The video game analogy is actually not analogous. The video game creator does want you to die. We know the video game creator wants you to die because they programmed a way for you to do it. If the video game creator did not want you to die then they would have simply created the game in a way that you couldn't die. The fact that they created a method of dying means that they wanted you to die.
@monkeyboy at 55:00 I would also say that a sleepwalker who has committed crimes isn't morally capable since it wasn't them actually doing it. BUT, pragmatically, they'd still be responsible for what they did since they've demonstrated that they're a danger to society and can't be trusted with freedom. To clarify, someone doing a typically bad act unconsciously would fall under the exception of being undeserving of the title of evil. But although you didn't commit evil or weren't evil, it doesn't mean you should be free or free of consequence.
If true love between finite moral agents and God requires there to be a choice to reject him at some point in their lifetime, does this mean that babies who die prematurely and go to heaven or people who never got to hear the good word in their lifetime (the majority of people who ever existed) have and will never experience true love with God?
It’s the details that really expose how shallow most of Christianity is. Some Christians interpret the Bible in a way that makes every human an enemy of God at birth. Only repentance and acceptance of Jesus’s sacrifice can save them. On the other hand, why send a baby to endure eternal torture? Maybe babies get a pass because they are innocent. Well, that just means there’s ways to be saved that don’t involve Jesus. If true, that contradicts the gospels. It also means that dead babies are good because they are guaranteed a place in heaven. That means abortion is actually saving souls! It’s not surprising that there are thousands of different versions of Christianity.
What type of interlocutor takes longer to realize what the normative version of the POE that Jack runs is actually presenting? A. The simpleton that believes saying “but jesus” Or B. The more philosophically savvy theist that is headstrong in what the seminary taught them? Either way it seems to take an hour of going in a circle until they understand
Sometimes you have to explain why an argument uses its terms as defined and other definitions don’t matter. Guys like this will never understand how they are equivocating and why that’s them avoiding the actual argument
TikTok apologist: In order to love God you have to be able to freely love him or freely turn away from him.” Jesus speaking in Matthew chapter 22: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.” God initiates our love for him (John 6:44), God give us the desire to love him (Philippians 2:13), and God gives us the power to love him (Galatians 5:22). I’m not seeing a whole lot of free will when it comes to loving God.
18:59 to be fair here, the Bible does say that God is the author of evil. It does say that God does evil acts. So this isn't a non-standard view; it's just that most Christians don't know what their Bible says.
2:53:30 This is hilarious, what explains why we do evil is the knowledge of good and evil? You can't say that the actions that Adam and Eve did prior to eating the fruit or the act of eating the fruit as evil. They gained the knowledge of good and evil by eating the fruit. So it's either the case that they were not doing evil by eating the fruit or having knowledge of good and evil is not what would explains why they did the evil thing as they did not possess this knowledge when they did the evil.
2:39:16 well the issue is going to run into is what happens to children when they die? Do they not go to heaven? Does a fetus go to heaven when it dies? Under his paradigm the answer to that would be no. Because the fetus did not have a choice. So under his paradigm certain children just don't get the opportunity to go to heaven.
2:45:48 also if I'm remembering correctly these texts aren't firsthand accounts of Jesus interactions. These are accounts that they heard of Jesus. So it could still be the case that the counting that is talked about in these texts that are extra biblical are just inaccurate or fallacious.
