Dr Sam commits a fallacy in that presentation—an appeal to undesirable consequences. "If we say we have no free will, then A and B will happen; therefore, we have free will (implicit conclusion)."

He also commits a strawman fallacy. People don& #39;t hold to determinism because... https://twitter.com/Mayoveli/status/1263905915629178880">https://twitter.com/Mayoveli/...

...they think we are "a product of random chance." It& #39;s because of things like libertarianism being poorly defined and untenable and determinism being both logically valid and experimentally demonstrable.

Objective morality isn& #39;t all that complex. Morality HAS TO be subjective at some level, even if that morality comes from God. Regardless of what moral theory one embraces, it will still end up in subjectivity.

We can ground morality with well-being, for example. But that... https://twitter.com/Mayoveli/status/1263906429662121986">https://twitter.com/Mayoveli/...

...would involve some definitional & #39;gimmicks& #39;, a bit of circularity and equivocation. The same is true of theism-based morality. The only issue is that naturalism is a better & #39;a priori& #39; framework as it doesn& #39;t entail more baseless assumptions than theism.