Is free will an illusion? And does it matter if it is? Dan Barker vs Braxton Hunter

[@WillEhrendreich]

Braxton was masterful in technique here! How many times can you recall Braxton saying things like "and I know you know this, Dan", or "of course you're familiar with this, Dan, but just for our audience... "? How many times did make the most herculean efforts respect Dan himself? How many times did he steelman Dan's arguments, while disagreeing with them? How much did he reference Dan's book, to show that he had respect for his opponent, and to show he takes this discussion seriously? This was a master stroke from a debating ninja. Great job Dr. Hunter! Also I thought that I would mention, this was the nicest and calmest I've seen Mr Barker, he's really been a class act through the whole thing, and I really appreciate that. I think he's really honestly made some clever points, and I love it because I rarely hear clever counter points on this debate, because I really think most of them are paper thin. But he actually brought some thoughts that were actually somewhat difficult to wrestle with, although I don't think they come anywhere close to being more compelling than Libertarian Free Will. Great job to both of you!

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

@demigodzilla Well is that a bad thing? I think, if you love the content of someone, you might start to fawn over them in some ways. As long as it does not go to far, I think it can be quite nice.

[@WillEhrendreich]

@demigodzilla yes sir! Thank you kind and benevolent sir! I'll put it on my resume in the next thirteen minutes, sir! Lol.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

@demigodzilla I don't follow. Can you not have self-respect and dignity while fawning over(or what they do) someone?

[@WillEhrendreich]

@demigodzilla thanks!

[@davelanger]

Do you think our past experiences determine our decisions?

[@noahbrown4388]

A reasoned, intelligent and RESPECTFUL debate! Thanks guys 👏🏻

[@kitthorton9860]

This was actually a very fun, informative and cordial discussion on both your parts. Well done, guys!

[@japanbeta]

Thanks for coming and sharing your thoughts, Dan. Was good to hear. And many thanks to Braxton for his work in defending free will and the faith. God bless brother.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

there is no free will, and what theist overlook too is even if there were no one can "give you" free will, if it's not yours to begin with as always god is tricking you.

[@dianedonohue9855]

Braxton is such a good debater- polite, complimentary, and excellent at pointing his point and you can "see" his Christianity by his kindness. David is always kind and brilliant. Loved this debate.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

lol, he's got you fooled, braxton is one of the least honest people in apologetics. if i were you i'd go back and listen again, he's a slippery eel.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

the problem braxton can't get past though is decisions aren't made by reason and thought, it feels like they are but all the "work" goes on in the subconscious, you aren't even aware of the emergent thought that causes the decision, if that were so you would be "thinking about" "thinking about" things, which is clearly impossible - the decision requires a decision before it. huh?? i don't know about you (lol) but thoughts pop into my head, i don't decide "i will have this train of thought now beginning with..."

[@G_Singh222]

@@HarryNicNicholas you didn’t point out where he’s the least honest, I think he’s one of the most powerful apologists out there.

[@G_Singh222]

@@HarryNicNicholas Is there evidence for the work going on in the subconscious?

[@ray_x6959]

@@G_Singh222 but it does exist thou

[@thevillagestoophousemusic9189]

This discussion is one of the best I have ever heard covering all the basic theories about what Free Will we might have. I have written a book titled: Free Will is an Activity (Michael A. Perez), in which I add to this discussion the point that the Universe has built-in to us a distinction of good and bad, but this is most often just a misleading perception. We make any decision because we think its good or there is some benefit. When we bother to understand what is True Goodness and Real Love, then we unlock the potential for Free Will. Until then Determinism is the norm, and Luck can override both. Free Will is the cognitive effort to move any and all consciousness toward Love, Truth, and Joy.

[@jerklecirque138]

"Whereas with libertarian freedom, you can analyze the reasons for accepting certain propositions and *choose* which thing you're going to accept and believe." After analyzing the reasons for accepting a certain proposition, I will either be convinced or unconvinced. What could be meant by "choose which thing you're going to believe"? What is the extra factor that libertarian freedom adds that "analyzing the reasons for accepting a certain proposition" is lacking?

[@jerklecirque138]

And again a bit later: "You can get to right answers if you're determined, but you would never be *justified* in claiming that you got to a right answer." So a deterministic agent can analyze the reasons for accepting a proposition (a mathematical one, say) and become convinced of its truth or falsity. That same agent can share its reasoning with others, and they can also become convinced. What additional justification is needed, and how is this provided by libertarian freedom?

[@shanevan1]

@@jerklecirque138 I think the issue is the claim. One cannot claim truth or falsity if their conclusions are based on random matter in motion. It's like having a blind guy stand in the middle of the room, and letting him spin around and throw 1000 darts at the walls. While doing so he *could* hit the mark bullseye...but he could never *justify* the claim that he in fact did hit the mark. His faculties don't allow him to check his own randomness for accuracy. Using your analogy...asking another person's reasoning, on a deterministic worldview, is effectually asking another blind guy to affirm your unjustified claim to hitting the bulseye. Libertarian freedom would be more justified in claiming truth because they actually are able to put more trust in their faculties to come to a conclusion. (After all the use of their faculties could have gotten them elsewhere, but it didnt). They are like a guy aiming at the dartboard and so using their faculties to get closer to hitting the mark.

[@jerklecirque138]

​@@shanevan1 Logical reasoning, scientific inquiry, and the like are neither "random" nor "blind". Sticking with mathematics, suppose there is a flaw in my calculation. Another person can claim that there is an error and demonstrate that fact by showing me a logical contradiction in my work. Having been provided incontrovertible proof, I will helpless accept it and revise my calculation. Neither noticing the error nor accepting it is an error requires libertarian freedom, and both are justified on the basis of hard evidence (in this case, logic and mathematics). What could libertarian freedom even offer me in this case except the option to "choose to believe" that my flawed calculation was actually correct?

[@terenceandmalloryjones8163]

Extra factor = The ability to Reason

[@jerklecirque138]

@@terenceandmalloryjones8163 As I have tried to argue, I do not think the ability to reason requires libertarian freedom.

[@wandasewell]

This was interesting to witness. I am taking a class with Dr. Hunter at Trinity and saw this on Facebook. I enjoyed seeing the process of the debate. You both and the MC held yourselves and gave me a good example of what this will look like even in my possible future as an Apologist. Thanks for airing this! God Bless.

[@chad969]

This notion of libertarian free will entails a similar epistemic dilemma to what Braxton pointed out with regards to deterministic reasoning. Let's say I grant for the sake of argument that in order for a conclusion to be justified, one has to have been able to have concluded otherwise. For any given conclusion we arrive at, *what* *accounts* *for* *_why_* *we* *didn't* *conclude* *otherwise?* Either something accounts for it, or nothing accounts for it. If something accounts for why we didn't conclude otherwise, then our conclusions are at least partly determined by whatever causal factor serves as the explanation for why we didn't conclude otherwise. If nothing accounts for why we didn't conclude otherwise, then by definition, our conclusions are random. What I mean by "random" can be best understood through modal logic. Imagine two possible worlds that share the same initial history, but in world one, X occurs, and in world two, X does not occur. If there's nothing that accounts for why X occurred in one world but not the other, then X is random. How can we trust the reliability of our conclusions if they are random? To the extent that our decisions and conclusions are not random, they must necessarily be determined. If you disagree then please provide a fourth option besides random, determined, or some combination of random and determined.

[@BardicLiving]

That's a great point.

[@nathanfosdahl7525]

The causal factor is the faculty we possess that has the capacity to make free decisions. The reason we didn't come to a different conclusion is merely because we freely chose not to.

[@chad969]

@@nathanfosdahl7525 It seems to me that if the capacity for free choice is compatible with choosing either A *or* B, then that capacity cannot sufficiently explain why one chooses A rather than B, or B rather than A. Imagine somebody goes shopping for ice-cream and they freely choose to buy chocolate ice-cream rather than vanilla. In this scenario, could we reasonably say that the person's ability to choose either of those two options explains why he chose chocolate rather than vanilla? I would say no, because his capacity for free choice is equally compatible with him choosing to buy vanilla instead of chocolate, or both, or neither.

[@nathanfosdahl7525]

@@chad969 I think it can be reconciled by merely asserting the truth of the possibility of choosing the other. Even if he chose vanilla, for whatever reasons (though he could arbitrarily choose or make a decision when he has no real preference between the two), if one asserts that while choosing vanilla he actually had the real capacity to choose chocolate in that instance then free will is true. If determinism is true then the capacity to choose in that instance is merely illusory and one could not say that he had the real capacity to choose chocolate. I think we all believe we make real choices where we could have chosen the other option and since this is so ingrained in our experience, it seems to me that we would need SUBSTANTIAL evidence of determinism to override our intuition.

