The conversation starts at 20:22 for anyone who wants to skip the requisite polite compliments that two English people must engage in at the start of any meeting.

FINALLY, A CHRISTIAN/ATHEIST DEBATE WHERE WORLD WAR 17 ISN'T TAKING PLACE IN THE COMMENT SECTION

Nice conversation, gentlemen. Glad we don't always have a have a formal "debate". A lot of us have heard it all. What we need is more kind/engaging conversation like this. Bravo!!

As a Muslim, I think this is a really refreshing discussion free of antagonism and animosity which is so often lacking in these type of discussions. Only through civil discussion may we learn to appreciate the view of the other even though we may disagree.

Not demonizing is the key of the success of ‘unbelievable’ show and level of host and participants are top class

Of the many things I enjoy about this discussion, the one I think I enjoy most is the example set by these two young men on how to have a discussion with humility. As someone who struggles to suppress my often over inflated ego, observing these two demonstrate humility is educational.

Good! 2 civilized people... something rare...

Really interesting to get to listen to! Both Justin and and Alex are really articulate!

I really like Alex. He's a genuine seeker and it's nice to see his sense of humour come out more than in his straight to camera stuff.

The Art of conversation: These guys got it!

Good job guys!!! Thanks for a great discussion !

Absolutely enjoyed it! Thanks for doing it in such a respectful manner. You gave me LOTS to think about!

Fascinating. You two work so well together that I think you should consider doing a whole series of just you two debating each issue in detail; with sufficient time. I love the passion and authenticity you both bring. The kind that makes you 'miss your train '- And draws a big audience. First debate where I actually learned new things in years on you tube. Thank you.

I don't choose to be convinced by what Alex's saying, yet I am.

You're both so great! What a lovely conversation.

A great talk, but it's important to date any reuploads-if not in the title, then in the description.

The thing is they both have that intellectual english accent going for them so its hard to tell who won.

20:24 you can jump there unless you want a free book

A wonderful discussion. Glad I became a subscriber of this channel. Always excellent, with both sides of the debate receiving fair representation.

Alex is always a breath of fresh air.

I think Justin really dropped the ball toward the end of the episode by suggesting that reason requires freedom in the way that he did, but I do think that there was a much more salient point that this portion and to some degree the earlier portions of the conversation were circling around. They almost hit at it twice at 1:29:34 and 1:37:41. Justin is suggesting that the existence of reason and morality and inherent purpose in the world is indicative of the fact that the world is the product of a rational free agent (namely God). Thought (rationality) and purpose (the heart of morality) both of which exist in the laws of the universe are the byproduct of thought and choice. The fact that they exist in the world which has laws is indicative of the fact that the world was created by a person because only persons think and choose.

I hope this becomes a weekly/monthly (atleast) discussion

Thanks. A great discussion 👍

Great convo, lads!

"We are both agnostics and both have to be agnostics." Finally some honesty. Glad to hear it Alex, I feel the same way. We are all blind 3D rats in a 11D maze and nobody knows shit.

I realized at 55 min that I already listened on Cosmic Skeptic channel

Well done gentlemen. More of this please.

Loved this discussion, especially the free will part. Thank you! 🙏🏻

I think it’s easier to understand when you recognize that every experience you have over the course of your life leads to how you think, feel, make decisions, etc. Therefore, we are freely making choices but the choices are made because of every experience we have leading up to that moment in time. If we would have had different experiences in our life we may concluded different decisions.

Great conversation! I'd love to see maybe 5 more hours of this conversation. I don't agree with Alex's conclusions but I love his questions and I think they're super important.

Nice conversation guys!

He argues that freewill doesn't exist, while using the process of reasoning to argue that freewill doesn't exist. But how can you reason with anything if freewill doesn't exist? @Unbelievable?

Start at 20:30

Well done, bro.

