Such breezy confidence about something this deeply debatable is the weakness. Presenting observations and evidence while vigorously putting forth a position is right, perhaps necessary, but not really addressing counter arguments leaves gaping holes. Be like making a scientific experiment with half the possibilities or concluding research with missing data? Just looked at a sassy – “oh-don’t-we-upturn-em eh?” – brash and ballsy, big-time Alt.Right media outpost, and a couple of their ‘9/11 conspiracies debunked’ videos. Made some fair-ish claims but couldn’t resist at the end belittling the c-theorists and harping on about the immorality of this cause. And again, no grapple with the arguments, just present simplistic “they say” and dismiss with – well nothing that sounded to me conclusive or well documented. Being a Christian, and on the opposite spectrum around the questions of free-will/time/history to Calvinism, sadly used to “it’s obvious ain’t it” approach and ‘free-will is God’s will’ line. What the Book/s tell me – and my wing – is human's free-will, is genuine and proper for-real. This, plus makes common sense and plenty and historical theology, why so. Yet, a cursory glance across philosophy let alone psychology – and no Bible as underpinning reference – brings up vast weights of thinking either way. Therefore, glad of these three vids. Will re-play and all through (being honest didn’t). Would almost prefer they were ‘for’ free-will and find honest challenges, rather than m’going “yes-ish and but” and addressing from long-term conviction and flow. Nevertheless, will replay and rap to myself, why disagree and a ‘reason for my hope’ and reality is. Thanks.