[@chad969]

@@nathanfosdahl7525 “I think it can be reconciled by merely asserting the truth of the possibility of choosing the other.” So the possibility of choosing vanilla is the explanation for why he instead chose chocolate? Wouldn’t that also mean that the explanation for why he didn’t choose vanilla is because of the possibility of choosing vanilla? I could be wrong, but it seems like you’re overlooking the distinction between accounting for the *possibility* of X, and accounting for the *actuality* of X. Imagine you have a random number generator. You press a button and the number 2351 comes up on the screen. Now the fact that 2351 is within the generator’s range of possibility doesn’t explain why it didn’t instead generate any of the other countless possible alternatives. The fact that it could have *possibly* produced 142 doesn’t explain why it instead produced 2351, any more than the fact that it could have produced 2351 explains why it in fact produced 2351. So what’s the relevant difference when it comes to free will choices? In both cases, there doesn’t seem to be any fact in virtue of which A occurs *rather* *than* *B.* Think about this, the explanation for why helium balloons rise is because helium molecules are lighter than the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in our atmosphere. Now one of the reasons that qualifies as an explanation is because it could be used to make testable predictions. For example, if we took some other molecule that was lighter than our atmosphere and filled a balloon with it, we could successfully predict that the balloon would rise. Now going back to the ice cream thought experiment, does knowing that a person has the ability to choose chocolate, vanilla, or neither, provide you with sufficient information to successfully predict (without luck) which of those three options the person will choose? Clearly the answer is no, and the reason is because possibility isn’t actuality. The fact that one has the ability to choose A over B&C doesn’t explain why one chooses A over B&C. So you can say that one’s free will capacity accounts for the *_possibility_* of choosing A over B&C, but I don’t see how you could say that it explains why one in fact chooses A over B&C. Here’s one last intuition pump to think about. Imagine you’re walking down the street and you see someone balancing a half eaten avocado on their head while spinning around in circles singing An Octopus's Garden, backwards. You ask them why they’re behaving so strangely, and they say “because I can” (i.e. because I have the ability to freely choose to act this way). Would you feel that the person has provided you with a sufficient explanation of why he chose to do what he is doing? Probably not, and that’s because the ability to choose to do something isn’t an explanation for why one chooses to do something. _______ “If one asserts that while choosing vanilla he actually had the real capacity to choose chocolate in that instance then free will is true.” My point was not that free will isn’t possible or that it’s not true. My point was that if our decisions truly are the product of libertarian free will, then our decisions are ultimately random because there's no fact in virtue of which one chooses A instead of B, or B instead of A. The only other option, as far as I can tell, is some kind of determinism or hybrid of determinism and randomness. I personally lean towards the latter.

[@BornOnThursday]

Examples of Determinism are usually given in a relatively small closed system w/o outside interference. You could say we also live in an closed system that is much larger than that. From my point of view, I live my life in a "box" with limited senses and information; as experience time in one direction and a constant pace, I only have my 5 outer senses and some number of internal senses, I can remember a few things I experienced or learned, and I am aware enough to presume there are factors currently unknown to me. So, despite believing life is (pre)determined, I cannot detail every factor that has impacted my life indirectly, and what caused the chain of events that led up to it. I could address wide factors like my environment, my parents, my friends, etc. but that does not reach the level of determinism because we need to look closer, and be aware of every factor. Otherwise, we can only make an educated guess which is better than a seemingly wild guess; in my opinion. On the subject of truth statements, I think we are able to observe with what we are aware of. When discussion of a fourth dimension is brought up, generally that includes experience time in multiple directions which is something we currently cannot or may never be able to do. If we were capable of that, we be adding many new factors to our lives, but would remained determined as long as we are still reacting on any scale.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

"fourth"

[@BornOnThursday]

@@HarryNicNicholas Thank you, I will now edit that.

[@japanbeta]

Wow, had personally not heard of Braxton Hunter before this debate, but he really impressed me. A very clear thinker, knowledgable, well-articulated, and honoring of God with his grace and politeness toward the opposition.

[@jesuslovesyou4862]

His channel is called trinity radio if you want to see more.

[@joachimwest3217]

The Christian comments in this comments section prove to me something that I suspected all along, that most Christians don't understand this issue on any level. All Braxton Hunter has to do to make the Christians who listen to him happy is to talk quickly and appear confident. This further confirms my suspicion about apologetics, that its main purpose is to make Christians feel less silly for believing in ridiculous things by providing them with fast-talking, respectable appearing, figure-heads..

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Great argument ....not

[@joachimwest3217]

​@@mortensimonsen1645 wow. you just parroted Bart Simpson at me as if that was an intelligent response to my observations.

[@dustintower7057]

Calling a belief silly or ridiculous doesn't really constitute a logical argument. What exactly do you mean by "main purpose"?

[@joachimwest3217]

​@@dustintower7057 who cares? You don't know what "main purpose" means?

[@ASKTruthApologetics]

Great argument, NOT.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

I think I'm probably one of the few here who does like the adverts in the middle of the debate. It makes me feel like I'm watching an actual tv channel dedicated to debates. Everyone remember TV? Yeahhhh. Good times.

[@kylexinye1990]

Джонатан д Yeah, and walking in the streets, and talking to people at an uncomfortably close distance? Yeah, that was the life.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

@@kylexinye1990 😂 If the social distancing went indefinitely I would be perfectly fine with it.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

You shut the hell up

[@Джонатан-р8д]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns 🤐

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Прости. Говорите свободно.

[@kimbirch1202]

The problem with these kind of debates is that Christianity does not represent the teachings of Jesus, who also denied much Old testament nonsense. This is why the religious authorities frequently accused him of blasphemy, and wanted him dead. The actual teachings of Jesus are highly logical, reasonable, and profound, and can stand any amount of critical scrutiny, but professional atheists just want to bang their own drum.

[@kimbirch1202]

@Awesome Wrench you poor ignorant fool

[@Chupie77777]

I know this is an older comment, but what specific examples do you have of Jesus rejecting anything from the Old Testament? I'm very confident that Jesus is completely consistent with the Old Testament, and not just consistent, but He actually endorsed it. And the religious leaders accused Him of blasphemy because He claimed to be God, not because He disagreed with anything from the Old Testament (because He didn't disagree with it).

[@kimbirch1202]

@Chupie77777 Give me some examples in the TEACHINGS of Jesus that comply with Old Testament beliefs, then. On what do you base your confidence, when you don't give examples? Do you really think that the vicious, bloodthirsty God depicted in the OT is compatible with the God of perfect unconditional love, who judges no one, that Jesus taught?? You must be insane. Before Jesus , these primitive folk sacrificed goats to keep in the " good books " of their made up god. I've given numerous examples in the teachings of Jesus that completely contradict OT nonsense, but you don't take any of it in. Do you believe in talking snakes, men living in whales, giant boats, seas parting , and other OT fairytales ?? I worry for your sanity if you do.

[@kimbirch1202]

@Chupie77777 Jesus himself said that he came to re - interpret the Law, which means that the old interpretations were false He never got involved in arguing with the hypocritical pharisees, but simply told the Truth , that he knew for certain, and which obviously does contradict the old primitive beliefs, and made up god figure. The only way to prove this, is by studying what he does teach, isn't it ? This is what I have done , and quote here to prove it. Why do you never quote the actual teachings of the founder of your own religion?? This is very strange indeed for a so- called Christian. Why can't you explain what exactly the Kingdom of Heaven is ? Why can't you explain how it can be attained? Do you think it could be attained by merely having beliefs?? How could you realise the Kingdom if you don't know how ?? Please answer.

[@kimbirch1202]

@Chupie77777 What bits of the OT did Jesus endorse ? If you don't give examples , you must be making it up. Why do you never quote the teachings of Jesus Christ. As for Jesus being God ( which he never said ) then you are actually claiming that God who is eternal spirit died on the cross, aren't you ? 🤣🤣🤣

[@josephpatterson2513]

I appreciate both sides of the debate treating each other with respect. Good job Justin moderating the debate. The strength of the libertarian side is that it sure feels like we have free will but if you break a choice down to it's particulars then it is hard to say something didn't determine your decision. Braxton failed to show how practically libertarian free will works out without having any outside influences. The deterministic side can show practically how various experiences and ideas influence our choices and they seem to be determined from this perspective yet I think Braxton did a good job in pointing out the problem with accountability and justified reason with Dan's view. I came away that the issue of free will is highly complicated and not easily resolved. Whatever one concludes, I think Dan is right that we will live as though we have free will if we are a libertarian or determinist. Braxton seemed to agree with that point.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

You may have free will but circumstances may prevent you from exercising it with or without a god.

[@Willardandhiswiener]

Disproof of 'free will': It is not human Will, Drive, Desire and Motivation (WDDM) that is free or unfree; it is the PHYSICAL MOVEMENT caused and compelled by them that is either free or unfree. 'Choosing' and 'deciding' are solely dependent upon and determined by the strength and intensity of your WDDM to experience the greatest degree of PLEASURE. Therefore, 'making a choice' and 'making a decision' are not 'free': they are solely determined by, dependent upon and constrained by - and not free of, or free from - your WDDM to experience the greatest degree of PLEASURE. As puppets are compelled (or 'Willed') to MOVE by strings attached to their limbs, human beings are INSTINCTUALLY compelled to MOVE by or via WDDM. When you become aware that Life is like a DVD movie - where, at each moment in time, all MOVEMENTS occur in the only way they must occur - you experience a total understanding and acceptance of, and compassion for, all human behavior. You 'connect' and 'become one' with the source that 'controls' all Living Things

[@Gericho49]

If you're a naturalist you're just the product of endless chemical reactions. As such you don't reason you merely react. Atheist Bertrand Russell was at least honest in saying he was just a collocation of Atoms in motion, with no meaning hope or destiny other than future-worm fodder leading to "unyielding despair".

[@josephpatterson2513]

@@Gericho49 What is a spirit made of?

