When people talk about free will as an absolute or black and white concept it confuses me. Our free will is constrained in an infinitesimal number of ways because of the nature of our existence. We cannot move in the 4th dimension for example. Given then that our free will is not in fact unlimited but constrained, there is nothing to stop a supreme being who is infinitely powerful from designing us with the inability to do evil, or the inability to do injustice upon others.

The standard argument to that is that if there is no evil there can be no good. In relative terms and from the perspective of such an existance, perhaps not, but an observer looking in from a world with good and evil would be able to identify this constrained behaviour as good. Should that not be enough? To add to that, given such an existance without the capacity to do evil, it is plausible we could certainly conceptualize evil, just as how we can conceptualise the 4th dimension right now, but it would not be considered an opression of our free expression because of our limited ability to imagine it, and the lack of any such experiences to draw upon. In such an existance, we would spend as much time worrying about the inability to do evil as we do worrying about the inability to move in the 4th dimension in this world.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by rottenseed.

Dawkins, Dennett, McGinn, Miller, Turner and Weinberg - all parts were previously sifted. So is it considered a dupe or not?

Great stuff nonetheless, my favorite was McGinn.

You can also stream this from Netflix. I'm in the middle of this series now.

If what @radx says is accurate, if all this content is contained in the other vids, then it's a dupe.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chicchorea.