Nah, that's the predestination heresy which is not upheld by the early fathers aside from St. Augustine. God creates everyone with the possibility to freely choose Him and be saved. As for the fallen sinful nature, this is not God's creation but the result of the fall. God can't create "marred" or imperfect things because that's contrary to His perfect nature (claiming otherwise is like claiming God can lie, at which point you're talking about Allah/Satan or some other deity).
My defeater is purely logical and doesn't delve in theology where lots of objections are possible. I kept the argument with him in the philosophical realm for a reason.
I think I presented the defeater already:
PS: Come to think of it, the whole notion of evil makes no sense under determinism. There are zero objective moral values possible if strict determinism is true. Morality presupposes the ability to choose the good over not-good (evil). This ties in to culpability and moral responsibility. So your entire argument is self-refuting.
You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
I don't think so. No free will necessarily leads to no moral accountability and that should be evident. Determinism usually assumes materialism. If you have another worldview then let's hear it. What other causes are there beside material causes and how are they justified?
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
You're arguing on a subject where those terms apply. Just because you didn't use them because you didn't know them and can't make the proper distinction, that doesn't mean they are not relevant. That's exactly why I brought it up, because this this will help you understand how God being the primary cause of everything doesn't make him the secondary cause that led to evil coming into the world.
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Knowledge of truth requires choice and evaluation. This is in the sphere of epistemology. Truth's ontological existence is another matter. But since you affirm the realist position, in what way does objective truth exist and what is it grounded in?
Love could be defined as an emotion one feels or as a disposition one has towards a thing or as actions one does in service of a thing. None of those definitions would require free will.
What is an emotion and what causes it? If it's simply a causally determined reaction to outside stimuli, then it's an instinct no different than any other instinct or mechanism in the body (or in nature as a whole, because there's no meaningful distinction between what you call a human and the other causally determined instances of matter - dominos - in the universe).
PS: Come to think of it, the whole notion of evil makes no sense under determinism. There are zero objective moral values possible if strict determinism is true. Morality presupposes the ability to choose the good over not-good (evil). This ties in to culpability and moral responsibility. So your entire argument is self-refuting.
Here's the main argument refuting determinism in under a minute which I went over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA2mYO0CwQM
You just agreed with my position (that God causing all the evil in the world doesn't make him evil) while claiming to be arguing against me.
That's a strawman. I explicitly said God doesn't cause ANY evil in any way shape or form because it's contrary to His nature. Everything God does is good, true and just.
Therefore if God wasn't pre-determined to create a universe that certainly (as proved by his foreknowledge) led to evil (action A leading to X) and could have chose not to create (action B leading to not-X), but yet he did, it follows that God creating the universe was the ultimate cause of evil in the universe. Additionally God was aware this action would lead to evil in the universe while the alternative would have avoided it, so therefore God deliberately caused evil in the universe.
Which part of this argument is wrong? Notice I said nothing about causing evil being evil, God being morally accountable for causing evil or humans lacking accountability for their role in bringing the evil about.
The part that's wrong is that you equivocate between primary and secondary causation. But the argument is not even valid when talking about secondary causation (created causes). Here's a very clear example:
If I have a son and I do a great job being a good father, but still my son, who's now an adult, falls into bad habits and eventually commits murder, am I responsible for the evil caused by him?
I'd say the whole argument as you put it begs the question because it assumes determinism and takes away the ability of real choice from the equation. Just like I said in the comment above - you presuppose physicalist domino-effect causality (A-> B-> C) where each each cause is the predetermined effect of a previous cause and acts a certain with no free will - basically it behaves like an inanimate physical object (so naturally, you arrive to determinism and the circle is complete).
Aristotle is cool and all, but like all ancient philosophers, he took a lot of things for granted because at that point no one was questioning the foundational ideas about metaphysics and epistemology. Many centuries passed before Descartes and later Hume, Kant and the existentialists had the ball rolling questioning foundational beliefs.
You need to define what a secondary causal agent is.
Secondary causation refers to the created causes we normally talk about (fire causes heat, choices cause actions, medicine causes healing, etc.) These causes are real and effective, operating according to their own natures.
