BEN SHAPIRO VS ATHEISM [Free Will Debate]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 фев 2024
- Ben Shapiro and Alex O'Connor face off for an intense debate on Free Will and the following belief structures that either permit or inhibit its applications.
Do you think Free Will can exist outside of the belief in God?
Full Debate On Premier Unbelievable?: • Ben Shapiro vs Alex O'...
SUBSCRIBE for more philosophical convos!
#benshapiro #alexoconnor #freewill #religiousdebate #atheism #philosophy #reaction 
Развлечения
Everyone skips over the part that in all of history no one has yet to provide even a single tiny shred of actual credible evidence a god exists to have done anything.
Complexity can give the illusion of randomness, intelligence or free will. If we were to understand the physics of the roll of a dice completely there would be no randomness. An AI that is very advanced can appear intelligent, and the experience of being a person can appear to be self driven, but simply be the sum total of physical processes. The question for anybody positing the existence of a thing, in this case free will, is without good evidence, should you continue to believe in it? If you want to be rational I think the answer must be no. That doesn't prove the none existence of free will, but it does make it irrational to believe in.
It's an open question based on questions of highly complex philosophical debate about the nature of existence, particularly in relation to time, and I'd argue has to involve how brains actually function (ie how 'hardwired' do they become based on lived experiences as well as innate tendancies?).
I more or less agree with everything here. Ben's argument really seems to stem from an argument from incredulity that because he feels he has free will, he just can't accept arguments that we don't. He's really back-filling an argument for something he thinks is self-evident, or just a brute fact.
At the core of it, I think our brains are just chemical machines that behave in predictable ways. If we had computers sufficiently powerful and enough information about how the brain works and the location of atoms and electrons we could probably be able to predict what I am and am going to think, the decisions I'll make, or anything else. But even though, at that level, I feel like things are determined, that doesn't mean I'm going to just passively take the world around me as Ben suggests. It turns out that the machine in my brain is structured to keep me moving on, even with that idea.
8:00 Ok, then on the atheist side, if there is no free will why punish criminals?
If he/she has no control over themselves and them murdering is determined already, so why prison, jail, death penalty?
Why punish or reward anyone for anything at all?
Edit: On the under God side, it is explained why evil exists.
God Himself said He made it. He Himself said that He is capable of great evil but never chooses to do it. By extension everything he does is good. This is in the conversation with Job fyi.
Evil is described as a refining mold. Its purpose is to be destroyed and the purpose of evil people is for them to be destroyed.
8:50 Then how do you justify it?
The reason why atheist dont say "I dont know" is you cant assert or argue anything from a position of no knowledge or justification.
Cant tell anyone they are wrong if you dont know anything.
1:00 That's not true. All of those can be true simultaneously.
P can be true on one dimension, false on another, both on a third and neither on a fourth. The fact that we as humans can conceptualize that disproves his statement.
Your logic is limited to your limited knowledge of your current subjective world view. That's the thing hes leaving out.
This is the reason Ben started the conversation saying hes not God and doesnt have knowledge of everything or sees everything as God does.
The atheist enters as if man's knowledge is absolute in defining something as this or that. He does so several times in this "debate."
This is an overuse of logic. This debate is easily winnable but for some reason adding way too much thought to it. The contradiction of Free Will is all you need.
Oh good grief... If a god exists and is omniscient/prescient then free will cannot, logically, exist - only the illusion of it. Period. The end. Believers need to get over their objections to that point unless they wish to redefine their god's nature.
This criticism is valid for a total omniscient god, but a lot of theists argue for a maximum possible god, and that can negate what is impossible such as free will and omniscience.
the old "can god make a boob so big that even he cannot lift it"@@nineteenninetyfive
The "can god make a rock so big even he cannot lift it" argument is frankly incredibly weak.
You have to pick a lane. Choose your definition of omnipotence:
A) Omnipotence is bound only by what is logically possible - You can't object when god cannot lift the rock because you defined the power as being only that which is logically possible.
B) Omnipotence is unbound by logic and is capable of all things, even the impossible - You can't complain on the basis of logic when you unconstrained the power by definition.
As to MLaak's point - An unbound omnipotent God can do whatever the hell he/she/it wants by definition. Even worse than that for you, is the fact that within our own universe things that seem logically obvious are actually logically tenuous in certain contexts. For example - the law of identity has an identity crisis in the quantum realm. If something so fundamental to our logic is tripped up so readily by things just outside our typical human perception and understanding then it is absurd to think that some omnipotent being existing potentially outside of our universe might not be even less beholden to such rules.
An analogy might be set theory from mathematics. You are attempting to apply an operation which has closure over the set of things within the understanding of human experience to the set of all things that can exist. But you have yet to prove that such logic has closure over the set of all things that can exist.
It was a joke man, lighten up francis. I don't have to pick a side. @@sqrlmonger
@@sqrlmonger I don't think we can talk too confidently about the quantum realm. There is obviously so much we don't understand.
4:12 Nope. Nihilist dont believe in the self.
Free will doesn't even exist in the bible, look to the god hardening the pharohs heart so that things go according to his plans
And that god is supposedly omniscient and can perfectly predict the future even if he doesn't interfere with people's actions.