Why does it seem that when there’s a conversation concerning “free will”, no one points out the contradiction of said free will with an omniscient, all knowing god? For me, the conversation is over right there. If this god knows everything you’re going to do or say before you do, then free will is just an illusion.

@hokiturmix

2 жыл бұрын

Decide now that dog poo is tasty and from now on that is your favorite food. Then you come to me with that "Yeah I have found free will..." No because I told you to eat that... :D

@The5armdamput33

2 жыл бұрын

Also he threatens you...

@hokiturmix

2 жыл бұрын

@@The5armdamput33 god give you free will to be bad. To have a chance end up in hell.....

@josephcampisi5401

2 жыл бұрын

@@The5armdamput33 Who threatens me?

@The5armdamput33

2 жыл бұрын

@@josephcampisi5401 "God"... I'm pointing out that the free will argument in Christianity doesn't make any sense when the god of the religion threatens you to do what he wants you to do...

This conversation is a perfect example of mental masturbation. The caller can't define his faith, he admits he's can't demonstrate it, he admits he can't prove that free will exists, yet they talk for over 1/2 hour about bull shit. And this is the best argument he has to provide a basis for his faith. Wow, what nonsense.

Have faith in faith. Ladies and gentlemen I present you idiocy.

@trapjaw6818

2 жыл бұрын

I don't believe him when he says he wasn't convinced then did all of this post hoc.

@FourDeuce01

2 жыл бұрын

Idiocy, another name for religious apologetics.😜

@Zachorazor1

2 жыл бұрын

@@trapjaw6818 Yeah. I'm truly not sure that they realize that invoking faith is the end of their argument.

@shawnmalloy4339

2 жыл бұрын

@@FourDeuce01 And the important danger of religions is that they teach us, and encourage and reward us for believing narratives entirely WITHOUT evidence. This might be ok if it was contained within itself, but it bleeds out into things like politics where MAGAts, for example, believe the "Big Lie" despite ZERO evidence! Notice the the Venn diagram of theists and MAGAts is almost perfect!

@Zachorazor1

2 жыл бұрын

@@FourDeuce01 It's so odd that they don't admit that God explains nothing; it just says it does.

Define faith. I predict that: 1. The two of us have two different usages of this word. 2. You are switching between these two usages when these two usages are not equivalent.

@TheTruthKiwi

2 жыл бұрын

100% agree with both of you

@hokiturmix

2 жыл бұрын

lets give the definition of faith to religion if they agree on the word "knowledge" belong to science! :D

The best thing about not ever taking an idea or concept based solely off of faith alone is that you never end up looking this stupid in a conversation.

@ronhansen8471

2 жыл бұрын

If you think having faith is stupid how do you live in a world that requires it to live? Having faith in God is not an exercise in credulity. (Romans 1:20) For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

@DulceN

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronhansen8471 You demonstrate not to have a figging idea of what Atheism is, if you really believe one needs faith to live in this world... Most definitely, having faith in an imaginary god demands an exercise in credulity and furthermore, a negation of any kind of rational thinking.

@jasonnurenberg3511

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronhansen8471 So... your made up book tells you other people REALLY know you are right. Cool claim bro. Now prove anything. It's ok, I'll wait.

@TheTruthKiwi

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Rage, I just spat some of my morning coffee over my phone from laughing. Good one and so true :)

@TheTruthKiwi

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronhansen8471 When will theists understand that quoting or paraphrasing their old book of myth and parables never make their claim or argument more convincing. Humans have been writing/creating fiction for most likely hundreds of thousands of years. Also, one could have faith that magical pixies created the universe or that we are living in the matrix therefore faith is not a good pathway to truth, especially regarding origins. The most honest thing anyone can say is, "I don't know" but it is almost infinitely more likely that the universe and life originated naturally and wasn't magically poofed into existence by some omnipotent entity from another dimension.

I used to be a Christian based on "faith" in the existence of a god. When I really looked for evidence/scientific evidence for the existence of a god, I founds nothing at all. It was then that I lost my faith and deconverted to being an atheist. "Faith" is not a reliable method of getting to truth. "Faith" as a method of getting to truth is almost as accurate as flipping a coin.