[@TheJackoloco]

@@JamesRichardWiley i agree with this point, but i don't think this is an example of free will being used like OP is talking about

[@torstenkugler255]

"Choose to enjoy life," as Dan says, a good pointer to free will by a determinist :-).

[@TheJohnnee]

Thinking about whether or not Justin looks better with facial hair

[@HarryNicNicholas]

he would still be two-faced.

[@spacedoohicky]

There's a good show about this called DEVS. It's a short series almost like a dramatic mini-series. Anyone interested in the question of free will versus determinism should watch the show. The end is very surprising. Don't watch, or read any spoilers. Go in without any expectations. It's a really great series, and good hard science fiction.

[@julieredmond5192]

Someone enlighten me. How can anyone be accountable for their actions if they don’t have free will? Justin asked this but Dan didn’t answer. Why would a determinist like Sam Harris ever try to persuade anyone to his point of view? Aren’t they just who they are? Justin asked the best questions. Especially the one at 48:26.

[@rjonesx]

While I believe in Libertarian Free Will, the response of the Determinist is not that the person is responsible for their action, but that legal penalties are for the purpose of deterrence and preventing recitivism, not justice. Many would say if a person committed a crime X, but no one knew about it except for you, and you knew that person would never do it again, and the victim hasn't changed their behavior because of the act, then no punishment should be provided.

[@Voivode.of.Hirsir]

No one is accountable for their actions. Punishment is just scapegoating. A determinist wants to convince people of determinism because they want to share the truth,

[@Willardandhiswiener]

Disproof of 'free will': It is not human Will, Drive, Desire and Motivation (WDDM) that is free or unfree; it is the PHYSICAL MOVEMENT caused and compelled by them that is either free or unfree. 'Choosing' and 'deciding' are solely dependent upon and determined by the strength and intensity of your WDDM to experience the greatest degree of PLEASURE. Therefore, 'making a choice' and 'making a decision' are not 'free': they are solely determined by, dependent upon and constrained by - and not free of, or free from - your WDDM to experience the greatest degree of PLEASURE. As puppets are compelled (or 'Willed') to MOVE by strings attached to their limbs, human beings are INSTINCTUALLY compelled to MOVE by or via WDDM. When you become aware that Life is like a DVD movie - where, at each moment in time, all MOVEMENTS occur in the only way they must occur - you experience a total understanding and acceptance of, and compassion for, all human behavior. You 'connect' and 'become one' with the source that 'controls' all Living Things

[@Willardandhiswiener]

@Matthew N One reason why the concept of 'free will' has always been accepted as true is that it has never been fully scrutinized. When it is seen and analyzed as two separate words or concepts rather than a one-word concept, it becomes a logical absurdity: the word 'free' is an adjective describing or modifying the noun 'will' - which is nonsensical. Another reason for its unquestioned acceptance is that humans have a genetically-innate, INSTINCTUAL DRIVE to experience the emotional PLEASURE of believing they are mostly - if not fully - in control of their thoughts and behaviors

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@Willardandhiswiener It has not been scrutinized because it feels like you have free will. Of course feelings are often false.😂

[@kralston]

The best Defeater against determinism ironically, came unintentionally I believe from the host when Dan had said, just everybody be happy and Jonathon said yeah but if it’s determined, you can’t choose to be happy it’s already been determined whether you are happy or sad. 😊

[@kralston]

I meant Justin not Jonathon

[@docsspellingcontest592]

Hence why Dan calls it the ILLUSION of free will.

[@classbreaker3612]

wouldn't be a defeater, it would just mean he was determined to say something that contradicted his world view. people are hypocritical all the time

[@jamesragsdale8202]

I don't think that defeated it. Stimuli from the outer environment changes our brain. He provided a stimuli of hope and we felt momentary pleasure. No different than training a dog but because of language we are more complex but no less determined. Determinism isn't defeated by the fact that the outer environment changes us.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

There’s no defeater. Determinism means we can be influenced by people persuading us to embrace happiness more readily. Determinism means people can be persuaded by others to change their priorities. So, Dan’s appeal to everyone to value happiness more is totally in line with determinism. Christians constantly get this wrong because it seems they have many theological incentives to get it wrong.

[@andrewtsai777]

42:10 The difference between pretending free will exists (while it does not) and religion is that religious people don't pretend their God exists. They truly believe that their God is real. If someone says they know that there is no God, but pretend a God exists so they can feel comforted, we don't usually regard that person as genuinely religious.

[@bendecidospr]

About half-way through, and I still can’t believe someone hasn’t brought up the fact that this “should” language makes no sense under determinism. You can’t say we “should” embrace libertarian free-will, even though its not real, because if its not real, then we either will or will not embrace it. We are not free to choose otherwise.

[@JasonWilliams89]

No, you don't understand the context...

[@TheJackoloco]

i believe in free will but i think this objection might just be semantics for example, God is eternal but human language (or at least english, im not sure) only allows us to describe God in tenses

[@HarryNicNicholas]

there is no free will. but as you can't see the future you have to act like you have choice, otherwise you do absolutely nothing, which is determined anyway, you rot. until we can time travel, in either direction, we have to treat the world as having free choices, but it does help to understand how your own mind works.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@TheJackoloco it's called colloquial english. there is probably a technical language that people who conduct experiments use.

[@bendecidospr]

@@HarryNicNicholas If there is no free will, then its not appropriate to say that, since we can’t see into the future, we have to act like we do. If there is no free will, you cannot choose to act like you have free will, or not. It has already been determined whether or not you will act in such a way. So, seeing into the future is irrelevant. Ultimately, the only reason we believe in free will or not is because it has been determined (assuming there is no free will, of course). So, you and I aren’t even free to change our minds about free will in this very discussion.

[@andrewtsai777]

52:40 Braxton seems to confuse determinism with "not able to change one's mind". In a deterministic world, people can still change their minds. You can understand the process as people are determined to change their minds when they encounter a new piece of information and are convinced by it through predetermined reasoning they have.

[@CRHE]

I wonder if that fedora Braxton has on his shelf used to belong to an internet atheist he converted.

[@Apanblod]

Perhaps. Since that would be his only convert I suppose he'd want to save that as memorabilia ;)

[@CRHE]

Anton Ekstrand POWERFUL response. Good job.

[@Apanblod]

@@CRHE I have no idea how to accurately react to that response. Thanks/You realise I was joking, right? 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@BornOnThursday]

I want to say so much, but I will go with one point. I believe I understand the view of determinism and would say it acts as if a law such as gravity. It works until acted on by an outside force, but this only changes the outcome partially. If I throw a ball, depending on my abilities, it will go up and then fall towards the earth. Now, that its going to happen UNLESS I or someone else catches the ball first. Now, gravity didn't go away, but the intervention of the catcher changed the pre-determined outcome of the ball falling to the earth. If we look at it like that, we can identify that a level of awareness can change certain outcomes. I could go deeper into the example, but UNLESS someone replies as interested in wanting to hear more from me, I will stop here.

[@BornOnThursday]

@Matthew N That's fine, I would agree that the catch was determined. I can easily picture a situation where someone throws a ball and somebody plans on catching it, and succeeds. Mainly, I'm stating that if say you are playing catch and someone either has a bad throw or catch, or the wind catches the ball, or the sun gets in someone's, etc. the ball will seemingly travel along an arc in the air, and be caught. Those factors generally play a role in this scenario. If the drive home from work takes 20 minutes, then I will plan on being home in 20 minutes UNLESS I hit traffic. This could be a factor with many variables. This might not impact my drive heavily as I might not be in traffic long or it might hugely impact my drive, doubling the time to get home. Without total awareness of all factors and their current activities, I am left deciding on limited information and may have a determined path which may go different than I think when an unknown factor redirects me. By not being aware of a factor, it reduces my chances of remaining on the same path.

[@BornOnThursday]

@Matthew N I think the problem is that we CANNOT view reality as a whole which is why they are having this discussion. Our perspective is limited, and we are not machines built to solve how everything functions with the immediate abilities to do so. And it seems most people live their lives contently without knowing what we already know, even if they only work and spend time with their family. How it ALL works would only likely matter if they thought it was going to end or interrupt that life.

[@Peter-wl3tm]

If the skeptic thinks that there’s no such thing as free will, why do they waste time arguing and giving “supposed evidence” to try to convince those opposed to their worldview. Shouldn’t they just go about their business and leave others alone, because the other people have supposedly been predetermined to believe and no amount of evidence can convince them otherwise if determinism is true.

[@aidanbenbow6682]

I appreciate Dan the atheist giving well thought out arguments, rather than just belittling those who don't agree, but it does seem like things don't make any sense if you take God out of the picture.

[@kyaxara7321]

Really? Wich God?

[@andreaspriantono6791]

I think, it is never about god, god never exist. It is about human. As long as we human, live, side by side, meet each other, there is no free will, but awareness and respect each other. But with the god, awareness and respect are missing. Because you gave those to god.

[@aidanbenbow6682]

@@kyaxara7321 well, the different God's are obviously humans trying to make sense of things, but I think there is a true God who we can know if we seek him!

[@aidanbenbow6682]

@@andreaspriantono6791 but surely awareness and respect come from God because we reflect his character!

[@andreaspriantono6791]

@@aidanbenbow6682 we reflect it each other, human from human, never from god. Everything that we heard always comes from human, not god.

