Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion Predestination makes no sense

Mortis

Mortis

The Senator of Suffering & Minister of Misery
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 8, 2022
Posts
16,787
I grew up in a mudslime family and I never understood the notion of predestination theory? If I give you a test and I already know exactly how much your going to get on the test, which answer you'll get right and which answers you'll get wrong. Why even take the test at all? Can any religiouscels help me understand this often overlooked logical hole in many religious doctrine.
 
I was raised Roman Catholic. No idea what your talking about but muslimcels have the best date fruits and teas
 
I think only Calvinists believe in that.
 
I guess Allah predetermined you would be an incel
 
Religion as a whole makes no sense
 
The whole notion that god is all knowing makes almost every religion believe in predestination
Religion is bullshit don't expect it to make sense.
 
If anything, a predetermined life makes complete sense. I see how genetics and family can influence your life in ways you simply have no control over.
I mean when you look at predestination trough a religious lens
 
I was born an incel, The end.
 
The test that God gives to people is bullshit and unfair. It can make sense, but then you have to acknowledge the fact that God is a sadistic evil torturer.
Yes that's the point I am trying to make but that would conflict with god being all good so yeah religion destroyed by inkwel thread send this to the king of Saudi Arabia asap
 
You have to understand the mind of God - an infinite being of infinite power and knowledge - in order for you to fully grasp this. Since we're mortal and are impossibly far from the mind of God, the best we can do is a logical approximation to understand the ontology of predestination.

I'll try to break it down as simply as possible.

1. God knows everything; we don't.
2. We have free will and we make choices.
3. God has knowledge of all of the possibilities of choice permutations we can make within our finite space of choices in our local reality. (Sorry, I can't dumb this point down and simply it further.)
4. This divine knowledge does not negate or interfere with our free will i.e., me knowing you will do thing x does not mean that I have interfered with your free will and removed your free choice to do x.
5. Points 2, 3 and 4 assume that the universe is non-deterministic i.e., probabilistic, and fundamentally allows for some mechanism of free will to exist and function.

Thus, every "test" for you is open and fair, even if God knows the results (there are many possible results and God knows each possible outcome you can have).
 

tl;dr: God is omniscient (all knowing), but that does not negate your free will.​

Sunni beliefs​

Most Sunni Muslims believe that Allah has made it impossible for them to choose anything other than what he has chosen.

Some Sunni Muslims believe that God has already determined everything that will happen in the universe.

Only what God has decreed will happen to us.Qur’an 9:51
Humans do not have the freedom to change their destiny.

Some Muslims often say Insha’Allah, which means “if Allah wills”. This highlights that life has already been planned out by Allah and he has determined how each person will behave.

Shi’a beliefs​

Most Shi'a Muslims believe that Allah has ultimate control of the world but that people’s lives are down to their own free will.

Shi’a Muslims believe that God knows what will happen, but this doesn’t mean that he decides it. They believe that God can see everything that happens - past, present and future.

God knows what choices people will make, but they still have the free will to make these choices for themselves.

God does not change the conditions of a people for the worse unless they change what is in themselves.Qur’an 13:11


Ignore brainlet responses above this post.
 
Ignore brainlet responses above this post.
You have to understand the mind of God - an infinite being of infinite power and knowledge - in order for you to fully grasp this. Since we're mortal and are impossibly far from the mind of God, the best we can do is a logical approximation to understand the ontology of predestination.

I'll try to break it down as simply as possible.

1. God knows everything; we don't.
2. We have free will and we make choices.
3. God has knowledge of all of the possibilities of choice permutations we can make within our finite space of choices in our local reality. (Sorry, I can't dumb this point down and simply it further.)
4. This divine knowledge does not negate or interfere with our free will i.e., me knowing you will do thing x does not mean that I have interfered with your free will and removed your free choice to do x.
5. Points 2, 3 and 4 assume that the universe is non-deterministic i.e., probabilistic, and fundamentally allows for some mechanism of free will to exist and function.

Thus, every "test" for you is open and fair, even if God knows the results (there are many possible results and God knows each possible outcome you can have).
:feelsseriously:
 
You have to understand the mind of God - an infinite being of infinite power and knowledge - in order for you to fully grasp this. Since we're mortal and are impossibly far from the mind of God, the best we can do is a logical approximation to understand the ontology of predestination.

I'll try to break it down as simply as possible.

1. God knows everything; we don't.
2. We have free will and we make choices.
3. God has knowledge of all of the possibilities of choice permutations we can make within our finite space of choices in our local reality. (Sorry, I can't dumb this point down and simply it further.)
4. This divine knowledge does not negate or interfere with our free will i.e., me knowing you will do thing x does not mean that I have interfered with your free will and removed your free choice to do x.
5. Points 2, 3 and 4 assume that the universe is non-deterministic i.e., probabilistic, and fundamentally allows for some mechanism of free will to exist and function.

Thus, every "test" for you is open and fair, even if God knows the results (there are many possible results and God knows each possible outcome you can have).

View: https://voca.ro/126YYSkaUiP6
 
This thread was predestined to make no sense.
 

I'm speaking from a purely philosophical perspective with no religious baggage or dogma attached. I won't present a premise or make an argument with the justification being, "because it said so in this scripture." You have to argue from first principles.

God knows that you will step out of your house and go to the grocery store. God did not take over your mind and force your body to make the movements in order to fulfill and confirm the outcome of His foreknowledge. You could argue that God could, in fact, take over your body without your knowledge and make it behave in the way that fulfills some pre-written destiny of His and make you believe that you have free will. Sure, I guess this is functionally no different than if you were to say that you have free will and are carrying out the choice of your actions of your own volition, and your choices just so happened to fall in line with whatever was destined for you. But this would be two sides of the same coin.

You chose to record a vocaroo, instead of typing. God didn't make you do so, but He did know you IF were going to do so, not THAT you were going to do so. Do you see the difference? It's extremely subtle. You could have typed out a reply, but He knows if you would have done that too. The point is that from your extremely limited perspective and knowledge as a finite mortal with comparably zero knowledge and context for the greater reality at play, it seems like your free will is meaningless or non-existent and cannot possibly be reconciled with the concept of predestination.

Some of the brightest minds in humanity have tackled this problem, since the time of the ancient Greeks and Indians (big W for currycels). This is an extremely difficult thing to wrap your head around, so I don't fault your frustrations at all in grappling with this. This is the kind of thing that makes philosophy very difficult.