In a row of dominoes ending with a button you can call the second domino a "secondary causal agent" but it doesn't change the fact that if laws of physics are deterministic then the fall of the first domino causes the button to get pressed.
No, you can't because a domino is an inanimate object and not an agent. Agent refers to a rational being capable making choices which influences other objects and agents in the universe.
Same thing if a general orders a soldier to kill someone - we say the general caused the death, regardless of the fact that there was a soldier who also caused the death and could have opted to disobey orders.
That's because in that context, the soldier is supposed to defer his personal assessment and act as a tool, an extension of the higher-up's will. Also, in the many cases soldiers are also held responsible for not disobeying orders on some occasions like the nazi executions. This a deontological and ethical question about when "I was just following orders" is appropriate and when it's not (and who gets to decide where the line is drawn).
But if determinism is true, the general isn't responsible too, because he's simply a domino down the causal chain. Responsibility, justice or any moral judgement is nonsensical in that system.
Citation needed. We all know people can love and make choices yet it is conceivable that these things happen via deterministic mental processes. If you say that a deterministic love cannot be love then you are simply defining love to be something that humans may not be capable of.
First of all, if determinism is true it's not simply about people not having free will and choice - that's just the surface of the problem as normies see it. Philosophically, it also leads to the impossibility of knowledge and truth. Why? Because truth necessitates a choice between the true and the false. But if every mind in existence is predetermined, no real evaluation of a given proposition ever takes place (I'm predetermined to say A is true, and you - B is true and at no tie-breaker is possible because C is also predetermined to output either A or B).
If determinism is the case, all that there is is matter governed by predetermined chemical reactions, that are effects of previous reactions and so on going back to the First cause. Where is love in that equation? Do you mean more predetermined chemical reactions? I highly doubt many people will agree on that definition (not an appeal to majority, just saying). Is the water boiling at 100 degrees any different than love? What's the meaningful distinction between me loving something vs the opposite?
God created all things good. His foreknowledge doesn't make Him an accomplice. What you're saying is basically this: you having children makes you evil, because you have them while knowing they will inevitably suffer and experience evil. But having children is still a net good and you go ahead. What appears bad to us, God uses to make good. Christ was betrayed and crucified but out of this a much greater good came to the world. This is how God operates and us having limited knowledge means we can't foresee and judge how thing ultimately end up. God can do only good because that's His nature.
The idea that God merely permits evil doesn't make sense given that God set everything up knowing how it would turn out, meaning he actively caused everything we witness, not merely permitting it.
No, that's a common mistake when critiquing theodicy (problem of evil). Knowing something in advance doesn't make you the cause of it. You conceive of only one type of causality (the domino effect one) - this is the result of materialism being the ruling paradigm in our modern world. But there are other types of causality that were widely accepted before metaphysics was done away with. Humans are secondary causal agents, meaning our will is separate from God's will and what we cause in the world is separate from God's causes.
There's no love without free will but free will inevitably leads to the possibility of evil (not choosing the good). God made us in His image having free will and being capable of love, even at the cost of evil and suffering entering His creation. Therefore love is greater than evil and triumphs in the end when all evil will be destroyed at the final judgement.
That's the correct Christian doctrine on free will and evil, yes. Evil doesn't have a positive existence but it's the negation of the good and the result of our own free will failing to choose the good.
It does. Denying it reduces to absurdity because it makes knowledge and truth claims impossible. This is basic philosophy shit and yet I see so many pondering this when people in the past have figured it out easily through divine revelation. People are so much dumber now, it's scary.
Don't forget the clockwork elves. They're the ones divulging all the secrets of the universe, those little bastards.
Deep state CEO are basically the Rothschild family and the Board behind him are the 13 families in Rome along with the Vatican, Italian Mafia, and Jesuits. Black Pope is the General of the Jesuits and often referred to as the leader of the deep state. Grey Pope is the leader of the 13 families. White Pope is just for show. These groups work for the underground Reptilians who mostly work for the demon world whose HQ is in Saturn but they are in this World too. The Zionists worship Saturn which is why they put that black cube on their head.
Source: I saw it on a DMT trip.
No, it's about to shoot up. Bull run incoming. Buy now or get shipped to Epstein island to get diddled for eternity.
