Clubhouse is a new platform for debating. It’s about a year old, similar to discord but with an easier interface. There’s also a few philosophers on there who come into our rooms.
Btw that Bill guy was me at the end of the video. I actually ended up running an argument against Adam that wasn't recorded which was that it is consistent with the PAP that we almost never sin. I even gave him an example of how god couldve made humans where our indeterministic deliberation process worked like choosing a random number from the set of real numbers from 1 to 10. We'd have a 0% chance of choosing evil but nonetheless the PAP would be satisfied. But the bayesian probability of god and evil existing would still be 0, or close to it.
@@onemorebrown Sure. I'd suggest you review 'Venus BLASTS John Lees worldview into Orbital confusion!'. Which is also on the Clubhousedebates channel. Venus runs a subtle Socratic argument that is a species of the logical problem of evil. To paraphrase: how could there be any evil considering that prior to creation god existed alone... and therefore that world was perfectly good, & morally unimprovable given god's omnibenevolence. There was a lot of confusion and I think your expertise would be helpful.
I think the answer is that in a free will world everyone (were talking homosapiens here) will sometimes do good, sometimes do bad -- no way out of that. But that falls apart in something like a Christian world view because of the claim of a place called Heaven where everyone has free will -- but never does bad. Edit: So maybe the question really should be: _How is a place like heaven possible? If it is?_ Edit: The other question would be why didn't this God just put us in a heaven like place in the first place... But oops! that story ended with us eating from a tree. Sooooo...?
Could you also react to a video titled "Can consciousness be grounded on materialism?" By a channel called "thought adventure podcast"? I'd love to see what you make of their arguments
@@kingofdebating Plenty since I’ve seen other dialogues I conceptualise the bigger picture. You deny such things as good and evil. So how’s there POE when evil doesn’t exist? That’s funny.
The Christian is saying free will is necessary. But if God created us with a nature that cannot help but choose sin, then we are not free to not sin. That is a violation of the free will of mankind. That just means the Christian holds the two opposing views that 1) humans have free will necessarily 2) humans don’t have free will
I am agnostic about whether there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect creator but overall it seems to me that the traditional a posteriori arguments for God's existence better support the simulation hypothesis and so I am perhaps a little less agnostic than I used to be...
@@onemorebrown Really appreciate your reply. For your info this is an app called clubhouse. You may also find this interesting ruclips.net/video/-fQjCH9sLak/видео.html
@@onemorebrown Though if you believed the possibly of something behind the simulation that would still make you equally agnostic broadly speaking. Would like your thoughts on that.
@@onemorebrown If you’re reasoning a posteriori in order to get to an intelligently designed universe then attributing that to a simulation, you haven’t actually reasoned at all to what you’re ultimately agnostic about, the ultimate creator of all things, including the creator of the universe the simulation was designed in. Surely you’re not suggesting lack of evidence, or access to that evidence, is in any way indicative of one proposition over the other. All this means is perhaps we need to not limit ourselves to strictly a posteriori and be more open to other forms of reasoning, or if that’s refused it would seem to more support the idea of agnosticism over atheism.
good quality theist... and you name Jay Dyer? The one everyone laughes about because he misunderstands basic destinctions in philosophy? Jay Dyer is a joke. There are a few good quality theists but Jay is not one of them. He can't even bring his transcendental argument into sylogism form and if he tries it's simply a mess.
The RUclips algorithm recommend it to me...in fact I see at least one 'clubhouse debates' video on my home page almost everyday so I figured I would check it out
I mean there can be a world where libertarian free will beings exist and they always do good work.If you accept B theory of time of course.God will create a 4d universe where every beings do good work freely and it has no metaphysical problem.