@darth_mb The guy talking at 2:51:15 explained that the reason we sin is because we have a fallen and corrupted nature that causes us to desire to sin. Paul called it “lusts of the flesh” in Romans 7. Paul goes on to say that he sins even though he hates sin. He does the thing he does not want to do. Later on Paul explains how those in heaven will have a glorified body that is free from lust and weaknesses of our mortal, corrupted bodies. The important thing to notice is that we are born with a fallen and corrupted nature that causes us to desire sinful things. So the reason we sin is because of our desires. The same thing holds true in heaven. People in heaven no longer have the fallen and corrupt nature, so they no longer desire sinful things. That guy you kicked at the end said Adam and Eve sinned because they had free will. You rightly pointed out that free will is not an explanation for why someone chooses A over B. The giant gaping hole in all of this is an explanation for why Adam and Eve sinned. They did not have a fallen and corrupt nature like we do, so there’s no reason to believe they would ever desire to sin. The guy at the end that you kicked was straight up contradicting what the other Christian had said five seconds before he came in swinging. If you ever debate those guys again, I’d love to see you ask them why Adam and Eve sinned if our sins are caused by our desires and our desires are caused by our nature. And for the record, Adam and Eve sinned because God placed the serpent in the garden for the express purpose of causing Adam and Eve to sin. Otherwise what explains why God would leave a loaded gun for them to stumble upon, right? Adam and Eve were set up. They were framed. And because of this, you and I are fallen and corrupted and on the express train to eternal conscious torment in fire. If you can find anyone to explain how any of this makes sense, I’d love to hear it.
@@darth_mbI know your main interest in these conversations is the philosophical side of it, but what I put forward is an internal critique. Their theology has a giant gaping hole that needs an explanation. The Christians need to explain why Adam and Eve sinned if sin is explained by our desires and our desires come from our nature. Adam and Eve’s sin is not explained by their desires because desires come from our nature and Adam and Eve were not created with a fallen or corrupted nature.
1:25:29 The better question is who is setting the rules for how this type of love operates? Is God bound by these set of rules? Or did God create the requirement for this type of love? If God is bound by the rules in how this type of love was operate then it means that God is not all-powerful as God is bound by this rule. If God creates this type of rule for how love operates then he could just have not created the rule and then the rule just would not apply. So it's either the case of God isn't all-powerful or God could just not create this rule.
2:41:42 The implication from his statement is that heaven is non-temporal. So you wouldn't have free will in heaven because you can't do actions. All actions are temporal in nature. So if heaven is not temporal then you can't do actions in heaven so you don't have free will as free will requires the ability to do actions. I would also say that you couldn't love in heaven as love requires an action. And if there's no temporality in heaven then you don't have the ability to do love as you can't act out this love as I take love to be action based.
22:56 I don't understand why he thinks that helps this situation. God would just eliminate the source of temptation. There's currently temptation in this world so that shows that God did not eliminate temptation. So I don't know why he brought up temptation because it doesn't help his argument.
From a utilitarian point of view there may be countervailing reasons to allow evil (then it's not evil). From a deontological point of view there are never countervailing reasons to allow evil (evil is still evil even if there will be a better result overall from allowing evil). I'm not sure it this transfers onto a supreme being.
@@darth_mb 1. what I notice from the conversations is that your interlocutors want to focus on the aspect of God not doing evil rather than the idea that countervailing reasons to allow evil means that it's not actually evil. They never seem to understand that half of the argument. (I was struggling for a way to understand that in my original comment). 2. Aren't utilitarianism and deontology opposites? I don't understand.
@@smolderingtitan utilitarianism is the "good" is identical to what brings about the most utility. Wether good carries obligations is a matter of deontology.
@@darth_mb I thought deontology meant you don't throw the fat man off the train to save more people. Like in Kant, each person is an end in themselves and not a means to an end. Therefore even if the holocaust would bring about a better outcome it would still be unethical to not prevent it.
2:43:52 The implication is that you're saying that there is no reason as a relates to the good. Because God's creation of this world versus God not creating at all is neutral. God isn't creating any more good over the good that there was absent creation. So God's justification in its creation and in its will isn't for good. To say that it was for a greater good is to say that this world and its ultimate good is grander than just a world where God only existed by itself. And that can't be the case.
1:27:09 I don't know why he's bringing up God's nature as the limiting factor. God is the one that created human nature. God could have created a human nature that did not have the capacity to do evil (just like God's nature) and could only do loving acts. Then all humans would simply be acting in their nature by not doing evil. So talking about God's nature doesn't help your situation given that God created human nature and he could have created human nature in any way.