N.B. Philosophical libertarianism assumes a linear trajectory of causality from free will choices, but you could (in theory) very well make a choice that has an indeterminate, probabilistic outcome (from a finite set) from which there is no clear path. This goes back to the idea that God knows all of the possible outcomes, but you're still the one choosing your path forward. God is basically the dungeon master in a D&D game who knows the story paths in the campaign.
 
Last edited:
I'm speaking from a purely philosophical perspective with no religious baggage or dogma attached. I won't present a premise or make an argument with the justification being, "because it said so in this scripture." You have to argue from first principles.

God knows that you will step out of your house and go to the grocery store. God did not take over your mind and force your body to make the movements in order to fulfill and confirm the outcome of His foreknowledge. You could argue that God could, in fact, take over your body without your knowledge and make it behave in the way that fulfills some pre-written destiny of His and make you believe that you have free will. Sure, I guess this is functionally no different than if you were to say that you have free will and are carrying out the choice of your actions of your own volition, and your choices just so happened to fall in line with whatever was destined for you. But this would be two sides of the same coin.

You chose to record a vocaroo, instead of typing. God didn't make you do so, but He did know you IF were going to do so, not THAT you were going to do so. Do you see the difference? It's extremely subtle. You could have typed out a reply, but He knows if you would have done that too. The point is that from your extremely limited perspective and knowledge as a finite mortal with comparably zero knowledge and context for the greater reality at play, it seems like your free will is meaningless or non-existent and cannot possibly be reconciled with the concept of predestination.

Some of the brightest minds in humanity have tackled this problem, since the time of the ancient Greeks and Indians (big W for currycels). This is an extremely difficult thing to wrap your head around, so I don't fault your frustrations at all in grappling with this. This is the kind of thing that makes philosophy very difficult.

N.B. Philosophical libertarianism assumes a linear trajectory of causality from free will choices, but you could (in theory) very well make a choice that has an indeterminate, probabilistic outcome (from a finite set) from which there is no clear path. This goes back to the idea that God knows all of the possible outcomes, but you're still the one choosing your path forward. God is basically the dungeon master in a D&D game who knows the story paths in the campaign.

View: https://voca.ro/1bxeO5YVx7Bj
 

The "actual outcome" is the outcome that is the result of your choices. Before you exercise your free will and make your choices, all of the possible potential outcomes are still present. This is the only way that predestination and free will can logically coexist in such a metaphysic where an all-powerful, all-knowing creator God both gives you your choices and also knows all of the choices you will make. It's also the only way it can be considered fair for this creator God to then judge you for your choices in the "tests." Anything short of that is unjust and cruel, but that's just my very egocentric, mortal opinion.

As to the religious point about everything already being written, I can't speak to that. However, if it's coming from a place of predestination being reconciled with free will within the theological analysis, then I can say that there must be valid reasoning and rationale behind it that goes beyond, "cos God said so" or, "cos it's in this verse." My layman take on that could be that "already written" is a way of explaining what I mentioned above about God knowing all of the possible outcomes that He has created for every human. Or it could be something else entirely that I have no information on or knowledge of.

To the question of why even have the football game, only the creator of the universe can answer that question. Truly. Whatever God's reasons are for creating such a creature like us (with consciousness, fully aware of our own mortality, and with the free choice to do as we please and shape the world around us to our will in our limited, physical capacity) and for creating this very brief life (compared to the geologic and cosmic scale), only God knows. Anyone who tries to tell you definitely otherwise is talking out of their ass.
 
Last edited:
It's also the only way it can considered fair for this creator God to then judge you for your choices in the "tests." Anything short of that is unjust and cruel, but that's just my very egocentric, mortal opinion.
Intresting... thanks for your time to explain it to me brocel I definitely understand the topic on a deeper level now.
 
Intresting... thanks for your time to explain it to me brocel I definitely understand the topic on a deeper level now.
Glad to be of service. :feelsYall:
 
Read the rest of the thread. JFL
.
3. God has knowledge of all of the possibilities of choice permutations we can make within our finite space of choices in our local reality. (Sorry, I can't dumb this point down and simply it further.)
If there are possibilities then this contradicts predestination. (basically same as my previous point)
 
If there are possibilities then this contradicts predestination. (basically same as my previous point)
It doesn't. If you're not getting it now, you probably won't get it anytime soon, buddy boyo. This is not an easy problem.
 
I grew up in a mudslime family and I never understood the notion of predestination theory? If I give you a test and I already know exactly how much your going to get on the test, which answer you'll get right and which answers you'll get wrong. Why even take the test at all? Can any religiouscels help me understand this often overlooked logical hole in many religious doctrine.
You’re the Iranian guy from looksmax right?
 
I grew up in a mudslime family and I never understood the notion of predestination theory? If I give you a test and I already know exactly how much your going to get on the test, which answer you'll get right and which answers you'll get wrong. Why even take the test at all? Can any religiouscels help me understand this often overlooked logical hole in many religious doctrine.
mudslime lol
 
I was raised Roman Catholic. No idea what your talking about but muslimcels have the best date fruits and teas
same, I was baptised at went to 12 years of catholic school

so many incels became catholic priests
 
You've probably heard of the Epicurean paradox. It's one of the earliest instances of this discussion.
Can you tell me in simple words how this
.
2. We have free will and we make choices.
3. God has knowledge of all of the possibilities of choice permutations we can make within our finite space of choices in our local reality. (Sorry, I can't dumb this point down and simply it further.)
Doesn't contradict predestination
 
Can you tell me in simple words how this

Doesn't contradict predestination
Predestination isn't, "this will happen to you, because I made it so," but rather, "this will happen to you, because I know all of the things."
 
Predestination isn't, "this will happen to you, because I made it so," but rather, "this will happen to you, because I know all of the things."
I have no problem with that definition. My problem is that this contradicts the idea of free will and possibilities
 
I have no problem with that definition. My problem is that this contradicts the idea of free will and possibilities
No, your problem is that you fail to see how it doesn't. You keep saying it's a contradiction, but you're not elaborating and showing how.

If you have a set of possible outcomes (the knowledge of which you don't possess, including the number of how many outcomes there may be), your ability to choose an outcome (free will here) is not stifled by another's (God via omniscience in this case) knowledge of those outcomes.

Explain where's the contradiction in this.
 
You keep saying it's a contradiction, but you're not elaborating and showing how.
Sure
.
2. We have free will and we make choices.
3. God has knowledge of all of the possibilities of choice permutations we can make within our finite space of choices in our local reality. (Sorry, I can't dumb this point down and simply it further.)
If events were predetermined then the choices would be predetermined as well. Which means any perception of free will is nothing more than an illusion.

