Is Determinism the True Nature of Reality?

Reasonable Faith and Avoid Project team up again for this cinematic short film on the naturalistic view and consequences of "determinism."
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
"You and I are no more than biological machines, organisms built by DNA for the sole purpose of passing it on. Just as the universe is comprised only of matter, we, too, are purely physical objects." This view is called naturalism, a view that has come into prominence because of the successful pursuits of modern science.
Naturalism tells us that nothing exists beyond the physical realm. If we cannot measure it, see it, or touch it - it does not exist. By following the scientific method, we have discovered the laws of physics, the descriptions of how our physical universe normally and consistently behaves. But according to naturalism, mankind is no different than its habitat. Since the universe obeys the laws of physics, we, too, are wholly subject to them.
You may have thought that a series of free choices has led you to where you are today. But according to naturalism, free will does not exist. Since human beings are merely physical entities, we are bound by the laws of cause and effect. Our actions today can be traced back to prior physical causes. In turn, these causes can be traced all the way back to the beginning of the universe. The result? All of your actions - past, present and future, have been predetermined since the universe began.
Fortunately, determinism itself is not an inevitable conclusion...

[@scroogejones6252]

"The choice is yours." I see what you did there ;)

[@abhaysreekanth]

But is it 😀

[@dakota9862]

Even as an atheist, materialism and naturalism always seemed silly to me. Thank God the Holy Spirit drew me out of that non-sense.

[@Romailjohn]

Dio ti benedica

[@martinecheverria5968]

I'm glad I can say the same. Amen!

[@PhilosophyThatMatters]

Welcome home!

[@corylohanlon]

The universe is under no obligation to make you feel good. If we were going to anthropomorphize, it'd be straight out of a horror movie. It's pretty much trying to kill everything, all the time, everywhere, usually with things that are invisible to humans. Color me shocked that a crucial aspect about it doesn't give you the warm and fuzzies.

[@dakota9862]

@@corylohanlon Idk man that one sounded better when Dawkins said it and it still sounded pretty silly lol Of course the universe is under no obligation. Nobody said it was 😂

[@speak-thetruth]

I'm so thankful to God for you dr. Craig. May God bless you and your work. I have your books, and I learn a lot great things from your books, and vidoes. I'm a youth leader, and will encourage my youth to watch your vidoes, and read your books. May God keep you for us, in Jesus name amen.

[@corylohanlon]

Ask Dr. Craig how he rationalizes the morality of brainwashing children. And then after you come to the realization that no moral system could possibly justify it... please stop brainwashing children.

[@speak-thetruth]

@@HarryNicNicholas Hey Harry! I have not heard that before. Can you provide me with some sources of what you said, if you do not mind me please? Thanks.

[@Darksaga28]

Dennett views are self defeating. He says we should not trust our "directed" thoughts, but that includes the thought "we should not trust our directed thoughts". It's so self defeating that I don't know how these atheists choose to live their lives with such an inconsistent world view.

[@Giorginho]

based

[@danyaelpecson557]

yeah, read his book "Back to Bach: Evolution on the Mind" and exactly as you said.

[@marvinedwards737]

The notion of freedom is deterministic. Without reliable cause and effect, I cannot reliably cause any effect, and would have no freedom to do anything at all. So, the notion of freedom subsumes a world of reliable causation.

[@marvinedwards737]

@Vince Kinney There are (at least) three distinct causal mechanisms: physical, biological, and rational. An object behaves differently according to how it is organized. 1. Inanimate objects are governed by physical forces. A bowling ball placed on a slope will always roll downhill controlled by gravity. 2. Living organisms are affected by physical forces by not governed by them. Place a squirrel on that same hill and he may go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. He is governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. He can even climb trees. Bowling balls cannot. 3. Intelligent species are affected by physical forces and biological drives, but are not governed by them. They are instead governed by reasoning They can choose when, where, and what they will eat. And this is where free will emerges. Now, if we wish to rescue determinism, we may assume that each of these mechanisms is perfectly reliable within its own domain. And that every event is the reliable result of some combination of physical, biological, and/or rational causation.

[@marvinedwards737]

@Vince Kinney Science disagrees. The concept is called "emergence". You can look it up in Wikipedia. There are behaviors and properties of complex organisms that cannot be explained by physics. Physics is quite adequate to explain why a cup of water will flow downhill. But it has no idea why a similar cup of water, heated, and mixed with a little coffee, hops into a car and goes grocery shopping. Goal-directed behavior showed up in the universe when the first living organisms appeared. Deliberate behavior showed up with the first intelligent species.

[@marko_duvnjak]

Great video Dr.Craig. This might surprise you but this is coming from the undergraduate student of physics. I often see incredible amount of rigor in science. Everything is very strict. But when it comes to explaining the origin of reason that we so fondly use I see great amount of disregard of this very fundamental question. I believe that such disregard comes about from our inability to explain it by anything other than something unphyscal. This makes lot of my fellow scientists very upset so they avoid the problem and even sacrifice things as important as selfconsistency just to evade inevetable logical conclusion that there is something special about inteligent life that no science can explain (given that science can explain anything). If you strictly follow determinism you esentially construct your own logical demise. All science and math have originated from our thoughts and observations. If theese thoughts and observations were deterministic than esentially we have no other choice but to think as we do. We could be wrong about something but we would not be able to notice it beacause our way of thinking is predetermined. Esentially then all the science and math have been predetermined. How can you test if something is true if you do not have a possibility of choice. This is a huge issue that no one mentions. They just say phylosophy is dead. The possibiliry of scientiffic inquiry is one of the greatest proofs of God's existence.

[@grigorysteblyanko3584]

Indeed!

[@CJUzziel]

Well done. Really simplified an issue that people tend to overcomplicate so that it is not challenged as it should.

[@RstRlx]

Let’s not get upset and respond to angry comments from naturalists. After all it is not them who make those comments but rather it is predetermined physical response of their brain that has nothing to do with their studies, persons or views :).

[@alexmala6483]

Niiiice 🙂

[@Michael-Hammerschmidt]

If the universe is deterministic then ones studies and personal views have everything to do with determining the physical response of their brain. You assume that because the result is inevitable the means by which it comes about lose all importance, or even somehow don't contribute to the result in the first place. This is precisely opposite the truth, as devoid of those studies and personal views a different result entirely would be determined. Lacking ultimate arbitration of your will is not the same as lacking a will.

[@RstRlx]

@@Michael-Hammerschmidt Good observation, but doesn’t this view assume that you chose those studies that now contribute to the response of the brain? If you objectively chose your studies then you assume that you exist, but if you is just a matter of different types of responses to different types of stimulation creating the illusion of personality then your brain just responded to some event and choose the object of your studies. So my argument is not as much in type of response of the brain (that is modified by different things like studies or well done steak) but that there is no you who responds but just predetermined responses of the one physical entity to another. Therefore the response doesn’t have to do with your view because there is no objective you to start with. No different than gears interlock with each other in a gear box, their shape will influence how they work under different conditions but not if they work (even after body dies it will respond to external world through decay), they will respond according to strictly defined algorithms.