2:20:40 If you're a Christian and you believe that the Bible is the word of God meaning the Bible is the truth, then you can't believe that God desires all people to do the good and to come to him. The Bible clearly states that he creates people for damnation and that he determines who will come to him. The Bible is very clear that you don't have free will to choose to come to him, you are made to come to him through his will. This is what the Bible says. Now if you do not believe that the Bible is inerrant or you believe the Bible is unreliable then this comment isn't for you.
@@isidoreaerys8745 didn't even do anything just downloaded from TikTok studio and uploaded. This is the best it could of been, and you way exaggerating. Ain't nothing bad bout the audio dawg.
The Christian worldview claims that knowledge and intelligibility relies on the regularity and consistency of the physical laws (amongst other things). God can supersede the physical laws by way of miracles. The physical laws are not always regular or consistent due to miracles. Therefore knowledge and intelligibility is not possible on the Christian worldview.
@@frederickfairlieesq5316 Miracles do not mean the laws are not consistent . God cannot perform logical contradiction (like making a triangle have 4 sides). Miracles can seem from one perspective to be illogical, but when scrutinized , miracles never break the laws of nature. Water to Wine is still the transmutation of one molecule into another molecule. They are still the same chemicals before and after the miracle
The video game analogy is actually not analogous. The video game creator does want you to die. We know the video game creator wants you to die because they programmed a way for you to do it. If the video game creator did not want you to die then they would have simply created the game in a way that you couldn't die. The fact that they created a method of dying means that they wanted you to die.
A video game designer also is designing your stop your progress. Not punish you personally
Sophisticated arguments against divine attributes are super underrated, I like how this PoE version utilizes those to an extent.
Great content lately mb, love it..
@monkeyboy at 55:00 I would also say that a sleepwalker who has committed crimes isn't morally capable since it wasn't them actually doing it. BUT, pragmatically, they'd still be responsible for what they did since they've demonstrated that they're a danger to society and can't be trusted with freedom. To clarify, someone doing a typically bad act unconsciously would fall under the exception of being undeserving of the title of evil. But although you didn't commit evil or weren't evil, it doesn't mean you should be free or free of consequence.
If true love between finite moral agents and God requires there to be a choice to reject him at some point in their lifetime, does this mean that babies who die prematurely and go to heaven or people who never got to hear the good word in their lifetime (the majority of people who ever existed) have and will never experience true love with God?
It’s the details that really expose how shallow most of Christianity is. Some Christians interpret the Bible in a way that makes every human an enemy of God at birth. Only repentance and acceptance of Jesus’s sacrifice can save them. On the other hand, why send a baby to endure eternal torture? Maybe babies get a pass because they are innocent. Well, that just means there’s ways to be saved that don’t involve Jesus. If true, that contradicts the gospels. It also means that dead babies are good because they are guaranteed a place in heaven. That means abortion is actually saving souls! It’s not surprising that there are thousands of different versions of Christianity.
With no offence to the panel, I think I saw too much jargon nomenclature and everything went over people's head.
What type of interlocutor takes longer to realize what the normative version of the POE that Jack runs is actually presenting?
A. The simpleton that believes saying “but jesus”
Or
B. The more philosophically savvy theist that is headstrong in what the seminary taught them?
Either way it seems to take an hour of going in a circle until they understand
1:57:51 "It's PERFECTLTY analagous!" -Jack so often robs me of my words
Sometimes you have to explain why an argument uses its terms as defined and other definitions don’t matter.
Guys like this will never understand how they are equivocating and why that’s them avoiding the actual argument
He has no desire to ever understand the argument. The has a huge motivation to not understand.
TikTok apologist:
In order to love God you have to be able to freely love him or freely turn away from him.”
Jesus speaking in Matthew chapter 22:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.”
God initiates our love for him (John 6:44), God give us the desire to love him (Philippians 2:13), and God gives us the power to love him (Galatians 5:22).