God can make such a world, but why would he? why is that a better world? the purpose is something different than just decreasing suffering and privations all together also this world would be limited essentially as you pointed out, people that would not do evil couldn't live at all and be saved in the end. What if God wants to save stubborn people like me :)
_In an effort to wrestle with the of the problem of suffering, the process I used is following monograph. Although it deals with suffering in human terms, most of it - I feel - regards suffering as it concerns all sentient beings._ *The problem of suffering.* *The problem of **_evil_** is not hard to understand - it is a consequence of having free will.* But if the evil that we do gives rise to the suffering of others, _Why would a loving God allow this?_ In order to understand suffering, and especially in light of its ubiquity, remember that as creatures, we are created in God’s image. We all share similar qualities with God. God once came to teach us and heal us in the world. As a human man called Jesus; Jesus Christ, the Son of God; the Son of man; and the second person of the Holy Trinity. And during His time teaching and healing in the world in person, as He was God, He was also a man. In a somewhat similar fashion, _we_ are earthly creatures and we are also heavenly souls. It is to our own souls we must look if we wish to find and conquer evil. But suffering? That might address the evil that men do. But what about the other kinds of evils? I’m going to make a bold claim here and say that evil is caused only by an agent of free will. I believe, if truth be told, that the evils that men ( and women ) do, constitute the fullness of evil. And therefore the suffering that comes of such evil can be avoided by the mere act of making a choice - the choice to not be evil. But indeed, we are not only souls. We are also human persons made by God with the ability to thrive and enjoy fruitful lives, but in an often harsh and painful environment - a natural world so harsh in fact, that it will eventually kill us. So God gave us a built-in survival instinct to aid us in our lifelong mission. Before we can thrive, we _must_ be able to survive. Enter suffering. Without pain we would not be alert to, or possibly even aware of situations that threaten our lives. Alas, though we all _must_ die someday, our survival instinct helps to prevent us from dying before our time. So, the problem _(or better, the fact)_ of suffering therefore, is inextricably linked to our ability to fend off an untimely death.
Boy that was a whole lot of assertions with almost no tangible justification outside of your proprietary definitions. So many flawed statements i literally dont know where to begin.
@@quietwyatt4045 i mean i could go ahead and rip your whole statement apart, but imma save us both the time and let that arguement sink in. It says it all.
Please explain libertarian free will like I am 5 as it is incoherent to me. How does one "freely choose what is right"? You will always choose something because it aligns with a desire (or a higher desire) you have (i.e for a reason). Sometimes you may have two equal choices and you don't know which to choose, you may poinder aspects of the choice but eventually, you will choose one because you have identified something that is more desirous..or you toss a coin. .......In all of this, what does it mean to freely choose? Logically how does a neuron/mechanism 'freely choose'? If you pick it for a reason it is not free. If it is a guess or picked at random how is it 'you' instead of the coin that made the choice?
Libertarian free will is the excuse to allow God to be all good and create a bad world, and then place the blame on the world for being bad. There doesn't seem to be any function or reason for it other than to assign blame. It can't be demonstrated, and any attempt to reconcile it with neuroscience has been a post hoc tap dance.
the way Sartre put it (and I like) is that my desires, reasons, etc can act as influences on but they don't determine the outcome...could that be real, and if so do we have it? Who knows (not me) but if we can assume it for the sake of argument and still show that there is a problem then I think that is better
I have pretty much always been an atheist/pessimistic agnostic but I still like the idea of libertarian free will. I agree that part of it is about blame/praise but it also just seems to fit my phenomenology better. It seems to me like I have a very strong experience of feedom, like when I am trying to do a rock to fakie on the skateboard and I have that moment when I can jump off into a knee slide or try to bring the wheels back over the coping. in that moment, to me, it seems like I am poised between the two alternatives and my fear and desire to pull of the trick etc are both tugging at me, but then *I* choose which to do...I grant that this could be an illusion but I don't think that has anything to do with the existence of a God
@@onemorebrown Thank you for replying, yes I don't think the idea of libertarian free will is coupled to God (or to blame/praise). I had been a non-believer for a long time, and being a creative person I still strongly believed in free will. About 3 years ago I heard Sam Harris on the matter and then proceeded to consume and understand as much as I could, I intellectually did not believe in free will anymore...and I will say over time the emotional feeling of free will has also gone... Now I actively search for information on every subject I can, I believe opportunities are pure luck but the more you search the greater the chance of finding a gem. I am still as creative as ever but I look for more diversity. I am a great believer in the power of unconscious thought, I often go to bed with a complex problem, and the next day the solution comes so 'freely'. I think the same goes for your example of skateboarding, so much is happening in your brain that the moment you pull it off there is a reward, a feeling of freedom... but your brain had been doing an astounding number of computations to get that trick just right (or abort). But you have not explained one bit of libertarian free will, when you have that fear and the desire to pull it off and both are tugging at you, how do you choose which to do? I can understand if it is the strongest tug by some complex weighting system that wins... but if it is not that, then what is it? Is it just random? What other logical mechanism is there? It seems there is no escaping the causal chain, and randomness does not even help, anyway, randomness might not even be a thing according to superdeterminism. I just don't get it.
