I responded in our thread over on your Causal Finitism video. Did you get a notification for it? I was loving that conversation!)
Have a nice day!
@@ApologeticsSquared Thanks for the reply! I'm gonna have to bow out now [too busy atm], but I enjoyed your comment.
I'll be sure to check back to that causal finitism thing! I'll have to schedule a time to do so, as I'm drowning in lots of hw. Scheduling and setting aside time will help me. I'll set aside some time this weekend for it :)
You took this argument and beat it to death with logic
Really interesting theory - nice thinking! 👍
Dude you are scary smart! How do you not have more subs?
Thanks! I’m hoping the mysterious algorithm notices me. :)
@@ApologeticsSquared I'm noticing u already
I'm afraid he isn't scary smart
This is exactly the kind of video I had been searching, hello my nickname is Chris.
I have made several manuscripts regarding evidence Tacitus, Thallus, Thalmud, Pliny The Younger, Celsus, Josephus the ancient Romans that saw the Biblical accounts.
Isaac Newton spent several time regarding theological writings, Euler a mathematician believed in God. Raymond Damadian, a physician who made the MRI is a theist.
I hope I had some aid with Apologetics.
Logical sets of arguments and conclusions are all a priori reasoning, whereas historical documentation can count as a posteriori evidence, but you should keep in mind that historical chronicles are not always perfectly accurate.
Sometimes they either add or omit details for political purposes, or because certain events or ways of thinking about things did not correspond to the beliefs of the people who wrote them down, or because people who were present at the time were already old and with faint memories of stuff that had happened, or simply because they weren't regarded as important.
An a priori set of arguments can be true if all of its premises are true, and will be recognized as true by anyone who believes all of the premises it encompasses to be true, but historical knowledge is somewhat fuzzier, and even people who belong to the same school or sect might have disputes regarding extremely specific details of events.
Very helpful, thank you!
The very nature of God precludes him from doing anything less than divine. Therefore if God has options, all of his options are divine. Any action God takes his divine.
Another point that should have been discussed is the difference between freedom with regards to potency vs. freedom with regards to attributes. God is free in the sense of His logical potency, but his attributes are constant, unchanging, and eternal. However, this does not entail some sort of contradiction or limitation on God's actual freedom/potency.
When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, it wasn't as if Christ heard some unintelligible babble from Satan (as if God cannot litterly conceive or comprehend the act of sinning). It is merely that God would never choose to sin. He possess the potency (in the sense of logical ability) even there is no possible world (to use the Modal terminology) in which God would ever choose to sin.
Hey man! Love your vids! I would like to point out in issue on the math though. In the case of the pi example, P(x=pi) is not technically zero. Approaching the problem with calculus (which we kinda have to), it's really P(x=pi) = dP = (1/L) dx, where L = (4-3) (the length of the interval) and dx infinitesimal element that we integrate over. Infinitesimals are not ACTUAKKY zero, which is why integrating over them produces a result that is not zero. You can think of it as though they are infinitely small, so you need infinitely many of them to produce a non-zero number, but that still means they aren't zero because infinitely many zeros is still zero. So integrating, we get int_3^4 dP = int_3^4 (4-3) dx = x |_3^4 = 4-3 = 1. This checks out above statement about the probability since the probability of chosing any number had better be 1 (SOMETHING will be chosen). Moving to the A/B example, B LITERALLY has a probability of zero, so it WILL NEVER be chosen. Hope this makes sense. Keep it up!
Thanks for the comment! I think Leibniz’s dx notation needs to be interpreted in the context of limits to avoid contradictions. Alexander Pruss has done a lot of work why scenarios like the one in the video ought to be interpreted as having a probability of zero rather than an infinitesimal probability (e.g. alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-simple-way-to-see-problem-with.html ).
Have a nice day! :)
commenting for algorithm
How do you know what God feel? How do you know they have no need? If God is infinite then they have to continuously evolve since it's endless. If they reach a limit then it's possible that they might become corrupt and no longer infinitely good.
Wow amazing🤯🤩🤩
Out of all of these alternatives, is there a way to investigate which one (if any) is more likely to be true? Like, I'd like a way of going from "it is logically possible that God is free and perfect at the same time" to "we have reasonable certainty that God can be free and perfect with no contradictions".
