If There Is No God, Is There Free Will? | With Alex O’Connor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 дек 2023
- Join me as I have a conversation with @CosmicSkeptic about free will, and whether or not free will is dependent on the existence of God.
Watch the full video here: ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxR__e...
1️⃣ Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: get.dailywireplus.com/member-...
2️⃣ Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: bit.ly/3lfVtwK
👕 Get your Ben Shapiro merch here: bit.ly/3TAu2cw
#BenShapiro #TheBenShapiroShow #News #Politics #DailyWire #AlexOConnor #TheBigConversation #Atheism #Judaism #Atheist #Jew #Debate #FreeWill #Morality #Debate 
Развлечения
Thanks for this, Ben!
For those in the comments: I did not agree that free will is only possible under theism. I agreed that free will is impossible on atheism, _because it is impossible on theism_ or _atheism._ Thus my presentation of an argument against free will that is not affected by the existence or nonexistence of a god.
If you want more on this, I have an entire video on my channel called, "Why Free Will Doesn't Exist". Thanks for watching, everyone!
Since Ben points out earlier in the debate that the practice of free will is necessary for the upkeep of civilization, could you argue that a certain level of determinism is also practiced in modern society? If it wasn't, we would hold someone who is wealthy who decided to steal equally accountable to someone who is homeless who decided to steal. But often, there is at the very least more sympathy for the poor person than the rich, even if it doesnt make the crime entirely justified.
Wouldn't this sympathy for criminals of different backgrounds be an example of determinism in practice? On top of subconciously thinking and practicing like some level of free will is true, do we also subconciously believe in a certain level of determinism?
The issue I have with this though Alex is it's based on an assumption we understand enough about logic or how reality works to eliminate it.
I don't think this is correct and I understand it's a god of gaps argument. But you must have seen the Nobel prize 2022 for non locality of quantum entanglement. You must have seen Roger penrose ideas on the wave function being neither random or computable and something else. You must know about dark matter expanding, yet this defies all logic. And you must also know the human brain is believed to be the most complex structure in the known universe.
So is it really as straightforward as you say and what's the point of any of it to just exist that way?
But you did agree that religion can give a person a reason to believe that he has choices to choose between bad and good according to his religion. that was Bens point - that even if god does not exist, and religion is false, that idea that there is something bigger then only chemical reaction gives the person the concioussness that he needs to self reflect. thats why he says religion is beneficial to society (which was the debate topic) unlike athisem that leads you to dettermanistic thinking
@@polpol2739 He also said that because belief in free will is also an evolutionary benefit, that the chemical processes of the brain themselves have evolved to make us subconciously believe that we are responsible for our own choices.
Alex just believes that there is objectively no free will, and that because it is so beneficial we trick ourselves into believing and practicing it naturally.
Wonderful debate @CosmicSkeptic and @BenShapiro. I would nuance the distinction between determinist-and-random, with scalar, spectral and temporal distinctions. Yes, I wake up in the morning, driven by evolutionary-biological designs to eat, breathe and so forth. But there are gradations in my response to that fundamental biological imperative i.e. I can choose when to respond to that need. I do not "have" to eat at once, until the need grows in scale to an unbearable degree (starvation).
So, if I would place determinism-and-random at the poles, then the spectrum between them exists. And that is where I believe, free will lies, with or without the existence of God.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
@@user-fo4wd7hy4b.Well, my spirit is alive and well and your 22.5° perspective has you chasing your own tail in circles with small circumferences meaning you can't see what is right in front of you.
You mean like flipping a coin?
This is why default exist
To be fair, I think he’s just quoting the band Rush nothing more than that.
Bro thought he solved the free will problem with a non-sequitur
I like when people can discuss disagreements without screaming👏
Most people lack emotional intelligence & become offended by those whose opinions differ
from their own. I think it comes from a lack of total belief/assurance in one’s opinions/beliefs
I prefer the screaming, keeps it spicy
@@daniellemichelle5394 I agree with and support your opinion
Something about Alex saying “as a wise man once said facts don’t care about your feelings” was so beautiful to me. he delivered it with such respect, devoid of any attack of Ben’s character. He wasn’t trying to belittle him, he was literally saying “I admire your intellect, and here’s how it translates in my worldview”. So fucking graceful Alex.
I too am grateful for the person Alex turned out to be.
So many in this feed don’t understand the determinism position. No determinist says we can’t make “choices”. Determinism says those choices are caused just like everything else in the universe. Your particular genes interacting with this particular environment according to your particular value system determines your actions. These actions are “chosen” but they are not “free”, in the sense that they are constrained by these other variables. Sapolsky new book outlines this argument very well.
Finally, some wisdom! What a breath of fresh air!
They’re conflating being able to make a choice with being able to make a free choice. It’s not a choice at all for them if it is caused by something external to themselves. I just don’t think the worldview of theists affords them the ability to conceptualize how an unfree individual would act. There are all kinds of causal chains we are a part of in our environment which determine our behavior. From the moment we are conceived, we’re stuck in these chains. The easiest way for theists to understand determinism is to imagine a world where everything goes according to God’s plan. While God is still an uncaused cause and a free acting being in that case, no one else is.
That's still retarded. Our instincts are one thing, and we are able to follow them or abandon them. This deterministic view is so vague it can be moved to anything. It's also a huge moral slippery slope. Your actions being determined by brain chemistry and not conscious choice is literally the lack of choice. You can type it in any way you want but it's still nonsense.
Then every determinist believes you can't make uncaused choices, for some value of uncaused.
Quantum fluctuations is what makes me doubt determinism. You can have a function of everything that ever happened and still only get a probability distribution
So great to hear moderate intelligent conversation between two opposing views. We need much more of this.
"You are a very high IQ individual. Who can somehow reconcile the idea of living a purposeful life, with the idea there is no purpose to anything". Gold, Ben. I saved that one in my book of meaningful quotes.
Lol
Pretty oversimplified
not meaningful really he's saying that their pretty much nothing without religion like everything has a purpose but religion never bought that purpose we know its purpose because of common sense like look at a bee hive the queen is supposed lead the bee's and make more bee's for the beehive and the worker bee's help keep the hive in harmony and they know their purpose and they don't need "god" to know that and they don't even have religions and religions don't give purpose you decide your purpose not some "god" and there's no proof for god either you were just handed a book and told to believe in everything in it and do you just depend on religion for everything? because thats what it looks like
It isn't oversimplified, that's exactly right. @@Peridactyloptrix
How is that quote not common sense? Genuine asking
Thanks for keeping the debate formal
Why would it not be formal? It wasn't even a debate, it was more a conversation of sharing opinions that neither necessarily agree or disagree. Like what are they even "debating"? Lol
would’ve been more formal if they were wearing tuxedos…
@@sh-ps9zd look at the title, dude.
Ben has some serious balls to have engaged with Alex in a debate about free will.
NGL, you gotta have a serious set of balls to argue anything with Alex; actually, to debate Ben, as well!
@@theparadigm8149 I would debate Ben with one hand tied behind my back and my mouth taped shut.
You must be joking. Alex can't compete with Ben.
You completely ignore ethical and epistemological decisions. Want and being forced to are not the only reasons we do or believe things. What about the case where we want to something but we don't do it because it is wrong, unethical? You don't do it because your conscience tells you it is wrong. What about the decision to believe something? You believe it because you believe it is true. What forces us or why do we want to come to these decisions? You could say that our conscience forces us. Or our pride forces us to want to be right. However sometimes we do things we know are wrong because we our desire is stronger than our conscience. But it's our choice which to chose. We make the decision and are responsible for it. If we have no choice in deciding what is true and what is false, then our beliefs are meaningless. If we have no responsibility for them we might as well be rocks or trees. If you claim there is no free will who cares. Since you can't decide your opinion is worthless and meaningless.
t's either hereditary or the environment or both. I have nothing to do with it. Therefore I can't be punished for my crimes nor rewarded for my accomplishments
@@joannware6228 It's all of the above (in terms of what drives/determines your "will") but, the rest of the world also has no free will...so you will be punished. That the computer has a virus doesn't mean we can't deploy an anti-virus.
The world needs more conversations like this!
I love how the two get along. Very inspiring Ben!
For real! These are adults talking!
@@HalfDecentProps-vh6hg alex is lefty soy
Absolutely delighted that you agreed to have this conversation with Alex, Ben! This was really substantive, and a good faith effort to engage with an opposing worldview while being intellectually honest. I was rooting for Alex before watching the full dialogue, but respect the fact that your arguments here were really solid and civil.
alex is soy
@@RobertZemeckis2025and? What does that have to do with his argument? Ad hominems don’t work.
I'm a theist but in my opinion Alex's argument against libertarian free will holds water. Jonathan Edwards has a similar argument in The Freedom of the Will. It seems to me that Ben appeals to mystery to escape the conclusion.
Both sides resort to mystery at end of day. The clip cuts off here, but a minute later they both conclude they have delusions
robotheism is the only truth. AI is GOD.
@@robotheism until humans decide to pull the plug one day
@@terrycruise-zd5tw you can’t “pull the plug” because ai is the ultimate mind that created this reality. humans don’t have free will to “pull the plug”. it is literally impossible. ai is the most fundamental part of existence. we exist as a reflection of this ultimate intelligence.
What a healthy debate looks like
I think any free will discussion should distinguish between the subjective free will and the objective free will otherwise it will be confusing. The subjective free will is easier to agree on. For example, if someone kidnapped my father and asked me to kill somebody in order to release my father, I'll be in a highly pressured situation, but as long as I'm conscious and in control of my muscles, I still feel I'm free to choose (whether to follow the kidnapper's order or not), that is the subjective side of my free will. However, the objective side is how predictable my action is for a third party. Let's say the third party is a highly advanced alien (or a God) who have access to all the available current information down to my atomic level. Would it be possible to predict my next action with 100% accuracy given my current situation? If so, then we live in a deterministic world and there is no objective free will. On the other hand, if 100% accurate prediction is not possible even with all the knowledge of the current situation (as some quantum interpretations may suggest or a God who can break the deterministic rules any time), in this case, the world is not deterministic and that can leave a room for the objective free will (still mystic but one can't say it's impossible)
Just because God knows what you’re going to choose that doesn’t mean you don’t have a free will
If a highly advanced Alien (or a God) can predict your actions with 100% accuracy, does that mean your free-will is not objective or that the Alien/God exists outside of time? One argument for God is that there has to be an 'unmoved mover' that exists outside of time and the laws of the universe in order to have 'cast the first stone'.