If things are predetermined then the knowledge of all the possibilities and permutations except the current one is illusory as well.

If you have a set of possible outcomes
And in the first 8 words the concept of predestination is already contradicted. Also if god knows all the outcomes but doesn't know the one that is chosen via free will then he's not all knowing
 
Last edited:
Sure

If events were predetermined then the choices would be predetermined as well. Which means any perception of free will is nothing more than an illusion.
That's not how any of this works. You're conflating the knowledge of all possible outcomes with the intentional manipulation of the chosen outcome.

You're already presupposing that free will doesn't exist and then trying to say that there's nothing to try and reconcile with predestination. You're doing the equivalent of ignoring the problem by saying there is no problem.

"Solve for x? X doesn't exist. GG EZ."

If things are predetermined then the knowledge of all the possibilities and permutations except the current one is illusory as well.
From YOUR finite and limited perspective, all future possibilities are illusory. This is not the same perspective as one from a being with infinite knowledge.

And in the first 8 words the concept of predestination is already contradicted. Also if god knows all the outcomes but doesn't know the one that is chosen via free will then he's not all knowing
Except God DOES know, because that's what omniscience entails. He knows all of the possible choices you can possibly make. This includes the one you actually make, because that choice is included in the set of all possible choices. JFL
 
Last edited:
You're already presupposing that free will doesn't exist and then trying to say that there's nothing to try and reconcile with predestination. You're doing the equivalent of ignoring the problem by saying there is no problem.
Instead of claiming in an elaborate way that I don't understand maybe you should try to answer simple questions.

If the outcomes of all events are predestined then how come any perception of free will be anything but #fake&gay ? Its really not that complicated of a problem. I mean I know for a fact that both these ideas are inherently contradictory. And I can easily show this by arguing that if all future events are predetermined then free will cannot exist since a will is not exercised at all. It was all predecided by forces outside the individual anyway. This is a perfectly valid solid argument. I'm willing to listen to counters but I'll not have such an obvious thing be trivialized by gaffs.

This is a simple 2+2 /=/ 5 cuz 2 +2 /=/ 5

Infact I can logically posit that free will actually doesn't exist because any exercise of free will is inherently random. But that's outside the scope of this topic and frankly too high iq for the forum.

From YOUR finite and limited perspective, all future possibilities are illusory. This is not the same perspective as one from a being with infinite knowledge.

This is just straight up bullshit. Like all things related to god for that matter. Again its actually very simple. If I roll a dice and it is predetermined by laws of mechanics that its gonna give a 6 . Then all of my knowledge regarding the other 5 permutations and options is meaningless. My very belief that it could've been a 3 instead is not just WRONG BUT BASED ON A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE INSTEAD OF PRESENCE OF KNOWLEDGE.

Its even worse than being "just" wrong. Its pure ignorance that you are ascribing to an infinite all knowing God.


Except God DOES know, because that's what omniscience entails. He knows all of the possible choices you can possibly make. This includes the one you actually make, because that choice is included in the set of all possible choices. JFL

This is entirely contradictory to the concept of predestination. Maybe you'd have to redefine the term to fit your explaination. Because when us normal people talk about predestination or predetermination we mean that the result of future events are fixed and ther are no alternative options. The moment you allow multiple possible outcomes to exist you throw predestination out the window. And if you do that then your God is simply not omniscient since it is a fact that of all the options only one of them is appears and God doesn't know which one would that be.

You are trying to argue that God knows all the outcomes including the correct one. But you fail to realise that the very existence of a correct option throws the other options out the window since they were illusions that only existed within God's head. Which again leads to the original conclusion that free will doesn't exist in a predestined world
 
Last edited:
god-flowchart-52127158
 
i watched that shit once and enver really understand it at all tbh, it's just too mysterious and the story is utter bullshit
 
Instead of claiming in an elaborate way that I don't understand maybe you should try to answer simple questions.
WTF do you think I've been doing this whole time? I'm trying to use non-jargon and explain it in basic terms, but some ideas can't be reduced that way.

And JFL @ "simple questions." This whole topic is anything but simple.

For the record, I don't lose any sleep, friends, influence, or money, if you fail to understand any of this. I only lose a bit of my time (and occasionally patience and temper KEK). I'm explaining this for OP's sake, and you happen to be here for the bumpy ride. These replies are a courtesy to you. I could simply choose to respond with ":feelstastyman:" and just get on with my day, but I happen to like this subject and have done deep analysis on this for my own sake and curiosity in the past (circa 2008-2009).

If the outcomes of all events are predestined then how come any perception of free will be anything but #fake&gay ? Its really not that complicated of a problem. I mean I know for a fact that both these ideas are inherently contradictory. And I can easily show this by arguing that if all future events are predetermined then free will cannot exist since a will is not exercised at all. It was all predecided by forces outside the individual anyway. This is a perfectly valid solid argument. I'm willing to listen to counters but I'll not have such an obvious thing be trivialized by gaffs.
I'll get to this further below.

This is a simple 2+2 /=/ 5 cuz 2 +2 /=/ 5
No, this entire problem isn't some simple model with initial conditions and functions you can input and then deterministically extrapolate some future point.

Infact I can logically posit that free will actually doesn't exist because any exercise of free will is inherently random.
This shows at least one of two things: 1) Your lack of knowledge on the material regarding this topic. 2) Your lack of understanding of the material.

Assuming that free will is inherently random is a very pedestrian (but understandably predictable) flaw in reasoning about the metaphysics of free will. Free will does not imply indeterminism, as it's logically possible to have free will within a deterministic system. An extremely simple example is any solved adversarial game where the first move can determine the end-game strategy and tell you from move 1 whether that player will win or lose. Every move is free has its own decision tree (and you're free to make a losing or sub-optimal play) that branches off and has some finite end point from a finite set of possible outcomes. Applied to humans and the concept of free will, it merely means that your decision-trees are far more complex, but still determinable to... wait for it.... an omniscient being with perfect knowledge.

There is nothing in this conceptual framework that necessitates a stochastic mechanism for free will to function, nor does it entail that deterministic systems invalidate free will as a concept. In English: this doesn't mean free will has to be random. Even if you're a hard determinist, which you very well sound like, you must understand that there are valid and sound alternative positions. There's a very common philosophy in this discussion called compatibilism, and that is the position that free will is compatible with determinism (that's even assuming the universe is deterministic). I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with that and other positions on the free will debate, if you aren't already (ngl, buddy boyo, I get the sense you don't know the material).