I'm cool with this explanation. It's the same reasoning I use to explain how God could have made a perfect world whilst keeping our free will intact as well. The question then becomes, "Why didn't he?"
You should check out my video, “Evil exists because you can rebel in Heaven.”
@@ApologeticsSquared Thanks! I watched it and realize that perhaps I should expand on what I meant. This is a question that has been on my mind lately.
Even if we can assume that there is free will in Heaven (which explains the fall of the Devil), does God himself have free will? Let's assume the answer is yes. Then what does he have, which we don't have, that keeps him from sinning or rebelling against himself, especially if we believe he is three in one? What is the difference between Adam and Jesus that led to one sinning under the same earthly circumstances and one not sinning, and why didn't God just make all of us little Jesuses (Jesi? lol) in the first place?
If this is simply a problem of statistics, then there's also the question of how many people God is willing to sacrifice to hell in order to get a certain number to worship him forever.
Amen! 🙏 🙌✝️🥰
All good answers (except that last part, I need to watch that more to get a hold of it), but personally I would just say that God has free will and any idea we have of what perfection looks like we got from God. So every choice God makes is perfect by definition.
For example we have world A and world B, God will create whichever one is better but how do you know which one is better without God. Whichever one God chooses that one we can be sure is better. If God chose A then any argument to say B is better is missing some aspect or reason that only God knows.
This question is what’s driving me sometype of Christian multiverse idea
@William Wallis Fair enough, I still fancy the idea though, I feel like it could solve some problems raised by atheists tho.
I’m skeptical of your mathematical argument. If infinitesimals are real then the argument doesn’t work. The probability of getting a specific number would be an infinitesimal and the probability of not getting that number is 100% - an infinitesimal rather than 0% and 100%.
Another option is to say God is to point out God always doing the best thing is not the same as God necessarily doing the best thing. Thus it’s possible God doesn’t do the best thing even though he actually only ever does the best thing. I.e his being perfect is because he always freely chooses to do the best thing. His always freely doing the best thing would be logically prior to him being perfect rather than him being perfect being logically prior to him always doing the best thing. This preserves his free will, perfection, and the presupposition that there always is a best thing to do. Though it does come with the cost of saying God isn’t necessarily perfect even though he actually is perfect.
Any books you recommend for this particular topic?
None come to mind. But I believe Tim Stratton from Freethinking Ministries has written on God’s relation to the PAP.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared You too brother.
You will never figure out shod logically with science because your trying to figure out an infinite being. His ways are unsearchable. His thoughts are not your thoughts and his ways are not your ways.
I love your solution to this problem. I just have a couple little objections to your general approach, & one is that you tend to speak as if goodness is outside of God & God is choosing to meet its standards. This is in contrast to “the best” simply being “the most effective way for God to get exactly what He wants”, because God’s “wants” are His Will is His Nature is Perfection (Div.Simp.).
Secondly, you speak too literally of God engaging in verbs, like “doing, choosing, deciding, getting” etc.. But God is timeless. He doesn’t “do” anything. The appearance of progression is an perception of those bound in time. Anything God “is going to” appear to decide, He is already in the eternal state of willing, & always has been. There is no place in God’s existence where He is undecided & ignorant of what decision He’s “going to” make.
This has an important implication on your concept of whether or not God “needs”. I believe He DOES need us “non-God entities” (= non-good = evil = “sinners”) as objects of His love, in order to perfect His love in ways that are not satisfied by loving “Himself” (the Trinity). But since God is not dependent on anything outside of Himself to fulfil that need, the need is not a weakness! God also “needs” to exist, He “needs” to do His own will, etc.. Needing is not a weakness if He has the power to supply His own need by creating evil creatures to love & to be loved by. This brings us to the original point: anything that He will ever benefit from (by the love & worship of future or past generations), He is already & eternally in the infinitely perfect state of benefitting from.
Anyhow, I love your stuff! And the solutions you present are so satisfying to hear & think about. Thanks.
Towards the end, you just pointed out that the option to choose b (which is less good) is there... you did not show free will, because God still will always choose a, and even though the option exists, could not choose b.
I would go with 2 *and* 3, but more 2 to answer this specific objection.
What does it mean to say that it's possible for God to do x, if the probability of God doing x is 0? Is there any possible world in which God doesn't choose the best course of action? If there isn't, then that event is impossible and God therefore had no choice. If there is, then reality really could have been that way but, if that's the case, then the probability of God doing that was higher than 0.