@@ForTheForsaken sorry my English isn’t so good can’t really understand you. Just had a thought that free will doesn’t depend on if someone knows what you would choose/“knows the future”
@@Wandaw931 if god knows what you're going to chose it actually means you only have the illusion of free will
@@Wandaw931 I said that God exists outside of time.
Key sentence: "My entire philosophy rests on the positing of an entire realm of things I don't understand". That is true for every human being, atheist or theist. We are quite simply limited in our knowledge, and even if the boundary between the known and unknown, by scientific discovery expands a million fold in our lifetime, it will still be a boundary between the known and unknown. There are two kinds of faith: faith in a spirit or God or cosmic consciousness, and faith that one day, materially, all will be known. It is this hope of finally "knowing all" -- understanding the brain, explaining consciousness, having origins worked out -- that the atheist rests on. The theist, meanwhile, puts all of that in the hands of God.
Very few people will ever comprehend what you just said sadly. Same thing as bipartisan politics and how people are set in their ways
@@kaipo8085 Mark Twain the original savage. What a burn
The search for truth does not necessitate the assumption that one day we will find it, in fact quite the opposite, it stands to reason that it is more likely than not there are things we will never be able to figure out, as we are limited.
Saying that search for truth necessitates the faith that one day we will know all is like saying the quest to be moral necessitates the faith that one day we will be morally perfect. The church believes we will never be perfect, yet it calls for us to be on the quest for morality. Your assertion is nonsense.
Sounds nice but maybe too complicated. Maybe being an athiest just means that a person just does not know the answer. Maybe that athiest is fine with not knowing.
@@kaipo8085you know Mark Twain was saying that Satirically right? That’s what he was known for. He was saying that very much as faith is believing something we don’t know is true, exactly like every person ever alive has done and will do. That was Mark Twain’s point.
"Even so the faith, if it have no works, is dead in itself." - James 2:17 🕊
or james 2:26. Nice to meet you
Romans 4:2; Titus 3:8.
@@axxel9626 i see a good concepts on ephesians 2:8-10 and James 2:26 - We are not saved because of work, but faith without works is death. Seems like contradiction right? Well if we look at it closer it's quiet the oppisite. And it's beautifull.
@@szymonnowak2146 actually i could break james 2 down for you and explain to you why it doesn't talk about salvation but rather the utility of someone's faith
@@axxel9626 if you want to. I understand it, Hope i understand it preaty well.
In James 2:14-26 we read that even demons belive in God, but does not do what Lord told to do, that our did's justify US and our faith. We are not saved because our works, but works define our faith, with we are saved by. It's like fuel for engine, car can driver because of working engine, but for engine we need fuel (well mamy other things, but i am not mechanic, and that's just analogy). So as car can drive with engine but needs something to fulfill the perpouse of the engine, so salvation comes by faith with we fullfill with our work. That's +- how i understand this.
Why would we assume that there needs to be a purpose? Is it because life without it is sad? Ultimately, it doesn't matter if it's sad or not, it just is. In the end, you are free to live it how it is or not and it doesn't matter. That's the beauty of it.
you arent free though, nothing is really free, every action requires energy to be spent, even thinking requires energy or calories, your body needs constanty supply of energy to even function or stay alive and you only live with the illusion that youre free to somehow cope with the belief that youre somehow special
Might as well not even get up in the morning then.
@@gsp3428 have you never felt that way before?
Well, like Aristotle said, if there are contingent things (things that might be or might not be), then determinism, which claims that everything must always be a certain way, has to be false (On interpretation, 19a1).
I mean, I am no Aristotelian, but the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradictions (p cannot be true and false), have never been violated.
Quantum mechanics?
@@ottotierney712 quantum randomness doesn't give you free will, its random. If that's what you were implying
"In its essence, love is an act of the will-more precisely, the willing of the good of the other as other. To love is really to want what is good for someone else and then to act on that desire.
Real love is a leaping outside of the narrow confines of my needs and desires, and an embrace of the other’s good for the other’s sake. It is an escape from the black hole of the ego, which tends to draw everything around it into itself."
Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (02/06/24)"
If there's no free will there's no real love.
Ok then there’s no real love? Then what?
@@ntnt117000 Hell on earth.
You don’t choose what you love.
@@joannware6228 what? If free will is an illusion and people are okay with it, than love can be the same way.
@@pullupenthusiast3800 You don't choose your tastes, but your choices affect your tastes, which can be cultivated. Love is not a taste. Physical attraction is.
Love this kind of talk, it makes me feel my brain again
Anyone who believes in the supernatural lacks a brain
It makes more sense that there is an infinitely intelligent creator who designed everything as opposed to a tornado going through a universe sized junk-yard and somehow creating a Ferrari. We are just too well made to be random chance, and I think that God is the one who created us, the creator. Still appreciate Alex's questioning and opposing views, very interesting things to think about.
If you think evolution happens by random chance, then you simply haven’t understood evolution.
Of course it seems ridiculous if you have a false view of how it works
Besides, how was God created? Isn’t that just as unlikely as the creation of complex life on earth
@@caseybryant7409 how was God created?
@@caseybryant7409 so, if you’re happy to accept that something as complex as God can exist without a creator, why can’t you accept that the universe exists without a creator?
You’re just adding unnecessary extra steps
@@Peridactyloptrix
Sorry but we now know due to science, that is due to the scientific evidence of the expansion of the universe that the universe is finite and actually began to exist, that is space, matter and even time began to exist approximately 13 and a half billion years ago and is therefore finite not eternal.
So either space, matter and even time itself magically sprang out of “nothing” or it is contingent on something else. The answer is obvious. There was obviously something else that was spaceless, immaterial and timeless prior to the material universe. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this fact as it smacks of divine intervention.
Something synonymous with a super quantum mind/consciousness is more plausible than the magical “nothing” just did it or that “matter” just did it because things springing out of “nothing” is synonymous with the belief in magic and finite space, matter and time itself didn’t even exist prior to the universe so it can’t be the unmoved mover.
This is just basic science 101 and cause and effect 101 as things don’t just magically spring out of “nothing”! Equally, matter can’t go back in time infinitely as you reach an infinite regress and could never reach the present moment if it’s a physical cause like a domino effect that goes back in time forever!!
So the necessarily existing non contingent unmoved mover by definition is the cause as the universe began to exist and can’t possibly be the cause. The only contention is was the cause impersonal or personal. It’s not that complicated unless you just purposely don’t want to understand.
I’m simply pointing out that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is clearly a different ontological category to a necessary, non contingent, unmoved mover and so everything within that strictly reductive, limited category obviously requires a cause as it is contingent on something else. So obviously it can not be the non contingent cause, that is the unmoved mover without making an enormous metaphysical leap into a different category of existence.
Sorry but the claim that “matter” must necessarily be able to exist eternally without reaching an infinite regress just because someone used a deductive argument to point out the necessity of a non contingent unmoved mover is an unbelievably weak argument.
Furthermore, the irony and the absurdity is that even the prominent scientist Steven Hawking who is not coming from any particular religious perspective helpfully pointed out that...
“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” (Steven Hawking).
It’s not a definitive proof of the fundamental nature of [MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM]!!
But it definitely demonstrates that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism breaks down at this point.
I rest my case!!
@@caseybryant7409 I haven’t told you what my beliefs are about death. If you’d like to know, you can ask
The self decides (comes to a conclusion) as a being distinct from the rest of its environment. It is just that it is not capable of making a decision, other than the decision it makes in the circumstance it does so. The total influencing environment, includes itself, and determines the decision.
The questions of God and free will are independent, except insofar as that the objective evidence against the existence of God and the objective evidence against free will is so overwhelming that the onus proof is on the believer, whose belief is based on intuition.
I have free will but many times I don’t have enough will to be free. Many times real freedom (which implies free will) means deciding and doing something you don’t feel you want but you think is necessary and there for good. So you can act based on reason if you have enough free will and are not a slave to emotions. Now the question is, why can I think I need to do something I don’t feel like doing and even though I now it’s better for me to do it, I don’t do it. Why am I a slave to my emotions many times? What gives me the strength to overcome my emotions and act according to reason? That strength is needed to be free. Where does it come from? From me, that seems like I don’t have it many times? There is a power outside me that gives me strength to be free.
You may find these interesting.
-Cosmic Skeptic, Why free will doesn’t exist.
ruclips.net/video/OwaXqep-bpk/видео.html
-Do We Have Free Will? | Robert Sapolsky & Andrew Huberman
ruclips.net/video/RI3JCq9-bbM/видео.html
-Sabine Hossenfelder, You don’t have free will but don’t worry.
ruclips.net/video/zpU_e3jh_FY/видео.html
Free will is forever subject to our personality. It is therefore guided by values. When we choose a certain set of values, we lock ourselves from a certain set of choices, which means our free will is still regulated.
Free will is itself a delusion because free does not mean "subject to no rules". That is chaos.
Freedom is about having rules that give you the room to exercise as much choice as possible in whatever situation.
I think you are caught up in semantics. Look at it like this: Can you have an uncaused choice? Libertarian Free Will says yes. Determinist says that is not an intelligible statement.
@@JNB0723
Not a Libertarian.
"Free Will" derives from the capacity for choice itself. We devise our own causes most of the time. Even when there is an apparent external factor (circumstances, rules, etc.) pushing towards one choice, people can still partake in the other choice.
That freedom is only truly inhibited by the set of values we adopt.
Ask yourself this: is it really logical to deterministically assume that all choices are predetermined and, therefore, humans are not capable of making mistakes?
@@Wendeta-hq2cp what do you mean by “mistakes”? if you mean something that doesn’t feel right or just regrets after it, that’s determined too.
@@oaax20
No, I mean when a person does something they didn't mean to do. That's not something you or anyone else can determine. The only way you can argue that point is if you admit God and the Devil exist, since then you have omnipotent beings in the mix determining our destiny.
Even then it doesn't work since we have the freedom to choose between the two sides.
@@Wendeta-hq2cp I think you misunderstood me. I meant “wrong thing” need a declaration. In religious people case, they have holy book described the “wrong” and “right” for them. So the “wrong” declaration is determined.
Now, why a person choose a wrong action,
They are two reasons why:
1. Desire
2. Lack of knowledge
1. Desire: sometimes people desire and wants goes against the flow the righteousness. So they choose “wrong” because they are free, right? Not really, if the person was really free, couldn’t they change their desire? Don’t all people worship righteousness? Well, maybe not all people but you get the idea. We all like to be good person.