Something that just blew my mind. Alex was arguing between having a deterministic or indeterministic existince and they kept getting stuck there. Justin couldn’t quite agree with that and saw free will as a 3rd option. I think it’s because God transcends these concepts. He has created an indeterministic existence that he has also determined. Mind blown

What a fascinating discussion between two very intelligent philosophers and thoroughly decent men. I probably sit closer to Alex's view of the world but I remain unconvinced that ‘free will’ definitely doesn’t exist. I don't find the argument of turning back the clock and running the script again a very convincing one. My understanding is that there is a degree of uncertainty built into the universe at the sub-atomic level and, presumably, of the passage of information within the brain. Although I don’t pretend to understand the precise way in which information is transmitted between neurons I’m not convinced that the conclusions reached within a human brain are inevitable and that ‘turning the clock back’ within the brain, even if it were possible, would inevitable achieve exactly the same outcome. In any event, I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. It was well worth listening to. Many thanks.

"Know" is just a belief that you are very confident is true. Knowledge is a high confident belief.

The last discussion in the video is lacking inclusion of fact that emotional reaction to information will affect your conclusions no matter how rational you think your conclusion is. No one can detach themselves from their feelings about ideas. And feelings are not an objective source of truth particularly from an atheistic world view.

It’s a challenging and valuable discussion. I didn’t hear either side argue that belief is at all evidenced by behavior. All I heard was head belief. But it truly seemed like determined behavior was abandoned when O’Connor hoped to persuade people at the end (and beginning) to like and subscribe.

Hey Cosmic, as a Christian I am held to following the truth. While I don't agree with atheism, I don't agree with it because of the evidence. I will always follow the truth as evidence dictates, and I want you to know that so far you are the only atheist I can trust to not feed me the feces from a bull's anus. Well done, never change your approach, and I hope one day the truth will set you free or you show me that I'm full of the feces from a bull's anus. Only truth matters!

"Evil and suffering exists in the world, therefore God cannot exist." He cannot choose to accept that not because some subconscious part of himself will not accept that, but because this isn't the first time he has heard the statement. If it were the first time hearing the statement, he would then have to consider the statement and make a decision or judgment as to its truth or falsehood. But since he"s already done that, and nothing new was added to that basic argument, he cannot in his conscience reverse his previous choice. Not because HE doesn't choose, but because he has already made the choice. Edit: conversation begins at 1:22:22

Regarding morality. Christian morality is not about the achieving of goals necessary (as Alex suggests) You see, in the secular world your goals can be achieved by you without any transcendent help. But for Christians, we cannot achieve Godly morality (righteousness) without the help of God. So if you go to a village and offer secular pleasure, you offer what is temporary and surface level that is not satisfying and the human nature longs for more. If what the secular world offers worked, then there would not be so much suicide, depression, despair etc. However, God's morality reaches the soul of man and it satisfies and goes deeper than just pleasure it gives joy, peace, satisfaction and meaning to life. Pleasure alone do not accomplish these deeper longing of the heart of man (human beings). This is why peoples' lives are completely transformed when they come to God. And there is evidence for this all over the world.

If something isn’t determined by *anything*, then it is by definition unalterable, and therefore fixed, or “predetermined”.

Really enjoyed the dialogue... very instructive from both guys...

At 40:00 it's over when Alex asks Justin (who embraces the scientific fact of evolution) "when did we as humans evolve the godly bit?" And of course, we didn't. We are good and kind and nice to each other because that's how we evolved. Just as wild animals care for their young and help those in their social group, so do we. Evolution. No god needed.

Even if God is the grounding of that which is good, because God’s very nature IS good, we can still ask why we ought to do that which comports with God’s nature. There’s still a leap from an “is” to an “ought”. My intuition is that the is/ought leap is an unavoidable feature of morality, no matter how you ground it.

that wallpaper is hypnotizing

If you wound back so everything was the same then would things happen differently as randomness would change it. Eg unstable atoms would decay at different times. We still have no free will however it would not repeat.