@rikukoskela2791

2 жыл бұрын

Hi William, I have travelled extensively and seen a myriad different religions. They are as diverse as the cultures from which they arose and are continually being modified. My favourite is a Christian sect I found in the Vanuatu archipelago that has a Black Jesus that will return soon to give everyone free cigarettes, whiskey and tinned meat. It is a form of cargo cult to the outside observer, but completely Christian to the followers. Tobacco is used in this island culture as a form of barter currency so it is logical that it is threaded in their belief structure It is obvious that Humans create gods in their image.

@TheTruthKiwi

2 жыл бұрын

Congrats on using rationality and reason William. :)

@TheTruthKiwi

2 жыл бұрын

@@rikukoskela2791 Interesting and very telling story Riku. Cheers

@markmiller7317

Жыл бұрын

"Blessed" are the ones who haven't seen yet believe.

@williamtarry4405

Жыл бұрын

@@markmiller7317 I disagree. Without valid and verifiable evidence supporting a claim, belief in that claim is not warranted.

I rationally come to believe in god because of faith. Huh?

@brandontankersley8107

Жыл бұрын

Don't forget "logically" too.

@munchypignati8701

Жыл бұрын

Just look at the trees 😂

It's very interesting that when asked for evidence for a proposition (like Jesus rose from the dead), rather than just actually show evidence, they get into these weird tangents where they attack the basis of truth or knowledge, etc. and whether we can "account" for knowing things. In what other area of life would that be an acceptable way to argue for something? If you have actual evidence for something, then you just show the evidence.

@49perfectss

2 жыл бұрын

Yup the only way they can make it even remotely sound reasonable is if they literally redefine reason lol

@mikechang6737

2 жыл бұрын

The Jordan Peterson defence mixed with the mind-bug argument from ignorance that is presuppositionalism. I assume it's right because i assume it explains other things i just assumed for no logical reason. I have zero logical justification, no evidence, and i'm actually contradicting real evidence = Its sooo deep it would take me 10 hours to explain, its alternative evidence for an alternative reality.

@Zachorazor1

2 жыл бұрын

@@49perfectss Couldn't agree more.

@TheTruthKiwi

2 жыл бұрын

It just shows how powerful delusion and wishful thinking is in that they can't see this. It's just common sense

He claim he used logic for his beliefs but admit he cant prove any of what he believes. It is not logical to believe such mythological claims without evidence.

Zach: I need to use faith because its the only way to explain things i have no justification for believing Also Zach: Im a logical thinker and came to this position by logic Also Zach: The difference between realty and what we know, is what we assume without any justification The limits of knowledge end with what we don't know, not what we make up. Instead he pretends its logical to fill in the gaps(its more like a black hole than a gap at this point because he admits there isn't evidence to begin with) with whatever he chooses and calls this faith. His argument is nothing more complex than an argument from ignorance fallacy. Zach doesn't realize saying faith is the delta between what we know and truth, is literally stating THE argument from ignorance fallacy. Faith is not a reliable mechanism for truth, because literally anything can be taken on faith. The delta between what we know and truth is WHAT WE DON'T KNOW, and thats the only honest answer. We don't find out what we don't know by making up whatever we want. Its actually worse than this though, because it's not just what we don't know, the bible actually is a contradiction to what we do know. He's not just filling in gaps we don't know with whatever unjustified, unfalsifiable, unprovable faith he chooses, he's also denying truths we do know about the universe because he chooses that faith over actual evidence. Its not just an argument from ignorance, it's a denial of reality in favour of make belief. Respect to Zach for being such a great, calm interlocutor though, hope he sees how messed up his thinking is.