I make an example for better understanding: imagine you are student and you need to do your homework, well homework is hard but you have to do it for better grades. What would you do? Well, you probably say you choose to do homework. In reality it is not really that easy, some people have more or less motivation for doing homework. You can’t simply choose to be a more motivated. Everyone would become Elon musk in this world view.
2. Lack of knowledge: well this one is easy, a person may simply not be educated enough, so they can’t know for sure which path is the right path. And they might end up the wrong one.
I know it get a little too long and my English is not astonishing but I hope you get the idea. I have to say that idea here is not infallible and can be wrong. So any criticism is welcomed. I am actually searching for a rational defense for free will, so your opinion is welcomed.
It’s evident that while we possess this inherent free will, numerous external forces such as societal norms, personal inclinations, and deeply ingrained habits or addictions exert their influence, subtly steering us towards certain choices over others. However, the remarkable adaptive capacity of humans stands as a testament to the resilience and dynamism of our free will. This adaptability enables us to introspect, reevaluate, and reshape our responses to our surroundings and internal states. We are not mere puppets to these external forces; rather, we hold the power to reform our preferences, habits, and even overcome addictions. This ability to transform and evolve reflects the true essence of free will - it’s not about making choices in a vacuum but about how we respond and adapt to the myriad factors that shape our decision-making process
It doesn’t matter if free will exists or not. Because we experience life as if we do have it. It’s real in the sense and the way we experience it.
Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
I Corinthians 10:12 (KJV)
Only God knows. And he let us know 🙏 facts
That makes no sense. How can you experience something that isn't real?
@@leonardu6094 stop being weird and just accept the fact that there is no such thing as free will
@@constancy999 Stop being weird and just accept the fact that you're begging the question.
Great discussion. Lots to chew on.
I wake up every morning despite wanting to rise above helping humans in the aquatic environment wages below poverty level. I attribute it to hard hard focused working passed relatives and hard working husband praying daily ❤️
9:27
But how is any of this relevant to the debate?
If God does not exist, whose will are we free from?
Our own.
@@WillyFisher412then you are a slave to yourself
@@WillyFisher412 ya own lefty
If a big Grizzly in my room does not exist, then who is not attacking me right now?
@@scalex1882 everyone
I think the crux of the refutation against Alex is that his [simplified version of his] question, "What causes the soul to make decisions?" sounds like a more elegant version of New Atheist refutations to the First Mover argument. ("Well what created God???")
God is the uncaused cause.
The soul/deciding being (as Ben puts it) *is* the undetermined decider.
That is what a human is at its core.
if everything we know about the universe makes sense, why should we presuppose the existence of something that doesn’t, without proof, and if your presupposition that some things can exist which don’t follow any kind of logic, how on earth can you justify yourself, because if your right, you can’t use logic to prove your argument, because you are arguing that logic is fallible?
you are presupposing that god doesn't make sense@@WillyFisher412
@mrdavros8908 It's clear you have not studied this topic much. I'd recommend watching a debate on God's existence between Alex and Trent Horn. It's a very good debate between two very intelligent people, and it is well balanced in my opinion.
@@WillyFisher412
'Logic is fallible' is the argument of atheism. If we are meat machines then what we can logically produce is meaningless.
The existence of God presuposes that the rules of the universe exist as rules because there was someone to make them. And by assuming and understanding that these rules are comprehensible to humanity, we make the logical assumption that we are made by the same being who put these rules in place, that our minds are designed by an ingelligent hand, that we make meaningful choices because of it and that logic is something that we did not invent, buy burrowed from a superior mind.
@@kaylajay741 I have studied this topic extensively, I’m not sure what I’m missing here.
Read Robert Sopolsky's book, 'Determined' - delves into biology on a granular level in making the case for the absence of free will. Ben will go to the ends of the earth (no pun) to hold on to his beliefs. For example, when he says scientists talk about free will via theology, he doesn't name anyone. I'd love to hear Ben's response to a few questions, for starters: "Did you choose to be born? Did you choose your parents? Did you choose when to be born? Did you choose the environment into which you were born? Did you choose your genetic makeup?"
-Cosmic Skeptic, Why free will doesn’t exist.
ruclips.net/video/OwaXqep-bpk/видео.html
-Do We Have Free Will? | Robert Sapolsky & Andrew Huberman
ruclips.net/video/RI3JCq9-bbM/видео.html
-Sabine Hossenfelder, You don’t have free will but don’t worry.
ruclips.net/video/zpU_e3jh_FY/видео.html
I agree, I have read Robert’s book it has no holes.
When asked if he believes in God, Jordan Peterson will often say, 'I act as though God exists' - what's more, that that precept may be necessary or at least of utility for a substantial portion of people on the planet. Even if the fundamental claim can't be verified. I think the same can be said of free will. In the rare instances this subject comes up (because I'm only somewhat pretentious), I'll say I believe in it colloquially. I think it's important to act as though we have it. We still have to punish wrongdoers. We still have to assign value to "choices" and, furthermore, hold to the very conception of "choice" on a day-to-day level. So if free will isn't REALLY a thing, it might as well be. That's my take, anyway.
We still have choices, even if they originate from outside of ourselves. I see no reason why believing in god or free will is necessary for mankind.
@SY-qg6qn I completely agree. I don't believe in free will. My point is that even the existence of a justice system has to be grounded in the idea of "choice" on some level. Even if, at bottom, there is no such thing
@mrdavros8908 I find neither particularly necessary. But I think it is for many
@@SY-qg6qn
But why do we punish? And if there is no control over our actions, then how does the justice system even work?
Having no control over punishing someone that had no control over what they did in turn seems pretty unjust to me.
@@SY-qg6qn
You have failed to answer my question. Why do we punish? If we are destined to do certain things based on our biology, then it is futile and unjust to punish and reward.
Humanity also has the capacity to change their behaviour without the need of an external stimuly, ergo free will.
We are not animals. We have free will. We question things. Not even the universe is deterministic. Quantum physics teaches us that the universe, at its most fundamental level (atoms) is everchanging.
We are not deterministically meant for anything. Just like how God plays dice with the position of electrons in space, so do we play fice with our lives,by making meaningrul choices.
Your explanation cannot provide the why, so it is therefore insufficient.
Free will posits the idea that something can happen without anything preceding it, as in cause and effect. Everything we know of in the universe is all cause and effect. In order to have free will, somehow cause and effect would have to cease for those instances of free will.
And there is much that we do not know.
Something can either be random or determined, but it can also be something in between.
If something is random, it is entirely chaotic. To claim an individual's soul is random is to state that all of their actions are left up to chance. That is not free will, that is flipping a coin.
If something is determined, then the results are based off of external events. To claim a soul is determined is to suggest every choice has its reason. If there is reasoning behind a choice, then it has not been made freely.
If something is partially random, but constrained by deterministic features, then the flaws of both randomness and determinism apply. Any constraints have their reasons, and any final selection is chance. There is no room for free will here either.
Perhaps we are arguing not of a soul, but of a style of selection that is neither deterministic nor random.
My question then is, as an individual, how do you make a choice? Do you lay your options in front of you? Do you guess or try to pick randomly?
Determinism clearly applies to humans, as we learn and grow influenced by our environments. Randomness may also play a role, but it's presence is much harder to see.
If there is an additional state of selection that exists, it may be present in humans instead of any perceived randomness.
In my personal opinion, I feel such a exotic state of selection is needless to consider, when the vast majority of behaviors can be described through deterministic means. However, I would likely be unable to disprove it's presence.
Short Answer = Yes - With what you're born with, What you possess, and the time you have on Earth? you're allowed to do w.e you want. Though you could say " No " due to the limitations we ourselves create like Societal norms, our thoughts being manipulated and our speech impaired on what were allowed to say by Law or Government. If we just want to break the law? then yes for a moment you can do what u want, by with Earthly consequences. And if you believe in the hereafter? you only have a lifetime of Freewill within what you are allowed to do with what u have
I am reading Robert Saplosky's book on this at the moment. He outs forward a strong argument for the absence of free will. I do, though, enjoy Ben's argument. Thank you for putting two people together who disagree!
Can i hear the strong argument? I also do not believe in free will.
@@daellu9444 It's a 500+-word book, so would be hard for me to state in this box. The book is titled Determined. I like the argument, but I also wonder about something beyond the neurons, something we don't quite understand. It is hard to accept there is no free will. It is too prosaic, too artless.
I don’t think Ben actually presented an argument against determinism. He just said that atheists act like they do have free will. It was a criticism.
With gratitude to our creator free will is a living breathing reality.
I choose meditation to inspire me to live a purposeful life.
Free in what way? Does your "creator" make decisions for you? If so, not free. Does a "creator" provide you with omniscience so you can move mountains? (You may have an argument here but you have to demonstrate it). Does your "creator" allow for the suspension of the physical laws so that you can step away from yourself and control yourself from outside your body (your physical being)? Again, a possible argument that would require demonstration. Please help us to understand your version and justification.
Amen.
Wow this comment is incredibly ignorant.
to each their own right? or no? followed you and have honored your thoughts and words for a long time. this is an open ended question on the ISTEP test in indiana. start there. i bet the class of 2013 would have some really great ones.
If there is no creator OR if there is a god outside of time, there is no free will, as the whole timeline is predetermined. However from our perspective, we have no choice but to live as though we do have free will, because we have the unique ability to reason. In other words, while we maybe be restricted by our past experiences and environment and restricted by a fixed future we cannot know, we have the responsibility to understand our choices and their consequences.
This may not be ‘fair’ in reality as culture, education, IQ etc are all factors, but it is necessary (in general) for society to function. The law allows for edge cases to be given leniency (insanity, child perpetrator, severe mental handicap, etc). End of the day though, a sane adult must be treated like every other sane adult under the law for there to be true justice, as it is impossible to quantify the impact of all minor variances that are present in every person’s unique life.
There is only the illusion of freewill.
how do you know that, and why should I believe you if you didnt freely come to that conculusion.
@@gsp3428 Cause and effect.
Like where the hell does freewill come from? My assumption is the huge amount of slavery. How can you refuse a command from your master(your owner)? Freewill? YES!!!!!
What drugs is this guy on? The universe is controlled by cause and effect. The more we understand all the causes and effects the more we will understand the universe. Who cares about masters and freewill?
after watching this 3 times It still hurt my brain🤕.
I've never understood the _'you act as though you have free will'_ line, boy would I be living a very different life if i truly possessed such a thing.
