Hi rahidelvi. An omniscient being would have exhaustive knowledge of every minute detail of its own existence. Choice would therefore not arise since all strategy would be known absolutely. It could not 'choose' to alter this known existence, because - if it knew everything - it would already also know about this attempt to contradict its own knowledge.When the terms 'omniscient' and 'choice' are considered in the correct way, an 'omniscient being capable of choice' is inconceivable.

In a Modal Logic course I took a few years ago, I learnt that if something is considered logically impossible, it means that something is not even conceivable. I'm curious to know, why an omniscient being capable of choice is impossible. Next, what is the refutation for the impossibility of that being (1:37 to 2:03).I am not asserting that an omniscient being capable of choice exists. I am saying it is conceivable or, in my opinion, logically possible (though not empirically verifiable).

"I can't count the number of repulsive, rude, and downright malicious comments I've read on Youtube from aggravated, atheistic youths."I've seen some pretty disgusting unwarranted attacks from atheists against theists too, TheDrunkard1. I also know many theists who would object as strongly as me to the kinds of arrogant and aggressive behaviour I criticise in this video."Whatever you believe, remember we all have just as much right to be."I'll drink to that!

"my faith is more about what I do than what other people do."I have great respect for your approach, Geekdivaherself. It's shared by many wonderful theists in my life, who also share your enthusiasm to make this world a better place for all. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. Thanks very much for your comment!

I believe you, so... Hi! Let's all believe what we believe in and get on with making this world a better place for every living being! And I'm subscribed to QualiaSoup. I originally paused at 2:49 (changeless mind=non-functioning) to comment it cracked me up. For some reason people keep telling me I'm not Christian when I really am. I just find that seeking out other viewpoints helps me challenge and refine my faith, and that my faith is more about what I do than what other people do.

If only you and your fellow theists would stick to the "god loves you" message. Instead, you bluster, threaten, lie, misrepresent, change the subject, argue against clearly proved scientific evidence (as if bad refutations of fact proves the existence of your god - which it does NOT).Your message is one of hate, repression, and ignorance. I haven't seen a message of love from a theist in months.

I agree with the initial idea presented in this video. Be respectful. In fact, I think it the most important/directly applicable to our situation. Lets' all just agree to disagree. Even though the video doesn't make clear that this is just as applicable to atheists as to theists. It is. I can't count the number of repulsive, rude, and downright malicious comments I've read on Youtube from aggravated, atheistic youths. Whatever you believe, remember we all have just as much right to be.

Because people are not worthy of everlasting torture, even if they don't believe, and it is abuse to make them think they are.

Since it makes no difference, then 700nm IS the same as describing red. Regardless of what you think you see, that frequency of light is the one that carries the connotations of passion, blood, fire... It doesn't matter what the qualia is because qualia doesn't actually exist. 700nm light exists.

How is telling someone that God loves them, even to the point of dying for them on a cross hateful or abusive?

Describing what causes the experience isn't the same as describing the experience. Describing 700nm light isn't the same as describing red. It is possible that every other person actually sees green when looking at red light, but since they call it red, it makes no difference. There is no way to (dis)prove this theory. Even different brainwaves may be interpreted differently by different people. Qualia is cannot be mathematically described, so it isn't a physical function.

"I must disagree with the contention that non-physical entities cannot be perceived... the mental/physical dichotomy is very much on the table."Categorising phenomena as 'mental' doesn't preclude them from also being physically based, 555pontifex. Many see consciousness as an integration of processes. Processes (eg. bodily maturation) are not classed as 'entities'. It certainly hasn't been established that consciousness is a non-physical entity.I have no problem with you believing in a god.

That was very nice. But I must disagree with the contention that non-physical entities cannot be perceived. NOBODY has given an account for consciousness (qualia!), and the mental/physical dichotomy is very much on the table in academic discussions of philosophy and psychology.By the way, I'm a born-again Christian.. with a BRAIN. I believe in God not because of logic or ignorance, but because of God's revelation of Himself - written (Bible), and direct revelation, which I will not elaborate.

In order to accept your argument you'd actually have to be capable of composing one that makes sense, as opposed to dribbling a load of pseudo intellectual nonsense as a response.

That was beautiful. The images and relentless force of the narration, combine into a very slick package, and a concise but comprehensive thesis.

"Read [x,y,z]...because there is another book I want to point you to"If you wish to recommend books, Breckmin, do so on your own channel. This channel is not a forum for you to promote your irrelevant reading lists.I have today become aware of your pattern of visiting atheist videos and leaving comments that have nothing to do with their content, just claiming theistic 'evidence' that you never describe.Take your spamming and your trolling elsewhere.

"You cant expect a train to go from A to B if the front wheel isn't there."Lol! The irony. You just can't admit you got it wrong can you, fukthistube? The cube is never described as being in a 'room'. If anything's 'missing a front wheel' it's you, criticising an analogy you've neither listened to nor understood.Doesn't surprise me you mention Breckmin. He also wades in with opinions before checking his understanding.Go and waste someone else's time.

The *room* you keep going on about, fukthistube, is shown in the video, with a person and computer in it. The cube itself is described as 'hidden somewhere in this building'. It doesn't say 'hidden in a room'. The fact that you keep suggesting the *room* has to fit my standards of perception demonstrates you've not even grasped the elements of my cube analogy correctly.If you haven't even grasped the basics of the analogy, it's pointless wasting time talking to you about it.

"Genetic Entropy" is a screed by a creationist who happened to be a plant botanist. He never made it to full professorship (which should tell you EVERYTHING you need to know), and claims that beneficial mutations are impossible. He seems to think the entire genome of the whole biosphere is "degrading". Um....golden rice (top of my head, no research needed, and no degree in botany). The mind boggles that this guy could have a whole career in botany and be this disconnected from reality.

The Privileged Planet offers NOTHING relevant to the discussion and the fact that you cited it as a credible source is just laughable. I'll look into the other two, but I am quite certain they will be just as incredulous as the former.I could list of hundreds of books supporting my point; I merely cited the one so as to give you a basis for realizing that a cyclical universe is more than "subterfuge."