[@marvinedwards737]

@@RstRlx The notion that the self is an illusion raises the question, "Then, who is having the illusion?". The self cannot logically be an illusion. We can look about us and empirically observe many selves, walking about, and making choices as to what they will do next.

[@RstRlx]

@@marvinedwards737 Sure, yet strictly material view of the world reduces self to a machine like being (the view with wich I disagree). The only explanation of self it gives that complexity and sheer ammount of interactions with the world gives the illusion of the superstructure we call self. So I don't think we can empiricaly observe other selves because we don't even know what self is (unless it is a complex machine) and so on materialistic view we empirically can observe other machines that have similar features but no more than that. You can observe my body doing movements with my hands or mouth or scan my brainwaves but it is not me as I understand, it is just part of my being.

[@scottmercer86]

This is so brilliant and so needed in 2021!

[@brianmabasa5251]

@@HarryNicNicholas How is it dumb?

[@kenandzafic3948]

@@brianmabasa5251 He let him watch popular atheists and he got a little mad.

[@leadfollower]

This is a beautifully done video, and the beauty of it supports the idea that there is more to the human experience than predetermined cause and effect. Thanks to both Reasonable Faith and Avoid Project for making such a great short film and sharing it with the world!

[@kenandzafic3948]

@@HarryNicNicholas I don't know why atheists pretend to be smart and then do this kind of stupidity. No, free will is not random, it is the free choices of an agent so that I am the cause of my decisions. Then try to explain moral responsibility and reason without free will? Further, give proof that free will does not exist, an empty assertion is not proof.

[@truthtvproductions9947]

beautifully explained dr craig love from india god bless your ministry

[@Chomper750]

Hope you and your family are doing well in the trying times India is currently going through with the pandemic.

[@truthtvproductions9947]

@@Chomper750 thank you for your concern We all are safe by god's grace thank you for asking

[@arthurmontoya7880]

this is so funny, Ive been looking into why I intuitively disagree with calvinism and you and another apologist posted videos about it, AWESOME

[@JoshuaMSOG7]

What exactly about Calvinism? Predestination? Free will?

[@law6906]

Calvinism , from my understanding, doesn't contradict free will. God can still know your actions without controlling said actions. I believe the best analogy would be the barometer or the recorded football game.

[@arthurmontoya7880]

@@JoshuaMSOG7 so some calvinists adopt a view of gods sovereignty which logically doesnt allow for free will. that part.

[@arthurmontoya7880]

@@law6906 yeah I totally agree that foreknowledge is not determinism I meant for the calvinists who do adopt determinism

[@JoshuaMSOG7]

@@arthurmontoya7880 There are different views in Calvinism. Some called extreme Calvinism which I believe is the view your talking about that says we have no free will & everything for us is predestined. Others like R.C sproul, we have human fee will as to chose to eat between a sandwich and cereal or Go to work or not go to work. When it comes to our fallen nature we are incapable to go to God unless he chooses us first.

[@matthewbateman6487]

Cogito, ergo, sum. I cannot be a purely physical being, because anything which appeals to the five senses can be doubted. Therefore 'Mind' must be something more that merely physical.

[@marvinedwards737]

I think the key here is the notion of a "process". Mental activity is a process running on the neural infrastructure. While the process is running we're alive and thinking, but when the process stops, we die and our brain becomes nothing more than a lump of inanimate matter.

[@pepedestroyer5974]

@@marvinedwards737 no free will. You are reducible to physical chemical processes. Let an atheist philosopher school you on the topic since you are attached to your compatibilist philosophical gymnastics: The mind is the brain, and the brain is a physical system, fantastically complex, but still operating according to all the laws of physics-quantum or otherwise. Every state of my brain is fixed by physical facts. In fact, it is a physical state. Previous states of my brain and the physical input from the world together brought about its current state. They were themselves the result of even earlier brain states and inputs from outside the brain. All these states were determined by the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry. These laws operated on previous states of my brain and on states of the world going back to before my brain was formed in embryogenesis. They go back through a chain of prior events not just to before anyone with a mind existed, but back to a time after life began on this planet. When I make choices-trivial or momentous-it’s just another event in my brain locked into this network of processes going back to the beginning of the universe, long before I had the slightest “choice.” *Nothing was up to me*. Everything-including my choice and my feeling that I can choose freely-was fixed by earlier states of the universe plus the laws of physics. End of story. *No* *free will*, just the feeling, the illusion in introspection, that my actions are decided by my conscious will. Rosenberg, A. (2011). The atheist's guide to reality: Enjoying life without illusions. WW Norton & Company.

[@marvinedwards737]

@@pepedestroyer5974 But I can go back even further. All events are the reliable result of prior events from any prior point in eternity. Everything that happens will happen through reliable causal mechanisms. Oh, and this of course includes the free will event, you know, that event in which we choose for ourselves what we will do. Unfortunately, although everything could theoretically be explained in terms of the behavior of the quarks, such an explanation would be useless. So, we group things together into larger objects, giving us much fewer items to deal with. For example, we note that all of your atoms seem to go wherever you go. And instead of a lengthy description of where each atom is located, we only need to know that you're sitting there, in that booth, in the restaurant. And when the atoms in your brain decide to order the Chef Salad for dinner, the waiter knows which cluster of atoms should get the salad, and the bill for dinner. Oh, and that process in your brain, you know, the one where your atoms looked at the Steak, but recalled the bacon and eggs it had for breakfast and the double cheeseburger it had for lunch, and then decided to order the salad instead? Yeah, that process. We call that "choosing". And, if you were free of coercion or other undue influences while making that choice, then we say you "freely chose" for yourself what you would have for dinner. (Also known as a freely chosen "I will" or simply "free will").

[@nathanfranckhauser]

You can replace “determinism” with “Calvinism,” and you end in the same untenable mess.

[@karcharias811]

Nope. There is no Christian theology that does not recognize human free will, Calvinism included. The Calvinist however says that man is free, but in a limited fashion. Man is free within his own nature. We cannot do what is not in our nature to do, otherwise we are free. What is our nature? According to scripture we have a fallen nature. Therefore it is impossible for us to please God in a SALVIFIC way. So there is nothing of determinism in Calvinism, it is only on the question of Soteriology that Calvinism asserts itself, not in every area of man's existence.

[@nathanfranckhauser]

@@karcharias811 nope again. You should read Determined to Believe and update your understanding. This debate has raged on for centuries.

[@karcharias811]

@@nathanfranckhauser Determined to do what? Believe? You just confirmed my point. Thank you. ;) I have not read that book but I have read Calvin and at no time does Calvin or any Calvinists say that human beings are determined in all aspects. We are free to act WITHIN our own nature. That is not determinism, which says we are determined in ALL things. Calvinism says we are determined in only one way, salvation. These are NOT the same things which was your original assertion. " the same untenable mess" as you put it. Determined in one particular way is not determinism. It is merely one view of Soteriology and only in one particular aspect of it.