It's coming as predicted. Smart people who paid attention the last couple of years are going to be rich and the rest are going to be serfs enslaved to UBI and CBDC.
Sure. Btw there are great saints of the Church who happen to be black so it's obvious that race can't be a defining factor in Christianity, just like any other division based on biology, intelligence or ethnicity. Literally everyone can become sanctified and participate in divine grace if he or she wills it in their heart and strives towards Christ.
I agree with a lot of what you say, including Catholicism. Those people are delusional because they may larp as being based and trad nationalist and anti-semites, but their papacy is completely liberal, progressivist, ecumenist, pro-skittles, condemning antisemitism, pushing socialism and open borders. And that's not just about this Pope or Francis or whoever - this has been going on since Vatican II and I've made many posts about it. There are even books by trad caths that explain how the Vatican was infiltrated and is controlled by the CIA (David Wemhoff).
My problem is that while your personal experience may be this and society is made up of individuals and is not an entity itself, it's still a numbers game. I'm a composer and musician and there's a saying that an orchestra is only as good as the weakest player in it. So even if you have the greatest virtuoso, if he plays in a weak orchestra the overall result will be subpar. The observable reality is that black people didn't fare well throughout history compared to other peoples in many important areas. Looking at statistics today, it's evident there are still a lot of problems with them regardless of the level of society they belong to.
Now it seems that the logical argument is whether these observations are to be attributed to ethnicity and racial differences or to environmental circumstances. It's reasonable to conclude that both factors play a role. The problem is that one side completely rejects the former and sees only circumstance as causing this discrepancy which makes their case much harder to prove.
If the question is "can black people achieve at a high level" my lived experience is going to be the strongest evidence for me. A lived experience is reality itself, not numbers on a screen.
The question was do different races have different IQ distribution which is not simply explained by environment and upbringing and then the question became can black people form and sustain civilized societies all by themselves that can match the asian, arab and white examples.
I just don't argue that they can never achieve more, as you seem to. Why would I as a high achiever with African DNA? I couldn't possibly think like that, because I'd be shooting myself in the foot.
That's the problem - you look at this argument as a dialectic and take it personally. I only care for the truth even if it's not flattering to me. Again, from what's observed, it's obvious that individuals can be high achievers.
The same argument can be made for men vs women btw so it doesn't have to be about race if you prefer. Feminism makes the exact same claim as their marxist counterparts espousing CRT. They say women can equal men in every sphere and the only reason they couldn't do that in the past was because the (white) men oppressed them. They refuse to acknowledge there are meaningful differences between the sexes and they're not just biological but ontological. Women generally can't invent, create, build, fight, think logically as well as men. Sure, there are outliers but just like with the black people, the exceptions don't make the rule.
Well why should I listen to that? "My church added something not written in the Bible, so I follow it". I am only obligated to consider what the text actually says. And logically speaking I don't know why Noah's curse would a) be binding like it came from God himself b) expand to beyond what is written
I don't have time for low tier prot arguments. The text was given to you by the Church. What you call "my Church" is the only universal apostolic Church that exists that was established by Christ. What I gave you is the Orthodox exegesis (interpretation) of the passage about the curse of Canaan. If you consider interpretation to be addition, then everyone who reads the Bible adds to it...
And logically speaking I don't know why Noah's curse would a) be binding like it came from God himself
The curse is a prophecy and prophecies come from God, because only He has foreknowledge.
b) expand to beyond what is written
Yes, the consensus is that this prophecy applies to Israel taking over the Canaan. I admit that reading race into it is not within the Orthodox interpretation and can be problematic. But it makes sense that God favors some people over others - namely those who do His bidding and follow His commands. As you said, black people were idolaters for the most part of history so their current state can be red as the result of their moral failings.
Isn't you coming to know this also part of the simulation, i.e. an illusion?
Done. That's the defeater for sim theory.
Now that's a classic. Make sure to download that somewhere save so that it survives the coming purge.