[@CMVMic]

I'm not sure it follows that under determinism that one can't be rational? Also, Dan rightfully pointed out that claiming one can do otherwise isn't verifiable or falsifiable. Quantum indeterminism simply means we can not determine what will happen, not that it is indeterminable. If we had a better understanding of quantum mechanics, we may be able to determine it. While one may say that there is an element of randomness it does mean that it is only an ingredient in one's decision, as it may very well be the reason for one's decision. There can be no free will if by free one means uncaused. I'm not sure what is the argument against theologicial determinism being made here. Omniscience alone is not the problem it's an omniscient creator that is problematic for free will. Indetermination is a cop out. Before God created, he knows what people would do due to his action. Also, how can God be free? What caused his intentions? If there was always an intention then how did it get from intention to creation. If creation couldn't have been created sooner then how does the notion of eternity even apply to this God. Christianity makes far more implausible assertions than an eternal circular causal universe.

[@janwaska521]

Does this discussion help to elucidate the issue of TF binding sites motifs associated with transcription regulatory code?

[@He.knows.nothing]

I seemed to have missed an actual argument made in support of libertarian free will. I may have missed it, I'm just listening while in the car, but all I can recall is Braxton laying out his issues with accepting determinism and I can't seem to recall any real evidence of a transcendent agent being involved in our actions.

[@He.knows.nothing]

@Matthew N no, I make epistemological distinctions of evidence. I want to know what the evidence was so I can then make that distinction.

[@hawkxlr]

He basically said "I feel a strong intuition that I have free will, and I haven't been shown enough evidence that this intuition is wrong." He's presupposing that free will exists. It's just shifting the burden of proof onto the person arguing free will doesn't exist.

[@He.knows.nothing]

@@hawkxlr that doesn't shift the burden of proof for the claim, that's just avoiding it.. idk, I think that defense of free will is pretty lame

[@hawkxlr]

@@He.knows.nothing Yeah, it's pretty weak. He has the same reasoning for why he believes in objective morality. "My intuition tells me morals are objective, therefore l believe they are." It's a big feels over reals approach.

[@He.knows.nothing]

@Matthew N accuracy is determined when conclusions you arrive to comply with reality. One can know this through logic which is predicated on the functioning of your brain and knowledge that you have previously attained through deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Inaccurate conclusions are most definitely an observed phenomena that is predicated on such facets as human ignorance and the inability to effectively rationalize

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini

[@bilbobaggins9893]

This was very illuminating, thanks for the write up. God bless!

[@kichu912]

0:45 dan dennett never called free will an illussion. He just said free will is not actually what you think it is

[@kylexinye1990]

Krishnan Unni Well, to be fair, Barker later agreed with this.

[@janwaska521]

Does this discussion shed any light on the subject of self awareness?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

justine and braxton can't have a lot of self awareness if they think god is on their side. i bet if there is a god he loathes religion, and despises the braxtons of this world, and wishes the justins would stop pretending to be his spokesperson.

[@AlphaQee]

Was curious whether our natural instincts could be an example of determinism as it would most definitely impact our choices? Eg. Animals survive off their instincts, pretty sure there are just some things in our biology we cannot stop.

[@kimbirch1202]

It is insane to identify with a mindless lump of flesh and bone, with no qualities at all and does not even contain life. This is the message of Jesus.

[@daveyofyeshua]

1:08:40 because of the justice system. When a person commits a crime against another person that a panel/judge/victim/law says was wrong society/individuals understand that justice needs to be provided. Therefore we accept that humans have the ability to choose doing right from wrong. Deterministic world view is double standards 101

[@Apanblod]

Where is the double standard? Just because the people involved in the justice system may consider people free to make choices doesn't mean that the determinist agree with that position, or have to take those laws as an indication that free will does exist. And Barker clearly stated in the debate that the focus shouldn't be on punative measures, but rather protection for the rest of society.

[@daveyofyeshua]

@@Apanblod 'protection for the rest of society' looks how? In your view

[@BardicLiving]

@@daveyofyeshua An example might be that, for instance, if someone is a compulsive arsonist it would be in society's interest to keep them under confinement or surveillance to make sure they can't endanger anyone's life.

[@daveyofyeshua]

@@BardicLiving hi, that would be to have someone still essentially punished for a crime they didn't choose to act out? Doesn't matter how you try and cut it, society acts as if individuals have freewill over their decisions. May I ask what gives your life meaning?

[@BardicLiving]

@@daveyofyeshua You could argue though that the punishment is aimed at stopping the behavior and not the thought process behind it, though. If someone fantasized about starting a fire in a public building every day but never did, society probably wouldn’t feel the need to punish them for that. In either case I think on the whole people regard punishment as an unpleasant but necessary means of serving the public good. Life’s “meaning” is a similar case I think. People feel their lives are meaningful if they’re emotionally satisfied, which is a practical consequence of their actions and environment. Different things can make life feel meaningful to different people.

[@steveprofiler]

Even if there is sometimg divine that gave people so called "free will" You still did not choose to be born. All choices came as a follow-up of beeing born that you did not choose. Therefor no "free will"

[@janwaska521]

Does this discussion resolve the hard problem of consciousness?

[@ronaldmendonca6636]

Lol. If it did, you wouldn't JUST be seeing it here.

[@AlecSorensen]

So if an illusion we develop that has social meaning should be embraced, such as depth perception, race, and free will (to use his examples), why doesn't this apply to religion? It's interesting how Barker contrasts free will to religion: "It's not something we're completely making up." But if you assume there was an evolved and social utility to free will, why would you make a different assumption? Unless of course, your position on religion is more based on personal antipathy than reasoning. Surely something almost all of humanity has engaged in throughout its history isn't made up out of whole cloth magically, but exists for evolutionary and or social reasons. As Alex O' Conner, philosopher and atheist points out, there are studies about how even atheists get more religious when you remind them of their death. So, let's just embrace this beautiful part of humanity, despite the fact that you may in fact believe you know it to be false. The ironic thing is few believers I know advocate exercising this kind of willfully blind faith; I guess it takes an atheist?

[@jkm9332]

I enjoyed this discussion between a free human agent and a moist robot.

[@felicededuyo7999]

Clear. Dan Barker is a genius. America’s Best Thinker.

[@andrewtsai777]

1:00:25 Classical question begging here. You first assume the result of having libertarian free will is true, and then use that to claim libertarian free will is true. And then use that as foundation to say that "Now we know we can make justifiable knowledge claim".

[@danielcartwright8868]

Dan Barker's answer to the logic question assumed that we can choose to exercise rationality, and also dodged the point that there's no reason for him to assume that his process of rationality is working any better than Justin's.

[@davelanger]

how so

[@mustard4428]

Thank you so much. I was about to make the same point. All logic is based on axiomatic presuppositions so it's useless to make that point. It was bothering me that the atheist dude wasn't calling him on that. Good debate otherwise, though.

[@piage84]

It sounds to me the Braxton's argument for free will is that he doesn't like the alternative. He hasn't provided any evidence rather than a world without free will is not a great place to be. My question is, does he really believe there's free will or does he have to argue for free will no matter what because without that his christian worldview doesn't work?

[@davidacreman6446]

Not particularly, there are many Christians who hold that the ultimate sovereignty of God results in absolute determinism, or at least humans who have a will, but not one which is free. I don't hold to that myself necessarily, but my point is that either free will or lack thereof is compatible with Christianity to a great extent. The Bible basically presents both facts simultaneously - Firstly, that it calls us to make wise choices as though we were exercising will, but secondly presenting God as able to somehow accomplish his will despite that in such a way as to be in complete control. How the mechanics of that work is a subject of much debate in Christianity so anywhere on the spectrum is fine. In essence, the debate is about 'how it works out on God's side of the equation' because it's very clear that the Bible teaches that our side is that we are both personally responsible, and also should trust that God is in control. So our side is clear, and that's the main thing. So Christianity doesn't force a specific answer to the free will question.

[@CMVMic]

@@davidacreman6446 Isn't free will the only defense for God permitting suffering?

[@celticwinter]

@@CMVMic don't take what he said as meaning "Christianity is torn about free will". It really is not. I don't think determinism is very biblical. Take the example of Mary willingly doing the will of God. Taking away choice also takes away what's so wonderful about it. Catholics and - I think - Orthodox have free will as a dogma. So that's most Christians already by itself.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@celticwinter Well, many Christians would claim that Catholics aren’t Christians... so determinism might not be that rare among true Christians.😉

[@dr.shousa]

The problem with libertarian free will, apart from the fact that it is unfalsifiable, is that it clearly breaks the principle of sufficient reason. If PSR is not upheld, then everything we now, science etc, is unsubstantiated and arguments for god (eg Kalam) fails. I haven't heard a good argument against this. The only way, it seems, is to say that intentions/will are causally not efficacious. But, this leads to compatibilist free will, not LFW, and you would have to use special pleading to argue that god, who is an immaterial mind, can make something that is causally not efficacious, efficacious.