But that's outside the scope of this topic and frankly too high iq for the forum.
No, please, go on. A part of me is concerned that you'll misconstrue something major and I'll feel obligated to help you better understand, while another part of me is schadenfreuding to see how badly you'll bungle it up. Indeterminancy and free will is not a discussion that necessarily needs to be had for this topic, but I'll happily go there, if you want.

This is just straight up bullshit. Like all things related to god for that matter. Again its actually very simple. If I roll a dice and it is predetermined by laws of mechanics that its gonna give a 6 . Then all of my knowledge regarding the other 5 permutations and options is meaningless. My very belief that it could've been a 3 instead is not just WRONG BUT BASED ON A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE INSTEAD OF PRESENCE OF KNOWLEDGE.

Its even worse than being "just" wrong. Its pure ignorance that you are ascribing to an infinite all knowing God.
That perspective that I'm talking about is extremely pertinent.

From the point of view of an omniscient being with perfect knowledge (call it OB), any slight deviation or perturbation will show OB the end result of this change. This also true in any probabilistic system where perfect knowledge is available, since it won't matter if the probability space has an infinite number of random variables, because each of those variables have corresponding results, which then have their own results and continuing branching points and end results of their own, ad infinitum. For every A_1,...,A_n, there a B_1,...,B_n, and for every B_1,...,B_n, there's a C_1,...,C_n, where C is a subset of B and B is a subset of A, and each subset is dependent upon its parent superset. And there are an infinite number of subsets (but this is doesn't really matter). In practice "n" for every subset - i.e., the number of your choices in any decision set - is not infinite, because you will one day die and not be able to exercise your free will i.e., continue making decisions.

For any OB, at every discrete slice in time, every instance of change, every chaotic perturbation, every result of a random variable, the changes in the end result are already known (because perfect knowledge). To you and I, this appears as instantaneously knowing. For any local, free, conscious agent - i.e., you, I, and every other human who makes choices - your knowledge is extremely limited to your own neighborhood in space, time, and inference of outcome. Sitting in my chair, I can reasonably predict that in the next 20 minutes, no matter how I exercise my free will and make any decision, I will not end up on the moon (since this is physically impossible, hence P(Moon) = 0). But I can't, in any way shape or form, reasonably predict what will happen in 20 years, nor will I be able to reasonably estimate and extrapolate the 20 year result of any single choice in any branching decision tree.

For OB, all of this is utterly trivial. If I decide to turn left or turn right at the intersection, for example, it doesn't matter to OB what this means for me decades down the line, because my "fate is sealed" down each road from OB's perspective relative to mine. Turning left could mean I run into a serial killer, while turning right could mean I make a stop at a gas station and buy a winning lottery ticket. Both of these eventualities are known to OB, hence the knowledge of your "destiny" is "predetermined." From your perspective (and mine and every other finite mortal with imperfect knowledge), OB's omniscient statement, "your fate is written," is functionally equivalent to, "I know what will happen to you at the end, regardless of any possible permutations of choices you make using your free will at any given instance of your finite life." Which statement do you think is more palatable to the senses and cognitive faculties of your average goat herder and farmer in some year B.C.E.?

This is why, some people (yourself included) like to argue, that free will is illusory. The part that's not clicking for you and many others (but is obvious to me now after... so much pain and struggle) is this precise distinction from both perspectives (finite and infinite knowledge). From your POV it naturally seems unequivocally contradictory to say, "God has predestined your fate, but you do have free will." From God's perspective (or any OB, if you hate the term "God"), they're simply saying they know what will happen to you, not that they themselves will make it happen. Free will, thus, is preserved and not violated. You are choosing your fate, but that fate (as a result of the choices you make) is already known to OB ahead of time. Remember that omniscience with perfect knowledge means that the knowledge of what you will do tomorrow is exactly the same to them as the knowledge of what you did yesterday.

This is entirely contradictory to the concept of predestination. Maybe you'd have to redefine the term to fit your explaination. Because when us normal people talk about predestination or predetermination we mean that the result of future events are fixed and ther are no alternative options. The moment you allow multiple possible outcomes to exist you throw predestination out the window. And if you do that then your God is simply not omniscient since it is a fact that of all the options only one of them is appears and God doesn't know which one would that be.
I've already alluded (immediately above) to the fact that any definition of predestination is indifferent to the argument that an omniscient being with perfect knowledge does not violate the free will of a free acting agent with imperfect knowledge.

You are trying to argue that God knows all the outcomes including the correct one. But you fail to realise that the very existence of a correct option throws the other options out the window since they were illusions that only existed within God's head. Which again leads to the original conclusion that free will doesn't exist in a predestined world
There is no "correct choice." There is only "your choice." A "correct" choice would imply that it's a choice that God would make for you to keep his predestined path for you "correct." But as I already explained, that's unnecessary, because, as far you're concerned (you, the human with free will), there is no functional difference between a predestined fate that you're told about and a revelation that the result of all of your choices are known to God. God's "destiny" for you is not contingent upon some series of "correct" decisions that you must make to make in order for God's divine decree for you to hold true, rather that whatever your fate happens to be is the result of your choices both past, present, and future.

God also won't do that from principle, since it violates free will and turns you into an automaton. At that point, telling you that your fate is predestined would be irrelevant (because you'd instinctively know KEK). Those other options are all still YOUR options to make. By choosing one out of however many of the options available to you, you yourself throw away the others, but they were still your options to choose from. It's like buying a bag of assorted sweets, picking one out, and then tossing the rest of the bag in the bin.

For God (or any OB), a preset destiny is the same as any that is undecided and in flux. No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to wrap your head around this mindfuck. The best you can do is understand why it works, but not how it works.
 
Last edited:
No, this entire problem isn't some simple model with initial conditions and functions you can input and then deterministically extrapolate some future point.
That was mostly a response to the ridiculous claim that my argument is unsubstantiated when I've been repeating multiple times the rationale behind why those things are incompatible.