You go on and on and on when its actually really simple. Free will is a total nonsequitor that im tired of hearing from christians in these discussions. Its the properties of your gods that should be the center of the arguement, not the properties of provably fallible humans or imaginary invisioned worlds. This world, the earth, is whats being discussed. Premise 1: god could be powerful enough to redeem without the need for objective suffering. Premise 2: living beings objectively suffer. Conclusion: god is not powerful enough to redeem without objective suffering. There is no way around it my friend. He creates us intending us to suffer, or hes a liar. The foundation of all suffering comes from god. Unless hes lying, which you couldnt possibly argue that you know the bible to be true unless youre immortal or have a time machine. And thats assuming its not just the mad ravings of highly evolved primates. That doesnt even get into the problem of solipsism or how axioms are acknowledged.
P1 Is false, all powerful doesn’t mean do anything including resolve paradoxes or side-step all necessities. The conclusion also doesn’t follow from the premises even if p1 was true, as it ignores God simply willing suffering being the means to redemption for whatever reason. This argument is akin to saying God is powerful enough to make a banana appear in front of me, no banana is appearing in front of me, therefore God doesn’t exist. It ignores Gods will being part of the equation.
As for solipsism or axioms, those are issues for atheists, they have no bearing in a world where God exists, as God could simply tell someone he exists (and many argue they have a book or personal experiences where he’s done just that) and you’ve satisfied all the needs of knowledge solipsism is false and axioms are not needed.
Clubhouse is a new platform for debating. It’s about a year old, similar to discord but with an easier interface.
There’s also a few philosophers on there who come into our rooms.
this is surreal
Welcome to RUclips Circa 2022 ;)
Also, to tell when someone is talking, their picture lights up
Btw that Bill guy was me at the end of the video. I actually ended up running an argument against Adam that wasn't recorded which was that it is consistent with the PAP that we almost never sin. I even gave him an example of how god couldve made humans where our indeterministic deliberation process worked like choosing a random number from the set of real numbers from 1 to 10. We'd have a 0% chance of choosing evil but nonetheless the PAP would be satisfied. But the bayesian probability of god and evil existing would still be 0, or close to it.
I brought that up to him as well but he didn’t understand
This was amazing. Please do more of these.
I wasn't sure how it was going to go but I am glad I did it...any others like this you recommend I check out?
@@onemorebrown Sure. I'd suggest you review 'Venus BLASTS John Lees worldview into Orbital confusion!'. Which is also on the Clubhousedebates channel.
Venus runs a subtle Socratic argument that is a species of the logical problem of evil. To paraphrase: how could there be any evil considering that prior to creation god existed alone... and therefore that world was perfectly good, & morally unimprovable given god's omnibenevolence.
There was a lot of confusion and I think your expertise would be helpful.
@@AStoicMaster As if you’d suggest Richard to watch John Lee who’s a confessed laymen philosophically. That’s just disingenuous.
@@onemorebrown Richard you can view this one: ruclips.net/video/-fQjCH9sLak/видео.html
@@Firewall-q7x Awww. I love you, too!
I think the answer is that in a free will world everyone (were talking homosapiens here) will sometimes do good, sometimes do bad -- no way out of that. But that falls apart in something like a Christian world view because of the claim of a place called Heaven where everyone has free will -- but never does bad. Edit: So maybe the question really should be: _How is a place like heaven possible? If it is?_
Edit: The other question would be why didn't this God just put us in a heaven like place in the first place... But oops! that story ended with us eating from a tree. Sooooo...?
I love the dad jokes
If you like this subject, we have jack angstreich talking about this tonight 😉
Could you also react to a video titled "Can consciousness be grounded on materialism?" By a channel called "thought adventure podcast"?
I'd love to see what you make of their arguments
👍
1:02 Darth Ar Anus 🤣👌
Might I ask what your position on the ethical principle of veganism is?
Brown is an ethical vegan
I made a mistake around the hour mark but overall it was a great debate
You were clearly equivocating and Dr Richard called you out lolz
@@Creedspq no, not equivocating
@@kingofdebating For the record I don’t agree with your opponent. Just that you also have problematic points.
@@Creedspq what are the problematic points?
@@kingofdebating Plenty since I’ve seen other dialogues I conceptualise the bigger picture. You deny such things as good and evil. So how’s there POE when evil doesn’t exist? That’s funny.
Wouldn’t Plantinga’s argument make evil necessary?
Are not all necessaries gods essence?
The Christian is saying free will is necessary. But if God created us with a nature that cannot help but choose sin, then we are not free to not sin. That is a violation of the free will of mankind. That just means the Christian holds the two opposing views that
1) humans have free will necessarily
2) humans don’t have free will
Richard you’re an agnostic right?
