I'm going to try to channel Guillaume Bignon ( my favorite compatibilist )and say that the man is not responsible for the child dying because he could not do so EVEN IF HE WANTED TO. The conditional ability to do otherwise strikes again!😂

Have you read Bryan Frances’ new paper on the absurd problem of evil? It’s a similar question of how much evil is too much

Does Antony think Crummett is putting forth a debunking argument? He is not. Her responses seemed aimed at a completely different argument than what he is arguing.

Does Copan share the Divine World Council view?

I enjoyed this discussion.

This was really good. Thanks guys!

The discussion does touch on the ambiguity of "moral responsibility", but imo there needs to be more focus on this point or you could just have two people using very different meanings without that being clear to the audience. If you are arguing against compatibilism, I would be pushing the importance of the "basic desert", "pure backwards" type of moral responsibilty, along the lines used by Pereboom and Caruso.

Really good discussion! Nice job Taylor, Justin, and Jordan. One of the things that keeps me open to compatibilism are luck objections to libertarianism. A future discussion of those objections could be good.

What is that terrible and awful squeaking sound that no one bothered to correct??

Great content. Way2 many commercials

I enjoyed this discussion very much

This is not a great theory for Christian’s to adopt, it brings back the moral dilemma from Plato , where our morals are simply the arbitrary will of the gods. Christian’s have said the gods nature is goodness and that how to get around this, but once you say that you have to reject any account of god commanding people to commit acts of evil or acts that humans outside of those commands would be immoral to commit.

Define evil? By intent. By Deed. Who defines what either of those are? God. He has moral carte Blanche within his moral code( which he determines) He is only evil if and only if he says he is. So, if all values come from God-Devine command theory, God can’t logically be evil but… the problem once again of randomness. For example, babies burning in Hell either in principle or practice, is Just/ good, if God says it is. However, if it’s evil, it’s also evil because he says it is. How then to rescue the God concept from charges of randomness? Only one God can be true. By the process of elimination , the God that does exist is maximally great. No other being could compare . This rules out any competition conceptually, morally as well as numerically . There can be no other. This is why, in my opinion , the fear of God is the begining of wisdom. The soft tissue goes to Gods character. He has to possess the other 3 omni qualities but omni benevolent ?God can be, from our perspective ,the latter, nuetral , or a meta Zeus’ At this point it’s all anthropogenic projection( God has to be his own category. It’s how God avoids implalement on either of the horns of the Europhro dilemma. The true third choice. God can not be boxed in by A vs Non A logic. A case can be made that he creates logic just as with space and time. You can’t put God in a test tube either. So, now we need a bridge of sorts between God and us. The argument from intuition. Christian’s would say the Holy spirit. Using Trent Horns argument that an evil God is counter intuitive-he thus gives it a low probability, then Babies burning in Hell, in practice or principle is inconceivable . Possibly then, impossible Our moral pre subs coming from God, can’t violate gods character can they? This goes for any slam dunk intuitions of a similar magnitude. There might be a way arround this though. Calvinists and PSA Christian’s would claim not only is our ontology so depraved but so is our moral epistomology . That is, assuming we can think consecutively still, we see by our( in this scenario, ) warped Pre subs that infant Damnation is evil. PSA and Calvinism have more moving parts, are less in accord with ocumms razor thus less likely to be true fortunately. As to what’s left of Christianity then I don’t know. That’s another dissuasion.🙂

I like this, there is evidence for every religion. I do hold my beliefs, but I also acknowledge they could be wrong because none of us will know for sure until death which religion is true. Edit: if any

the reason belief in god is good is not because you're believing in god, but because you believing in god builds a community for you to be in. Community is good, amd you don't need to believe in God to have a community.

1. Morality is relative and what one condiders right, another may consider wrong and if you want someone to be punished then that's a thin line between justice and a grudge 2. We can have purpose without God. We could make our own purpose. 3. You do realize telling someone everything happens for reasons can make them feel worse, right? Because then they wonder what they did wrong to deserve this. 4. All relationships are valuable and tramsformitive, so no argument here. I do believe in God god, but only your last point here.

The reason this doesn't really work is because it means God didn't create morality and god is supposed to create everything.

I've been an incompatiblist for as long as I've been aware of the debate. I'm now reconsidering. Thanks Jordan! Please host more discussions on this! I've already watched your whole playlist foreknowledge and freewill.