[@soundmind468]

The root of the issue is “sin” biblically defined. In Romans “slave” would be the wrong translation instead it is “servant”. Why? Because “sin” is a choice to not believe and obey. 1 Corinthians is not that man does know about sin and can’t understand the gospel but about the “deep things of God”, which can only be spiritually discerned. The free will debate is a man made philosophical issue to pull man away from scripture and faith in Christ unto leaning on his own understanding. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8

[@soundmind468]

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Romans 14:23 .....for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Romans 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

[@soundmind468]

John Bull, sure I do faith and belief is inseparable from choice, that is why I don’t believe you, and you don’t believe me and you don’t believe that the bible says to believe to be saved. 1 Corinth 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Hebrews 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

[@soundmind468]

John Bull, that verse is pulled out of context. Here is my response that I post very time a calvinist use this verse out of context to fit their false premise. John 6:44 does not teach Calvinism it is actually antithetical to Calvinism. Here is why, read the whole chapter 6 of John so you get the context, also know and understand what John as written from chapter 1 through 5. The central point Jesus is tell His own people (the Jews) is “I am the bread of life” v35 Everything Jesus says points to that truth. And He said “The bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” v51 Before verse 44 Jesus and John has already established who He Is and why He is come and who sent Him. The answers are chapter 1 verse 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and The Word was God. And verse 3 and 10 Jesus Christ is the creator. Chapter 1 verse 36 “Behold the Lamb of God!” Chapter 3:16 “the only begotten Son of God..”. Chapter 4 verses 25 and 26 “That Messiah” In John 6 verse 41 and 42 the Jews are rejecting Jesus Christ based on who He claims to be and His purpose for coming in the flesh. Then John said in verse 44 “No man can come to, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” So Jesus is referring to the barrier that is keeping all from “coming” to Him for either salvation or judgment. What is that barrier? SIN. Jesus is telling them that His body HAS TO BE the sacrifice to the whole world to reconcile the whole world back to Himself. The “draw” in verse 44 is used as a reconciliation drawing pulling the payment of sin out of Christ. And once the payment of sin is paid it pulls all men into Christ for either judgment or eternal life. All men get raised to life on the last day (which is the day of the Lord which is a 1000 years). But only those that believe in the son will inherit eternal life., the unbelievers get a resurrected body fit for the lake of fire. Therefore if you are a Calvinist and believe He only died for the so called “elect of Calvinism” you are in unbelief and agree with “the Jews” in that day. Because No man can be saved or judged by Jesus Christ without the sacrifice He made for all people so that whosoever might believe in Him will have eternal life.

[@soundmind468]

John Bull, not trying to pigeon hold or win a debate, just sharing the gospel with you. I will pray for you.

[@giladpachter4546]

"...not just to win a debate..." 😲🙄 When did apologetics ever win a debate ?

[@VaughanMcCue]

I am "sorry" you feel that way. Please accept my apologies.

[@Apanblod]

The concept of 'winning' a debate is a red herring in my opinion. I really prefer an honest and open discussion where the participants don't feel the need to take the audience or listeners into consideration when making their case.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@Apanblod Depending if the desired outcome is to inform or persuade. It seems that in the USA the number of people who believe religious nonsense is diminishing. The decline is a result of debates and the wider acceptance of reality. Most debates appear to encourage the already converted. When we see people who have voted in favour of an individual rather than the veracity of the information, it indicates that no new learning has taken place. I would rather hear an X'tian put up a good argument, without magic claims than a normal person making unsubstantiated statements. Being a nice and friendly debater serves no purpose if lies and inaccuracies are not challenged. I will now watch the show for a second time. I have left these comments here and will come back to edit it when my mind is clearer.

[@ahaan-thakker9142]

Just watch every William Lane craig debate ,ur question will be answered

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@ahaan-thakker9142 Many questions might get answered but not the ones that I want to be answered. I need truthful and direct and they can not come from a theist's mouth because that would require the respondent being called upon to be truthful.

[@nessaferg9209]

Scientific materialism seems to be assumed to be true in this conversation. The analytic idealism proposition as explained by Bernardo Kastrup makes so much more sense and changes the whole argument about free will

[@haydar_kir]

Istiklal Caddesi? I miss İstanbul a lot.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

Best kebabs I've ever had. Highly recommend a place called Antakya, for anyone looking for a great meal near Grand Bazaar. 🙏🏼🔥✌🏽

[@ASKTruthApologetics]

Braxton- knocking it out of the park!

[@Apanblod]

Yes, those appeals to consequences are really hard hitters in a discussion.

[@ASKTruthApologetics]

Anton Ekstrand - What?

[@Apanblod]

@@ASKTruthApologetics Most of Braxtons points are ultimately an appeal to consequences, i. e. "If my opponent's viewpoint is true, I wouldn't like it/it would lead to negative consequences for society/everything would be pointless, therefore it isn't true."

[@ASKTruthApologetics]

Anton Ekstrand - Thank you for clarifying. I would say Braxton was pointing out absurdities in Dan’s ideology. I find it absurd that a basket of matter colliding with matter has the capacity to self reflect and analyze the mysteries of the universe - all the while being fully determined in thought and motion - and then make a conclusion... was it a “conclusion” or just the result of determination? Then, in all absurdities, that predetermined bag of matter in motion tries to convince other bags of matter that their predetermined word vomit and brain fizz is more correct that the other bag of matters predetermined brain fizz. Absurd.

[@GenuinelyQurious]

ASK Truth Apologetics nice argument from incredulity you crafted there

[@carakerr4081]

Tim Keller has a great sermon on the Biblical view of our will vs God's will. The Bible through many verses which I list below speaks of how God works His will through our choices. So it is both 100 percent our choices and 100 percent God working through those choices to determine what actually happens. As humans we think it is either/or: either we have free libertarian will OR God is determining everything. But it is actually both. It is 100 percent our choices that matter and we have consequences for those choices and actions. And it is 100 percent God working through our choices. If we murder someone we go to jail. If we give money to the poor then we get rewarded. If we work hard we get promoted and etc. However what actually happens is totally determined by God. He works through our choices to achieve His plan, so that His plan comes to pass. Proverbs 19:21 Many plan's are in a man's heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand. Proverbs 16:11 The plans of the heart belong to a man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

[@johncook5479]

These guys should take cognisance of the study of behaviour psychology, and to go further more complex radical behavhourism. Free will comes into conflict with social learning and often you can predict a way some one will behave given a certain social environment.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

If there is an omnipotent, all knowing god then you have no free will. If there is no god then you have free will. I don't see why this is debatable.

[@frankwhelan1715]

But with God more than just 'knowing what you will do'' also knows that what you do ,or what you believe,(or don't believe) will end up causing you to suffer for eternity, but goes ahead and creates you anyway.

[@kelvyquayo]

You are suggesting God forfeit the existence of those that love Him for the sake of those that would hate Him? Would you even do that?

[@BardicLiving]

@@kelvyquayo Why does God have to choose, though? Why not just create everyone so that they love God? Or take away the pain of people who would be doomed to damnation since they can't?

[@hawkxlr]

While true and certainly enough to show God to be a moral monster, that wasn't exactly the point of this discussion.

[@kelvyquayo]

@@BardicLiving Because in order to love you must be able to choose otherwise God would just be programming automata. People that reject the simple message of mercy and grace provided by God, Jesus, then their blood is on their own heads. We were created for this purpose.. once everything is transformed into the doorstep of eternity (New Heaven and Earth) I do not know what God has in store for those that have rejected His Light.. but Justice will be given just as much as His mercy... But He has spread His mercy over ALL that He has created.... The rest would really be an argument about the nature of Free will.. or rather secondarily causal beings and personal responsibility.

[@BardicLiving]

@@kelvyquayo I don’t know that love necessarily is a choice, though. It seems to me that there are a lot of things we love or feel strongly about without our choosing to - our favorite song, for instance, or our friends or family members. Even the choices we do make depend on the complex way that our brains process stimuli and form motivations. By creating a person God effectively is programming an automaton - God knows everything we’re going to do and why we’re going to do it, after all. We can never be so “free” that we surprise God.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it's not i suppose, but it should be, pretty obvious that we AREN'T making conscious choices, our brains have to do the choice processing, come to a decision, generate the chemical and electrical activity and then we flip the bird. the proof of the pudding with free will though is we cannot make BOTH choices in any given situation, you reason your way to a decision and theen act on a COMPULSION, for instance i can't be a muslim however hard i might try, i would have to spend a considerable length of time trying very hard, and seeing as i'm 67 and still atheist it's a trick and a half. ut we are COMPELLED to do things, that's the "free will" part. i can choose A or B freely, but i won't, i will make my mind up, be compelled to choose one or the other. when it comes to the brain and decision making, i play the guitar and i've found that over the years i can practice something and have no joy with it at all, howeverr hard i try. but if i leave it for some time, weeks or months, when i come back to it some of it has sunk in, my brain appears to have been processing the problem without me be aware. i think the subconscious is doing more work than we give it credit.

[@annturi5826]

If there is a God Creator, and this God has some kind of a plan in mind (purpose for and a reason for his creation), then there cannot be any kind of a free will involved. Can a swiss watch maker allow the individual parts of his watch to have a free will and do as they please? Can this Creator God leave the success of his "project" to chance? It does not seem wise. On the other hand, if there is this God which does let human beings do as they choose, then the plan is only to observe and see what happens, without any specific purposeful outcome desired and planned; but in that case this God is not omniscient, otherwise what is the point?! A third option might be that some of us do have a "free will" and some of us do not, possibly due to some evolutionary development (or a lack thereof); for this option God the Creator is not necessary. Same possibility would exist in case this universe is indeed a hologram, in which case the "player" or "players" would have a free will, but computer generated Bots would not, as their behavior is programed. To create such a hologram, a creator is needed, but the outcomes are not necessarily determined or desired. Here is a question: is there a good reason (that we know of) to generalize, and claim either that all of us have the free will or none of us do? One more thing: how can we argue at all that our choices are based on a free will, if we do not understand the consequences of our choices? For example, if Hitler's mother knew that her son was going to kill 11 million people, would she still choose to have him? This kind of "free will" reminds me of choices made by flipping a coin, or "pinning a tail on a donkey" game which we play blindfolded. What kind of a "will" (free or not) is a "will" when one is a) FORCED to choose, b) choose between limited options, and c) without knowing the consequences of one's choices?

