Andrew absolutely destroyed you.

DON'T TALK OVER ME! Then proceeds to talk over you the entire time. This guy is beyond insufferable. I fundamentally and concretely wanted to slap the shit out of him.

Oh what a genius observation. If I understand what your analogy is before you explain that’s how good it is.

This analogy is incoherent. If the magical domino you are positing could make a choice about which direction to fall, it would necessarily mean that it was capable of overriding the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics did not dictate some dimension of movement. Easy enough to assert, but this necessitates rendering both the laws of physics and causality itself incoherent. In fact the domino has no choice. Whether it falls left or right is predetermined by the laws of physics just as much as whether it falls at all. You're asking us to imagine an impossible situation and then asserting that situation to be the case. The argument essentially reduces to this: Imagine a domino that has free will in one dimension, but not all dimensions. That domino represents a human. Therefore humans have free will. QED. You need to demonstrate that it is possible to choose to fall either left or right in some literal sense, and that the choice is not pre-determined by the atoms in your body bouncing around according to the laws of physics. No offence, but aren't you well into a PhD? You should be able to construct much more sound arguments than this.

This debate is the reason why Vaush hates the British so much.

I mean clipping his hyperbole isnt an argument you troggs

This argument doesn't interact with the argument people who say we don't have free will are making. You're just using a different definition to skirt past the real argument, which is that if the desires themselves are ultimately dictated by causality, your choices are not meaningfully "free." It is helpful to distinguish between volitional and non-volitional actions. It is not helpful to dodge the question of free will be conflating it with volitionality.

Haven't watched the whole thing yet. Still waiting for him to justify why other species of animals should be awarded the same moral consideration as humans

Actually based

Sorry, but saying the Panthers weren't effective kind of undercuts your credibility.

Why Catholicism PP? Why not Islam or Judaism or Christianity?

Vaush fanboys' cope level is at 11 Que the 'Vaush isn't leftist' denials😂

Lmao a wild vaush appears

started a Christianity grift to escape obscurity and it backfired hard.

still vegan? cause you didnt mention all the meat eating in the bible. wouldnt be surprised if you gave it up at this point.

theres a great psychology study that shows tht when religious people are confronted with conflicting morals in their religion, they conviently just "update what god thinks" or reinterpret their bible. google Religion does not determine your morality . It is just Egoism in disguise. Stirner calls people like this cowards and "Involuntary Egoists"

And no one cares 😭 stfu

After almost seeing my own brain because of eye-rolling so much at the sensationalist clickbaity “no free will” videos by accomplished thinkers, i’m finally seeing some responsible handling of the subject. its crazy how sensationalising this subject has warped people into hard determinism, when even the accomplished thinkers that I mentioned before (with some exceptions), when pushed to the limit of their argument, will admit they are only sure that will isn’t free, but they can’t outright claim will is a total fabrication. in other words the claim that there is no “free will” doesn’t mean there is no will or agency outright, it just means that we don’t have total control like we colloquially believe. but rather than presenting this nuance with care, they will purposefully sensationalise and go with “free will is an illusion”. now we have hard determinism in the atheist community, basically taking the shape of a religion in my opinion. totally misguided stuff.

Vaush is a DNC apologist lib, not a leftist.

someone like DD isn't worth debating tbh for starters he just outright calls any argument that isn't his own 'mumbo jumbo' despite him talking like a superstitious idiot. Secondly, he CONSTANTLY interrupts, but when someone (like this guy who merely muttered a word under his breath thinking about what DD was saying) slightly interrupts him, even for good reason like trying to understand his shite, he flies off the handle... You'd have a more productive and less one sided conversation with a fucking toddler.

Classic narcissist. Grossly violates his own standards and then pretends he's the victim

great and very rare mythical PP 😮

chat was sooooo bitchy too, like just unable to engage with any joking or sarcasm. So offended over the word "snob"...

Everyone's interpretation of morality so subjective wtf... this is really basic stuff

the what principles of sufficient reason? I couldn't catch that.

Foppish-barnet ..Smh!

It is irrational to presume a supernatural explanation for the existence of everything as the only viable explanation.

lmao, you call it an ‘ippa’ instead of an ‘I. P. A.’