[@nathanfranckhauser]

@@karcharias811 It's just the title of a book. Lol. You should read it. You'll learn a lot about the Calvin you say you've read.

[@karcharias811]

@@nathanfranckhauser I get that, twas a twist on words. I have read Calvin's Institutes so anything else I read would be some one else's opinion on Calvin rather then Calvin himself. I prefer the horses mouth, but that is not to say I don't read commentaries.

[@nitongpelingon8374]

thank God for this great Christian philosopher

[@NoWorriesLad]

Love the video, always great content from WLC. Does anyone else agree that we need to move away from referring to the new atheists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc.)? I feel like these guys have been old news for a while now and actually we need to challenge new people who are shaping the secular culture as it stands today

[@malteeaser101]

This video is true, and I'm an atheist. I have always thought that the best argument for God, for me, is the moral argument. I don't think that the argument is sound, but it is emotionally difficult to deny its premises. I honestly think that's the arguement I would use to convince atheists, if I were a Christian.

[@JontheBerean]

I was an agnostic until 2005 When Jesus said : I am the Good Shepherd I am the True Vine I am the Way, the Truth and the Life to me , He was declaring His Deity. We as humans make claims like : I am agnostic I am a punk rocker I am a dad but they can change. If Jesus is the Son of God, as I have believed for over 15 years now, then He always has been the Truth. I hope one day your "I am" label changes. By the way, I think my whole physical family now are atheists/agnostics, they are nice people , probably morally "good" people. I know plenty of born again Christians who were trapped in all kinds of addictions etc , including me. I offer the change in people's lives who come to faith as evidence of God's existence. But not everyone will agree or see the light 🙂♥️🙏✝️

[@malteeaser101]

@@HarryNicNicholas For an atheist to say that God is immoral is like saying that chocolate ice cream objectively tastes better than strawberry, and any atheist that disagrees, so say they think strawberry tastes better, is an idiot. If God exists, you could argue about the fact that morality would still seem to come from the mind of God, and so is still made up, but it's all moot to an atheist because God doesn't exist. You can rule out morality being independent of human minds, but then you can rule out morality being anything more than subjective nonsense. There is no basis for an atheist to say that anything is objectively immoral, never mind God.

[@JontheBerean]

@@HarryNicNicholas Why do you reject the Only One who ever died for your sins ? Why do you blame God , when without Him you would never exist ? Anger will destroy you Love is the cross before you Open your eyes and see His eternal love for us , or reject Him to the grave and suffer for eternity. Jesus won't force you to love Him ❤️✝️🙏

[@JontheBerean]

@@HarryNicNicholas You say : "God is the most immoral person I know" You don't know Him . . . yet 🙏 Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’ Matthew 7:23 HCSB

[@davesimmons5217]

@@HarryNicNicholas - angry Harry. Calling everyone else stupid. While simultaneously throwing out brain dead questions, demanding an answer. And yet, you have no answers to offer. Keep holding them “nothing” cards Harry. There are two kinds of fools Harry. One willing to recognize he is a fool and seeks to get wise. And a fool who remains a fool because all he can do is mock and ridicule others as stupid, while hiding in his own ignorance. You have offered NOTHING to this thread. Go back to your comfortable echo chamber Harry. There is NOTHING for you to SEE here. It’s all imaginary to you.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. 1 Samuel 3:14 God said “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” That's Limited atonement.

[@landofw56]

Not only materialism denies free choice!!!

[@nsp74]

this dude is genius

[@ligidaykurin9106]

Brilliant man of God

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Provisionism FTW.

[@marvinedwards737]

In terms of causal determinism, no event is ever predetermined. No event can occur until its final prior causes have played themselves out. The most meaningful and relevant cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it. That is the final responsible prior cause of the deliberate action. This is an empirical fact.

[@marvinedwards737]

@@HarryNicNicholas Sorry, but you'll have to explain the contradiction, or I'll presume you just think I contradicted myself.

[@georgelewis5904]

For anyone wandering what the music is. Sounds like “in the shattering of things” by hammock

[@rickshafer6688]

Dawkins is ascrub. Always has been. Ripping the signposts of logic down, he commits regular logical falacies. Frankly it is embarrassing .

[@rickshafer6688]

@@HarryNicNicholas What idle thought ? Which 1?

[@rickshafer6688]

@@HarryNicNicholas Yea. You have no idea.

[@rickshafer6688]

@@HarryNicNicholas He borrowes. You can't see that. He takes to make his extraterrestrials garbage. To the inth that is his logical weakness - - Then I will spell it out for you. No! No logic can survive stupidity .

[@rickshafer6688]

@@HarryNicNicholas Hey, you useless scrub. Dawkins asked , said life "could have" begun . Esoterics. - - - Aaaaaaahahaha !

[@landofw56]

yes, it is

[@WayyyTooDeep]

AMAZING VIDEO. Many thanks.

[@seanleeduncan]

Thanks doc! God bless.

[@wakeg40]

Another Awesome video!!!

[@XYisnotXX]

Jesus Christ is the light of the world, outside of him there are no answers. None!

[@andrej1659]

Jesus rose from dead

[@thebrunoserge]

Who?..

[@andrej1659]

@@thebrunoserge what year is it

[@thebrunoserge]

@@andrej1659 Year of our lord Jesus? lol

[@andrej1659]

@@thebrunoserge why is it 2021

[@thebrunoserge]

@@andrej1659 Mythology

[@boltrooktwo]

Everyone can be pardoned of crimes but few develop the moral character to promote lawful behavior and overcome the desires for the pleasures of iniquity.

[@boltrooktwo]

@@HarryNicNicholas I'm an English aristocrat with a name meaning leading to a moor?

[@secondone5870]

I'm trying to translate part of the description to share with Indonesians. But the description is incomplete. Try to complete. GBU 🙏

[@ravissary79]

Convincing people they have no free will is seductive since it removes any substance from the feeling we could have done otherwise... this is initially liberating because it removes regret. But in the process it enslaves people to their environmental pressures and they begin to accept they can't merely do better, but they NEVER can, and this means we're utterly powerless cogs in a meaningless universe. This eventually leads to despair or triviality and culturally-psychopathy.

[@brianmabasa5251]

Not convincing, but telling the truth.

[@ravissary79]

@@brianmabasa5251 that's question begging and denies a literal description... even if it was the truth, people still need to be convinced of the truth.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

@@ravissary79 He's not convincing anyone. He's merely describing your worldview. Do you disagree with him??

[@ravissary79]

​@@raphaelfeneje486Dr. Craig is not a determinist and neither am I.

[@redbearwarrior4859]

If we say that we cannot be praise worthy or blame worthy without being able to do other than what we do, then how can God be praise worthy? He cannot sin. So how can He be praise worthy? Being how He could not do other than be moral. I'm a Christian asking this.

[@28786chris]

That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action. Roman's 9:11..For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil. That the purpose or predetermined counsel of God according to election might stand, not by works but of him that calleth. Ephesians 2: 8..For by grace you are saved through faith, and not of yourselves. It is a gift of God. Where is the so called Free Will in this.

