I think Dr. Rasmussen is probably my favorite apologist because he's actively trying.

@Bill_Garthright

Жыл бұрын

He's a nice guy. I had a very long email conversation with him awhile back - nearly three years long, although there were frequently many months between his replies (11 months, one time). The funny thing is that I know _nothing_ about philosophy. I've never been interested in it. I never took a single philosophy class in college. He certainly had arguments I'd never heard before. I didn't find any of them persuasive, and I told him exactly why. But I enjoyed the conversation because they really made me think. And I enjoy thinking. :) Seriously, it took some real thought to see the flaw in some of his arguments (the ones I'd never heard before). But I think I did that. We didn't convince each other, of course, but he said I gave him a lot to think about. And he also said that he enjoyed the conversation as much as I did. I hope so.

@ShouVertica

Жыл бұрын

@@Bill_Garthright I've read a couple of his arguments. I don't think they work but you can see he's at least professional in making them. Unlike most theist, especially PhD's, who make arguments in a very hand-waving fashion then expect their audience to fill in the huge gaps they leave. (Craig and Plantinga are great examples of how NOT to make an argument.)

@angelmendez-rivera351

Жыл бұрын

@@ShouVertica That isn't really fair to Platinga. Most of his arguments are pretty rigorous and address major problems that arguments presentef by his counterparts have. They're by no means perfect, and I believe all the arguments are fallacious or have false premises, but at least, many of those arguments are wrong more so on technical grounds, and you can more easily pinpoint how the disagreement might be reasonable. Craig isn't anywhere near that league. As far as I am concerned, Craig is just a charlatan, and he puts no effort whatsoever into constructing coherent arguments.

timely video, I've been thinking about this

Thank you for including a transcript this is sorta odd. But yeah I’ve never understood the free will whatever. But alas that’s how life works

What about open or process Freewill Theist Theodicy?

I have a huge problem with the "Free Will" narrative. Considering that God knows the choices and decisions we are going to make in our lives and as a result of our choices/decisions we make, He also knows whether we are going to Heaven or Hell, then us going through life is rendered a useless exercise. The other problem I have is this: Considering that God "cannot interfere with someones' free will, in NOT interferring with the free will of a perpetrator about to do an evil act on another person, is that not, in a way, DIRECTLY interferring with the free will of the perpetrators free will NOT to be the victim of the evil act of the perpetrator? I would love someone to explain or give their theory on that last problem I have with free will.

@Joe-lb8qn

11 ай бұрын

":I would love someone to explain or give their theory on that last problem I have with free will." They cant because its logically incoherent. Same applies to heaven. is there free will in heaven? If yes, can people do "bad things" there? If no, because god removed that capabilty or because he only chose those that (BTW for all eternity) would never make a bad choice, why not just cut out the middle man, eg this earth, and just create those guys in heaven in the first place?

@AlexS-pv4rn

10 ай бұрын

It's a nonsense non-starter anyway because under that system god is the engineer behind your design and the circumstances in which you find yourself from birth through your most important developmental years. That is absolutely not a hands-off approach

If god is free to choose then he could have chosen not to create at all. If he knew what suffering would result, or even that it could result, and still chose to create when he could have refrained, then all suffering is his fault.

@lucofparis4819

Жыл бұрын

I mean, it's not even necessary to posit refraining from creating as a merciful alternative that God would be at fault for not choosing. The guy isn't just presented as a gamer making a bad choice. He's supposed to be the freaking game editor and developer. The guy designed suffering as a possible feature to begin with. There's absolutely no way of avoiding responsibility in God's purported case.

@zamiel3

11 ай бұрын

Do you have children? Do you blame your parents for knowing all the suffering that goes on, and choosing to create you anyway? Do you blame them for forcing you to participate in that suffering, ending only when you cease to be?

@lukeman9851

11 ай бұрын

@@zamiel3 Not sure if your reply is intended for me or lucofparis, but in regards to your questions: - No, I do not have children. I would never make a life, knowing the unavoidable suffering for them that would come with it. - Yes, of course I think my parents made the wrong choice, as I think of anyone who intentionally creates a life in this world. Now, I do not think my parents ever would have done differently, but that is because of their religious beliefs and general character. They don't think about things like subjecting a non-consenting innocent to unavoidable suffering, they think "I want a baby" and so they make one.

@zamiel3

11 ай бұрын

@@lukeman9851 It was meant for you. Have you told your parents how ashamed you are of them for such a selfish choice? Causing you to participate, and be the cause, of so much suffering. What horrible creatures right?

@ctmuist

10 ай бұрын

That seems like saying your children's crimes are your crimes. It pretends responsibility can be transplaneted across agents.

If there is a God who interacts with his creation, then how can I have free will if I don't know for certain that God is not interfering with the electrical and chemical processes in my brain which determine my thoughts?

Where do you put the references to the arguments you used against molinism in the video?

I can't imagine making an argument that knowingly fails at every step. It's simply amazing by design.