Regardless of whether there is free will or not, we all - including Alex - feel and act as if there is. Near the end of the video, Alex said the word "hope". I'm interested in what he means by this if he sees himself as being devoid of agency. A world view rooted in free will simply makes more sense of the human condition than the alternative. Paradoxically, whether free will is true or not, we simply can't help but feel that it is true, in the same way that we can't help but experience the flow of time in the way that we do.

The wallpaper is tripping me out.

Justin presents great points at 1:40 and at 1:43:53 Alex simply responds with an unproved assertion- indeed he would say he was determined by evolutionary processes to disbelieve that reason requires free will, and he is not free to believe otherwise.

There’s a big difference between questions & doubt. We all have questions about our beliefs. However, a doubt is questioning the foundation of our beliefs. I’d say it’s similar to a tree. You might question the strength of a branch or twig but, questioning the strength of the roots means you don’t really trust the tree as a whole. If the roots appear rotted or up rooted, you’d have good reason to not trust it. But if they’re anchored firmly in the ground, you can have good reason to have faith in the tree as whole. Despite some questionable looking branches.

Love your show UNBELIEVABLE. Thank you for your content

For the discussion of whether we have the right to go to another culture and try to convince them to accept our moral beliefs, I think the discussion accidentally accepted a hidden premise: "if beliefs are somewhat relative, then person X has no right to try to persuade person Y, if persons X and Y have different moral beliefs". I don't see any ab-initio reason to accept this premise. In fact, it seems entirely reasonable that everyone has the right to try to persuade others to adopt their moral beliefs. The other side of that, then is that other cultures can come to ours and try to persuade us. I don't see that as a problem, and in fact they often do. Likewise for moral judgement --- we absolutely can and do judge other moral cultures. And likewise they absolutely do judge ours, and I don't see how it could be claimed that we and they have no right to judge each other's cultures. You could go from there and say that there's then no way to resolve who is right and who is wrong. The answer is that in general, there is no way to resolve who is right or wrong, but if a common ground can be established (eg the higher principle that pain=bad), then there may be ways to resolve this. But anyway, my overriding point is that Justin, in good faith, seems to see it as a given that a relativist view of morality means that we can't judge or persuade, and I don't think there's any justification for that.

“Free will doesn’t exist. I’m determined from before time to be an atheist. And I’ve gone through tons of evidence to wind up at my belief. Therefore I’m right and your wrong.” So, why debate anyone of another belief if they wind up there not on their own reason but on processes of non rational forces and then they say they are right....so who’s right if both came to a different conclusion on non rational basis and have no free will to come to their own beliefs? Alex is very smart, but his beliefs are simply self refuting and are not logical within the reality we live in.

I’ve got a line of thought regarding the argument Justin puts forward about rationality requiring free will otherwise it would be firstly pointless and secondly not truly rational. Imagine a charitable act. The point of charity is to help those in need. Now imagine the charitable act was forced. You can imagine the actor at gunpoint or imagine predestination is true. The sense in which Justin’s argument makes sense is that, it would be quite sensible to question whether the charitable act was truly charitable. In fact, certainly with regards to being held at gunpoint, it wouldn’t make sense to praise the actor for being so charitable, even though we probably want to rescue him from his hostage situation. This is perhaps a, if not the, sense in which Justin questions whether rationality is truly rational if we have no choice in the matter. And if it’s not going to make a difference to our beliefs either way then it is pointless. But consider that the point of charity is to help those in need. Are the recipients of this donation of charity, the people in need, still going to benefit from the lump sum of money/food/shelter etc even though the person providing those things wasn’t acting out of free will? Of course they are. The purpose of charity is still being fulfilled. So although the act itself can only be considered charitable in the sense that resources are still travelling from a giver to those in need, the aims of charity are being fulfilled even though it is still a regretful situation in the sense that the actor is being forced. Particularly in the case of being held at gunpoint because that’s violent and we like to think immoral. If predestination is what’s “forcing” us, then although that might be regretful in the same sense that free will is a nice concept we unfortunately don’t have (because, as a determinist, it doesn’t make sense) it’s not as regretful because it’s just the way things are and we just have to accept it. Besides it’s not that bad, but that’s a discussion for another time. So the purpose of charity has in fact been fulfilled. It will help people. Just because it was forced, doesn’t mean that suddenly those resources do not actually help people. The food doesn’t miraculously become inedible. The money doesn’t miraculously turn to dust. The fruit of the charity is itself not pointless. It still has the same utility whether the actor acted out of free will or the lack of it. In the same way, rationality in the absence of free will still holds the same utility. It still leads to beliefs that are backed up by evidence and reason. The forced charitable act can be explained with reference to the use of force rather than a kind mindset. In the same sense, the predestined rational thought can be explained with reference to the principles of predestination rather than a mind capable of choosing their beliefs. But the act itself is still of a charitable quality. The thought itself is still of a rational quality. To conclude my line of thought then, even without free will, rationality firstly still has a point to it, and secondly, is still truly rational.