[@JapaneseMessiah]

I'm curious on what your response would be to epiphenomenalism. I'm in the cartesian dualist camp that while the material and mental are different, our qualia does not have an effect on the material hence, determinism still holds true.

[@kenandzafic3948]

Actually our consciousness has effects on matter. There are neuroscience studies that confirm that mental focus can make real physical changes. Also quantum mechanics offers a great possibility for free will. Furthermore, without free will, how can you justify reason and moral responsibility.

[@drewbatey8856]

This is great!

[@umerkhattab5786]

Learn much from you sir ! But seam carrol himself rejects this mad dog naturalism

[@1StepForwardToday]

Please Dr. Craig.. PLEASE debate some Buddhists. I find educated Buddhists are the most fun to debate bcuz the Buddhist philosophy and worldview is so beautiful and compassionate. Imo, I have very strong arguments against the Buddhist worldview, but, I'd absolutely love to hear Dr. Craig's approach to a debate with Buddhists, and the Buddhist worldview. (Dear Father, pretty please with sugar🙏🤞) Note: My #1 argument against Buddhism is that Buddhism proposes that everything that exists is [impermanent] and transitory; thus, all is considered illusory. Buddhists believe that everything is in a constant state of "change". (This is called the wheel of samsara). Samsara is said to be the endless wheel of "change" that is responsible for all change of all things. This wheel of samsara (change) is also specifically responsible for karma (cause and effect), and the potentially endless rebirths each individual will experience until, and unless one balances karma and also escapes the attachment to identity of "self". But, if everything is impermanent, then, even the principles of Buddhism are impermanent and can't be relied upon. The entire Buddhist worldview, (the entire Buddhist reality) and all of its principles would be subjective and subject to change (& thus, they could not be relied upon). Absolute truth of reality, requires some absolute (permanent) aspect, of such reality. Any reliable worldview of reality [requires].. something.. to be unchanging, permanent, indestructible, unconditional, subject to none/nothing, objective, absolute, timeless, immaterial, eternal, etc.. in order for that worldview of reality to be reliable. Otherwise, every single principle, law, pattern, and belief within your worldview is impermanent, subjective and subject to change. Because, all things would be fleeting and subject to change at any given time. In such a reality.. nothing is absolute, and everything is transient and MUST eventually change.. which consequentially, would thus include [every principle and belief that Buddhism stands upon]. Those too, would be illusory, and transient and hence, not based upon reality, n thus, not reliable, nor objectively true. There must always be some fundamental source point of absolute permanence in order to have a constant and consistent semblance of absolute reliability on any such worldview of reality. One Buddhist I debated suggested that the wheel of samsara (change) itself is the one aspect of permanence in their view of reality. This would mean that samsara itself isnt actually change, but rather, it [causes] the effects of change upon everything in existence. Tho, this would seem to mean that our free will itself, (including our own thoughts) are not free, but rather, they are all merely effects, (ie. the inescapable predetermined consequences of a series of prior events). Just as Dr Craig explained in this video, any Budhist who claims that only samsara is impermanent, would be forced into the same conclusion of naturalism, regarding freewill. None of our actions.., not even our thoughts, would be free, nor real. They too, would be merely a predetermined forced reactive effect along the singular chain of all cause and effects (which links and predetermines all things). Thus, everything, (including our thoughts and actions), would be reduced to nothing more than that of tumbling dominoes.

[@mystery6411]

Against sadghuru i wanna see that

[@1StepForwardToday]

@@mystery6411 Oh God.. that'd be so much fun to watch. I'm a Christian, n thus, hold bias in favor of Christianity. And, tho I'm well aware I could absolutely be incorrect.. nonetheless, imo, as it stands, personally, I think that (objectively speaking), WLC would probably run circles around Sadghuru in a debate. I believe that [objective truth] is most fundamentally in the truth of Christianity. Therefore, those who don't hold a Christian worldview of reality, imo, will not, (and can not) have objective truth on their side. Furthermore, WLC is a Dr. of philosophy and world renowned logician (as well as the likely premier Christian apologist debater in the world). Nevertheless, I'm with you.. I'd love to hear these two debate. I think its important bcuz many people have been swept up by Sadghurus talks and videos. Someone should try to set this up with the "Capturing Christianity" KZbin debate channel.

[@drcraigvideos]

Dr. Craig participated in a dialogue with Dr. Sik Fa Ren, a Buddhist professor, on Science and Religion at the University of Hong Kong in March 2016. You can find this dialogue on our "ReasonableFaithOrg" channel. Dr. Craig has also address the beliefs of Buddhists in Question of the Week #219 and a video available on the website (Media > Other Videos > Beliefs of Buddhists Video). - RF Admin

[@herbertcharlesbrown1949]

There are naturalistic models of the mind which are consistent with free will

[@jaikee9477]

Nope, those models don't make sense. Ultimately there is no free will if naturalism is true.

[@Xgy33]

love it

[@alittleofeverything4190]

At the pace we perceive time, Free Will seems logical, but if you slow time down to a picosecond, and you could measure everything firing in the brain, it seems determined to me.

[@drcraigvideos]

In Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (2nd ed.), Dr. Craig and J. P. Moreland provide five reasons why findings from neurobiology, such as the experiments of Benjamin Libet, do not in fact demonstrate determinism. For one, it is self-defeating, since determinism entails the inability to reach rational conclusions via deliberation. - RF Admin

[@alittleofeverything4190]

@@drcraigvideos Thanks for your reply. We perceive rational decisions, which is good enough to maintain well-being. Even a determinist wakes up everyday facing choices, but it seems inescapable to me that once a choice is made, it could not have happened any other way. Once again, just my opinion.

[@josuedeletras]

Excelente calidad

[@JackPetersonEnergy]

I love you WLC but I don't see how molinism is much different from determinism. If God knows every conceivable choice we would make under every conceivable circumstance then we have no more freedom than computer programs. This is why I subscribe to open theism.

[@drcraigvideos]

Hi Jack! Molinism is indeterministic in that it gives a causal account of free will that precludes determinism regarding free choices. Dr. Craig defines libertarian free will as "the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine one's choice." So, under Molinism, God can use his middle knowledge to incorporate indeterministic behavior in his exhaustive planning of history. On open theism, God lacks the middle knowledge necessary for such a robust view of divine providence. - RF Admin

[@CS_Lewis]

Whats the point of arguing me if i am predestined to not believe in determinism and its that all my brain has set for me. The same applies to everything in this world, why arguing people who dont share the same thoughts with me and also religious people who are destined to believe in such thing and they cant choose the other way round. In fact what is the point to argue if nature has bring us to this world to have diiferent worldviews and conflict each other and that we dont have any other choice but to disagree with each other. But we still try our best to change someone else's mind. By saying that, we say that nature is complex and paradox and bears no particular shape. Wait, dont argue with me, as long as iam destined to write this, there is no point in arguing me afterall.