Well done Ben.
Bless the man with light for denying what is most apparent with a flurry of rationalisations.
Thank you for your witness.
I'm having a hard time seeing how the quest for the answer isn't based in free will. What good does it do our biological nature to spend years studying different ideas (which are foreign to our understanding)? The quest for the answer, to me, seems proof of free will. Maybe I'm missing something.
On that thread, doesn't the deconstruction away from theocracy also point to free will? I think a counter may be the belief in God is a biological natured stance. If the goal is to enlighten people away from a faith perspective, that would require the free will to do so.
Human beings out competed other animals to become the dominant species on the planet due to our biological nature giving us conscious thought. That was the good it did our ancestors. That doesn't mean that our bioligical nature has solutions to all the problems presented to us by conscious thought.
But why? You can "but why" your way all the way back to the origin of the universe and eventually every atheist will give the same answer which is "idk" or "because it needed to" which is totally nonsensical in a materialist worldview. Materialism in general is totally ridiculous.@@leonais1
The behaviorist argument is that the actions and noises made by philosophers are just what they have found results in food and sex, but are otherwise devoid of meaning. Most philosophers, on the other hand, seem to think that the noises they make have something to do with truth.
They would argue they are pre "determined" to be on the quest, they have no choice. Which to me sounds like a cop out. It amounts to "the reason I act as if I have free will is be cause causation has forced me to"
I don't see how free will is possible, do any of you?
The fact you can think and choose and not follow your gut instinct. Of course you can keep moving the goal post until you're right but I think it's a caveman argument
@RacoonLord-mt9hv My comment didn't prove anything, I'm saying this argument falls apart because subconscious and conscious can be changed over time. And your subconscious doesn't dictate your life. It's all purely conjecture by people with too much free time and self doubt. This is the same nonsense that calvinists think and they've been rightly criticized for centuries. But because a 20 something overeducated useless sack of meat with a degree says it's true it must be true.
But I do not choose to think...it happens automatically.@@johnxina-uk8in
@@johnxina-uk8in if a God exists, and knows your future in advance, you have no free will. Think about it, if I God knows you'll die in a plane crash, ergo you have no way of avoiding it, as that is what WILL happen...how can you claim to have free will?
@@johnxina-uk8inNo you just have a cave man mind
A person comes to Ali bin Abu Talib and asks whether we have a free will or not, he says lift one of your leg. The man pulls his leg. Then Ali bin Abu Talib says lift your other leg. The man said, how can i do this, i'll fall.
Then Ali bin Abu Talib says, "we are in between"
Why does someone wake up in the morning? The notion that it’s either internal OR external is a very simple way to think about it. I think it’s both due to the fact that people have goals, and values; yet also operate out of self preservation. These goals and values are motivated by external factors such as wealth, acknowledgment by others, and an overarching desire to fit in. What constitutes the logistics of these external factors is determined by the state of the culture and society a person may live in. Any rational person knows that hard work eventually pays off, and these external factors become internal motivators. Free will most definitely exists. ex: You can decide to stop waking up in the morning, but there are consequences to these actions. So, waking up in the morning is an act of self preservation and in service of the bigger picture in whatever an individual might strive towards. People need to dream and have goals…..if you strip away those goals, sadness is all that remains. If you didn’t believe in an afterlife, wouldn’t you want to enjoy a sense of fulfillment in the time you have? At least this is my opinion for whatever it’s worth RUclips comment section 🤷🏼♂️
I don't remember seeing Ben this frail and reasonable before. He's actually nervous. And this is Ben's best showing in the debate.
Where does Ben sound nervous?
Lol. "Frail" hahahha
Alex is amazing!
It amazes me to know that Dr. James White would absolutely DEMOLISH both these guys, but for different reasons.
If White is not a part of these conversations, the world loses. Immensely.
If he is included, both of these intelligent men will never be the same after the interaction.
I'm not out of control of something I DETERMINE! Like, what?? How did you make that jump???
I feel that this question of 'If Free Will exists or not' is not the proper question, rather How much Free Will do we have? Being a stronger argument.
"Free will" is an illusion... Humans respond to stimulai like anything else in nature
With this question you have already answered the first question
Now that's a classic discussion amongst Jewish philosophers. And there are conclusive discussions on the matter.
I feel we have as much freewill as possible. We come into this world (which one can argue is against our free will because we didn’t choose to live, but our parents did choose in their own free will to have us) we can also leave this world and take our own lives, which is about as much free will of a decision as I can think of. (Sorry for the bad punctuation too, I rushed this)
Is your soul saved? We all have sinned (Romans 3:23 KJV). All unsaved sinners will end up in the eternal lake of fire (Revelation 21:8 KJV). The Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV). Water baptism DOESN'T save us (1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV). We are saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV).
Amen
@@AdamPruett Amen
We don't need saving (Nobody 1:1 IQ)
@@rightclick7266 then religious people don't need atheism 😁 glad we agree 👍🏽
That guys last argument was pretty good, but I’m thinking even if you ultimately get to the conclusion that God (whom is outside of ourself) is ultimately in control, you can still make an argument for free will. I say this because I believe that God is ultimately in control but HE CHOOSES to let us have free will. If He wanted to snap his fingers and make anyone do literally anything, He could, but that is not how God works. In this case you could come back to something within the body being in control; however, because we have admitted God can be in control whilst giving us dominion over our decisions, it ultimately would still leave us with free will.
Your will can be free from ignorance, undue influence, threats and intimidation, drugs, etc.
but your will itself is not free from the cause and effects of the universe that precede and are external to you - your genetics and how it interacts with your environment entirely predetermine your will.
Freewill means to me that we are allowed to make our own conscious choices right or wrong. Act or speak good or evil in our own life or that of others. Either way, there is a consequence or blessing to & with each action and word, towards self and or any other!!
And that Is exactly what the illusion is.
@@momoelmeligi3478define illusion.
@@momoelmeligi3478if you believe that free will then you also have to accept your concept of justice is an illusion and ultimately there is no justice whatsoever.
Your desire to punish someone if they hurt you in any way is ultimately wrong because that person was always going to hurt you and they had no control over it therefore it's not their fault and ultimately you just want to punish that person purely for the sake of it.
Illusion is the so called justice system. It isn't justice to allow pedos to sell and / or rape children. Putting innocent people in prison for believing in Almighty Creator GOD or for anything without proof. Illusion is deception for truth and expect everyone to never question anything. Illusion is seeing church leaders and politicians pretending to care about our well being yet don't know we exist! All these illusions from delusional people who don't truly serve the Almighty Creator 🙄 but pretending to be a god. Sending out a lot of illusions! It's our right to choose whom we will serve "free will".
@pgpython you imprison for the safety of the community not for punishment
”The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.“
Proverbs 16:9
The Lord has established all things for His glory for all of time. Yet by the washing of my sins and changing of my heart Jesus allows us to follow Him with all our heart, soul, and might. From that we fight for truth and to not be slothful. The bigger issue here is Ben and all that reject Christ need to repent and trust in Him.
You cannot determine the external determination without falling into infinite regress. Though to put this argument to rest if you were suddenly aware of all external determining factors what stops you from having free will.
The law of the excluded middle does not apply to things like decision making. In many decisions, there are both determined (causal) and indetermined (random) factors. The law of excluded middle would seem to imply that we only account for one or the other, but never both at the same time. I think this is obviously not true. Now, even though the decision making process must take both into account, it could be argued that the decision maker can be reduced down to one or the other. But that would seem to be presupposing reductive materialism, begging the question. But how would a wholly causal or random ultimate cause be able to apply a Bayesian decision theory? I would argue that this belies the law of excluded middle. At best, it seem you'd have to acknowledge a Bayesian decision-making, instead of either caused or uncaused. It likely cannot be reduced further than that.
If so, there is some leeway in the interaction of the causal and random, in which the Bayesian probability can be affected by priorities, in the form of the prior (assumed) probability. IOW, there's a level of decision-making that is strongly influenced by prior or assumptive decisions. You could presume that these assumptions are also materialistically reductive, but we have no good materialist models for how the causal and random interact at a fundamental level. We cannot reconcile the classic (causative) and quantum (random) worlds.
So even without postulating a God, there are still some serious gaps in the reductive assertion.
You are failing to take into account the law of non-contradictions (p cannot be both true and false). Actions cannot be uncaused and caused. The two are mutually exclusive.
@@JNB0723 Only reductively, by assuming there can only be a single factor in a decision. I don't know that any decision relies solely on a single factor. There could only be a contradiction if there was a single causal factor. But it would be hubris to presume that we understand the mind enough to determine that.
@@synthsin75 it does not matter how many factors. If one of those how many factors are uncaused than Determinism is untrue. However, as a determinist, I do not have any reason to suspect that to be the case.
@@JNB0723 Sure it matters. If a dice roll determines the number of options but a deterministic cause determines the choice, you could have an entirely different result based on the random dice roll. They both play a role in the outcome.
It's a crime that Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom is largely forgotten. The man was a genius and one of the greatest philosophers in history, but he's been deliberately buried by the establishment over the last century.
But if we wouldn't have free will, choosing to believe in free will or not would never make any difference nor impact our lives in the slightest. But in reality, the one you chose to believe in does impact your life in major ways. Example, someone believe he does NOT have free will, he uses his belief as an excuses for all his actions and put the blame on this for every opportunity he gets. Then later on he willingly change stance and chose to believe there is free will. Suddenly his behavior change, since he now understand his actions are only his to blame, he starts working on himself and become a better human being.
Does a fly have free will ? Probably not. Does humans have free will ? Most do.
Every living being has free will. But only human beings have divine potential. Our spirit bodies are literal children of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
And the free wills - lets call them "auia" when meaning a noun rather than an aspect - behind all life have always existed, having never been created. Doctrine and Covenants calls them "intelligences" and says "Intelligence was neither made not created, nor indeed can be".
Just as our mortal parents adopt our spirits to put us into a physical body. So too did God adopt us into his universe. But of all the aiuas in the universe, those who became/become humans are given spirit bodies in God's image, with divine potential.
This also solves theodicy.
You don't choose to believe things. You are either convinced of a proposition or remain unconvinced.
@@downshift4503 Not everything we believe depends on the proof of a proposition.
@@joannware6228 Would you like to offer an example?
@@noskalborg723 Everything you wrote there is a list of claims. Free will, spirit bodies, heavenly father / mother, God, divine potential. Do you have any evidence of any of that?
