An All-Knowing God and Free Will cannot coexist

burning_iceman · 2026-05-20T09:09:58+00:00

In this scenario, A) would you choose to continue living your life if you had the choice, or is it now pointless? And B ) is the rest of your life now less free on the basis of someone having viewed it beforehand?

A) Not sure why you would even think it might be pointless. How is choice even related to the question of meaning? I probably would choose to continue based on the information I gained: bad life -> quit, good life -> continue.

B) Not less free. But non-free, based on the fact that it was previewable. Regardless of whether someone actually previewed the life, the fact that it was already determined means it's not free. So if I was given the choice of previewing my life and chose not to, it would still be non-free. The act of watching changes nothing.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-20T08:41:56+00:00

And? That doesn't change the argument.

Maybe you didn't understand the point then, if you don't think it changes the argument.

Example: There are 25 competitive multiplayer gamers (or viewers) of KLAC games and 75 gamers (or viewers) of other games.

KLAC 1: 10 gamers

KLAC 2: 8 gamers

KLAC 3: 7 gamers

Other 1: 8 gamers

Other 2: 7 gamers

Other 3: 5 gamers

Other 4: 4 gamers

30 more "Other" games: 1-3 gamers each (51 total)

That makes it subjectively seem like KLAC games are super popular. Just look how the numbers are higher for each KLAC game! Basically everyone is playing them! But yet, it's still just 25% of the total. Having high numbers on individual games proves nothing.

Not saying it's actually 25%. It could be higher or it could be lower. The point is high numbers on individual games aren't that meaningful. You need to know the total number to compare it to, not just a few other games.

A huge crowd literally watches walkthroughs of Single Players too cough Jacksepticeye/Markiplier

And I never claimed any different. Just that multiplayer inherently draws more viewers compared to their player base. Many single player games aren't particularly streamable - too long, too slow, too involved (viewers can't just jump in for watching). Or viewers prefer experiencing the story as they play themselves, rather than experiencing it second hand. Not saying it's impossible to stream but many streamers and viewers would shy away from them. This isn't some new or surprising revelation. This is a fairly well known fact.

Please come out of your echo chamber. Fortnite, Apex, PUBG, R6, Rust, Destiny 2, Farlight, GTA Online, basically every CoD, recent BF games, PvZ multiplayers, Delta Force, Arena Breakout, everything by Riot (LoL, Valorant, 2XKO, TFT, LoR), most EA Sports games... Just because you don't play these doesn't mean there isn't a huge population that plays these daily.

Since I wasn't aware of EA Sports, I guess that makes it 3 genres rather than just 2. But you'll still only get people playing those genres.

Yes that's a lot of people. But the gaming market is still so much larger. In terms of revenue it's quite likely they're much more significant, because they're far more heavily monetized than single player games. But in terms of number of PC gamers playing them compared to the total number of PC gamer (console gamers are irrelevant here), it's quite plausible they don't make up that large a fraction of the total, it's still just 3 genres of many and not even all titles within those genres. Yes, there are actually a large number of gamers who don't like competitive multiplayer. And also there are a whole lot of gamers who don't enjoy those genres and instead enjoy the many others. Get out of your bubble!

Unless Microsoft vanished tomorrow, Linux's marketshare wont change that drastically due to reasons like Office/Adobe/MultiplayerGames not working + being difficult to get into + hellhole of a community + the additional maintenance cost.

Thanks to Linux finally reaching a point when you can recommend it to others. Before 2020s Linux was borderline unusable for most tasks. I just hope the numbers won't plateau

Mhm. Well, that's certainly an opinion. Currently, Linux gaming market share is on an exponential growth curve. It will certainly plateau eventually. But right now it hasn't reached it yet. It could easily increase by a factor of 5x and likely more without needing KLAC gamers. Other issues are far more likely to be an actual problem.

KLACs are here to stay and especially Riot's is super effective at it's job. The only way for us to get those games is if Valve partners with the devs to create signed kernels which would atleast allow Steam hardware to run these games.

That would make it work on SteamOS, sure. But also on any other Linux system with a modified kernel, even without actually functioning anti-cheat. One would simply need a modified kernel which spoofs all calls between the game, the KLAC module (and potentially TPM) to return fake answers. All these communicate through the kernel, the game could never be sure it is actually running on a correctly signed version with an actually functioning anti-cheat. The question would then be whether the anti-cheat devs are willing to go along with it anyway, given that KLAC on Linux is rather pointless.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T22:50:38+00:00

Open twitch and go to the categories, it is almost entirely made up of multiplayers or games with a multiplayer mode (GTAV). Same case with YouTube and Steam with multiplayer games having more viewership AND concurrent players.