In Christian theology there is *always* at least one sentient being; to respond to Alex's closing objection at about 1:38.

Justine Brierley held on to his faith as a christian because he intelligently knows what he believes is 100% trustworthy.

I have always liked C.S. Lewis's response to the naturalist theory that morality has evolved towards the goal of the flourishing of the species. If selflessness (and all morality) simply evolved to help the species flourish, then why should I as an individual care? Why should I follow morals and help my species flourish, if it doesn't help me personally? Why should I care more about my species than myself? One could say, "because you ought not to be selfish," but saying "you ought not to be selfish" is the same thing as saying "you should care more about the species." It's true, but not worth saying. It does not explain where morality actually comes from. I think Alex's theory that morality is about everyone's subjective pleasure fails in that subjective pleasure usually goes against the good of society as a whole. Morality often calls people to sacrifice, to put themself in danger, to give up pleasure. Giving one's life for their country, saving a drowning man, gaining money in an honest way, are all moral, but often lead to greater personal displeasure. Following what is personally pleasurable, however, is the kind of framework that in the end justifies rape, draft-dodging, and lying on your taxes. Morality is the path of displeasure; selfishness and immorality is the path of personal, subjective pleasure.

FWIW, I think Justin is the greatest moderator of all time, because rather than in spite of his interaction with the debaters.

*How does he not understand that we don't choose what we believe?*

Why not make a podcast about the miracle of the sun at Fátima and the life of Padre Pio?

How is saying "this is a better move to make to achieve a certain goal" not a moral statement? It isn't quite an is/ought fallacy, but it is a value judgement that requires justification.

I appreciate this conversation from both men. I want to point out that Alex suggests that the definition of agnostic is that god isn’t known to exists (even if he believes it to be true). Alex himself states that he doesn’t know definitively that he himself exists (he just thinks it to be the most likely truth). He does however act in his own best interest on a daily basis and performs functions as if he will be here tomorrow and does indeed exist, for the sake of his own self interest (I would assume he would act in a completely different manner if he thought it more likely that he does in fact not exist himself). So to do we act in accordance with a belief in god and hold a truth to be self evident in respect to god……….. also one thing the entire conversation (and this is true for most apologetics) doesn’t provide is an experiential truth. And I understand that those conversations cannot since that’s not a testable un-subjective argument, none the less It’s the key to the entire debate. We are spiritual beings and a spiritual experience is why it changes our hearts (and guides that morality debated). Ola Genex it’s good for understanding why we think what we do however without an experience with God it will fall short since there’s another way to rationalize it. I found the debate near the end over, The inability to choose one view over the other as conditional to the inability to propose one you over the other by the counter part as running contrary to the point of the entire conversation or any debate ever at all. Basically stating that there’s no point in even attempting to learn one side or the other because we are incapable of being convinced one way or the other by the inability of others around us to express what would have convinced us. (see how that completely defeats any common sense that we have regarding our learning of anything) that’s the most preposterous nonsense. I’ve changed my mind on many topics the more I learn & don’t think it’s just because I have yet to learn the opposition (or incapable of understanding it like the others may be to my argument). At some point the rubber does in fact meet the road.