I am agnostic about whether there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect creator but overall it seems to me that the traditional a posteriori arguments for God's existence better support the simulation hypothesis and so I am perhaps a little less agnostic than I used to be...
@@onemorebrown Really appreciate your reply. For your info this is an app called clubhouse. You may also find this interesting ruclips.net/video/-fQjCH9sLak/видео.html
@@onemorebrown Though if you believed the possibly of something behind the simulation that would still make you equally agnostic broadly speaking. Would like your thoughts on that.
@@Creedspq muslim yellow belt vs atheist red belt
@@onemorebrown If you’re reasoning a posteriori in order to get to an intelligently designed universe then attributing that to a simulation, you haven’t actually reasoned at all to what you’re ultimately agnostic about, the ultimate creator of all things, including the creator of the universe the simulation was designed in. Surely you’re not suggesting lack of evidence, or access to that evidence, is in any way indicative of one proposition over the other. All this means is perhaps we need to not limit ourselves to strictly a posteriori and be more open to other forms of reasoning, or if that’s refused it would seem to more support the idea of agnosticism over atheism.
Welcome to our world, may the infinity debate god's look favourably upon your future battles fellow philosophy warrior :)
If God knows everything that ever has happened and will happen, and hell is a real thing, we don't have freewill.
You need to debate a quality theist like Jay Dyer or just anyone who knows the literature
Won't matter
good quality theist... and you name Jay Dyer? The one everyone laughes about because he misunderstands basic destinctions in philosophy? Jay Dyer is a joke. There are a few good quality theists but Jay is not one of them. He can't even bring his transcendental argument into sylogism form and if he tries it's simply a mess.
Dyer's a con artist stuck in new atheism (presup is in dialectic with it) and Ayn Rand the same way TJump is.
I didn't expect this from Dr. Brown. How did you find the video?
The RUclips algorithm recommend it to me...in fact I see at least one 'clubhouse debates' video on my home page almost everyday so I figured I would check it out
@@onemorebrown The all-mighty algorithm has spoken!
I mean there can be a world where libertarian free will beings exist and they always do good work.If you accept B theory of time of course.God will create a 4d universe where every beings do good work freely and it has no metaphysical problem.
God can make such a world, but why would he? why is that a better world? the purpose is something different than just decreasing suffering and privations all together
also this world would be limited essentially as you pointed out, people that would not do evil couldn't live at all and be saved in the end. What if God wants to save stubborn people like me :)
_In an effort to wrestle with the of the problem of suffering, the process I used is following monograph. Although it deals with suffering in human terms, most of it - I feel - regards suffering as it concerns all sentient beings._
*The problem of suffering.*
*The problem of **_evil_** is not hard to understand - it is a consequence of having free will.* But if the evil that we do gives rise to the suffering of others,
_Why would a loving God allow this?_
In order to understand suffering, and especially in light of its ubiquity, remember that as creatures, we are created in God’s image. We all share similar qualities with God. God once came to teach us and heal us in the world. As a human man called Jesus; Jesus Christ, the Son of God; the Son of man; and the second person of the Holy Trinity. And during His time teaching and healing in the world in person, as He was God, He was also a man. In a somewhat similar fashion, _we_ are earthly creatures and we are also heavenly souls. It is to our own souls we must look if we wish to find and conquer evil. But suffering? That might address the evil that men do. But what about the other kinds of evils?
I’m going to make a bold claim here and say that evil is caused only by an agent of free will. I believe, if truth be told, that the evils that men ( and women ) do, constitute the fullness of evil. And therefore the suffering that comes of such evil can be avoided by the mere act of making a choice - the choice to not be evil.
But indeed, we are not only souls. We are also human persons made by God with the ability to thrive and enjoy fruitful lives, but in an often harsh and painful environment - a natural world so harsh in fact, that it will eventually kill us. So God gave us a built-in survival instinct to aid us in our lifelong mission. Before we can thrive, we _must_ be able to survive. Enter suffering. Without pain we would not be alert to, or possibly even aware of situations that threaten our lives.
Alas, though we all _must_ die someday, our survival instinct helps to prevent us from dying before our time. So, the problem _(or better, the fact)_ of suffering therefore, is inextricably linked to our ability to fend off an untimely death.
Boy that was a whole lot of assertions with almost no tangible justification outside of your proprietary definitions. So many flawed statements i literally dont know where to begin.
Look for my post in the replys and answer my argument please.
@@darthbahnsen3832 Before you criticize someone’s comment, you should know where to begin.