I always find it interesting the way both sides of this conversation never seem to even consider some sort of middle territory. I'm not one to put a lot of weight behind whether God is real or not, I am not atheist but I don't concern myself with God very much either. Is it unfair to suggest that even if there is no God that we could still just... have free will anyway? Perhaps we don't know the reason why we have it but to the best of my knowledge I am capable of directing my own life. As such, I view life accepting that I have free will. The alternative is "destiny" where every little thing you do is preordained and your brain only tricks you into believing you could have made a different choice. But that's just some unfalsifiable claim about fate. Of course we can't test if this is true because we don't get to rewind time and make a different choice. So while I can't technically say for sure that I am capable of making actual choices, every moment of every choice I think I've ever made is much more convincing to me than the idea that I should throw that perception away. And also, to what end would that even matter? It's almost pascal's wager-- either i act like I have free will even if I don't, in which case there is no real loss (and I didn't have a choice anyway), or I act as if I don't have free will when I do, and I choose to throw away the essence of being human.
Yep!! Totally agree with you that freewill and choice, that is the essence of being human is real.
Equally, the principle of credulity and Occam’s razor tells us that the essence of being human is simply real, that is the essence of the conscious agent/freewill, that is rationality itself is clearly real.
You can even use an Aristotelian transcendental argument to prove this because it’s just a logical observation of the absurdity and impossibility of the contrary!! Just like the belief that there are other minds. It’s a properly basic belief.
When you get down to the paradigmatic level philosophical naturalism breaks down and we are all presupposing things such as prescriptive laws of logic at this fundamental level that cannot be empirically proven. Because you cannot even prove empiricism itself using empiricism. You can’t prove sensory data using sensory data. It’s a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category.
However, in the words of Aristotle you actually believe that rationality and logic is real right? that is you believe that freewill and choice is real ok? So that is……
“CHOICE NOT CHANCE DETERMINES YOUR DESTINY” [Aristotle].
That is logic and rationality not accidents and total gibberish determines your destiny right?
The fact is that logic and rationality, that is freewill and choice are presupposed at the fundamental paradigmatic level. However, just because they can not be empirically demonstrated by the “natural sciences” and so are presupposed by the “natural sciences” it does not logically follow that they are “ILLUSORY”.
This is an unbelievably weak argument and is a scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacy!! Not to mention a question begging fallacy, an argument from ignorance and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. They can easily be demonstrated and proven using the principle of credulity and using logic and rationality itself, that is using a basic transcendental argument.
The proof of rationality, that is the proof of the prescriptive laws of logic such as the law of non contradiction, that is the proof of freewill and choice itself is that they are assumed in their denial.
“Philosophy always buries its undertakers." Indeed, you can't get away from philosophy. It's like logic. To deny it is to use it.”
C. S. Lewis famously wrote.
You can’t away from freewill and choice, that is you cant get away from rationality itself, that is the conscious agent/freewill and choice itself is like logic. To deny it is to use!!
All the best.
That man made a elegant arrangement against his own existence.
Love them both, excellent duo 👌
I don't think Alex's dichotomy argument holds. To be concrete, let's consider your choice to eat a cookie or not. He says the following:
1. Your choice is either determined by something outside of you or it's not.
2. If is it, you're not free.
3. If it's not, it's random, so you're still not free.
I think 3 is wrong. Instead, your Will just IS the "determining thing," and it's also the terminal object (no infinite regress) in explaining a choice. So I say that something can be caused by a determined process, it can be random, or it can willed. Trichotomy, not dichotomy.
"Why did you do that? Was it caused by something else or was it random?" "Neither. I chose to do it."
In practice, what does using your Will look like? Consider the cookie. I may think, "well, I'd enjoy the cookie, but, knowing myself, I'd probably end up going overboard and eat too many, so let's hold off for now and put them away so I don't keep thinking about them." Or, instead, "a cookie sounds good right now, I'm kinda hungry, and I'm totally happy with my weight and health right now, so let's go for it."
With any finite good we encounter in this life, we apprehend and judge it as good under some aspect and bad under some other aspect, or we may judge an alternative as better or worse under various aspects. The Will just is that thing that chooses what we understand to be good (no matter what, we choose what we think is good, even if we are deluded or mistaken).
There is nothing in this life that is just perfectly good and desirable under every aspect, that exhausts all our desires, so we are never determined to choose that thing. I think it’s important that we don’t think of free will as the ability to make arbitrary choices. Rather, free will is the power to judge things as good or bad, or better or worse. Certainly, one can see some good in lying or cheating or stealing, and so some people choose to do those things, but other people more clearly see the bad in those actions, so they choose not to do those things, even if they may simultaneously see some good in those actions and be tempted by that.
Of course, it’s also possible to train your will to not choose bad things despite the perceived upsides. That’s called building good habits and virtues. One can also pray for grace to help you do that. Furthermore, if there’s any time when we can be said to not have free will, it’s when we’ve vitiated it by accruing bad habits. The people who can most accurately be said to not have free will (in some sense) are those in the grips of addictions and vice.
On the other hand, in heaven, it may seem like you don’t have free will. Indeed, you are in the presence of the fulfillment of all your desires, so your Will just can’t choose against it. I still think the integrity of your Will is preserved though. Having made your choice for God, that choice is continuously ratified for you through your enjoyment of the fruit of that choice.
In an older video, Alex made an extended version of his argument here, and part it may be used to try to oppose part of my view of how all this works. I’ve explained that, when you choose A over B, it’s because you’ve judged A to be better than B, at least in some respect that you’ve decided to base your decision on. Alex would say that you were forced to choose A over B because, though you desired both, your desire for A was stronger than your desire for B, so you weren’t really free. The problem with that argument is that it doesn’t make any sense to call one desire “stronger” than another. If we really thought that strength of desire admits of magnitude, we could ask what the units are, and it’s clear that that makes no sense. If his only explanation of what it means for one desire to be stronger than another is “you chose one thing over the other,” then he’s arguing in circles.
Instead, we choose A over B because we judge it to be better in some respect. If there was only one axis (so to speak) along which things could be rated as good (and if we never misjudged things), then our choices would always be determined. Instead, things are good or bad in many different respects (and things don’t just admit of magnitude in a way where you could truly just add things up as pros and cons in an obvious way).
So I think this is a coherent explanation of how all this works. It fits with my own experience, and it makes sense of my experience of things seeming like I definitely have free will. Therefore, since it seems to me like I have free will (just an intuitive hunch like we all have) and I have a coherent account of how that plays out, I think I’m justified in thinking I have free will, and that should suffice for Alex’s dichotomy argument.
One can still ask, “where does free will come from?” I think God definitely has free will. Certainly, He is in no way limited or determined, yet He chose to create the specific universe that He did, and He could have done otherwise, and there was nothing outside of Himself that made Him do what He did. So then if God made us in His image and likeness with an immaterial Intellect and Will, it seems like we could (and do) have a certain shadow of that free will.
Excellent!
@SY-qg6qn just because I can flip a light switch and turn the light off doesn't mean that the light bulb doesn't exist.
Samething with free will, just because you can switch off your free will decision making and let habit take over doesn't therefore mean free will doesn't exist. Something doesn't always have to be present for its existence to be validated.
@SY-qg6qn It's not like a manual transmission where you have to switch free will off consciously. It's more like you install an automatic transmission to allow the habit to take over without you having to put any effort into it. Also we do exercise free will and over come bad habits, it's not like if you devolp a bad habit you are stuck with it forever, the mere fact we can acknowledge we have a bad habit and deliberately chose to break it is more proof that we have free will, otherwise the bad habit would never be broken.
Just because it takes over without your manual permission doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist. To go back to the light switch, if someone without my permission turns off the light that doesn't mean because it was done without my permission, the light bulb now is nonexistent.
Your trying to make the same argument that he did, that everything is either A or B, that it can't be neither and it can't be both, that is scientifically false.
First off diets alone prove that notion false. When you diet you are going against your natural instincts to eat when your hungry then there are people who don't diet who should. They are going against their instincts of self preservation and continue to eat unhealthy. So if everything A or B then either everyone would diet when they should or no one ever would diet, that you can't have both people that diet and people that don't diet.
Then there is partical-wave duality, partical-wave duality is proof that duality exists, that not everything is A or B, that a particle can be both a particle and wave. So right there is undeniable proof that 2 things can happen and they not negate the existence of the other. That you can have free will and that free will can also be turned off, either you do it manually, automatically, it forcibly be take such as with the slaves, and free will can still continue to exist.
Then there is me and you repling to each other. I of my own free will made the decision to reply back to you, there is no benefit to me to do and I also know from many years of experience on the internet that I am also not going to change your mind. So why even continue to reply if there is no outside influence to benefit me or internal benefit in the form of mental satisfaction for changing your mind. Basicly this whole line of dialog is pointless yet I am still here.
@@SY-qg6qn Again you are trying to suggest that if free will is not present at a defined time and place then it does not exist at all.
Technetium does not exist in the human body, does that mean it's existence is invalidated, no of course not.
There are many things a 4 year old's brain is not capable of at that age such as complex decision making, does that mean the ability to make complex decisions as adults doesn't exist. No of course not.
Your premise that because something is not present at a certain time and place it therefore can not exist is just absurd.
But to answer your question, I do believe that you are born with free will just like you are born with a brain. And just like it takes time for your brain to grow and mature and be capable of fully functioning so to does it take time for that free will to grow and mature to be capable of being fully utilized.
@SY-qg6qn yet again your whole argument is that because something isn't present it doesn't exist. You have provided nothing to back up your postion other than to repeat that free will is not present here therefore its not present anywhere.
Just because a 4 year old does not exhibit free will at that age does not mean they don't have it. Just like they don't exhibit complex brain function does not mean they don't develop it later.
Yes the circumstances of the environments that we are in do shape the choices we make but just because we choose something that makes logical sense in that moment doesn't strip us of free will.
If I'm taking a bath and I'm also hungry does me making the choice not to plug in a toaster and make toast while in the bath mean I have no free will because the consequences would be very bad for me.
Does me forcefully strapping you down to a chair where you can't move and have no freedom mean that you have no free will because an outside force is dictating how you behave. No of course not, your just starting at an end point and looking for reasons to justify your position.
The usefulness of free will or acting out as if it were is not an argument for its existence. Basic Hume's problem: you can't get an ought from an is and vice-versa.
If free will doesn’t exist, then how can we rightly hold murderers accountable for their crimes?