[@TheJackoloco]

a part of God's will could be us having free will and for the purpose of us existing like this could be for us ourselves, for the experience of life, God, heaven etc given by God

[@annturi5826]

Good morning @@TheJackoloco and thanks for your much valued reply. Yes, it is possible, but WHY? Why would this God Creator want someone to experience "life, God, heaven, etc."? To put it simply, what is in it for Him? And why create a "world" of "Yin and Yang" nature, where there is ALWAYS maintained the balance between the GOOD and the EVIL, and where there is ALWAYS something "good" in every "evil", and something "evil" in every "good"? In such a world, we can NEVER WIN ANYWAY (or win all the time, depending how you look at it), no matter what we "choose" to do, because "the world wags on", and on, and on, and on, never changing its nature. I have heard people say that God desires to GIVE (love) to someone (Us), and that is the reason He created human beings. But to be able to GIVE, it is necessary to create a NEED first. In other words, in order to "save" someone from death, you must create death to begin with. Or if you wish to heal someone, you must create a disease first. I have a great problem with the ETHICS of such a situation... My question is WHY, WHAT IS THE POINT of all this CHARADE? Sadly, no "human" explanations satisfy me, and unfortunately, my own "brain" fails me miserably. I hope I'll get my answers some day... If you can enlighten me somehow, please do so; I certainly can use a little PERCEPTION CORRECTION from time to time. Thanks a million for sharing your thoughts with me; I learn a lot by conversing with other people. Most kind regards, and best wishes

[@TheJackoloco]

well, I think a lot of this is hard to answer in terms of basic Theism so I'd say theres an answer in the Christian doctrine of the fall, the Christian theist view is that the world will not go on forever in its current state and will some day have a new creation, and that death wasn't exactly "made" by God it was consequence of man's sin, so to be saved from death would be a new invitation for God's foregiveness for this original sin that man was warned about but still chose it theres a lot more about this topic to discuss, and i very much appreciate your open mindedness but ill have to say that i am no philosopher or theologian so your best option may be to inquire a real theologian or perhaps purchase a book by alvin plantinga, Willaim Lane Craig or somebody else that are like them anyhow, i wish you well on your pursuit of truth!

[@annturi5826]

Thank you@@TheJackoloco for sharing your thoughts and for the references given. I wish you too the best that life has to offer.

[@chewyjello1]

It's not a paradox! You can tell people to enjoy life even if there is no free will BECAUSE we can all have influences on each other! What I do is determined by my genetics AND my environmental influences. That's the beautiful thing. We are all part of determining the actions of each other. In a way we are all one. And that's beautiful. So whether or not someone enjoys life may not be up to them...but you can play a role. Whether or not you play a role might not be up to you, but I can play a role. I see no need to throw out hands up and say "There is no free will so I may as well not even try!" That's just silly!!

[@vincentsolis5149]

"god knows what god will freely choose" Where's the choice then???

[@yvonnecrozier4536]

One side starts so many sentences with the words "I think". What "seems right" TO him is very unfortunate FOR him.

[@He.knows.nothing]

If you believe in free will, could you will yourself to believe that the sky is red? Despite observing that the sky is blue and having knowledge of the distinguishment between red and blue on the color spectrum, could you still will yourself to believe that the sky is red? If not, how is that not determined? Could you come up with an example of honestly believing something that you have knowledge/experience to the contrary of? I'm looking for a demonstration of libertarian free will because I can't seem to think of one. Maybe I'm too dense, idk

[@He.knows.nothing]

@Matthew N both free will and determinism can theoretically lead to deception

[@hawkxlr]

Braxton's form of free will accounts for this. To him, you can't directly decide what your beliefs are, but you can decide *how* you arrive at the beliefs you hold. For example, Braxton could choose to define "red" differently and believe the sky is red through that reasoning.

[@He.knows.nothing]

@@hawkxlr but regardless of what definition you impose on "sky", the logic and information you use to arrive at that conclusion are still functionally the same determining principles

[@hawkxlr]

@@He.knows.nothing The logic itself isnt something you can control, but he claims you can control what kind of logic and sources of information you use. I agree though. It's more like Braxton is kicking the can down the road in order to handle this specific objection.

[@He.knows.nothing]

@Matthew N greed and selfishness are evolutionary traits that increase the survival chances of an individual in conflict with the social group. It occurs through a list for dopamine in the brain that results in acts like deception, stealing, and unjustified killings

[@Cmbtvtrn05]

The falling away....is scary.

[@privateprivate1865]

I think there's too many popular Theists that pretend to believe they know that god exists. It's a way to feel superior. But needing attention to obtain narcissistic supply from those you deem lesser than you, means you are the weaker one. They know it, and it eats at them. So when you out them, they will deflect, play the victim, and continue to pretend as if they know the unknowable. But don't fall for it. They know they are lying to you, and themselves.

[@scooterboy3676]

Having any "qualification" in theology is equivalent to having a degree in dragon taming. Pointless!

[@nathanfosdahl7525]

How so?

[@sandersson2813]

@Matthew N How so? Dragons and God's are to our best knowledge simply man made fables. There is no evidence for either and no reason to think either exist.

[@HaecceitasQuidditas]

Regardless of whether or not God exists, it is not pointless to be knowledgeable about the history, thinking, culture, and practice pertaining to the religious ideas that a significant part of humankind takes to be central in defining the purpose of their life.

[@michaelmacias8]

Free will exist but we humans do not have free will. What we have; what God has given us is actually free choice. We are free to do as we please. To be sinful or sinless. If we had free will there would be no consequences to our choices. So only God has free will.

[@PracticalFaith]

Dan quotes "If we get rid of the idea of free will, we could treat each other more rationally." But... If we get rid of the idea of free will, don't we also get rid of rationality?

[@lukilladog]

from the illusion of free rationality at least. Ps.- Some people get confused about this because they tend to conflate determinism with destiny.

[@terenceandmalloryjones8163]

If we get rid of freewill we get rid of moral culpability... which does the opposite of cultivating an atmosphere of treating others rationally... It gives everyone the excuse of being instinctual animals of their nature. Evolutionary darwinian ethics, I believe is the most destructive approach to ethics/morality.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Dan's defense of rationality was to take 2+2=4, and assume that since that truth is supported by observation, we can then extrapolate all rationality to the same process. That seems wildly optimistic to me. First of all, it presupposes a strictly materialistic view of reality. Then it presupposes the empirical scientific method (repeated experiment) as the only valid way to knowledge. What about historical knowledge?? And even if that were true, I doubt that you can reduce all mathematics too observable phenomena, so I think we're stuck with pretty basic arithmetic as the basis for our entire rationality.

[@markfrank0924]

If we get rid of free will, which would be impossible as the person or being in control would have to give up control, why would he/she it do that? Would we know what to do or would decisions we make have to come from past experiences? Dan, says we're we're not in control, and then throughout the talk he talks about changing what we do. I think the man is a lulu and needs to consider what he says and comparison to what he says.

[@BornOnThursday]

Nothing has to change, but this new belief may impact someone's behavior. I feel like there are many factors that influence me and I don't control which one interact with me, and my wants appear to change despite having moments where I feel like I want nothing more than that one thing. I feel like that is out of my control, but based on how I feel, I act with that information. I feel like I try to be more aware of what I do and what the impact is, but I have yet to explain that to someone and see them suddenly act/respond as I do. As if remaining in the illusion, they continue living with the possibility of making a near neutral change in their life that would be unrecognizable as a change from my perspective.

[@daviangordon4097]

If there is no free will then what is the point? Social constructs are not a good enough reason. This view is extremely depressing if as the bible says "vanity of vanities all is Vanity". Without God and his plan and influence then everything is meaningless. Why even have this conversation? Did you choose to? Or was it determined? I heard alot of twisting of language as in the example of the apples on the table. Asking how many apples is there is just a failure of the language.

[@peli_candude554]

Well, at 52:21 Braxton pretty much destroys Determinism by demonstrating that (edit for wording) we justify something through a process that Determinism undercuts by saying everything is determined. Time to rest my case of beer or some other beverage of choice that I freely choose and propose a toast to the toasted determinists.

