Ben Shapiro Debates The Validity Of Religion w/Alex O'Connor
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2024
- Timestamp your favorite moment in the comments
Watch The Full Live • Papa Gut Time
Papa Gut / @papagut
Rob & Dan / @robanddan63
Become A Papa Gut Member / @papagut
Become a Rob & Dan Member! / @robanddan63
Support Me On Patreon! / papagut
Papa Gut TikTok / gut_tube
Papa Gut Instagram ...
Papa Gut Shorts / @papagutarchive
Rob & Dan Instagram / robanddan63
Rob & Dan TikTok / robanddan63
Discord / discord
Source • Ben Shapiro vs Alex O'...
I cant support anything thats main message is "believe everything i say blindly and do not ask questions"
Yeah I'm cool of that
we can see that
Especially when people treat it like a job to get into, how can you genuinely trust someone who has it in their interest to say what you want?
25:20 the reason why they say free will doesn’t exist is because in the way we understand things now, everything has a cause and is the reaction of something, down to the molecular level. Think about a billiard table and it’s the first hit of the game. As we understand things today, if u hit the balls in the exact same point and way, down to the molecular level an infinite amount of times, the results will end up being exactly the same every time. Now apply this to everything that exists and is made of particles (so all matter), this means that the way everything will behave is predictable and in a way we could theoretically calculate everything that is going to happen. (even if it impossible today due to the amount of things we would have to calculate and the fact that we don’t understand how everything behaves deep enough at the moment). But the point is that if logic as we understand is true, everything has an answer and everything is predictable, even what u do and what u will do… so that means that u don’t have free will and u are just the results molecules reacting one to another. That’s what they mean by lack of free will
Exactly, well put.
💯
Is religion good for society? Well, it's estimated that from history to present, around 23,730,00 deaths (and still counting) have be made in the name of "God". These include, but not limited to, The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The 80 Year War between Holland and Spain, The Salem Witch Trails, the Nigerian Civil War and of course, the recent war between Palestine and Israel. If there is any "good" religion has done for society in the day and age, I've yet to see it.
Read “Dominion” by secular historian Tom Holland
I can understand and I sympathize with those who believe in a organized uniform religion, however going through so many hardships being a firm loud and proud believer for over 15 years of my life led me down a path out of believing in such conceptions of a “God” or even gods.
There once was two men. both of these men were ready to move but had their houses filled with things they could not carry alone. the first man calls his friend for help his friend says he’ll help. but when the time came his friend was not there. so he calls his friend again and his friend says “i’ll be there” and 1 hour later he did not show. So the man calls his friend one more time and this time he doesn’t answer at all. After several hours go by the first man says “Well i tried” and starts trying to move the objects on his own but he could not carry the weight like he thought he could and collapsed under the weight and died.
then there’s the other man who asked of his friend the same thing and his friend agreed. but once again much like the first man when the time came his friend was not there, and just like the first man he called his phone and his friend said i’ll be there and 1 hour later he did not show. And just like the first man, the man called his friend again and he did not pick up. and much like the first man several hours had went by. but unlike the first man who got impatient and decided to move the much too heavy objects himself and died under its weight, the second man patiently waited for his friend even though he felt as if he had no time. but his friend did not come that day, or the next day. and at the end of the week, when the second man was ready to give up, his friend arrives. the man goes “what took you so long??” and his friend doesn’t answer but says “I brought help” and the man sees a surplus of people ready to help him. and in half an hour the man’s stuff is loaded and ready to go. the man and his friend get into the truck and his friend starts driving and soon they come to the house but his friend drives past it. the man says “my house is right there why are you driving past it? we were right there” but his friend says nothing and keeps driving. after a hour his friend pulls into a driveway of this beautiful house. the man says “why are we here?” and the friend takes keys out his pocket, hands it to the man and says “For your patience and troubles this is for you”
Just because you went through first world problems like EVERYBODY else doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. It took over 20 years for God to fulfill his promise to abraham to get a child. Job literally went through worse than you and God ended up giving him 2x everything. your problem is that you only call on God when something bad is happening to you, and you never thank him for those 100 days in the sun
@acrello did you know that 100 percent of gamblers quit right before their jackpot? The logic that you laid out was that you should never take any action or agency in your life and instead wait 20 years for things to magically work out then thank god because it mustve all been in the works. Instead of realizing that if you stay stagnant in a moving world for long enough, something will move you, its not god nor was it planning to move you but you refused to move or take action and eventually things lined up.
In your story of the friend with a pick up truck, his friend wasnt there on time so he didnt get to move when he needed/wanted to. Finally his friend shows up a week late and doesnt bring him to where he wants to go. This is the same logic as “prank” UA-camrs who smash your tv then give you another one. 😂
In your fairy tales, once abraham decided to stop waiting on an unseen force, he did have a son, ishmael, 11 years later, not 20-25
Job got punished by god for believing in him, so the story goes, or more realistically, tragedies happened in his life and then he picked himself up, religion was his cope not his healing.