Assuming that free will is inherently random is a very pedestrian (but understandably predictable) flaw in reasoning about the metaphysics of free will. Free will does not imply indeterminism, as it's logically possible to have free will within a deterministic system. An extremely simple example is any solved adversarial game where the first move can determine the end-game strategy and tell you from move 1 whether that player will win or lose. Every move is free has its own decision tree (and you're free to make a losing or sub-optimal play) that branches off and has some finite end point from a finite set of possible outcomes. Applied to humans and the concept of free will, it merely means that your decision-trees are far more complex, but still determinable to... wait for it.... an omniscient being with perfect knowledge.
I understand the flaw in your thought process. We apply certain standards to a system to determine if it falls under the category of deterministic or not. But you refuse to apply the same analysis to the concept of free will itself. For some reason free will, to you, exists outside the confines of things in this world that could be held as predetermined or not. I.e. its over and above everything else. So of course you'd think " it's logically possible to have free will within a deterministic system". I don't have any problem with this idea if free will were nothing more than a ghost that couldn't influence day to day outcomes. But as it turns out, the exercise of will does influence the state of this world and hence is a part of the system.

So, in essence, this is just plain mental bias. If you were to actually apply your analysis to free will itself you'd soon realise that a world with free will operating within it cannot be deterministic because free will itself is inherently un-deterministic. I know you claim otherwise and I know you point to lots of material around it but so far I've heard zero arguments on how free will isn't inherently undeterministic. Zero arguments on how can the "will" be "free" if the outcome is already determined. How can 1+1 = 7.

As an example of this mental bias, in the game you posited you assume that the outcome is deterministic based on the fact that its solved. But you fail to consider the player who makes the first choice as part of the game itself. Sure if the game is solved then we know all the possible outcomes but that doesn't mean it is deterministic. Because how one particular instance of this game evolves still depends on that first choice that the player makes. A choice which renders the entire outcome undetermined.

From the point of view of an omniscient being with perfect knowledge (call it OB), any slight deviation or perturbation will show OB the end result of this change. This also true in any probabilistic system where perfect knowledge is available, since it won't matter if the probability space has an infinite number of random variables, because each of those variables have corresponding results, which then have their own results and continuing branching points and end results of their own, ad infinitum. For every A_1,...,A_n, there a B_1,...,B_n, and for every B_1,...,B_n, there's a C_1,...,C_n, where C is a subset of B and B is a subset of A, and each subset is dependent upon its parent superset. And there are an infinite number of subsets (but this is doesn't really matter). In practice "n" for every subset - i.e., the number of your choices in any decision set - is not infinite, because you will one day die and not be able to exercise your free will i.e., continue making decisions.

For any OB, at every discrete slice in time, every instance of change, every chaotic perturbation, every result of a random variable, the changes in the end result are already known (because perfect knowledge). To you and I, this appears as instantaneously knowing. For any local, free, conscious agent - i.e., you, I, and every other human who makes choices - your knowledge is extremely limited to your own neighborhood in space, time, and inference of outcome. Sitting in my chair, I can reasonably predict that in the next 20 minutes, no matter how I exercise my free will and make any decision, I will not end up on the moon (since this is physically impossible, hence P(Moon) = 0). But I can't, in any way shape or form, reasonably predict what will happen in 20 years, nor will I be able to reasonably estimate and extrapolate the 20 year result of any single choice in any branching decision tree.

For OB, all of this is utterly trivial. If I decide to turn left or turn right at the intersection, for example, it doesn't matter to OB what this means for me decades down the line, because my "fate is sealed" down each road from OB's perspective relative to mine. Turning left could mean I run into a serial killer, while turning right could mean I make a stop at a gas station and buy a winning lottery ticket. Both of these eventualities are known to OB, hence the knowledge of your "destiny" is "predetermined." From your perspective (and mine and every other finite mortal with imperfect knowledge), OB's omniscient statement, "your fate is written," is functionally equivalent to, "I know what will happen to you at the end, regardless of any possible permutations of choices you make using your free will at any given instance of your finite life." Which statement do you think is more palatable to the senses and cognitive faculties of your average goat herder and farmer in some year B.C.E.?

Ok wow. Now I can clearly see where all the "free will is not random" BS was coming from. Such a collossal confusion of terms.

Bear with me here. Lets assume for the sake of argument that free will is indeed random. Also lets assume that in this universe there are a set of truly random events whose outcomes are not determined by any mechanism and are randomly generated on a fundamental level and that free will is a subset of those. (I know you don't believe that free will is random because you've confused yourself with your own bs about predestination but listen further )

Also lets assume that an all knowing God does exist who does know the outcome of all those random events. And thus the future of this world is predestinated since God knows everything.

But when you place an all knowing entity as part of this system then by very possibility of the existence of such entity it is rendered that the said events were never truly random to begin with. Since their outcomes were predestinated. And hence either God is not omniscient for these events to be truly random or they were never random to begin with since God exists.

Literally the same thing applies to free will because it shares the property of random events just like random events cannot be predestinated for them to be random, free will cannot be predestinated for it to be free. For some reason your mind is unable to comprehend this simple thing. that's how these things are literally defined. Your insistence that the existence of an OB does not contradict this definition is completely unsubstantiated.


Whether the outcome of the said events appeared via some causal mechanism or they just poofed into existence has no bearing on this. Even if outcomes were to just magically appear out of circumstances they would still neither be "random" nor "free" if they were predestinated.


There is no "correct choice." There is only "your choice." A "correct" choice would imply that it's a choice that God would make for you to keep his predestined path for you "correct." But as I already explained, that's unnecessary, because, as far you're concerned (you, the human with free will), there is no functional difference between a predestined fate that you're told about and a revelation that the result of all of your choices are known to God. God's "destiny" for you is not contingent upon some series of "correct" decisions that you must make to make in order for God's divine decree for you to hold true, rather that whatever your fate happens to be is the result of your choices both past, present, and future.

I get what you're saying. You believe that the choice was always mine and it was always in my hands. Its just that God knows already what I was going to chose. He doesn't force that choice on me, I could chose otherwise . He just passively knows what that choice is gonna be. But you're wrong because the very existence of that knowledge tied my hands. I know that you try to differentiate "God choosing for me" from "God knowing the choice", but the truth is there was no choice in either of those cases.

Let's forget about God. Let's say that I have a crystal ball that'll show me exactly what you're gonna do one week from now. I believe that since this is definitely gonna be your future then the choices you made that lead up to that were outside your control, since the outcome was always gonna be the same as seen in the ball. You, on the other hand, believe that the choices were still yours and you had all the power to choose otherwise and create another outcome ,its just that the ball told me what you were going to end up choosing beforehand. This is the difference in our viewpoints and to me the former makes way more sense than the latter. Such a "free will" that is compatible with predestination seems amputated at best and downright illogical at worst. Its a rather dubious contradictory notion to hold in your head
 
Last edited:
That was mostly a response to the ridiculous claim that my argument is unsubstantiated when I've been repeating multiple times the rationale behind why those things are incompatible.