"Fact: I will eat drumstick, if I am in KFC -> I know I will eat drumstick, if I go to KFC -> I go to KFC to eat the drumstick -> Fact: I will eat drumstick, if I am in KFC" Therefore, False?

As for Dr. Capes, I expected him to argue why the leeway conception of freedom is a necessary condition for moral responsibility rather than sourcehood. Since both scholars did their doctoral dissertations on this topic, I anticipated that they would provide clear insights into these important concepts. Although my expectations weren't fully met, I still appreciated their modest and friendly discussion.

The default position is not about being a compatibilist. The default assumption is that humans have free will. Both sides agree that humans have free will.

Most, if not all, compatibilists and most, if not all, incompatibilists believe that human beings have free will. However, compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with causal determinism, while incompatibilists believe the two are incompatible. If this is the case, Dr. Cyr could provide positive evidence supporting compatibilism. However, his evidence focuses on the existence of free will, which is not the main point of discussion here.

Jordon - Streamyard doesn’t have a limit. I have the free version and I’ve done up to 4 hours. Unless you’re pre-recording and saving it down then there might be a limit.

Great discussion, Jordan! I like the friendly conversational debate format.

This is the kind of debate that Christian Apologetics needs more of on freewill: respectful, moderate disagreement from actual experts.

*THE FOLLY and FALLACY of BELIEVING FREEWILL is COMPATIBILE with DETERMINISM: ------->* By definition Reformed Theology is “fatalism”, ergo, any conception of “free-will” has no meaning whatsoever and therefore does not exist on Calvinism: *Fatalism Defined:* [xxa] [“fatalism” is defined as “The doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable.”], [xxb] [“fate” is defined as “The force, principle, or power that predetermines events”], [xxc] [by definition the sovereign Calvinist potter God is the ultimate force, principle and power that predetermines events] [xxd] The sovereign Calvinist potter God is a “Closed Theist”; it is 100% impossible for the potter God to be an “Open Theist”; the “Closed Theist” potter God cannot tolerate random molecules or rogue dust particles; [xxe] The sovereign Calvinist potter Gods “foreknowledge” is based upon the irrefutable fact that he is the “author” and “cause” of everything that happens; the potter God does not look down through the corridors of time in order to “see or learn” what happens; the potter God knows what happens because he is the “author and cause” of what happens. According to Reformed Theology’s presuppositions, beliefs, claims, doctrines and apologetic, i.e. Calvinism, the sovereign Calvinist potter God, prior to Creation, permanently, irreversibly and “fatalistically” “plans”, “authors”, “ordains”, “decrees”, “predestines” and intends to actualize, everything that happens and nothing happens that the potter God did not “cause” to happen. To that end the sovereign Calvinist potter God “fatalistically”, i.e. “monergistically determines” the following: -------> *Prior to Creation the sovereign Calvinist potter God: ------- >* [01] He “fatalistically” “Unconditionally Elects” the preferenced Calvinist lambs. [02] He “passes over” the names of the nonchosen non-elect goats people. [03] He “Limits the Atonement” to *ONLY* those whom he has whimsically and randomly chosen to be “Unconditionally Elected”. *After Creation the sovereign Calvinist potter God: ------- >* [04] He “fatalistically” “authors”, “causes” and “actualizes” the fall of Adam and Eve which then “causes” them to be “Totally Depraved” and “Invincibly Ignorant” with reprobate “natures” and “wills” unable to do any good. [05] He “fatalistically” “plans”, “authors”, “causes” and “actualizes” every “secondary cause”, “way and means”, of compatibilism. [06] He “fatalistically” at some unknown and unexpected random moment in time, after the preferred elect darlings are born, the sovereign Calvinist potter God “fatalistically” manipulates their minds, through a kind of Vulcan mind-melding process, unsuspectingly forcing them to become “regenerate”, and unsuspectingly forcing them to have “faith”, against their “Totally Depraved” and “Invincibly Ignorant” reprobate natures and will. [07] He “fatalistically” *”Irresistibly Graces” ONLY* the randomly prechosen elect Calvinist lambs. [08] He "fatalistically" forces/causes people to be regenerate and have "faith" against their "Totally Depraved" and "Invincibly Ignorant" nature and will. [09] He “fatalistically” *”Preserves the Calvinist Saints”* the OSAS, the randomly prechosen elect Calvinist *”Saints”* against their *“Totally Depraved” and “Invincibly Ignorant”* nature and will by making it impossible for them to not believe. As you can see, on Reformed Theology the sovereign Calvinist potter God *”IS NOT”* omnibenevolent, he *”DOES NOT”* love everybody, he *”intentionally”* condemns people to Hell by passing over them, he “wills” for people to perish, he “wills” for people to not love him, he “wills” for people to be “Totally Depraved” and “Invincibly Ignorant”, he barbecues people in Hell for his own good selfish glory, he barbecues people in Hell for his own good sadistic pleasure, he “glories” in being whimsical, hateful, discriminatory, unjust, merciless toward the nonchosen, non-elect goat people. On Provisionism, the Provisionist GOD, is omnibenevolent, i.e. HE loves everybody on the day they are born, HE does not wish for anyone to perish, HE wills for everyone to be saved, HE makes provision for everyone to be Saved *”IF”* they will only respond positively to the Calling Ministry of the Holy Spirit. So I’ll leave it to the reader to decide; [1] if “free-will” is compatible with determinism on Calvinism; and [2] which of the two views of the GOD of the Bible reflects and is the best representative of “the Greatest Possible GOD”; the non-omnibenevolent Calvinist God or the omnibenevolent Provisionist GOD? .

