You need a light. Looks interesting. I'll watch tomorrow.

Ben's way too quick to use the word "refute" on certain subjects. The biggest example is that somehow neuroscience "refutes" substance dualism. This is nonsense given a proper understanding of substance dualism.

@randomperson2078

2 жыл бұрын

I’m also a bit confused. He claims that sciences A) presupposes naturalism and B) proves naturalism. Is that not considered circular reasoning? I think I must have misunderstood, as Ben is far smarter than I am.

Around 10:00 where Ben said that neuroscience refutes the immaterial mind had me laughing so hard. Bernardo Kastrup would have a few words to tell him.

Seeing my friend hosting a debate of such incredible individuals is awesome Keep it up man

I think Ben is conflating disagreement with truth reducing. The fact that there is disagreements doesn't mean there isn't a movement towards truth.

Does the failure of theism count for science though?

Ben sets up a false dichotomy - either there's a perfect being that cares about the content of our religious beliefs, or there is no perfect being, full stop. He claims that any attempt to explain widespread religious disagreement would be ad hoc, but no more ad hoc than the baseless assertion that if this perfect being cares about our religious beliefs, He will intervene to ensure that we have the correct ones.

Yes, the Successes of Science Count Against Theism. Science is based on observation and reason. Theism is based on authority and obedience.

@jjnan1407

3 жыл бұрын

*Sigh*

@matthewluisantero5051

3 жыл бұрын

hahahaha

@alanrozario

3 жыл бұрын

What are you, seriously, doing on this channel 😅