[@Michael-Hammerschmidt]

Humans need freedom to rationally accept truth no more than Chess AI need freedom to rationally decide the best move. In both cases there is only one correct answer and if we are reasoning and weighing alternatives properly we would hope that we are inevitably brough to only the true conclusion.

[@stephenglasse9756]

Chess AI needs the ability to discern competing alternatives (chess isn't math there's more than one option) and make a decision. On naturalism your choice to believe in naturalism is itself predetermined. You had no choice. Plus mental states are clearly different to physical-chemical states. 'Fear' isn't the same as a neuron firing.

[@Michael-Hammerschmidt]

@@stephenglasse9756 Whether or not determinism is true you had no choice. There are two possible causal reasons for occurence: determinism and indeterminism. The former, a cause that necessitates it's effect. The latter, an event with no cause. There is another name by which we know this event with no cause, chance. That which happens without a cause is the very esscence of randomness. So I ask, whereinlies human freedom? This is no less true of the causality of the soul than of material things. Even in the soul, events are either caused or uncaused, so from where does the freedom come?

[@Michael-Hammerschmidt]

@@stephenglasse9756 However, I certainly do agree with Dr. Craig on the part of mind-brain identity theoriests. The mind and the brain are demonstrably not identical and I can't help but feel that the growing number of eliminative materialists all suffer from aphantasia.

[@thebrunoserge]

@@Michael-Hammerschmidt "The mind and the brain are demonstrably not identical" Why? lol good luck "demonstrating" that

[@Michael-Hammerschmidt]

@@thebrunoserge It can be pretty easily demonstrated. In ontology, "Identity" means that two things posess all the same properties in common, exactly. However, this is evidently not the case for the mind and brain, because there is no one to one corospondance between the brain and minds properties. If there was, there would be no such thing as the "subconscious". And furthermore, we know that there exist brains that don't corrospond to minds at all. Dead brains. Brains that have ceased all processes. Thus, to simply state the mind and brain are identical is not enough because it does not account for the fact that the mind does not corrospond to the brain, but only to brain processes.

[@carlwimmer6270]

BOOM!

[@Top10facts569]

Ill rather be at the mercy of the holy one who took on the burden of my sin and died for my sake and ressurected is alive for all eternity and promised me eternal life than to be at the mercy of law be it scientific,religious.

[@shilohplatt789]

Atheists: NOOOO THATS NOT WHAT WE SAY AT ALL!!!!! Calvinists. Yes, we are just made for the glory of God.

[@TheMirabillis]

If the knowledge that I am sitting here in front of the computer writing this never began but is co-eternal with God, then I have no free will.

[@marvinedwards737]

Free will is the empirical distinction between a choice we make for ourselves versus a choice imposed upon us by someone or something else.

[@marvinedwards737]

@@HarryNicNicholas That's what free will is, a choice that is determined by us, by who and what we are. I'm pretty sure that any of our conscious or unconscious functions that are involved in choosing what we will do is still us making the choice. The only thing that our choice needs to be free of, is coercion and other forms of undue influence. That's the operational free will that is used when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

[@0nlyThis]

The "Laws of Nature" are no more than codifications of repeated patterns from which deviations have yet to be observed. They are descriptive, not prescriptive - though they can be predictive, based on the expectation that observed patterns will continue without deviation beyond the present. Nothing "follows" or "obeys" the Laws of Nature. If it can't be measured, it can't be used; if it can't be used, its existence/non-existence is irrelevant. A "causeless, timeless, spaceless, etc." being can be of no utility (except, perhaps, as placeholder for that which is yet to be measured), its existence/non-existence must, therefore, remain irrelevant. The concept of "Free Will" appears unique to those Western religions which propose an afterlife involving reward/punishment for virtues/failings in this life. In the reincarnation religions of the East there is no notion of reward/punishment, one simply takes on the body best suited to fulfilling one's final desire. Ultimately, the problem with "Free Will" is God's Mercy, borne of God's own Free Will - not contingent of the soul's true deserts which God's Justice might otherwise warrant. This unpredictability on the part of the Divine Judge would render non-determinism (Free Will) on the part of the soul irrelevant. Calvin cleverly avoided this dilemma by removing the Divine Judge altogether from his afterlife scenario - having the soul's reward/punishment predestined irrespective of its Free Will choices in life.

[@0nlyThis]

@@HarryNicNicholas You didn't understand any of it, did you? Oh well!

[@eltonron1558]

Small problem. The soul, is a life. The soul is not immortal. Spirit of man, is a better term than soul, or spirit of humanity. The atheist is in denial of the supernatural, as it is, the realm in which God lives. All the important events in our existence, are outside the understanding of science. The origin of universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness. Charisma, is a power, the atheist, thinks is a skill, like you can take classes, or study the textbook, practice, and become charismatic. Ha! I love how God, lives, rent free, in the atheist head, by the supernatural, entity of mind. Kryptonite to the naturalist.

[@eltonron1558]

@@HarryNicNicholas When given evidence, it is immediately dismissed by the atheist. Like a courtroom, it is the preponderance of evidence, starting with, what science DOESN'T know. Origin of universe, origin of life, origin of mind/consciousness. Tell me why charisma, ISN'T supernatural.

[@ds6427]

How do people who don't believe in determinism reconcile with Romans 9:16 - 21, or things like prophecy or when paul says talks about predestination?

[@notnpc7965]

molinism most of the time

[@leonardu6094]

How do people who believe in determinism reconcile with what the inevitable arguments in this video and the concept of responsibility demonstrated all over the bible?

[@justsomeguywhoisntdead1158]

Paul is talking about the predestination of a group, not individuals. And who are the members of this predestined group? Those who choose to place their faith in Christ. So predestination is compatible with free will.

[@oiitssean]

Try to listen to a decent explanation of determinism. Instead get christian propaganda. Fantastic.

[@leonardu6094]

Why is it christian propaganda?

[@rickshafer6688]

To say rationally accepting is defeating is to make your will an outlier. You are stuck in this instance. Which gives way that you will using thought, have a part in saving, or recognizing the Savior on your behalf. Where the scripture is quite clear.Both in epistle and example : 'all have fallen short of the glory of God ..' This is the problem with thinkers and bible studies. They tend to give themselves credit for recognizing God. It is abject folly.

[@TheGravityShifter]

One of my favorite answers came from Ravi Zacharias, may God rest his soul. He said, "The moment you make a truth claim, you have debunked Determinism." Not his exact words but that's pretty much what was said. So Richard and Stephen pretty much disproved Naturalism by saying it exists.

[@Kehvo_exe]

Yeah I remember that, chemical processes don’t produce truth is I believe what he said and the minute you do you’re rising above your nature, thus debunking naturalism.

[@TheGravityShifter]

@@Kehvo_exe Yep. Another note is when someone explains demonic oppression as chemicals in the brain, it's like they explain the process a car has to go through to run, but being ignorant that there needs to be a person to run it.

[@TheGravityShifter]

@i o I can tell you won't be worth my time in the slightest. So I won't encourage anything else you might have to say.