The Essence and Existence of God are one. God does not have any accidental properties for that accidental properties are contingent on causes. God has truly only now consideration which is beyond time and space. The choice of God is internal to God's essence and is already always there. PAP assumes that there is time for the one who is making the decision. This is not true for God.
Are you familiar with Islamic views of Divine Simplicity? Keep up the good work. Really like your channel.
Hello! I am familiar with Divine Simplicity (because of Christian Classical Theists) but it seems like it clashes with how God reveals Himself in Scripture. God is angry at sinners. This is accidental; God would not have this property if the sinners didn’t exist.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Right. But do you've any Philosophical critiques of he doctrine of divine simplicity? I'd really want to know. Keep up your great world.
@@abdullahansar2010 Thanks. I have quite a few critiques!
Here’s one:
1. All God’s intrinsic properties are the same across all possible worlds (i.e. divine simplicity is true).
2. If a being has the property of knowing X, then this property is not extrinsic to them.
3. God has the property of knowing that I exist.
4. Therefore, God has the property of knowing that I exist intrinsically.
5. Therefore, God has the property of knowing that I exist in every possible world.
Obviously, (5) is false. There are possible worlds in which I don’t exist! But (2) and (3) seem plausible, so I reject (1).
@@ApologeticsSquared
Good argument but I believe there is a flaw in it. Let me present my critique.
Just changing the formulation of your argument will make it clear.
1. All God’s intrinsic properties are the same across all possible worlds (i.e. divine simplicity is true).
2. If a being has the property of knowing X, then this property is not extrinsic to them.
3. God has the property of knowing that I exist in the world y.
4. Therefore, God has the property of knowing that I exist in the world y intrinsically.
5. Therefore, God has the property of knowing that I exist in the world y every possible world.
The conclusion that "I exist in all possible worlds does not follow."
While God indeed knows that you exist in a particular world and God knows this in all possible worlds, this does not entail that you exist in all possible worlds.
Thanks.
@@ApologeticsSquared We can hold a conversation on it some time. Will be an interesting talk to say the least.
Something isn’t sitting right.
1) God = His Perfection
2) Versions of possible Perfection >1
3) Therefore Versions of possible Gods >1
4) 🔹▪️G -> ▪️G (5S)
5) Therefore ▪️G >1
Am I missing something? Would you argue that, rather than God being identical to His perfection, He is identical to the set of all the possible perfections? That just feels a little sloppy. I dunno.
If the set of all possible perfections contains only one element, which is essentially equal to God's perfection, then God would necessarily be equal to all possible perfections.
I don't know if this is a viable objection to the first option you presented, but it doesn't seem to follow that God could've created only one universe. Just as how an author writes multiple books, there isn't much reason to think it is impossible or even implausible that God couldn't have created other universes. I am actually curious as to what you think about the possibility of God creating other universes and how that might affect other doctrines or areas within theology.
Neat solution, possible but probability 0. Standard maths.
Don't see why Adam and Eve couldn't have been made like that. Their moral intuitions being so immpecable that it was probability 0 that they eat the fruit yet being free creatures since it is possible that they would eat the fruit.
In case of 0 probabilities, one could deny infinite divisibility as anything else than an artifact of epistemic limits: we don't know basic parts, so we come up with an idea of arbitrary divisibility [which is never actually infinite in practice].
Either way, can God really have the ability to choose otherwise, if he is all-knowing about the future?
The idea of my defense is that an objector to the compatibility of God's free will and moral perfection would need not only to himself deny the possibility of such probabilities, but somehow prove that they are impossible.
And yes, God can choose otherwise even though He knows what He will choose. His knowledge of His future actions are based on His decisions about what to do in the future; not the other way around. If He was going to choose something different in the future, then He would know that He would have done something different in the future.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared
Yeah, scratch my first paragraph, just a technicality about a use of a tool that potentially is incongruent with reality. It's inconsequential really.
But I'm not sure about this: _"His knowledge of His future actions are based on His decisions about what to do in the future"_ .
I'm not sure it works. Attributes of God are supposed to be timeless, pre-existing. If God's "decisions" are pre-existing, are they really decisions? If they are set on choice 1 instead of 2 in a pre-existing immutable manner, it actually couldn't have been otherwise. Choice 2 is impossible even if it would be equally good to choice 1, because it's inconsistent with God's [brute-fact*] attribute.