I’m not seeing a whole lot of free will when it comes to loving God.
18:59 to be fair here, the Bible does say that God is the author of evil. It does say that God does evil acts. So this isn't a non-standard view; it's just that most Christians don't know what their Bible says.
The guy at the end has the same voice as Patrick Bateman in American psycho
This Josh guy is great! 😂
Yeah fr 🤣
2:53:30 This is hilarious, what explains why we do evil is the knowledge of good and evil? You can't say that the actions that Adam and Eve did prior to eating the fruit or the act of eating the fruit as evil. They gained the knowledge of good and evil by eating the fruit. So it's either the case that they were not doing evil by eating the fruit or having knowledge of good and evil is not what would explains why they did the evil thing as they did not possess this knowledge when they did the evil.
2:39:16 well the issue is going to run into is what happens to children when they die? Do they not go to heaven? Does a fetus go to heaven when it dies? Under his paradigm the answer to that would be no. Because the fetus did not have a choice. So under his paradigm certain children just don't get the opportunity to go to heaven.
2:45:48 also if I'm remembering correctly these texts aren't firsthand accounts of Jesus interactions. These are accounts that they heard of Jesus. So it could still be the case that the counting that is talked about in these texts that are extra biblical are just inaccurate or fallacious.
@darth_mb
The guy talking at 2:51:15 explained that the reason we sin is because we have a fallen and corrupted nature that causes us to desire to sin. Paul called it “lusts of the flesh” in Romans 7. Paul goes on to say that he sins even though he hates sin. He does the thing he does not want to do. Later on Paul explains how those in heaven will have a glorified body that is free from lust and weaknesses of our mortal, corrupted bodies.
The important thing to notice is that we are born with a fallen and corrupted nature that causes us to desire sinful things. So the reason we sin is because of our desires. The same thing holds true in heaven. People in heaven no longer have the fallen and corrupt nature, so they no longer desire sinful things.
That guy you kicked at the end said Adam and Eve sinned because they had free will. You rightly pointed out that free will is not an explanation for why someone chooses A over B.
The giant gaping hole in all of this is an explanation for why Adam and Eve sinned. They did not have a fallen and corrupt nature like we do, so there’s no reason to believe they would ever desire to sin.
The guy at the end that you kicked was straight up contradicting what the other Christian had said five seconds before he came in swinging.
If you ever debate those guys again, I’d love to see you ask them why Adam and Eve sinned if our sins are caused by our desires and our desires are caused by our nature.
And for the record, Adam and Eve sinned because God placed the serpent in the garden for the express purpose of causing Adam and Eve to sin. Otherwise what explains why God would leave a loaded gun for them to stumble upon, right? Adam and Eve were set up. They were framed. And because of this, you and I are fallen and corrupted and on the express train to eternal conscious torment in fire. If you can find anyone to explain how any of this makes sense, I’d love to hear it.
@@frederickfairlieesq5316 Us having fallen nature's is literally in logical tension with the fact gods all good.
@@darth_mbI know your main interest in these conversations is the philosophical side of it, but what I put forward is an internal critique. Their theology has a giant gaping hole that needs an explanation.
The Christians need to explain why Adam and Eve sinned if sin is explained by our desires and our desires come from our nature. Adam and Eve’s sin is not explained by their desires because desires come from our nature and Adam and Eve were not created with a fallen or corrupted nature.
1:25:29 The better question is who is setting the rules for how this type of love operates? Is God bound by these set of rules? Or did God create the requirement for this type of love? If God is bound by the rules in how this type of love was operate then it means that God is not all-powerful as God is bound by this rule. If God creates this type of rule for how love operates then he could just have not created the rule and then the rule just would not apply.
So it's either the case of God isn't all-powerful or God could just not create this rule.
2:41:42 The implication from his statement is that heaven is non-temporal. So you wouldn't have free will in heaven because you can't do actions. All actions are temporal in nature. So if heaven is not temporal then you can't do actions in heaven so you don't have free will as free will requires the ability to do actions. I would also say that you couldn't love in heaven as love requires an action. And if there's no temporality in heaven then you don't have the ability to do love as you can't act out this love as I take love to be action based.