I understand the flaw in your thought process. We apply certain standards to a system to determine if it falls under the category of deterministic or not. But you refuse to apply the same analysis to the concept of free will itself. For some reason free will, to you, exists outside the confines of things in this world that could be held as predetermined or not. I.e. its over and above everything else. So of course you'd think " it's logically possible to have free will within a deterministic system". I don't have any problem with this idea if free will were nothing more than a ghost that couldn't influence day to day outcomes. But as it turns out, the exercise of will does influence the state of this world and hence is a part of the system.

So, in essence, this is just plain mental bias. If you were to actually apply your analysis to free will itself you'd soon realise that a world with free will operating within it cannot be deterministic because free will itself is inherently un-deterministic. I know you claim otherwise and I know you point to lots of material around it but so far I've heard zero arguments on how free will isn't inherently undeterministic. Zero arguments on how can the "will" be "free" if the outcome is already determined. How can 1+1 = 7.

As an example of this mental bias, in the game you posited you assume that the outcome is deterministic based on the fact that its solved. But you fail to consider the player who makes the first choice as part of the game itself. Sure if the game is solved then we know all the possible outcomes but that doesn't mean it is deterministic. Because how one particular instance of this game evolves still depends on that first choice that the player makes. A choice which renders the entire outcome undetermined.



Ok wow. Now I can clearly see where all the "free will is not random" BS was coming from. Such a collossal confusion of terms.

Bear with me here. Lets assume for the sake of argument that free will is indeed random. Also lets assume that in this universe there are a set of truly random events whose outcomes are not determined by any mechanism and are randomly generated on a fundamental level and that free will is a subset of those. (I know you don't believe that free will is random because you've confused yourself with your own bs about predestination but listen further )

Also lets assume that an all knowing God does exist who does know the outcome of all those random events. And thus the future of this world is predestinated since God knows everything.

But when you place an all knowing entity as part of this system then by very possibility of the existence of such entity it is rendered that the said events were never truly random to begin with. Since their outcomes were predestinated. And hence either God is not omniscient for these events to be truly random or they were never random to begin with since God exists.

Literally the same thing applies to free will because it shares the property of random events just like random events cannot be predestinated for them to be random, free will cannot be predestinated for it to be free. For some reason your mind is unable to comprehend this simple thing. that's how these things are literally defined. Your insistence that the existence of an OB does not contradict this definition is completely unsubstantiated.


Whether the outcome of the said events appeared via some causal mechanism or they just poofed into existence has no bearing on this. Even if outcomes were to just magically appear out of circumstances they would still neither be "random" nor "free" if they were predestinated.




I get what you're saying. You believe that the choice was always mine and it was always in my hands. Its just that God knows already what I was going to chose. He doesn't force that choice on me, I could chose otherwise . He just passively knows what that choice is gonna be. But you're wrong because the very existence of that knowledge tied my hands. I know that you try to differentiate "God choosing for me" from "God knowing the choice", but the truth is there was no choice in either of those cases.

Let's forget about God. Let's say that I have a crystal ball that'll show me exactly what you're gonna do one week from now. I believe that since this is definitely gonna be your future then the choices you made that lead up to that were outside your control, since the outcome was always gonna be the same as seen in the ball. You, on the other hand, believe that the choices were still yours and you had all the power to choose otherwise and create another outcome ,its just that the ball told me what you were going to end up choosing beforehand. This is the difference in our viewpoints and to me the former makes way more sense than the latter. Such a "free will" that is compatible with predestination seems amputated at best and downright illogical at worst
:feelstastyman:
 
Lol stop pretending that there's some deep complicated point to be made here. Its embarrassing to see that you think your argument is something profound that "plebs" can't get, when I could dissect it within half an hour,present it in a simpler manner then proceed to point its flaws. But then again I am talking to a guy who thinks that we can experience infinite heaven or hell after death because our brain slows down infinitely.
 
Last edited:
Lol stop pretending that there's some deep complicated point to be made here. Its embarrassing to see that you think your argument is something profound that "plebs" can't get, when I could dissect it within half an hour,present it in a simpler manner then proceed to point its flaws. But then again I am talking to a guy who thinks that we can experience infinite heaven or hell after death because our brain slows down infinitely.
You're haughtily skeptical and demanding when it's clear to me that you don't know the material and haven't put in any of the work. You're going off from my posts only, instead of researching the things you don't know and learning the well-established philosophical positions on this topic. It's like watching a movie trailer and then giving your review critique. JFL

The point being made isn't necessarily deep (that's a matter of opinion anyway), but it is complicated. This has been an on-going discussion for literally eons, yet you're acting smug like you've deboonked some retarded tinfoil hat conspiracy and are seemingly butthurt that you just don't get this stuff. That's OK, brocel, this shit ain't easy.

Your dissections are the same old recycled points I've dealt with in the past, except it's worse this time, because it's coming at me from a place of ignorance. I'll reply as a courtesy, but I know I'm wasting my time, because you've demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't showing that you'll put in an honest effort into learning about this.

As for you dig at me, you've failed to understand that this was a theological speculation on the reasons why there is an emphasis in many religions on an afterlife and how it could be explained as experiential moments within the framework of our consciousness dissipating as we die to give context to the allegories and metaphors of infinite bliss and suffering (heaven and hell).

That was mostly a response to the ridiculous claim that my argument is unsubstantiated when I've been repeating multiple times the rationale behind why those things are incompatible.
And I've shown in the post before how it is in fact compatible. You wouldn't make that post if you had so much as a minimalist understanding of the basic free will positions. I mean, it's literally called "compatibilism," like I already said ( :feelskek: ). I wish you'd take 15 minutes to do a cursory reading on just this specific thing, let alone on the broader metaphysics of free will.

I understand the flaw in your thought process. We apply certain standards to a system to determine if it falls under the category of deterministic or not. But you refuse to apply the same analysis to the concept of free will itself. For some reason free will, to you, exists outside the confines of things in this world that could be held as predetermined or not. I.e. its over and above everything else. So of course you'd think " it's logically possible to have free will within a deterministic system". I don't have any problem with this idea if free will were nothing more than a ghost that couldn't influence day to day outcomes. But as it turns out, the exercise of will does influence the state of this world and hence is a part of the system.
Again, you're demonstrating an abject failure of lacking the background understanding. I'm going to keep telling you to read up on the thesis of compatibilism until it's drilled into your head that you can, in fact, have both free will and determinism without any logical contradictions.