* brute-fact only if there are indeed equiprobable choices. Either way, if it _is_ an attribute of God, the other option is impossible.
@@krzyszwojciech This is an extremely late reply, but your suggestion would only mean that God cannot change his mind due to the fact that his decisions are eternal. However, this would not make a secondary decision impossible. It is true that God could have made a different decision prior to (I’m trying not to use any words that suggest time) creation. It is true that after the fact he couldn’t have decided otherwise, but not prior to the fact (Again, try not to read passage of time into my words, I mean “after” and “prior” as prepositions suggesting a causal relationship).
@@matthewlorang5334 Compared to some, that's hardly a late replay.
"However, this would not make a secondary decision impossible. "
That doesn't make sense.
If God is immutable, the secondary option was never an actual possibility. It could have never been actualised. Those other options can exist only as hypotheticals: had God have a different nature (had God have a different foreknowledge), his creative decree would be different. But simply because we can imagine it, it doesn't mean it could have been actually different. Especially if God is somehow a necessary being with necessary attributes.
Then the only conclusion is that God's choices were somehow necessary as well, even though they seem quite arbitrary in some cases.
"Getting pi is possible, with a probability of 0%" .... You need to rethink that.
@Apologetics Squared
On basic and classical Christian doctrine, the majority of humanity will go to Everlasting Torment because they have not repented from their sin and are not saved from God’s wrath.
Therefore, Creation cannot be an outpouring of love to the majority of humanity because it would have been better for those people had they never existed.
Thus: God creating people whom He knew would suffer and be in torment for all of Eternity Future is not doing best for those people.
If God is All Knowing ( in that, He has exhaustive knowledge of all that would be and will be ), then there cannot be Possible Worlds that He could have created. Namely, because there was never a point in God’s existence where he knew that this World would not exist. If God is All Knowing, then the knowledge that this World would exist was co-eternal with God. God never knew any different. He eternally knew that this World would exist.
God could not have refrained and not created this World because if He did refrain and not create this world, then that would mean that his prior knowledge of this World existing would have been wrong.
The point here, is that, if God is All Knowing, then He cannot be free because He is bound to do what He always knew He would do and cannot do other that what He always knew He would do.
//If God is All Knowing ( in that, He has exhaustive knowledge of all that would be and will be ), then there cannot be Possible Worlds that He could have created. Namely, because there was never a point in God’s existence where he knew that this World would not exist. //
This is a non-sequitur because what has been created (ie this actual world) is eternally known by divine knowledge and what has been eternally known is eternally willed by divine will but it is a rational possibility that if creation of something else would have been known eternally in divine knowledge and eternally willed by divine will then that would be created which would be a possible world different from this one.
// If God is All Knowing, then the knowledge that this World would exist was co-eternal with God. God never knew any different. He eternally knew that this World would exist.//
Exactly but this doesn't refute the view that God could have done otherwise (ie a possible world) which would have been eternally willed by God inclined with and known eternally by divine knowledge.
There is a rather large elephant in the room here and you've spectacularly side stepped it.
Your theology asserts god is omniscient meaning he is all knowing, this perfect knowledge doesn't just apply everywhere but at every time past, present and future. So, how can this god have free will when 'free will' necessarily requires a period of indeterminacy, no matter how short?
Your entire dialogue here is predicated on the assumption your god has free will and how that supposedly impacts on our free will. However, the qualities you theists insist this god has precludes this entity from having free will.
How does this god have a choice over anything when he knows with infallible certainty what will happen? He always knows what will ensue which necessarily makes this existence utterly deterministic and your concept of free will nothing but an illusion. And as he knows he will enact action 'x' at point 'y', then he has no power to do otherwise - for example, he could never have an option to not part the Red Sea for Moses because his omniscience already confirmed that's precisely what he'd do. This then means there's any number of actions this god could not perform which then negates his claimed omnipotence too!
Wouldnt youre rule of the probability between picking a number (a-b×100=probability)
Also apply to any other number? Such as 3.4
3.4-3.4=0x100=0
Yes. Picking 3.4 rather than 3.39 or 3.399 or 3.3999 or 3.9999 etc. has a probability of zero.