I'm largely on your side, but devil's advocate here. I think you would need to demonstrate that there is a possible Bob(1) who is precisely like Bob(0) in every way except that Bob(1) will freely choose ~X in situation Y and Bob(0) would freely choose X. This is a question of independence of traits. Changing X might also affect a set of {a,b,c} to varying degrees. An example from evolution is that domesticated dogs typically have floppy ears, and wild wolves typically have rigid ears. We've found that if we breed wolves to be more docile, they will also develop floppy ears, even though that wasn't the trait we were selecting for. Bob(1) choosing ~X in situation Y might entail that Bob(1) also chooses ~A in situation B, where Bob(0) chose A. So even though we might all else equal prefer a Bob who chooses ~X, the entailed other changes in the Bob might result in an overall less-desirable Bob, so all else is not actually equal. Bob(0) might in fact be the best possible Bob.

@CounterApologist

Жыл бұрын

All it takes for Bob(1) to be logically possible is for there to be no contradiction in the definition of Bob(1), and there is no such contradiction in the definition. If theists get to apply to broad logical possibility based on that definition when it comes to other issues, then atheists can do so as well here.

@grumpylibrarian

Жыл бұрын

@@CounterApologist If you're going to appeal to a theist's definition of "logically possible," then good luck nailing that jello to the wall. What is "logically possible for god" depends solely on the argument at hand. One of the most painful experiences of my life was a video of a call-in show where a theist was claiming that is was not "logically" possible for god to want to destroy the universe, and it wasn't "logically" possible for god to want to something he "logically" couldn't do, so therefore god could be be incapable of destroying the universe and yet be capable of doing anything he wanted. What I'm appealing to is that god can do "anything," but "anything" might be a lot more constricted than we realize. Bob(1) might not be an available option. Even if that's not the fashionable argument yet, it will be a common retort if your argument gains traction. Get ready for that, especially of you're young enough that you'll live to when non-theists outnumber christians in the US.

I'm a Christian, but I liked/upvoted your video. I think that these apologetic arguments are really bad and their failure only harms the Christian view.

@weirdwilliam8500

Жыл бұрын

I’ve never heard a good apologetic, and I’ve been listening to them for years. :/

@Bill_Garthright

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I'm curious what you think is a _good_ argument. Or are you one of those "just have faith" Christians? I can't argue with that. I mean, I can point out that there is literally _nothing_ which can't be defended by an appeal to faith, but if that's how you want to go,... OK. Personally, I'm not wild about arguments, anyway. I typically ask theists for evidence - for example, *one piece of good evidence,* specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. And so far, no theist seems to have anything at all that's clearly distinguishable from wishful-thinking.

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco

Жыл бұрын

​@@Bill_Garthright A good argument has a valid form (i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises) and the premises are sound. In addition, (in the context of theism) the conclusion must be relevant/significant for the question of whether God exists. Yes, I'm that kind of Christian: I just have faith. Many believe that Kierkegaard was that kind of Christian as well.

@Bill_Garthright

Жыл бұрын

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco _A good argument has a valid form (i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises) and the premises are sound. In addition, (in the context of theism) the conclusion must be relevant/significant for the question of whether God exists._ Yes, I know that much. But there _aren't_ any good arguments for Christianity, are there? I've certainly never heard one. Usually, there's some kind of logical fallacy being made, but even when that's not the case, we still need evidence that the premises are actually true. As you noted yourself, if the premises aren't true, it's not a good argument. And, obviously, it's up to the person making the argument to demonstrate that the premises _are_ true. Well, that requires *evidence.* _Yes, I'm that kind of Christian: I just have faith._ OK. Well, I'm the kind of guy who cares about the truth. That's why I'm evidence-based. That's why I try to apportion my beliefs to the evidence. Evidence is simply how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking.

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco

Жыл бұрын

@@Bill_Garthright I understand you're looking for debate, but I don't intend to help you here. Sorry.

God will always reward the Just. God will always punish the Wicked. God has no Free Will.

@newglof9558

Жыл бұрын

"Free will" insofar as it describes human free will, agreed, God does not have that. God has a "Divine Will" where God won't act out of accordance with his nature (e.g. God won't break the covenant with Abraham not because of who Abraham is, but who God is)

@0nlyThis

Жыл бұрын

@@newglof9558 So, God MUST act out of "God's Nature" and cannot choose otherwise.

@CounterApologist

Жыл бұрын

@@newglof9558 There is no reason humans could not have been created so that we won't go out of accordance with our own nature, which would be oriented towards always loving god and following his will in all things. There's no goodness grounding human free will, nor is it necessary for love or anything.

@p00tis

Жыл бұрын

@@newglof9558 when in doubt, invent new words and concepts to preserve your position

@HJM0409

11 ай бұрын

Agree. This isn’t actually free will. What do you think of an open view- the future isn’t real, so can’t be known as fact. He knows sin is likely because freewill creatures will likely chose to sin, so determined to provide a remedy. Why create a creature who must choose? Because He values relationship/ response. Free choices can only be free if we can choose against our nature or desires. Can we?

Cannot be omniscient and this can’t be God- false dichotomy. God claims that he has all wisdom and understanding, and that he knows all things. This can easily mean He knows everything that is possible to be known. But future free will choices are not things- as they are are open, and thus aren’t knowable.