Free will is the concept of self-determination that is FREE from the constraints of causality (mechanically in terms of physics) and any other (physical) externalities. That is, it's independent of the truth of any metaphysic, be it determinism, indeterminism, or some other unclear, fuzzy, and bizzarre ternary alternative.

As such, the "standards" applied to a system don't apply here, because free will is, by definition, conceptually free from those things. Consequently, this entails that any agent with free will is, in essence, its own generator of causal chains. Those causal chains can be closed loops with any kind of system, because those causal chains are ultimately still subordinate to the First Cause ("God", "Prime Mover," or Ontic Progenitor, as I call it, but it's the same thing), and also because the agents are finite (our free acting bodies are not eternal or immortal). If it wasn't (subordinate), you'd be left with the well-known problem of infinite regress (recursive causal chains with no origin point).

So, in essence, this is just plain mental bias. If you were to actually apply your analysis to free will itself you'd soon realise that a world with free will operating within it cannot be deterministic because free will itself is inherently un-deterministic. I know you claim otherwise and I know you point to lots of material around it but so far I've heard zero arguments on how free will isn't inherently undeterministic. Zero arguments on how can the "will" be "free" if the outcome is already determined. How can 1+1 = 7.

As an example of this mental bias, in the game you posited you assume that the outcome is deterministic based on the fact that its solved. But you fail to consider the player who makes the first choice as part of the game itself. Sure if the game is solved then we know all the possible outcomes but that doesn't mean it is deterministic. Because how one particular instance of this game evolves still depends on that first choice that the player makes. A choice which renders the entire outcome undetermined.
My nigga, there is no mental bias. :feelshaha:

Just fucking use the internet - the biggest damn library in human existence - to educate yourself on this. These confusions will eventually go away as your understanding matures. However, I can't guarantee that bigger confusions won't replace them.

To clarify, I meant that the games themselves are inherently deterministic, based on the limited combinatorial options available within the rule set to achieve the win condition(s). Games of chance, on the other hand, are inherently indeterministic. Note that we're talking about the games in a vacuum and not subject to the physical mechanics of our universe.

Ok wow. Now I can clearly see where all the "free will is not random" BS was coming from. Such a collossal confusion of terms.

Bear with me here. Lets assume for the sake of argument that free will is indeed random. Also lets assume that in this universe there are a set of truly random events whose outcomes are not determined by any mechanism and are randomly generated on a fundamental level and that free will is a subset of those. (I know you don't believe that free will is random because you've confused yourself with your own bs about predestination but listen further )
If free will is random, then it is neither free, nor does it have will. Herp derp.

Do RNGs have will? Do a pair of dice have will? (Don't ask Schopenhauer. :feelshaha: )

All of what you just said is moot.

Also lets assume that an all knowing God does exist who does know the outcome of all those random events. And thus the future of this world is predestinated since God knows everything.
Just one last time: The knowledge of a future outcome is not a preordination of said outcome. It only appears to someone with imperfect knowledge as though someone with perfect knowledge preordains (predestines, same shit, it's synonymous) the outcome.

But when you place an all knowing entity as part of this system then by very possibility of the existence of such entity it is rendered that the said events were never truly random to begin with. Since their outcomes were predestinated. And hence either God is not omniscient for these events to be truly random or they were never random to begin with since God exists.
Omniscient means knowing everything. Literally everything. Infinitely everything. EEEEVERYTHING. ALL OF THE THINGS. Randomness or not, it won't matter as far the property of omniscience is concerned. I'm not convinced you truly understand the concept. :feelsbadman:

As a side note, true randomness probably doesn't exist in our reality, but there is some evidence that it may. The closest thing to it is subatomic particle behavior and radioactive decay. If it truly did (even at the macro scale), then see the first line of what I said two quoted segments above. However, probability clearly does exist (abstractly and concretely), and in any closed, probabilistic system (dice, cards, seeded pseudo-RNGs etc.) the outcomes are known (expected, but not predicted).

Literally the same thing applies to free will because it shares the property of random events just like random events cannot be predestinated for them to be random, free will cannot be predestinated for it to be free. For some reason your mind is unable to comprehend this simple thing. that's how these things are literally defined. Your insistence that the existence of an OB does not contradict this definition is completely unsubstantiated.

Whether the outcome of the said events appeared via some causal mechanism or they just poofed into existence has no bearing on this. Even if outcomes were to just magically appear out of circumstances they would still neither be "random" nor "free" if they were predestinated.
I've already addressed these in this post.

I get what you're saying. You believe that the choice was always mine and it was always in my hands. Its just that God knows already what I was going to chose. He doesn't force that choice on me, I could chose otherwise . He just passively knows what that choice is gonna be. But you're wrong because the very existence of that knowledge tied my hands. I know that you try to differentiate "God choosing for me" from "God knowing the choice", but the truth is there was no choice in either of those cases.
So you continue to insist, despite argument to the contrary.

Let's forget about God. Let's say that I have a crystal ball that'll show me exactly what you're gonna do one week from now. I believe that since this is definitely gonna be your future then the choices you made that lead up to that were outside your control, since the outcome was always gonna be the same as seen in the ball. You, on the other hand, believe that the choices were still yours and you had all the power to choose otherwise and create another outcome ,its just that the ball told me what you were going to end up choosing beforehand.
This analogy is flawed and does not work for two main reasons, the first of which is because nobody except an OB knows what having perfect knowledge is like. You - the user of said crystal ball - are also not omniscient, so you have no idea how this ball works and cannot be certain of its effectiveness and reliability. God (or an omniscient being), on the other hand, knows exactly how He knows (if that makes sense).

This is the difference in our viewpoints and to me the former makes way more sense than the latter. Such a "free will" that is compatible with predestination seems amputated at best and downright illogical at worst. Its a rather dubious contradictory notion to hold in your head
None of this makes any sense to you because you haven't seriously studied this and looked at the arguments and positions from all sides. You have tunnel vision and are trying to square the circle without being aware that you have a square lying around somewhere.
 