@@quietwyatt4045 i mean i could go ahead and rip your whole statement apart, but imma save us both the time and let that arguement sink in. It says it all.
@@darthbahnsen3832cringe
Please explain libertarian free will like I am 5 as it is incoherent to me.
How does one "freely choose what is right"? You will always choose something because it aligns with a desire (or a higher desire) you have (i.e for a reason). Sometimes you may have two equal choices and you don't know which to choose, you may poinder aspects of the choice but eventually, you will choose one because you have identified something that is more desirous..or you toss a coin. .......In all of this, what does it mean to freely choose?
Logically how does a neuron/mechanism 'freely choose'? If you pick it for a reason it is not free. If it is a guess or picked at random how is it 'you' instead of the coin that made the choice?
Yea I don't get it either.
Libertarian free will is the excuse to allow God to be all good and create a bad world, and then place the blame on the world for being bad. There doesn't seem to be any function or reason for it other than to assign blame.
It can't be demonstrated, and any attempt to reconcile it with neuroscience has been a post hoc tap dance.
the way Sartre put it (and I like) is that my desires, reasons, etc can act as influences on but they don't determine the outcome...could that be real, and if so do we have it? Who knows (not me) but if we can assume it for the sake of argument and still show that there is a problem then I think that is better
I have pretty much always been an atheist/pessimistic agnostic but I still like the idea of libertarian free will. I agree that part of it is about blame/praise but it also just seems to fit my phenomenology better. It seems to me like I have a very strong experience of feedom, like when I am trying to do a rock to fakie on the skateboard and I have that moment when I can jump off into a knee slide or try to bring the wheels back over the coping. in that moment, to me, it seems like I am poised between the two alternatives and my fear and desire to pull of the trick etc are both tugging at me, but then *I* choose which to do...I grant that this could be an illusion but I don't think that has anything to do with the existence of a God
@@onemorebrown Thank you for replying, yes I don't think the idea of libertarian free will is coupled to God (or to blame/praise). I had been a non-believer for a long time, and being a creative person I still strongly believed in free will. About 3 years ago I heard Sam Harris on the matter and then proceeded to consume and understand as much as I could, I intellectually did not believe in free will anymore...and I will say over time the emotional feeling of free will has also gone... Now I actively search for information on every subject I can, I believe opportunities are pure luck but the more you search the greater the chance of finding a gem. I am still as creative as ever but I look for more diversity.
I am a great believer in the power of unconscious thought, I often go to bed with a complex problem, and the next day the solution comes so 'freely'. I think the same goes for your example of skateboarding, so much is happening in your brain that the moment you pull it off there is a reward, a feeling of freedom... but your brain had been doing an astounding number of computations to get that trick just right (or abort).
But you have not explained one bit of libertarian free will, when you have that fear and the desire to pull it off and both are tugging at you, how do you choose which to do? I can understand if it is the strongest tug by some complex weighting system that wins... but if it is not that, then what is it? Is it just random? What other logical mechanism is there? It seems there is no escaping the causal chain, and randomness does not even help, anyway, randomness might not even be a thing according to superdeterminism.
I just don't get it.
You go on and on and on when its actually really simple. Free will is a total nonsequitor that im tired of hearing from christians in these discussions. Its the properties of your gods that should be the center of the arguement, not the properties of provably fallible humans or imaginary invisioned worlds. This world, the earth, is whats being discussed.
Premise 1: god could be powerful enough to redeem without the need for objective suffering.
Premise 2: living beings objectively suffer.
Conclusion: god is not powerful enough to redeem without objective suffering.
There is no way around it my friend. He creates us intending us to suffer, or hes a liar. The foundation of all suffering comes from god. Unless hes lying, which you couldnt possibly argue that you know the bible to be true unless youre immortal or have a time machine. And thats assuming its not just the mad ravings of highly evolved primates.
That doesnt even get into the problem of solipsism or how axioms are acknowledged.
P1 Is false, all powerful doesn’t mean do anything including resolve paradoxes or side-step all necessities. The conclusion also doesn’t follow from the premises even if p1 was true, as it ignores God simply willing suffering being the means to redemption for whatever reason. This argument is akin to saying God is powerful enough to make a banana appear in front of me, no banana is appearing in front of me, therefore God doesn’t exist. It ignores Gods will being part of the equation.
As for solipsism or axioms, those are issues for atheists, they have no bearing in a world where God exists, as God could simply tell someone he exists (and many argue they have a book or personal experiences where he’s done just that) and you’ve satisfied all the needs of knowledge solipsism is false and axioms are not needed.