41:00 is definitely getting put in Papa gut out of context.
32:13 how in the world does that definition mean we don't have free will?
People go on hunger strikes. People starve themselves literally to death. Just like people eat when they are already stuffed full and couldn't eat another bite...
So even eating as an example doesn't prove this lack of free will.
However the example is not illustrative of all the things humans do and why they do them. We do have needs or things we do to attain things we cannot live without. But don't forget that we also do many MANY things that we simply WANT to do. We can and do engage in things that have no utility to our lives in any way, or even engage in things that would be destructive to ourselves and others... just because we FEEL like it.
You watching this live stream and me watching you watch it are examples of free will. I don't have to watch any thing, nor am i gaining anything by doing so. One could argue that you are working and MUST work to get things you need to survive...
But you don't HAVE to watch this particular debate. Nothing is making you watch or continue to watch. You may WANT to pause and voice a particular thought or respond to a particular viewer comment in the live chat...
All of this is elective. All of that illustrates free will. And all the comments or places in the video you choose not to pause to cpmment about are further illustrations of the existence of free will.
Not even needing to get all that deep with it. I really cannot see why everyone thinks this dictionary definition somehow means that free will doesn't exist. 🤔
True free will is acting without any environmental factors which humans do not do. For example environmental factors influence people to do hunger strikes to gain something, therefore not acting with true free will. ‘Wants’ do not prove free will if those wants have been influenced by outside factors
Everything you described still has some sort of logical explanation behind it that follows the laws of nature. The reason you feel like doing something that may be destructive to you, or seemingly has no real advantage to it is still just based on things out of your control, like your environment and the way your brain is structured and things that has happened in the past leading up to that point.
For example if you were to put your life in a simulation and rewind back to the same moment you choose to do something, you will always do that exact same thing every time. Because everything is deterministic. We do not have any *actual* control of anything, we are basically biological machines.
@ronpudding9598 your example actually proves my point. Because that's factually incorrect. That's why people find identical twins separated at birth studies so fascinating.
The truth is, when people ask, is it nature or nurture? The answer is "both" except for when it's "neither."
This is why human behavior and the study of and explanation of it is always in retrospect and never predictive. Because it does not matter how much data you collect, it's impossible to predict accurately what any individual will do.
You can guess what people in general will do, like as a group. But even in that prediction, you would state that there will still be many who do the opposite or even do some other variable you didn't think of. And even then, the prediction rate isn't even close to A+ . And then there's all the phenomena that explains why people deviate from previous patterns. For example... what would "hitting rock bottom" look like for any particular individual, yourself included? We are notoriously bad at predicting what that would be for ourselves, never mind for others.
Nobody is original and for everybody who would make choice A given an identical set of parameters and previous life experiences and key biological makeup and familial influences, there are 10 counterparts who make a different decision, and that decision will be based on similar considerations sometimes, and for others it will be based on totally different considerations.
The truth is that it feels comforting in a way for people to abdicate that level of responsibility and power. It's the same reason why people love the God's Will explanation. Not only is it lazy logically, but it also helps people do the number one favored thing in the 21st century... it helps them AVOID taking any real accountability.
@thomasbeard3931 that's literally untrue. True free will is acting without constraints from outside factors. That is to say, if you're trying to fix hunger or thirst or fear, or if you're trying to hide from the bear stalking your family, or to protect yourself from the rain...
So actually, wants are very much an illustration of this, as long as said want and associated behavior do not have some underlying utility to deal with environmental factors or necessities for safety survival security or perpetuation of the species.
52:34 I'm sorry but this argument by Ben is so flawed. He is using the eye for an eye argument to say that the non religious would judge morality based on their own special interests. However an eye for an eye is a conception of THE BIBLE and there are COUNTLESS stories within the Bible that justify moving on this eye for an eye/ one upmanship principle.
And i don't mean JUST the multiple books of the Bible this eye for an eye principle is outlined in over and over. Even the stories being told come with this "take it into your own hands, exact personal revenge and its totally of God, you good bro" stories. AND the religious see no problem with any of it.
For example, my godson is named after Simeon, and there are two simeons in the Bible. One of them was a great warrior and his sister was 🍇ed by the warriors the town over. So Simeon found out the town over were found their circumcisions and waited till the 3rd day after the circumcisions , when the men would be at their weakest and most in pain, to send his army in and they slaughtered EVERYBODY.
In revenge. For one dude 🍇ing one woman they slaughtered EVERYONE. All the men women and children.
You know what my religious friend said when i told her the story of what Simeon did in the Bible? She said 'ok so, my son will be a leader of men AND family will be important to him. What a great and powerful and godly name!" 😅
So quite frankly it's not religion that prevents this whole world going blind thing. It's the SEPARATION of religion from law. Its also the proximal reprisals and punishments from the law and societies that prevent the individual morality thing. Because all religion does is give you 99 reasons WHY YOU CAN BREAK THAT SO CALLED COMMANDMENT no problem.