@InfoSecWars

2 жыл бұрын

I appreciate you respecting my demeanor, I'm trying to work on it haha. I don't want to argue with you but just wanted to make one clarification minimal clarification that may help, I'm trying to explain I believe the gap is unknowable in principle, not in practice - as in its defined out of a possibility of knowing as a given in a secular epistemology of reality. This is in stark contrast to the symbolic representation of reality in orthodoxy but this would be too long of a discussion here to flesh out, I'll try to explain myself best I can next week. Not trying being cheeky when I say this but, God Bless :) at least take it in the sense that I mean you well haha

@mikechang6737

2 жыл бұрын

@@InfoSecWars Hey, yeah ur demeanour was great compared to most callers. What is a symbolic representation of reality? What is unknowable in principle not in practise even mean. Also your conflating currently unknown with unknowable. This has nothing to do with secularism, or a secular epistemology. And you provide zero justification of faith getting you closer to truth, you just assert it. Faith by your definition cannot get you closer to truth, because anything can be taken on faith. To be honest what ur saying is still nothing more than an argument of ignorance with a few deepities, and has nothing to do with secularism. Your argument doesn't just fail because someone is secular, it fails if they are muslim, buddhist, spiritualist, panthiest, anything, and you provide zero justification why it reflects reality, in fact we have much justification already showing it doesn't. This has nothing to do with you convincing anyone, WHY DO YOU YOURSELF have justified reason to believe your assertion fills any gap. Epistemology is not effective based on secularism, and your alternative epistemology is not effective because you state it. Are you arguing an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy?

@InfoSecWars

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikechang6737 Hey again Mike, I genuinely do have a response to this but I really don't want to go back and forth in these comments - I'll try to address this line of thinking as much as I can on my call next week. To be as concise as possible in a final comment - the scientific process defines subjectivity out of the equation, even though ultimately all people experience reality as a subjective experience that they justify their beliefs with faith - this is kind of thinking that I mean is in principle and not just in practice - i.e. not the God of the Gaps. You would presumably justify your faith in scientific reasoning and logic based on modern empirical testable data and alike despite the paradoxes it creates in terms of free will, truth, numbers etc. You might think my reasoning is paradoxical from your epistemology, but my argument is ultimately that we all make arguments from ignorance because we don't have access to objective truth as we are subjective and limited, and only faith redeems us to reach to a higher truth. The question how this justifies Orthodox Christianity and not any other frame of reference is a whole question about the specific theological beliefs that I wouldn't want to go into depth here. But I don't believe this will convince you, nor am I trying, but to your question this is a very small part of how I believe my faith is justified in light of reality. Again though, I'm not going to go back and forth on these comments, if you want further clarification I would be more open to a personal dialogue over chat or something. Wish you the best Mike.

@mikechang6737

2 жыл бұрын

​@@InfoSecWars I think hashing out ur ideas in the comments can make it easier for hosts to understand you next week? Your a solipsist?

@mikechang6737

2 жыл бұрын

​@@InfoSecWars Hey Zach, your saying science is faith because we are subjective. You don't understand science as a methodology, and what independent attestation is. Unless your claiming ur a solipsist and don't accept an external reality, this objection is nonsense, and if ur a solipsist why are we talking... Science by your definition of faith, is not faith, because it produces independent attestation and is not subjective. Unless you are a solipsists don't compare your faith to science. You keep saying my epistemology as if you don't use logic and evidence when it comes to anything in everyday life but apologizing for an imaginary deity What is your epistemology and how do you know it gets you closer to truth. This is the question. Even if my epistemology is shit, show how ur epistemology which i understand so far as faith, is useful to finding truth in any way. Faith literally cannot be an epistemology, because there is nothing you cant take on faith. If your epistemology requires you presuppose the christian god, then you are clearly just begging the question... If your claiming things like logic therefore begging the question doesn't exist, you are claiming your epistemology is literally illogical at which point you are illogical. We are both playing by these rules. Your presupposing ur epistemology can explain non existent concepts like free will, give me any reason to believe free will exists. Again ur making up nonsense to explain made up nonsense with no justification other than you already needed to accept the made up nonsense to understand. ZACH, HOW DO YOU KNOW FAITH OR YOUR EPISTEMOLOGY GETS YOU CLOSER TO TRUTH. Does your epistemology require accepting christianity to understand the truth of it?