This was nice. I’ve never thought of the Shark case

Another conversation between two smart guys who don’t agree on an important age old question/issue. Entertaining but not sure what to do with the info. Would like to hear more from each of them regarding the practical (life living) entailment of each position.

(captions for expression only ) ah , free will , the most useless concept in the history of mankind openeing his big mouth and Nothing of Substance coming out , what so ever ANY action you take is going to be DETERMINED BY prior reasons , OR it's going to be Random , no reasons to the action you took where is this ''other slot'' to even PUT THINGS IN ??? where is it ? how do you ''insert free will'' in to a slot ... that doesn't exist ? and btw , ''randomness'' is an actual force IN the universe , so we KNOW that That exists , we ALSO know that Most things in the universe ARE determined , so we have That ... but , here's the kicker , RANDOMNESS ... IS A FORM OF DETERMINISM , so actaully what we'be got .... is just >>> DETERMINISM ... ... what else .. is there ... ? what is free wil ? how does it work ? where does it fit in the dichotomy , that isn't a dichotomy to begin with ? where does it come from ? who gave it to you ? people can make up some damn stories , like the bible/god being a ''source of morality'' and things , while asking Anyone in the world if it's immoral to drown babies and people , they ALL say ... yes, all the while ... their so called ''source OF morality'' ... killed the entire world by drowning , including all the babies alive at that time ... ??? explain THAT ONE to yourself , if you can ... people are the most IMMORAL ( without even knowing it ) IGNORANT , SAD bunch of apes , if i ever saw one ... or 8.1 BILLION of them , jesus effing christ , and that's about ALL that that name is good for , to have ga good CURSE at the universe and the dumb people living in it ... FFS decrees , dictations and commandments will NEVER BE ANY FORM OF MORALITY , they're all words assosciated with SLAVERY and/or ''having a master'' , that's NOT morality , that just pure MENTAL SLAVERY and PHYSICAL SLAVERY just the same , because you won't have the same experiences you Would have , if you didn't WASTE time praying and going to church for f*ck all... the experiences people have just completely missed over the last 2000+ years , you don't even want to think about them , people couldn't handle that , not for a second , it's APPALLING to live in a world like this , where 7.6 BILLION out of 8.1 billion of this so called ''social species'' , needs to run around this planet with the notion that their own Agency Detection System ... created the universe ... for them . this childish notion has held humanity back for long enough , hasn't it ? we didn't call it the FIRST ERROR IN philosphy ... just for the fun of it , did we ? ''making up gods'' , we put at Nr.1 , out of 10.000+ errors our brain makes on a daily basis think about That for a damn minute and ask yourself why ATHEISTS ... ALSO TALK TO THE UNIVERSE , because we have the SAME AGENCY DETECTION SYSTEM , we just don't give the thing a name and a face , like an ignorant child that needs approval from it's daddy ... we think '' who the hell am i even talking to '' and we move on with our day , but we have the same thoughts ... when things go wrong in my life , i CURSE the universe , like it was the uinverses fault when things go My way in life , i can be thankful to the universe , it just pops up in my brain , but i KNOW WHY we do that and why it's AN ERROR in the brain .... we named it the TYPE 1 and TYPE 2 ERRORS .... for a good reason ... because it's a DELUSION ... the same delusions that give people the childish notion of ''free will'' , it might SEEM like you ''have free will'' , but that doesn't mean it corresponds to ANYTHING in reality .... , that is the illusion/delusion your own brain makes up , because you think you have the option of choice , while EVERY choice ... is determined by prior reasons , no matter how far back you want to go with it , it always comes back to ''determined'' or ''random'' , those are the only two options you have to work with , but since randomness , as we know , is a form of determinism , there isn't another option Then D E T E R M I N I S M