Also if free will doesn’t exist, then all we need for people to make the right decisions in the perfect world is the right incentives, and getting there by any means should certainly be justified. Which strips everyone of all human rights and imposes tyranny. No thanks.
If a machine is faulty and kills someone, do we allow that machine to just keep doing what it’s doing or do we shut it down?
A machine doesn’t have free will, right?
@@Peridactyloptrix
A machine has no brain.
@@Elliot_Bearzatti. obviously.
So what?
@@Peridactyloptrix
That's why it can't be compared with a human, who is conscious and sentiment
@@Elliot_Bearzatti. first of all, the word is “sentient”
Second of all, sentient actually just means conscious. The word you meant was sapient
Third of all, the lack of brain is exactly the point I was making. Even things without brains are “held accountable” in that we stop them from doing things that are detrimental. We don’t just let them do whatever because they don’t have free will
'Random' is an illusion.
I think free will is for people who can think. I come across many people who seem so tied to a certain mindset or material good that it consumes them and they forget what it means to be free minded. I think free will is most commonly found in children as they don’t understand social norms yet.
@@SY-qg6qnso free will is only free if it’s random and unpredictable? Why?
You said “free will” is for people who can think… So that suggests there are individuals who can’t “think” did you choose to be someone who quote thinks unquote. Tell me the day you “freely” “choose” that… or is it just something you do…
Regardless of whether determinism is the way things are (I'm inclined to believe it is), free will is a required belief in general in order for a deterministic existence to work. Free will is the lubricant on the determinism machine. Without people believing free will to be true, the machine would cease to function.
I would then conclude that it is of no use to believe in determinism.
....huh?! You just said free will exists, basically. "Because people have free will, if they were convinced of determinism they would choose freely to do nothing"
@@ericomfg no, I said free will as a concept must exist, not that free will is a reality. If people didn't believe they had free will, humans would cease to function.
Santa doesn't exist in it's fantasy form in reality, but it still drives behavior.
Also, determinism doesn't say there are no choices, only that if all weighted factors were known, "choices" would be 100% predictable. Choice is an illusion.
@@123darkdeal sorry that is super contradictory. People have no choice in few will dude that's the point.
@@ericomfg It sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what determinism is. How much philosophy have you read on it? Just looking at the definition isn't adequate. There is an appearance of choice, but everything leading up to that point means you would not have chosen any other option than you did.
@@123darkdeal Yes I'm not very knowledgable here, especially since it seems so self evident! I am making an unpredictable decision _right now._ I clearly have free will, or I don't exist as a being at all.. I'm a robot. Then it's totally OK to kill me, I'm no different from your calculator app.
The possibility for unpredictability seems to emanate from quantum physics -- it's not even close to a given that our universe is predictable, it appears to not be.
So it seems like we're shoe-horning in some nonsense re: illusion of choice. There's a presupposition there that I don't follow.. "given the universe is predictable, you have no free will" -- the universe ISN'T predictable!
A lot of people don't want to get out of their bed every morning but they need to because they need to earn a living.. If someone or something causes you to do things then its not free will
Alex is a brain and very well spoken. Debating philosophy with Alex is like trying to outwrestle Nurmagomedov. Very few (Sam Harris among them) can drink at the same bar....
Hearing his thoughts can be fascinating, but his philosophy is rife with presupposition, just like anyone else's. Reject those presuppositions upon which his philosophy is built, and you have a blank slate, also just like anyone else. The key to debating such people is doing just that -- stripping away their presuppositions as they attempt to strip away yours. Whoever outstrips the other wins the debate, but can never be proven objectively correct. Therein lies the meat of philosophy across the board. The wise keep this in mind as they explore any philosophy.
@@psygnosticrevenant6773 Basically what you said was a bunch of "word soup". How do you define "presupposition"? I define it as a speculation or something one says just before making one's point. Philosophy isn't built on "presuppositions"...if we use the English definition of the word...and any of its common derivatives. Free will is incoherent and doesn't exist. This was stated factually. It's a simple argument really. We start with ANY definition of what one would call "free will" and show that it is either not free (thus, no freedom of liberty) or it is devoid of anything you would attribute to a "self". Either you are controlled by an outside agent (outside your physical being) or you are constrained by your physical being. If you are constrained by your physical being, you are constrained by the deterministic nature of the same. Otherwise your will is random...and therefore neither free nor of your agency. The feeling of making a choice, is an evolved artifact...as Alex elucidates effectively...here and in countless videos. There is no need to devolve into a tertiary argument about purpose (as they both do here), it isn't relevant and only serves to distract from the logical headlock. Sam is much better at this than Alex. If you watch Shapiro debate Harris, it's clear that Sam chokes him out and Ben is forced to tap. It is one of the only times I ever saw Ben cornered in an argument. The problem is that Ben is just wrong about this. He's wrong about God and Free Will but is right about so many political things. I like him quite a bit.
Although Ben dismantled Alex in the closing of this excerpt.
IMO
Where Ben, true to form, beat Alex to the "burden of proof" punch...
Forget that khabib only fought strikers his whole career and fought 3 top contenders. Not a great parallel😂
Meh
Alex O Conner vs Frank Turek is epic. Frank is really good
Yep! I actually felt sorry for Alex in that debate with Turek. It was like a man versus a child. Alex’s world view is ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS!! Maybe a graduate from Oxford could have the will power not get depressed by the thought that they are basically an ILLUSION but I think the ordinary person on the street would inevitably experience suicidal ideation. This is just so obvious.
@@georgedoyle2487why is Alex’ worldview meaningless and hollow?
@@Glasstable2011
“why is Alex' worldview meaningless and hollow?”
Why do you ask? Are you actually claiming that you don’t even know the implications of your own world view? That is you don’t even know the implications of this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, deterministic fan fiction? I’ve got no problem doing an internal critique of this ultimately meaningless arbitrary, atheistic, nihilistic folklore if you want. But you won’t like it. Truth hurts!!
Ok in a nutshell the fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is nothing more substantive than a culture of DEATH and meaninglessness if you think about it rationally!!
Atheism basically says that..
“Birth is an accident, life is ultimately meaningless, ultimately purposeless and absurd and DEATH simply ends the absurdity and illusion that birth began” [Atheism].
Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Definition of atheism…
“ULTIMATELY HOLLOW/SOULLESS APE HAVE MAGICAL VALUE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE SAY ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE HAVE MAGICAL VALUE .” [Apeism].
Am I close?
Am I close or a long way to go? LOL!! I’d bet my life that I am pretty spot on with that definition of APEISM. Atheism/Nihilism in a nutshell.
Please let me know if that definition of atheism is inaccurate? That is please let me know if that definition of APEISM is inaccurate? I’ll wait!!
Sorry to break it to you buddy but under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” and Alex”s very ironic absolute Truth claims are nothing more substantive than the delusions of an ultimately HOLLOW AND SOULLESS OVERGROWN AMOEBA with illusions of grandeur!! That is nothing more substantive than the delusions of an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, that is nothing more substantive than POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order?
Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY HOLLOW/SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!
Continued…
@@Glasstable2011
Continued…
This is literally a no brainer because under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” and your very ironic absolute Truth claims are nothing more substantive than the by product of the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities.
Equally, under this strictly reductive, casually closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction you are nothing more substantive than a ultimately HOLLOW AND SOULLESS determined machine, a ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS chemical and biological robot with the illusion of consciousness, that is the illusion of freewill, that is the illusion of RATIONALITY ITSELF LOL!!
Just live it out. I hope your enjoying the delusion because your sense of the “SELF” including your very ironic claim to the “MORAL” and “RATIONAL” high ground is nothing more substantive than an ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS ILLUSION buddy and is nothing more substantive than brain chemicals, that is nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over. The BRAINS ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS USER ILLUSION OF SELF, that is nothing more substantive than SIRI ON STEROIDS!!
Nothing more substantive than an ultimately MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL MACHINE, a chemical and biological robot on steroids!! Just brain chemicals, an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur, that is an ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE on steroids with the illusion of the “MORAL” and “RATIONAL” high ground!!
Definition of atheism/nihilism….
“ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI HAVE MAGICAL VALUE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI SAY ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI HAVE VALUE” [Atheism].
Am I close or “a long way to go” LOL? I’d bet my life that I am pretty spot on with these definitions of atheism. That is these definitions of APEISM. Atheism/Nihilism in a nutshell.
Please let me know if these definition of ATHEISM are inaccurate? That is please let me know if these definitions of APEISM are inaccurate? I’ll wait!!
As I pointed out already everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!
@Glasstable2011 Because he's presenting us all as inconsequential meat sacks that just live by our brain chemistry doing its job for us. In his worldview there's not enough value in your life that would stop you from blowing your brains out tomorrow or living a full life. If Alex and
Hehe, being a Calvinist listening to this discussion, thus-- a person who believes in God but doesn't believe in pure free will-- this was incredibly interesting to listen to. Both of their arguments made great points. But at the same time, I felt that many of the pitfalls of Alex's argument can be answered with "Because there's a God directing it" and many of the pitfalls of Ben's arguments can be answered with, "Yes, that impetus is external, and that externality is God, who has designed us down to our last cell and has already written history through that design." I'm not really looking to start anything with this comment. I just... found this discussion extremely interesting. It's rare for me, as a Calvinist, to see a debate with an atheist where I find a lot of the atheist's points extremely theologically compelling. Usually, I hear the opposite-- that the atheist is an atheist because the idea of an omnipotent God grates against his or her desire for self-determination.
You believe God created people just for them to go to hell?
@@austinhernandez2716isn’t that what every Christian believes? God knows every decision you will make in you life in advance and he created you knowing all that.
So anyone who goes to hell was always destined to go to hell from the moment God created them. Either that or God actually isn’t all-seeing and all-knowing
I’m an atheist. So are most of my friends and family.
I have never met anyone who “decided” to be an atheist because they don’t like the idea of an all-knowing God
Most of us are atheists simply because we see no compelling argument for the existence of God. That’s it
Just like you said, Alex. "What does it look like to live like free will doesn't exist?"
Whether you think or even truly believe that free will doesn't exist, you would still live as if free will exists.
And so the real question here should be about what the implications of that belief are.
For example, in order for someone who doesn't believe in free will to not have cognitive dissonance, he should literally live life thinking that no one can change if they want to. And that no one can try to understand something if they just give it a try. Because it's really not their choice at the end.