1. Depends on what you mean by free will.
2. God could not have done otherwise than the most perfect option, but he does so with no external influence.
3. There is no problem with this. There is no dilemma. And you don't have to be a Calvinist to accept this, Im not. You are correct, God and people are not the same thing, and the same standards, and attributes do not apply. "double standard" is not the correct term to use, as there are 2 standards, for 2 different things.
4. God isn't "morally responsible" for anything. HE is the standard to WHAT IS moral. WHATEVER GOD IS, IS MORAL.
5. There IS always a best course of action, even logically. In the real world, one action will always bring fourth less good than another action. You can't use math as an example, because math is not part of the real world, it is theoretical, abstract. For example, a square only exists in math. According to the definition of a square, there is no such thing in the real world. When you think there is, just zoom in closer. Its an abstract idea, same as pi, same as infinity etc. Can't use those as an argument at all. You are living in the real world, and have to deal with that.
6. There are no ties for 1st place. The only reason we think that is because we are finite. Or we have finite measuring tools. For example 2 people could have finished a puzzle at the same time to the second. Very unlikely they finished the puzzle to the same millisecond, or nano second or zeptosecond. Again, this only exists theoretically in math, not in the real world.
7. "God could have created a world with just 1 electron more, and it would be the same" But it won't. Just because 1 electron seems like little to you, it doesn't mean it is. You are biased by your finitude. That 1 electron could make a huge difference in the infinite plan of Gods.
8. Take all theoretical math examples out bc they don't correspond to the actual universe precisely. God is the definition of precise.
9. If God knows all, and is able to do all, why would he choose option b which is less good than option a? If He really is good, he would always choose the option that is more good than the option that is less good. So His GOODNESS limits his will to always do the best option, which leaves him with no choice.
10. There is not always a better option. There is always the best option, and the best option is God. The second best option will never be God.
Try to answer why you think its a problem that God doesn't have free will. Why do you think that is somehow not "good".
At 3:05 I do have a question/objection. Is God's omnipotence bounded by the logic of our universe? If God was truly omnipotent then he should not be bound by logic and he should be able to create the squared circle or the best universe in an infinite list of increasingly better universes.
So if God is not bound by logic then this would mean that this argument of increasingly better universes is wrong, he could have created the best universe.
If God was bound by logic then I would have to ask whether he created logic. If he did not create logic then he is not the creator of everything which throws a wrench into a lot of other arguments. If God did create logic then he was not bound by logic before he created it. Therefore he could have created logic in any way he likes, could he not? If so then God once again could have created the best possible universe in an endless list of better universes, he just would have needed to create logic in such a way that he could do that.
// If God was truly omnipotent then he should not be bound by logic... //
I disagree. Omnipotence is usually defined as "the ability to do anything logically possible" or something like that. So, God cannot make a square circle.
@@ApologeticsSquared
Well in that case does logic precede God or did God create logic? If God created logic then he should be able to create it in such a way that he can create the best possible universe.
@@RandomPerson-yq1qk I think logic precedes God (in some sense of "precedes")
@@ApologeticsSquared Ah, ok. That is interesting.
@@ApologeticsSquared I think of logic as a subset of language. I don't know if you consider language as a creation of God or not.
holy shit I was thinking the same shit and I saw this video
First?
Also, thanks for addressing an issue which is often overlooked. Keep it up?
It looks like you are!
Free will, i assume you mean to choose to belief in god or not.
However, as far as we can tell god is not even a possibillity. rather god is impossible for all we know. Unttil someone can show us god is even possible, it is not reasonable to think a god is even possible.
So without a god being possible, there is no god to beleve in.
To choose to beleve in a god anyway is therefore lying to myself. aka I do not have a choice, i do not have the free will to stay honnest and beleve in a god at the same time.
This also makes a huge break in gods devine plan wich in concequence provides more evidence for god being impossible.
Can you support your claim that God isn't possible? What evidence or arguments do you know of that draw this conclusion?
I mean, your comment is filled with issues front to back, but lets start with that claim.
@@averygibson
I make the claim that it has not demonstrably shown that a god or the supernatural or heaven hell demons angels, you know those kind of things is even a posibillity.
And from that i am left with the lack of a possibillity.
So all you can say is that you have to take it on faith.
aka the worse path to truth.
