The title is self-explanatory. The argument -- I think -- is fairly obvious. Check it out. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrb97kUIqbo

Is the emergence of a state made inevitable by certain tendencies and behaviors that humans have evolved in their evolutionary history? I don't think so, and this is why. Also, accompany me on a brief tour of metaphysics and why I think materialism is untenable. More videos on this will follow. I also talk about lobbying in the Middle Ages. A bit of a schizophrenic hodgepodge, I know. Sorry for some of the random freezes in the video. My recording software is acting up. (I am aware of many of the objections to Plantinga's and Nagel's arguments. This is not meant to be a comprehensive defense of those arguments, but that can be discussed further in the comments). 1. My previous video on Medieval law (for the sake of context): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taOtILh3yXg 2. Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill on the not so wild West: http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543 3. Thomas Nagel - "What is it Like to Be a Bat?": http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1000/Nagel.pdf 4. More from Nagel on the absurdity of physical reductionism: http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf 5. Alvin Plantinga explains his evolutionary argument against naturalism (short version - a longer lecture on this topic can be easily found on YouTube for those so inclined): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXkcTFmFMa8 6. Plantinga's book where he presents his evolutionary argument against naturalism (and extremely interesting book, despite the fact that I don't agree with all of it): http://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405745121&sr=1-1&keywords=alvin+plantinga ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlM7xCytnEU

Does quantum mechanics prove that idealism - the view that there is no mind-independent reality - is true? No. Not even close. In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics subtly (or not so subtly) PRESUPPOSES idealism rather than proves it. Not only this, but quantum mechanics could never prove a metaphysical or ontological claim like idealism true, even in principle, no matter what its results happen to show. Physical theories can only make sense of experimental results within the framework of pre-set metaphysical assumptions about a whole host of basic ontological issues - so to say that physics, or any other science, proves, or disproves, this or that metaphysical claim is nonsense. Idealism may or may not be true, but that question can only be settled on the plane of metaphysics, not physics. SOURCES: 1. InspiringPhilosophy's video "Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM 2. InspiringPhilosophy's video "The Measurement Problem": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE 3. InspiringPhilosophy's video "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4 4. InspiringPhilosophy's video "An Interaction-Free Quantum Experiment": (Hint: it's not really interaction-free; it's merely free of LOCAL interaction. NON-LOCAL theories like Bohmian Mechanics are untouched by this experiment.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY 5. Johanan Raatz's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JohananRaatz 6. "Causality and Radioactive Decay," by Edward Feser: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radioactive-decay.html 7. "Color Holds and Quantum Theory," by Edward Feser: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/06/color-holds-and-quantum-theory.html 8. "Natural Theology, Natural Science and the Philosophy of Nature," by Edward Feser: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/natural-theology-natural-science-and.html 9. The Kochen-Specker Theorem: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/#snp 10. The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/#DecAppQuaMec 11. Bohmian Mechanics: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#Nonl 12. Non-local realism has NOT been refuted, contra InspiringPhilosophy. Contextual realism like Bohemian Mechanics is still an option (see the second page of this paper): http://quantmag.ppole.ru/Articles/Zeilinger_Nature05677.pdf 13. A simple video on Bohmian Mechanics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbRVnC92sMs ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coLx4cyscVw

This is an expanded talk on something that I mentioned in my last video. There is increasing fracturing and division everywhere in American society, fracturing in all sorts of respects - political, racial, educational, ideological, cultural, philosophical. This trend shows no signs of abating. Attempt to stem the tide will likely fail. This fracturing, although we see it especially starkly now, has deep origins. On one side of this fracture, we have the SJW and his ilk. The SJW is the apotheosis of modernity because he represents the culmination of all of modern thought's attempts to deify and give pride of place to the will. Like the radical Protestants, the SJW is an incorrigible moral fanatic, insistent that he, and he alone, has a pipeline to the truth and utterly and unshakably convinced of the ultimate virtue of his cause. His particular brand of self-assured snobbery and disdain for those with the temerity to disagree with him has a long history in American culture. It was born out of the Yankee strain of New England Puritanism and has been an indelible fixture of American culture and life from the very beginning. This is doubly true regarding American intellectual life. Like the German Romantics and idealists, the SJW insists on giving his will and subjective emotions unlimited freedom to assert themselves upon reality. If reality does not agree to this, it is reality and its limitations that are to blame. Like the Postmodernism that has its roots in idealism, he does not really believe in an objectively ascertainable truth or reality independent of subjective experience, and so, when pushed, will dismiss rational arguments against his views as simply rationalizations for his oppression, or for the oppression of certain designated marginalized groups. To the SJW, there is no truth; there is only will to power. There is no rational argumentation or discourse; there is only politics. Like the Russian nihilists (and the German Romantics to whom they are indebted), the SJW is a distructionist. He believes that he must utterly smash and upend the existing order because of the (allegedly) unjust restrictions that it imposes upon the wills of others. Out of the flames of this revolutionary destruction, there will emerge a glorious and and free utopia. This belief that something wonderful is bound to replace the old order if only the old order is destroyed is held with a naive but fanatical faith, and explains why those on the far left are generally not keen on presenting specifics for how their proposed utopias will function. There can be no reasoning with such a person, as there can be no reasoning with anyone who rejects the power of reason to settle things and (at least eventually) arrive at or approximate truth. Such a person sees his enemie ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ET3d95uB1w