Last edited:
You're haughtily skeptical and demanding when it's clear to me that you don't know the material and haven't put in any of the work. You're going off from my posts only, instead of researching the things you don't know and learning the well-established philosophical positions on this topic. It's like watching a movie trailer and then giving your review critique. JFL
Of course I'm only going off your posts only! This is a forum thread lol. Its not my fault that you're unable to use all the material you've read to produce a profound argument that couldn't immediately be countered. And its not my fault that you fall for the same intellectual traps that are found commonly among apologists, of claiming that your opponent hasn't read the required material instead of actually making good arguments for your beliefs

retarded tinfoil hat conspiracy and are seemingly butthurt that you just don't get this stuff. That's OK, brocel, this shit ain't easy.
This pretention will never not be embarrassing lmao. Never expected this from someone who's supposed to be educated enough to know how complicated can things really get in certain topics if you dive deep. Still pretending that anything you've presented thus far was anything but easily apparent.

And I've shown in the post before how it is in fact compatible.
I can clearly see why you'd think its compatible. I've also already explained why I disagree with it in my last paragraph in previous post.



Free will is the concept of self-determination that is FREE from the constraints of causality (mechanically in terms of physics) and any other (physical) externalities.
I have literally zero issues with this. Of course I know that this is not how exercise of will takes place in the real world but so far I've been willing to put up with spiritualistic nonsense for the sake of argument. Because that is a different debate altogether

That is, it's independent of the truth of any metaphysic, be it determinism, indeterminism, or some other unclear, fuzzy, and bizzarre ternary alternative.
You cannot just side step the inherent logical contradiction between free will and determinism by jumping two steps forward and claiming that its independent of the notions of determinism/indeterminism. When the question is whether free will can even exist in a deterministic world, making such claims is akin to ignoring the question instead of answering it. The question is whether an agent actually had the power to generate one causal chain instead of another if the first choice itself was predetermined.

Those causal chains can be closed loops with any kind of system, because those causal chains are ultimately still subordinate to the First Cause ("God", "Prime Mover," or Ontic Progenitor, as I call it, but it's the same thing), and also because the agents are finite (our free acting bodies are not eternal or immortal). If it wasn't (subordinate), you'd be left with the well-known problem of infinite regress (recursive causal chains with no origin point).

Prime mover is not the same thing as the first cause.

To clarify, I meant that the games themselves are inherently deterministic, based on the limited combinatorial options available within the rule set to achieve the win condition(s). Games of chance, on the other hand, are inherently indeterministic. Note that we're talking about the games in a vacuum and not subject to the physical mechanics of our universe.

And my argument is that the deterministic game's(with no dice) outcome was never deterministic to begin since a free thinking agent was involved. If the player truly has free will then nothing could predict the outcome of the game.

If free will is random, then it is neither free, nor does it have will. Herp derp.
I was just giving an analogy here to explain how these things are not compatible with a predestinated world. You can have any other concept of free will the conclusion will be the same. This is notwithstanding the fact that any exercise of truly free will cannot be anything but random. Its not that RNGs have free will but any conception of free will must operate on the same principle as an RNG for it to be considered "free". Because the moment it becomes deterministic or dependent on outside factors it can no lo ger ve considered free.

Just one last time: The knowledge of a future outcome is not a preordination of said outcome. It only appears to someone with imperfect knowledge as though someone with perfect knowledge preordains (predestines, same shit, it's synonymous) the outcome.
I love how this idea is so utterly contradictory and non-sensical that the only thing one can say to fix the debacle is "Cuz God". And of course since God is above everyone else therefore we cannot even understand how this contradiction is reconciled in God's head. We just have to take it on faith like everything else. I mean its fine but then why have you been pretending for so long that you could provide a rational explaination for this ridiculous belief when it is by definition " beyond us" according to you. Because it is indeed true that knowledge of a future outcome is indeed a pre ordination of said outcome. Its maybe not a preordination by this God's will but its predecided nonetheless.

Omniscient means knowing everything. Literally everything. Infinitely everything. EEEEVERYTHING. ALL OF THE THINGS. Randomness or not, it won't matter as far the property of omniscience is concerned. I'm not convinced you truly understand the concept. :feelsbadman:

I have no problem with this. If you carefully read what you quoted from me you'd realise that this indeed was my starting assumption from which the rest of the argument follows. But it is simply true that the randomness of random events is rendered untrue if the outcome is known. I understand what you're trying to say but God's Omniscience does not absolve you from using logic. Infact preordination is necessary for such knowledge to even exist. I know you claim that it isn't necessary "cuz God" but that's not rationality.
On a more abstract level you cannot define two entities X and Y with properties that are inherently contradictory to the other's existence and then claim that X and Y can co-exist because by definition X is X and Y is Y. You haven't resolved the contradiction here. ( for example X = God's omniscience and Y = randomness of truly random events. )


As a side note, true randomness probably doesn't exist in our reality, but there is some evidence that it may. The closest thing to it is subatomic particle behavior and radioactive decay. If it truly did (even at the macro scale), then see the first line of what I said two quoted segments above. However, probability clearly does exist (abstractly and concretely), and in any closed, probabilistic system (dice, cards, seeded pseudo-RNGs etc.) the outcomes are known (expected, but not predicted).
I won't claim that I know the answer to that.

So you continue to insist, despite argument to the contrary.
"It is because I said so" and "cuz God" are not arguments. Here's an argument:

Free will cannot exist in a deterministic world since the choice made by the agent is pre known and hence any alternative was impossible to begin with.

Crisp, clear and makes total sense. Any perceived discrepancy between "pre-known" and "pre-decided" is nothing more than mental gymnastics. How can it be known if it isn't decided lol? Cuz God?

This analogy is flawed and does not work for two main reasons, the first of which is because nobody except an OB knows what having perfect knowledge is like. You - the user of said crystal ball - are also not omniscient, so you have no idea how this ball works and cannot be certain of its effectiveness and reliability. God (or an omniscient being), on the other hand, knows exactly how He knows (if that makes sense).

This analogy actually works perfectly fine because its a word to word copy of your own rational argument for your beliefs. Replacing a magic God with magic crystal ball is only a trivial difference in terms. Its the core argument that I'm targeting here. (Unless the core argument necessarily requires the "cuz God" sophistry)

None of this makes any sense to you because you haven't seriously studied this and looked at the arguments and positions from all sides.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard this from an apologist
 

Similar threads

AsiaCel
Replies
15
Views
701
Namtriz912
Namtriz912
Shaktiman
Replies
12
Views
427
A Hekin Chonker
A Hekin Chonker
B
Replies
2
Views
184
der_komische
der_komische
Made in Heaven
Replies
325
Views
8K
DarkStarDown
DarkStarDown
NatsumeSouseki
Replies
10
Views
540
UglyDumbass
U

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top