Damn I thought I was getting a new debate. Already heard this.

The value of things depends upon Gods creation, (like the gravity without the earth example) but God cannot alter their intrinsic worth. A thing is good to the extent it 1. mimics the divine or 2. improves reality as a whole. A godly thing will have knowledge, power, justness, everlasting life, immutability, necessity, and so on to some degree in some combination. Platonic forms have the last three. A person has the first four to some extent. These also help us in obvious ways so the two conditions come to the same thing. As for the blue room, one must ask whether or not there would be anything wrong with a orange room. You could argue it doesn't go with the decor but that must appeal to some standard of complementarity which is itself objective. While the case for the orange room is very poor (an orange room would not harm anyone) with rape or other examples, someone's autonomy is violated without reason. That is not logically supportable, besides in some extenuating circumstance in which rape would further a greater cause but as he says this seems unimaginable. So while orange might be an alternative to blue from a certain perspective, there is no seriously entertaining the idea of rape's goodness as a viable answer to a problem. Chess doesn't give us a reason to suppose winning is good. If it is, then losing is bad for your opponent, and assuming the moral equality of both players, the game is a wash. At best, not playing will spare his feelings and save you the time. If there is no choosing otherwise, then belief is neccessarily irrational--held because it is forced upon us, not selected discriminantly, to explain the point. While clever, his defense does not relieve him of this problem. He seems to have Schopenhaur's "you can want what you will, but not will what you want" in mind when he makes this argument. Yes, you must be convinced on the basis of your prior intellectual commitments and these depend on the value systems that define us, but these can change. How exactly is a mystery of course, as is the nature of free will generally, but we can safely assume our principles are not fixed in stone if they can evolve over time. If it functions properly assumes thought has a purpose that mindless matter cannot possibly have. If by cosmic accident you happen upon the truth, you cannot be justified in accepting that belief since your reasons are not your own but are the product of a mechanical process. We can have agency with perexistent logical constants. Im not even sure why these would challenge our violation. The very fact we can conceive of contradictions proves our freedom from (and to) reason. If we lived in a purely deductive system, no contradictions would occur. The prepositional complements "God exists" and "God does not exist" which certainly obtain in different minds or perhaps even the same one, cannot follow of necessity from a mathematical universe. But since these do indeed appear, there must be more than logic out there.

whenever there is no reasonable answer, appeal to mystery.

Not faith but faithfulness, trust, loyalty, fidelity at the core of the argument.

Being *convinced* isn’t a process of pure logic. We aren’t purely logical beings. When the logical arguments align with the larger themes of our experiences and feelings, then an idea can become convincing.

Cosmic Skeptic is making the assumption that pleasure is a morally good thing, but that opinion is subjective.

“The problem of evil”...I actually get that one, the one I find more challenging is the problem of good.

Re being determined or indeterminate - quantum mechanics describes indeterminate states being collapsed into determined ones by choices of the observer. Reccomend Michael Jones's Utube channel: Inspiring Philosophy.

Alexs argument sounds a lot like it boils down to "objective morality exists because subjective pleasure is objectively good by definition" which is circular logic.

Lovely to see such a civil, respectful conversation on what is normally explosive topic. As I listen though, I am reminded of the story of which tree shall we eat from - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, intellect and reason, or from the tree of life, which is of the Spirit? It is nice to be able to meet people from where they are at, such as through needing answers to questions formed by the intellect, however to keep it in that arena alone will keep us moving around in circles as new ideas keep forming adinfinitum, never arriving at The Truth. I would not want to see intellectual discussion of faith/Christianity shut down, I would just encourage the use of Spiritual discernment to know when things are becoming circular and not life-giving. No doubt that tucked into these types of discussions there is the condition of the human heart at play, such as a latent pide and arrogance over our prowess with thought and language - not saying that I see that here, that's between you guys and God. I just know that such weaknesses exist as we are told in Scripture (Jer. 17:9/10). Love what you do Justin and tune in when I can. You make me proud to be a Christian , being so capable of articulating the faith as you do. Keep it up! Just want to give this little bit of food for thought - consider the two trees and what each means. At which point do we stand back from serving reason to serve the Spirit in these discussions? One is more life-giving the other keeps us moving around in circles. Don't be afraid to point to the spiritual when it calls for it. Use your God-given spirit of discernment as you go and you may find more life being deposited as you speak. Such is my two cents worth.