Great conversation!

This was great, Jordan! Keep up this good work here. We need more of these basic discussions in our debates in free will.

Not everything is a rearrangement of matter. Humans were able to produce matter from energy in laboratory experiences in the 1930s. Jehovah God created the universe from his unlimited energy. See Isaiah 40:26. And compare _Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?_ (1998), pp. 88-91.

Why do Protestants pronounce the name “Jesus” differently? It seems very affected but if there’s a good reason for it my apologies.

A little over an hour of discussion with no solution to the logical problem. The Achilles' heel of every iteration of trinitarian doctrine is composition. Every explanation here, excepting those indistinct from modalism, falters on divine composition. Every composite is caused and dependent. And since the doctrine of the Trinity (DT) affirms three really different (distinct) persons in one God, God is then caused and dependent.

They use the "appeal to authority" fallacy by mentioning a Nobel Prize winner who was deluded. They make the false assumption that because math works so well, it must have been invented by God. The three points in Craig's 'proof' are all fallacial. Point 1 is completely incorrect because the physical laws that drive our Universe have matching mathematical laws since, as the video admits, all of physics is expressed as math. There is no happy coincidence here. They are two sides of the same coin. Point 2: they provide no evidence of this except their own wonder at how well math works (which of course it does because the laws of Physics govern the Universe). And Point 3 which doesn't even follow from Points 1 and 2. Only stupid or deluded people can buy these fallacial 'proofs.' Any mathematician who buys into this needs to retire.

I'm just finishing up Guillaume's book "Confessions of a French Atheist". That's been a great read. Next, I'll look into the other book he mentions here - "Excusing Sinners ..."

I'd love to hear you interview the KZbinr of "Faith Because of Reason" on his critiques of WLC's (and Plantinga's) reformed epistemology. He has at least two good videos related to the topic (one on presuppositionalism and one on internalism vs externalism), but it'd be great to hear him raise objections to WLC and have WLC respond (or even Moon).

I think this is a very convoluted way to redefine the word "beginning". Either Kalam: all that begins to exist has a cause, the universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. Or eternality: the universe does not have a beginning, therefore it needn't have a cause. However, eternality exists only on paper. Bubble universes, multiverse, eternal inflation, wave universes, etc. exist as a theory only because Kalam would be the alternative, and therefore God is. Let me use the multiverse as an example. By definition the universes of the multiverse do not interact, which makes all other universes definitionally immeasurable. Therefore they are at least as imaginary as God. It also moves the question of "did the universe begin to exist" to "did the multiverse begin to exist", shifting the uncaused cause question simply back a level.

Natures doesn’t know. The person does

Pascal's wager only works if humanity has 1 religion 😂 simple as that

Good explanation

Rival timestamps: 00:00 - Introduction: Cartesian external world skepticism 00:55 - What is skepticism? Skepticism in different domains 02:03 - Why is skepticism to be taken seriously? 1. Expert disagreement 2. Better understanding of our epistemic concepts 05:12 - The Evil Demon 08:00 - A cartesian closure based external-world-skeptical argument 08:26 - Seven responses to the argument 08:32 - First response (against P1): Reliabilism 10:24 - Second response (against P2): Sensitivity 11:44 - Third response (against P1): Contextualism 13:46 - Fourth response: Moorean shift 15:19 - Fifth response (against P1): Hinge propositions 16:42 - Sixth response: Chalmers 19:27 - Seventh response (against P1): Inference to the best explanation ("So if we compare the theories..."), a counter argument 23:57 - Responding to objections to P3 of the counter argument 24:27 - First objection 31:58 - Second objection 33:54 - Third objection 37:32 - An objection to IBE 40:22 - Closing thoughts ("That is to say...")