[@Willardandhiswiener]

Disproof of 'free will': It is not human Will, Drive, Desire and Motivation (WDDM) that is free or unfree; it is the PHYSICAL MOVEMENT caused and compelled by them that is either free or unfree. 'Choosing' and 'deciding' are solely dependent upon and determined by the strength and intensity of your WDDM to experience the greatest degree of PLEASURE. Therefore, 'making a choice' and 'making a decision' are not 'free': they are solely determined by, dependent upon and constrained by - and not free of, or free from - your WDDM to experience the greatest degree of PLEASURE. As puppets are compelled (or 'Willed') to MOVE by strings attached to their limbs, human beings are INSTINCTUALLY compelled to MOVE by or via WDDM. When you become aware that Life is like a DVD movie - where, at each moment in time, all MOVEMENTS occur in the only way they must occur - you experience a total understanding and acceptance of, and compassion for, all human behavior. You 'connect' and 'become one' with the source that 'controls' all Living Things

[@peli_candude554]

@@Willardandhiswiener The biggest problem I have with that analysis is that I don't see my life as a DVD movie. I have made decisions that deliberately were against me receiving the maximum pleasure many times over and I can vividly recall doing or saying things that were likely to cause me pain. Not out of a S&M pain produces pleasure type of situation either, but making decisions that resulted in freedom of movement and freedom of guilt. I would have to really have some good evidence that I am simply doing exactly what someone or something has planned for me and my belief in God tells me that God will allow me to choose paths that do not lead to him unless I choose to see that my choices previously that lead me away were chosen so I could come back to God like some Prodigal Son. Interesting idea though...

[@Willardandhiswiener]

@@peli_candude554 You are DRIVEN to MOVE via INSTINCT: 'Free will' is absurd. WILL, DRIVE, DESIRE and MOTIVATION (WDDM) share the same meaning. 'Choosing' and 'deciding' are soley determined by the strength and intensity of your WDDM to experience the greatest degree of PLEASURE. Therefore 'making a choice' and 'making a decision' are not 'free': they are solely determined by - not free of, or free from - your WDDM to experience the greatest degree of PLEASURE. . As puppets or marionettes are compelled (or 'willed') to MOVE by strings attached to their limbs, humans are INSTINCTUALLY compelled to MOVE by WDDM. You are a puppet in the Puppet Show of Life; an actor in the DVD Movie of Life

[@peli_candude554]

@@Willardandhiswiener You've already said that but this time were you instinctively posting that or was it a learned response? Were you driven by the foreknowledge given to you by someone else who thinks this way and you are simply agreeing with their analysis?

[@peli_candude554]

@@Willardandhiswiener So you're saying you cannot learn anything and all your actions and thoughts are instinctive? Do you instinctively like or dislike music even though everyone else might like or dislike it as opposed to what you like or dislike? How can instincts result in two different choices? Must be free will or some learned behavior that tells them something different from what you learned...

[@quacks2much]

I personally like Justin, but he irritates me more than almost any other theist in other ways. Justin can see and understand the arguments why a god is unlikely, but he comes to the opposite conclusion that there is a god. Other than being created, no god is necessary if free will is defined as the freedom to make moral choices. I see no difference between no god, thus no god can interfere with our free will, and a god who decides not become a dictator interfering in our freedom to make the choices we want.

[@51elephantchang]

Always impressed with Barker.

[@jenwesley9113]

Braxton looking smart, Dan looking not so bad, Justin looking homeless

[@markmcculley2169]

If that's a shot at the beard, I'll have none of it! It's a beautiful beard.

[@thenkdshorts9485]

Masterful on Braxton’s part. I kept waiting for a scientific case against free will from Dan, but none was forthcoming.

[@davelanger]

Braxton doesn't give a case for free will. He just presupposes it.

[@spacedoohicky]

There's not really a scientific cased for, or against free will. There isn't a supernatural case for, or against free will. Most people who think there is free will go by how it seems. They use their perception of a seeming of cause independent choice. People who think there is not free will are just going by how cause, and effect works, and how there doesn't appear to be any one that can explain free will. Maybe in the future how the brain produces choices will be mapped out, and it will be shown that free will does not exist. Or maybe a mechanism of choice that is uncaused will be discovered showing free will does exist. It's sort of up in the air. But determinists do have the upper hand because our existence has it's initial event that is far outside our choice in the form of conception, and birth. That among other experiences like hunger, pain, and various emotions that appear to be out of our control which shows that we are determined on some level.

[@samael5782]

Notice the double standard? How believers always want a scientific case for something that goes against their belief but never one for their belief itself? Where's the scientific case for the supernatural?

[@thenkdshorts9485]

Samael סמאל Did you not notice that Dan presumes the nonexistence of free will not only has a scientific case, but that it’s a decided matter? What video did you watch? No double standard. As for a scientific case for the supernatural, have you really never heard any of the arguments (cosmological, teleological, etc)?

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@thenkdshorts9485 Those aren’t scientific arguments, none of them are testable in any way, none of them make any predictions, none of them are falsifiable. It’s sophistry peddled by extremely biased armchair philosophers.😂

[@DamiensRegicide]

Someone should talk about knowledge not being causal and how that is not Gnostic heresy. Thanks!

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

And how Determinism is said heresy.

[@MasterSpade]

Good civil and respectful debate. IMO, if there were some "Omnipotent" and "Perfect" god, THAT is where we would have less chance of having "Free Will". Because if he is "All Knowing" and Perfect, then one has to ask the question -- "Can Anything EVER happen that is NOT part of "god's Perfect Plan"? If the answer is yes, then god's plan is cannot be "Perfect". If this is the case, why call him god? If the answer is no, then all those children being Raped by those priests was part of his Plan! If this is the case, you cannot claim him to be an All Loving god. Besides that, nowhere in the bible does it say we have "Free Will". But in different parts of the bibles, it does say the Opposite. So when people say "god doesn't send you to Hell, you send yourself there with your "Free Will"". According to the bibles, that's not true. Again, instead of saying we have free will, it says the opposite.

[@MasterSpade]

Matthew N -- You wrote: "The godless universe doesn't care if you are a rapist or a rape victim. I doubt you have shown that you a perfect understanding of perfection." If you've read the bibles, you will see that a Universe WITH the god of the bibles is the one that does NOT care if you are a Rapist or Rape Victim. He does not care if you have killed and skinned alive newborn children. The only thing he cares about is being Worshipped! Because it says in those books that you can do ALL the Evil you want, as long as you ask for forgiveness and.....believe in him. Do you remember the one "Unforgivable" sin? So a Universe WITH a god has nothing to do with Morals. The only thing that matters in that Universe is belief and Obedience. The only wrong is to not believe. That is Dictatorship. Either Obey, or Suffer. That is why there is a better chance for "Free Will" WITHOUT a god.

[@iainrae6159]

As Christopher Hitchens said on the subject of 'free will'. 'We have no choice but to have free will' Our chimpanzee cousins have free will to choose one piece of fruit over another. .

[@sylviagung1007]

God doesn't do things freely but God does things out of love and passion. And Freewill, we choose to be God or not God. However we choose, God does not jump in to give award or punishment. If he does jump in, he becomes a hypocrite, because he gave us that Freewill

[@sandersson2813]

Did your god approve of Incest, excuse rape, demand genocide, commit genocide, commit torture, command kidnap, torture, subjugation of women, stoning to death of adulterers, gay people and unruly children as well as demand human sacrifice out of love? Try proving a god exists first, then when you can do that, attempt to prove that Christianity is in any way true (or moral)

[@KarthikeyanSEWCS]

The Hunter vs The Barker

[@whatwecalllife7034]

That's clever

[@Bkilfoil747]

Haha alright you got me, actually laughed out loud on that one.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

@@Bkilfoil747 What's the onomatopoeia for smirking and blowing air through your nostrils? Because that's what I did.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

I'm Justin "Covid-beard" Brierley

[@clausjuergenwalde7251]

26 minutes in and it’s been an excellent exchange

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

It’s been a friendly exchange. But barely any substance.

[@clausjuergenwalde7251]

meow meow meow It’s amazing how much time is necessary for significant substance.

[@DaddyBooneDon]

BTW Justin... digging the beard

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Braxton needs to deal with Peter Tse’s physicalist account of libertarian free will. It’s serious work that’s been mostly ignored by everyone on all sides. But Tse is a philosophically-savvy neuroscientist (Sam Harris, eat your heart out!).

[@chaseharrison5469]

Do you know where I can read or watch a video about this argument?

[@BraxtonHunter]

I’m aware. Good stuff.

[@brenosantana1458]

There is free will. One can act right or not.

[@kidheyful]

Well I’m glad that’s settled. Haha

[@edluckenbill377]

Theological nor academic studies if difference Braxon

[@francesbadger3401]

How does this guy get to the idea that depth perception is an illusion? The fact that your brain perceives depth using slight differences in the images from your two eyes is an explanation of how depth perception works, not a repudiation of its existence!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it's a simulation isn't it, you don't have a copy of reality inside your head is probably what he means.

[@marktank7623]

Daniel Dennett says that depth perception is an illusion and makes that a major point. How is depth perception an illusion? There really is depth in the world and having two eyes and a brain to determinate it is no more of an illusion that the numbers on my bathroom scale.

[@tagliatelle]

I think he means that what we see is an illusion because of depth perception, as in, the images of the world that your eyes receive is not what your brain communicates to you

[@MK-dx8mt]

@@tagliatelle well replied!

[@MK-dx8mt]

In that case, a mirage should also not be called an illusion, because the conditions that cause a mirage are all real and out there, yet, we see that what those atmospheric factors culminate in, is something that's not really there. Still, to our eyes, and according to our brains, that looks like water. I think our "depth perception" would be different if we were seeing data from both eyes separately as two images.

[@marktank7623]

@@MK-dx8mt not the same at all because there is depth to our world. Our eyes are measuring instruments. They measure depth similar to a rangefinder.