Then pray and say sorry for Good measure and poof, problem solved 🤷🏾♀️
You are the reason why Christians always urge people to read in context 🤣
papa i believe the best debate about theism is the debate between bill bye and ken ham. pretty fun to watch
The big man watching debates?? 😱 I’ve seen how you feel about religion and I suggest watching William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens or Alex o Connor. WLC gives some powerful arguments for theism and Christianity met with some decent pushback
Hitchens forced Craig to admit that he didn’t have the specific evidence for his god. Craig has also refused to engage Dillahunty multiple times on this matter. Craig likes to trap those in the trap of “neither side can prove it”.
Hitchens was very good at calling that out, and when you force a Christian to admit that they don’t have the specific evidence to demonstrate it’s that specific god, then that Christian has failed. Craig knows this and refuses to debate atheist who know how to use this argument. It’s why Shapiro refuses to debate Tracie Harris on abortion. She specifically asked for the debate to be about the medical evidence for or against forced pregnancy, and Ben knew the facts that every pregnancy has differed effects on the body weren’t on his side, and he refused to engage her. I’m not impressed with Craig. The whole argument of “we don’t know therefore god” is a weak argument for me, and Craig knows with the weak minded atheist, it’s an argument that works. Watch when that conversation comes with Hitchens. Craig absolutely submitted. Hitchens only conceded his time because it was clear no one was listening to him, Craig worked the audience.
@@Gokulosestoavirus That is a ridiculous argument. "The medical evidence for or against forced pregnancy" is not relevant. She specifically asked for the debate to be around a specific thing? Yet you blame him for wanting the debate to be about a specific thing. It sounds like she refused to talk about the philosophical arguments against abortion. Seems like they came to an impasse. Claiming that you know the exact reason behind Shapiro's motivations means that you are claiming to be a psychic. You read peoples minds. Your post hoc ergo propter hoc is funny however. Lets examine it shall we? Ben Shapiro will not debate Tracie Harris because Craig knows he can not defeat Hitchens' argument. You prove why so many people hate the debate bros sphere. Ben Shapiro wouldn't debate someone so he must scared ehhhhh. Craig knows x and that is why Ben won't do y. Retarded.
@@Gokulosestoavirus The reason craig didn’t provide specific evidence for the Christian god in his debate with hitchens is because the debate wasnt over Christianity, it was over THEISM. Meaning He was taking the position that a god exist, and hitchens took the counter. So all Craig was trying to do was prove some god existed. Atheism is the position that NO god exist, so if he proved some god exist, he would have met his goalpost for the discussion. I don’t know why you went on a rant about nonsense.
In the alex o Connor video craig was arguing for Christianity where he gave his arguments to believe the faith is correct. He mentioned his resurrection argument in the hitchens debate that he used here which shows Christianity is more likely than other religions.
@@Gokulosestoavirus WLC also wasn’t arguing “We don’t know therefore god” 😂. He provided quite a few arguments. 1) The kalam cosmological argument- this is an argument that says god is the best explanation of particular facts in cosmology. If you’re not clear on the notion of “best explanation” it’s what scientist use everywhere. The 2nd was the fine tuning argument- this one says god is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. Phd atheist acknowledge this as the best argument for theism and say it’s hard to deal with. The 3rd argument was the moral argument. Basically If morality is objective, then god exist. There was some more but in any case you’ve horridly mis characterized Craig
This was too much of a nitty-gritty discussion around philosophy, my brain hurts
7:20 Europa is better
I really like how alex builds his arguments. Unfortunately, since he stopped being vegan, i have a tough time believing how much he actually believes in such arguments.
Yeah that makes sense! If you change your opinions or beliefs on one topic every other belief or opinion you have is invalid!
@@randombubby1idk how well you know Alex content. It was very much built around vegan and atheist arguments. Like hundreds of hours. To express that kinda commitment, then give the bullshit reason he did for leaving is definitely red flag worthy.
@@akhnatenpage4854 I feel like you can disagree with his choice to stop being vegan, that’s fine. However, saying that because he changed his opinion on it doesn’t then mean his other opinions are invalid. Even if he used veganism as an example or idea to support atheism, I have a SMALL suspicion that many atheists are not vegans because it turns out that you don’t need to be both!
@@akhnatenpage4854people change
@@randombubby1 I never say his other opinions are invalid. In fact, I even said I like the way he builds his arguments.
Shapiro refused to debate Dillahunty or Seth Andrews
your way of defining free will is just getting rid of the constraints over your agency, yes you have agency over your decisions but within the constraints that exist therefore it’s not complete free will. It is a depressing thought which is what ben is saying but it is what it is
But saying that the lack of free will is depressing doesn’t make a difference when it comes to the truth or falsity of the statement
@@kevin4152 i agree
In the contemporary literature you don’t need to be “completely” free or whatever that means. A compatiblist model of free will is totally consistent with that being the case. All you need a sufficient control for moral responsibility and the source of your actions.