Great talk! Loving all of it 🙌 Read something relevant and perhaps helpful regarding the lastly discussed issue, if 'true justified belief' depend on choice/free will or not: "It helps here to distinguish between two attitudes that might be called "belief." One is implicit confidence that suffices to guide our action, including action on practical options, such as whether to shout a warning. The other is an act of judgment made freely and voluntarily or a disposition to so judge upon (...). There is first a faculty of understanding, whose deliverances, received passively, are "perceptions" with some degree of clarity and distinctness. And there is second a faculty of judgment based on the subject's free will." (p. 6-7, E. Sosa, Epistemology)

Omg i wish I could participate in debates like this.

Bottom line: Alex is a materialist, Justin isn't.

I do a podcast in being physically, mentally and spiritually prepared for the world. I defend my Christian faith in it a lot and it’s brought on atheists looking to debate. My brother wants to debate me next Tuesday Christianity be Atheism. Even the atheists take the topic v seriously !

At 24:34...that look on his face as if saying "Its a trick question...be careful how you answer"

1:08:39 In is only not a moral thing in the chess chase because the need to win at chess is not innate. Morality involves innate goals which cannot be unchosen

"the naturalistic/atheist model lacks explanatory power about morality" "I don't know when this 'image of god' started" Seems that wishful thinking is not a good path to a good model with real explanatory power. I only see a claim about explanatory power of religion, yet it seems to contradict with reality or have no explanatory power at all.

I always get the impression that theists believe atheists have a viewpoint that is the equal and opposite of their own, as if corollary concepts must exist for the atheist as they do for themselves (e.g., there is an atheist view of creation). Maybe the reason Justin hasn't been "converted" is because atheists arent seeking converts the way most theists do. If I were I wouldnt bother talking about the reasons why I dont believe, or the reasons why those who make claims bear the burden of proof, but focus instead on why it is he thinks the way he does (Maybe sitting in a moderator's chair during these discussions hasn't helped him overmuch.). But I dont really care why anyone chooses the beliefs they have though.

Very interesting...Makes sense that no one really can reason without free will. Reason may exist but if humans have to apply reason or be reasonable, they have to have free will.

A year later, but a very good discussion. I would like to hear as an update r.e. the scandal that is the Rc church. As a lapsed Catholic I can still recall many instances of intimidation levied out by nuns, priests and lay people (in those days they did not spare the rod.However it was never as evil and inhumane as has been experienced by many others. I always thought that the people of the collar where sinister, threatening a gratuitous flogging for the slightest infraction and then scaring us with eternal damnation.Given the many reports of neglect, rape and psychic destruction

An agnostic is not one who doesn't know something with absolute certainty, but one who makes the positive claim that the something is unknowable. An agnostic about God claims that knowledge of God is impossible to have. Knowledge is not belief with absolute certainty, but rather justified, warranted belief. If you demand absolute certainty then you can't "know" anything. All of our knowledge is provisional, with varying degrees of certainty. For example, I know I am 50; am I absolutely certain of that? No. But my belief is warranted based on the testimony of my (now dead) parents, my birth certificate, the correspondence of my physical condition relative to the norm, my recall of the past, and so on.

How could we know if anything is true, including the laws of logic, if we were not free to reason them!

I dont understand Alex's saying" you dont need a wrong option to do something right, can someone explain??