I fully believe religion is here so people think they don't have to die-that's it. Outliers aside

@Zachorazor1

2 жыл бұрын

I like having things to look forward to as well, but there are limits. Reality, for example. 😄

@TheTruthKiwi

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, totally agree. I wonder how many christians there would be if the bible stated that whoever believes in jesus is going to hell. Religion has persisted for so long because it promises an eternal half-life in the retirement village in the sky

"I'm a logical thinker, that's why I've been given illogical gibberish this entire call where my conclusions aren't even moderately associated with my premises and I openly admit to presupposing magic with no evidence in order to accept it"

Just because "Truth" is unattainable does not mean that choosing to have faith in Christ is objectively the best choice.

I don't know... this was like "content free" as far as I'm concerned. I'm taking away absolutely nothing.

Excellent

My big problem is that anything I base my logic or reasoning on I can demonstrate exists in some meaningful way while the theist can't even begin to show their god exists as anything but an idea and that does not make nearly as good a foundation. So if it's between natural reasoning and god question begging I'll take the thing we can prove is real. Duh.

Zach gets owned over and over again, doesn't matter the shows nor the hosts. That should give him a little idea that maybe he's wrong.

@brandontankersley8107

Жыл бұрын

He's too busy trying to convince himself as well as the hosts.

He seems to be assuming that everyone involved agrees that we do have free will, and is using the lack of evidence for free will to assert that faith is a viable path to truth. I personally don’t believe in free will, so his entire argument is useless to me. In fact, by using the argument this way, he is actively convincing me that I should not believe in his god on faith.

It is true that the truth is what you think is the truth and that is the truth.

@jiggyguy7782

9 күн бұрын

Wrong. Truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. You can't think something is so true that it becomes so, that's ridiculous.

@tedgrant2

9 күн бұрын

@@jiggyguy7782 That's what you think !

I have no free will...I am always reaching to everything that happens to me!

@brucebaker810

7 күн бұрын

*reacting

@rachaeljohnson3217

7 күн бұрын

@@brucebaker810 ohh shit that too

@rachaeljohnson3217

7 күн бұрын

Thanks

Most computer programs make decisions, based on: 1 program, 2 stored data, 3 input. Inside that program the decision making process can (if given such as an output possibility in the program) express its state at that point as 'currently making a decision'. If a human expresses 'free will' or 'decision making' (or feels it, ie expresses it to itself) this is essentially the same.

Philosophy, gods, temples, scrolls, churches, congregations, promises, wishes, punishments. Its all just humans doing human stuff. Gods become extinct as soon as the humans dismiss them.The human giveth and the human taketh away. Its all so childish.

Free will would require a mind, of course it's subjective.

Evidence that being smart does not preclude one from being religious.

THIS is so pointless. None of this freewill or not philosophy mumbo jumbo gobblygook has any bearing on whether or not Sky Daddy exists or not. He is just doing Sye Ten Bruggencate presuppostion crap.

@Zachorazor1

2 жыл бұрын

Space Ghost knows what's what. 👍

@DulceN

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly my point. It's just an exercise in futility.

Zach saying he's a logical thinker! Priceless 😂

Too many big words sheesh!! 🤯

Justification in a belief comes from OBJECTIVE evidence...not "materialistic". Its Objectivism not Empiricism that plays an essential role in how we evaluate the truth value of our claims. Empricism just happens to be the only way(currently) able to produce Objective justification. If one come up with a different set of methodologies that can also produce Objective evidence, the monopole of empiricism (materialistic justification) goes out of the window. So the goal is the Objective not the empirical demonstration of a claim.

How does even the limpest logic get a thinking person to believe a "person" actually died, and then WAS NO LONGER DEAD a few days later? Doesn't logic need some sort of base? "Underdetermined" is an understatement.