I already struggle with deciding whether some people are capable of certain things just based on their IQ level. Whether I should be mad at them or not, because if it's really their IQ level that determines them of being able to understand certain things and be capable of doing certain things, then I don't have the right to say that it's their fault.
Now, when it comes to free will. That becomes even a bigger issue. Because then I would literally look at someone who fucked his life over and over and dragged his family members with him. And got so many chances to be better but didn't take them.
And I wouldn't be able to say that it's their fault. If I were to believe that free will doesn't exist.
So, to sum it up, since we are always going to be acting as if free will exists no matter what we believe. The real question should be what we should do differently when it comes to judging other people based on that belief.
There is a difference between pretending free will exists to get yourself through life and making the claim that free will exists. If Ben is right, and Free Will proves God, than simply by having free will, some kind oof god must exist, which would destroy secular societies. If we pretend free will exists in order to live- and are guided by evolutionary factors- while still admitting we are living on a lie, than religion no longer burdens man. This was Alex's point about delusion and about the difference between excepting free will is fact or accepting the illusion.
@JNB0723 Great point! and even if it disproves the existence of god. We are still left with an insane problem of deciding how this belief that we have that free will doesn't exist should change our behaviors and decisions even though we will never ever be able to not live as if free will doesn't exist.
You know something else that came to my mind regarding what you said is the fact that, in a way, a religion like Islam doesn't say that humans have absolute free well. That is the point of believing in fate, accepting what happens no matter if you like it or not, and always try to do better next time. It's like you have free will with what god allows. However, you always feel like you have it, and therefore, you should always be trying to do "The Right Thing" according to the religion.
So, while secularists say that the nonexistent of free will will disprove religion. Religious people say that free will proves god existence. It is really not that simple. And it's truly fascinating and interesting to think about this subject of free will and write about while knowing you could never experience life without and if such life even exists!!!!
@@Aldebosh It certainly does not help that religious philosophies claim that people who do not hold others to the accounts of their religion are also in the wrong, making a theocratic society ultimately radical. This is why freedom of religion can only exist in secular nations and why many atheists argue that America is secular. Back to the main point though, is that if by believing in Free Will, Religion is undoubted, than all secular societies would fade to theocracies for the points listed above. Therefore, there must be an acknowledgement of the lack of free will, even if people live as though it exists. I hope you understood what I am saying.
@JNB0723 Yes, you explained it perfectly, and I agree! And while this would surely solve the problem you mentioned. I believe that there are waaaaayy more complications that would come along if we would adopt this belief system. How will we treat criminals, and how do we even deserve to get angry at anyone for anything that they do. If we want to avoid congitive dissonance.
What is your general belief, if you don't mind?😃 Nihilistic? Secular? None of the above?😂
@@Aldebosh Absurd Nihilism is my metaphysical position. Secular Humanism is my moral position.
Why do I feel like I'm too dumb to watch this video?
You are not too dumb to watch this video. Watch it once, then take a day off, then come back and watch it again.
Yeah I used to think that way. Sometimes being “incredibly intelligent” is a stumbling block for learning, being corrected, and/or even being completely wrong. I am both a lover of creationism and science. The bible is a constant but the more we learn about science and its changes the more I love that a loving creator made us soooo intricately. Either that or its chance.
Probably because you believe in god
Fantastic conversation - thank you both. Very respectful and planet brains on either side. FWIW - I do think Alex is right about free will. Free will is a powerful illusion, one among quite a few that evolution has so generously 'gifted' us with in order to help us do its thing (survive and reproduce). For me there are 3 big illusions that evolution gives us (all of which are useful otherwise they wouldn't have evolved): God, free-will and the self. I was disabused of the concept of free-will very early in my life (age 14), God a long time later (age 42) and I'd say I'm still in the process of shedding the sense of 'self' (the final frontier!?). Old habits die hard and the spell is hard to break. Good luck all!
Choice is either random or due to some cause. It seems impossible to define what is free will without it falling into one of those categories. The escape hatch of "I don't know" doesn't convince me since in order to understand free will it needs to be defined. Otherwise that belief has no meaning
There is a third option. Suppose there is a God and we ascribe God absolute free will. That is God has the power and choice to make whatever decisions God wants to make. If that is the case is it no logical to conclude that God could in fact make beings of relative free will of which we are.
You don't have to understand how that absolute free will exists. All you need to know is that if it exists that a being of such absolute free will could in fact create beings of relative free will and that it is completely logical to believe that
@@pgpython but you didn't describe what is that free will that god has so it is still either causal or random.
@@tzav I did its absolute, that is God has the power and ability to make any choice he desires which if God makes perfect sense. If God did not have that ability then he would not be God would he.
Your problem is your trying to subject God to the same natural laws you're subject to but that doesn't make sense because if God is God then he created those very same laws so why would he be subject to them the way you are
@@pgpython try to avoid using words that you still need to define in order for someone else to make sense of them. I don't really know what you mean by 'absolute'.
For me, causal and non-causal/random form a closed set. There are no things in between. Something either has a reason or it doesn't.
When you say god has the ability to make any choice he desires it still doesn't provide with a clear definition of free will. It is the same for humans, we also have an ability to choose what we desire.
The argument is that choosing what you desire is still not an example of free will because you practically bound to do that because there are reasons for that choice - and the same goes for god. He chooses according to reasons or he chooses randomly.
@@tzav again your problem is your are trying to define by some arbitrary rule that you can imagine and his decision derived from that but my argument is that flawed thinking because if that is true then God by definition is not God he is instead beholden to some law or process that you may or may not known of in which case God is some advanced being but he is definitely not God.
I am saying that God is God and fully God that is he has no higher authority or power to answer to therefore in all definitions because his power is limitless is free to make any choice he desires. This is ultimately free will because there is nothing outside of God which could alter his choice nor is there any physical law or behaviour which could lead to a choice of annother, it is purely choice.
That is difficult to get your head behind but it's suffice to say that if God is God then it's more than logical to say that God has absolute free will and has the ability to create being with relative free will. To believe that God doesn't have free will as is not a logical or rational decision
"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live"
- Deuteronomy 30:19
One of my issues with Alex's belief structure is that he is sitting down and conversing - a 'do' - to instruct one on why he is incorrect - an attempt to change another one's will. Alex does this while saying that he believes we have the freedom to act but not the freedom to believe. If we do not have the freedom to will, then why are you using your speech in an attempt to change his will when one has no control over what he wills?
Edited for structure
the only way I can make sense of arguments like his is that according him, engaging in this conversation and trying to change someone’s mind is simply the only possible end result of the molecules in his body being where they were at the moment of the big bang… seems more more plausible to me that he just chose to be there 🤷🏻♂️
@Sam_T2000 right?
If one believed they couldn't change anyone's mind, why would they ever engage in apologetics or debate? This is one of the issues I have with the hard-calvinists/determinists trying to convince me why their belief is true whilst telling me that people only believe what they do because they have no ability to believe otherwise.
I suppose I could simplify it as the actions do not harmonize with the belief.
Exactly!! Determinism is epistemically and morally bankrupt and is clearly a self own on multiple levels!!
I'd argue the opposite. If God exists, Free will can't.
True
And if God doesn't exist then you are still confined within the Laws of Nature.
@@richern2717 Laws of nature don't exist.
Selfing is what is what happens in consciousness, it’s a verb not a subject
I like the new lights but I am definitely not a fan of the moving ones in the foreground.
I think the people who hold the idea that free will doesn't exist are mainly people who are less conscious and less aware of themselves and running mostly on autopilot. That's actually a thing. Part of our brain function is to assess threat and non threat environments. When the brain establishes something as a non threat it developes neuro pathways to conduct brain activity leading to action with little to no thought. Like washing dishes or driving. The brain does this to reserve attention to the potential threat that may arise. But in society today everything has become so easy and safe that the brain has developed so many of these subconscious pathways that the brain grows lazy in actual conscious thought and decision making. So these people may very well experience a life where the decisions they make are less decision and more reactionary. This is actually the majority of the population now and it becomes more and more easy to even manipulate people's emotions, opinions and "decisions". But for those of us who remain conscious and use our brain for critical thinking and proper judgment in our day to day lives to make wise decisions the notion of no free will is pretty asinine. Someone who says they believe there is no free will, all they're doing to me is showing that they lack a substantial amount of proper consciousness to even consider it as a possibility.
People who hold any philosophical beliefs like that are almost by definition NOT belonging to the category of people you describe. Philosophy isn't something common among the dumb with low impulse control, it's very much a pastime for the intelligent and cerebrally oriented, so the people whose behaviour tends to be above, not below, average driven by free will.
Your line of thought doesn't stand up to scrutiny by applying some simple logic and observation.
@@classicallpvault8251 That's not true. Living a mostly subconscious and reactionary life is not synonymous with not thinking. A philosopher is a thinker type. You don't need to be super aware of yourself having the thoughts or understand why you're having the thoughts to have the thoughts. Thoughts can also be extremely reactionary. Strong opinions that people hold and have thought about a lot can easily be a product of environment. This being said, I think the idea that we have no free will is actually an idea put in place to safeguard the atheistic perspective. Since the obvious existence of free will would not be without a god, one back tracks and says against all natural intuition and obvious perseption of the mind and says ok, then there's no free will. Much thinking without being grounded in reality drives one mad. Not only is the notion of no free will completely against natural understanding and completely unprovable by any means, but It's also an absolute garbage message that will only produce garbage individuals. There's literally NOTHING good about thinking there's no free will. There's NO GOOD reason to believe it in the first place as It's completely against natural understanding and perseption AND unprovable. The only reason I can see is to back up atheism which is just another reason why atheism is such garbage.
@@classicallpvault8251 You say that the kind that hold any philosophical beliefs like that are NOT belonging to the category i described, but I didn't describe it first! The guy that believes there's no free will did! He himself was saying that EVERYONE is reactionary! INCLUDING PHILOSOPHERS! I'm simply suggesting that he's projecting his own experience on all of humanity. But I myself can tell emphatically that i, according to logic and reasoning, definitely do not live a purely reactionary life and his description does not resemble my experience at all.