All those religions that are faith based yet only 1 can be the correct one, not to mention all the denominations. no, faith only leeads to false religions.
But you are welcome to give me evidence.
But please tell me what is wrong with my arguments. besides them not fitting your narritive.
@@Silentsouls "I make the claim that it has not demonstrably shown that a god or the supernatural or heaven hell demons angels, you know those kind of things is even a posibillity. And from that i am left with the lack of a possibillity."
- So this is just a fancy way to say you think these things are impossible, despite having zero evidence to that claim.
"But you are welcome to give me evidence."
- No, you made the claim, so you support it. I'm sorry, but a "lack of evidence" doesn't justify shit.
"But please tell me what is wrong with my arguments. besides them not fitting your narritive."
Alright, I'll walk through your original comment:
"However, as far as we can tell god is not even a possibillity. rather god is impossible for all we know."
- To say "God is not even a possiblity" requires evidence. Even if we had no evidence, we can't assume something is impossible. So this is where you must demonstrate evidence. What makes God "not even a possiblity"?
"Unttil someone can show us god is even possible, it is not reasonable to think a god is even possible."
- I disagree. I think as long as an idea doesn't posit any contradictions or fallacies, it is possible. It doesn't need to be demonstrated that it is possible. Does that mean it's true? No. Does the fact that something is possible justify belief? Absolutely not. To claim something needs to be demonstrated that it is possible is to presuppose a worldview. So what evidence do you have that God is contradictory, either to his natures or reality?
"So without a god being possible, there is no god to beleve in."
- I agree, so demonstrate his impossibility.
"To choose to beleve in a god anyway is therefore lying to myself. aka I do not have a choice, i do not have the free will to stay honnest and beleve in a god at the same time."
- This doesn't even make any sense. Nothing about this statement is coherent.
"This also makes a huge break in gods devine plan wich in concequence provides more evidence for god being impossible."
- You clearly know nothing about Christianity if you think any of this is somehow problematic to God or his plan. If you're just talking about classical theism, then there is no divine plan to begin with. Either way, to conclude this is further evidence for God being impossible is extremely confused.
@@averygibson
The default position is that nothing is possible until is has shown to be possible.
Until it has shown to be possible it is unreasonable to say it is possible without good evidence.
This does not just apply to a god, this applies to everything.
I make the claim, I supported my claim. You presuming you are claiming a god exists have therefore the burdon of proof.
"lack of evidence" is widely used, it again does not fit your narritive but that is your problem not mine
"God is not even a possiblity" as stated previously evidence of a god is needed. in this case due to the harm religion has done to many people already, it most definitly needs evidence. (did i mention all those other religions, or denominations) yes evidence is a must at this point.
You disagree, that is not my problem it is your problem. Trying to change the standards for when something needs evidence without showing why does not help anything but your own narritive.
You want evidence a god is not possible.
Ask yourself this, do you need evidence for pixies not being possible, or unicors, or hogwarts, the diskworld. i do not suppose you consider either of these possible. yet you want evidence for a god not existing, that is special pleading. your narritive realy has a twisted worldview so far.
To ask evidence for god being contradictory is nonsense. Having an idea that is noncontradictory does not make the idea true.
So without a god being possible, there is no god to beleve in.
- I agree, so demonstrate his impossibility.
So evidence ? no, it is your turn, you want to claim a god, you provide good evidence.
For gods plan to work, i must at least have a choise to beleve in god or choose not to.
I do not have that choise. for i do not even think a god is even a possibillity. Therefore god's plan is flawed. and god ius perfect, so yeah, i am evidence god does not exist.
Christianity is demonstrably wrong tho.
The bible: it is just stories told by people to other people, (telephone game) later it has been written down, and even late more, it has been copied, glorified and authored.
The resurrection: th-cam.com/video/n2M8NWjcBQo/w-d-xo.html
The ark story is impossible in many ways.
so yeah. and thats just a few problems.
The answer is simple- “God” doesn’t exist, so it cannot have free will.
If God takes uncountably many actions does this mean that he has a non-zero probability of ever choosing the non-best one? Iʼm not sure current probability theory answers this, though maybe if you take the Axiom of Choice it does.
Amazing. 🏔️🏞️🗻💚
Towards the end, you just pointed out that the option to choose b (which is less good) is there... you did not show free will, because God still will always choose a, and even though the option exists, could not choose b.