[@Jill-jb1jg]

@TheGravityShifter Have you read the report that RZIM commissioned from an independent law firm? It’s on the RZIM website.

[@TheGravityShifter]

@@Jill-jb1jg I have not, but I for one don't really care. He's gone anyway. We've all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And it's between him and God now. There are innocent people in death row all the time instead of the actual criminals. I don't really like to be so trusting of anything like this unless there is concrete evidence of the claims being true. I'm not just gonna believe what's written.

[@primemover1930]

If you act differently because you are under the influence of drugs, is your soul drunk or high?

[@intedominesperavi6036]

Since your soul is everything that makes you alive, yes, in a way.

[@rickshafer6688]

To brush broadly one misses the truth*nay God through Jesus , Paul, John, and Peter expressed prior dterminism.

[@endsrealm7]

Dr. Craig is hot💘

[@elgatofelix8917]

"Determinism" and "Nondeterminism" are just two ways of looking at the same thing - comparable to seeing a glass as half empty or half full. Asserting they are mutually exclusive does nothing to change the nature of reality.

[@prime_time_youtube]

You are joking, right? Those terms completely contradict each other. "Husband" and "bachelor" are just two ways of looking at the same person. Asserting they are mutually exclusive does nothing...

[@LawlessNate]

No, those two things are mutually exclusive; to suggest both at the same time would be a contradiction.

[@LawlessNate]

@@JamesKimSynergize The discussion isn't about "some thing" or "all things", it's about whether or not humans have free will. Either we do or we do not.

[@elgatofelix8917]

@@prime_time_youtube nice strawman argument. Pessimism and optimism are also contradictory terms. So by your logic a glass can't be half empty and half full at the same time. By your logic those are two completely different glasses. You're clearly unfamiliar with the concept of a paradox. I suggest you get a dictionary and find out what that means.

[@elgatofelix8917]

@@LawlessNate so like the previous commenter you believe a glass half empty can't also be half full. Nonsense. There do exist such things as paradoxes. Look into it.

[@maxavail]

Determinism cannot create a world where people can be wrong because the laws of nature are never wrong. But this world is one of fallible people. Therefore determinism cannot be true. Otherwise, by what mechanism it becomes possible for a person, whose thoughts would be a product of deterministic natural laws, to make claims that go against logic, since logic is nothing more than the mental representation of the same deterministic natural laws which constitute absolute truth ? In saying that determinism is correct, one is simply begging the question: it's correct because I say so and there's no way to prove me wrong because you're not really free to deliberate otherwise. So it's unfalsifiable. It's not even that we need to prove the mental is not the same as the physical, which is as obvious as any primary sensory experience, but physics itself doesn't support determinism at the quantum level, where everything is probabilistic in nature.

[@melchormagdamo3556]

good point

[@maxavail]

@Superbeing Superpower Right is to live up to your full potential. As Jordan Peterson once said, "the lack of your best hurts everything". Wrong is to lag behind that standard.

[@landofw56]

No!!! Probabilism and randon don't support the idea of free will, indeed!

[@niojackson938]

There's no such thing as nothing...there is always something tho

[@fistandantilusdarkone2684]

Great Job!

[@junacebedo888]

Golden 6 minutes

[@thebrunoserge]

Also, saying free will is an illusion is NOT THE SAME AS SAYING EVERYTHING IS PREDETERMINED. There is a slight variation we can impart on our environments, and things are not predetermined - they're chaotic. Important difference to grasp, I'm surprised a so-called Doctor doesn't get it. Free will is for the most part an illusion because we are the universe and we do what makes sense for us to do based on our material circumstances at a given moment.

[@notnpc7965]

I think you're misunderstanding what he means by predetermined.

[@thebrunoserge]

@@notnpc7965 The term itself is wrongly used, independently of “what he means”. Again, the absence of free will does not automatically mean predetermination. He assumes it does because a) he’s a bit dumb or b) he wants to intentionally strawman the original claim

[@notnpc7965]

@@thebrunoserge No. When he says predetermined what he means is that we have no way to change its effects. When you throw a ball, the ball has no ability to change its trajectory. The ball will just follow what the laws of physics say it will do. That's what he means when he says predetermined.

[@thebrunoserge]

@@notnpc7965 If he claims to be an intellectual and philosopher, he should know you can't throw around the word "predetermined" to mean that things are up to the laws of physics. Predeterminism is not realism or empiricism - it's literally the belief that everything that will ever happen is already set and scheduled. Being aware that humans have practically 0 control in the chaotic universe, and are subject to that chaos, is not "predeterminism". Like most scientists, including Stephen Hawking, I don't believe things are "predetermined" but I understand free will is pretty much an illusion, in the sense that we're subject to chance and chaos. Do you get the difference?

[@notnpc7965]

@@thebrunoserge Could you explain what the slight variations we can impart on our environment are that you mentioned in your previous comment?

[@11kravitzn]

Molinism implies determinism.

[@drcraigvideos]

Molinism is an indeterministic view which precludes determinism regarding certain phenomena, such as free choices and putative quantum indeterminacy. Dr. Craig defines libertarian freedom as "the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine one's choice." As you can see, this is incompatible with determinism. - RF Admin

[@11kravitzn]

@@drcraigvideos Determinism is the position that, given facts about the present (and/or past), the future is fixed and inevitable, fatalistic. Today (and yesterday) God knows I will choose X and not Y tomorrow. Given God's knowledge, and God being omniscient and infallible, it follows that I will inevitably and fatalistically choose X and not Y tomorrow. God has known the whole future since (before) the beginning of the universe. That is determinism. Molinism: God knows what P would choose in circumstances C. Thus, there is a fact of the matter what P would choose in circumstances C. That is, C+P inevitably leads to that known choice. That's determinism. Just sticking the word "free(ly)" doesn't magically make it nondeterministic. Nondeterministic means that no one, not even God, could possibly predict what would happen. Molinism implies that we are automata, that somewhere within us is some preprogrammed function that maps circumstances to choices. That's not freedom. If, in C, I inevitably choose X and not Y, in what sense is that a free choice? There's no possibility I choose Y. In what sense can I choose Y if there's no possibility I choose it? The moon doesn't choose to orbit the earth: it does so by necessity of it's nature, circumstances, and the laws of physics. Likewise, under molinism, we don't really choose anything: we act by necessity of our natures, and circumstances. God knows both of these and so can know how we will behave. I read "The Only Wise God" and I was appalled that such sophistry passes for scholarship. What a decadent age we live in. Molinism implies determinism.

[@waltercrane9863]

This is pure Newtonianism. He fails to distinguish the scientific method from pure physicalism. Neglects to mention most scientific discoveries are made through discovery of discontinuities, which is Platonism.

[@markviman]

3:40 This argument is fallacious. How an agent comes to have reasons for a belief doesn't necessarily nullify its legitimacy. If I am forced to look in a particular direction, and a bird is forced to fly in that vicinity, and the universe deterministically causes the visibility to be perfect for my vision, and the bird is causally determined to fly slowly, to have bright colors, and to be relatively big, then I am rationally justified in believing that a bird flew by me. I don't need to be able to believe otherwise, and I wouldn't want to since the alternatives are irrational.