[@xaindsleena8090]

Interesting trivia on Dan Barker.. he is a member of The Prometheus Society , which is a high IQ society, similar to Mensa International, but much more restrictive. The entry test is designed to be passable by 1 in 30,000 of the population, while Mensa entry is achievable by 1 in 50

[@DanielApologetics]

Barker indeed. But no bite.

[@joserivera8429]

Nice one.

[@Apanblod]

I think it's rather funny, since he's one of the most soft-spoken, polite and friendly debater I've ever seen.

[@jerardosc9534]

@@Apanblod he can be passive aggressive sometimes but overall he is polite most of the time

[@ahmonjeremiah7114]

He cuts off Dan often and interjects when it’s not his turn to do so. It’s irritating.

[@kevinwitty254]

I side with Hunter, Wilson was a Volleyball.

[@EE-uk3yg]

So if "free will" is an illusion, what then is "free thought"?

[@TimothyFish]

If a calculator is determined to say that 2+2=4, how does the calculator know that it is true?

[@bilbobaggins9893]

It doesn’t. That’s precisely the point!

[@WillEhrendreich]

Absolutely. It's just like the Chinese room thought experiment. All the thing knows is the set of rules its given, it doesn't know anything about the contents of the information in or out. It could be programmed incorrectly to think 2+2=344, it's easy to make a computer do stupid things. I've started to learn how to code recently, and it is phenomenal how difficult it is to get even the smallest things to work as intended. Anyway, the point is, the computer only does what it's told, and there are way more ways to crash the thing than to make it do what you want, because it is unable to interpret the messages that are passed to it, you have to build the rules so that the right result comes about, regardless of the ignorance of the machine. It doesn't know how to abductively reason, it knows complicated streams of on or off, which people can use for amazing things, but that is outside intelligence imposing order on it.

[@elawchess]

But that's an argument for the necessity of consciousness for knowledge. Not an argument for freewill.

[@TimothyFish]

@@elawchess, you don't think a computer has knowledge? They aren't aware that they have knowledge, but they have knowledge. The question is how does something verify its own knowledge if all that it had is knowledge? Testing computer software is always more complex than the software itself and it involves comparing what the software does with what is expected. If all we are are machines running software, then we can never be confident in our knowledge because we would need a more complex machine to verify our knowledge but we could not verify the knowledge of that machine.

[@elawchess]

@@TimothyFish I should be taken to mean I didn't think that the computer was knowledgable about the result. If you are taking "has knowledge" to mean "to be in possession of a true" result, then of course then the computer has knowledge. So this confusion only comes about by using two different notions of knowledge. "If all we are are machines running software, ..." I'm not claiming that we just like the computer in the exact sense. Analogy is not equality. Just giving an example of a deterministic system that can reason. The extra bit that people are referring to that we have over a mere adder circuit, it seems to me, is consciousness, not free will.

[@edluckenbill377]

Right . Theology not academics .

[@nathanketsdever3150]

What book does Braxton mention at about 16 minutes which refutes the case for determinism?

[@EricHernandez]

I wonder if Dan freely agreed to this debate 🤔

[@IdolKiller]

When I hear Determinists defend their worldview I'm always reminded of that song "Once in a Lifetime" by the Talking Heads... "And you may find yourself Living in a shotgun shack And you may find yourself In another part of the world And you may find yourself Behind the wheel of a large automobile And you may find yourself in a beautiful house With a beautiful wife And you may ask yourself, well How did I get here?"

[@terenceandmalloryjones8163]

Of course he did. Free will in practice, Determinist in words. Its the same with our Calvinist friends.

[@varvela1]

It’s hilarious you think this question makes some kind of good point... I wonder if you were determined to ask this silly question every chance you get. ...with all due respect.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

To answer your question, "nope". He was compelled, just as us commenters were compelled to make the comments we did. We feel we are correct, and we feel that certain arrangement of words and grammatical tools will be convincing, but at the very least it makes us feel satisfied and we desire that psychological satisfaction and relief. Hence this comment :-). Edit: and my correction of a spelling error I found.

[@Apanblod]

Isn't that the entire point of the debate, Eric?

[@zach2980]

The head nodding when Dan speaks of evolution by two seeming deniers is a little strange.

[@peli_candude554]

It could mean "yes, we know that's the narrative but it doesn't mean that God does not or cannot exist". In fact it means that God could have designed everything that way... Or it could mean God created humans, they didn't just happen sporadically...or that the design was that we were altered to become humans with a brain that allows us to recognize God as the designer where other animals couldn't do that due to their limited cognitive abilities and sets us apart from doing things that animals do (like kill or engage in activities that are not productive like sex with kangaroos).

[@celticwinter]

Catholic Church holds that evolution is fully compatible with creation, so to most people it might not be as strange as you think

[@zach2980]

@@celticwinter then how is Christianity true if Adam/Eve are fictional?

[@celticwinter]

@@zach2980 because the story still makes sense if they are a metaphor. Adam literally means "human". Do you really need help to see this?

[@zach2980]

@@celticwinter Lord of the Rings is also internally consistent. Names in the Bible having synonymous meaning as to there character is a literary tactic. I don't get why this would strengthen anyone's belief in they're actually being historical.

[@quacks2much]

Using delusion is not always a bad thing. Our brains use delusion, by turning things upright even though we are actually seeing them upside down. There are glasses that turn our vision upside down, and when we take them off, sometimes it takes our eyes a while to start seeing things upright. I wanted to try the glasses, but I didn’t want to to walk around seeing things upside down for possibly a day or two. Besides, my wife accuses me of backwards thinking 😊. I don’t need backwards thinking and upside down vision at the same time. When I feel love for my wife and children, I am really feeling a delusion of the brain. That delusion is a good thing. But, it was a pretty good, but unjustified, dig at us atheists for wanting to know the facts. Sorry, but the comparison was not valid, yet I see no facts that the argument was either malicious or dishonest.

[@kimbirch1202]

The core delusion is believing in real objective universe, separate from.our minds, that has its own meaning. Only your mind can give meaning to anything. Yet what meaning or purpose does this world have ?

[@futilitarian3809]

When Barker says we need to treat people as though they are morally responsible, he is clearly wrong. That would be unjust in a hard determinist world. Yes, we do need to protect society from those who have committed and are capable of committing crime, but we should never do so by attributing to them an agency they never had. We must instead be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that no, the criminal is not morally responsible but we are forced to punish him or her regardless, for to do otherwise would be to expose society to unthinkable consequences. By punishing people in this fashion, we punish the behaviour, but not the person. The 'culprit' is freed from the guilt and shame arising from their actions and the victims are freed from the rage and hatred and confusion and often unachievable and severely damaging retributive instinct that so often accompanies victimhood. We will hopefully one day come to acknowledge our powerlessness and see each other as the embodiments of uniques sets of circumstances, some beneficial, others detrimental. We will shed notions of personal virtue and superiority, evil and inferiority. We will instead attribute our traits and actions to either good or bad fortune and become far more grateful to inhabit bodies that have the luxury of trading comments on KZbin rather than those which are forced to endure starvation and torture, war and oppression. We will be forced to recognise each other as moral equals; a recognition that should lead to a shift in the ways in which we perceive and treat one another; away from judgement and towards acceptance, healing and peace. Those who cling to fundamentalist religious faith with remain unswayed, just as they have remained unswayed about evolution. Others will initially become confused and depressed and experience an initial loss of meaning. It will be a challenging transition, but we can no more hide this truth from people than we could have concealed the fact that we orbit the sun. And nor should we. For who would you trust to decide what truth you are capable of knowing?

[@davex444]

Anyone else notice Braxton was reading from a script? Seems he wasn't really there for a real discussion.

[@kelvyquayo]

Mad scientist controlling his brain?

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

Notes are very common, I'd say necessary, for debates.

[@BraxtonHunter]

I didn’t read from a script at any single point in the discussion. When I reference notes it’s to the right or left of the camera. When I look down I’m looking at Dan and Justin on my laptop. When I’m looking at the camera... I’m looking at the camera.

[@kyaxara7321]

Trinity Radio It’s always the same with you, always claiming Christianity is the true religion, I am an atheist in my view Christianity is the biggest lie !Islam is bad but Christianity is a lie!!!!!

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@kyaxara7321 Clear thinking beats emotional platitudes everytime.

[@luke_taylor92]

Don't you dare shave it! Ever!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

if you can't see right through braxton i'd rather you swap teams.

[@donnadeau7619]

"Of course god is not going to change his mind"- Braxton's christian 'libertarian' freewill theology? God elected trump 4 yrs. ago and then changed his mind by electing or by appointing Biden for president? Yes, christian theology is a joke. Why did god changed his mind if he is unable to change his mind?

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

There are those who see meaning in personal chipmunk experiences and those who do not. Is that genetic? I highly doubt it. We can choose our beliefs. Even if we find out and are honest about the rider and the elephant. Reason is often just holding on tight along for the ride because the emotion side is charging down its known path. But one is a man. And the man, in the end, is the holder of reason and the reigns. Feeble as they often may be. I refuse to negate the obvious deliberation one is always making between a recognized impulse and the reason harnessed to over come the auto pilot, and easy choice of a more harmful way. You could do otherwise. And should do otherwise in circumstances in which your intuition is pulling you away from desire you know is not optimal. Choose! Choose the narrow path. Broad is the way unto destruction.

[@patrickbarnes1963]

I thought Dan Dennett believed in free will...

[@flyguy2617]

He believes the illusion of free will can serve a purpose.