I don’t understand even half of what their talking about. When I imagine an agent with free will that’s totally separate from the physical I see something that doesn’t make choices at all. Without purpose or drive or motivation whatever you want to call it by what basis do I chose between A and B. Basically what orients they non physical agents choices? It has to have a desire or motivation something it uses to sort between options or it does things randomly or just nothing at all. Why make any choices? If I look through a lens of materialism then choice makes sense. I have drives and heuristics to evaluate choices. I might choose a baked potatoes over chips because I value my health over gratification. Whether you call that free or not based how we arrive at what we might value is the debate. Also by proxy of being a physical person in a world with physical rules there’s space to debate how free my will is with regards to my opportunities to make choices. I may want a baked potato but if no one sells raw potatoes I just chips I can’t choose a baked potato. Sometimes I get a 4 way intersection, sometimes a fork, and sometimes it’s a one way street. I often don’t have a choice about my available choices. These two spaces the agent and the choice space are were the conversation makes sense. Anything else sounds like gibberish to me.

I would say fact v faith

What is "atheist framework"? There is no atheistic word view, yet caller is making claims about atheism.

Does God have a plan for everyone or do we have free will? Gotta pick.

this was a fantastic even keeled mellow rational back and forth civilly discoursed debate

I wish I could ask this guy why he thinks faith is not just another subjective estimation. I'm not even sure human beings are entirely subjective in need of some Delta leap to get at objective truth.

Im sorry but religions don't care about the truth

I get it, but I hate that this guys keeps saying atheist perspective or worldview…..that’s not a thing. Also god does not give free will. God gives you an ultimatum.

It's really simple as a child would understand. Before you was born was it not timeless. And when you was in the crib was it not innocent. But then the great creatures of the Earth start pulling side to side upon you and put in the nonsense in your head. For the serpent does wrap-around the Earth from the edge of the universe. But then there is the king of pride also. Will you serve either one of these creatures. Or will there remember there innocence as a child. So what is timeless and in meditations of it. But if I got in between the battle. Would both sides try to split me in half? For I serve not the serpent of knowledge, or the king of pride. Maybe you should remember your innocence. What is the destruction but to serve these 2 creatures.

Don't you see the damnation on both sides. Surely may I go back into the dust of the Earth before they destroy it all. But that I may have my peace ✌️ For I have not forgotten what is timeless. How simple can that be. For much of the words have been destroyed and in confusion for thousands of years. For I do believe in internity. But surely nobody's flying away. For the heads are either in the clouds or out of space. Hope you got something left that you may remember when you was born.

@69eddieD

2 жыл бұрын

Learn how to write.

@DulceN

2 жыл бұрын

'Internity'? 'You was'? You clearly let your level be known to all...

Yoyo Zach here, I understand people here may think I'm deluded or something but I'm going to try my best to explain myself 1 more time next week with a more thorough explanation of orthodox Christian theology and epistemology. I understand that it seems convoluted because Christianity actually does have a different epistemology and ontology than secular enlightenment science. I'm not explicitly trying to convince anyone - just trying to help someone out there that may grapple with the ideas to also come to the faith that I have come to realize, as I was a militant athiest for most of my life. Ultimately, just trying to help atheists understand where I believe Orthodox Christianity is coming from so there is less talking past each other.

@supertouring22

2 жыл бұрын

"I used to be an athiest" - my bingo card is looking promising already

@Zachorazor1

2 жыл бұрын

You should read ALL the comments here and be able to account for all of the problems they illuminate before calling back in.

@49perfectss

2 жыл бұрын

From your call I have no good reason to think you will be able to clarify anything much less show your god to be the basis of your thinking. Maybe I am wrong but at this point I doubt it. We can show reality is real and if we base our thinking starting with that then it is far more demonstrable than a god and wins by default. Blow me away next week I guess...

@Zachorazor1

2 жыл бұрын

@@49perfectss Uh, sorry. But we cannot, "show reality is real." No one can.

@gazza595

2 жыл бұрын

You didn't get passed first base, you started with a very tired theist trope of a "atheistic world view" it doesn't exist and never will. Atheism is a single answer to a single question. You failed to answer that question with anything other than a protracted and contorted "my faith" position. You presented nothing of any value just another word salad. An old boss I worked in my formative years said - if can't convince with facts baffle 'em with bullshit. That's what your trying to do. Wrapping it in polite discourse doesn't change that.