22:56 I don't understand why he thinks that helps this situation. God would just eliminate the source of temptation. There's currently temptation in this world so that shows that God did not eliminate temptation. So I don't know why he brought up temptation because it doesn't help his argument.
From a utilitarian point of view there may be countervailing reasons to allow evil (then it's not evil). From a deontological point of view there are never countervailing reasons to allow evil (evil is still evil even if there will be a better result overall from allowing evil).
I'm not sure it this transfers onto a supreme being.
@@smolderingtitan you can be a utilitarianist and deontologist, most utilitarians are. I don't make sense of any none deontological normativity.
@@darth_mb 1. what I notice from the conversations is that your interlocutors want to focus on the aspect of God not doing evil rather than the idea that countervailing reasons to allow evil means that it's not actually evil. They never seem to understand that half of the argument. (I was struggling for a way to understand that in my original comment).
2. Aren't utilitarianism and deontology opposites? I don't understand.
@@smolderingtitan utilitarianism is the "good" is identical to what brings about the most utility. Wether good carries obligations is a matter of deontology.
@@darth_mb I thought deontology meant you don't throw the fat man off the train to save more people. Like in Kant, each person is an end in themselves and not a means to an end. Therefore even if the holocaust would bring about a better outcome it would still be unethical to not prevent it.
@@smolderingtitan deontology is just you ought do the good, for any good action you are obligated to do it
2:43:52 The implication is that you're saying that there is no reason as a relates to the good. Because God's creation of this world versus God not creating at all is neutral. God isn't creating any more good over the good that there was absent creation. So God's justification in its creation and in its will isn't for good. To say that it was for a greater good is to say that this world and its ultimate good is grander than just a world where God only existed by itself. And that can't be the case.
1:27:09 I don't know why he's bringing up God's nature as the limiting factor. God is the one that created human nature. God could have created a human nature that did not have the capacity to do evil (just like God's nature) and could only do loving acts. Then all humans would simply be acting in their nature by not doing evil. So talking about God's nature doesn't help your situation given that God created human nature and he could have created human nature in any way.
2:20:40 If you're a Christian and you believe that the Bible is the word of God meaning the Bible is the truth, then you can't believe that God desires all people to do the good and to come to him. The Bible clearly states that he creates people for damnation and that he determines who will come to him. The Bible is very clear that you don't have free will to choose to come to him, you are made to come to him through his will.
This is what the Bible says. Now if you do not believe that the Bible is inerrant or you believe the Bible is unreliable then this comment isn't for you.
Jesus Christ this audio compression is so lossy
@@isidoreaerys8745 didn't even do anything just downloaded from TikTok studio and uploaded. This is the best it could of been, and you way exaggerating. Ain't nothing bad bout the audio dawg.
@@darth_mb I didn’t accuse you of anything.
It may very well be that the tik tok client itself is compressing the audio to conserve data.
When you said "Why would I debate Dyer"
You actually meant like "Why would I choose to get schooled in front of my 100 viewers?"
@@floid6170 are you a troll or an actual ret*rd? Schooled by a psuedointellect who uses presup?
@@floid6170 lol, jay is a moron :D
lol take your meds
The Christian worldview claims that knowledge and intelligibility relies on the regularity and consistency of the physical laws (amongst other things). God can supersede the physical laws by way of miracles. The physical laws are not always regular or consistent due to miracles. Therefore knowledge and intelligibility is not possible on the Christian worldview.
@@frederickfairlieesq5316 Miracles do not mean the laws are not consistent . God cannot perform logical contradiction (like making a triangle have 4 sides). Miracles can seem from one perspective to be illogical, but when scrutinized , miracles never break the laws of nature. Water to Wine is still the transmutation of one molecule into another molecule. They are still the same chemicals before and after the miracle