[@icytube2058]

the problem is you are determined to think that way.

[@markviman]

@@icytube2058 No, that's not a problem. If a libertarian wrote the exact same comment, the rationale would remain exactly the same. I was determined to write that sound piece of epistemology. It's still legitimate.

[@icytube2058]

@@markviman you should rewatch 3:12 to 3:53

[@markviman]

@@icytube2058 Sorry, friend. Craig is wrong. I don't need the freedom to weigh the evidence, as he says. I just need to do it accurately. In my example, there wasn't any freedom to believe otherwise, and there wasn't freedom to weigh evidence. Good evidence was forced upon me, and I was forced to take it in, and I am rational in believing that a bird flew by.

[@icytube2058]

@@markviman but the problem is you are determined to think that That is good evidence wether you like it or not.If determinism is true then everything you do every thought you have is predetermined.So there is no such thing as good evidence.You are predetermined to think it’s good evidence.It’s impossible to actually know wether the evidence is good or not because all are your thoughts are predetermined.You are predetermined to think WLC is wrong.Wether WLC is actually wrong or not that’s impossible to know,Wether the bird actually flew or not that’s impossible to know if determinism is true.

[@rickshafer6688]

Determinism is a large basket. That God couldn't save a person because said was in the wrong place. Gimme a break. The divine will transcends nature and man in nature. To say a human has free will is philisophe , and pontification. God only can give life. We don't reach out for the lifesavor, being at the bottom of the ocean,.and dead.

[@matthewtaylor3993]

Brain states can be measured. I'm staggered that such an intelligent person can state such blatant misrepresentations of what is possible because it doesn't match what it wishes was possible. It's almost as though he had no choice but to do that.

[@junacebedo888]

Brain states are not mental state. And happiness, fear, disgust etc are state of the Mind. They are not state of the brain. A crazy person in a mental asylum can be jovially happy (he is hungry and food is about to be served) even if his or her brain has been destroyed by a drug overdose

[@marvinedwards737]

@@junacebedo888 There is an interdependency. Our mental states, our senses and our feelings, are running processes within the infrastructure of the brain. The process is not the brain, but rather the series of organized rapid changes happening within the brain. Without the brain, the processes would not be able to run. Without the processes, the brain is only a lump of inert material.

[@Chomper750]

@@marvinedwards737 If determinism made you search KZbin for this video and post, what purpose does it serve? Does it in anyway help you reproduce, thus forwarding on your genetic material? In determinism, why would anyone who desires children remain faithfully married to a spouse incapable of bearing children? Why would any person end their own life in the process of saving the life of a stranger?

[@marvinedwards737]

@@Chomper750 Causation never causes anything and determinism never determines anything. Neither causation nor determinism has any causal agency. Both are descriptive, not causative. Causation describes how the objects and forces that make up the universe interact to bring about new events. Determinism asserts that the behavior of these objects and forces is reliable. We happen to be one of those objects that make up the physical universe. We have causal agency. We go about in the world causing stuff to happen. And we do so to satisfy our own purpose and our own reasons. The universe itself is an inanimate object. It has no purpose. It has no capacity to reason. So, it exercises no control. It literally "has no skin in the game". But we do. The consequences of our actions and the actions of other objects matter to us, because they can either further or frustrate our purpose.

[@Chomper750]

@@marvinedwards737 That is not what Sam Harris claims. He claims we are only a conscious observer. That the choices we make are already pre-determined by subconscious regions of our brain, and that we are only observing such choices. Harris does this by citing the Libet experiment.

[@DigitalGnosis]

You say random rhetorical stuff like "since humans are *merely* physical entities..." - well, whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you can do the same with non-naturalism, if humans are merely souls then some bad X, like, what hope is there, how does this affirm the dignity of man, how can I really be free if antecedent soul-reasons determine my choices etc. If you think there are these non-natural parts of causal reality, like souls, then maybe you can set up some experiments to show how they interact with the physical neurochemistry of the brain. Empirically it would seem to me like the kind of interactionism you want would violate the laws of conservation and its analytically rather bizarre way that you use "free" to mean that people are an uncaused cause of their own desires, which is completely incoherent. Your view loses out on fit to the data that we have from our best sciences and on ontological parsimony! This is without getting into all your other claims about not being able to be rational and, not to mention the way in which you're using the terms "rational" and "free" by which you simply beg the question of your own worldview - how about actually getting to Christianity from a neutral starting point that a naturalist would actually agree to? These arguments are only convincing to people already committed to their conclusions - that is however, what you have stated the purpose of apologetics is I suppose, to bolster the faith of the believer - well... what can I say to the intellectual virtues of tribalism.

[@karozans]

You can be free because you soul/mind is not deterministic. It has free will. I don't think Dr. Craig has ever said that people's desires do not cause them to do things. No scientific experiment is necessary since there are logical proofs like the Theory of Intentionality that prove a physical object cannot be about some other physical object. To my understanding, the Theory of Intentionality is one of the most difficult ideas that mankind has ever devised and only a handful of people really understand it. Furthermore, there indeed may be some scientific proof that there is an interaction with the mind and the brain. It has been suggested that the brain could be a quantum computer. The neurons in your brain seem to take on a superposition of states. Both on and off at the same time. When a choice is made, an observation is made and the superposition of states collapses the wave function into a single state. This concept was created from the double slit experiment by simply observing the results, the experiment is changed. As far as I am aware, they have no idea why an observation changes the results. *how about actually getting to Christianity from a neutral starting point that a naturalist would actually agree to?* This is exactly what Dr. Craig does. Dr. Craig starts off his lectures using pure secular science. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the BGV theorem, and the Big Bang Theory are totally secular and neutral. They say nothing about any religion or God or deity or anything else. Dr. Craig combines all these theories and other logical arguments to show that the best explanation of the existence of this universe is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal mind. This "mind" is what he calls God. You can call this being whatever you like. The label isn't important, only the properties. Later on Dr. Craig demonstrates how Christianity is the best religious doctrine that most closely fits with this secularly derived God. But all of this doesn't matter because you still wouldn't believe it even if it were totally proven 100% to you. You are just as committed to your own conclusions just like you accuse everyone else of being. You'd just come up with some other theory that you like better. Just like people are doing now with the beginning of the Universe while they reject current Big Bang cosmology. The reason why I know that you are committed to your conclusion that you already have is because there is one question that not a single atheist will every answer directly and concisely. What empirical evidence would you be willing to accept as proof, that would cause you to change your mind and accept the fact that God and other metaphysical objects such as minds exist? You answer will be one of the following. 1. Nothing. 2. An answer which you know is impossible to prove empirically.