You can't trump lived experience with "muh statistics" and "hey watch this racist youtube video"
Come on, you talk to me about science and objectivity and then say something like this? How are statistics not more cintific and objective than your lived experience? I mean, I know there are black people who are civilized and I didn't claim all black people are stupid and uncivilized because that can be easily refuted. I was talking about the majority and I have entire continents and thousands of years of history to support my case. This definitely trumps anyone's lived experience in trms of scope and objectivity.
If this is what Orthodox are teaching, that's concerning. You're assuming a curse Noah put on Canaan is valid for all black people? That's just kind of insane. I don't see the logic there.
Why is that? Where do you think the curse ended? You rightfully note it's not Ham that is cursed but Canaan. The Orthodox interpretation is that this represents the future corruption of Hamβs line. The curse is foreknowledge and not punishment.
"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith"
Paul says that to warn Timothy against apocryphal OT stories and gnostic jibber-jabber. This doesn't apply to what's in Genesis.
What about him?
Wow, the more you know!
What a shocker MLK was a jewish puppet posing as a Christian pastor. And notice that he was sexually compromised by Mossad agents like Ghislaine and Epstein I bet.
What's the source of the vid?
In fact the outliers do disprove the nazi narrative. Nazis love to push the idea of sub-Saharan Africans being "subhuman" due to "bad genetics", but if their people can in just a generation or two of good habits achieve peak academic performance in white countries, the narrative falls apart.
Dude, I already told you the claim is not made by nazis alone but by renowned biologists and Nobel laureates. In fact I don't care what nazi think because they're delusional. They're not subhuman but races are different. One such difference is general lower IQ which is not just explained by environment but is also genetic.
This idea that we're all created equal and our circumstances are the only thing that matters is exactly why deranged leftists think it's ok to deluge the civilized countries with third world immigrants because eventually they will assimilate and integrate. No, the majority of them won't. There's a good reason why their countries are shitholes and have been so for thousands of years. They are incapable of building and living in a civilized society, just like in the OT the neighboring kingdoms of Israel were incapable of not being degenerate, killing their offspring and worshiping idols.
Since you're a Christian you should have no problems with agreeing that there's ontological difference between the races - the descendants of Ham (black people) were cursed to be subservient to the descendants of Shem (semites) and Japheth (whites, asians). This is the Biblical narrative and it's still considered racist, even though it has nothing to do with darwinism which was adopted by the nazis.
These Africans didn't need to "evolve" through hundreds of thousands of years of "natural selection" in Europe to reach those levels of intellectual achievement.
I'm a Christian and I don't think anyone evolved anywhere.
That's where you're oversimplifying things. This assumes once upon a time God created the "white genome" and then created the "black genome" and "indian genome" with their characteristics locked in place forever. That's not how things work.
No, God created only Adam and Eve as perfect beings and all human genes stem from them. The races were formed long after the fall and after the flood.
You present anecdotal evidence and exceptions to the rule but that doesn't prove much.
Statistically it's been established that sub-Saharan people (but also Hindus, Indians and Arabs) have a lower IQ than white people. The regime literally cancelled biology Nobel laureate James Watson for racism because of his findings.
Can you tell just by looking at the forehead? I think it's more about those races having a specific phenotype but the causal factor here is race (the whole), and not characteristics (the parts). So while characteristics like small forehead can still have predictive quality, it's a parts-whole fallacy and it's not the small forehead in particular that causes lower IQ.
It's hilarious watching darwinists atheists squirm about racism when the whole point of Darwin's work and of evo theory's natural selection was to demonstrate the fittest species and races get to the top.
Throughout all history people have acknowledged that physical appearance does tell a lot about the character of people. There's a lot of bs sure, but waving it all away by calling it a nazi idea and pseudoscience is equally dumb as going by it a 100%.
Are you implying races and certain phenotypes aren't causally related to IQ?
It being propaganda doesn't make it false dude.
hundreds of Greenlandic women and girls who were forcibly given contraception between 1960 and 1991. Between 1966 and 1970, over 4,500 women and girls, some as young as twelve, had an intra-uterine device (IUD) implanted.
This seems very likely and needs to be investigated.
I don't think so. God's will and a person's will are separate. God always wills the good so His will is fixed. A person can align himself with God's will or he can choose to go against it. I don't see the problem with the word able. We can use "possibility" and still arrive at the same point.