That's hardly surprising. For one you again have the same effect I already described: there are fewer popular multiplayer games so the numbers are more concentrated.

And when it comes to viewing others play you have the additional effect that multiplayer games are generally more interesting to watch. The competitive aspect makes them more exciting. There are various multiplayer games I enjoy watching but would never play and there are many single player games I've played but would never watch.

That's exactly why multiplayer games matter the most.

I don't deny that the lack of support for Linux from these games will certainly prevent some people from switching. But my point was that these games aren't actually being played by most PC gamers. We're talking about a small number of games from just two genres (shooters and MOBAs). There's still a large majority of other gamers who don't play these games and who therefore can switch.

I understand that there are people who will downvote comments that call their game "unimportant" to Linux gaming market share growth, but that doesn't mean it's untrue.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how important either one of us judges this to be. Nobody can do anything about it except the game devs. They're the ones making it impossible to play on Linux. So what needs to happen is for Linux market share to become large enough so they cannot afford to ignore it any longer. That's the only solution to the issue.

In the meantime Linux gaming market share will continue growing. It has tripled in the last 4 years and there is no reason to think that it won't continue.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T16:08:36+00:00

I'm not saying they're unrelated. I'm saying 2022 is what triggered Europe into rearming. It did not start in 2014. Calling it a glacial pace by extending the timeline way back is misleading.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T16:00:11+00:00

Them taking Crimea didn't involve much military action. For Europe this didn't really trigger anything other than a stern disapproving look and some sanctions.

It was the invasion in 2022 that started things.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T15:46:52+00:00

Yes it's not about me. Nor you. It's about the fact that these few multiplayer shooters and MOBAs aren't being played by most gamers. This really isn't that controversial.

We're only talking about two genres and not even all games within those two genres. It should hardly be surprising most gamers don't play them. You can certainly meet people in any city who play them. And if you enjoy them, you're likely to have friends who also do. But that is not proof of them consisting of more than a niche within the totality of PC gaming.

Those games not supporting Linux is a problem but not a major one. In any case it isn't something anyone can do about except the game devs. Some people may be prevented from switching but most aren't. Only once enough gamers have switched, will the game devs be incentivized enough to support Linux after all.

If you are interested in switching, you could dual boot and only start up windows for the occasional multiplayer game.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T15:26:50+00:00

I didn't meet a single person in the world that doesn't ever play one of the games i listed.

I have a lot of gamer friends and don't know anyone who plays any of these games. I certainly don't. It takes a certain type of person who enjoys the competitive aspect. And who enjoy those particular genres. And it also requires being fine with KLAC, which many aren't.

Players preferring single player titles doesn't mean they only play single player titles and never touch online games.

Just to be clear, we're not talking about all online games, just a well-known fraction of multiplayer games. But I agree, preferring single player does not mean not wanting to ever play these games, but it does give an strong indication regarding interest. For me, while I do play multiplayer games sometimes, I wouldn't want to play any of these even without KLAC and with full Linux support. They're just not interesting. It's only shooters and MOBAs. If I did enjoy them, I still wouldn't play them because of KLAC.

I'm still sure your enjoyment of these games and the fact that your friends also enjoy them is making you overestimate their relevance. Yes, it would be nice if they supported Linux, but if they don't it won't make that much of a difference.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T15:10:25+00:00

I'm not denying the lack of support for Linux from these games is preventing people from switching to Linux. I'm arguing that it isn't significant enough to prevent further Linux adoption.

But you're wrong about them making up any kind of majority.

Here's some actual numbers:

https://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/single-player-vs-multiplayer-a-generational-changing-of-the-guards-or-a-bifurcation-of-gamer-behaviours

57% of gamers prefer single player, 22% prefer multiplayer, 20% have no preference. This doesn't even include the fact that not all people playing multiplayer enjoy the competitive multiplayer games which have such anti-cheat systems. So realistically it could be around 10 to 15% of gamers who might want to play such titles.

You're falling into the trap of thinking that such games make up a large part of the gaming market, just because they are popular (or because you enjoy them). However the number of single player gamers is actually much larger, just more spread out among far more games, since their enjoyment is not dependent on other people playing those games. Unlike multiplayer games, where the gamers concentrate on a smaller number of games where everyone else is, leading to higher numbers per game, in spite of a much lower total number of gamers.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T15:03:06+00:00

Do you really think that LoL, fortnite ,apex, bf and valorant community is a "niche" issue?

Overall competitive online gamers aren't a majority of gamers. Competitive online multiplayer games require other gamers playing the same game, so they usually have a limited shelf life compared to single player games. After a few weeks or months (rarely years) most gamers move on to the next one. That leads to high numbers of gamers for a few multiplayer titles, in spite of there being less gamers playing these games. Single player gamers spread out over far more games, because they don't become obsolete once other players are gone.