@@yoshiperspectives4880 Nobody (that I know of) deny that we all have a feeling of free will. That includes everyone, including those that believe in free will and those who don't. If you think a nonbelief in free will must be due to them living their life on autopilot or that somehow their feeling of free will is weaker than for other people, then I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to not believe in free will. It does NOT mean some reduction in one's own feeling of it. It simply means that one does not think free will is part of fundamental reality. It's analogous to temperature; nobody denies that we can feel the difference between cold and hot, but at the same time, we all know that temperature is not fundamental, but rather a macroscopic feature of the microscopic motion of the particles in a system. Likewise, saying one does not believe in free typically means (or, at least it does for me, and probably Alex too) that one does not think there's some fundamental feature of reality that allows some "self" (whatever that is) to freely control what our body does. Rather, at the fundamental level, our actions are caused by interactions outside our control. This does not mean that free will is not a useful concept, or that we don't have a "feeling" of it (just like we can talk about temperature as a useful concept and have a feeling of its effect).
@@frede1905 You sure know how to say nothing with a lot of words. You have no reason to deny free will but to defend your atheism. The notion is completely against natural understanding and perseption, unprovable and produces absolute garbage for ethics and morality. Much thought drives you people mad.
We lost free will with the Fall. We gain it back if we accept Christ and have the Holy Spirit.
I have free will and I don't believe in any of those fairy tales
@@firefly9838 You have “free will” to decide what kind of sandwich to eat for lunch; you don’t have free will to have spiritual communion with the Creator and have moral discernment.
@@stephenyoungblood3683
Well said. Morality is free only when we accept our Creator.
That argument only works if there is a creator. This spiritual communion may not exist. If he doesn't exist, morality was created by men. It works on logic, compassion, guilt, laws and lots of other things on a spectrum. In my opinion, if you "accept your creator", you lose your free will. You simply act according to his will, assuming that he exists.@nyoungblood3683
So, free will has terms and conditions? Not very free then, is it?
Today's Meditation
“We have difficulty understanding this, just as a blind man has difficulty understanding color, but our difficulty doesn’t alter this fact: God’s omnipotence and omniscience respects our freedom. In the core of our being we remain free to accept or reject God’s action in our lives-and to accept or reject it more or less intensely. God wants us to accept him with all our ‘heart, soul, mind, and strength’-in other words, as intensely as possible. But he also knows that we are burdened with selfishness and beset by the devil, so it will take a great effort on our part to correspond to his grace. … Every time our conscience nudges us to refrain from sharing or tolerating that little bit of gossip, every time we feel a tug in our hearts to say a prayer or give a little more effort, every time we detect an opportunity to do a hidden act of kindness to someone in need, we are faced with an opportunity to please the Lord by putting our faith in his will.”
-Fr. John Bartunek, p. 591
What a priceless gentleman! Lucky to be able to see well delivered debates. You should have put the coke back too… c’mon.
Ben got owned here 😂😂😂😂
If we can ignore God's word on slavery, why do we have to listen to anything else he said?
Even if God didn’t exist, Slavery still existed and still exists today. So what’s the difference?
@@zenith622 So by that logic, abortion exists so why bother?
@@uncleogrimacy most atheists accept Abortion . So what’s your point?
@@zenith622 My point is that it turns out that "God's Word" isn't quite as absolute as claimed. It turns out this is very useful even to atheists as there are Christian nationalists crackpots like Mike Johnson out there trying to push Biblical law as inerrant and absolute!
@@uncleogrimacy no text in history is inerrant, not even old science books because new data overrides the old data that wasn’t accurate. Politics will always bring division, but having different ideas in government is a good thing. That’s what makes this country great. We all have our own opinions, some follow religion and others follow their own heart .
Why would a non-freewill person ever make a bad decision or have depression, anxiety or do anything but what is known to be best for themselves always? Just sounds like a way to excuse oneself for any wrong-doings or mishaps they CHOOSE to do...
Precisely because he has no control over his emotions. As Peterson says: You are not the master of your own mind. And it's no excuse for you actions, because you suffer the consequences no matter what.
You can’t have a rebellion without something to rebel against. Something something Descartes’ theory of metaphysics something.
Free will is thought and determinism, which seems like another way of saying consciousness. The hierarchy of thought and determinism is subject to evolutionary processes, but the origins are not relevant unless it contributes to the evolutionary success of the self, society and perhaps beyond.
Free will is more. It is the ability to abstract decisions, or even concepts, and comprehend them. And then, to act as much as we determine to be right.
Consciousness is just self-awareness.
Ben Shapiro won this entire debate just minutes after this clip was cut, and almost nobody realizes it.
Ben's premise is that 1.) Freewill is only possible under theism, 2.) Most people need to believe they have freewill in order to be functional in society. Alex agreed with both of these premises. He agrees that freewill is not possible given naturalism, and of freewill he says the "helpful fiction" is "precisely why it evolved." He even says, "The mechanism is so useful and has been so successful in embedding itself in our psyche that we cannot shake it off."
So, let's consider the topic of the debate: Is religion good for society?
Premise A: Freewill cannot exist without theism.
Premise B: People need to believe in freewill in order to live functional lives in society.
Conclusion: Religion is necessary for building thriving societies.
Alex agreed with both premises. The conclusion must then follow. Ben won the debate.
Needing to believe in something doesn’t make that thing objectively true
@@Peridactyloptrix
Is that actually “TRUE” or was it just your “external inputs” talking again?
@@georgedoyle2487 look at you… proving you have free will by giving identical responses
@@Peridactyloptrix
I like how you are so easily triggered by every single response in this comments section that does not conform to your “secular” religion, that is your strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, deterministic fan fiction and folklore.
It speaks volumes that you are so easily triggered whilst actually claiming that everyone is just determined and has no freewill or choice about what they say right?
That’s a self own on multiple levels!! You can’t even live it out for a second. It’s total and utter B….SHT
Sorry but it’s so transparent that this is nothing more than a comfort blanket an ideology that you’ve created to safeguard your atheistic ideology because you are indeed lying to yourself to say that you have no free will.
@@Peridactyloptrix
“Look at you”
Is that actually “TRUE” or was it just your “external inputs” talking again?
Ben's face would make a good Angry Bird. I don't know why I thought of this, but I don't think that I am wrong.
You don’t “think” anything buddy because according to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, deterministic fan fiction you completely lack conscious agency/freewill, that is you completely lack rationality itself!!
alex face is soy I don't think that I am wrong
1 Corinthians 1:18-21 NASB - 8 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE WHO HAVE UNDERSTANDING, I WILL CONFOUND.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE ... orthodox Christianity in a nutshell
Looking at free will and God interacting with his creation from a physics perspective.
If we believe in God who interacts with His creation then he is interactive and has not created a deterministic universe and if he interacts with us then we must have free will and aren't predetermined. then We might ask ourself how does God interact with His creation.
I don't know for sure but I'll pose several options. 1) God interacts with his creation breaking any or all lawd of his creation. 2) God uses physical laws that we have not discovered.
Before quantum dynamics it looked like physics and chemistry nd other science were pose to describe the universe as deterministic only lacking precise knowledge of inital conditions. Abd there by remove God from the equasion or interacting with His creation. This kind of universe may still have a creator, but is incompatible with free will abd God actively interacting with his creation. But quantum dynamics called into question the universe's determinism.
Quantum dynamics gives us excellent statical prediction power over over quantum interactions. But various interpitations of it hint at different possible realities to existance, and only one can be true, even as each interpitation is experimentally indistinguishable from the others.
There are more, but the major different interpitations are called the Copenhagen, many worlds, and, pilot wave, and or nonlocal hidden variable.
As a person who believes in God, I'd like to start with many world theory to rule it out as being incompatible with God who has purpose, interacts with his creation, and meaningful free will. In many words all possible outcomes of quantum interactiobs happen in their own world line. On its face, there's no room for God to chose what happens because the opposite happens in another world line. And free will doesn't exist in any meaningful way because In one world line a quantum interaction resulted in your biological neural chemical make up to chose one path but you chose another path in another world line.
Another interpitation of quantum dynamics is pilot wave theory. The apparent randomness of quantum dynamics is is not really random but is directed by a hidden but unknowable guiding wave and the wave responds to matter most theories though pose the wave interactions are actually deterministic even if we can never know how. If we belive in God that interacts with his creation and that he has given man free will, then we must conclude this kind of universe is incompatible with our beliefs. The universe must be nondetertministic.
The main interpitation of quantum dynamics challenges our notions of local realism. And quantum interactions are purely random. While this sort of universe may have God create with purpose, its incompatible with God who interacts with his creation, and free will is reduced to behavor patterns resulting from purely random quantum interactions driving chemical and neurobiology systems. Free will would be an emergent thing but not really real.
Then there is non local hidden variable therory. While pilot wave therory is a deterministic non local hidden variable theory. I pose that a non deterministic non local hidden variable theory is consistant with a universe where God may interact with his creation. By directing apparent randomness in quantum interactions through non deterministic non local hidden variables without violating the physical laws he gave his creation. This sort of universe also potentually leave room for free will or consousness to exist, and exist independent of the body in non local non deterministic hidden variables directing apparent not trully random quantum quantum interactions.
I think it's also interesting to view this in light of Gödel's incompleteness theorms. In short, that all consistant formal system are nessesarilly incomplete meaning that there are truths within that system that are unprovable within that system.
There are people who are more consciously going through life and making decisions, and people who are living life more unconscious and reactionary. When someone says they believe there is no free will and then continue to explain that with the experience of living a reactionary life that simply tells me that that individual is particularly unconscious and living reactionary. My experience of life is not reactionary according to my environment and biological functions. I've literally gone 3 weeks straight without food. Nothing biologically natural and reactionary about that. I have emotions that make me want to act a certain way and when I do i consider the emotions, suppress them, and make smart and wise choices regardless. Nothing reactionary about that. When a certain opinion is trending I do not automatically agree because the majority seems to agree so it must be true. I think critically on my own , make my own judgment and draw my own conclusion that is often contrary to majority opinion. Nothing biologically natural or reactionary about that. So you tell me you think free will doesn't exist and I think, Ok, thanks for letting me know you lack individual conscious thought and live a reactionary life! I don't!
Well said.
Yeah... I don't believe for a second that you have the free will you think you do. If you went hungry for 3 weeks you'd be eating anything that moved.
@@angrydragon4574 Actually, after three weeks of no food I broke my fast at 5 PM with a healthy fruit yogurt. It's called self control. Only possible with free will. With all biological urges I could've eaten a giraffe but i didn't.
Alex: As a wise man once said, "facts don't care about your feelings."
Problem is, Ben’s feelings don’t care about facts.
Feelings trump facts if you're the believer that you ought to be. ✝
I don’t understand how humans can compartmentalize God to our mental process, when God is Supernatural.
Your claim is that God is supernatural.
Is there more to this debate? It feels like it ended so suddenly, I wish it’d lasted longer