❤❤

You'd think bringing in a bunch of socially conservative Catholics would be right up Andrew's alley.

Cafeteria Catholicism isn’t it here? Bible is clear, being gay is wrong ( even though Jesus was gay , he had two dads for a start.) And the pope (king of the pedos ) didnt have a problem with sex outside of marriage, just as long it was with alter boys . I bet your lectures at Durham and Newcastle universities must’ve absolutely dreaded having to listen to your verbal diarrhoea . what utter cack you talk .

I just made a video debunking name the trsit and i would like to know what you thinknof it

This silly lib keeps interrupting but the other silly woman lib keeps telling andrew to stop he diddnt get one sentence in

Vaush has a history of attacking/insulting people he disagrees yet he is fine with a CP market

even if you were omniscient yourself, how would you test to know if someone else is? these properties are just made up bollocks.

Aron is really bad at philosophy

Nonsense, you, your, reason, self is created by Causation. There is no free will because there is no self to be free. The you the Brain is lying to you about is nothing but experitual programing. It's an illusion. The drcisions you make are only the culmination of that programming.

21:48 Why not both, though?

You've never worked a job mate.

This was hilarious.

just some minutes into the video and i hope and i pray that my search has ended to make some good quality notes

Extortion is not regulated that is the problem If a small amount of ppl control the majority of the opportunities, and shelter and food are not human rights, how can one prevent themselves from being extorted ?

My goodness, I feel like I just witnessed a murder.

The PhD debating for atheism in this video is a Christian now.

do you think you dont exist?

Wow. This guy should 100% be in prison.

Science relies on the premise that the universe is ultimately well founded with consistent cause and effect. One long complex ever evolving equasion where the sub-equasions will be consistent and repeatable if they can be completely isolated from other outside factors and elements. Demonstrating cause and effect. X+Y=Z. Allowing for Z to become a cause for a later effect. Everything has an infinitesimal ripple down the line into later causes and effects. But the space and time between these things means that influence of concurent events will only be causes within much later events. The way a mind experiences thought requires a cognitive function and an abstraction device to be able to receive inputs, give outputs and store both data and derived conceptual abstractions of data. As such the moment anything interacts with a mind there is a physical cause and subsequent effect. Bio electrical dispersal or otherwise. The illusion of free will comes not from the outcome being veiled in secrecy. It comes from the fact that a mind is never the same from one moment to the next due to experience, bio degredation and repair, distractions, evolving patterns in the neural net. There is always something slightly altering which allows for changes in response and as such a situation is always slightly different even if very similar to prior ones. So the determanist claims that you cannot think otherwise due to your causal stimuli (both external to the body and internal to the body) resulting in an effect which could not be any other as your physical brain including bioelectrical circuitry of neural net would only reach that result in that moment. The determanist argument is akin to the sage saying "It is Elephants all the way down." Free Will being defined in a very narrow way is the only way to void a determanist argument. Essentially you have determanists who have no free will and ignore it as an issue, determanists who become fatalists. Free Will advocates who accept the premise of determanism because cause and effect, but they try and reconcile it and Free will advocates who just describe Will but then say because there is Will it is free. Ultimately look at the universe as an complex equasion and each thing in it as a function which is it's own complex equasion within the greater one. The individual is there to perform whatever their function is supposed to be. If you stop there, then no free will. If we say that the how you perform that function is your agency then you have free will. Doesn't matter if athiest or theist. Argument works the same way. Cognision is a survival adaptation, agency of decision making is an exertion of will. I would say that is a very narrow position that begs the question by nearly grandfathering in the word free just by assuming agency, and in this case I think determanists have a point. But I find it useful to behave as if I have free will, because then I accomplish things and feel happier. This is also the whole reason to have cognition, and abstraction of senses. That is, improve your condition not just survive but thrive as long as possible.

Hey! I was wondering if you could make a reaction video to Tikhistory on Hegels' "ideobabble."

How long does it take for illegal aliens to be called undocumented citizens of america? Less then 2 yrs. How long until they are allowed to vote as undocumented american citizens? Same 2 yrs in time for 2024 election! Andrew for the win! You pretentious smug deaf know it alls. I wish these 2 could revisit this debate now. Look and see you naysayers go silent with mud on your face! ANDREW WITH THE WIN!