[@ravissary79]

Except he DOESN'T say we're MERELY souls. That's the idealist position which is compatible with the Hindu view that reality is illusory. No most Christians embrace s dualistic view. No one is merely physical or spiritual. But the depends what you mean by soul. Some view soul as an amalgam. It's the interplay of spirit and body. This is why some view resurrection as the ultimate afterlife state since we aren't meant to be disembodied. So we can't be fulfilled until we're more completely embodied. But that's not because we're merely ohisucsl either, but the physical is the context for our spiritual life to play itself out more fully. Obviously this is in conflict with the more platonic "escape the physical" view.

[@corylohanlon]

There's music, so it must be right. Or... go listen and read actual rebuttals. WLC is a broken record. He brings up the same tired arguments on every stage. They're refuted on every stage. He just moves on to the next one and acts as if the last conversation never occurred. It's been a decade. If ya haven't come up with something better... that should tell ya a lot about how weak the argument is. Of course we can punish wrongdoing. The punishment is part of the environment. That will deter crime. We just can drop the hatred part. It's not that complex.

[@corylohanlon]

You don't need free will to be convinced of something. 2+2=4. You're not free to stop believing this. Once the concepts collide with head you're along for the ride. So it is with anything else you grasp... or fail to. Or the sensation of motivation to think. Or the absence of it. These all just happen to you. And if it never clicks, that's a result of physics in your brain. And the same if it does click. I don't need to have free will to experience the consequences of interacting with the universe.

[@corylohanlon]

Oh. Made it to the end. That's fun. We've moved from "God" of the gaps to "soul" of the gaps. Time has not treated the God of the Gaps well. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess a similar fate awaits the soul.

[@geoffwhite3664]

Conflating determinism with material causality is shoddy thinking. Promoting anxiety to further your religious predilections is a cheap trick. Belief in that for which there is no evidence is self-delusion at best, criminal exploitation at worst.

[@kenandzafic3948]

Given the fact that most atheists are materialists, this is not bad thinking at all, but even if you have some immaterial determinism, you still cannot explain moral responsibility and reason. And what there is no evidence for is determinism, so believing in determinism is self-deception.

[@Lars_Hanson]

Funniest part was "the brain doesn't have mental properties" ... and then saying later the soul has mental properties 💀🤣 case was lost when dude said "well that doesn't make sense" ... like okay, so you can't comprehend it or mentally process it. If you pray hard enough for it maybe you could then be able to make sense of naturalism and determinism 😅🤦🏻‍♂️

[@geraldpchuagmail]

First! \

[@phenomenal17playz]

Determinism is a joke 😂

[@aquestioner3004]

Outside the universe is a contradiction.

[@flowwiththeuniverse31]

How about a universe that is determined by God!

[@ginatkins9106]

BS!

[@thebrunoserge]

"How can someone be punished for wrongdoing if they could not choose to do otherwise?" Simple - punishment is a terrible, limited concept. No one deserves punishment, and it serves no purpose. What we need is a society that cares for its people, and once we have that, crime will drop to almost 0. Those who still commit crime can be put away and given a comfortable life where they won't harm anyone - or be eventually reintegrated.

[@michaelsayad5085]

Did you come to this opinion yourself or was your opinion solely determined since the beginning of the Universe? If the later, why should anyone take any of your opinions including this one seriously?

[@thebrunoserge]

@@michaelsayad5085 a) The lack of free will (in a cosmic sense) has nothing to do with determinism, and this video wrongly conflates the 2 because this guy is an idiot. Not having free will just means everything is chaotic, not that everything has been "planned since the start by the almighty spirit". b) because it’s based on provable facts, not in bullshit - but if you're unironically watching this video you probably can't tell the difference

[@michaelsayad5085]

​@@thebrunoserge What do you believe the ultimate source of your decisions is?

[@thebrunoserge]

@@michaelsayad5085 Understanding how gods and religions are easily disproved through reason? There’s a lot out there to read and lectures to watch that are much better content from way more prominent intellectuals and educated people than this fart

[@michaelsayad5085]

@@thebrunoserge I'm assuming you didn't understand my question because your response makes no sense. It's funny that you think you can insult this brilliant man and can't even understand the simplest of questions in philosophy. Sounds like your nothing but arrogance and pride! It's sad but a common breed in the atheist community.

[@Liftercode]

Calvinist are mad.

[@frank_calvert]

I can't believe this guy thinks naturalism and determinism necessarily take away responsibility. That is the dumbest idea ever. You still did a thing, that's what counts. Just because technically it was predetermined does not mean it is not your fault. The amount of assumptions that certain things can't be accounted for in determinism is idiotic.

[@james3414]

no u haha

[@LinebackerTuba]

Love a lot of Craig's work, but this is so bad.

[@leonardu6094]

In what way is it bad?

[@LinebackerTuba]

@@leonardu6094 1) He is not clear that not all views of determinism are not naturalistic (there is the apparent conflation of the two). 2) He claims that there can be no human responsibility if determinism is true, which he provides zero supporting evidence for. I get this is short video and he can't go into all the nuance of the topic, but I find this video to be so surface level, that it is not even useful.

[@leonardu6094]

@@LinebackerTuba 1) I'm pretty positive this video was created for atheistic naturalist, not theistic determinists. Dr Craig has said repeatedly that he has no interest in intramural debates within the christian community. His work is primarily directed at atheists. 2) But he did in fact provide at least one reason for thinking responsibility is illusory on determinism. Namely that you didn't have the ability to do otherwise- which is literally what determinism entails.

[@LinebackerTuba]

@@leonardu6094 1) I know Craig creates videos, to combat atheism, but that is irrelevant to the point that the video came across as conflating determinism and naturalism (obviously I know Craig knows the difference between the two). 2) Not having the ability to do otherwise is exactly where the question is being begged. We know that determinism entails the inability to do otherwise (in a causal sense), but why should that be the criteria for moral responsibility?

[@leonardu6094]

@@LinebackerTuba 1) I don't think it did. I think he adequately demonstrated how one is a natural consequence of the other. (no pun intended lol) 2) lol what? If you lack the ability to have done otherwise, in what sense are you to be held morally responsible for your actions?

[@Soli_Deo_Gloria_.]

Yes, God is deterministic. His will never fails and our free will is compatible to this. *:-)*

[@MarkNOTW]

Then God is the author of sin and evil.

[@landofw56]

No, they are not compatible at all.

[@landofw56]

@@MarkNOTW If Soli is right...

[@aquestioner3004]

The nonphysical is nothing at all. God is nonphysical. Therefore God is nothing at all. The nonphysical cannot do anything because there is nothing to do anything. The cause of the universe is a nonphysical being. "nonphysical being" is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, there cannot be a cause of the universe. Nature exists all by itself and does everything all by itself.

[@thebrunoserge]

"These vastly more educated and intelligent scientists say there's no free will. But if that's true, it means our society is messed up and founded on completely wrong assumptions - it means punishing others is cruel and stupid. I can't accept that it's all been a mistake, therefore GOD!!!!! Praise Jesus!!!!" - this video in a nutshell. Yes, Dr. Craig, I know it hurts but we should not punish people. It's cruel and barbaric. Yes, the poor suffer because society is just structured wrong, not because they're stupid or degenerate. Accept the facts and take down this dumb video