Praying to the Saints in heaven and asking them for intercession is loving them. God loves us when we show love to people on the earth. To ask the people in the most high place to love us and to form a relationship with them, is as important as forming loving relationships with those here on earth. The Saints are not dead. They are the most alive, in the heavenly kingdom. Amen.

It’s confusing because they both have British accents, which means we can automatically trust each of them. 😏🤓😁

gee let's all revert to dark ages religion

Nobody knows anything for sure whether any religion is real or fake, so all discussions should be civil like this one.

I would love if Justin would give us an example of freewill because for someone that claims that freewill exists he seems rather incapable of demonstrating it. Most people reject determinism as if it were repulsive but It's demonstrable while Freewill seem impossible to prove. P.S. Yes, I have heard of Quantum Mechanic, it doesn't demonstrate Freewill, the most you can show it's randomness.

Very disappointed at many of Alex's arguments. Many of the comparisons and examples are not particularly strong or indeed relevant. Justin comes over much stronger and logical.

Justin. You can say you KNOW God exists. You can have a personal understanding and knowledge of something someone else doesn't have. To know God exists is not a fallacy.

He says "Once you see the assembled jigsaw puzzle, you can't help but see the picture, but you took all these steps picking out which pieces to try and where to move them that led you there". I would argue it's true that the set of pieces in that puzzle make THAT picture no matter what - and if a robot assembles the jigsaw puzzle while you're tied up and forced to just watch, you still "can't help but see the picture" in the end and you can believe (and should believe and will believe) JUST as much that "this set of pieces makes that picture". What he doesn't realize is there's a small amount of pride involved. You WANT to believe that you came to your conclusions because you "did the work" to get there and to "earn" what you know. So any situation where you haven't "earned" the perception of the puzzle the pieces make "feels wrong" to him. But it's still possible. Same way you could have a box of jigsaw puzzle pieces with no picture on the box, and you were eager to put it together in the morning and find out what the picture was. But while you were asleep your mom came in and put the puzzle together, then you walked in and saw it. You will be disappointed you didn't get to "prove" or "earn" the knowledge of what picture those puzzle pieces make. But you'll still see it, and you'll still know. And it will still be true that it is the picture those pieces make. He needs to realize he's making an assumption that you should be able to feel pride and/or "possession of responsibility/credit" for each step of assembling the puzzle to feel that your knowledge of what the picture of is "valid". And that his emotional desire to believe that is biasing his judgment about whether that's a necessary intermediary step to being convinced that a true thing is true.

Free will “ JOB 34: 2 “Listen to me, you wise men. 3 We can choose the sounds we want to listen to; we can choose the taste we want in food, 4 and we should choose to follow what is right. But first of all we must define among ourselves what is good.

I guess Alex is a intelligent professional at beating around the Bush

At about 1:04:15....Alex sort of loses me. To me and most others as far as I can tell, morality isn't about pain and pleasure to the rapist, but rather the harm being done to the person being raped. Or, am I missing something?

I think you can choose what convinces you, i think i can choose to beleive anything,i weigh up the evidence and then make a active choice what i think is the best answer is . you cousld say that me weighing up the evidence and choosing the best answer doesnt involve any choices (whitch i would disagree with ) but then i could just choose not to be convinced by those reasonings and deny the evidence, evn if i dont have any counter offer or better reason, i can still chooses not to be convinced of something. i can even choose to deny my own existance or deny the reasonings for my own existence if i wanted to. but i choose not to deny my existence based on the evidence that i have and existence seems enjoyable

But wait, 1:18:00, I think that's fairly obvious that if someone hurt your family, you can be emotionally upset, but rationally, it was either a person who struggles to control their anger, panicked during a robbery that they felt they had to commit, thought you hurt their family first and couldn't handle it, etc etc etc. I think perhaps being neurodivergent makes these conversations a little different for me. People seem to attached to the idea that there MUST be justice, or they MUST have free will, or there MUST be objective morals. But all they really mean is that it would make them feel better if those things were true. The moral argument has really never held any water, for me, and I'm curious if any other adhd/autistic people feel me on this.