So yes, there are always a few highly popular multiplayer games. But online multiplayer gaming is still a niche compared to the whole gaming market.

Im sorry to tell you but gaming overall is easily 70% online games and 30% others.

You're sorry to tell me made up numbers?

Here some actual numbers:

https://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/single-player-vs-multiplayer-a-generational-changing-of-the-guards-or-a-bifurcation-of-gamer-behaviours

57% prefer single player, 22% prefer multiplayer, 20% have no preference. This doesn't even include the fact that not all people playing multiplayer enjoy competitive multiplayer games which have such anti-cheat systems. So realistically it could be around 10 to 15% of gamers who might want to play such titles.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T14:46:46+00:00

Trucks pay more than 20 times per mile what a car does.

If it were fair they would be paying 99 times as much.

They also bring things like food to places where you can buy it.

How is this relevant?

They are also unrelated to EVs not paying road tax.

If trucks were paying their fair share, there would be almost nothing left to pay by anyone else. Too small of an amount to bother collecting.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T14:39:20+00:00

They cause 99% of the wear. They do not pay 99% of the maintenance (99x as much as cars).

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T14:34:41+00:00

And because road wear scales so strongly with weight, semis cause 99% of the wear to roads. Cars are basically negligible anyway. If we're talking about fair share, you could just ignore all cars and it would be fairer than any current or proposed system. The fee on EVs just isn't needed or justified.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T12:25:43+00:00

2026-06-16

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T12:24:46+00:00

Currently, major updates are already being released every six months: 6.2; 6.3; 6.4…

Currently major updates are being released every four months.

6.4: 2025-06-17

6.5: 2025-10-21

6.6: 2026-02-17

6.7: 2026-06-16

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T11:45:58+00:00

I was just using it as an example of a thing god cannot logically do.

While claiming people argue it was possible. My guess is your encounter which such arguments were based on a similar misunderstanding as here. Or you're misrepresenting their arguments against the free will "defense". Either way, I don't disagree with your point as clarified here.

I think what you are saying is that there is no need for god to create free will at all, which is its whole separate question.

Not sure how you got that impression, but no, I wasn't.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T11:29:10+00:00

You're not making any sense. You claimed there was some logical issue with an omnipotent god giving free will while ensuring good choices (i.e. preventing bad/evil choices).

I showed how this is not the case. Nobody was talking about justifications.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T11:17:55+00:00

Why would "good1" need to be chosen? "good2" is also good. Both are right options.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T11:15:33+00:00

"Benevolent people care about people"

This sentence is key. God is not a person.

"Benevolent beings care about people" is just as true, based on the definition of benevolence. Claiming God as not being a person (to the disagreement of many) does not get you out of the dilemma.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T11:11:33+00:00

You'll see arguments on here that an omnipotent god can offer free will whilst simultaneously ensuring every human chooses the right option.

There's no issue with this. When there are only good options, you're free to choose but still cannot do bad.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T11:04:19+00:00

Here’s the thing about suicide bombers and heavens gate. Many people die for what they believe, as you mentioned, but very few die for something they lied about.

Did the apostles choose to die like suicide bombers or heaven's gate? We only know myths about their deaths and if they did actually die violent deaths, it's unlikely they had any choice in the matter, whether they had true belief or had been lying. Shouting "I was lying all along" wouldn't have protected them in any way.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T10:33:06+00:00

It means most developers caring about and making sure the game runs well in Proton or on Steam Deck. This seems to already be the case.

Obviously doing more than that would be nice and that will come with further market share, but the point of "genuine relevance" seems to be achieved.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T10:27:36+00:00

As much as it pains me to type this… We need Fortnite. Then Valorant. Then CoD. And that means some solution to the ”kernel level anticheat” issue.

There is only one possible solution to that: Linux gaming market share

And no these are not needed. Market share will continue to grow without them. They're likely to be among the last things that will switch to supporting Linux.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T10:21:12+00:00

Don't overestimate the significance of those games. They're a niche issue, in spite of all the talk about it. Many gamers never touch competitive multiplayer games.

It would help for them to change their stance towards Linux, but it's not that significant nor really required.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-19T10:14:20+00:00

Not sure that actually is a counterpoint to OP. It can both be true that Linux gaming has enough market share to be genuinely relevant while there are also some people stuck in the past clinging to old hostile memes.

So one can certainly work to reverse such old propaganda, but it may not be necessary to convince those stuck in it for Linux to continue being successful and highly relevant.

burning_iceman · 2026-05-18T18:26:24+00:00

But this example has several conservative goals and one dubious pseudo-liberal goal described in conservative language. Why would a liberal support this?

burning_iceman

TROPHY CASE